Explore the vast range of titles available.

Conduct disorder (CD) and delinquency are behavioural problems involving violation of major rules, societal norms, and laws. The prevalence of CD and delinquency peaks in mid-to-late adolescence. Both show considerable continuity over time. The most important studies of CD and delinquency have prospective longitudinal designs, large community samples, repeated personal interviews, measures of many possible risk factors, and both self-reports and official measures of antisocial behaviour. The most important risk factors that predict CD and delinquency include impulsiveness, low IQ and low school achievement, poor parental supervision, punitive or erratic parental discipline, cold parental attitude, child physical abuse, parental conflict, disrupted families, antisocial parents, large family size, low family income, antisocial peers, high delinquency rate schools, and high crime neighbourhoods. However, for many risk factors, it is not known whether they have causal effects. Future research should examine changes in risk factors and changes in CD and delinquency to identify the risk factors that are causes and those that are merely markers of other risk mechanisms.

This article presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs in schools. Studies were included if they evaluated the effects of an anti-bullying program by comparing an intervention group who received the program with a control group who did not. Four types of research design were included: a) randomized experiments, b) intervention-control comparisons with before-and-after measures of bullying, c) other intervention-control comparisons, and d) age-cohort designs. Both published and unpublished reports were included. All volumes of 35 journals from 1983 up to the end of May 2009 were hand-searched, as were 18 electronic databases. Reports in languages other than English were also included. A total of 622 reports concerned with bullying prevention were found, and 89 of these reports (describing 53 different program evaluations) were included in our review. Of the 53 different program evaluations, 44 provided data that permitted the calculation of an effect size for bullying or victimization. The meta-analysis of these 44 evaluations showed that, overall, school-based anti-bullying programs are effective: on average, bullying decreased by 20–23% and victimization decreased by 17–20%. Program elements and intervention components that were associated with a decrease in bullying and victimization were identified, based on feedback from researchers about the coding of 40 out of 44 programs. More intensive programs were more effective, as were programs including parent meetings, firm disciplinary methods, and improved playground supervision. Work with peers was associated with an increase in victimization. It is concluded that the time is ripe to mount a new program of research on the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs based on these findings.

Executive Summary/ Background Bullying first emerged as an important topic of research in the 1980s in Norway (Olweus), and a recent meta‐analysis shows that these forms of aggression remain prevalent among young people globally (Modecki et al.). Prominent researchers in the field have defined bullying as any aggressive behavior that incorporates three key elements, namely: (1) an intention to harm, (2) repetitive in nature, and (3) a clear power imbalance between perpetrator and victim (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Farrington). There are many negative outcomes associated with bullying perpetration, such as: suicidal ideation (Holt et al.), weapon carrying (Valdebenito et al.), drug use (Ttofi et al.), and violence and offending in later life (Ttofi et al.). Bullying victimization too is associated with negative outcomes such as: suicidal ideation (Holt et al.), anxiety, low self‐esteem and loneliness (Hawker& Boulton). Therefore, school bullying is an important target for effective intervention, and should be considered a matter of public health concern. Objectives The objective of this review is to establish whether or not existing school‐based antibullying programs are effective in reducing school‐bullyng behaviors. This report also updates a previous meta‐analysis conducted by Farrington and Ttofi. This earlier review found that antibullying programs are effective in reducing bullying perpetration and victimization and a primary objective of the current report is to update the earlier analysis of 53 evaluations by conducting new searches for evaluations conducted and published since 2009. Search Methods Systematic searches were conducted using Boolean combinations of the following keywords: bully*; victim*; bully‐victim; school; intervention; prevention; program*; evaluation; effect*; and anti‐bullying. Searches were conducted on several online databases including, Web of Science, PscyhINFO, EMBASE, EMBASE, DARE, ERIC, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Databases of unpublished reports, such as masters' and doctoral theses (e.g., Proquest) were also searched. Selection Criteria Results from systematic searches were screened thoroughly against the following inclusion criteria. To be included in this review, a study must have: (1) described an evaluation of a school‐based antibullying program implemented with school‐age participants; (2) utilized an operational definition of school‐bullying that coincides with existing definitions; (3) measured school‐bullying perpetration and/or victimization using quantitative measures, such as, self‐, peer‐, or teacher‐report questionnaires; and (4) used an experimental or quasi‐experimental design, with one group receiving the intervention and another not receiving the intervention. Data Collection and Analysis Of the 19,877 search results, 474 were retained for further screening. The majority of these were excluded, and after multiple waves of screening, 100 evaluations were included in our meta‐analysis. A total of 103 independent effect sizes were estimated and each effect size was corrected for the impact of including clusters in evaluation designs. Included evaluations were conducted using both randomized (n = 45; i.e., randomized controlled trials/RCTs) and nonrandomized (n = 44; i.e., quasi‐experimental designs with before/after measures; BA/EC) methodologies. All of these studies included measures of bullying outcomes before and after implementation of an intervention. The remaining 14 effect sizes were estimated from evaluations that used age cohort designs. Two models of meta‐analysis are used to report results in our report. All mean effects computed are presented using both the multivariance adjustment model (MVA) and random effects model (RE). The MVA model assigns weights to primary studies in direct proportion to study level sampling error as with the fixed effects model but adjusts the meta‐analytic standard error and confidence intervals for study heterogeneity. The RE model incorporates between‐study heterogeneity into the formula for assigning weights to primary studies. The differences and strengths/limitations of both approaches are discussed in the context of the present data. Results Our meta‐analysis identified that bullying programs significantly reduce bullying perpetration (RE: odds ratio [OR] = 1.309; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24–1.38; z = 9.88; p < .001) and bullying victimization (RE: OR = 1.244; 95% CI: 1.19–1.31; z = 8.92; p < .001), under a random effects model of meta‐analysis. Mean effects were similar across both models of meta‐analysis for bullying perpetration (i.e., MVA: OR = 1,324; 95% CI: 1.27–1.38; z = 13.4; p < .001) and bullying victimization (i.e., MVA: OR = 1.248; 95% CI: 1.21–1.29; z = 12.06; p < .001). Under both computational models, primary studies were more effective in reducing bullying perpetration than victimization overall. Effect sizes varied across studies, with significant heterogeneity between studies for both bullying perpetration (Q = 323.392; df = 85; p < .001; I2 = 73.716) and bullying victimization (Q = 387.255; df = 87; p < .001; I2 = 77.534) outcomes. Analyses suggest that publication bias is unlikely. Between‐study heterogeneity was expected, given the large number of studies included, and thus, the number of different programs, methods, measures and samples used. Authors' Conclusions We conclude that overall, school‐based antibullying programs are effective in reducing bullying perpetration and bullying victimization, although effect sizes are modest. The impact of evaluation methodology on effect size appears to be weak and does not adequately explain the significant heterogeneity between primary studies. Moreover, the issue of the under‐/over‐estimation of the true treatment effect by different experimental designs and use of self‐reported measures is reviewed. The potential explanations for this are discussed, along with recommendations for future primary evaluations. Avenues for future research are discussed, including the need further explain differences across programs by correlating individual effect sizes with varying program components and varying methodological elements available across these 100 evaluations. Initial findings in the variability of effect sizes across different methodological moderators provide some understanding on the issue of heterogeneity, but future analyses based on further moderator variables are needed.

This article presents results from an extensive systematic and meta-analytical review of the effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs. Its main aim is to explore the results of this meta-analysis specifically in regard to variations in the effectiveness of school-bullying programs globally and the effectiveness of specific anti-bullying programs. Our meta-analysis included 100 independent evaluations, and found that, overall, programs were effective in reducing school-bullying perpetration and victimization. In the present paper, we focused on 12 countries (e.g., Italy, Norway, USA, UK), three regions (i.e., Europe, North America, and Scandinavia) and four anti-bullying programs (i.e., KiVa, NoTrap!, OBPP, and ViSC) with multiple evaluations. Our results showed that anti-bullying programs evaluated in Greece were the most effective in reducing bullying perpetration, followed by Spain and Norway. Anti-bullying programs evaluated in Italy were the most effective in reducing bullying victimization, followed by Spain and Norway. Evaluations conducted in North America were the most effective in reducing bullying perpetration, and evaluations conducted in Scandinavia were the most effective in reducing bullying victimization. Evaluations of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program produced the largest effect sizes for bullying perpetration outcomes, but the NoTrap! Program was the most effective in reducing bullying victimization. We also systematically review the core components of the intervention programs and make recommendations for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers.

Las conductas antisociales de los adolescentes están presentes en todo el mundo y tienen consecuencias perjudiciales para individuos y sociedades. La investigación centrada en las conductas antisociales de los jóvenes ha sido muy fructífera, pero los estudios están generalmente fragmentados y se centran en comportamientos problemáticos específicos, ya sea en la escuela o fuera de la escuela. Aunque la superposición víctima-agresor se ha descrito en muchos estudios, la mayoría se ha centrado en las víctimas o en los agresores. Este estudio longitudinal prospectivo se ha realizado para descubrir patrones de conducta antisocial desde una perspectiva integral, que incluye diferentes comportamientos problemáticos dentro y fuera de la escuela, centrándose tanto en la victimización como en la agresión. Se ha seguido una muestra de 450 estudiantes durante un año escolar y se han realizado análisis de clases latentes y de transiciones latentes, identificando cuatro grupos de estudiantes: bajo antisocial, altamente antisocial y victimizado, alta victimización por bullying y alto en ofensas fuera de la escuela. Los análisis de transición mostraron que el grupo bajo antisocial y el grupo alto en ofensas fuera de la escuela eran relativamente estables en el tiempo. Los estudiantes del grupo alta victimización por bullying hicieron la transición a diferentes grupos y los estudiantes del grupo altamente antisocial y victimizado permanecieron en su grupo o pasaron al grupo alto en ofensas fuera de la escuela. Los resultados indican que no son frecuentes las conductas antisociales aisladas y que los estudiantes que muestran un comportamiento problemático, generalmente, presentan otros comportamientos problemáticos. Los adolescentes que están implicados en conductas antisociales en un momento temporal con frecuencia siguen implicados un año después. Por lo tanto, es posible que el potencial antisocial de algunos adolescentes se exprese en diferentes contextos. El estudio tiene importantes implicaciones para la investigación y la práctica, ya que tienen que adoptar un enfoque más holístico e integral.

This article aims to describe the most prevalent, lifelong sequences of crime, to identify developmental patterns of crime, and to evaluate the impact of childhood characteristics on each pathway. Convictions up to age 56 in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development are analyzed. The prevalence of the most frequent sequences of convictions is presented. Optimal matching dissimilarity and partitioning around medoids analyses are conducted to identify types of sequences. The most common sequences of convictions involve types of stealing. Four different types of sequences are identified and are predicted using childhood characteristics. It is concluded that different types of childhood vulnerabilities predict different types of conviction sequences.

The number of children experiencing parental imprisonment is increasing in Western industrialized countries. Parental imprisonment is a risk factor for child antisocial behavior, offending, mental health problems, drug abuse, school failure, and unemployment. However, very little is known about whether parental imprisonment causes these problems. Parental imprisonment might cause adverse child outcomes because of the trauma of parent‐child separation, stigma, or social and economic strain. Children may have worse reactions to parental imprisonment if their mother is imprisoned or if parents are imprisoned for longer periods of time or in more punitive social contexts. Children should be protected from harmful effects of parental imprisonment by using family‐friendly prison practices, financial assistance, parenting programs, and sentences that are less stigmatizing for offenders and their families.

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which bullying victimization in school predicts depression in later life and whether this relation holds after controlling for other major childhood risk factors.Design methodology approach - As no previous systematic review has been conducted on this topic, effect sizes are based on both published and unpublished studies: longitudinal investigators of 28 studies have conducted specific analyses for the authors' review.Findings - The probability of being depressed up to 36 years later (mean follow-up period of 6.9 years) was much higher for children who were bullied at school than for non-involved students (odds ratio (OR)=1.99; 95 per cent CI: 1.71-2.32). Bullying victimization was a significant risk factor for later depression even after controlling for up to 20 (mean number of six covariates) major childhood risk factors (OR=1.74; 95 per cent CI: 1.54-1.97). Effect sizes were smaller when the follow-up period was longer and larger the younger the child was when exposed to bullying. Finally, the summary effect size was not significantly related to the number of risk factors controlled for.Originality value - Although causal inferences are tentative, the overall results presented in this paper indicate that bullying victimization is a major childhood risk factor that uniquely contributes to later depression. High quality effective anti-bullying programmes could be viewed as an early form of public health promotion.

Labeling theory suggests that criminal justice interventions amplify offending behavior. Theories of intergenerational transmission suggest why children of convicted parents have a higher risk of offending. This paper combines these two perspectives and investigates whether labeling effects might be stronger for children of convicted parents. We first investigated labeling effects within the individual: we examined the impact of a conviction between ages 19-26 on self-reported offending behavior between 27-32 while controlling for self-reported behavior between 15-18. Our results show that a conviction predicted someone's later self-reported offending behavior, even when previous offending behavior was taken into account. Second, we investigated whether having a convicted parent influenced this association. When we added this interaction to the analysis, a labeling effect was only visible among people with convicted parents. This supports the idea of cumulative disadvantage: Labeling seems stronger for people who are already in a disadvantaged situation having a convicted parent.