{"@type": "dcat:Dataset", "accessLevel": "public", "bureauCode": ["011:21"], "contactPoint": {"@type": "vcard:Contact", "fn": "Open Data Office of Justice Programs (USDOJ)", "hasEmail": "mailto:opendata@usdoj.gov"}, "dataQuality": false, "description": "The Children at Risk (CAR) Program was a comprehensive,\r\nneighborhood-based strategy for preventing drug use, delinquency, and\r\nother problem behaviors among high-risk youth living in severely\r\ndistressed neighborhoods. The goal of this research project was to\r\nevaluate the long-term impact of the CAR program using experimental\r\nand quasi-experimental group comparisons. Experimental comparisons of\r\nthe treatment and control groups selected within target neighborhoods\r\nexamined the impact of CAR services on individual youths and their\r\nfamilies. These services included intensive case management, family\r\nservices, mentoring, and incentives. Quasi-experimental comparisons\r\nwere needed in each city because control group youths in the CAR sites\r\nwere exposed to the effects of neighborhood interventions, such as\r\nenhanced community policing and enforcement activities and some\r\nexpanded court services, and may have taken part in some of the\r\nrecreational activities after school. CAR programs in five cities --\r\nAustin, TX, Bridgeport, CT, Memphis, TN, Seattle, WA, and Savannah, GA\r\n-- took part in this evaluation. In the CAR target areas, juveniles\r\nwere identified by case managers who contacted schools and the courts\r\nto identify youths known to be at risk. Random assignment to the\r\ntreatment or control group was made at the level of the family so that\r\nsiblings would be assigned to the same group. A quasi-experimental\r\ngroup of juveniles who met the CAR eligibility risk requirements, but\r\nlived in other severely distressed neighborhoods, was selected during\r\nthe second year of the evaluation in cities that continued intake of\r\nnew CAR participants into the second year. In these comparison\r\nneighborhoods, youths eligible for the quasi-experimental sample were\r\nidentified either by CAR staff, cooperating agencies, or the staff of\r\nthe middle schools they attended. Baseline interviews with youths and\r\ncaretakers were conducted between January 1993 and May 1994, during\r\nthe month following recruitment. The end-of-program interviews were\r\nconducted approximately two years later, between December 1994 and May\r\n1996. The follow-up interviews with youths were conducted one year\r\nafter the program period ended, between December 1995 and May\r\n1997. Once each year, records were collected from the police, courts,\r\nand schools. Part 1 provides demographic data on each youth, including\r\nage at intake, gender, ethnicity, relationship of caretaker to youth,\r\nand youth's risk factors for poor school performance, poor school\r\nbehavior, family problems, or personal problems. Additional variables\r\nprovide information on household size, including number and type of\r\nchildren in the household, and number and type of adults in the\r\nhousehold. Part 2 provides data from all three youth interviews\r\n(baseline, end-of-program, and follow-up). Questions were asked about\r\nthe youth's attitudes toward school and amount of homework,\r\nparticipation in various activities (school activities, team sports,\r\nclubs or groups, other organized activities, religious services, odd\r\njobs or household chores), curfews and bedtimes, who assisted the\r\nyouth with various tasks, attitudes about the future, seriousness of\r\nvarious problems the youth might have had over the past year and who\r\nhe or she turned to for help, number of times the youth's household\r\nhad moved, how long the youth had lived with the caretaker, various\r\ncriminal activities in the neighborhood and the youth's concerns about\r\nvictimization, opinions on various statements about the police,\r\noccasions of skipping school and why, if the youth thought he or she\r\nwould be promoted to the next grade, would graduate from high school,\r\nor would go to college, knowledge of children engaging in various\r\nproblem activities and if the youth was pressured to join them, and\r\nexperiences with and attitudes toward consumption of cigarettes,\r\nalcohol, and various drugs. Three sections of the questionnaire were\r\ncompleted by the youths. Section A asked questions about the youth's\r\nattitudes toward various statements about self, life, the home\r\nenvironment, rules, and norms. Section B asked questions about the\r\nnumber of times that various crimes had been committed against the\r\nyouth, his or her sexual activity, number of times the youth ran away\r\nfrom home, number of times he or she had committed various criminal\r\nacts, and what weapons he or she had carried. Items in Section C\r\ncovered the youth's alcohol and drug use, and participation in drug\r\nsales. Part 3 provides data from both caretaker interviews (baseline\r\nand end-of-program). Questions elicited the caretaker's assessments of\r\nthe presence of various positive and negative neighborhood\r\ncharacteristics, safety of the child in the neighborhood, attitudes\r\ntoward and interactions with the police, if the caretaker had been\r\narrested, had been on probation, or in jail, whether various crimes\r\nhad been committed against the caretaker or others in the household in\r\nthe past year, activities that the youth currently participated in,\r\ncurfews set by the caretaker, if the caretaker had visited the school\r\nfor various reasons, school performance or problems by the youth and\r\nthe youth's siblings, amount of the caretaker's involvement with\r\nactivities, clubs, and groups, the caretaker's financial, medical, and\r\npersonal problems and assistance received in the past year, if he or\r\nshe was not able to obtain help, why not, and information on the\r\ncaretaker's education, employment, income level, income sources, and\r\nwhere he or she sought medical treatment for themselves or for the\r\nyouth. Two sections of the data collection instruments were completed\r\nby the caretaker. Section A dealt with the youth's personal problems\r\nor problems with others, and the youth's friends. Additional questions\r\nfocused on the family's interactions, rules, and norms. Section B\r\nitems asked about the caretaker's alcohol and drug use, and any\r\nalcohol and drug use or criminal justice involvement by others in the\r\nhousehold older than the youth. Part 4 consists of data from schools,\r\npolice, and courts. School data include the youth's grades,\r\ngrade-point average (GPA), absentee rate, reasons for absences, and\r\nwhether the youth was promoted each school year. Data from police\r\nrecords include police contacts, detentions, violent offenses,\r\ndrug-related offenses, and arrests prior to recruitment in the CAR\r\nprogram and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, court contacts and charges\r\nprior to recruitment and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, and how the\r\ncharges were disposed.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02686.v1", "title": "Evaluation of the Children at Risk Program in Austin, Texas, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Memphis, Tennessee, Savannah, Georgia, and Seattle, Washington, 1993-1997"}], "identifier": "2922", "issued": "2000-10-16T00:00:00", "keyword": ["case management", "children", "cities", "crime prevention", "delinquent behavior", "drug use", "family services", "intervention", "intervention strategies", "juvenile offenders", "neighborhoods", "program evaluation", "student attitudes", "student behavior", "treatment programs", "you"], "language": ["eng"], "license": "http://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/", "modified": "2006-03-30T00:00:00", "programCode": ["011:060"], "publisher": {"@type": "org:Organization", "name": "National Institute of Justice", "subOrganizationOf": {"acronym": "OJP", "id": 22, "name": "Office of Justice Programs", "parentOrganization": {"acronym": "DOJ", "id": 10, "name": "Department of Justice"}, "parentOrganizationID": 10}}, "title": "Evaluation of the Children at Risk Program in Austin, Texas, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Memphis, Tennessee, Savannah, Georgia, and Seattle, Washington, 1993-1997"}