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. Regulation of the Electricity Industry in Bolivia: Its Impact on Access to the Poor, Prices and Quality
3. TLRP: academic challenges for moral purposes
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. The ultimate determinants of central bank independence
7. Conflict and Uncertainty: A Dynamic Approach
8. Financial Market Volatility and Primary Placements
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent