Original PDF Flash format the-girls-study-group--charting-the-way-to-delinquency-prevention-...  


The Girls Study Group Charting The Way To Delinquency Prevention ...

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
OctOber 2008
Girls
Study Group
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency
J. Robert Flores, Administrator
The Girls Study Group—Charting the Way
to Delinquency Prevention for Girls
By Margaret A. Zahn, Stephanie R. Hawkins, Janet Chiancone,
and Ariel Whitworth
Juvenile delinquency can become a In the 1990s, a surge of girls’ arrests
pathway to adult offending. Delin-
brought female juvenile crimes to
quency experts search for ways to
the country’s attention. Girls’ rates of
counter delinquency before it starts,
arrest for some crimes increased faster
providing intervention for juveniles in
than boys’ rates of arrest. By 2004, girls
high-risk situations—such as those with
accounted for 30 percent of all juvenile
severe economic disadvantages or living arrests, but delinquency experts did not
in high-crime neighborhoods.
know whether these trends reflected
changes in girls’ behavior or changes
However, the majority of juveniles
in arrest patterns. The juvenile justice
arrested are male, which means that a
field was struggling to understand how
n n
n
good deal of research on juvenile delin­
best to respond to the needs of the girls
quents has been performed on a mostly
entering the system.
Access OJJDP
male population that does not account
for girls’ and boys’ differences. Despite
To determine the reason behind these
publications online at
much research on the causes of boys’
increasing arrest rates, the Office of Juve­
delinquency, few studies have examined nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp
which girls become delinquent or why.
(OJJDP) convened the Girls Study Group
Additionally, intervention and treat-
(see “About the Girls Study Group”).
n n
n
ment programs have been traditionally
The group sponsored a series of studies
designed with boys in mind, and little is
to gain a better understanding of girls’
known about how well girls respond to
involvement in delinquency and guide
these interventions.
the development, testing, and dissemi­
nation of strategies that would reduce
Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Girls Study Group
incidents of delinquency and violence
factors that can lead to
among girls.
delinquency.
Girls
Study Group
The Girls Study Group (GSG) wanted
3. Resilient Girls—Factors that
to know—
Protect Against Delinquency.
Members
This Bulletin examines whether
n Which girls become delinquent?
four factors—a caring adult,
Dr. Margaret A. Zahn, Principal Investigator,
school connectedness, school
n
Girls Study Group (2004–March 2008)
What factors protect girls from
success, and religiosity—can
delinquency?
Senior Research Scientist, RTI International;
protect girls from delinquency.
Professor, North Carolina State University
n What factors put girls at risk for
4. Suitability of Assessment
Dr. Stephanie r. Hawkins, Principal
delinquency?
Instruments for Delinquent
Investigator, Girls Study Group (April
2008–Present)
n What pathways lead to girls’
Girls. This Bulletin
Research Clinical Psychologist, RTI International
delinquency?
determines whether current
risk-assessment and treatment-
Dr. robert Agnew, Professor, Department of
n What programs are most effective
focused instruments are
Sociology, Emory University
in preventing girls’ delinquency?
appropriate for use with girls.
Dr. elizabeth cauffman, Assistant Professor,
It also provides guidance to
n How should the criminal justice
Department of Psychology and Social Behavior,
practitioners on how to select
system respond to girls’
University of California–Irvine
instruments for use.
delinquency?
Dr. Meda chesney-Lind, Professor, Women’s
5. Girls’ Delinquency Programs—
Studies Program, University of Hawaii–Manoa
The series of studies outlined in this
An Evidence-Based Review.
Bulletin describe the ways in which
Dr. Gayle Dakof, Associate Research Professor,
This Bulletin reviews girls’
the group worked to understand and
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health,
delinquency programs and
respond to girls’ delinquency. Using
University of Miami
determines whether they
a combination of literature reviews,
effectively intervene in
Dr. Del elliott, Director, Center for the Study and
dataset analysis, and program and
delinquency trajectories.
Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado
instrument reviews, they conducted
a series of studies (each outlined in
Dr. barry Feld, Professor, School of Law,
6. Developmental Sequences of
University of Minnesota
detail in forthcoming OJJDP Bulle­
Girls’ Delinquent Behavior.
tins). These studies should shed light
This Bulletin investigates
Dr. Diana Fishbein, Director, Transdisciplinary
on why girls become delinquent, and
the different patterns of
Behavioral Science Program, RTI International
provide a research foundation for the
delinquent behaviors that
Dr. Peggy Giordano, Professor of Sociology,
juvenile justice community to con­
girls become involved in, and
Center for Family and Demographic Research,
sider what treatment and interven­
provides insight into the life
Bowling Green State University
tion programs are most effective for
pathways that lead to girls’
girls. These studies include:
Dr. candace Kruttschnitt, Professor,
delinquent behavior.
Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota
1. Violence by Teenage Girls:
This document will provide high­
Dr. Jody Miller, Associate Professor,
Trends and Context. This
lights of the findings that are outlined
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
Bulletin describes recent
in detail in the Bulletins described
University of Missouri–St. Louis
trends in girls’ offending and
above. Most are forthcoming and will
examines the settings in which
Dr. Merry Morash, Professor, School of
be available through the Juvenile
girls commit crimes.
Criminal Justice, Michigan State University
Justice Clearinghouse (http://www.
fsu.edu/~crimdo/jjclearinghouse/
Dr. Darrell Steffensmeier, Professor, Depart­
2. Causes and Correlates of Girls’
jjclearinghouse.html) and published
ment of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University
Delinquency. This Bulletin
on the OJJDP (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.
examines the personal, family,
Ms. Giovanna taormina, Executive Director,
org) and Girls Study Group (http://
peer, school, and community
Girls Circle Association
girlsstudygroup.rti.org) Web sites.
Dr. Donna-Marie Winn, Senior Research
Scientist, Center for Social Demography and
Ethnography, Duke University
2
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency
Violence by Teenage Girls:
What would explain the increasing
To test some of the possible explana­
Trends and Context
arrest rates for girls?
tions outlined above, the Girls Study
Group conducted a special analysis
The upswing in girls’ violence in the
Arrest laws and changes in law
that looked at local mandatory and
late 20th century had many people in
enforcement policy appear to have
pro-arrest policies to determine if
the juvenile justice community con­
had more of an impact on arrest rates
there were indications that these had
cerned. They wanted to know what
than changes in girls’ behavior. Pos­
an impact on the increasing number
factors influenced girls’ offending, and sible explanations for this include:
of girls’ arrests. Their findings indi­
what kinds of programs and policies
cate that mandatory and pro-arrest
could reduce girls’ violence.
n Changes in local law enforcement
policies that lowered the threshold
policies increased the likelihood of
arrest for both girls and boys, but the
To answer these questions, OJJDP
for reporting assaults or classifying effects appear stronger for girls. This
convened the Girls Study Group.
assaults as aggravated.
may be explained by the fact that
The Group’s initial research project
family conflict accounts for a larger
examined rates of girls’ arrests, delin­
n Some status offenses involving a
domestic dispute between a girl
proportion of girls’ offending than of
quency, and victimization. Research­
and her parent or sibling could
boys’ offending. 1
ers examined arrest data from the
now be classified as simple assault
FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, delin­
and could result in arrest. This sort
quency surveys from the Monitoring
of arrest is an unintended conse­
Causes and Correlates of
the Future study, and victimization
quence of “mandatory arrest” laws
surveys from the Bureau of Justice
Girls’ Delinquency
in cases of domestic violence.
Statistics’ National Crime Victimiza­
Girls’ delinquency has become an
tion Survey.
n
increasing dilemma in recent years,
Schools’ zero-tolerance policies
toward youth violence may have
in part because of higher arrest rates,
This research resulted in the Trends
increased police referral for fights
and in part because little research to
and Context Bulletin, which provides
involving girls.
date has focused on female juvenile
answers to a number of questions:
How have girls’ and boys’ arrest rates
increased in the past decade?
n Girls account for a smaller propor­
About the Girls Study Group
tion of overall juvenile arrests than
boys, but arrest patterns for both
In 2004, OJJDP convened the Girls Study Group, an interdisciplinary group of schol­
groups have diverged over the past
ars and practitioners who would work together to develop a comprehensive research
decade. Between 1996 and 2005,
foundation for understanding and responding to girls’ involvement in delinquency.
overall arrests decreased for both
Through a competitive process, RTI International was selected to lead the Girls Study
groups. However, this decrease
Group Project.
was greater for boys than girls.
The group includes experts from the fields of sociology, psychology, criminology,
n Notably, between 1996 and 2005,
and gender studies, as well as legal practitioners and girls’ program development
girls’ arrests for simple assault
coordinators.
increased 24 percent.
The Girls Study Group research consists of—
Are girls actually committing more
crimes?
n Reviewing literature on girls’ delinquency.
n Analyzing secondary datasets.
n Despite increasing arrest rates in
n Assessing programs that target female delinquents.
the past decade, self-report data
suggest that girls’ behavior has not
n Reviewing risk assessment and treatment-focused instruments for delinquent
girls.
changed. In fact, self-report data
suggest girls’ and boys’ assault
For more information about the Girls Study Group, see http://girlsstudygroup.rti.org.
rates have dropped in recent years.
3
Girls Study Group
delinquents. By 2004, females made
and social maturity can lead to
offending. These protective factors
up 25 percent of all juvenile arrests
increased conflict with parents or
included—
for aggravated assault, and 33 percent
negative associations with older
of juvenile arrests for other assaults.
boys or men.
n Support from a caring adult.
So why do some girls become delin­
n Success in school—as measured
quent? A great deal of research has
n Sexual abuse or maltreatment.
by grade point average.
examined the factors involved in
Compared to boys, girls experi­
male delinquency, but the factors
ence more sexual victimization
n School connectedness—a positive
involved in female delinquency
overall, including sexual assaults,
perception of the school environ­
remained largely unknown.
rapes, and sexual harassment.
ment and positive interactions
However, all types of maltreatment
with people at school.
To understand the causes of female
(sexual, physical, and neglect) can
delinquency, the Girls Study Group
increase the risk of delinquency
n Religiosity—how important reli­
reviewed more than 2,300 social sci­
for both sexes.
gion was to the girl.
ence articles and book chapters that
examine factors involved in delin­
n Depression and anxiety. Depres­
The researchers analyzed self-report
quent behavior for girls ages 11 to 18.
sion and anxiety disorders have
surveys from the National Longitu­
They also examined factors that pro­
been associated with delinquency.
dinal Study of Adolescent Health.
tect girls from becoming delinquent.
Girls receive these diagnoses more
They found:
They found that while certain factors
frequently than boys.
n Caring adult. Girls who had a car­
predict or prevent delinquency in
n Romantic partners. When a
ing adult in their lives during ado­
both sexes, a number of factors influ­
youth’s boyfriend or girlfriend
lescence were less likely to commit
ence girls’ behavior more strongly
commits a crime, he or she may
status or property offenses, sell
than boys’ behavior.
also engage in delinquent behav­
drugs, join gangs, or commit sim­
The factors that equally increase the
ior. For less serious crimes, girls
ple or aggravated assault during
risk of delinquency for both sexes
are influenced more by their
adolescence. They also were less
include—
boyfriends than boys by their girl­
likely to commit simple assault as
friends. For serious crimes, they
young adults.
n The family’s dynamics (i.e., how
are equally affected.
parents supervise and monitor a
n School connectedness. Girls who
child, family history of criminal
experienced school connectedness
behavior, child maltreatment).
Resilient Girls—Factors
were not protected or at increased
That Protect Against
risk for delinquency during ado­
n A child’s involvement in school.
Delinquency
lescence and young adulthood,
with one exception—girls who
n The neighborhood a child lives
Some children manage to achieve
experienced school connectedness
in (e.g., poverty level, crime rate,
success despite the difficulties they
during adolescence were more
employment rate).
encounter in life. This ability to posi­
likely to become involved in aggra­
vated assault in young adulthood.
n
tively adapt to negative situations is
The level of availability of
community-based programs.
called resilience. Positive experiences
in life can strengthen a child’s ability
n School success. Girls who expe­
Some factors increase or decrease a
to become resilient to the difficult
rienced success in school during
girl’s risk of delinquency more than a
situations—abuse, neglect, poverty,
adolescence committed fewer sta­
boy’s, including—
witnessing violence—that can lead to
tus and property offenses and were
delinquency.
less likely to join gangs in ado­
n Early puberty. Early puberty
lescence. School success helped
increases girls’ risk for delinquen­
An investigation by the Girls Study
protect them from involvement in
cy, particularly if they come from
Group examined whether experi­
simple and aggravated assault in
disadvantaged neighborhoods
encing protective factors during
adolescence and young adulthood.
and have dysfunctional families.
adolescence could keep girls from
However, these girls were more
This disparity between biological
likely to commit property offenses
in young adulthood.
4
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency
n Religiosity. 2 Girls who placed a
A group of researchers in the Girls
should consider the instrument’s
high importance on religion dur­
Study Group reviewed 143 risk
purpose, gender performance, cost,
ing adolescence were less likely to
assessment and treatment-focused
and local validation.
sell drugs in early adolescence.
instruments, and examined whether
they could appropriately determine
The Bulletin also provides detail on
Researchers additionally examined
youths’ risks and needs. They wanted
what practitioners should consider
the interaction between childhood
to know if the instruments had favor­
when selecting and administering
risk factors and protective factors
able gender-based performance,
instruments. It describes how to
during adolescence on a child’s pro­
which includes—
access further information about the
pensity toward delinquent behavior.
many instruments reviewed.
Although some of the protective
n Gender-based instrument devel­
factors helped girls not to engage in
opment (e.g., gender-specific
delinquent behavior, others could
items, scoring, or norms).
Girls’ Delinquency
not mitigate the influence of risk
Programs—An
factors that girls had endured since
n Favorable gender-based analysis
Evidence-Based Review
childhood. Their findings highlight
(e.g., research findings show it
the importance of considering girls’
is equally effective for girls and
Many States and communities design
life histories when developing inter­
boys).
programs to prevent and treat female
ventions for girls at high risk for
delinquency. However, researchers
The analysis examined instruments
delinquency.
are unsure how effective these pro­
in four categories:
grams are. To examine how effectively
n
these programs work, the Girls Study
Risk and risk/needs assessment
Suitability of Assessment
instruments.
Group reviewed 26 promising and
Instruments for Delinquent
model programs in the Blueprints for
Girls
n Global needs assessment
Violence Prevention5 database and
instruments.4
completed a nationwide review of 61
When girls are arrested, referred to
girls’ delinquency programs.
court for delinquent behavior, held in
n Substance abuse instruments.
a secure facility, or released from con­
The research team reviewed the 61
n Mental health instruments.
finement, juvenile justice practition­
girls’ delinquency programs using
ers need a way to examine the risks
In this Bulletin, the authors list those
the Office of Justice Programs’ What
that these girls pose to those around
instruments in each category with
Works Repository, and classified
them and the community at large.
favorable gender-based performance. them based on evidence of their
They also must determine how to
Overall, out of 143 instruments ex­
effectiveness. The classification
identify the girls’ treatment needs and amined, 73 instruments had favor­
framework that the authors used
make appropriate processing deci­
able gender-based performance.
places programs in one of six levels of
sions (e.g., adjudication, detention).
Of these 73 instruments, 28 offered
effectiveness:
gender-based instrument develop­
Practitioners in the juvenile justice
n Effective. Effective programs have
ment, 25 had favorable gender-based
system typically use standardized
an experimental research design
analysis, and 20 met both criteria.
instruments to make such deci­
(i.e., a randomized controlled trial)
The authors report that mental
sions. These instruments help to
that demonstrates a significant
health instruments were most
systematize decisionmaking criteria
and sustained effect. The program
sensitive to gender differences. Many
across the juvenile justice system
should have been externally repli­
instruments did not have informa­
and make the decision process more
cated at least once, with an imple­
tion on gender-based performance,
consistent and objective. A number
mentation team and site separate
and some were less favorable for
of instruments have been developed
from the original study.
girls.
for screening and assessing at-risk
n Effective with reservation. These
and justice-involved youth, but many Practitioners choosing an instrument
programs have an experimental
have not taken gender into consider­
for assessment in their community
research design that demonstrates
ation in their development.3
5
Girls Study Group
a significant and sustained effect.
n No programs could be rated effec­
To investigate the developmental
The program should have at least
tive, effective with reservation, or
pathways that lead to delinquency,
one successful replication. Res­
ineffective.
the Girls Study Group analyzed data
ervations occur either because
from two longitudinal studies of girls
the program has only an internal
n Most programs could be rated as
between ages 7 and 17—the Denver
replication, or because it has an
having insufficient evidence.
Youth Study,9 which included 807
external replication with modest
Two key findings from the review of
girls and the Fast Track Project,10
results.
girls’ delinquency programs were that
which included 317 girls. The authors
more evaluations are needed and
examined the lifetime prevalence of
n Promising. These programs have
the types of delinquent behaviors
either—
many of these programs are no longer
in existence, which suggests a lack of
forwhich girls were involved, includ­
ing running away, truancy, public
n An experimental design without
program sustainability.
a successful replication.
disorderliness, minor assault,11 minor
The review of programs in the Blue­
property offense, serious property
n A prospective, quasi-
prints for Violence Prevention data­
offense, serious assault, drug sales,
experimental research design
base found that out of 26 promising
alcohol use, and drug use; and the
(i.e., with no random assign­
and model programs, only 8 program
developmental sequences of delin­
ment) that uses well-matched
evaluations analyzed whether pro­
quent behavior followed by different
comparison groups. These pro­
gram outcomes differed for boys and
groups of girls over the 7–17 age
grams have significant and
girls. However, 23 of these programs
period.
sustained effects.
were equally effective for boys and
girls. The programs targeted multiple
The authors found that girls followed
n Inconclusive evidence. These
risk factors for delinquency, had
different developmental sequences.
programs may have adequately
treatment plans that focused on the
No one sequence or pathway of
rigorous research designs, but not
individual participant’s needs, and
delinquent behaviors applied to a
sustained effects. Or they may
developed connections between the
majority of girls. Additionally, a siz­
have contradictory findings and
program participants and resources
able proportion of girls were involved
not enough evidence demonstrat­
in the community.8
in delinquent offenses before middle
ing that the program is effective or
school. Girls involved in more serious
ineffective.
offending tended to return to a lower
Developmental Sequences
level of status or public disorder
n Insufficient evidence. These pro­
offending or returned to a nondelin­
grams have a quasi-experimental
of Girls’ Delinquent
quent status after a short time.
design that lacks sufficient meth­
Behavior
odological rigor or a pre-post
As girls develop, their experiences
test design,6 or involve a purely
and interactions impact their deci­
Discussion
descriptive evaluation.7
sions and behavior. Some of these
The research conducted by the
n
experiences and interactions may
Girls Study Group has yielded very
Ineffective. These programs
have an experimental or quasi-
contribute to positive developmental
important information for OJJDP and
experimental research design that
outcomes and others may support
the juvenile justice field. Some of
failed to demonstrate a significant
involvement in negative behaviors.
the findings have confirmed earlier
effect in an internal study or in a
research and anecdotal information,
The Girls Study Group explored the
replication.
while other findings have contra­
possibility that distinct developmen­
dicted many of the long-held beliefs
The nationwide review of girls’ delin­
tal pathways could influence girls’
about how girls become delinquent
quency programs found that—
delinquent behaviors. The resulting
and how best to address their needs.
Bulletin may help researchers devel­
n Only 17 of the 61 programs cata­
op programs or policies that stop
One of the first findings—and in
loged had published evaluations.
female delinquency before it starts.
some ways the most surprising
6
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency
finding—is that girls are not more
intervention programming for girls.
4. These instruments provide a
violent than in previous years. The
Clearly, a concerted effort is needed
broad-based assessment of areas
comparative analysis of official FBI
to address the lack of evidence-based
that may need followup.
data to self-report data revealed that,
programs for the juvenile justice field,
in fact, a change in how the juvenile
and the lack of programming for girls
5. See the Blueprints for Violence
justice system is responding to girls’
specifically. It is troubling that of all
Prevention Web site at http://
behavior is largely responsible for the
the girls’ programs reviewed by the
www.colorado.edu/cspv/
increased number of girls entering
Girls Study Group, the majority of
blueprints/. The review of Blue­
the system. Another surprising find­
them were rated “insufficient” evi­
prints for Violence Prevention
ing is that the increase in girls’ arrests
dence and had not been evaluated
programs was completed in July
appears to be, in part, an unintended
to the degree that they could be con­
2006. Updates to program ratings
result of relatively new mandatory
sidered “effective.” More troubling is
may have been added to the data­
or pro-arrest policies put in place to
the fact that many of these programs
base since this date.
protect victims of domestic violence.
do not have the resources to conduct
6. A pre-post design measures pro­
These are good policies, and neces­
rigorous evaluations.
gram outcomes by comparing
sary to protect victims. However, this
perceptions or behaviors at the
unexpected outcome highlights the
In moving ahead, the Girls Study
end of a program (i.e., post-
need to work with law enforcement
Group findings will provide OJJDP
program) to some measurement
to identify appropriate responses to
with the foundation needed to move
before the program begins (i.e.,
conflict between girls and their fam­
ahead on a comprehensive pro­
pre-program).
ily members, and for communities
gram of information dissemination,
to support and provide families with
training, technical assistance, and
7. A purely descriptive design does
access to family strengthening and
programming regarding girls’ delin­
not have rigorous methodology.
mediation programs that provide
quency prevention and intervention.
The focus of descriptive research
intervention (rather than arrest).
The findings of the group may assist
is to provide an accurate narrative
States and communities in develop­
of what is occurring.
Another key finding of the study
ing their own efforts to address girls’
group is that girls and boys experi­
delinquency.
8. These connections can serve as
ence many of the same delinquency
a support mechanism for
risk factors. Although some risk fac­
participants.
tors are more gender sensitive, in
Endnotes
general, focusing on general risk and
9. For more information about the
1. Strom, K., T. Warner, L. Tichavsky,
protective factors for all youth seems
Denver Youth Study, see:
and M. Zahn (in development).
a worthwhile effort. When it comes
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/programs/
Policing daughters: The role of
to providing intervention program­
ProgSummary.asp?pi=19 and
domestic violence arrest policies
ming, some unique factors should be
http://www.casanet.org/library/
in child-parent conflicts.
considered for girls. As with all delin­
delinquency/youth-svy.htm.
quency prevention and intervention
2. Religiosity describes how impor­
10. See the following three studies:
efforts, however, the focus should be
tant religion is to someone.
on the individual youth and her spe­
In this study, answers to three
1) Conduct Problems Prevention
cific needs and strengths. This is why
questions—the frequency of
Research Group. 1992. A devel­
using the appropriate risk assess­
praying, the frequency of attend­
opmental and clinical model
ment tools is important, whether the
ing religious events, and the girls’
for the prevention of conduct
youth is a girl or a boy.
perception of the importance of
disorders: The FAST Track pro­
religion—defined girls’ religiosity.
gram. Development and Psy­
Perhaps the most significant finding
chopathology 4:509–527.
of the Girls Study Group is that there
3. For instance, they may have been
continues to be a lack of reliable,
developed using a primarily male
accurate, and comprehensive infor­
population.
mation about good prevention and
7
U.S. Department of Justice
PRESORTED STANDARD
Office of Justice Programs
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/OJJDP
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
*NCJ~223434*
PERmIT NO. G–91
Washington, DC 20531
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
NcJ 223434
Girls Study Group
2) Conduct Problems Prevention
Research Group. 2000. Merg-
Acknowledgments
ing universal and indicated
Margaret A. Zahn was a Principal Scientist at RTI International and a professor at North Carolina
prevention programs: The Fast
State University during her Girls Study Group directorship, and is currently Acting Deputy Direc-
Track model. Addictive Behav­
tor of Research and Evaluation at the National Institute of Justice.
iors 25:913–927.
Stephanie R. Hawkins is a Research Clinical Psychologist with RTI International.
3) Conduct Problems Prevention
Research Group. 2007. Fast
Janet Chiancone is a Research Coordinator at OJJDP.
Track randomized controlled
Ariel Whitworth is a Communications Editor with the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
trial to prevent externalizing
psychiatric disorders: Findings
This bulletin (reprinted April 2009) reflects updates from the research team.
from grades 3 to 9. Journal of
the American Academy of Child
This Bulletin was prepared under cooperative agree­
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
and Adolescent Psychiatry
ment number 2004–JF–FX–K001 from the Office of
Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice
46:1250–1262.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),
Programs, which also includes the Bureau
U.S. Department of Justice.
of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice
11. Denver Youth Study only.
Statistics; the Community Capacity Development
Points of view or opinions expressed in this document
Office; the National Institute of Justice; the
are those of the authors and do not necessarily rep-
Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex
Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
resent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the
Registering, and Tracking (SMART).
U.S. Department of Justice.