|
Guide
to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth |
CASASTART (Formerly Children At Risk)
OVERVIEW
CASASTART is a youth development program for middle school students. It employed a community-wide approach and a variety of tactics (e.g., case management, policing, financial incentives) to promote positive youth development. The program had positive impacts on number of positive activities youth participated in, peer risk factors, and drug risk factors. Participants in the program were also less likely to repeat a grade or commit a violent crime. The program did not show an impact on family risk factors, educational risk factors, officially detected criminal activity, self-esteem, alienation, risk taking, or feelings of sadness and loneliness.
DESCRIPTION
OF PROGRAM
Target population: Middle school students living in disadvantaged
neighborhoods.
The evaluated CASASTART programs (implemented in five cities) were designed to
prevent drug use and delinquency by reducing the number of risk factors to which
at-risk youths were exposed. Each program consisted of eight service components
targeting neighborhood, peer group, family, and individual risk factors. The
service components varied across programs in order to fit the values and
cultural background of the neighborhoods, but generally included case
management, family services, afterschool and summer activities, mentoring,
education services, incentives, community policing and enhanced enforcement, and
criminal and juvenile justice intervention.
The program costs $4,700 for each child/family per year according to a 1999 publication. Training and technical assistance for new CASASTART sites costs $3,000 a day plus expenses.
EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM
Harrell, A., Cavanaugh, S., & Sridharan, S. (1999). Evaluation of the Children at Risk Program: Results 1 year after the end of the program. Research in brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Evaluated population: Middle school students (ages 11-13) from disadvantaged neighborhoods in five cities (Austin, Texas; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Memphis, Tennessee; Savannah, Georgia; and Seattle, Washington). The sample was 58% black, 34% Hispanic, and 8% white or Asian. To be selected for the study, participants had to display one of the following risk factors: family risk, suspected drug use, school risk, or personal risk.
Approach: The study randomly assigned youths as CASASTART participants (n=338) or control (n=333). Services were provided for two years. In person, in home interviews with youth and caregivers were collected at baseline (response rates: youth 98%, caregivers 96-100%) and at the end of the program period (response rate: youth 77%, caregiver 80-68%). A follow up survey was conducted with the youths one year after the end of the program (response rate 76%).
Data on criminal activity were collected once a year from the youth’s officially recorded contacts with the criminal justice system. Data on school grades, promotions, and attendance were collected from schools for youths enrolled in public school, but were not available for youths in private school or who moved during the study.
Results: Participants in the CASASTART program participated in a significantly higher number of positive activities, including sports, school clubs, religious groups and community programs. They were more likely to attend and drug or alcohol prevention program. CASASTART households also used more services, including tutoring, mentoring, parent education, and counseling. Nevertheless, less than half received any services.
CASASTART had statistically significant positive impacts on peer risk factors. At the one-year follow up, CASASTART participants had more positive peer support, associated less often with delinquent youths, felt less pressure to engage in delinquent activities, and were less frequently urged by peers to behave in antisocial ways than control group youths.
The CASASTART program also had an impact on drug risk, such that program participants were less likely to have used any drugs in the past month, were less likely to use gateway drugs (marijuana, alcohol, inhalants, or cigarettes) in the year following the program, and were less likely to have sold drugs. The program had an impact on number of violent crimes committed, but not number of property crimes. The program did not have an impact on youths’ officially detected criminal activity or their likelihood of contact with the police and courts.
CASASTART participants were less likely to repeat a grade than youths in the control group. However, the program did not have an impact on educational risks such as attachment to school, attendance, educational and job expectations, and perceptions of discrepancies between aspirations and expectations.
CASASTART did not show an impact on youths’ self-esteem, alienation, risk taking, or feelings of sadness and loneliness. The program also did not have an effect on getting in trouble at school or dealing with serious issues.
CASASTART families were no different
than control families regarding family risk factors, including family conflict
and violence, parental supervision and disciplinary practices, low levels of
parental attachment and support, low family cohesion and organization, and
problem behaviors among parents and older siblings.
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION
Contact information:
Lawrence F. Murray, LMSW
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University
633 Third Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10017
212-841-5200 (phone)
212-956-8020 (fax)
Link to program curriculum:
http://www.casacolumbia.org/absolutenm/templates/AboutCASA.aspx?articleid=203&zoneid=26
References:
Harrell, A., Cavanaugh, S., &
Sridharan, S. (1999). Evaluation of the Children at Risk Program: Results 1
year after the end of the program. Research in brief. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of
Justice.
KEYWORDS: Middle School, Adolescence (12-17), Mentoring, Tutoring, School-based, Clinic-based, Community-based, Home-based, Community or Media Campaign, Case Management, Parent/Family Component, Education, Academic Achievement, Summer Program, Cost, Manual, High Risk, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Urban, Males and Females (co-ed)
Program information last updated 3/21/2011.
|
|
© Child Trends 2003 |