The name is absent

Harrell et al.

CAR was

1. Criminal

CAR case

CAR case

(1999)

developed,

Justice System

managers

manager

Evaluation of
the Children
at Risk (CAR)
program:
results one year
after the end of
the program

WOE: High

Non-
randomised
controlled trial

funded and
monitored by
the National
Center on
Addiction and
Substance
Abuse (CASA)
at Columbia
University.

staff (Probation
officer, Court
Welfare Officer,
Prison staff
etc.)

2. Community/
outreach
worker

3. Teacher/
education
support staff

4. Health care
worker

5. Family
support workers

6. Employment
advisor∕case
worker

CAR case
managers
presumably
manage their
own workload
but no details
re: STRATEGIC
management

- work with
15-18 families.
Responsib-
ilities∕tasks
include:
-recruitment of
young people/
families
-assessment
-treatment
-planning
-'linkage’
-monitoring.

CAR was        Not reported

(a) "The youths chosen for intensive

Education

funded by the

interventions lived in severely distressed

outcomes

National Centre

neighbourhoods and were selected because

+ Peer support

on Addiction

they already had exhibited problems

+ Drop out

and Substance

associated with predictors of drug activity

+ Peer pressure

Abuse (CASA)

in later life. The programs targeted small

+ Potential gain

at Columbia

geographical areas with the highest rates

in the area of

University

of crime, drug use, and poverty on each

educational risk

with financial

city....” (p 2)

N School

support from

performance

the National

(b) "Staff from the schools, courts, and

N Educational

Institute

CAR programs, following clearly defined

and job

of Justice,

guidelines, identified eligible 11 to 13

expectation

the Bureau

year old youths who attended the sixth

N School

of Justice
Assistance,
and the Office

or seventh grade, lived in the target
neighbourhood, and exhibited risk in one of

attendance

three domains: school, family, or personal

Antisocial

of Juvenile

factors...”

behaviours

Justice and

Delinquency

(c) recruitment: information not given.

+ Substance
misuse (drug
uses, sold drug)
+ Criminal

Prevention

how participants were 'maintained’:

in the U.S.

Youths and families were encouraged to

Department of

remain in the program by offering the

offences

Justice’s Office
of Justice

following:

(violence crime)
+ Criminal

Programs.

• reminding families about and providing

offences

Additional

transportation to appointments

(property
crimes, any
crimes)
+ Gang
membership
N Severe

support was

• providing food at events that families

provided by the

were expected to attend

Annie E. Casey

• offering youths stipends for participating

Foundation,

in work preparation programs (such as

the Ford

working in a library or attending a summer

Foundation,
the Prudential

camp offering science and technology
training)

personal problem

Foundation,

• offering youths and family members small

Family I peer

ΩlltTΩΓΠPζ

the Rockefeller

rewards (e.g. $10) for good behaviour and

Foundation,

for cooperating with CAR program activities

‰√U l∙VΛ√l I IvJ

N risk of family
conflict

the American

and objectives. For example, monetary

Express

awards were given to youths for attending

+ Early

Foundation, the

after school activities and writing in their

nκpona∩r∖/ ∩r

Pew Charitable

journals. Non-monetary rewards included

∣JI vʃʒl lɑl it-у UI
parenth∞d
+ Runaway

Trusts, Ronald

trips to sporting events and vouchers for

McDonald

pizza, sports shops and the cinema.

Children’s

• involving participants in decisions about

Mental health

Charities,
and United

incentives.

and well being
N Self esteem,

Technologies.

(d) Where were services located

1. Austin, Texas

2. Bridgeport, Connecticut

3. AAemphis, Tennessee

4. Savannah, Georgia

5. Seattle, Washington

alienation, risk
taking

No perception
outcomes