Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 131–157 | Cite as

Fast Track intervention effects on youth arrests and delinquency

  • Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the effects of the Fast Track preventive intervention on youth arrests and self-reported delinquent behavior through age 19. High-risk youth randomly assigned to receive a long-term, comprehensive preventive intervention from 1st grade through 10th grade at four sites were compared to high-risk control youth. Findings indicated that random assignment to Fast Track reduced court-recorded juvenile arrest activity based on a severity weighted sum of juvenile arrests. Supplementary analyses revealed an intervention effect on the reduction in the number of court-recorded moderate-severity juvenile arrests, relative to control children. In addition, among youth with higher initial behavioral risk, the intervention reduced the number of high-severity adult arrests relative to the control youth. Survival analyses examining the onset of arrests and delinquent behavior revealed a similar pattern of findings. Intervention decreased the probability of any juvenile arrest among intervention youth not previously arrested. In addition, intervention decreased the probability of a self-reported high-severity offense among youth with no previous self-reported high-severity offense. Intervention effects were also evident on the onset of high-severity court-recorded adult arrests among participants, but these effects varied by site. The current findings suggest that comprehensive preventive intervention can prevent juvenile arrest rates, although the presence and nature of intervention effects differs by outcome.

Keywords

Prevention Arrests Delinquency Longitudinal Juveniles 

Notes

Disclosure

Drs. Bierman, Coie, Dodge, Greenberg, Lochman, and McMahon are the developers of the Fast Track curriculum and have a publishing agreement with Oxford University Press. Dr. Greenberg is an author on the PATHS curriculum and has a royalty agreement with Channing-Bete, Inc. Dr. Greenberg is a principal in PATHS Training, LLC. Dr. McMahon is a coauthor of Helping the Noncompliant Child and has a royalty agreement with Guilford Publications, Inc.; he is also a member of the Treatments That Work Scientific Advisory Board with Oxford University Press. The other authors have no financial relationships to disclose.

Karen L. Bierman, Ph.D.

is a distinguished professor of child-clinical psychology and director of the Child Study Center at The Pennsylvania State University. Her research program focuses on social-emotional development and children at risk, with an emphasis on the design and evaluation of school- and community-based programs that promote social competence, school readiness, positive intergroup relations, and that reduce aggression and violence. Dr. Bierman served as the principal investigator for the Pennsylvania site of the Fast Track Program.

John D. Coie, Ph.D.

is Professor Emeritus in Psychology and Neuroscience at Duke University. He has studied the development of antisocial behavior and children’s relations with peers. He continues to be interested in prevention of antisocial behavior and disorder and the promotion of children’s competence in community settings.

Kenneth A. Dodge, Ph.D.

is the William McDougall Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University. He studies the development and prevention of violence in children and families.

Mark T. Greenberg, Ph.D.

is the Bennett Chair of Prevention Research and Director of the Prevention Research Center at Pennsylvania State University. He studies developmental processes and interventions focused on improving the competence of children and families.

John E. Lochman, Ph.D., ABPP

is Professor and Doddridge Saxon Chairholder in Clinical Psychology at The University of Alabama, and he directs the Center for Prevention of Youth Behavior Problems. His research examines social and social-cognitive risk factors related to children’s aggressive behavior, examines intervention efficacy, and examines variables that affect the dissemination of interventions in real-world settings.

Robert J. McMahon, Ph.D.

is Professor and Director of the Child Clinical Psychology Program in the Department of Psychology at the University of Washington. His primary research and clinical interests concern the development, assessment, treatment, and prevention of conduct problems and other problem behavior in youth, especially in the context of the family. Dr. McMahon served as the principal investigator for the Seattle site of the Fast Track Program.

Ellen E. Pinderhughes, Ph.D.

is Associate Professor in the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development at Tufts University. Her research examines family socialization processes among children and youth at-risk for problems in their development.

References

  1. Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the child behavior checklist and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  2. Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. A. (1984). Regression and ordered categorical variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 46, 1–30.Google Scholar
  4. Bierman, K. L., Greenberg, M. T., & the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1996). Social skills training in the Fast Track program. In R. DeV Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency (pp. 65–89). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Boisjoli, R., Vitaro, F., Lacourse, E., Barker, E. D., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). Impact and clinical significance of a preventive intervention for disruptive boys: 15-year follow-up. British Journal of Psychiatry, 191, 415–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandt, D. E. (2006). Delinquency, development, and social policy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Butts, J. A., & Snyder, H. N. (2007). Where are juvenile crime trends headed? Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 16–20.Google Scholar
  8. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariepy, J. L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2001). Stability and change in antisocial behaviour: The transition from adolescence to early adulthood. Criminology, 39, 371–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1992). A developmental and clinical model for the prevention of conduct disorder: The FAST Track program. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct problems: I. The high-risk sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002a). Evaluation of the first three years of the Fast Track prevention trial with children at high risk for adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002b). The implementation of the Fast Track program: An example of a large-scale prevention science efficacy trial. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2004). The effects of the Fast Track program on serious problem outcomes at the end of elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 650–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2007). The Fast Track randomized controlled trial to prevent externalizing psychiatric disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 319–333.Google Scholar
  16. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (in press). The effects of the Fast Track program on disruptive behavior, deviant peer relations, and social skills during the middle school years. The Journal of Early Adolescence. Google Scholar
  17. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Griesler, P. C. (1994). Peer adaptations in the development of antisocial behaviour: A confluence model. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behaviour: Current perspectives (pp. 61–95). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dodge, K. A. (1993). Home visiting manual for the Fast Track program. Nashville: Unpublished.Google Scholar
  19. Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (2006). Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: Problems and solutions. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  20. Eddy, J. M., Reid, J. B., Stoolmiller, M., & Fetrow, R. A. (2003). Outcomes during middle school for an elementary school-based preventive intervention for conduct problems: Follow-up results from a randomized trial. Behavior Therapy, 34, 535–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Elrod, P., & Ryder, R. S. (2005). Juvenile justice: A social, historical, and legal perspective (2nd ed.). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.Google Scholar
  23. Farrington, D., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W. B., & Schmidt, L. (1996). Self-reported delinquency and a combined delinquency seriousness scale based on boys, mothers, and teachers: concurrent and predictive validity for African-Americans and Caucasians. Criminology, 34, 493–517. Google Scholar
  24. Farrington, D. P., Jolliffe, D., Loeber, R., & Homish, D. L. (2007). How many offenses are really committed per juvenile court offender? Victims & Offenders, 2, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foster, E. M., Jones, D., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2005). The high costs of aggression: Public expenditures resulting from conduct disorder. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 1767–1772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foster, E. M., Jones, D., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2006). Can a costly intervention be cost-effective? An analysis of violence prevention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63, 1284–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Abbott, R. D. (2005). Promoting positive adult functioning through social development intervention in childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hill, L. G., Lochman, J. E., Coie, J. D., Greenberg, M. T., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2004). Effectiveness of early screening for externalizing problems: Issues of screening accuracy and utility. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 809–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hollingshead, A. A. (1975). Four-factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript. Yale University: New Haven.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, D. E., Godwin, J., Dodge, K. A., Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Greenberg, M.T. et al. (in press). The impact of the fast track prevention trial on health services utilization by youth at risk for conduct problems. Pediatrics. Google Scholar
  31. Kirk, D. S. (2006). Examining the divergence across self-report and official data sources on inferences about the adolescent life-course of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kusche, C. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (1993). The PATHS (Promoting alternative thinking strategies) Curriculum. Deerfield: Channing-Bete Co.Google Scholar
  33. Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., Burke, J. D., & Applegate, B. (2005). Predicting future antisocial personality disorder in males from a clinical assessment in childhood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lochman, J. E., & the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1995). Screening of child behavior problems for prevention programs at school entry. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 549–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2003). Effectiveness study of Coping Power and classroom intervention with aggressive children: outcomes at a one-year follow up. Behavior Therapy, 34, 493–515.Google Scholar
  36. Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2004). The coping power program for preadolescent aggressive boys and their parents: Outcome effects at the one-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 571–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2001). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables with Stata. College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  38. McKelvey, R. D., & Zavoina, W. (1975). A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4, 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McMahon, R. J., Slough, N., & the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1996). Family-based intervention in the Fast Track Program. In R. DeV Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance use, and delinquency (pp. 90–110). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., et al. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children's criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1238–1244.Google Scholar
  41. Oyserman, D. (2000). School-to-Jobs facilitators manual: After-school program. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  42. Pellegrini, A. D. (2003). Perceptions and functions of play and real fighting in early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 1522–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reinherz, H. Z., Tanner, J. L., Berger, S. R., Beardslee, W. R., & Fitzmaurice, G. M. (2006). Adolescent suicidal ideation as predictive of psychopathology, suicidal behavior and compromised functioning at age 30. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 1226–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2001). The development of delinquency: An interactional perspective. In S. O. White (Ed.), Handbook of youth and justice (pp. 289–305). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Pagani, L., Tremblay, R. E., & McDuff, P. (1999). Disruptive behavior, peer association, and conduct disorder: Testing the developmental links through early intervention. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Werthamer-Larsson, L., Kellam, S. G., & Wheeler, L. (1991). Effects of first grade classroom environment on shy behavior, aggressive behavior, and concentration problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? Second report of the Cambridge Study in delinquent development. Oxford: Crane.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group
    • 1
  1. 1.Various UniversitiesUSA

Personalised recommendations