… · delinquency trajectory on utilization of government resources in the criminal justice...

NatioNal Crime PreveNtioN CeNtre / CeNtre NatioNal de PréveNtioN du Crime

www.publicsafety.gc.ca/ncpc www.securitepublique.gc.ca/cnpc

crime Acting to prevent

Agir pour prévenir

BETTER BEGINNINGS, BETTER FUTURES STUDY: DELINQUENCY TRAJECTORIES

OF AT-RISK YOUTH

ReseaRch RepoRt 2011-03

1.Queen’sUniversity,PsychologyDepartment, 62ArchStreet,Kingston,Ontario K7L3N62.Queen’sUniversity,BetterBeginnings,BetterFutures, 98BarrieStreet,Kingston,Ontario K7L3N6

BETTER BEGINNINGS, BETTER FUTURES STUDY: DELINQUENCY TRAJECTORIES

OF AT-RISK YOUTH

ReseaRch RepoRt 2011-03

WendyCraig1

KellyPetrunka2

ShahriarKhan2

Published by:NationalCrimePreventionCentre(NCPC)PublicSafetyCanadaOttawa,OntarioCanadaK1A0P8

Visit the Public Safety website and add your name to the NCPC Mailing List: www.PublicSafety.gc.ca/NCPC

Catalogue number: ps18-1/2011e-pDF ISBN: 978-1-100-18384-8

©HerMajestytheQueeninRightofCanada,2011

Thismaterialmaybefreelyreproducedfornon-commercialpurposesprovidedthatthesourceisacknowledged.

La présente publication est aussi disponible en français. Elle s’intitule : ÉtudePartir d’un bon pas pour un avenir meilleur:trajectoiresdeladélinquancedesjeunesàrisque.

1

Table of ContentsExecutive summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Development of Delinquent Behaviours ......................................................................................................... 4

Risk and protective Factors ............................................................................................................................. 5

estimated costs associated with Delinquency .............................................................................................. 6

Objectives of the study .......................................................................................................................................... 7

Method ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Results ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11

trajectories of Delinquency ............................................................................................................................. 11

Grade 3 Risk and protective Factors by trajectories of Delinquency ......................................................... 12

Grade 9 outcomes by trajectories of Delinquency ....................................................................................... 16

estimated costs associated with Delinquency trajectories ........................................................................ 18

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................. 21

Developmental trajectories of Delinquency .................................................................................................. 21

Risk and protective Factors associated with Delinquency trajectories ..................................................... 22

Grade 9 outcomes associated with Delinquency trajectories .................................................................... 24

estimated economic costs associated with Delinquency trajectories ...................................................... 24

Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................... 25

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 26

References ................................................................................................................................................................. 27

Appendix .................................................................................................................................................................... 30

List of Tables

table 1. estimated costs of Government Resources ................................................................................. 10

table 2. percentage of Boys vs. Girls in each trajectory .......................................................................... 12

table 3. summary of significant Grade 3 Risk Factors by trajectory Group .......................................... 14

table 4. summary of significant Grade 3 protective Factors by trajectory Group ................................ 15

table 5. summary of significant Grade 9 outcomes by trajectory Group .............................................. 17

table 6. Results of estimated Government Resource Utilization by Domain by trajectory Group ....... 20

2

Executive summaryManystudiesofjuveniledelinquencyoverthepasttwodecadeshavefocusedonolder,serious,andviolentjuvenileoffenders.Youngerdelinquentshavebeenignoredpartlybecausetheirnumberisrelativelysmallandtheirthreat isoftennotas immediate.Understandingthetrajectoriesofdelinquencyatayoungageandtheriskandprotectivefactorsassociatedwiththosedevelopmentaltrajectoriescaninformthedevelopmentofearlyriskassessmentsandthedevelopmentoftargetedpreventionandinterventionprograms.Theobjectivesoftheresearchweretoidentifyearlytrajectoriesofdelinquencyforbothboysandgirlsfromage8(Grade3),age11(Grade6),andage14(Grade9)inalongitudinalsampleofat-riskyouthfromamulti-informantperspective,assessriskandprotectivefactorsthatmayinfluencethelikelihoodthatyouthwillengageincriminalbehaviourinadolescence,andexaminewhetheryouthintheidentifieddelinquencytrajectoriesdiffersubstantiallyintermsofdelinquency,involvementwiththecriminaljusticesystem,emotionalandbehaviouralproblems,experienceofabuse,academic/schoolfunctioning,andhealth/healthriskbehaviours.Additionally,thisstudyaimedatestimatingthecostsassociatedwitheachdelinquencytrajectoryonutilizationofgovernmentresourcesinthecriminaljusticesystem,remedialeducation,healthcareandsocialservices,andsocialassistance.

Inordertoexaminetheseresearchquestions,analyseswereconductedusingtheBetter Beginnings, Better Futures data.Thesedatafollowed842childrenlivinginfivedisadvantagedcommunitiesinOntario.ThesamechildrenwereassessedwhentheywereinGrades3,6,and9withmeasureslargelybasedontheNationalLongitudinalSurveyofChildrenandYouth(NLSCY).Threekeyinformantsourceswereusedtoassesschildren’sdelinquency(parents,teachersandself-reportyouthratings).InGrade3,children’slevelsofdelinquencywereassessedbyteachers.InGrade6,thechildrenwereassessedbyparents,teachersandtheyouth,whileinGrade9,theywereassessedbyparentsandtheyouth.Inadditiontotheabove,31riskfactorsand17protectivefactorsfordelinquencywereexaminedwhenthechildrenwereinGrade3.WhenthechildrenwereinGrade9,41outcomemeasureswereexaminedinthefollowingdomains:emotionalandbehaviouralproblems,delinquencyproblems,abuse,involvementwiththecriminaljusticesystem,functioninginschool,andhealthandhealthriskactivities.Finally,monetarycostsassociatedwiththecriminaljusticesystem,remedialeducation,healthcareandsocialservices,andsocialassistancewereestimatedforeachparticipant.

Theliteratureondelinquenttrajectoriesidentifiesthreemaindelinquencygroupsamongchildrenandyouth:alowdelinquencygroup,ahighdelinquencygroup,andadesistingdelinquencygroup.Thetrajectoryanalysesofthecurrentresearchindicatedthatthereweresixdelinquencytrajectorygroups.Childrenintwoofthetrajectorieshadverylowratingsofdelinquencyacrosstime(lowest delinquencygroupandthesecond lowestdelinquencygroup).Twoothertrajectoriesshowedasimilarpatternofdelinquencyratingsthatwasdecreasingovertime.Inthemoderate desistersgroup,childrenhadmoderatelevelsofdelinquencyatGrade3followedbylowlevelsofdelinquencyatGrades6and9.Inthehighest desisters groupchildrenhadthehighestlevelofreporteddelinquencybehavioursatGrade3,followedbyamarkeddecreaseinreporteddelinquencyatGrades6and9.Thefifthtrajectorygroup,namedescalators,hadverylowlevelsofreporteddelinquencyatGrade3andincreasedmarkedlyintheirreporteddelinquencyovertime.ByGrade9,childreninthistrajectorygrouphadthesecondhighestdelinquencyscores.Thefinalgroup,high delinquency,startedwithmoderatelevelsofreporteddelinquencyatGrade3,markedbythehighestreportedlevelsofdelinquencyatGrades6and9ofanyofthetrajectorygroups.

Childrenatriskfordelinquency(i.e.,thoseinthehigh delinquency,escalators,andthetwodesisters trajectorygroups)scoredsignificantlyhigheron17ofthe31individual,family,peer,andneighbourhoodrisk factors.Forexample,children fromthese four trajectorygroupsexperiencedmorehyperactive,oppositional-defiant,andphysicallyaggressivebehaviours;familyriskfactorsincludedsingleparenthood,lessparentaleducation,publichousing,andhostile-ineffectiveparenting.Theseresultshighlighttheneedtofurtherdevelopandrefineassessmenttoolstoincludetheseriskfactorsassociatedwithdelinquency.ByGrade9,thehigh delinquencyandescalatorsgroupsalsohadsignificantlymoreproblemsthanthe

3

Executive summary

othergroups;theyexhibitedmoreemotional/behavioural,health,criminal,andschoolfunctioningproblems.EarlyidentificationatschoolandinvolvementinspecialeducationprogramsearlymayhavesignificantlyreducedthesenegativeoutcomesinGrade9.

Finally,theeconomicanalysesidentifiedthatyouthinthehigh delinquency, escalators,andthetwodesisterstrajectorygroupscostasignificantamountofmoney;forexample,approximately80%oftheestimatedcoststosociety(e.g.,onutilizationofgovernmentresourcesinthecriminal justicesystem,remedialeducation,healthcareandsocialservices,andsocialassistance)werefromthesefourtrajectorygroupswhichrepresent18%ofthesample.Furthermore,80%oftheestimatedcriminaljusticecostswereduetotheyouthinthehigh delinquencyandescalatorsgroups.

Thefindingsof thecurrentstudyhighlightsomekeyconclusions.First, thereareearly indicators tothedevelopmentalpathwaystodelinquency.Theriskfactorsassociatedwithdelinquencyinvolvement(e.g.,inattention/hyperactivityproblems,oppositionaldefiantproblems,lowfamilyfunctioning,havingateenagemother)canbeidentifiedasearlyasGrade3andcaninformtheimplementationofanassessmentand/orscreeningtoolforchildrenandyouthat-riskofdelinquency.Second,delinquencyinvolvementdoesnotjustemerge,itdevelopsovertime,andwithoutintervention,theproblemsaccumulateandmaybecomeseriousandsignificantbyasearlyasGrade9.Third,investmentinprevention,suchaseducationalsupport,canreducecriminaljusticecostsanddelinquencyinvolvement.Themostatriskgroups(high delinquencyandescalatorsgroups)fordelinquencyinvolvementaccountedforthemajorityoftheestimatedreactivecosts(e.g.,criminaljustice,healthcareandsocialservices,socialassistance)andnotthepreventativecosts(e.g.,remedialeducation).Specifically,thehigh delinquencyandescalatorsgroupsaccountedfor46%ofthereactivecostscomparedto32%forthetwodesistersgroupsand22%forthetwolow delinquencygroups;forthepreventativecosts,high delinquencyandescalatorsgroupsaccountedfor38%ofthecostscomparedto44%forthetwodesistergroupsand18%forthetwolow delinquencygroups.

Althoughmoreresearchisneededtounderstandthedelinquencytrajectoriesofgirls,thoseat-riskofdelinquencyappeartorequiremoresupport.Althoughourhighriskgroupofgirlswaslimited,therearesomepreliminaryindicationsfromthisresearchthattheyareataheightenedriskforproblems(e.g.,emotionalproblems,havingdelinquentfriends,policeinvolvement)andtheestimatedcostsassociatedwiththeirproblemsmaybehigherthanforboysbecausetheyappearnotonlythroughthecriminaljusticesystem,butalsothroughthehealthcaresystem.

4

IntroductionDelinquencyisoneofthemostprevalentproblembehavioursengagedinbyCanadianyouth.StatisticsCanada(Savoie,2006)indicatesthatoverone-thirdofyouthhavebeeninvolvedinsomeformofdelinquencyby theageof fourteenand thatchildhooddelinquency tends topredictviolentbehaviours throughoutthecourseofalifetime.Althoughdelinquencycoversawiderangeofbehaviours,manyofwhichdonotgoreportedtothepolice,about5%ofCanadianyouthhavebeenchargedwithfederaloffences(Savoie,2006).Engaginginearlydelinquentbehaviour(i.e.,beforeageten)hasbeenlinkedtonegativepsychological,emotional,health,social,academic,employment,andlatercriminaloutcomes(Boydetal.,2005;Lacourse,Nagin,Tremblay,Vitaro,&Claes,2003).Nonetheless,notallearlystartersgoontobecomeseriousdelinquents.Thegrowingbodyofknowledgethatformsdevelopmentalpreventionscienceallowsfortheidentificationofriskfactorsassociatedwithdelinquency;thedevelopmentofscreeningprocedurestoidentifychildrenatriskofdelinquency;andtheimplementationofpreventiveinterventionforchangingtheriskfactorsassociatedwithdelinquencyandreducingchildren’sprobabilityofengaginginantisocialbehaviour.Inthispaper,weexaminethedevelopmentaltrajectoriesofdelinquency,andtheassociatedindividual,family,peer,andschoolcorrelatesandoutcomesinordertoinformthepreventionofdelinquency.Wealsoprovideaneconomicanalysisofthecostsassociatedwithearlypathwaysassociatedwithdelinquentbehaviours.

Development of Delinquent Behaviours

Severalstudieshaveusedtrajectoryanalysistodistinguishindividualpatternsofdelinquentbehaviourfromchildhoodtoadolescence(e.g.,Hoeve,Blokland,Dubas,Loeber,Gerris,&VanDerLann,2008;Schonberg&Shaw,2007;Wiesner&Windle,2006).Areviewofthesestudieshighlightsseveralimportantthemes.First,onaverage,betweenthreeandsixgroupsofdelinquentbehaviourstendtobeidentifiedbythetrajectorymethodology.Therearethreeconsistenttrajectories(althoughdifferentiallylabelled)acrossthesestudies:alowdelinquencygroup(representingthemajorityofyouthwhorarelyengageindelinquentbehaviour),ahighdelinquencygroup(representingasmallminorityofyouthwithanearlystageofhighlevelofdelinquentbehaviourandincreaseovertime),andadesistingdelinquencygroup(representingaminorityof youthwhostartwithahigh levelofdelinquentbehaviouranddecreasewithtime).Instudieswheremorethanthreetrajectorieshavebeenfound,thethreeconsistentgroupsareusuallysubdividedintoothergroups.Forexample,Lacourse,Côté,Nagin,Vitaro,Brendgen,andTremblay(2002)foundsixtrajectoriesthatincludedthethreeaboveaswellasalowrising,alowdecline,andamediumdeclineofinvolvementincrime.Thesecondimportantconsistencyacrossstudiesisthatbytheendofadolescence,mosttrajectorygroupsareonthedeclinewithrespecttodelinquentbehaviour.

Methodologicaldifferencesmayaccountforsomeofthediscrepanciesinthesestudies’results.First,whileallthestudiesincludedself-reportmeasures,somealsoincludedcourtrecords(Hoeveetal.,2008)andteachers’andparents’ratings(Lacourseetal.,2002).Second,thestudiesvariedwiththegeographicalregion,forexamplesomestudieshaveparticipantsfromurbanUnitedStates(Hoeveetal.,2008)orurbanFrench-speakingCanadians(Lacourseetal.,2002).Third,thestudiesvariedwithrespecttotheageoftheparticipantsandhaveprimarilyfocusedonolderstudents.Fourth,withafewexceptions,thestudiesincludedonlyboys.Althoughfewergirlsthanboysengageinhighlevelsofproblembehaviours,thosegirlswhodostartearlyandpersistinantisocialbehavioursexperiencementalhealthproblemsatlevelsequaltotheirantisocialmalecounterparts(Odgersetal.,2008).Thus,therearelimiteddataavailableonthetrajectoriesofdelinquencyingirls.Fifth,someofthestudiesconceptualizeddelinquencybroadlyandexaminedexternalizingbehaviours(i.e.,conductproblems,physicalaggression,oppositionalbehaviour,hyperactivity)asopposedtodelinquency(definedbyviolationsoftheCriminal Code).Sixth,studiesvariedwithrespecttothenumberofassessmentsandthetimingofassessmentsusedtoderivethetrajectories.Thus,thedifferencesintheshapeandthenumberofthetrajectoriesmayinpartbeinfluencedbytheoperationalizingofdelinquencyandthestudydesign.Despitethesemethodologicaldifferencesacrossstudies,theconsistentfindingofatleastthreesimilartrajectoriesondifferentpopulationsandculturesprovidesstrongtestre-testreliabilityfortheexistenceofthethreemaindelinquenttrajectories.

5

Introduction

Risk and Protective Factors

Identifyingthetrajectoriesofdelinquencyprovidesanunderstandingofhowthisbehaviourchangeswithage,genderandotherriskfactors.Therearetwotypesofriskfactorsthataretypicallydefinedasstaticanddynamic.Staticriskfactorsrefertohistoricalvariablesthatareresistanttochangesuchasageatfirstoffence,priorcriminalhistorywhereasdynamicriskfactorsarechangeable(Andrews&Bonta,1998).Themostusefulriskfactorstoidentifyfromapreventionandinterventionperspectivearedynamic,becausethesefactorsareamenabletochange.Identificationoftheindividual,family,peer,andcommunityriskandprotectivecorrelatesofeachofthetrajectorygroupscanprovidespecificdirectionforthedevelopmentofpreventionandinterventionprograms.

Thedevelopmentofdelinquentbehaviourisinfluencedbyriskandprotectivefactorsresidingbothwithinindividualsandtheirenvironments.Riskfactorsarethosethatleaddirectlytoproblembehaviourwhereasprotective factorsoperate tobuffer risk.Protective factorsgenerally refer to influences thatmodify,ameliorate, or alter a person’s response to some risky environmental conditions that may result inmaladaptivebehaviour.Rutter (1986)pointsout that: (1)protective factorsdonotnecessarilymeanpositiveexperiences;(2)protectivefactorsaredetectableonlyforhigh-riskindividuals;and,(3)protectivefactorscanbenon-environmentalandpartofthebiologicalmake-upoftheindividual.Protectivefactorsshouldnotbeconsideredtobemerelyflipsidesofriskfactors.Protectivefactorsoperateunderconditionsofrisk.Thatistosay,protectivefactorsoperatetopreventdelinquencyunderhigh-riskconditionsoramonghigh-riskindividuals.

Thereisacumulativeeffectofriskandprotectivefactorsbothwithinandacrosstime.Atagivenpointintime,childrenareatgreaterriskforjuveniledelinquencyiftheyexperiencemultipleriskfactors(Lerner,1996).Overtime,thereisaprogressiveaccumulationoftheconsequencesofindividualfactors(cumulativecontinuity)andtheresponsestheyelicitduringsocialinteractions(interactionalcontinuity).Withinthisdevelopmentalframework,lifephasesandtransitionsareparticularlyimportantinunderstandingbehaviourbecausetheypresenteithercrisesorchallenges,engenderingstressthatcanunderminedevelopmentorrevealingresourcesandopportunities(Lerner,1996).Adevelopmentalperspectiveconsidersbothstabilityandtransformationsinbehaviourintheirdevelopmentalcontext.Thechallengeistoexplaintheemergenceandthechangeinformandfrequencyofantisocialanddelinquentbehavioursoverthecourseofdevelopment.

Thecorrelatesofjuveniledelinquencyaresimilarinmalesandfemales.Itremainsunclear,however,theextent to which the outcomes of early externalizing problems are the same for both genders.Thedevelopmentaltrajectoriesofaggressivegirlsmayinvolvesimilarprocessestothoseofboysbutresult indifferentoutcomes.For example, girls’ trajectories todelinquency indicate there is strongcomorbiditywithdepressionandsuicidalideation,aswellaphysicalandsexualvictimization(Moffitt,Caspi,Rutter,&Silva, 2001). Thedevelopmental trajectoriesof aggressivegirls exemplify the jointprocessesofcumulativeandinteractionalcontinuity.Theyaremaintainedbyindividualcharacteristicsofthegirlsthemselvesandbytheirinteractionswithinthefamily,school,peer,andmaritalsystems.Thereisemergingevidence that the risksexperiencedbyaggressivegirlsmaybe transferred to thenextgenerationthroughtheirineffectiveparentingpracticesaswellastheirgenes(Serbinetal.,2004).Insummary,manyriskandprotectivefactorshavebeenidentifiedbyresearchers.However,thereexistlimiteddataongirls’involvementindelinquencyandwhethertherearespecificornonspecificriskandprotectivefactorsforgirls.

6

Better Beginnings, Better Futures Study: Delinquency Trajectories of At-Risk Youth

Estimated Costs Associated with Delinquency

Therearesignificantindividual,justice,healthandsocialservices,andsocietalcostsassociatedwithdelinquency.Thesehighintra-personal,interpersonal,andsocietalcostshighlighttheneedtoincreaseourunderstandingofdelinquencybehaviour,beforeitemerges.Despitethewelldocumentedindividual,physical,psychologicalandmentalhealth,social,andcriminaloutcomesofengaging indelinquentbehaviours,therearelimiteddataavailableinCanadaonthecostsassociatedwithit.Thereislimitedresearchon thecostsofdelinquencybeyondcostssavingsofearlypreventionprogramson futuredelinquency,andthecoststothecriminaljusticesystem.AntisocialyouthtendtobemultipleoffendersandCohen(1998)foundthattheaveragedelinquentcommits68-80crimesovertheirdelinquencytimeperiodandcostssocietybetween$1.3-$1.5million(U.S.dollars).Earlyinterventionprogramshavethepotential to reduce the long termcostsofdelinquency.CohenandPiquero (2009)estimated thatabeneficialpreventionprogramofdivertinga14-year-oldhighriskjuvenilefromalifeofcrimecouldsavefrom$2.6millionto$5.3million(U.S.dollars).

Fewstudiesofearlychildhoodpreventionprogramsforchildrenhaveincludedaneconomicanalysis(e.g.,Barnett&Masse,2007;Karoly,Kilburn,&Cannon,2005;Mrazek&Brown,2002;Nores,Belfield,Barnett,&Schweinhart,2005;Petersetal.,2010;Reynolds,Temple,Robertson,&Mann,2002;Waddell,Hua,Garland,Peters,&McEwan,2007).Alltheseearlychildhoodinterventionstudieshavereportedeconomicanalysesbasedonfollow-updataforchildren,andinsomecasestheirparents,tothechild’sageof15,21,and/or40.Economicanalysesresultsfromthesestudiesprovidetherationaletopolicymakersforinvestinginearlychildhoodinterventions.Formosteconomicanalysesofearlychildhoodeducationprograms,economicbenefitsaretypicallydividedintothreecategories:benefitstoprogramparticipants(e.g., increasedincomefromimprovededucation),benefitstonon-programparticipants(e.g.,reducedcoststocrimevictims),andbenefitstogovernment/taxpayers(e.g.,decreasedremedialeducationcosts,decreasedcosts to the justice system).TheCanadianstudyof early intervention,discussedinthispaper,isonBetter Beginnings, Better Futures(BBBF;Petersetal.,2010).Thecostingperspective of the Canadian BBBF economic analysis was the government / taxpayers; Karoly etal. (1998) refer to this analysis as cost-savings analysis to differentiate it from the more traditionalcost-benefitanalysis.Inthispaper,weexaminethesocial,health,educationalandjuvenilejusticecostsforeachofourtrajectoriesofdelinquency.

7

Objectives of the studyThecurrentstudyuseddatadrawnfromalongitudinalresearchstudy,Better Beginnings, Better Futures (Peters,Petrunka,&Arnold,2003),whichexaminedthelong-termimpactsofanearlychildhoodpreventionprogram.Morespecifically,theresearchprojectusedalongitudinalsampleof842at-riskyouthfromamulti-informantperspective(i.e.,parents,teachers,self-reportedyouthratings)to:(1) identifyearlytrajectoriesofdelinquencyforbothboysandgirlsatage8(Grade3),age11(Grade6),andage14(Grade9);(2)examineriskandprotectivefactorsattheindividual,family,peer,school,andcommunitylevelsthatmayinfluencethelikelihoodthatyouthwillengageincriminalbehaviourinadolescence;(3)examinewhetheryouthintheidentifieddelinquencytrajectoriesdiffersubstantiallyinGrade9onemotionalandbehaviouralproblems,delinquency,experienceofabuse,involvementwiththecriminaljusticesystem,academic/schoolfunctioning,andhealth/healthriskbehaviours;and(4)estimatethecoststogovernmentassociatedwitheachdelinquencytrajectoryonutilizationofgovernmentresourcesinthecriminaljusticesystem,remedialeducation,healthcareandsocialservices,andsocialassistance.

TheBBBFdataaretheonlyexistingCanadiandatathatincludealargenumberofmaleandfemaleyouthlivinginneighbourhoodscharacterizedbypoverty.Thedatasetisalsodiverseintermsofethnicityandotherfamilydemographicvariables.Theresultsarefurtherinstructivegiventhisisthefirstearlychildhoodpreventionproject inCanadato includeaneconomicanalysisof theestimatedcostsandsavingstogovernment.Thus,thisresearchhasthepotentialtoprovideempirically-basedinformationforcommunitiesinCanadaregardingidentifyingchildrenandyouthatriskof involvement inantisocialanddelinquentbehaviours,aswellasfordesigningpreventionandinterventionprogramsthatarecommunity-basedandthat targetempirically-basedriskandprotectivefactorsassociatedwithdelinquencyamongchildrenandyouth.

8

MethodParticipants

IntheBBBFsample,thelongitudinalresearchcohortwascomprisedofafocalcohortandafollowing cohort.Childreninthefocalcohort(n=721)werebornin1989andwererecruitedtothelongitudinalstudybetweenJuniorKindergarten(JK)andGrade3,mostlythroughtheschoolsystem.Childreninthefollowingcohort(n=238)werebornin1990,andwererecruitedtothelongitudinalstudywhentheywereinGrade3.Forthisstudy,therewere842participants(396girlsand446boys),representing88%oftheoriginalsample.Theseparticipantsrepresentthelongitudinalfollow-upoftheBBBFstudyandhaddataatages8(Grade3),11(Grade6),and14(Grade9).

Attritionwasmainlyduetotwofactors:(1)familiesrelocatedandtheresearcherswereunabletocontactthem;and(2)familiesdeclinedtobeinterviewed.Asatestforattritionbias,weemployedlogisticregressiontoexaminesociodemographicdifferencesinchildrenandfamilieswhodroppedoutoftheresearchcohortbetweenGrade3and6andbetweenGrade6and9,andfamilieswhocompletedallyearsofdatacollection.Theseanalysesindicatednosignificantdifferencesinsociodemographicvariablesbetweentheretainedandlostcases.

Approximately30%ofthehouseholdswereheadedbysingleparents,34%ofparentsdidnotcompletehighschool,59%offamilieswerelivingbelowStatisticsCanadaLowIncomeCutOffline,and19%werelivinginpublichousing.Therewerenosignificantgenderdifferencesonanyofthedemographicvariables.AppendixAprovidesmoreinformationonthefamilydemographicswhenthechildrenwereinGrade3.

Measures Delinquency

ChilddelinquencymeasureswerecreatedusingitemsfromtheNationalLongitudinalSurveyofChildrenandYouth(NLSCY;StatisticsCanada,1995).Threedifferentmeasureswerecreated,oneforparents,oneforteachers,andonefortheyouththemselves.RatingsinGrade3wereprovidedbyteachersonly,whileratingsinGrade6wereprovidedbyparents,teachersandyouth,andratingsinGrade9byparentsandyouth.ItemsfortheparentsandteacherversionsandtheGrade6youthversionwereratedonathree-pointscale:0=never or not true,1=sometimes or somewhat true,and2=often or very true(e.g.“vandalizes”,“steals”,“destroysthings”,and“tellsliesorcheats”).AtGrade9,theyouthindicatedwhetherornotinthepast12months,theywerepartofagang(0=no,1=yes)andtheremainingnineitemswererated0=never,1=once or twice,2=three or four times,or3=five or more times(e.g.,“stayedoutallnightwithoutpermission”,“stolensomething,”“solddrugs”,and“intentionallydestroyed/damagedthings”).Usingprincipalcomponentfactoranalyses,delinquencyitemsfromteachers,parents,andyouthwerecombinedseparatelyateachofthethreegradestocreateGrades3,6,and9delinquencyscales:theGrade3delinquencyscalewascreatedbycombiningthreeteacherrateditems;theGrade6measurehad13items(6parents,5teachers,and2youth);andtheGrade9measureofdelinquencyincluded16items(6parentsand10youth).Allthreescaleshadhighreliability.

Risk and Protective Factors

Riskandprotectivefactorsinformationaboutchildren,theirfamilies,andneighbourhoodswasobtainedbyparentandchildinterviews,teacherquestionnaires,andCanadianEducationQualityandAccountabilityOffice(EQAO)academicachievementtestresultswhenthechildrenwereinGrade3.Thespecificdetailscanberequesteddirectlyfromtheauthors.

Attheindividual childlevel,weexaminedchildren’semotionalandbehaviouralproblems(anxiety,depression,hyperactivity,oppositional-defiant,passivevictimization,physicalaggression),numberofseriousinjuries,socialfunctioning(conflictmanagement,cooperation,outgoing,self-concept,relationshipwithsiblings,

9

Method

numberofpeopleimportanttochild),andcognitiveandacademicfunctioning(MathematicsPerformanceonprovincialstandardizedtest,AchenbachAcademicandAdaptiveFunctioning,WISCBlockDesign,PeabodyPictureVocabularyTestscore,graderepetition,useofspecialeducationservices).

Atthefamilylevel,weexaminedsociodemographicfactors(parent’seducationlevel,income,maritalstatus,mobility,teenageparent),familyfunctioning(hostile-ineffectiveparenting,consistent-effectiveparenting),substanceuse(highriskdrinkinganddruguse),andparent’semotionalfunctioning(depression,stress,socialsupport).

At thepeer level,weexaminedhowwell thechildgotalongwithhis/herpeers.At theschool level,weexaminedparents’perceptionsoftheschoolandhowinvolvedtheparentswereatschool.Finally,attheneighbourhood level,weaskedparentstodescribehowsatisfiedtheywerewiththeirhomeandneighbourhood,whethertheylivedinpublichousing,andhowsafetheyfeltfromcrime.

Grade 9 Outcomes

Weexamined41outcomeswhenyouthwereinGrade9alongseveraldomainsobtainedbyparentandyouth interviews, teacherquestionnaires,andCanadianEducationQualityandAccountabilityOffice(EQAO)academicachievementtestresultsatGrade9.Thespecificdetailscanberequesteddirectlyfromtheauthors.

Toassessyouthemotional and behavioural problems,ratingswerecollectedfromparents,teachers,andyouth.Theratingscalesincludeemotional-anxietydisorder,physicalaggression,oppositional-defiant,hyperactivity,anddepression.Toassessyouthdelinquency,parentscompleteda“youthtrouble”scale,andyouthwereaskediftheywerepartofagangandthetypesofdelinquentactivitiestheirfriendsengagedin.Youths’experiences with abusewerealsoassessed;youthwereaskediftheyhadbeentreatedunfairlybecauseoftheirgender,race,skincolor,orreligionandiftheyhadbeenbulliedorphysicallyabused.Youthinvolvement with the criminal justice systemwasdeterminedthroughaseriesofquestionsintheyouthinterview(hadtheyeverbeenarrested,numberofarrests,numberofclosefriendsarrested,everbeentocourt,andtimeincustodyorotherprograms).

Youths’functioning in schoolwasassessedthroughaseriesofquestionsaskedofparents,teachers,andyouths.Parentswereaskedifthechildhadrepeatedanygradesorbeensuspended.Teacherswereaskedifthestudenthadbeensuspended,receivedspecialeducationservices,andcurrentacademicachievement.Studentswereaskedhowoftentheyleft/droppedoutofschoolandhowoftentheyskippedclass.Students’resultsonthestandardizedOntarioprovincialmathematicsachievementtestatGrade9werealsoexamined.

Finally,youthwereaskedaseriesofquestionsabouttheirhealth and health risk activities.Specifically,youthwere asked about their use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs, and had they ever been drunk.Youthwerealsoaskedtoratetheirstresslevel,indicatehowoftentheyhadbeenseriouslyinjured,weretheysexuallyactive,weretheyhavingunprotectedsex,andhadtheyeverbeenpregnantorgottensomeonepregnant.Youthandparentswerealsoaskedtoratetheyouth’sgeneralhealth,andyouth’sbodymassindexwascalculatedbasedontheirself-reportedheightandweight.

Estimated Costs of Government Resources Associated with Delinquency

Weidentified12measuresinourdatasetthatcouldbemonetizedtoreflectchildren’sandparents’utilizationofgovernmentresourcesinhealthcareandsocialservices,remedialeducation,thecriminaljusticesystem,andsocialassistance(seeTable1forsummary).ThesemeasureswerecollectedfromchildrenandtheirparentsbeginningwhenthechildrenwereinJuniorKindergarten(JK)uptoandincludingGrade9(morespecificdetailsforhoweachofthe12outcomeswasmonetizedcanberequestedfromtheauthors).

10


Statistical Analyses

Foracompletedescriptionofthestatisticalanalyses,pleaseseeAppendixB.

Table 1. esTimaTed CosTs of GovernmenT resourCes

GovernmenT resourCe esTimaTed CosTs in Canadian dollarsa

Health Care and social services

Visitstoafamilyphysician $29.44pervisitinOntariobasedon2001dollarfigures(Browne,Gafni,&Roberts,2002)

Hospitalemergencyroomuse $195.76pervisitinOntariobasedon2001dollarfigures(Browneetal.,2002)

Numberofseriousinjuries TheaveragecostofanunintentionalinjuryinCanadawas$4,000in1996.(Angusetal.,1998)

Numberofovernightstaysinhospital $816.35perovernightstayinahospitalinOntariobasedon2001dollarfigures.(Browneetal.,2002)

Visitswithanursepractitioner $19pervisitinOntariobasedon2001dollarfigures(Browneetal.,2002)

FamilyinvolvementwithChildren’sAidSociety $60pervisitinOntariobasedon2001dollarfigures(Browneetal.,2002)

remedial education

Graderepetition $6,151peryearinOntariobasedon2002/03schoolyeardollarfigures.

Useofspecialeducationservices $6,794averagecostperchildreceivingspecialeducationservicesinOntariobasedon2001/02schoolyeardollarfigures.

Criminal Justice system

Arrests $500Canadiannationalaveragecostperpoliceinvestigationin1998(Hepworth,2000)

Courtappearances $1,250Canadiannationalaveragecourtcosts(Hepworth,2000)

social assistance Programs

SocialWelfareAssistance $842permonthinOntariobasedon2003estimatedminimumvalueofbasicsocialassistanceforasingleparentwithonedependentchild(NationalCouncilonWelfare,2004)

OntarioDisabilitySupportProgram $829(singleparentwithonechild)and$940(twoparentswithonechild)permonthinOntariobasedon2003estimatedminimumpayments(OntarioMinistryofCommunityandSocialServices,2003)

a A3%discountratewasappliedforallestimatedcostdata(e.g.,Karolyetal.,1998;Karolyetal.,2005; Reynoldsetal.,2002).

11

ResultsTrajectories of Delinquency

Accordingtothestatisticaltests,thesix-groupsolutionwasthe“best”modelforthecombinedsampleofgirlsandboys.Figure1depictsthedistinctdevelopmentaltrajectoriesofthesix-classmodelfordelinquency.Childrenintwoofthetrajectorieshadverylowratingsofdelinquencyacrosstime;welabelledthesegroupsthelowest delinquencygroupandthesecond lowestdelinquencygroup.Twoothertrajectoriesshowedasimilarpatternofdelinquencyratingsthatwasdecreasingovertime.Inthemoderate desistersgroup,childrenhadmoderatelevelsofdelinquencyatGrade3followedbylowlevelsofdelinquencyatGrades6and9.Inthehighest desistersgroupchildrenhadthehighestlevelofreporteddelinquencybehavioursatGrade3,followedbyamarkeddecreaseinreporteddelinquencyatGrades6and9.Thefifthtrajectorygroup,labelledescalatorshadverylowlevelsofreporteddelinquencyatGrade3andincreasedmarkedlyintheirreporteddelinquencyovertime.ByGrade9,childreninthistrajectoryhadthesecondhighestdelinquencyscores.Thefinalgroup,labelledhigh delinquency,startedwithmoderatelevelsofreporteddelinquencyatGrade3,markedbythehighestreportedlevelsofdelinquencyatGrades6and9ofanyofthetrajectorygroups.

fiGure 1. delinquenCy TraJeCTories of aT-risk youTH

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 9

Scale Range: 0-2

Del

inq

uenc

y S

cale

Solid line = observeddashed line = predicted

6-Group Solution Trajectories of Delinquency Scale

Trouble de lapersonnalité/

troubleagressif

Lowest Delinquency 2nd Lowest Delinquency Moderate Desisters

Highest Desisters Escalators High Delinquency

12


Table2depictsthepercentagesofchildrenineachofthegroups.Chi-squarestestedforgenderdifferencesinthegroupmembershipofeachtrajectorygroup;asignificantgroupbygendereffectwasfound,thatistherewasasignificantdifferenceintheproportionofmalescomparedtotheproportionoffemales(p <.003).We thencomparedwhether theproportionofmales versus femalesdiffered for eachofthesixtrajectorygroupsseparately.Thereweresignificantlymorefemalesthanmalesinthetwo low delinquency trajectorygroups,p<.05forbothanalyses.Thereweremoremalesthanfemalesinthefourremainingtrajectorygroups,butonlythedifferencesforthetrajectorygroupsshowingmarkeddecreasesindelinquencyovertime(themoderate and highest desisters)weresignificant(p<.05forbothanalyses).

Table 2. PerCenTaGe of boys vS. Girls in eaCH TraJeCTory

Trajectory Group males% (n)

females% (n)

LowestDelinquency* 6.7%(30) 10.6%(42)

SecondLowestDelinquency* 70.4%(314) 76.5%(303)

ModerateDesisters* 13.5%(60) 8.1%(32)

HighestDesisters* 3.4%(15) 1.0%(4)

Escalators 4.0%(18) 2.8%(11)

HighDelinquency 2.0%(9) 1.0%(4)

*p<.05

Grade 3 Risk and Protective Factors by Trajectories of Delinquency

We examined 31 risk factors and 17 protective factors at the individual, family, peer, school, andneighbourhoodlevelsthatmayinfluenceyouthdelinquentbehaviours.SinceGrade3istheearliestdatapointusedtodeterminingthetrajectorygroups,weselectedGrade3riskandprotectivefactorsforthisanalysistoaddresswhetherthesefactorswereassociatedwiththedifferentdevelopmentaltrajectoriesofdelinquency,andwhetherthesefactorsweredifferentiallyassociatedforgirlsandboys.1

Ofthe31riskfactors,17werefoundtobestatisticallysignificantatp<.001withthefullsample:8ofthe10individual childriskfactors;5ofthe12familyriskfactors;2ofthe6schoolriskfactors;theonepeer riskfactor;and1ofthe2neighbourhoodriskfactors(seeAppendixCformoredetails).ByGrade3,therewasevidencethatchildreninthehigh delinquency, escalators,andthetwodesisterstrajectorygroupswereexperiencingmany risk factorsat the individual, family,school,andpeer levels.Forexample,comparedtothelowdelinquencygroups,childrenfromthesefourtrajectorygroupsexperiencedmorehyperactive,oppositional-defiant,andphysicallyaggressivebehaviours; family risk factors includedsingleparenthood,lessparentaleducation,publichousing,andhostile-ineffectiveparenting.

1EachGrade3outcomevariablewasexamined through twosetsof analysis,one for the full sample (malesand females combined)andtheotherformalesonly(duetothelownumbersoffemalesinourhigh delinquencyandhighest desisters groups).Genderofchildwasusedconsistentlyasacontrolvariableforallfullsampleanalyses,buttheanalysesforthe“male only”samplelookedatthebivariaterelationshipbetweenmalechildrenandtrajectorygroups.Weemployedacombination ofanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)andlogisticregressiondependingonthetypeofoutcomevariableinquestion(i.e.,ANOVA forcontinuousvariables,andlogisticregressionforbinaryvariables)tocomparethemeansorproportionsofvarianceofthe variable.OmnibusForchi-squaretestswerereportedtoindicatethesignificanceofoverallrelationship,andBonferronitests werecarriedouttoexaminepairwisecomparisons.

13

Results

Whenexaminingpairwisecomparisonsforthe17significantriskfactors,thehighest desistersgrouphadthemostfrequentnumberofsignificantpairwisecomparisons;inotherwords,thisgroupofchildrenexperiencedmoreriskthanchildrenintheother5trajectorygroups.Specifically,theyscoredhigherthanthelowest delinquencygrouponallparentandteacherratingofchildbehaviourproblems,theirmothershadalowereducationlevel,andtheyhadpoorsiblingandpeerrelationships(seeTable3formoredetails).Thatis,thesechildrenwereexperiencingmoreindividual,familyandpeerproblems.

Thehigh delinquencygroupandthemoderate desistersgroupalsoexhibitedhighlevelsofrisk,especiallywhencomparedtothetwolowestdelinquencygroups.Forexample,thehigh delinquencygroupwascharacterizedbybothparentsandteachersasscoringhighonhyperactivity,oppositionaldefiance,andphysicalaggression.Theyweremorelikelytocomefromasinglefamily,liveinpublichousing,experiencehostileineffectiveparenting,andhavepoorsiblingandpeerrelationshipsthanthelowest delinquency group.Thehigh delinquencygrouphad11significantriskfactorsinGrade3,theescalatorgrouphadsix,whilethe lowest delinquencygrouphadnone.Specifically,accordingtoparents,theescalatorgroupscoredhigherthanthelowest delinquencygrouponhyperactivity,oppositionaldefiantbehavioursandphysicalaggression.Comparedtothelowest delinquencygroup,theyweremorelikelytohaveateenagemother, liveinpublichousingandhavepoorsiblingrelationships.Thus,parentshadidentifiedthesechildrenasexperiencingmoreproblems,andtheyhadmanyfamilyriskfactors.

14


Table 3. summary of siGnifiCanT Grade 3 risk faCTors by TraJeCTory GrouP

aThisindicatesthatchildreninthehigh delinquencytrajectorygroupreceivedstatisticallysignificanthigherratingsof hyperactivitythanchildreninthetwolowest delinquencygroups.

Note:onlystatisticallypairwisecomparisonsatp<.01areshown.

Highdelinquency

(1)

escalators(2)

desisters low delinquency

Highest(3)

moderate(4)

2nd lowest

(5)

lowest(6)

CHild

Parent Ratings of Child:

Hyperactivity 1>5,6a 2>6 3>6 4>6 5>6

Oppositional-Defiant 1>4,5,6 2>5,6 3>5,6

PhysicalAggression 1>5,6 2>6 3>4,5,6 4>5,6

Teacher Ratings of Child:

Hyperactivity 1>5,6 3>2,5,6 4>5,6

Depression 3>2,5,6 4>5,6

Oppositional-Defiant 1>2,5,6 3>1,2,4,5,6 4>2,5,6

PassiveVictimization 3>6 4>5,6

PhysicalAggression 1>2,5,6 3>1,2,4,5,6 4>2,5,6

family

Mother’sEducation 3<6 4<5,6

SingleParent(%yes) 1>5,6 4>6

TeenageMother(%yes) 2>5,6 4>6

LivinginPublicHousing(%yes)

1>6 2>6

Hostile-IneffectiveParenting 1>5,6 4>6

PoorSiblingRelationships 1>6 2>4,5,6 3>4,5,6

sCHool

PeabodyPictureVocabularyTestScores

4<6

ReceivedSpecialEducationServices(%yes)

4>5,6

Peers

PoorPeerRelationships(parentrated)

1>6 3>4,5,6

15

Results

Ofthe17protectivefactors,7werefoundtobesignificantatp <.001withthefullsample(seeAppendixC),allintheindividual childprotectivedomain.Thetwolowest delinquencygroupsshowedsignificantlyhigherlevelsofsocialskills(e.g.,conflictmanagement,helping/cooperation,outgoing/assertive)andadaptivefunctioningthanchildreninthetwodesistersgroups(seeTable4).Teachersalsoratedthehigh delinquency andescalatorsgroupsasshowingmoreconflictmanagementskillsthanthehighestdesistersgroup.

Table 4. summary of siGnifiCanT Grade 3 ProTeCTive faCTors by TraJeCTory GrouP

Highdelinquency

(1)

escalators(2)

desisterslow

delinquency

Highest(3)

moderate(4)

2nd lowest

(5)

lowest(6)

CHild

Parent Ratings of Child:

ConflictManagement 5>1,3,4a 6>1,2,3,4

Helping/Cooperation 5>1 6>1

Teacher Ratings of Child:

LowAnxiety 5<3,4 6<3,4

ConflictManagement 1>3 2>3,4 4>3 5>3,4 6>3,4

Helping/Cooperation 2>3 5>3,4 6>3,4

Outgoing/Assertive 5>3,4 6>3,4

sCHool

AdaptiveFunctioning 5>3,4 6>1,2,3,4,5

aThisindicatesthatchildreninthesecond lowest delinquencytrajectorygroupreceivedstatisticallysignificanthigher ratingsofconflictmanagementthanchildreninthehigh delinquencyandthetwodesisterstrajectorygroups.


Whenexamininggenderdifferencesonthe31riskand17protectivefactors,5riskand2protectivefactorswere found tobesignificantatp<.001 (seeAppendixC for fulldetails).Specifically,we found thatteachers rated girls as showing fewer hyperactive, depressive, oppositional-defiant, and physicallyaggressivebehaviours.Teachersalsoratedgirlsasshowingmoreconflictmanagementandhelping/cooperativebehaviours.Parentsratedgirlsasshowingfewerhyperactivebehaviours.

16


Grade 9 Outcomes by Trajectories of Delinquency

WeexaminedtherelationshipsbetweenGrade9outcomevariablesanddelinquencytrajectoriesinasimilarmanneraswedidfortheGrade3riskandprotectivevariables.2However,giventhesmallsamplesizesforsometrajectorygroups,wereclassifiedthe6groupsoftrajectoriesinto4groupsbycombiningmoderate desistersandhighest desisters(andcallingitdesisters)andbycombiningthelowestandsecond lowesttrajectories(callingit low delinquency);theothertwogroups,escalatorsandhigh delinquency,remainedthesameasbefore.Forcontinuousvariables,adjustedgroupmeansarereportedandfordichotomousvariables,oddsratiosarereported.

Ofthe41Grade9outcomesexamined,31werefoundtobesignificantatp<.001withthefullsample(seeAppendixDformoredetails).Tobrieflysummarize: intheEmotional and Behavioural Problemsdomain7of 10outcomeswere significant; in theDelinquency Problems domainall 3 independentmeasuresofdelinquentoutcomesweresignificant;intheExperience of Abusedomain1of3outcomeswassignificant;intheInvolvement with Criminal Justice Systemdomainall5outcomesweresignificant;inthe School Functioning domain5 of 7outcomeswere significant; and in theHealth and Health Risk Behavioursdomain10of13outcomesweresignificant.Theseresultsindicate,aswouldbeexpectedthatbyGrade9,thehigh delinquencygroupandtheescalatorswerealreadyexhibitingsignificantlymoreproblemsthantheyouth intheothertrajectorygroups inallareasoftheir functioning(emotionalandbehaviouralproblems,criminalinvolvement,andengaginginunhealthybehaviours).

Wethenexamineddifferencesamongour4trajectorygroupsonthese31significantoutcomes(seeTable5forsummary).Theescalatorsandhigh delinquencygroupsdifferedsignificantlyfromthedesistersandlow delinquencygroupson26ofthe31outcomemeasures.Thatis,theescalatorsandhigh delinquency groupsexhibitedmoreemotionalandbehaviouralproblems,engagedinmoredelinquentbehaviours,weremorelikelytobeinvolvedinthecriminaljusticesystem,hadpoorerschoolfunctioning,andweremorelikelytobeengagedinhealthriskbehaviourscomparedtotheothertwotrajectorygroups.Somespecificresultsmeritemphasis.Comparedtotheyouthinthelow delinquencygroup,theyouthinthehigh delinquencygroupwere25timesmorelikelytobepartofganginthepastyear,33timesmorelikelytohaveeverbeenarrested,91timesmorelikelytohaveevergonetocourt,13timesmorelikelytohavebeensuspendedfromschoolinthepast3years,37timesmorelikelytohavedoneharddrugsinthepastyear,and20timesmorelikelytohavehadunprotectedsexintheirmostrecentsexualencounter.Additionally,comparedtoyouthinthelow delinquencygroup,theyouthintheescalatorsgroupwere44timesmorelikelytobepartofgang,20timesmorelikelytohavebeenarrested,37timesmorelikelytohavegonetocourt,11timesmorelikelytohavebeensuspendedfromschool,26timesmorelikelytohavedoneharddrugs,and15timesmorelikelytohavehadunprotectedsex.Theimportanceoftheseresultsisthattheyareseparateindicatorsofinvolvementincrimethantheitemsusedtocreatethedelinquenttrajectories.Thus,usingbothselfreportandofficialdatasources,thereisconvergingevidencethatthesehighriskyouthareindeedhighriskandengaginginhighriskbehaviourswithsignificantconsequences.

2Thatisweemployedacombinationofanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)andlogisticregressiondependingonthetypeofoutcome variableinquestion(i.e.,ANOVAforcontinuousvariables,andlogisticregressionforbinaryvariables)tocomparethetrajectory groupsoneachoftheGrade9outcomevariables.OmnibusForchi-squaretestswerereportedtoindicatethesignificanceof overallrelationship,andBonferronitestswerecarriedouttoexaminepairwisecomparisons.

17

Results

Table 5. summary of siGnifiCanT Grade 9 ouTComes by TraJeCTory GrouP

escalators(1)

High delinquency

(2)

desisters(3)

low delinquency

(4)

youTH emoTional and beHavioural Problems

Parent-Rated:

Emotional-AnxietyDisorder 1>3,4b 2>3,4

PhysicalAggressionScale 1>3,4 2>3,4

Hyperactivity/InattentionScale 1>3,4 2>3,4

Oppositional-DefiantScale 1>3,4 2>3,4

Depression 2>1,3,4

Youth-Rated:

PhysicalAggressionScale 1>3,4 2>3,4

Hyperactivity/InattentionScale 1>4

StressIndex 1>3,4 2>3,4

delinquenCy Problems

YouthGettingIntoTroubleScale(Parent-Rated )

1>3,4 2>1,3,4

DelinquentFriendsScale(Youth-Rated )

1>3,4 2>3,4

GangMembership(Youth-Rated )

43.59ORc 25.46OR 5.38OR

eXPerienCe of abuse

Physicalabuse(Youth-Rated ) 7.29OR 3.40OR

involvemenT WiTH Criminal JusTiCe sysTem

Youth-Rated:

Everarrested/takentopolicestation

19.67OR 33.38OR 3.65OR

Numberofarrests 1>3,4 2>1,3,4

Friendsarrestedortakentopolicestation

1>3,4 2>3,4

CourtAppearances 36.75OR 90.76OR 7.63OR

Incarceration 14.21OR 49.24OR

18


Estimated Costs Associated with Delinquency Trajectories

Moststudiesof juveniledelinquencyoverthepasttwodecadeshavefocusedonolder,seriousandviolentjuvenileoffenders.Youngerdelinquentshavebeenignoredpartlybecausetheirnumberisrelativelysmallandtheirthreatisnotasimmediate.However,whereasthenumberofveryyoungoffendersissmallcomparedwitholderjuveniles,childdelinquentspresentuniquechallengesthatneedtobeaddressed.Interveningbeforeminoroffencesbecomemoreseriousandbeforetheoccasionaloffenderbecomesachronicoffenderisimportant.Understandingthetrajectoriesofdelinquencyatayoungageandtheriskandprotectivefactorsassociatedwiththosedevelopmentaltrajectoriescaninformthedevelopmentofearlyriskassessmentsandthedevelopmentofpreventionandinterventionprograms.

escalators(1)

High delinquency

(2)

desisters(3)

low delinquency

(4)

sCHool funCTioninG

SuspensionFromSchool 10.90OR 13.25OR 3.28OR

DroppedOutofSchool 1>3,4 2>3,4

SkippedClasses 1>3,4 2>3,4

AcademicAchievementa 4>3

ReceivedSpecialEducationServices

3.41OR 6.04OR 2.77OR

HealTH and HealTH risk beHaviours

Youth-Rated:

GeneralHealtha 4>1,2

BodyMassIndex 2>1,3,4

AlcoholConsumption 1>3,4 2>4

EverDrunk 10.91OR 7.9OR

TobaccoUse 1>3,4 2>3,4 3>4

MarijuanaUse 1>3,4 2>3,4

HardDrugUse 26.46OR 37.14OR

ConsensualSex 12.56OR 20.23OR

UnprotectedSex 14.54OR 19.58OR

a Variableisreverse-coded(i.e.,higherscoresreflectsamorepositiveoutcome).bThisindicatesthatyouthintheescalatorstrajectorygroupreceivedstatisticallysignificanthigherratingsofemotional-anxiety disorderthanyouthinthedesistersandlow delinquencytrajectorygroups.c ORreferstoOddsRatio.OddsRatiosarereportedfordichotomousvariableswherelow delinquencyisusedasthe referencecategory.Forexample,youthintheescalatorstrajectorygroupwere43timesmorelikelytobepartofagang thanyouthinthelow delinquencytrajectorygroup.


19

Results

Foreachofthe6trajectoriesofdelinquency,weestimatedanaveragecost/child/trajectoryforeachofthe12monetizablegovernmentresourcesdescribedinTable1.Foreachchild,weestimatedthecostsofutilizingthegovernmentresourcebymultiplyingtheunitcostavailablefromasecondarysource(e.g.,$29.44foranappointmentwithafamilyphysician)bytheoccurrenceoftheevent.Alldollarfiguresthatwereportwerediscountedatarateof3%.Thisdiscountratefallswithintherangeofratescommonlyusedandrecommendedinpublic-policyanalysis(e.g.,Karolyetal.,1998;Karolyetal.,2005;Reynoldsetal.,2002).Foracompletedescriptionofthestatisticalanalyses,pleaseseeAppendixB.

Detailedresultsforeachofthe12indicatorsofgovernmentresourceutilizationbytrajectorygroupbygendercanbefoundinAppendixE.Table6providesasummaryofthegovernmentexpendituresbygeneraldomainbytrajectorygroup.Tobrieflysummarizetheresults,governmentexpenditureswerehighestintheRemedial Education domain(64%ofcosts),followedbyHealth Care and Social Services (29%),Social Assistance(6%),andCriminal Justice System(1%).Thetwolowest delinquencytrajectories(82%ofthesample)accountedforonly19.4%oftheestimatedgovernmentcosts.Inotherwords,approximately80%oftheestimatedcoststogovernmentwerefrom18%ofthesample.Specifically,wefoundthatyouthfromthetwodesisterstrajectorygroups(13%ofthesample)accountedfor40%oftheestimatedcoststogovernment;andyouthfromthetwomostat-risktrajectories(escalatorsandhigh delinquency,5%ofthesample)accountedfor40.6%oftheestimatedcoststogovernment.Itisinterestingtonotethat80%oftheestimatedCriminal Justice costswereduetothehigh delinquencyandescalatorstrajectorygroups.

Wealsofoundthatantisocialordelinquentgirlscostsocietymoremoneythanantisocialordelinquentboysinalldomains,withtheexceptionoftheSocial Assistancedomain.Specifically,summingacrossall6trajectorygroupsfromages4to14,weestimatedthatgirlscost$244,056whileboyscost$229,236.Inaddition,weestimatedthatgirls’criminaljusticecostswerealmosttwicethoseofboys($4,835vs.$2,408).

20


Table 6. resulTs of esTimaTed GovernmenT resourCe uTilizaTion by domain by TraJeCTory GrouP

Jk – Grade 3 ($)

Grades 4 – 6 ($)

Grades 7 – 9 ($)

all Grades ($)

Hea

lthc

are

and

so

cial

ser

vice

s

2ndLowestdelinquency 2,802 2,061 4,978 9,841Escalators 2,661 3,340 10,798 16,800Highdelinquency 980 2,570 8,953 12,503Moderatedesisters 2,392 1,209 4,804 8,405Lowestdelinquency 1,758 1,398 2,616 5,772Highestdesisters 5,927 2,902 4,654 13,483Group total $16,521 $13,480 $36,802 $66,803

Rem

edia

led

ucat

ion

2ndLowestdelinquency 5,807 5,363 4,278 16,348*Escalators 7,285 7,651 8,101 25,008*Highdelinquency 8,927 8,476 10,348 30,001*Moderatedesisters 8,223 8,032 6,522 24,277*Lowestdelinquency 4,595 2,898 2,104 9,947*Highestdesisters 11,700 13,908 13,430 40,584*Group total $46,537 $46,327 $44,782 $146,165*

Crim

inal

just

ice

sy

stem

2ndLowestdelinquency 71Escalators 900Highdelinquency 1,647Moderatedesisters 211Lowestdelinquency 30Highestdesisters 334Group total $3,193

Fam

ilys

ocia

las

sist

ance

2ndLowestdelinquency 1,758Escalators 4,081Highdelinquency 2,142Moderatedesisters 2,603Lowestdelinquency 708Highestdesisters 1,856Group total $13,147

All

dom

ains

(12

Mea

sure

s)

2ndLowestdelinquency 8,609 7,424 9,255 28,018*Escalators 9,946 10,991 18,899 46,788*Highdelinquency 9,907 11,046 19,301 46,292*Moderatedesisters 10,615 9,240 11,326 35,496*Lowestdelinquency 6,352 4,296 4,720 16,457*Highestdesisters 17,628 16,810 18,084 56,257*Group total $63,058 $59,807 $81,585 $229,308*

* Includescostsofgraderepetition.Forthosechildrenwhorepeatedagrade,weassignedeachchildonetotalcostofrepeatingagrade(e.g.,numberofgradesfailedsummedfromkindergartentoGrade8);therefore,itwasnotpossibletoassignthiscosttooneofthespecificgradecategories(JK-Gr2,Gr4-6,Gr7-9).Instead,weincludedthesecostsinthe“AllGrades”total.

21

DiscussionGiventhatoverone-thirdofyouthhavebeeninvolvedinsomeformofdelinquencybytheageoffourteen,andthatchildhooddelinquencytendstopredictviolentbehavioursthroughoutthecourseofalifetime(Farrington,1989),understandingthedevelopmentalpathwaysthatleadtodelinquencyisacriticalissue.The current study was designed to identify the delinquency trajectories of boys and girls living indisadvantagedcommunitiesinOntariofromages8to14,andexaminetherisk/protectivefactors,Grade9outcomes,aswellastheestimatedeconomiccostsassociatedwitheachtrajectory.Resultsindicatedthatchildrenintheescalatorgroupandthehigh delinquencygrouphadsignificantnegativeoutcomesbyGrade9withrespecttotheirbehavioural,emotional,social,andrisk-takingbehaviour(e.g.,druguse,unprotectedsex),aswellashighinvolvementinthecriminaljusticesystem.Theseproblemsalsowerecostlytothegovernment.

Developmental Trajectories of Delinquency

Ourfirstobjectivewastoexaminethetrajectoriesofdelinquencyinboysandgirlsfromages8(Grade3)to14(Grade9).Ourresultsconfirmtheheterogeneityofthedevelopmentofdelinquencyandaregenerallyconsistentwithpreviousresearch.Wefoundsixgroupsofdelinquency.Asexpected,twogroups,lowest delinquencyandsecond lowest delinquency,representingthemajorityoftheyouth(≈82%ofthesample)reportedconsistentlylowlevelsofdelinquencyovertime.Twoothertrajectories(highest desistersandmoderate desisters)showedasimilarpatternofdelinquencyratingsdecreasingovertime,representingthedesisters(≈13%ofthesample).Anothergroup,theescalators(≈3.5%ofthesample),hadverylowlevelsofreporteddelinquencyatGrade3andincreasedovertime.Finally,thehigh delinquency groupstartedwithmoderatelevelsofreporteddelinquencyatGrade3andhadthehighestreportedlevelsofdelinquencyatGrades6and9ofanyofthetrajectorygroups.Thehigh delinquencygrouprepresentedapproximately1.5%ofthesample.Itmaybethatthelowpercentageofyouthinthehigh delinquencygroupreflectsthefactthatweonlyhavedataupuntiltheyouthareinGrade9,orapproximately14yearsold.Thus,manyyouthmayjustbebeginningtoengageindelinquentacts.Wehypothesizethatwithmorelongitudinaldatapoints,theproportionofyouthinthehigh delinquencygroupwouldincreaseandlikelymorecloselyresembleotherresearchfindings.

Thisstudysupportedthetrajectoriesofdelinquencyreportedinotherstudies,butalsoidentifiedsomekeydifferences.Similaritiesincluded:1)thatthemajorityofyouthwereinvolvedinnoorlimiteddelinquentactivities;2)femalesweremorelikelythanmalestobeuninvolvedindelinquency(i.e.,thereweremorefemalesinthelow delinquency and second lowest delinquencytrajectorygroups);3)therewasagroupofindividualswhodesistedfrominvolvementindelinquency;and4)therewasatrajectoryofconsistentlyhighengagementindelinquentbehaviour.Thekeydifferencesfrompreviousliteraturewasthenumberofgroupsthathadlowlevelsofdelinquency(i.e.,thereweretwolowandsecondlowestgroupsthatengagedinminimaldelinquentbehaviours).Second,theshapeofthehigh delinquencytrajectorygroupwassurprising,astherewasapeakindelinquencyinGrade6.Weexpectedthatthepeakwouldnotbepresent,andifwehadextendedlongitudinaldatawewouldhaveexpectedtoseeitataroundage18.Thereareseveralpossibleinterpretationstothisearlypeak.First,nootherstudyondelinquenttrajectorieshasbeenconductedstartingatsuchayoungage.Second,thecurrentstudyincludedgirlswhichnootherstudyofdelinquenttrajectorieshasdone.Third,thisstudywasbasedoncommunitysampling,thatisitwasconductedinhighrisk,lowsocioeconomicstatusneighbourhoods.Lastly,itispossiblethatthereareuniquesamplecharacteristicsintheparticipantsandtheresultsmayreflectthissampling.Nonetheless,morelongitudinalresearchisrequiredthatbeginsasearlyasthisresearchtovalidatefindings.

Third,whenweexamineddifferencesinthedistributionsofboysandgirlswithinthediversetrajectorygroups,wefoundthattheescalatorsandhigh delinquencygroupshadequalproportionalrepresentativenessofmalesandfemales.Thatis,wefoundnogenderdifferencesinthedistributionofboysandgirlsinthe

22


high delinquencygroup(2%ofmalesand1%offemales),orintheescalatorsgroup(4%ofmalesand3%offemales).Typicallyresearchreportsthatmalesaremorelikelytoengageindelinquentbehaviourthanfemales,thusweexpectedtohavemoremalesthanfemalesinthehigh delinquencygroup.Notably,thispatternisinconsistentwiththegeneraldevelopmentaltrendreportedbySilverthornandFrick(1999)whofoundthatgirlstendtoexperiencealateronsetofdelinquencythanboys,andthegeneralfindingthatboysaremorelikelytobeinvolvedinhighdelinquentbehaviourthangirls.Thediscrepancymayarisebecausewehaveusedamulti-informantapproach,andhavetakenaperson-orientedapproach(asopposedtoagrouporientedapproach),allowingustoexamineheterogeneitywithinthedevelopmentofdelinquency.Thesmallminorityofat-riskgirlsinoursampledemonstratedtheseproblemsasearlyasboys.Consistentwithotherresearch,wefoundthatgirlswereoverrepresentedinthetwolowdelinquencygroups.However,wefoundthereweresignificantlymoremalesinthetwodesisters groups.

Risk and Protective Factors Associated with Delinquency Trajectories

Trajectoriesincreaseourunderstandingofdelinquencydevelopmentandidentifybehaviouralpatternsthatemergeinindividualsonaspecifictrajectory.Oncethesetrajectoriesareidentified,specificfactorspertainingtotheindividual,peers,family,andcommunityingeneralcanbeexploredtodeterminewhichfactorsheightentheriskofdelinquency(i.e.,thechronicorincreasingtrajectories)oractasaprotectivefactoragainsttheinvolvementindelinquency(i.e.,low,non-involved,ordecliningtrajectories).

Inthisresearchweexamined31riskfactorsand17protectivefactorsattheindividual,family,peer,school,andcommunitylevelwhenthechildrenwereinGrade3(age8)thatmayinfluencethelikelihoodthatyouthwillengageincriminalbehaviourinadolescence.Childrenatriskfordelinquency(i.e.,thoseinthehigh delinquency, escalators,anddesisterstrajectorygroups)scoredsignificantlyhigheron17ofthe31individual,family,peer,andneighbourhoodriskfactors.Forexample,childrenfromthesefourtrajectorygroupsexperiencedmorehyperactive,oppositional-defiant,andphysicallyaggressivebehaviours;familyriskfactorsincludedsingleparenthood,lessparentaleducation,publichousing,andhostile-ineffectiveparenting.Themostat-riskgroupswereexperiencingproblemsinmultipledomains,notedbymultipleinformantsandassessments,yettheyreceivedlimitedinterventionsorsupporttoaddresstheseproblems.Thus,withcomprehensiveearlyassessments,earlyidentificationofat-riskchildrencanoccurearlyatschoolallowingtheprovisionofextraservicestopreventcontinuationofproblematicandcostlybehavioursthroughadolescence.

Morespecifically,youthassignedtothehigh delinquencygroupwerealreadyshowingsignsofproblemsinGrade3.Parentsandteachersratedthemashigherthanthelow delinquencygroupsonhyperactivity,oppositionalbehaviour,andphysicalaggression.Inaddition,theyweremorelikelytocomefromsingleparenthomes,liveinpublichousingandexperiencehigherlevelsofhostileineffectiveparentingandhadpoorqualitypeerandsiblingrelationshipscomparedtothetwolowdelinquencygroups.Interestinglyonlythemoderate desisterswereviewedasmoreproblematicwithrespecttotheiroppositionaldefiantbehaviourandtheirphysicalaggressionthanthehigh delinquencygroup,accordingtoteachers.Withrespecttoschoolfunctioning,therewerenodifferencesonthePPVTtestoronthelikelihoodthattheyreceivedspecialeducationalservicescomparedtotheothergroups.Infactthisgrouphadthelowest special education ratesyettheyhadthelowestPPVTscores(althoughnotsignificantlydifferentfromtheothergroups);theymaynothavebeenreceivingthespecialservicesatschoolthattheyrequired.

Thehigh delinquencygroupalsodidnotscorewellonprotectivefactors.Theyhadsignificantlylowerscoresonconflictmanagementandcooperativebehavioursthanthe low delinquency and desisters groups,accordingtoparents.Thiscompositionofriskandprotectivefactorsindicatesthatparentsidentifiedmanybehaviouralandsocialproblemsinchildreninthehigh delinquencygroup.Interestingly,teachersratedthehigh delinquencygroupasshowingmoreconflictmanagementskillsthanthehighest desistersgroup.Thisgroupwasnotviewedasthemostproblematicwithrespecttoclassroombehaviours,whichmayhaveminimizedtheextentoftheirproblematicbehavioursandlimitedthepotentialinterventionstheycouldhavereceived.

23

Discussion

Similarly,theyouthintheescalatorsgroupwereratedbytheirparentsasshowingthesecondworstproblematicbehavioursandhadmanyfamilyriskfactors,suchasmorelikelytoliveinasingleparenthome,livedinpublichousing,andhadpoorpeerrelationships.Forboththehigh delinquencyandtheescalatorsgroups,theissuesathomemayhaveplayedaroleintheirdelinquenttrajectories.Researchhasindicatedthatsingleparentsmaybelessabletomonitortheirchildrenthanchildrenlivingintwoparenthomes(Tremblay,VanAken,&Koops,2009).Similarly,theylivedinsocialhousingwheretherewasalackofmonitoringandwheretheymayhavebeenmorelikelytoassociatewithpeerswithsimilarproblems,thusprovidingapeergroupwithsimilarproblemstoreinforcetheiraggressiveanddelinquentbehaviourproblems.Teachersdidnotperceivethisescalatorsgroupasexhibitingmanyproblematicbehaviourscomparedtotheothergroups.Thislackofconcordancebetweenparentsandteachersmayhavecontributedtothemnotbeingidentifiedashavingproblems.Itmaybethatthechildrenwerehavingfewerbehaviouralproblemsatschoolthanathome,oritmaybethatthebehaviouralproblemsatschoolwerenotasextremeasthoseexperiencedathome.Furthermore,thisdiscrepantfindingbetweenparentandteacherratingsmayreflectthelackofservicesputintoplacetopromotehealthybehaviouralandschoolfunctioningforthesechildren,whichmayhaveinadvertentlycontributedtotheirongoingproblems.Inanycase,thedisagreementbetweenparentsandteachershighlightstheneedtotakeparents’viewsintoaccountindevelopingassessmentand/orscreeningtools.Furthermore,theseparentsmayneedmoreservicestohelpthemaddressproblematicbehavioursearly,athome.Thecombinationofmanyriskandfewprotectivefactors,andlittlesupportintermsofeducationalassistancemayhaveinteractedandaccumulatedtomaintainandincreasetheirriskfordelinquencyovertime.

Thetwodesistersgroups(highest desistersandmoderate desisters)areaninterestingcontrasttothehigh delinquencyandescalatorsgroups.ThedesistersgroupswereviewedthemostnegativelybytheirteachersinGrade3(i.e.,theyhadthehighestscoreonallriskfactorsandthelowestoverallprotectivescoresasviewedbytheirteachers).Furthermore,theriskfactorsincludedbothexternalizingproblemsandinternalizingproblems.Itmaybeinpartthiscombinationofdepression,victimization,andexternalizingproblemsthatcontributedtothembeingidentifiedassuchbytheirteachers.Parentsalsoidentifiedexternalizingproblemsinthesegroups.Furthermore,themoderate desistersalsohaveelevatedriskwithrespecttotheirfamilyenvironments(e.g.,morelikelyto live insingleparenthomes,haveateenagemother,andamotherwithlowereducationthanthelowgroups).Itmaybethatthesefamilieswerereceivingmoresocialassistanceduetotheirlifecircumstancesthanthehigh delinquencyandescalatorsgroups,whichmayhavealsobeenprotectiveagainstfuturedelinquencyinvolvement.Furthermore,likelyasaconsequenceofbeingidentifiedbyteachersasexperiencingmanybehaviouralproblemsandacademicproblems,theyreceivedthemostspecialeducationservices(43%)atschool.Theseservicesmayhaveactedasaneffectiveearlyinterventionforthesestudentsbypromotingpositiveschoolfunctioningthatinturnfacilitatedtheirdesistancefromdelinquencyandassociatedproblematicbehaviour.

Thereareseveral implicationstothesefindings.Forexample, itsupportsthenotionthatdevelopinganassessment/screeningtoolforriskmeasuringpsychological,emotional,andbehaviouralfunctioning,aswellasfamilyandschoolfunctioning,canprovideearlyidentificationofchildrenwhoareatdifferentlevelsofriskforfuturedelinquency.Inaddition,providinginterventionsorstrategies(suchasspecialeducationalservices)tothosewhoareidentifiedat-riskcanpreventdelinquencyinthefuture.Amongotherthings,thecurrentresearchsuggeststhatearlyinvestmentinschoolservicescanmakeameasurabledifferenceindelinquencytrajectoriesbyGrade9.Withoutinvestment,theproblematicandcostlybehavioursofat-riskyoutharelikelytocontinuethroughadolescenceandpotentiallybecomemoresignificant.

24


Grade 9 Outcomes Associated with Delinquency Trajectories

ThethirdobjectiveofthisstudywastoexaminewhetheryouthintheidentifieddelinquencytrajectoriesdiffersubstantiallyinGrade9onemotionalandbehaviouralproblems(e.g.,emotional-anxietydisorder,depression,aggression,oppositional-defiant,hyperactivity-inattention),delinquency(e.g.,associationwithdelinquentfriends,beingpartofagang),experienceofabuse(e.g.,physicalabuse,bullying,discrimination),involvementwiththecriminaljusticesystem(e.g.,arrests,courtappearances,timespentincustody),academic/schoolfunctioning(e.g.,achievement,useofspecialeducationservices,studentsuspensions,grade repetition), andhealth/health riskbehaviours (e.g., useofalcohol, tobacco,and illegaldrugs,injuries,unprotectedsexualactivity,pregnancy).We found thatearlyproblems (i.e., emotionalandbehavioural,delinquency,academic)becomeevenmoresignificantbyGrade9.Ourtwomostat-riskgroups,thehigh delinquencyandtheescalatorsgroups,hadsignificantlymoreproblemsinallareasof functioning.Theyscored thehigheston themajorityof theemotional/behavioural (e.g., anxiety,hyperactivity,physicalaggression);health(e.g.,generalhealth,useoftobacco/alcohol/drugs,sexualactivity);criminal(e.g.,arrests,courtappearance,incustody),andschoolfunctioning(e.g.,suspensions,specialeducation,droppingoutofschool)domains.

AnexaminationofsomeofthespecificoutcomesinGrade9forourtwomostat-riskgroups(thehigh delinquencyandtheescalators)highlightsthatthepathwaytodelinquencyisdevelopmentalandthatearlybehavioursareindicativeofsignificantproblemsbyGrade9.Forexample,evenbyGrade9thesehighriskgroupsweremuchmorelikelytobeinvolvedingangs,tohavebeenarrested,andtohaveacriminalrecordthantheothergroups.Furthermore,theescalatorsandhigh delinquencygroupsengagedinmoreriskyhealthbehaviours(e.g.,consumptionofharddrugsandinvolvementinunprotectedsexbehaviours).Thesebehavioursareproblematicnotonlyinthemselvesbutintheirconsequences(e.g.,earlypregnancywithpotentiallysubstanceusingparents).

Furthermore,theyouthinthehigh delinquencyandescalatorsgroupswereexperiencingsignificanttruancy,thusfurther limitingtheir longtermemploymentandeducationalopportunities. Inallofthedomainsexamined,theseat-riskyouthwereexperiencingproblemsinGrade9thatweremuchmoreseverethaninGrade3andhadmuchpotentiallysignificantlongertermoutcomes.

Estimated Economic Costs Associated with Delinquency Trajectories

Thefinalobjectiveofthepresentstudywastoestimatethecoststogovernmentassociatedwitheachdelinquencytrajectoryonutilizationofgovernmentresourcesinthecriminaljusticesystem,remedialeducation,healthcareandsocialservices,andsocialassistance.Themajorityoftheestimatedcostsassociatedwitheachofthetrajectorieswasintheeducationalsystem–64%ofthecostswereforremedialeducation.Incontrast,thepercentageoftheestimatedcostsassociatedwiththeotherdomainswas29%forhealthcareandsocialservices,6%forsocialassistance,and1%forthecriminaljusticesystem.

Asnotedearlier,itwasthedesistersgroups(highest desistersandmoderate desisters)whoreceivedthemostspecialeducationalservices,andwithrespecttolongtermoutcomes,thiswasapositiveandpreventativeinvestment.Areviewofthespecificestimatedhealthcarecostsindicatesthattheescalatorsinparticularhadthehighestcostsassociatedwithvisitingtheirdoctor,goingtotheemergencyroom,havingseriousinjuries,andvisitingwithanursepractitioner.Thesearereactionarycosts(asopposedtopreventativecosts)inthesensethatasignificanteventhashappened.Furthermore,forgirlsinthehigh delinquencygroup,somecostswereestimatedasbeingmuchhigherthanforboys(e.g.,numberofseriousinjuries,andovernightstayinhospital.At-riskgirlsmaybeparticularlyvulnerabletomedicalproblemsassociatedwithdelinquencyinvolvementcomparedtoat-riskboys.

25

Discussion

Highriskgirlswerealsomorecostlywithrespecttothecriminaljusticesystem.Comparedtoboys,thetotalestimatedcostsatage14(Grade9)forgirlswasalmosttwicethatforboys($4,835vs.$2,408).Thedatarevealedthatgirlsinthetwohighriskgroups(high delinquencyandescalators)weremuchmorelikelytohavehighercostsassociatedwitheachbeingarrestedandcourtappearances.Itappearsthatgirls,oncearrested,werealsomuchmorelikelytoenterthecriminal justicesystem.Admittedly,oursampleofgirlswassmallandmaynotberepresentative,butitdoesreflectthedevelopmentalcourseandcostsassociatedwithasmallsampleofveryhighriskdelinquentgirls.Thehighriskboygroupsalsohadthehighestestimatedcosts,butnotashighasthoseofthehighriskgirls.Insummary,ourfindingssuggestthatgirlscostthegovernmentmoremoneythanboysinalldomains(exceptsocialassistance).Specifically,summingacrossthesixtrajectorygroups,weestimatedthat,betweentheagesof4and14,girlscost$244,056whileboyscost$229,236.

Furthermore,approximately80%oftheestimatedcoststogovernmentwereduetothetwodesisterstrajectory groups (highest desisters and moderate desisters) and the youth from the two mostat-risktrajectories(escalatorsandhigh delinquency)whichrepresented18%ofthesample.Specifically,wefoundthatyouthfromthetwodesisterstrajectorygroups(13%ofthesample)accountedfor40%oftheestimatedcoststogovernment(primarilydrivenbyeducationcosts,apreventativeresponse);andyouthfromthetwomostat-risktrajectories(escalatorsandhigh delinquency;5%ofthesample)accountedfor40.6%oftheestimatedcoststogovernment.

Additionally,80%oftheestimatedcriminaljusticecostswereduetothehigh delinquencyandescalators groups.EventhoughtheestimatedCriminalJusticeSystemcoststogovernmentwererelativelylowasofGrade9(only1%oftheoverallcosts),thesetwogroupsmayjustbegettingstartedandthecostsassociatedwiththesegroupscanonlyincrease.Interestingly,thehigh delinquencyandescalatorsgroupsaccountedfor46%ofthereactivecosts(suchascriminaljusticesystem,healthcareandsocialservices)comparedto32%forthetwodesistersgroupsand22%forthetwo low delinquencygroups;forthepreventativecosts(e.g.,remedialeducation),thehigh delinquencyandescalatorgroupsaccountedfor38%ofthecostscomparedto44%forthetwodesistersgroupsand18%forthetwolow delinquency groups.Theimplicationisthatinvestingearlyinpreventioncostssuchasremedialeducationmayprovideat-riskchildrenandtheirfamiliestheopportunitytohavemorepositivedevelopmentaloutcomesanddesistfromdelinquencyinvolvement.Asaconsequence,investinginpreventioncansavethegovernmentmoneyinthelongrun.Themostat-riskgroupsdidnotreceivesufficientearlysupportandconsequentlythecostsassociatedwiththemwerereactiveandcostly.

Limitations

Therearemanystrengthstothecurrentresearch.TheBBBFresearchsamplecompriseddisadvantagedandat-riskcommunities;thecommunitieswerediverse(Francophone,Aboriginal,recentimmigrants,andmulticultural);thesamplehadbothboysandgirls;andthedataallowedforeconomicanalysestobeconducted.ThisisthefirstonaCanadiansample.Havingsaidthat,somelimitationsneedtobenoted.First,wewereunabletoexaminetheriskandoutcomefactorsbytrajectoryforbothboysandgirlsseparatelyduetothelownumberoffemalesinsomeofthetrajectorygroups.Second,someofthetrajectorieshadasmallsamplesizeandhencetheresultsmaynotbegeneralizable.Forexample,inthehigh delinquencygroup,thecostsofdelinquentbehaviouringirlswerehighrelativetoboys.Itmaybethatthisisanatypicalgroupthathadmanyarrests,orinfact,itmayberepresentativeofanextremegroupofhighriskgirlsthattodatehavebeenneglectedbyresearch.

26

ConclusionThereareearlyindicatorstothedevelopmentalpathwaysfordelinquency.Riskandprotectivefactorsassociated with more serious and escalating delinquency involvement become apparent as earlyasGrade3,whichcouldinformtheimplementationofanassessment/screeningtool.Furthermore,thecurrentresearchfindingssuggestthatdelinquencyinvolvementdoesnotjustemerge,butdevelopsovertime,andwithoutintervention,theproblemsaccumulateandareseriousandsignificantbyasearlyasGrade9.Theincreasedlikelihoodofarrests,courtappearances,andincarcerationbyGrade9forthehigh delinquency andescalatorgroups,indicatethatthedelinquentproblemsaresignificantandserious.Similarly,investmentinprevention,suchaseducationalsupport,canreducedelinquencyinvolvement.Themostat-riskgroupsfordelinquencyinvolvement(e.g.,escalatorsandhigh delinquency)accountedforthemajorityofthereactivecosts(e.g.,criminaljustice)andnotthepreventativecosts(e.g.,remedialeducation).

The present study also demonstrates that, although more research is needed to understand thedevelopmentaldelinquencytrajectoriesofgirls,theyappeartorequiremoresupportthanboys.Althoughourhighrisksampleofgirlswaslimited,therearesomepreliminaryindicationsfromthisresearchthattheyareataheightenedriskforproblems,suchasemotionalproblems,criminalactivityandcourtsysteminvolvement,andthecostsassociatedwiththeirproblemsmaybehigherthanforboysbecausetheyappearnotonlyinthecriminaljusticesystem,butalsointhehealthcaresystem.Traditionally,wehaveestimatedonlythecriminaljusticecosts.Itmaybethatthisvenuedoesnotreflectthefullrangeofcostsassociatedwithfemaledelinquency.

Insummary,differentdevelopmentalperiodsmayhavedifferentrisksandprotectivefactorsassociatedwithdelinquency.Thus,crimepreventionneedstooccurearlyindevelopmentandbeongoing.Ourstudyindicatesthatthereweremoreproblematicexternalizingbehavioursinourhigh delinquencyandescalators groupsbyGrade 3, as indicated by parents in particular and somewhat supported by teachers. Despite theproblematicbehavioursasreportedbyparents,teachersdidnotviewthemasdisplayingthemostproblematicexternalizingbehavioursintheclass;instead,teachersratedthehighest desistersgroupashavingmoreoppositional-defiantandphysicalaggressionproblemsthanthehigh delinquencyandescalatorgroups.Thislackofidentificationmaybeonereasontheydidnotreceiveextrasupportearly.Itmaybethathavingproblemsidentifiedearlybyothersoutsidethefamilyfacilitatetheidentificationandearlyinterventionforchildrenatriskforlaterseriousdelinquency.Inadditiontothebehaviouralproblems,thefamilylivesoftheescalators andhigh delinquencygroupwerealsoproblematic.Thesechildrenmayhavelackedopportunitiestointeractpositivelywithotherchildrenandadults.Theywerelivinginhomescharacterizedwithhigherlevelsofhostileandineffectiveparentingandhadpoorpeerandsiblingrelationships.Theymayhavelackedapositiveandsupportiveadultintheirlivestochampionthem,modelandreinforcepositivebehavioursandsocialrelationships.Lastly,theylikelylivedinhighriskneighbourhoodscharacterizedbysocialhousingandlowsocio-economicstatusthatmayhavecontributedtotheirdelinquenttrajectories.Furthermore,intheseneighbourhoods,theymayhavehadgreateraccesstopeersexperiencingsimilarproblems(asindicatedbytheirassociationswithfriendswhoweremorelikelytobedelinquentandbearrested).Thus,theremaybedelinquencyinfluenceoccurringwithintheirpeergroups.Therefore,crimepreventionapproachesneedtotargethighriskfamilies,livinginhighriskneighbourhoods,andprovidefamily,school,andcommunitysupport.ThissupportneedstobeongoingtoensurethatthebehaviouralproblemsdemonstratedearlyinGrade3doesnotescalateandaccumulateintoseriousdelinquencyanddrugabusebyGrade9.

Althoughwehavemadeagreatdealofprogress inunderstanding individualdifferences inantisocialbehaviourandlinkingthesetointerventions,muchworkremainstobedone.Researchthatcontinuestomonitorthedevelopmentofthesetrajectoriescouldbeinformativeasyouthtransitionintoearlyadulthood.Thementalandphysicalhealthandotherneedsofchildrenat-riskfordelinquencyinvolvementshouldnotbeignored.Anexaminationoftheyouthwhodesistfromdelinquencyprovidestrongsupportforthevalueofinvestingearlyinchildrentopreventnegativelongtermoutcomes.Evenmodestlysuccessfulpreventionandinterventioninvestments,suchasineducation,yieldedsignificantbenefits,includingdecreasingfutureexpenditureassociatedwithdelinquency,improvingwell-beingandsafetyoffamilies,children,andyouthinacommunity,andreducingcrimeanddelinquency.

27

Referencesandrews, d. a., & J. bonta. 1998.The Psychology of Criminal Conduct(2nded.).Cincinnati,OH:Anderson.

angus, d. e., J. e. Cloutier, T. albert, d. Chenard, a. shariatmadar, W. Pickett, et al.1998.The Economic Burden of Unintentional Injury in Canada.Toronto,ON:SmartRiskFoundation.

barnett, W. s, & l. n. masse.2007.“Comparativebenefit-costanalysisoftheAbecedarianprogramanditspolicyimplications”.Economics of Education Review,26:113-125.

boyd, J.W., W. s. barnett, e. bodrova, d. J. leong, d. Gomby, k. b. robin, & J. T. Hustedt. 2005.Promoting Children’s Social and Emotional Development through Preschool.NewBrunswick,NJ:NIEER.

browne, G., a. Gafni, & J. roberts. 2002.Approach to the Measurement of Costs (expenditures) when Evaluating Health and Social Programs.(WorkingPaperSeries01-03).Hamilton,Ontario:McMasterUniversity,System-LinkedResearchUnitonHealthandSocialServiceUtilization.

Cohen, m.a.1998.“Themonetaryvalueofsavingahighriskyouth”.Journal of Quantitative Criminology,14:5-33.

Cohen, m.a., & a. r. Piquero.2009.“Newevidenceonthemonetaryvalueofsavingahighriskyouth”.Journal of Quantitative Criminology,25:25-49.

farrington, d. P.1989.“Earlypredictorsofadolescentaggressionandadultviolence”.Violence & Victims,4(2):79-100.

Hepworth, P.2000.“Jack’stroubledcareer:Thecoststosocietyofayoungpersonintrouble”.Prevention Newsletter,2:10-11.Ottawa:JusticeCanada,NationalCrimePreventionCentre.

Hoeve, m., a. blokland, J. s. dubas, r. loeber, J. Gerris, & P. H. van der laan.2008.“Trajectoriesofdelinquencyandparentingstyles”.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,36(2):223-235.

Jones, b., d. s. nagin, & k. roeder. 2001.“ASASprocedurebasedonmixturemodelsforestimatingdevelopmentaltrajectories”.Sociological Methods and Research,29:374-393.

karoly, l., P. Greenwood, s. everingham, J. Houbé, m. kilburn, C. rydell, et al.1998.Investing in Our Children: What We Know and Don’t Know about the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions.SantaMonica,CA:RANDCorporation.

karoly, l. a., m. r. kilburn, & J. s. Cannon.2005.Early Childhood Interventions: Proven Results, Future Promises.SantaMonica,CA:RANDCorporation.

kass, r. e., & a. e. raftery.1995.“Bayes factor”.Journal of the American Statistical Association,90:773-795.

lacourse, e., s. Côté, d. s. nagin, f. vitaro, m. brendgen, & r. e. Tremblay.2002.“Alongitudinal-experimental approach to testing theories of antisocial behaviour development”. Development and Psychopathology,14:909-924.

lacourse, e., d. nagin, r. e. Tremblay, f. vitaro, & m. Claes.2003.“Developmentaltrajectoriesofboys’delinquentgroupmembershipandfacilitationofviolentbehavioursduringadolescence”.Development and Psychopathology,15:183-197.

lerner, r. m.1996.“Relativeplasticity,integration,temporality,anddiversityinhumandevelopment:Adevelopmentalcontextualperspectiveabouttheory,process,andmethod”.Developmental Psychology,32:781-786.

28


moffitt, T.e.2001.“Childhoodpredictorsdifferentiatelife-coursepersistentandadolescence-limitedantisocialpathwaysamongmalesandfemales”.Development and Psychopathology,13:355-375.

moffitt, T.e., a. Caspi, m. rutter, & P. a. silva. 2001.Sex Differences in Antisocial Behaviour: Conduct Disorder, Delinquency, and Violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

mrazek, P. J., & C. H. brown.2002.“Anevidenced-based literature reviewregardingoutcomes inpsychosocialpreventionandearlypreventioninyoungchildren”. InC.C.Russell (Ed.),The State of Knowledge about Prevention/Early Intervention(pp.42-144).Toronto,ON:InvestinKidsFoundation.

nagin, d.s.1999.“Analyzingdevelopmentaltrajectories:asemi-parametric,group-basedapproach”.Psychological Methods,4:139-157.

nagin, d.s.2005.Group-Based Modeling of Development.Landon:HarvardUniversityPress.

national Council on Welfare.2004.Welfare Incomes 2003.Ottawa:NCW.

nores, m., C. r. belfield, W. s. barnett & l. schweinhart.2005.“UpdatingtheeconomicimpactsoftheHigh/ScopePerryPreschoolProgram”.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,27(3):245-261.

odgers, C.l., T. e. moffitt, J. m. broadbent, n. dickson, r. J. Hancox, H. Harrington, r. Poulton, m. r. sears, W. m. Thompson, & a. Caspi.2008. “Femaleandmaleantisocial trajectories:Fromchildhoodoriginstoadultoutcomes”.Development and Psychopathology,20:673-716.

ontario ministry of Community and social services.2003.Ontario Disability Support Program.RetrievedJanuary25,2008.

Peters, r. dev., a. J. bradshaw, k. Petrunka, G. nelson, y. Herry, W. m. Craig, et al.2010.The ‘Better Beginnings, Better Futures’ Ecological, Community-Based Early Childhood Prevention Project: Findings from Grade 3 to Grade 9.Manuscriptsubmittedforpublication.

Peters, r. dev., k. Petrunka, & r. arnold. 2003. “TheBetterBeginnings,BetterFuturesProject:Auniversal,comprehensive,community-basedpreventionapproachforprimaryschoolchildrenandtheirfamilies”.Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32,215-227.

reynolds, a. J., J. a. Temple, d. l. robertson, & e. a. mann.2002.“Age21cost-benefitanalysisoftheTitleIChicagoChild-ParentCenters”.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4),267-303.

rutter, m. 1986. “Child psychiatry: The interface between clinical and developmental research”.Psychological Medicine,16,151-169.

savoie, J.2006.“Youthself-reporteddelinquency”.Toronto.Juristat, 27(6).Ottawa:StatisticsCanada.

schonberg, m.a. & d. s. shaws. 2007. “Risk factors for boy’s conduct problems in poor andlower-middle-classneighborhoods”.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35,759-772.

serbin, l.a., d. m. stack, n. de Genna, n. Grunzeweig, C.e. Temcheff, a.e. schwartzman, & J. ledingham. 2004. “Whenaggressivegirlsbecomemothers:Problems inparenting, health, anddevelopmentacrosstwogenerations”.InM.Putallaz&K.Bierman(Eds.),Aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence among girls: Duke series in child development and public policy(pp.262-285).NewYork,NY:GuilfordPress.

silverthorn, P. & P. J. frick.1999.“Developmentalpathwaystoantisocialbehavior:Thedelayed-onsetpathwayingirls”.Development and Psychopathology,11,101-126

29

References

statistics Canada. 1995. National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth: Overview of survey instruments from 1994-95 data collection cycle I.StatisticsCanadaCatalogueno.89F0077XIE.Ottawa,ON:StatisticsCanada.RetrievedDecember4,2008

Tremblay, r. e., m. a. G. van aken, & W. koops. (eds.)2009.Development and Prevention of Behaviour Problems: From Genes to Social policy.NewYork,NY:PsychologyPress.280p.

Waddell, C., J. m. Hua, o. m. Garland, r. d. Peters, & k. mcewan.2007.“Preventingmentaldisordersinchildren:Asystematicreviewtoinformpolicy-making”.Canadian Journal of Public Health, 98,166-173.

Wiesner, m., &m. Windle.2006.“Youngadultsubstanceuseanddepressionasaconsequenceofdelinquencytrajectoriesduringmiddleadolescence”.Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16,239-64.

Wolke, d., s. Woods, l. bloomfield, & l. karstadt.2000.“Theassociationbetweendirectandrelationalbullyingbehaviourproblemsamongprimaryschoolchildren”.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,41:989-1002.

30

aPPendiX a. soCiodemoGraPHiC CHaraCTerisTiCs of THe sTudy samPle aT Grade 3

a Thelongitudinalsampleof842isbasedonachildhavingatleastonedatacollectionpointatGrade3,6,or9. AtGrade3,only789wereinterviewed.b Theterm‘parent’isusedbecause98%oftherespondentsinterviewedwereparents.c Resultsofchi-squaretest.d Resultoft-test;NS,notstatisticallysignificant.

family Characteristic

Cohort at Grade 3 (n = 789a)

P-valueGirls boys

Parentbplaceofbirth,%

Ontario 49.4 52.1 NSc

ElsewhereinCanada 11.4 10.0

OutsideCanada 39.2 37.9

Parentculturalgroup,%

Anglophone 24.8 30.1 NSc

Francophone 36.4 33.4

Indigenous/Native 2.5 2.4

Other 36.4 34.1

Singleparentfamilystatus,% 33.2 29.6 NSc

TeenageMother,% 22.8 24.7 NSc

Parentlevelofeducation,%

Highschoolincomplete 34.5 34.1 NSc

Highschoolcomplete 13.8 10.9

Post-secondary,non-university 43.4 45.0

University/professionaldegree 8.3 10.0

Motheremployed,%

Full-time 43.1 47.0 NSc

Part-time 19.3 18.5

Notemployed;seekingwork 15.7 12.8

Notemployed;notseekingwork 21.8 21.6

Fatheremployed,%

Full-time 74.9 76.8 NSc

Part-time 7.8 6.1

Notemployed;seekingwork 4.1 5.1

Notemployed;notseekingwork 13.2 12.1

Mean(SD)monthlyincome,$CAD 2,758.05 2,926.30 NSd

FamilyLivingBelowStatisticsCanadaLowIncomeCutOff,%

58.4 59.6 NSc

FamilyLivinginPublicHousing,% 18.9 19.7 NSc

31

aPPendiX b. desCriPTion of sTaTisTiCal analyses

Toidentifythetrajectoriesofdelinquencyweusedthesemi-parametricgroup-basedtrajectoryapproach(Jonesetal.,2001;Nagin,1999;Nagin,2005).Inthismodeling,thedependentvariablewasthetotalstandardizeddelinquencyscalescoreatGrades3,6,and9.Thecensorednormaldistributionwasusedtomodelthetrajectoriestoaccountforthecensoringatthelowerandupperboundsofthedelinquencyscale.Apolynomialrelationshipwasusedtolinkagetodelinquencybehaviour.WecomparedmodelswithdifferentnumbersofgroupsusingaBayesianinformationcriterion(BIC)(Kass&Raftery,1995).AlargeBICvaluecorrespondstoagoodmodelwithalargelog-likelihoodvalueandnottoomanyparameters.Wetestedcompetingmodelsof2,3,4,5,and6groupsofdelinquencytodeterminethe“best”modelbasedonBICcriterion;wefoundthattheBICvaluesfor2-,3-,4-,5-,and6-groupmodelswere,respectively,-886.8,-881.2,-894.4,-851.8,and-838.2.ApplicationofthemaximumBICformodelselectionindicatedthatthesix-groupsolutionwasthe“best”modelforthecombinedsampleofgirlsandboys.

Toexaminetrajectorygroupdifferencesontheriskandprotectivefactors,aswellastheoutcomes,weemployedacombinationofanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)andlogisticregressiondependingonthetypeofoutcomevariableinquestion(i.e.,ANOVAforcontinuousvariables,andlogisticregressionforbinaryvariables)tocomparethemeansorproportionsofvarianceofthevariable.OmnibusForchi-squaretestswerereportedtoindicatethesignificanceofoverallrelationship,andBonferronitestswerecarriedouttoexaminepairwisecomparisons.

Toestimatecostsassociatedwitheachtrajectoryofdelinquency,weestimatedanaveragecost/child/trajectoryforeachofthe12monetizablegovernmentresourcesdescribedinTable1.Foreachchild,weestimatedthecostsofutilizingthegovernmentresourcebymultiplyingtheunitcostavailablefromasecondarysource(e.g.,$29.44foranappointmentwithafamilyphysician)bytheoccurrenceoftheevent.Alldollarfiguresthatwereportwerediscountedatarateof3%.Thisdiscountratefallswithintherangeofratescommonlyusedandrecommendedinpublic-policyanalysis(e.g.,Karolyetal.,1998;Karolyetal.,2005;Reynoldsetal.,2002).Allmissingvalues,includingthevaluesofthemissinggrades(suchasGrades4,5,7and8whennodatacollectiontookplace),wereinterpolated,giventhattherewereatleast60%datapointspresent.Eachgradespecificcostfigurewasthencombinedandreclassifiedintothreemajorgroups,JKtoGrade3(ages4to8),Grade4toGrade6(ages9to11),andGrade7toGrade9(ages12to14),andpresentedbydelinquencygrouptrajectoriesandchild’sgender.Weusedthefollowingequationtoestimatetheaveragecostforeachofthe12measuresofutilizationofgovernmentresourcesforeachgrade.Thecostvaluesarebasedonthevalue(v)ofeachoutcomeasoutlinedinTable1(e.g.,$29.44foravisittoafamilyphysician),multipliedbyfrequencyofoccurrence(o)ofthatoutcomeforeachchildforthatyear.

where,VO=Averagecostforanoutcomemeasureinagrade; i=numberofchildren(1,...,n); n=samplesize; v=valueofoutcomes($); o=occurrencesoftheoutcome.

(1)∑n

i=1

vi oi / nVO=

32

aP

Pe

nd

iX C

. Gr

ad

e 3

ris

k a

nd

Pr

oT

eC

Tiv

e f

aC

To

r a

na

lys

es

γ Fu

llsa

mpl

epr

esen

tsm

eans

orp

ropo

rtio

nsa

djus

ted

fort

hee

ffect

sof

gen

dero

fchi

ld.M

ale

sam

ple

resu

lts

repr

esen

tab

ivar

iate

rela

tions

hip

ofo

utco

me

varia

ble

with

traj

ecto

ryg

roup

form

ale

child

ren

only

.Ψ

B

onfe

rron

ites

ts(α

=0

.01)

are

use

dfo

rmul

tiple

gro

upc

ompa

rison

s.ς

Indi

cate

ssi

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

mal

ean

dfe

mal

ech

ildre

nat

p<

.001

.*

p<

0.0

5**

p

<0

.01

***

p <

0.0

01

ns

a mpl

eγ

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨH

igh

d

elin

quen

cy(1

)

esc

alat

ors

(2)

Hig

hest

d

esis

ters

(3)

mod

erat

e d

esis

ters

(4)

2nd

low

est

del

inqu

ency

(5)

low

est

del

inqu

ency

(6)

indi

vidu

al C

hild

ri s

k fa

ctor

s

me

an

sH

yper

activ

ity:

pare

ntr a

ted

(h

ighe

rsco

res

indi

cate

hi

gher

hyp

erac

tivity

)

736

Fullς

F=

11.

9**

*8.

406.

026.

305.

003.

712.

031>

5,6;

2>

6;

3>6;

4>

6;5

>6

397

Mal

eF

=1

1.6*

**10

.50

7.67

7.08

5.19

4.01

1.78

1>4,

5,6;

2>5

,6;

3>6;

4>

6

Hyp

erac

tivity

:t e

ache

rrat

ed

(hig

hers

core

sin

dica

te

h igh

erh

yper

activ

ity)

678

Fullς

F=

44.

8***

7.29

4.87

10.0

57.

552.

972.

111>

5,6;

2>

3;

3>5,

6;4

>5,

6

364

Mal

eF

=2

4.8*

**8.

605.

9210

.15

8.46

3.63

3.27

3>5,

6;4

>5,

6

Dep

ress

ion:

pa

rent

r ate

d

(hig

hers

core

sin

dica

te

high

erd

epre

ssio

n)

752

Full

F=

1.9

1.54

1.17

1.00

1.02

0.94

0.62

404

Mal

eF

=2

.5*

1.88

1.60

1.15

0.86

0.93

0.64

Dep

ress

ion:

t e

ache

rrat

ed

(hig

hers

core

sin

dica

te

high

erd

epre

ssio

n)

680

Fullς

F=

27.

8***

2.65

1.74

4.36

2.93

1.15

0.65

2>3;

3>

5,6;

4 >

5,6

366

Mal

eF

=1

7.7*

**3.

502.

314.

233.

421.

310.

853>

5,6;

4>

5,6

Opp

ositi

onal

de

fiant

:p a

rent

rate

d(h

ighe

rsco

res

indi

cate

hi

gher

defi

ance

)

751

Full

F=

13.

4***

10.2

97.

677.

855.

394.

703.

611>

4,5,

6;

2 >5,

6;3

>5,

6

403

Mal

eF

=1

1.8*

**10

.63

8.87

8.46

5.34

4.92

3.14

1>4,

5,6;

2 >

4,5,

6;3

>5,

6

33

Appendix C

ns

ampl

eγ

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨH

igh

d

elin

quen

cy(1

)

esc

alat

ors

(2)

Hig

hest

d

esis

ters

(3)

mod

erat

e d

e sis

ters

(4)

2nd

low

est

de l

inqu

ency

(5)

low

est

de l

inqu

ency

(6)

Opp

ositi

onal

de

fiant

:t e

ache

rrat

ed

(hig

hers

core

sin

dica

te

high

erd

efian

ce)

678

Fullς

F=

10

9.0*

**1 1

.25

2.59

17.7

110

.13

2.71

1.57

1>2,

3,5,

6;

2>3,

4;3

>4,

5,6;

4>

5,6

364

Mal

eF

=7

6.3*

**13

.80

3.15

18.0

011

.14

3.02

1.85

1>2,

5,6;

2>3

,4;

3>4,

5,6;

4>

5,6

Pas

sive

vi

ctim

izat

ion:

t e

ache

rrat

ed

(hig

hers

core

sin

dica

te

h igh

erv

ictim

izat

ion)

679

Full

F=

8.1

***

2.55

1.79

2.39

1.85

1.02

0.69

3>6;

4>

5,6

365

Mal

eF

=6

.3**

*3.

202.

002.

541.

921.

050.

694>

5

Phy

sica

lag

gres

sion

:p a

rent

rate

d

(hig

hers

core

sin

dica

te

high

era

ggre

ssio

n)

719

Full

F=

16.

1***

4.01

2.14

3.91

2.06

1.24

0.38

1>5,

6;2

>6;

3 >

4,5,

6;4

>5,

6

384

Mal

eF

=1

1.7*

**4.

253.

144.

152.

331.

400.

261>

5,6;

2>

6;

3 >5,

6;4

>6

Phy

sica

lag

gres

sion

:te

ache

rrat

ed

(hig

hers

core

sin

dica

te

h igh

era

ggre

ssio

n)

676

Fullς

F=

1 1

0.2*

**4.

160.

8210

.13

5.36

1.22

0.62

1>2,

3,5,

6;

2 >3,

4;3

>4,5

,6;

4>5,

6

362

Mal

eF

=6

3.8*

**5.

601.

0810

.23

5.76

1.53

0.92

1>2,

3,5,

6;

2>3,

4;3

>4,5

,6;

4>5,

6

Pr

oP

or

Tio

ns

Ser

ious

i nju

ries

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)75

2Fu

llF

=1

.30.

100.

210.

060.

050.

090.

0740

4M

ale

χ2=

11.

7*0.

000.

270.

030.

090.

040.

08

34


ns

a mpl

eγ

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨH

igh

d

elin

quen

cy(1

)

esc

alat

ors

(2)

Hig

hest

d

esis

ters

(3)

mod

erat

e d

esis

ters

(4)

2nd

low

est

del

inqu

ency

(5)

low

est

del

inqu

ency

(6)

fam

ily r

isk

fact

ors

Edu

catio

nof

re

spon

dent

(lo

wer

val

ues

indi

cate

le

sse

duca

tion)

748

Full

F=

6.5

***

11.9

212

.96

11.9

112

.41

13.4

014

.34

3>6;

4>

5,6

402

Mal

eF

=2

.4*

12.0

013

.47

12.0

012

.97

13.5

414

.11

Mob

ility

( n

umbe

rofm

oves

)(h

ighe

rval

ues

in

dica

tem

ore

mov

es)

747

Full

F=

3.7

**2.

301.

510.

561.

010.

950.

721>

6

401

Mal

eF

=2

.7*

2.38

1.20

0.62

0.88

0.90

0.68

Hos

tile-

inef

fect

ive

p are

ntin

g

(hig

herv

alue

sin

dica

te

mor

eh o

stili

ty)

598

Full

F=

7.0

***

19.9

717

.10

17.0

316

.16

14.6

113

.14

1>5,

6;4

>6

316

Mal

eF

=5

.8**

*21

.00

18.2

717

.00

16.0

214

.75

12.4

31>

6;2

.6

Low

fam

ily

func

tioni

ng( F

AD

)(lo

wer

val

ues

indi

cate

l o

wer

f unc

tioni

ng)

749

Full

F=

3.1

**22

.74

22.3

823

.21

22.8

023

.70

24.8

14>

6

402

Mal

eF

=1

.523

.50

22.0

022

.92

23.0

323

.60

24.6

8

Par

entd

epre

ssio

n(h

ighe

rval

ues

indi

cate

hi

gher

dep

ress

ion)

750

Full

F=

2.6

*20

.96

19.0

318

.29

20.2

819

.41

16.8

9

404

Mal

eF

=1

.321

.00

18.5

317

.62

19.5

419

.14

16.5

7Fa

mily

str

ess

(hig

herv

alue

sin

dica

te

h igh

ers

tres

ses)

752

Full

F=

2.8

*2.

842.

222.

031.

461.

561.

28

404

Mal

eF

=1

.82.

751.

932.

001.

371.

541.

07

Poo

r rel

atio

nshi

p

with

sib

lings

:pa

rent

rate

d

(hig

herv

alue

sin

dica

te

poor

rela

tions

hip)

663

Full

F=

9.6

***

3.44

3.23

3.26

2.21

2.29

1.88

1>6;

2>

4,5,

6;

3 >4,

5,6

354

Mal

eF

=5

.93*

**3.

003.

213.

332.

242.

321.

812>

6;3

>6

35

Appendix C

Pee

r r

isk

fact

ors

me

an

sP

oorr

elat

ions

hips

w

ithp

eers

:p a

rent

rate

d

(hig

herv

alue

sin

dica

te

p oor

r ela

tions

hip)

749

Full

F=

8.7

***

2.64

2.12

2.94

1.89

1.81

1.59

1>6;

3>

4,5,

6

403

Mal

eF

=9

.5**

*2.

632.

533.

001.

881.

811.

391>

6;2

>6;

3>

4,5,

6

ns

ampl

eγ

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨH

igh

d

elin

quen

cy(1

)

esc

alat

ors

(2)

Hig

hest

d

esis

ters

(3)

mod

erat

e d

e sis

ters

(4)

2nd

low

est

de l

inqu

ency

(5)

low

est

de l

inqu

ency

(6)

Pr

oP

or

Tio

ns

Sin

gle

p are

nt

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)75

2Fu

llF

=8

.2**

*0.

820.

460.

540.

440.

280.

131>

5,6;

4>

6

404

Mal

eχ2

=2

3.4*

**0.

750.

400.

460.

390.

270.

04Lo

wi n

com

e(b

elow

LIC

O)

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)

738

Full

F=

3.7

**1.

000.

710.

770.

670.

560.

49

395

Mal

eχ2

=1

4.5*

1.00

0.73

0.85

0.65

0.54

0.52

Teen

age

mot

her

( <20

yea

rs)

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)

752

Full

F=

6.0

***

0.46

0.50

0.30

0.37

0.20

0.12

2>5,

6;4

>6

404

Mal

eχ2

=8

.40.

380.

330.

310.

310.

200.

11

Dru

gu s

e(0

=n

o,1

=y

es)

750

Full

F=

1.9

0.18

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.04

0.02

404

Mal

eχ2

=6

.00.

130.

000.

000.

070.

030.

00H

igh

r isk

d rin

king

(0

=n

o,1

=y

es)

752

Full

F=

0.8

0.00

0.13

0.00

0.07

0.07

0.04

404

Mal

eχ2

=2

.50.

000.

000.

000.

070.

060.

07

36


ns

a mpl

eγ

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨH

igh

d

elin

quen

cy(1

)

esc

alat

ors

(2)

Hig

hest

d

esis

ters

(3)

mod

erat

e d

esis

ters

(4)

2nd

low

est

del

inqu

ency

(5)

low

est

del

inqu

ency

(6)

sch

ool r

isk

fact

ors

me

an

sP

oorp

erce

ptio

ns

o fs

choo

l:

p are

ntr a

ted

(h

ighe

rsco

res

mea

npo

orp

erce

ptio

n)

740

Full

F=

0.7

9.56

9.80

9.14

9.79

9.93

10.2

6

397

Mal

eF

=0

.79.

759.

408.

9210

.15

9.87

9.85

Low

Pea

body

s c

ores

(lo

wer

val

ues

in

dica

telo

wer

sco

res)

728

Full

F=

4.3

***

92.8

598

.12

96.9

596

.96

99.8

010

3.38

4>6

394

Mal

eF

=2

.4*

95.1

197

.15

98.1

297

.44

99.9

510

4.66

Low

sco

res

o n

WIS

C–

Std

.Blo

ck

Des

ign

(lo

wer

val

ues

in

dica

tel o

wer

sco

res)

710

Full

F=

2.2

10.8

011

.91

10.9

010

.82

11.6

412

.50

381

Mal

eF

=1

.211

.83

12.2

911

.77

11.0

011

.93

12.9

2

Pr

oP

or

Tio

ns

Low

EQ

AO

m

ath

scor

e

(0=

not

low

,1=

low

)

527

Full

F=

3.3

**0.

840.

730.

880.

820.

700.

504>

6

271

Mal

eχ2

=1

2.4*

0.86

0.69

0.86

0.70

0.75

0.41

Rec

eive

d sp

ecia

led

./ser

vice

s(0

=n

o,1

=y

es)

602

Full

F=

4.8

***

0.17

0.33

0.47

0.42

0.23

0.12

4>5,

6

332

Mal

eχ2

=1

1.9*

0.20

0.33

0.46

0.40

0.22

0.17

Gra

der e

petit

ion

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)65

6Fu

llF

=0

.45

0.25

0.10

0.07

0.18

0.17

0.17

354

Mal

eχ2

=1

.90.

170.

080.

080.

190.

160.

13

37

Appendix C

ns

ampl

eγ

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨH

igh

d

elin

quen

cy(1

)

esc

alat

ors

(2)

Hig

hest

d

esis

ters

(3)

mod

erat

e d

e sis

ters

(4)

2nd

low

est

de l

inqu

ency

(5)

low

est

de l

inqu

ency

(6)

nei

ghbo

urho

od r

isk

fact

ors

me

an

sLo

w

neig

hbou

rhoo

d

satis

fact

ion

(low

erv

alue

sin

dica

te

low

ers

atis

fact

ion)

727

Full

F=

2.3

*16

.66

19.0

118

.39

19.3

820

.31

20.6

6

390

Mal

eF

=1

.318

.25

19.6

718

.08

19.4

220

.45

21.0

0

Pr

oP

or

Tio

ns

L ivi

ngi n

pub

lic

h ous

ing

(0

=n

o,1

=y

es)

746

Full

F=

6.7

***

0.60

0.46

0.41

0.22

0.18

0.08

1>6;

2>

6

402

Mal

eχ2

=1

5.8*

*0.

570.

400.

390.

220.

170.

11

38


ns

ampl

eγ

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨH

igh

d

elin

quen

cy(1

)

esc

alat

ors

(2)

Hig

hest

d

esis

ters

(3)

mod

erat

e d

esis

ters

(4)

2nd

low

est

del

inqu

ency

(5)

low

est

del

inqu

ency

(6)

indi

vidu

al C

hild

Pro

tect

ive

fact

ors

me

an

sL o

wa

nxie

ty:

p are

ntra

ted

(lo

wer

val

ues

indi

cate

lo

wer

anx

iety

)

730

Full

F=

3.8

**4.

734.

093.

533.

032.

641.

95

392

Mal

eF

=3

.3**

4.75

4.80

3.77

2.90

2.62

1.74

Low

anx

iety

:te

ache

r rat

ed

(low

erv

alue

s

indi

cate

low

era

nxie

ty)

675

Full

F=

15.

0***

4.34

3.53

6.76

4.62

2.42

1.30

3>5,

6;4

>5,

6

362

Mal

eF

=1

1.8*

**5.

804.

926.

545.

312.

501.

563>

5,6;

4>

5,6

Con

flict

m

anag

emen

t:

p are

ntr a

ted

(h

ighe

rval

ues

indi

cate

h i

gher

man

agem

ent)

744

Full

F=

13.

8***

9.94

12.8

511

.91

13.6

215

.37

17.0

91>

5,6;

2>

6;

3>5,

6;4

>5,

6

399

Mal

eF

=1

0.4*

**9.

2511

.20

11.6

213

.83

14.9

817

.57

1>5,

6;2

>5,

6;

3 >6;

4>

6

Con

flict

m

anag

emen

t:te

ache

rrat

ed

(hig

herv

alue

sin

dica

te

h igh

erm

anag

emen

t)

679

Fullς

F=

46.

0***

7.67

9.59

3.65

6.25

9.61

9.71

1>3;

2>

3,4;

3>

4,5,

6;4

>5,6

366

Mal

eF

=3

5.5*

**6.

338.

773.

235.

549.

369.

312>

3,4;

3>

5,6;

4 >

5,6

Hel

ping

/co

oper

atio

n:

p are

ntra

ted

(h

ighe

rval

ues

indi

cate

h i

gher

coo

pera

tion)

748

Full

F=

6.5

***

5.46

7.34

8.59

8.00

8.94

9.39

1>5,

6

403

Mal

eF

=4

.2**

*5.

007.

138.

237.

978.

639.

571>

5,6

Hel

ping

/co

oper

atio

n:

teac

herr

ated

(h

ighe

rval

ues

indi

cate

hi

gher

coo

pera

tion)

679

Fullς

F=

32.

1***

9.90

11.3

65.

488.

9613

.25

14.8

02>

3;3

>5,

6;

4 >5,

6

366

Mal

eF

=1

8.4*

**8.

6710

.08

4.92

8.20

12.4

413

.31

3>5,

6;4

>5,

6

Out

goin

g/

asse

rtiv

e:

p are

ntra

ted

(h

ighe

rval

ues

indi

cate

hi

gher

ass

ertiv

enes

s)

747

Full

F=

1.3

9.16

10.5

510

.56

10.1

410

.30

10.9

3

400

Mal

eF

=1

.49.

5010

.07

10.1

510

.34

10.0

011

.29

39

Appendix C

fam

ily P

rote

ctiv

e fa

ctor

s

me

an

sC

onsi

sten

t/

effe

ctiv

e pa

rent

ing

(hig

herv

alue

sin

dica

te

mor

ec o

nsis

tent

pa

rent

ing)

596

Full

F=

2.4

*19

.27

18.7

219

.28

19.4

719

.84

20.9

1

317

Mal

eF

=2

.6*

18.6

718

.25

19.4

019

.79

20.0

521

.55

Soc

ial s

uppo

rt

(hig

herv

alue

sin

dica

te

mor

es o

cial

sup

port

)

745

Full

F=

1.1

21.3

020

.76

21.4

520

.52

20.7

921

.37

401

Mal

eF

=0

.821

.25

20.0

021

.46

20.4

120

.76

21.2

1

ns

ampl

eγ

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨH

igh

d

elin

quen

cy(1

)

esc

alat

ors

(2)

Hig

hest

d

esis

ters

(3)

mod

erat

e d

e sis

ters

(4)

2nd

low

est

de l

inqu

ency

(5)

low

est

de l

inqu

ency

(6)

Out

goin

g/

asse

rtiv

e:

t eac

herr

ated

(h

ighe

rval

ues

indi

cate

hi

gher

ass

ertiv

enes

s)

679

Full

F=

6.9

***

9.87

10.4

66.

958.

6010

.29

10.8

43>

5,6;

4>

5,6

366

Mal

eF

=4

.8**

*9.

009.

926.

628.

2210

.11

10.2

74>

5

Sel

f-co

ncep

t(h

ighe

rval

ues

indi

cate

h i

gher

sel

f-co

ncep

t)

729

Full

F=

2.1

59.6

559

.01

57.1

661

.65

60.2

662

.73

392

Mal

eF

=1

.860

.43

60.7

356

.69

62.2

560

.18

63.4

6

Num

bero

fpeo

ple

i m

port

antt

och

ild

(hig

herv

alue

sin

dica

te

h igh

ern

umbe

rof

peop

le)

752

Full

F=

1.9

7.54

10.0

05.

345.

476.

626.

40

404

Mal

eF

=0

.85.

385.

405.

315.

316.

666.

36

40


ns

a mpl

eγ

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨH

igh

d

elin

quen

cy(1

)

esc

alat

ors

(2)

Hig

hest

d

esis

ters

(3)

mod

erat

e d

esis

ters

(4)

2nd

low

est

del

inqu

ency

(5)

low

est

del

inqu

ency

(6)

sch

ool P

rote

ctiv

e fa

ctor

s

me

an

sR

elat

ions

hip

w

itht e

ache

rs/

invo

lvem

ent

ins

choo

l:

p are

ntra

ted

(h

ighe

rsco

res

indi

cate

m

ore

posi

tive

re

latio

nshi

p/m

ore

in

volv

emen

t)

714

Full

F=

1.6

22.0

922

.25

19.2

522

.73

22.2

323

.27

383

Mal

eF

=2

.5*

20.1

721

.43

18.0

823

.29

22.4

322

.75

Ach

enba

ch

acad

emic

fu

nctio

ning

(h

ighe

rval

ues

indi

cate

hi

gher

func

tioni

ng)

154

Full

F=

1.1

49.

969.

808.

509.

4910

.30

12.4

0

93M

ale

F=

0.6

9.33

9.83

8.67

9.71

10.6

29.

75

Ach

enba

ch

adap

tive

f u

nctio

ning

(h

ighe

rval

ues

indi

cate

h i

gher

f unc

tioni

ng)

416

Full

F=

18.

0***

10.0

410

.80

7.22

9.89

12.4

414

.86

1>6;

2>

6;

3>5,

6;4

>5,

6;

5>6

229

Mal

eF

=1

1.4*

**9.

3310

.70

6.67

9.31

12.2

013

.31

3>5,

6;4

>5,

6

41

Appendix C

ns

ampl

eγ

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨH

igh

d

elin

quen

cy(1

)

esc

alat

ors

(2)

Hig

hest

d

esis

ters

(3)

mod

erat

e d

e sis

ters

(4)

2nd

low

est

de l

inqu

ency

(5)

low

est

de l

inqu

ency

(6)

nei

ghbo

urho

od P

rote

ctiv

e fa

ctor

s

me

an

sS

atis

fact

ion

w

ithd

wel

ling

(h

ighe

rsco

res

indi

cate

hi

gher

sat

isfa

ctio

n)

751

Full

F=

1.9

6.17

7.58

7.04

7.42

7.77

8.07

403

Mal

eF

=1

.86.

638.

206.

547.

417.

798.

14

Saf

ety

f rom

crim

e(lo

wer

val

ues

indi

cate

h i

gher

saf

ety)

745

Full

F=

2.5

*3.

022.

933.

263.

052.

702.

67

402

Mal

eF

=2

.12.

502.

873.

313.

022.

672.

50

42

‡ E

ach

anal

ysis

use

sge

nder

ofc

hild

and

gra

de

3eq

uiva

lent

ofg

rad

e9

outc

ome

mea

sure

(ifa

vaila

ble

)as

cont

rolv

aria

ble

s.Ψ

B

onfe

rron

ites

ts(α

=0

.01)

are

use

dfo

rm

ultip

leg

roup

mea

nco

mp

aris

ons

(for

cont

inuo

usv

aria

ble

s);o

dd

sra

tios

rep

orte

d

fo

rd

icho

tom

ous

varia

ble

sw

here

“lo

wd

elin

que

ncy”

isu

sed

as

refe

renc

eca

tego

ry.

*p

<0

.05

**

p<

0.0

1**

*p

<0

.001

aP

Pe

nd

iX d

. Gr

ad

e 9

ou

TC

om

e a

na

lys

es

Gra

de 9

mea

sure

s‡

n

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨs

ig. o

f ge

nder

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2e

scal

ator

s(1

)H

igh

de

linqu

ency

(2)

des

iste

rs(3

)lo

wde

linqu

ency

(4)

CH

ild

em

oTi

on

al

an

d b

eH

av

iou

ra

l P

ro

ble

ms

Par

ent-

rate

d:1.

E

mot

iona

ldis

orde

rsca

le

(+=

mor

e)59

3F

=1

6.5*

**4.

647.

392.

282.

641>

3,4;

2 >

3,4

*

2.

Phy

sica

lagg

ress

ion

scal

e

(+=

mor

e)58

4F

=1

9.8*

**3.

043.

410.

760.

951>

3,4;

2 >

3,4

ns

3.

Hyp

erac

tivity

-inat

tent

ion

scal

e

(+=

mor

e)59

8F

=9

.7**

*5.

116.

472.

852.

901>

3,4;

2 >

3,4

ns

4.

Opp

ositi

onal

defi

ants

cale

(+

=m

ore)

611

F=

16.

2***

8.10

9.25

4.94

4.53

1>3,

4;

2 >3,

4ns

5.

Dep

ress

ion

scal

e

(+=

mor

e)59

7F

=1

0.3*

**1.

232.

820.

890.

961>

2;2

>3,

4ns

Teac

her-

rate

d:6.

E

mot

iona

ldis

orde

rsca

le

(+=

mor

e)35

0F

=2

.62.

745.

092.

262.

03*

7.

Hyp

erac

tivity

-inat

tent

ion

scal

e

(+=

mor

e)37

0F

=2

.16.

287.

714.

764.

38ns

yout

h-ra

ted:

8.

Em

otio

nal d

isor

der s

cale

(+

=m

ore)

524

F=

2.0

4.39

5.15

3.89

3.52

***

9.

Phy

sica

lagg

ress

ion

scal

e

(+=

mor

e)52

6F

=2

7.1*

**3.

905.

391.

981.

501>

3,4;

2 >

3,4

ns

10.

Hyp

erac

tivity

-inat

tent

ion

s cal

e

(+=

mor

e)52

3F

=6

.5**

*5.

555.

894.

413.

841>

4ns

43

Appendix D

Gra

de 9

mea

sure

s‡

n

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨs

ig. o

f ge

nder

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2e

scal

ator

s(1

)H

igh

de

linqu

ency

(2)

des

iste

rs(3

)lo

wde

linqu

ency

(4)

de

lin

qu

en

Cy

11.

Yout

hra

ted:

del

inqu

entf

riend

ssc

ale

(+

=m

ore)

517

F=

54.

6***

12.7

913

.92

4.81

4.17

1>3,

4;

2 >3,

4**

12.

Yout

hr e

port

ed:p

arto

fag

ang

(0

=n

o,1

=y

es)

527

χ2=

61.

6***

43.5

9***

25.4

6***

5.38

***

1.00

Odd

s

ratio

sns

13.

Yout

hr a

ted:

you

tht r

oubl

es c

ale

(+

=m

ore)

635

F=

46.

1***

12.7

616

.46

9.58

8.60

1>2,

3,4;

2 >

3,4

ns

ab

us

e1 4

.C

hild

r epo

rted

:phy

sica

labu

se

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)52

7χ2

=2

5.9*

**7.

29**

*3.

40*

1.14

1.00

Odd

s

ratio

sns

15.

Chi

ldr a

ted:

vic

timiz

atio

ns c

ale

(+

=m

ore)

499

F=

2.1

3.20

3.03

2.39

2.17

ns

16.

Chi

ldre

port

ed:b

eing

dis

crim

inat

ed

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)52

7χ2

=5

.22.

130.

551.

671.

00O

dds

ra

tios

**

Cr

ime

1 7.

Eve

rarr

este

d/ta

ken

t op

olic

es t

atio

n

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)49

8χ2

=6

4.1*

**19

.67*

**33

.38*

**3.

65**

*1.

00O

dds

ra

tios

ns

18.

Num

ber o

f arr

ests

(+

=m

ore)

527

F=

55.

7***

1.30

2.47

0.37

0.12

1>2,

3,4;

2 >

3,4

ns

19.

Num

bero

fclo

sef r

iend

sa r

rest

ed

(+=

mor

e)52

5F

=2

6.4*

**1.

261.

380.

410.

371>

3,4;

2 >

3,4

ns

20.

Eve

rbee

nt o

cou

rt

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)52

7χ2

=4

6.8*

**36

.75*

**90

.76*

**7.

63**

1.00

Odd

s

ratio

s*

21.

Spe

ntti

me

inc

usto

dy/o

ther

pro

gram

s

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)52

7χ2

=2

9.5*

**14

.21*

**49

.24*

**2.

761.

00O

dds

ra

tios

ns

44


Gra

de 9

mea

sure

s‡

n

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨs

ig. o

f ge

nder

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2e

scal

ator

s(1

)H

igh

de

linqu

ency

(2)

des

iste

rs(3

)lo

wde

linqu

ency

(4)

sC

Ho

ol

fun

CTi

on

inG

22.

Par

entr

epor

ted:

chi

ldr e

peat

eda

gra

de

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)65

1χ2

=8

.1*

3.45

**1.

721.

261.

00O

dds

ra

tios

ns

23.

Par

ent/

teac

her:

child

sus

pend

ed

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)66

2χ2

=5

8.4*

**10

.90*

**13

.25*

**3.

28**

*1.

00O

dds

ra

tios

**

24.

Chi

ldr e

port

ed:#

oft

imes

l eft/

drop

ped

outo

fsch

ool

(+

=m

ore)

524

F=

37.

3***

1.46

1.54

0.21

0.16

1>3,

4;

2>3,

4ns

25.

Chi

ldre

port

ed:#

oft

imes

ski

pped

cla

ss

(+=

mor

e)51

7F

=3

3.7*

**3.

913.

671.

371.

081>

3,4;

2>

3,4

ns

26.

Eqa

o m

ath

(0

=n

otlo

w,1

=lo

w)

153

χ2=

1.4

1.55

1.97

0.42

0.87

Odd

s

ratio

sns

27.

Teac

herr

epor

ted:

chi

ld’s

cur

rent

acad

emic

ach

ieve

men

t

(+=

less

)

432

F=

7.4

***

3.74

3.92

3.65

2.92

3>4

*

28.

Teac

herr

epor

ted:

spe

cial

ed.

/ser

vice

s

(+=

mor

e)44

8χ2

=1

9.7*

**3.

41**

6.04

*2.

77**

1.00

Odd

s

ratio

sns

He

al T

H a

nd

He

al T

H r

isk

be

Ha

vio

ur

29.

Gen

eral

hea

lthra

ting:

par

ent r

ated

(+

=le

ss)

609

F=

2.0

2.08

1.95

1.84

1.73

ns

30.

Gen

eral

hea

lthra

ting:

chi

ldra

ted

(+

=le

ss)

522

F=

7.7

***

2.87

3.13

2.33

2.20

1>4;

2>

4**

31.

Chi

ldr e

port

ed:a

lcoh

olc

onsu

mpt

ion

(+

=m

ore)

521

F=

20.

2***

5.21

4.75

2.91

2.37

1>3,

4;2

>4

***

32.

Chi

ldr e

port

ed:s

mok

ing

e xpe

rienc

e

(+=

mor

e)52

1F

=4

7.6*

**5.

285.

382.

481.

681>

3,4;

2 >

3,4;

3>

4**

*

33.

Chi

ldre

port

ed: e

ver d

runk

(0

=n

o,1

=y

es)

527

χ2=

38.

2***

10.9

1***

7.90

**1.

711.

00O

dds

ra

tios

*

34.

Chi

ldre

port

ed: m

ariju

ana

expe

rienc

e

(+=

mor

e)52

1F

=5

4.9*

**2.

803.

480.

450.

411>

3,4;

2 >

3,4

ns

35.

Chi

ldr e

port

ed:o

ther

har

dd r

ugs

(0

=n

o,1

=y

es)

527

χ2=

68.

9***

26.4

6***

37.1

4***

1.28

1.00

Odd

s

ratio

s*

45

Appendix D

Gra

de 9

mea

sure

s‡

n

Traj

ecto

ry g

roup

Gro

up

cont

rast

sΨs

ig. o

f ge

nder

om

nibu

s f

or χ

2e

scal

ator

s(1

)H

igh

de

linqu

ency

(2)

des

iste

rs(3

)lo

wde

linqu

ency

(4)

36.

Chi

ldre

port

ed:s

tres

sin

dex

(+

=m

ore)

527

F=

10.

1***

2.81

3.46

1.74

1.74

1>3,

4;

2 >3,

4**

*

37.

Chi

ldr e

port

ed:#

oft

imes

i nju

red

(+

=m

ore)

509

F=

6.0

**1.

401.

190.

650.

591>

4ns

38.

Chi

ldb

ody

mas

sin

dex

(+

=m

ore)

264

F=

9.7

***

23.7

732

.72

23.0

822

.35

1>2;

2>

3,4

ns

39.

Had

con

sens

uals

ex

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)50

1χ2

=4

9.2*

**12

.56*

**20

.23*

**1.

341.

00O

dds

ra

tios

ns

40.

Had

unp

rote

cted

sex

(0

=n

o,1

=y

es)

501

χ2=

43.

4***

14.5

4***

19.5

8***

2.35

1.00

Odd

s

ratio

s**

41.

Eve

r pre

gnan

t

(0=

no,

1=

yes

)52

7χ2

=6

.55.

124.

340.

001.

00O

dds

ra

tios

ns

46

aP

Pe

nd

iX e

. re

su

lTs

of

es

Tim

aT

ed

uT

iliz

aT

ion

of

Go

ve

rn

me

nT

re

so

ur

Ce

s a

na

lys

es

by

Tr

aJe

CT

or

y

Jk –

Gra

de 3

($)

Gra

de 4

– G

rade

6 ($

)G

rade

7 –

Gra

de 9

($)

all

Gra

des

($)

mal

efe

mal

ea

llm

ale

fem

ale

all

mal

efe

mal

ea

llm

ale

fem

ale

all

Hea

lth C

are

and

so c

ial s

e rvi

ces

Visitstoafamilyphysician

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

110

103

107

5854

5652

4850

220

205

212

Esc

alat

ors

125

150

134

6759

6454

4450

246

253

249

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

108

156

128

5157

5351

4549

209

259

230

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

116

107

113

5654

5655

5254

227

213

222

Low

estd

elin

quen

cy11

010

710

951

4749

3239

3619

219

319

3

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs93

4582

6160

6164

4660

218

151

203

Gro

up t

otal

662

668

673

344

331

338

307

274

299

1,31

31,

273

1,31

0

Hospitalemergencyroomuse

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

261

237

250

107

99

103

97

92

95

465

428

447

Esc

alat

ors

370

448

384

164

196

175

139

138

138

673

782

698

Hig

h de

linqu

ency

474

78

355

215

816

717

23

125

861

89

647

Mod

erat

e de

sist

ers

203

123

184

62

65

63

66

74

69

331

261

317

Low

est d

elin

quen

cy17

621

019

471

61

65

60

28

41

30

730

030

1

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs44

07 8

3 8

01 6

61 2

81 5

81 1

96 2

1 0

87 2

52 6

86 4

6

Gro

up t

otal

1,92

31 ,

174

1 ,74

87 8

55 5

77 3

26 5

33 9

75 7

63 ,

362

2 ,12

83 ,

056

Numberofseriousinjuries

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

2,32

81,

659

2,00

92,

087

1,40

51,

759

4,89

04,

363

4,63

79,

305

7,42

78,

405

Esc

alat

ors

2,47

698

71,

904

3,59

51,

756

2,90

38,

932

11,0

55

9,71

415

,004

13

,799

14

,521

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

30

1,49

942

71,

628

4,78

32,

299

6,18

817

,343

8,

410

7,84

623

,625

11

,136

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

1,13

01 ,

382

1 ,19

58 8

28 9

08 8

55 ,

092

3 ,60

94 ,

556

7 ,10

45 ,

882

6 ,63

6

L ow

estd

elin

quen

cy71

81 ,

125

8 89

7 74

1 ,29

91 ,

073

3 ,47

81 ,

468

2 ,32

64 ,

971

3 ,89

34 ,

288

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs1,

542

1 ,08

61 ,

507

1 ,90

69 6

91 ,

740

3 ,97

66 ,

327

4 ,27

17 ,

424

8 ,38

27 ,

518

Gro

up t

otal

8,22

37 ,

738

7 ,93

01 0

,873

1 1

,103

1 0

,659

3 2

,558

4 4

,167

3 3

,915

5 1

,654

6 3

,008

5 2

,504

47

Appendix E

Jk –

Gra

de 3

($)

Gra

de 4

– G

rade

6 ($

)G

rade

7 –

Gra

de 9

($)

all

Gra

des

($)

ma l

efe

mal

ea

llm

ale

fem

ale

all

mal

efe

mal

ea

llm

ale

fem

ale

all

Numberofovernightstaysinhospital

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

348

482

414

92

172

131

144

226

184

584

881

728

Esc

alat

ors

160

234

190

245

26

163

1,06

244

883

41,

467

709

1,18

7

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

05

10

51

10

01,

480

296

01,

536

307

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

1,09

82 5

58 7

42 0

61 3

41 8

81 3

46 6

1 1

01 ,

437

4 55

1 ,17

2

L ow

estd

elin

quen

cy89

32 1

05 4

73 7

86 4

2 0

64 7

58

2 08

1 ,74

62 8

39 6

2

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs4,

586

7 61

3 ,92

88 4

81 ,

046

8 92

1 43

3 05

1 77

5 ,57

72 ,

112

4 ,99

8

Gro

up t

otal

7,08

51 ,

947

5 ,95

51 ,

769

1 ,49

41 ,

590

1 ,95

72 ,

534

1 ,81

01 0

,811

5 ,

975

9 ,35

5

Visitswithanursepractitioner

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

12

15

13

45

53

64

19

25

22

Esc

alat

ors

14

1 1

1 3

6 9

7 9

7 8

2 9

2 7

2 8

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

13

18

119

4

027

8

14

47

20

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

10

4 8

3 5

3 2

5 3

1 4

1 4

1 5

L ow

estd

elin

quen

cy9

8 9

4 5

4 3

5 4

1 6

1 8

1 7

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs3

1 8

7 4

1 3

5 1 2

6

1 1

3 1

1 6

Gro

up t

otal

61

5 6

5 7

2 1

4 3

2 7

2 1

6 3

3 4

1 03

1 62

1 18

Visitedbyachildren’saidworker

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

10

10

10

77

77

88

25

26

25

Esc

alat

ors

79 3

3 6

2 0

3 9

2 7

3 9

7 6

5 3

6 6

2 0

81 1

7

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

23

108

61

41

13

37

64

59

64

128

179

163

Mod

erat

e de

sist

ers

18

16

18

13

14

13

11

15

12

42

45

43

Low

est d

elin

quen

cy13

7

10

10

10

00

14

811

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs10

57

22

50

41

48

34

20

31

94

11

910

2

Gro

up t

otal

81

291

158

133

115

134

156

179

169

370

585

461

48

Better Beginnings, Better Futures Study: Delinquency Trajectories of At-Risk YouthJk

– G

rade

3 ($

)G

rade

4 –

Gra

de 6

($)

Gra

de 7

– G

rade

9 ($

)a

ll G

rade

s ($

)

mal

efe

mal

ea

llm

ale

fem

ale

all

mal

efe

mal

ea

llm

ale

fem

ale

all

rem

edia

l edu

catio

n

Graderepetition(Historicalrepetitiondata

fromJKtoGrade9)

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

932

869

900

Esc

alat

ors

2,02

41,

864

1,97

1

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

1,66

03,

429

2,25

0

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

1,55

91 ,

385

1 ,50

1

L ow

estd

elin

quen

cy57

81 8

53 5

1

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs1,

259

2 ,59

71 ,

546

Gro

up t

otal

8,01

21 0

,328

8 ,

519

Useofspecialeducationservices

(fromGrade1toGrade9)

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

5,81

35,

777

5,80

75,

606

5,06

75,

363

4,49

64,

027

4,27

815

,915

14

,871

15

,447

Esc

alat

ors

8,55

75 ,

297

7 ,28

58 ,

373

6 ,29

47 ,

651

7 ,57

19 ,

184

8 ,10

12 4

,501

2 0

,775

2 3

,037

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

9,40

56,

642

8,92

78,

606

7,99

48,

476

8,18

015

,830

10

,348

26

,191

30

,466

27

,751

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

8,03

78 ,

643

8 ,22

37 ,

227

9 ,38

18 ,

032

6 ,22

57 ,

006

6 ,52

22 1

,490

2 5

,031

2 2

,776

Low

estd

elin

quen

cy5,

586

3,64

74,

595

3,92

02,

092

2,89

83,

248

1,09

02,

104

12,7

54

6,83

09,

596

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs10

,701

1 4

,482

1 1

,700

1 3

,956

1 3

,673

1 3

,908

1 2

,654

1 7

,341

1 3

,430

3 7

,311

4 5

,496

3 9

,038

Gro

up t

otal

48,0

99

44,4

89

46,5

37

47,6

88

44,5

02

46,3

27

42,3

75

54,4

77

44,7

82

138,

162

143,

468

137,

646

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e s

yste

m

Numberofarrests(Grade9only)

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

43

63

53

Esc

alat

ors

335

9 49

5 55

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

755

1,86

91,

059

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

189

7 2

1 47

Low

est d

elin

quen

cy72

0

30

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs18

00

1 54

Gro

up t

otal

1,57

32,

953

1,99

7

49

Appendix E

Jk –

Gra

de 3

($)

Gra

de 4

– G

rade

6 ($

)G

rade

7 –

Gra

de 9

($)

all

Gra

des

($)

ma l

efe

mal

ea

llm

ale

fem

ale

all

mal

efe

mal

ea

llm

ale

fem

ale

all

Courtappearances(Grade9only)

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

12

26

19

Esc

alat

ors

135

7 19

3 45

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

404

1,07

858

8

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

67

6 0

6 5

Low

estd

elin

quen

cy0

00

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs21

60

1 80

Gro

up t

otal

834

1,88

31,

196

fam

ily s

ocia

l ass

ista

nce

Socialwelfare(Grade9only)

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

1,09

31,

054

1,07

4

Esc

alat

ors

2,32

04,

210

3,03

7

Hig

hd e

linqu

ency

3,09

30

2,14

2

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

1,32

62,

738

1,81

1

Low

estd

elin

quen

cy60

00

250

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs2,

320

01,

856

Gro

up t

otal

10,7

528,

001

10,1

69

Ontariodisability(Grade9only)

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

709

660

685

Esc

alat

ors

02,

753

1,04

4

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

00

0

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

904

577

792

Low

estd

elin

quen

cy67

530

245

8

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs0

00

Gro

up t

otal

2,28

84,

292

2,97

8

50

Better Beginnings, Better Futures Study: Delinquency Trajectories of At-Risk YouthJk

– G

rade

3 ($

)G

rade

4 –

Gra

de 6

($)

Gra

de 7

– G

rade

9 ($

)a

ll G

rade

s ($

)

mal

efe

mal

ea

llm

ale

fem

ale

all

mal

efe

mal

ea

llm

ale

fem

ale

all

dom

ain

Tota

l and

Gra

nd T

otal

Healthcareandsocialservices

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

3,07

02,

505

2,80

22,

354

1,74

32,

061

5,19

44,

743

4,97

810

,618

8,

990

9,84

1

Esc

alat

ors

3,15

21 ,

923

2 ,66

14 ,

098

2 ,08

53 ,

340

1 0,2

35

1 1,7

69

1 0,7

98

1 7,4

84

1 5,7

78

1 6,8

00

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

647

1,84

698

01,

936

4,93

12,

570

6,47

618

,957

8,

953

9,05

825

,734

12

,503

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

2,57

51 ,

887

2 ,39

21 ,

222

1 ,16

11 ,

209

5 ,35

93 ,

822

4 ,80

49 ,

156

6 ,87

08 ,

405

L ow

estd

elin

quen

cy1,

919

1 ,66

91 ,

758

1 ,28

01 ,

477

1 ,39

84 ,

048

1 ,54

82 ,

616

7 ,24

64 ,

694

5 ,77

2

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs6,

674

2 ,04

45 ,

927

3 ,03

52 ,

246

2 ,90

24 ,

340

6 ,77

44 ,

654

1 4,0

50

1 1,0

64

1 3,4

83

Gro

up t

otal

18,0

36

1 1,8

75

1 6,5

21

1 3,9

25

1 3,6

43

1 3,4

80

3 5,6

52

4 7,6

13

3 6,8

02

6 7,6

13

7 3,1

30

6 6,8

03

Remedialeducation

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

5,81

35,

777

5,80

75,

606

5,06

75,

363

4,49

64,

027

4,27

816

,847

15

,739

16

,348

Esc

alat

ors

8,55

75 ,

297

7 ,28

58 ,

373

6 ,29

47 ,

651

7 ,57

19 ,

184

8 ,10

12 6

,525

2 2

,639

2 5

,008

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

9,40

56,

642

8,92

78,

606

7,99

48,

476

8,18

015

,830

10

,348

27

,851

33

,895

30

,001

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

8,03

78 ,

643

8 ,22

37 ,

227

9 ,38

18 ,

032

6 ,22

57 ,

006

6 ,52

22 3

,049

2 6

,416

2 4

,277

Low

estd

elin

quen

cy5,

586

3,64

74,

595

3,92

02,

092

2,89

83,

248

1,09

02,

104

13,3

32

7,01

49,

947

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs10

,701

1 4

,482

1 1

,700

1 3

,956

1 3

,673

1 3

,908

1 2

,654

1 7

,341

1 3

,430

3 8

,571

4 8

,094

4 0

,584

Gro

up t

otal

48,0

99

44,4

89

46,5

37

47,6

88

44,5

02

46,3

27

42,3

75

54,4

77

44,7

82

146,

175

153,

797

146,

165

Criminaljusticesystem

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

55

89

71

Esc

alat

ors

470

1 ,66

89 0

0

Hig

hd e

linqu

ency

1,15

92 ,

947

1 ,64

7

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

256

1 32

2 11

Low

estd

elin

quen

cy72

0

30

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs39

50

3 34

Gro

up t

otal

2,40

84 ,

835

3 ,19

3

51

Appendix E

Jk –

Gra

de 3

($)

Gra

de 4

– G

rade

6 ($

)G

rade

7 –

Gra

de 9

($)

all

Gra

des

($)

ma l

efe

mal

ea

llm

ale

fem

ale

all

mal

efe

mal

ea

llm

ale

fem

ale

all

Familysocialassistance

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

1,80

21,

714

1,75

8

Esc

alat

ors

2,32

06,

963

4,08

1

Hig

h de

linqu

ency

3,09

30

2,14

2

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

2,23

03,

315

2,60

3

Low

estd

elin

quen

cy1,

275

302

708

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs2,

320

01,

856

Gro

up t

otal

13,0

4112

,293

13,1

47

Alldomains(12measures)

2ndL

owes

tdel

inqu

ency

8,88

28,

282

8,60

97,

960

6,80

97,

424

9,69

08,

769

9,25

529

,323

26,5

3228

,018

Esc

alat

ors

11,7

097,

220

9,94

612

,471

8,38

010

,991

17,8

0620

,953

18,8

9946

,800

47,0

4746

,788

Hig

hde

linqu

ency

10,0

538,

488

9,90

710

,542

12,9

2511

,046

14,6

5534

,786

19,3

0141

,162

62,5

7646

,292

Mod

erat

ed e

sist

ers

10,6

1210

,530

10,6

158,

449

10,5

439,

240

11,5

8510

,828

11,3

2634

,691

36,7

3335

,496

Low

estd

elin

quen

cy7,

504

5,31

66,

352

5,20

03,

569

4,29

67,

296

2,63

94,

720

21,9

2512

,010

16,4

57

Hig

hest

des

iste

rs17

,375

16,5

2717

,628

16,9

9115

,919

16,8

1016

,995

24,1

1518

,084

55,3

3659

,158

56,2

57

Gro

up t

otal

66,1

3556

,364

63,0

5861

,613

58,1

4559

,807

78,0

2710

2,09

181

,585

229,

236

244,

056

229,

308

… · delinquency trajectory on utilization of government resources in the criminal justice...

Documents