Project C.A.R.E. substance abuse prevention program for high-risk youth: A longitudinal evaluation of program effectiveness

Abstract

This article describes and evaluates Project C.A.R.E., a substance abuse prevention program for three cohorts of at‐risk fourth graders and their families. Project C.A.R.E. worked intensively with students and their families to increase resiliency factors and decrease risk factors through school, family, and extracurricular activities. The research design was experimental. Project objectives were to decrease substance use, negative behaviors, intent to use substances, school suspensions, and absences; and to increase alternative activities, family communication, academic grades, and consistency of family behavior control and rules. A few positive program effects were found. At posttest, more control students' grades needed improvement, and more program students participated in community activities. Several variables showed differential change over time which favored the program group. Compared to control students, program students increased participation in alternative activities from pretest to posttest and did not increase their school suspensions as much. At the one year follow‐up, control students were more willing to use substances than were program students. The program appeared to have the most impact with the third cohort of students and with Black students. Program students with low participation generally had the worst outcomes, often worse than the control students. It was suggested that more research should be done examining differential effectiveness, especially racial and program participation differences, as they could have a profound impact on program development and implementation. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

What can we do to reduce disciplinary school exclusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The treatment group showed a reduction in the number of exclusions but an increase in serious crime. Similar evidence was found by Hostetler and Fisher (1997) and Obsuth et al (2016).…”

“…It must be highlighted that some of the included studies in this overall measure reported negative effect sizes, meaning that in some specific cases, the intervention made outcomes worse (e.g. Hawkins et al 1988;Hostetler and Fisher 1997;Obsuth et al 2016). For instance, Hawkins et al (1988) reported the impact of an intervention focused on interactive teaching and co-operative learning targeting low achievers in mainstream schools.…”

School‐based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: a systematic review

“…8 We found 11 studies (30%) displaying non‐equivalent results between treatment and control groups. Studies reporting imbalance in gender (e.g., Berlanga, 2004 ), ethnicity (e.g., Hostetler & Fisher, 1997 ), initial levels of problem behaviour, self‐control or size of the school (e.g., Harding, 2011 )were all classified as a potentially having a high risk of bias.…”

“…We assess a high risk of bias when i) substantial attrition was present in the study and the researchers did not mention a strategy to deal with that issue (e.g., Peck, 2006 ); ii) when they used list‐wise deletion (e.g., Russell, 2007 ), and iii) in those cases where the attrition affected the treatment or control group in an unequal proportion of missing cases across arms (e.g. Hostetler & Fisher, 1997 ). Using these criteria, we judged that eight studies (22%) presented a high risk of bias.…”

“…It must be highlighted that some of the included studies in this overall measure reported negative effect sizes, meaning that in some specific cases the intervention had iatrogenic impact ( Hawkins et al, 1988 ; Hostetler & Fisher, 1997 ; Obsuth et al, 2016 ). For instance, Hawkins et al, (1988) reported the impact of an intervention focused on interactive teaching and co‐operative learning targeting low achievers in mainstream schools.…”