The name is absent

Dillane et al. (2001)
Evaluation of the Dundee
Families Project

20 families containing 83
children∕young people

Ethnicity not stated

• Unemployment

• Anti-social behaviour

• ExclusionZnon-
attendance at school

• Criminal convictions

• Poor health outcomes

• Substance misuse

• Mental health problems

• Family breakdown
(looked after
children, temporary
accommodation)

• Socio-economic
deprivation

• Domestic violence

• Other (significant rent
arrears and Zor other
housing issues, including
conflict with neighbours)

Main behavioural issues relating to the parents (or family as a whole) included "poor
anger control, alcohol and drug misuse, social exclusion, lack of parenting skills/
role models, issues-instability, lack of routines, low self-esteem, isolation, learning
disabilities, health-related issues, poor hygiene and nutrition, mental health problems
(notably depression and anxiety), traumatised behaviour, OffendingZcriminal behaviour,
negative attitudes”.

"In relation to children, educational issues were prominent, including truancy, difficulty
concentrating and sch∞l exclusion. Offending and behaviour issues were also common.” (p 28)

"In two thirds of cases, anti-social behaviour (ASB) was given as at least part of the
reason for referral...ln more than half of the 24 cases where the perpetrators of the ASB
were identified, it involved children in the family and in exactly half one of the adults
was implicated.

...Virtually all the families were poor...Only two parents were stated to be in paid
employment.

...At the time of referral four of the families had all their children living away from their
parents. Afurther 12 families had at least one child living away - with relatives or looked
after by the local authority.” (p 40-41)

Harrell et al. (1999)
Evaluation of the Children
at Risk Program: results
one year after the end of
the program

338 participating Children	• Unemployment	"In general, caregiver educational levels were low, and family dependence on public
at Risk (CAR) youths and their families (with 333	• Anti-social behaviour • ExclusionZnon-	support was widespread-fewer than half were employed when they joined the study.” (p 3)
youth in the control, and	attendance at school	The average age of the participating youths at the time they entered the sample was
203 in the comparison groups)	• Criminal convictions • Substance misuse • Mental health problems	12.4 years; 52% were male. "The youths chosen for intensive interventions lived in severely distressed neighborhoods
Black (58%),	• Socio-economic deprivation	and were selected because they already had exhibited problems associated with predictors of drug activity in later life. The programs targeted small geographical areas
Hispanic (34%), White or Asian (8%)	• Poor quality of physical environment • Domestic violence	with the highest rates of crime, drug use, and poverty in each city.” Youths were deemed eligible if they lived in the target area and exhibited risk in one of
(participating CAR youths)	• Other (lack of parental supervision and disciplinary practices, low levels of parental attachment and support, low family cohesion and organisation, and problem behaviours among parents and older sibling	three domains: school, family, or personal factors. "School risk was defined by exhibiting three of the seven following indicators: special education, grade retention, poor academic performance, truancy, tardiness, out-of- school suspension, or disruptive behaviour in school. Family risk was defined as having a history of family violence or having a gang member, a drug user or dealer, or a convicted offender at home. Personal risk was defined by use or sale of drugs, juvenile court contact, delinquency or

mental illness, association with gang members or delinquent peers, a history of abuse or
neglect, or parenthood or pregnancy.” (p 3-4)

Appendix 4 Summary of in-depth studies 45