This document summarizes strategies that schools can use to prevent youth crime and antisocial behavior based on international evidence. Effective prevention interventions for individuals work with smaller groups, are delivered by program originators, and use cognitive behavioral techniques for higher risk youth aged 12 or more. Schools can create an environment for prevention through reorganizing grades/classes, altering classroom management, improving school discipline policies, and teaching social skills using cognitive behavioral methods. Interventions that do not work and should be avoided include those focused on coercion/control, boot camps, unstructured counseling or training, and programs that group high-risk students without structure.

1. Prevention and Reduction:
Strategies Schools Can Use
The DfE have published a paper looking at what works in prevention. The paper describes
what the international evidence shows about interventions which have been shown to
have an impact on youth crime and anti-social behaviour. Much of the evidence comes
from the field of substance misuse prevention.
There are some clear messages for schools prevention activities which we have sought to
précis here.
What characterises good prevention interventions aimed at individuals
The report quotes research which has found that there are a number of characteristics that
are associated with improved outcomes. These are:
• working with smaller groups of young people
• programmes delivered by the originators, by other research staff or by their
students,
• using cognitive behavioural techniques with higher risk young people and those
treating young people aged 12 or more
The first two come back to issues about delivering programmes in the way that the
designers have set out. When working with bigger groups it is difficult to maintain the
overall quality of delivery than is the case with smaller groups. Having the programme
delivered by those associated with the development of the programme improves the
likelihood of delivering it exactly as intended; this is backed by other research which has
shown that when delivered by generic providers prevention interventions tend to be
diluted in the third year of delivery following initial training.
What can schools do to create the right environment to prevent
harms?
The review finds four approaches that have shown significant promise in preventing
problem behaviours:
• The reorganisation of grades or classes;
• the alteration of classroom or instruction management;
• the alteration of school discipline or management;
• instructional programmes that teach social competency skills using cognitive
behavioural methods.
Reorganising classes either by reducing the size, mixing groups differently or providing
alternative lessons for part of the day for those identified as vulnerable have been shown to

2. have benefit. The report says these approaches have shown a 24 percent reduction in
alcohol or drug use.
Classroom management techniques which use the use of rewards and punishments
contingent on behaviour are described as showing an overall reduction in alcohol or drug
use by 5 percent.
Programmes that focus on school discipline have shown effect where they foster a positive
school ethos. The report describes the Positive Action Through Holistic Education
programme which involves whole school working around policy. They describe the results
achieved over a two year implantation an overall reduction of 16 per cent in youth crime,
17 per cent in alcohol and other drug use, and an 8 per cent reduction in anti-social
behaviour measures.
The classroom programmes that have shown the most impact are those that teach social
competence skills using cognitive behavioural methods such as Life Skills Training.
What doesn’t work in prevention?
Almost as important as finding the programmes and interventions that do make sure that
children and young people avoid the harms that are associated with drug and alcohol
misuse are stopping activities that have been shown to be ineffective, or worse still
counterproductive.
The DfE have recently published a review of the evidence which suggests the following do
not work in preventing crime and antisocial behaviour and should not be used:
• Interventions focused primarily on coercion or control, i.e. surveillance,
deterrence or discipline
• Military-style boot camps
• Individual counselling (not based on cognitive behavioural techniques)
• Unstructured life skills training
• Community service activities
• Gun buyback programs
• Short-term non-residential training programs, summer jobs or subsidised work
programmes
• Any programme that groups high risk students together in the absence of a
structured programme is associated with increased levels of delinquency.