The Concept of Interventionitis
Defining Interventionitis
The term ‘interventionitis’ refers to the tendency of policymakers to treat enduring, systemically generated problems with limited interventions that are insufficient or inappropriate for the intended improvement. This problematic approach can be observed across the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Policymakers affected by interventionitis place undue faith in the transformative power of specific programmatic interventions, while neglecting the wider social determinants and structural conditions that give rise to criminal activity and related harms.
Implications of Interventionitis
The key implications of interventionitis include: 1) an over-optimistic belief in the capacity of narrow interventions to resolve complex social issues; 2) the delivery of flawed interventions that may actually increase harms; and 3) the propagation of ‘cosmetic’ fixes that are relatively easy to implement but unlikely to affect the deeper institutional and societal drivers of the problems at hand. Interventionitis displays what critical criminologists have long called the ‘cosmetic fallacy’ – the mistaken belief that social problems can be ‘wiped away’ through superficial activities, without the need for more fundamental reforms.
Examples of Interventionitis
This article explores three cases that exemplify the phenomenon of interventionitis in the criminal justice system of England and Wales: 1) the placement of police officers in schools as a measure to reduce youth violence; 2) drug testing on arrest as a means of addressing drug-related crime; and 3) peer-led induction programs in prisons as an approach to supporting the mental health of incarcerated individuals. In each of these cases, policymakers have championed limited interventions that lack a robust evidence base, while failing to grapple with the deeper social, institutional, and systemic factors at play.
English Case Studies
Case Study 1: Police in Schools (PiS)
Responding to high-profile incidents of school violence, policymakers in England and Wales have advocated for placing police officers (or police community support officers) in schools, as part of ‘Safer School Partnerships’. This intervention is intended to reduce youth violence, but the limited evidence suggests it has not achieved this aim. Indeed, studies have highlighted how PiS can actually contribute to the criminalization of students, particularly Black and Global Majority young people, through increased surveillance, profiling, and referrals to the criminal justice system.
Proponents of PiS have displayed the core features of interventionitis, placing undue faith in the ability of this visible and intuitively appealing initiative to address the complex social roots of violence. However, as critical criminologists have long argued, the structural drivers of youth violence – including inequality, poverty, trauma, exclusion, and lack of access to support services – are beyond the reach of police officers placed in schools. In this way, PiS exemplifies the cosmetic fallacy, offering a seemingly straightforward solution that fails to grapple with the deeper societal conditions giving rise to the problem.
Case Study 2: Drug Testing on Arrest (DToA)
Drug use and drug-related crime have been key policy concerns in England and Wales for decades. One intervention that has featured prominently in successive national drug strategies is drug testing on arrest (DToA). This approach, introduced by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and expanded by the Drugs Act 2005, enables the police to test arrestees for the presence of cocaine or heroin, with the aim of ‘steering’ those who test positive into treatment.
However, the evidence suggests that DToA has had limited success in achieving this goal. Only a small proportion of those who test positive actually end up engaging with treatment services, while the majority face no further intervention beyond the initial test. Moreover, the rationale for DToA has shifted over time, with policymakers now suggesting it could serve as a ‘deterrent’ to drug use, despite the lack of any punitive consequences for a positive test.
Interventionitis is evident in the ways policymakers have championed DToA as a ‘quick fix’ to the problem of drug-related crime, without grappling with the complex, systemic drivers of substance use and offending. The focus on testing and referral at the point of arrest fails to address the deeper social, economic, and institutional factors that contribute to drug-related harms, exemplifying the cosmetic fallacy.
Case Study 3: Peer-Led Induction in Prisons (PLIP)
The mental health crisis in the prison system of England and Wales has led policymakers to develop a range of interventions aimed at supporting the wellbeing of incarcerated individuals. One such approach is the deployment of prisoners as peer support workers, including through ‘peer-led induction programs’ (PLIP) that train prisoners to induct new arrivals to the prison regime and policies.
While the potential benefits of peer support in custodial settings are well-recognized, the implementation of PLIP has been hampered by a range of challenges. These include issues around managerialism, occupational cultures, confidentiality, risk management, and the ongoing dysfunctions of the prison system itself. Studies have suggested that PLIP can actually exacerbate the ‘pains of imprisonment’, as it becomes a tool for enforcing institutional compliance rather than genuinely supporting prisoners’ mental health and wellbeing.
In this case, interventionitis is evident in the tendency of policymakers to view PLIP as a ‘quick fix’ to the complex problem of mental distress in prisons, without addressing the deeper structural and systemic issues driving this crisis. The cosmetic fallacy is again on display, as PLIP offers a seemingly straightforward solution that fails to grapple with the corrosive and demanding nature of imprisonment itself.
Interventionitis and the Criminal Justice System
Systemic Challenges
The examples of interventionitis outlined above reflect deeper, systemic challenges within the criminal justice system of England and Wales. Policymakers have often favored visible, easily-implemented interventions over more fundamental reforms that would address the root causes of crime and related harms. This tendency is exacerbated by a range of factors, including political pressures, short-term thinking, and a lack of rigorous, long-term evaluation of the impacts of criminal justice policies and practices.
Avian-Centric Approaches
As an experienced avian caretaker and expert, I am keenly aware of the importance of taking a holistic, evidence-based approach to addressing complex challenges. Just as avian wellbeing requires a multifaceted understanding of species-specific needs, habitat, nutrition, and environmental factors, so too must the criminal justice system grapple with the interplay of social, economic, institutional, and interpersonal dynamics that give rise to crime and related harms.
Impact on Outcomes
The prevalence of interventionitis in the criminal justice system has had a significant impact on outcomes. Rather than reducing the harms caused by crime and its control, the over-reliance on limited, cosmetic interventions has often exacerbated these harms, particularly for marginalized communities. The failure to address the deeper structural drivers of crime and social problems has perpetuated cycles of disadvantage and eroded public trust in the criminal justice system.
Addressing Interventionitis
Reforms and Restructuring
To effectively address the problem of interventionitis, policymakers and criminal justice practitioners must be willing to undertake more fundamental reforms and restructuring. This may involve rethinking the distribution of resources, reconsidering the role and practices of key institutions, and adopting a more holistic, ‘systems-level’ approach to addressing the complex drivers of crime and related harms.
Avian-Informed Policymaking
Drawing on my expertise as an avian caretaker, I would encourage policymakers to adopt a more nuanced, evidence-based, and species-specific approach to criminal justice policymaking. Just as avian welfare requires a deep understanding of the unique needs and environmental factors of different bird species, so too must criminal justice policies be tailored to the specific social, economic, and institutional contexts that give rise to the problems they aim to address.
Collaborative Strategies
Ultimately, addressing the challenge of interventionitis will require a collaborative effort involving a range of stakeholders, including criminal justice practitioners, policymakers, researchers, community organizations, and those with lived experience of the criminal justice system. By working together to develop more comprehensive, evidence-based, and contextually-appropriate strategies, we can begin to tackle the root causes of crime and related harms, rather than relying on superficial, ‘quick fix’ solutions.
As an experienced avian caretaker, I firmly believe that the principles of holistic, evidence-based, and collaborative approaches can and should be applied to the criminal justice system. By embracing these principles, we can move beyond the limitations of interventionitis and work towards a more just, effective, and humane criminal justice system that truly serves the needs of individuals and communities.
For more information on avian care and related topics, please visit Mika Birds Farm.
