Harrell et al. (1999)
Evaluation of the Children
at Risk Program: results
one year after the end of
the program
USA
Children at Risk (CAR)
drug and delinquency
prevention program
• Criminal justice system
staff (probation officer,
court welfare officer,
prison staff etc.)
• CommunityZoutreach
worker
• TeacherZeducation
support staff
• Health care worker
• Family support workers
• Employment advisorZ
case worker
• Advocacy
• Criminal justice (prison,
community sentence,
probation, ASBO, youth
justice)
• Support with service
and resource access
(including benefits)
• Specific education
intervention tutoring
and homework
assistance
• (e.g. reward schemes)
• Parent training
• Skill development
• PersonaizsocialZfamily
support
Assessment
Other (please specify)
recreational after-school
and summer activities;
the provision of transport
(e.g. for appointments);
mentoring; work
preparation
opportunities;
community policing
Compared to both the comparison and the random control group, CAR youths:
• participated in higher rates of positive activities (e.g. sports, clubs etc.)
• were more likely to attend drug and alcohol programs
Compared to the random control group, CAR households
• used more services (although most families reported not receiving all the core services)
Compared to the random control group, CAR youths were significantly more likely to:
• receive more positive peer support
• be associated less often with delinquent peers
• feel less pressured
• be less frequently urged by peers to behave in antisocial ways
• be 'promoted in school’ ('which may lead to higher graduation rates’)
Compared to the random control group, CAR youths were significantly less likely to:
• have used 'strong’ drugs (psychedelics, crack, cocaine, heroin, etc.) at the end of the
program (p<0.05)
• have used 'gateway’ drugs (cannabis, alcohol, solvents, cigarettes) at the end of the
program (p<0.001) and a year after the program (p<0.01)
• have sold drugs ever (p<0.05) and in the past month (p<0.01)
• have committed violent crimes in the year following the program (p<0.05)
The process evaluation documented substantial problems in engaging these multi-
problem families in services.
Hunter et al. (2004)
Strengthening community-
based programming for
juvenile sexual offenders:
key concepts and
paradigm shifts
USA
Wraparound Milwaukee
Program
• Criminal justice system
staff (probation officer,
court welfare officer,
prison staff etc.)
• CounsellorZtherapist
• Social worker
• Psychologist
• Support with service
and resource access
(including benefits)
Program outcomes: system changes
To ensure appropriate supervision and structure for adjudicated juvenile sexual
offenders managed in the community, community and home-based services were more
frequently prescribed...These included crisis one-to-one stabilization (up 72%), parent
assistance (up 54%), and treatment foster care (up 38%). Offence-specific doctoral-level
individual therapy (up 22%) and in-home family therapy (up 49%) were also increased.
Access to community-based psycho-educational groups has also improved and now
includes a parent-education and support-group component.” (p 183)
Program outcomes: recidivism
To date, adjudicated sexual recidivism during Wraparound Milwaukee enrolment (N=202)
is 8%; nonsexual recidivism is 27%. The average length of enrolment for adjudicated
juvenile sexual offenders in Wraparound Milwaukee is 16.5 months. Youth, 1 year
following discharge from Wraparound Milwaukee (N=100), have reoffended at a 2% sexual
offence rate and at 23% for nonsexual offending.” (p 183)
Appendix 4 Summary of in-depth studies 51
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. AN ANALYTICAL METHOD TO CALCULATE THE ERGODIC AND DIFFERENCE MATRICES OF THE DISCOUNTED MARKOV DECISION PROCESSES
3. Putting Globalization and Concentration in the Agri-food Sector into Context
4. Commuting in multinodal urban systems: An empirical comparison of three alternative models
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. A parametric approach to the estimation of cointegration vectors in panel data
9. The Structure Performance Hypothesis and The Efficient Structure Performance Hypothesis-Revisited: The Case of Agribusiness Commodity and Food Products Truck Carriers in the South
10. The name is absent