In my dissertation I talked about natural threats inherent to the crime prevention endeavour, and I called those “tertiary drift”, based on what we call the PST model, the primary, secondary, tertiary model, being applied to crime prevention. The other one I called “social development creep”.
What I said is that if we can't somehow handle those natural threats inherent to crime prevention efforts, we would eventually go back to the traditional and very reactionary way of doing things: the police, courts, corrections way of doing things, partly because they're involved in the day-to-day operations of the system and so naturally it drifts back to them. Alternatively, the other point was that slowly we would start advancing social programs only in the name of crime reduction or crime prevention. That would be quite wrong to do as well, not the least of which is it would criminalize certain marginal populations.