Podcast Summary
The Impact of Fracking on Children Born to Unmarried Mothers: Father Greg Boyle's Homeboy Industries, which provides jobs and compassionate support, demonstrates a successful approach to helping at-risk children, despite challenges in measuring outcomes.
Despite the creation of numerous jobs through the fracking industry, the number of children born to unmarried mothers in the US has significantly increased, leading to higher risks for these children in various aspects of life. Father Greg Boyle, a Jesuit priest and founder of Homeboy Industries in Los Angeles, which helps gang members reintegrate into society, emphasizes compassion and providing jobs as key elements for positive change. Homeboy Industries, with its various programs and businesses, has proven successful as evidenced by the large number of gang members seeking help. While it's challenging to measure the program's success through traditional outcomes, the fact that gang members continue to seek assistance demonstrates its effectiveness. The inspiring story of Father Boyle and Homeboy Industries serves as a reminder that addressing the complex issue of at-risk children requires a multi-faceted approach, focusing on compassion, job opportunities, and support systems.
Longitudinal Study on Effectiveness of Social Interventions: The Cambridge Somerville Youth Study, initiated during the Great Depression, was the first randomized experiment of a social program, demonstrating the importance of scientific, long-term approaches to understanding the effectiveness of social interventions.
The Cambridge Somerville Youth Study, initiated during the Great Depression, was a groundbreaking longitudinal survey aimed at understanding the effectiveness of social interventions, specifically mentoring, on at-risk youth. This study, which is still ongoing today, was the first randomized experiment of a social program and challenged the conventional approach of addressing social issues only after they had arisen. Its founder, Richard Clark Cabot, was driven by high recidivism rates and a belief in prevention. The study's findings, which are still relevant today, showed that the effects of interventions can be more complex than assumed and that a scientific, long-term approach is crucial in understanding what truly helps and when helping might even harm.
The Cambridge Somerville Youth Study: A Pioneering Investigation into Mentorship Programs: The Cambridge Somerville Youth Study, conducted between 1939 and 1945, was a groundbreaking investigation into the effectiveness of mentorship programs for at-risk young men, contributing significantly to our understanding of crime prevention.
The Cambridge Somerville Youth Study, conducted between 1939 and 1945, was a pioneering investigation into the effectiveness of mentorship programs for at-risk young men. Researchers identified 250 successful cases and matched them with struggling boys, providing various interventions like counseling and summer camps for the latter group. This study's importance lies in its rigorous approach, which included a control group, allowing researchers to isolate the impact of the mentorship program on the boys' lives. This groundbreaking research paved the way for further empirical studies in the field of criminology, where reliable measurement and establishing cause-and-effect relationships can be challenging. When Gottfriedsen started in the field, there was a lack of empirical research on preventing delinquency, making studies like the Cambridge Somerville Youth Study invaluable. Joan McCord, a criminologist before Gottfriedsen, was inspired by this study and its innovative methods, which were rare during her time. Despite the challenges in measuring human behavior, studies like these have significantly contributed to our understanding of crime prevention.
Discovering the positive impact of a mentorship program through technological innovation and persistence: The use of computers in the 1960s led to the discovery of positive long-term effects of a mentorship program for troubled boys, reducing delinquency and improving employment outcomes into their mid-40s.
The initial findings from the Cambridge Summerville Youth Study in the late 1950s suggested a null effect for a mentorship program for troubled boys. However, the arrival of computers in the 1960s allowed for further analysis, and Joan McCord's determination led to the discovery of positive long-term effects. This technological innovation and McCord's persistence resulted in significant findings that showed the mentorship program had a positive impact on reducing delinquency and improving employment outcomes for the young men involved, even into their mid-40s.
Joan McCord's Success in Locating Study Participants: Despite lacking modern technology, Joan McCord's determination and meticulous record-keeping led to the discovery of 98% of the Cambridge Somerville Youth Study participants, emphasizing the importance of perseverance and attention to detail in research.
Joan McCord's determination and meticulous record-keeping allowed her to locate an impressive 98% of the participants from the Cambridge Somerville Youth Study, despite the lack of modern technology and resources. Her persistence, combined with the fact that a large percentage of the participants still resided in Massachusetts, played significant roles in her success. McCord's dedication to obtaining physical documentation for every participant, even when faced with skepticism and dead ends, ultimately led to the discovery of many who had been presumed dead or lost to contact. Her tenacity and thoroughness serve as a testament to the importance of perseverance and attention to detail in research.
Long-term effects of mentoring program disappointing: Despite initial positive beliefs, a rigorous evaluation found mentoring program had worse outcomes on seven measures for the treatment group compared to the control group, emphasizing the importance of evaluating interventions' effectiveness
The long-term effects of a mentoring program, which was believed to have positive outcomes, were found to have statistically significantly worse results on seven measures including criminal records, mental health, physical health, alcoholism, job satisfaction, and marital satisfaction for the treatment group compared to the control group in the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. Researcher Joan McCord, who had the opportunity to rigorously measure the outcomes decades later, was surprised and disheartened by the findings. The study served as a wake-up call to the field and highlighted the importance of evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to ensure positive outcomes. McCord's enthusiasm was fueled by the potential to find the causes and treatments for negative outcomes.
Discovering unintended negative effects of social interventions: Well-intentioned social interventions may not always have positive effects and could potentially cause harm. It's crucial to evaluate and reassess their impact continually.
Social interventions, despite good intentions, may not always yield positive results and could potentially cause harm. This was a difficult realization for Joan McCord, a researcher who discovered that a social program she had been mentoring a child in actually led to negative outcomes. Her initial reaction was disbelief, but upon further investigation, she came to the conclusion that the program was not effective and may have even caused harm. This discovery was met with a range of responses, from concern about the moral implications of continuing the intervention to skepticism about the value of social programs in general. This finding, if it were to emerge in today's political climate, could be met with significant backlash and could potentially lead to the withdrawal of funding for such programs. It serves as a reminder that even well-intentioned interventions may not always have the desired effect and that it's important to continually evaluate and reassess the impact of social programs.
The impact of social interventions on disadvantaged kids is complex: While some social interventions can lead to harmful outcomes, others can be beneficial if properly structured and supervised. We should invest in studying which interventions work and carefully weigh the benefits against the costs.
The effectiveness of social interventions for disadvantaged kids, like Head Start programs, is complex and requires careful consideration. While some interventions can cause harm, such as encouraging deviant behaviors through deviancy training in unstructured group settings, others can be beneficial if properly structured and supervised. The Cambridge Somerville Youth Study provides evidence for both outcomes. The study found that some interventions, particularly those with a lack of structure, can lead to an increase in deviant behaviors. However, it's important to note that doing nothing isn't always the best solution either. Instead, we should invest in studying which interventions work and carefully weigh the benefits against the costs. The comparison to thalidomide, a drug with both risks and benefits, illustrates this point. Ultimately, the goal should be to figure out which social interventions are most effective and implement them with care and attention to detail.
Interventions may have unintended negative consequences: Well-intended programs could lead to increased criminal offending due to various theories including dependence and motivation from the control group.
Well-intended interventions like summer camps and after-school programs may unintentionally lead to negative outcomes, such as increased criminal offending. This is due to various hypotheses, including the dependence theory, which suggests that kids develop a sense of need for the intervention and struggle when it's no longer available. Another theory is that kids in the control group, who didn't receive the intervention, may have been motivated to work harder and achieve more due to envy or a sense of self-reliance. The theories highlight the importance of understanding how people's values and expectations are formed and how they influence behavior. More research is needed to confirm these hypotheses and determine the visibility of the treatment to the control group. Ultimately, it's crucial to consider the potential unintended consequences of interventions and the role of values and expectations in shaping behavior.
Effective delinquency prevention strategies: Cognitive behavioral therapy helps kids learn social competency and self-control skills, saving resources compared to jails and prisons, evidence-based strategies are crucial in delinquency prevention
The prevention of delinquency is a complex issue that requires empirical evidence rather than relying on gut hunches or ideology. The criminologists we've discussed today have learned a lot over the past few decades, especially about strategies that work and those that don't. Some effective strategies include teaching kids social competency and self-control skills through cognitive behavioral therapy. However, it's important to note that delinquency prevention is not a panacea and resources should be used carefully. The longitudinal perspective of studies like the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of different strategies. The economic value of these programs is also significant, as they often save money compared to the cost of jails and prisons. Overall, using evidence to inform decisions is crucial in the field of delinquency prevention.
Researcher Joan McCord's study on Cabot's Pavlovian intervention had unintended negative consequences: Stay curious, be open to new evidence, and maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in the face of uncertainty.
Despite the best intentions and efforts, interventions can sometimes have unintended negative consequences. Researcher Joan McCord, whose study on Cabot's Pavlovian intervention for prison inmates resulted in increased recidivism rates, saw this as a call for more research to understand how to positively influence people's lives. McCord acknowledged the disappointment and the ethical dilemma, but she remained open-minded and intellectually humble, recognizing the limitations of knowledge and the importance of continuing the pursuit of solutions. McCord's approach underscores the importance of staying curious, being open to new evidence, and maintaining a healthy dose of skepticism in the face of uncertainty.
Exploring the hidden side of everything: We're grateful for our team and partners, and listeners can subscribe, access our archive, and connect with us.
Our podcast, Freakonomics Radio, explores the hidden side of everything, and we're grateful for the support of our intern Kent McDonald, Radiolab producer Lotif Nasser, the Center for Effective Altruism, and the American Society of Criminology. You can subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. Don't forget to check out our archive at Freakonomics.com, where you can stream or download every episode, read transcripts, and access underlying academic research. Connect with us on social media or email us at radio@freakonomics.com. Thanks for tuning in!
