Therapeutic Foster Care for the Prevention of Violence

In liberating foster guardianship programs, youths who cannot be at territory be placed inwardly home aligned with foster parents who relish be skilled to do business in a structured environment that supports their study wide-reaching and heartfelt tools. To price the appeal of such programs in prevent aggressive behavior among participating youths, the Task Force by the side of Community Preventive Services conduct a regular analysis of the proven literature in tie with these programs.

Reported and observed bullying, as well as violent transgression, be be a symbol of measures. Proxy measures were externalizing behavior (i.e., behavior where psychological technical hitches are acted out), conduct unruliness, and arrest, confidence, or delinquency, in plop of ascertain from public servant store, in favour of act that may probably have built-in violence.

Reviewed study assess two harmonizing mediation, majestic by means of the ages and underlying problems of the target populations. Therapeutic foster tilt lessening of violence by offspring with harsh emotional entertainment (hereafter referred to as cluster therapeutic foster care) ensnared programs (average duration: 18 months) in which cluster of foster-parent family cooperate in the care of children (aged 5--13 years) with severe emotional disturbance.

The Task Force found as well paltry witness to learn the effectiveness of this intervention in preventing violence. Therapeutic foster care for the reduction of violence by chronically delinquent adolescents (hereafter referred to as program-intensive therapeutic foster care) involved short-term programs (average duration: 6--7 months) in which program personnel collaborate carefully and day by day with foster families generous for adolescents (aged 12--18 years) with a precedent of deep-seated delinquency.

On the reasonableness of ample evidence of effectiveness, the Task Force recommend this intervention for elusion of violence among adolescents with a history of chronic delinquency. This tale briefly describe how the review were conducted, provide added intellect in the subdivision of the findings, and provides information that might backing alliance in apply the intervention locally.

BACKGROUND Therapeutic foster care be also well thought-out by other christen, including analysis foster care, multidimensional attention foster care, office foster care, treatment-foster relatives care, family-based treatment, and parent-therapist programs (1). Such care is provide as an alternative to incarceration, hospitalization, or deviating profile of mass and residential treatment for kids and adolescents with a history of chronic antisocial behavior, delinquency, or emotional disturbance. This intervention is also before own to address multiple town muscle aspiration for diverse unripe populations, including children with green health problems (e.g., acquire immunodeficiency syndrome, rational palsy, deafness, and other disabilities) (2).

Participants in therapeutic foster care are placed for several months in foster families (one to two participant per family) whose member are trained and compensated for their donkey work in providing a structured environment in which participants can swot social and emotional skills (e.g., emotional self-awareness, anger control, and combat resolution). In secure programs, participants are removed from their classic peer environment and closely supervise in university, here, and in the community. These programs might count psychological therapy for participants and for members of their biologic families to remodel family operational if and when youths are competent ahead of you violent flow back to their homes.

Juvenile violence is a massive ensnare in the United States. In 2001, U.S. adults report 1.87 million crime of violence committed by society rough to be aged 12--20 years, representing a rate of gutturally speaking 5.7 crimes of violence/100 persons here age group (3). On the basis of reports by victims, juvenile perpetrators committed violence at a complex rate than persons of any other age group (4).

Two thirds of reported violent affair in 2001 were ingenuous beleaguer (i.e., dive undersupplied a weapon that accomplish not upshot in an nick ring for 2 days' hospitalization), and one third were critical violent crimes (i.e., aggravated assaults, robbery, or rapes). (Because these background were derived from sufferer opinion survey, killing be excluded from the analysis.) Since the untimely 1970s, juvenile aged 10--17 years, who constitute 12% of the population, have been involved as offender in approximately 25% of serious violent crimes (5). Risk factor for juvenile violence include in short supply socioeconomic kudos, unsatisfactory parental administration, gaping and intermittent skill, and delinquent peers (6). Delinquent juveniles generally have additional problems, including remedy misuse, difficulties at school, and emotional malady (7).

Only a controlled ingredient of violent offenses by juveniles are reported and respond to by imperative and even-handedness agencies. During 1992--2000, 50% of all violent crimes and 60% of serious violent crimes were reported to law enforcement agencies (8). In 2001, approximately 67,000 persons aged 18 years were arrested for unlawful destruction, aggravated assault, burglary, or rape (4), indicating that 10% of hopelessly violent juveniles (as assessed by self-report or victim report) were apprehended.

A previously published comparison of self-reports of chronic juvenile offenders with official records indicate that 86% of chronic juvenile offenders have no dictation of seizure (9). Rates of arrest for violent crime among juveniles aged 10--17 years increased from 300/100,000 juveniles in the early 1980s to 500 in 1994 and latter decline to 300 by 2001 (10). Despite this decline, communities preserve capable of be bothered about the majority of juvenile violent crime and the stipulation to rehabilitate juvenile offenders (11).

INTRODUCTION The self-sufficient nonfederal Task Force on Community Preventive Services (Task Force) is embryonic the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). This resource include multiple systematic reviews, respectively focus on a preventive health topic. The Community Guide is man industrialized with the piling of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), in mutual aid with public and muffled partner. Although CDC provides consequent support to the Task Force for nurturing of the Community Guide, the recommendation presented in this report were developed by the Task Force and are not necessarily the recommendations of CDC, DHHS, or other participating agencies.

This report is one in a manacle of topic included in the Community Guide. It provides an overview of the system used by the Task Force to select and review evidence and summarize its recommendations regarding make use of of therapeutic foster care to impede youth violence. A replete report on the recommendations, providing additional evidence (i.e., anticipation of applicability, additional benefits, potential harms, ongoing barrier to completing, program costs, and cost-benefit analysis) and left over research directive for information, will be published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The findings from systematic reviews of eight type of rifle law (12), early-childhood home visitation to prevent violence (12), and removal of juveniles to the developed judicial regulations have been completed previously. Reviews of other violence-prevention interventions, including school-based violence-prevention programs, community police, and antihate campaign, are underneath channel or until.

METHODS Community Guide troop members conduct systematic reviews to spectator sport uphill to the evidence of intervention effectiveness; review findings spoon over as the basis for Task Force recommendations.

Interventions are recommended by the Task Force when review findings indicate that evidence of effectiveness is sufficient or potent (13). Other types of evidence can also affect a assessment. For mock-up, evidence of harm consequential from an intervention might head to a recommendation that the intervention not be used if adverse effects outweigh benefits. In improvement, if pragmatic data are unclaimed, the disbursement and cost-effectiveness of interventions stubborn to be successful are evaluate (14). (The utensil used for financial evaluation is available at /methods/econ-abs-form.pdf) Although the verdict be real, the Task Force have not instead used economic information to make to order recommendations.

A finding of insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpret as evidence of ineffectiveness but to numerous quantity as an indication that additional research to determine effectiveness is needed. In evaluation, sufficient or strong evidence of dangerous effect(s) or of ineffectiveness would lead to a recommendation cold use of an intervention.

The modus operandi used by the Community Guide to conduct systematic reviews and to interconnect evidence to recommendations have been describe elsewhere (14). In transitory, for every Community Guide topic, a multidisciplinary team conduct a review that includes the following: -- developing an point of showiness to select the interventions for review; -- precisely penetrating for, retrieve, and evaluate evidence of effectiveness of outstanding interventions; -- assess the wrench of, summarizing the strength of, and draw realization from the thing of evidence; -- assessing cost and cost-effectiveness analyses and identify applicability and barriers to implementation of all effective interventions; -- summarizing information regarding evidence of other effects of the intervention; and -- identifying and summarizing research gap.

For the systematic review of violence-prevention intervention programs, a multidisciplinary review team generate a all-encompassing detail of strategy and created a preference list of interventions for review. Therapeutic foster care was identified as a high-priority intervention. The team's evaluations were base on the following: -- the potential of an intervention to lessen violence; -- the potential benefits of expanding use of seemingly effective but underused interventions and reducing use of seemingly hopeless but overused interventions; -- tang among violence-prevention constituencies; and -- assortment among intervention types.

The intervention included in this review might be useful in reaching objectives summary in Healthy People 2010 (15), the illness prevention and health upgrading agenda for the United States. These objectives identify unnecessary bullying to health and provide a focus for the pains of public health system, legislators, and law enforcement official in address those threats. Certain proposed violence-specific objectives downhill in Chapter 15 (Injury and Violence Prevention) of Healthy People 2010 recount to therapeutic foster care and its proposed effects on violence-related result.

To be included in the review of effectiveness, studies had to be equal with the following criterion: -- be initial investigation of an intervention rather than, for example, guidelines or reviews; -- provide information on at smallest one outcome of interest from a list of violent outcomes selected in mortgage by the team; -- be conducted in an developed marketplace reduction; -- associate outcomes among persons revealed to the intervention with outcomes among persons not exposed or smaller amount exposed to the intervention (either correlated comparison involving different group or before-and-after comparison within alike group); and -- have been published in the past December 2001.

The task of this review is to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic foster care programs in preventing violence. Studies of therapeutic foster care were review one and only if they assessed violent outcomes or proxy for violent outcomes. Studies were reviewed regardless of whether violence was the primary target or outcome of the program, as prolonged as the analysis was consistent with the specified inclusion criteria. The effects on other outcomes were not assessed systematically but are reported selectively if they were address in the studies reviewed.

Studies were reviewed if they assessed reported (including self-reported) or observed violence, including violent crime (e.g., assault, robbery, rape, and homicide). Studies also were reviewed if they check any of the following six proxies for violent outcomes, which might include any well violent behavior or behavior shockingly not clearly violent: -- measures of the psychiatric diagnosis of conduct disorder (i.e., conduct in which "the peak of your success rights of others or primary age-appropriate societal norm or rules are violated") (16); -- measures of externalizing behavior (i.e., rule-breaking behaviors and conduct problems, including physical and by synonym of mouth aggression, insubordination, fraudulent, stealing, truancy, delinquency, physical unkindness, and hostage acts) (17); -- rates of delinquency; -- rates of arrest; -- rates of conviction; and -- rates of incarceration.

The review team also considered the prospect that therapeutic foster care might reduce suicidal behavior or violent victimization among juveniles. However, no studies were found that examined suicidal behavior or victimization as outcomes of this intervention.

The team developed an analytic armature for therapeutic foster care intervention, indicating whatsoever causative links between therapeutic foster care and the outcomes of interest. To get recommendations, the Task Force obligatory that studies explain diminution among program participants in the selected direct or proxy measures for violence. If both direct and proxy measures were available, preference was given to the direct means.

Electronic scour for intervention studies were conducted in Medline, Embase, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), PsychLit (now call PsycInfo), Sociological Abstracts, National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), and Cinahl.** The hint listed in all retrieve article were also reviewed, along with additional reports as identified by the team, the doctor of medicine, and specialist in the pasture. Journal articles, senate reports, book, and wording chapter were all included.

Each study that was consistent with the inclusion criteria was evaluated by using standardized abstraction criteria (18) and was assessed for satisfactoriness of the study logo and threats to reasonableness (13). On the basis of the cipher of threats to validity, studies were characterized as have perfect, disinterested, or limited killing. Results on each outcome of interest were come by from each study that had good or fair execution. Measures au fait for the effects of potential confounders were used in preference to crude effect measures. A median was calculated as a translation effect measure for outcomes of interest. Unless otherwise noted, the grades of each study were represent as a barb rough calculation for the virtual transfer in the rate of violent outcomes associated with the intervention. Calculations were made in the same way for study outcomes measured as rates or proportions (e.g., arrest rates) and for outcomes measured in scales (e.g., even of conduct disorder assessed in a behavior checklist).

The strength of the body of evidence of effectiveness was characterized as strong, sufficient, or insufficient on the basis of the numeral of available studies, the suitability of study design for evaluating effectiveness, the quality of execution of the studies, the rationality of the results, and the effect mass (13).

RESULTS A systematic search identified five studies that reported the effects of therapeutic foster care programs on violence by juveniles (19--23). The studies assessed two similar, but differing interventions, distinguished by both the ages and underlying problems of the target populations. Separate evaluation were made of the effectiveness of these two program types.

-- The best prehistoric sort of intervention studied was therapeutic foster care for the reduction of violence by children with severe emotional disturbance (SED) (hereafter referred to as cluster therapeutic foster care). Two studies assessed interventions in which, with some guidance from program personnel, clusters of five foster-parent families cooperated in the care of five children (aged 5--13 years) with SED (22,23). These programs were of relatively long duration (average length: 18 months).

-- The second type of intervention studied was therapeutic foster care for the reduction of violence by chronically delinquent adolescents (hereafter referred to as program-intensive therapeutic foster care). Three studies assessed interventions in which program personnel collaborated closely and daily with foster families caring for elder juveniles (aged 12--18 years) with a history of chronic delinquency (19,21). The midpoint duration of these programs was 6--7 months.

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of cluster therapeutic foster care in preventing violence among children with SED. Too few studies on which to platform a conclusion of effectiveness were identified, and findings from available studies were ironic. The team identified only two studies that assessed the effects of cluster therapeutic foster care on violence by participants (22,23). One study compare a cluster therapeutic foster care intervention (called a parent-therapist program) to group vestibule for the treatment of SED among youths aged 6--12 years (23).

Conduct disorder (characterized by oppositional rebellious behavior and physical aggression and not alike to the psychiatric diagnosis of conduct disorder) were assessed before and after the intervention by using evaluation on the Behavior Problem Checklist Factor I (24). The study reported an undesirable effect (a 31.3% increase) in conduct disorders associated with cluster therapeutic foster care for girls, and a nominal effect (a 0.2% decrease) for boy; neither effect was statistically decisive.

The second study (22) provided information on the effects of New York State's edition of cluster therapeutic foster care, Family-Based Treatment, on externalizing behavior among children aged 6--13 years with SED, which was assessed by using the externalizing subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist (25). The study reported a limited (2.5%) realize in externalizing behavior among children after the intervention.

One study evaluated program-intensive therapeutic foster care involving youths aged 9--18 years with SED who were released from a grant mental health centre when judge primed for community placement (26). However, the study did not report violent outcomes and in this manner was not included in this review. In 1997, a review of an early intervention treatment foster care program for pitilessly abused and neglected children aged 4--7 years reported a reduction in behavior problems (from a list of 36 items, only one of which was distinctly violent); this study (27) also was excluded.

Three studies conducted by the same research group in one region of the region assessed the effects of program-intensive therapeutic foster care on violence by juveniles with a history of chronic delinquency (19--21). One study examined rates of incarceration before and after treatment among juveniles aged 12--18 years who were diverted from a correction institution to foster care (19). Youths labour other residential treatment (i.e., group care) within the community serve as controls and were matched on sexual category, age, and date of commitment.

The study reported a substantial and statistically significant decrease in the proportion of juveniles in the intervention group incarcerated after the program, compared with those in the dominate group. This effect declined from 57.1% in the first year after the intervention to 46.7% after 2 years. Duration of therapeutic foster care treatment was inversely correlated (r --0.71; p 0.001) with the number of days of subsequent incarceration, suggesting a dose-response stroke of luck of treatment.

Another study examining a program-intensive therapeutic foster care program involved a before-and-after comparison of arrests for violent interpersonal crimes (based on official records) among youths aged 12--18 years at the incident of referral (20). Compared with the year before intervention, the proportion of juveniles arrested for violent crimes the year after intervention decrease 74.7% for boys and 69.2% for girls. All participants in the study benefit, regardless of age or sex, railing for girls aged 14 years, for whom an increase was reported in the rate of certain nonviolent status offenses (e.g., truancy and "ungovernability") that are classified as offenses only because they enmesh a lesser.

A third study used a randomized controlled design to determine the effects of therapeutic foster care on self-reported felony assaults (i.e., aggravated assault, sexual assault, and gang fights) among males aged 12--17 years when the study open (21). When demographic and criminal conditions were controlled for, boys receiving therapeutic foster care reported commit approximately 73.5% a less high-status amount felony assaults after intervention than did those placed in group care.

In this study, time in placement was not associated with rates of subsequent criminal behavior, thus failing to verify the evidence of a dose feedback from the more rapidly study. An analysis of the causal pathway of the effects of therapeutic foster care on change in violent behavior indicated that a substantial quota of the effect of the intervention was attributable to the youth having a loyal affinity with an adult reciprocated with not associate with deviant peers (28).

Program-intensive therapeutic foster care is associated with a reduction in violence by juveniles with a history of chronic delinquency; the median effect size (71.9%) was midway between the benefits for males and females in an earlier study (20). On the basis of sufficient evidence of effectiveness, the Task Force recommends program-intensive therapeutic foster care for the prevention of violence among adolescents with history of chronic delinquency.

The systematic review team identified two economic evaluations of therapeutic foster care programs. A cost-analysis study (29,30) assessed program costs for therapeutic foster care provided adolescents with chronic delinquency problems. Only those program costs incur by state and district government were considered in the analysis, including costs for personnel (i.e., armour leader officer, program chief, psychotherapist, recruiter, and foster parent trainer) and foster-parent stipends, as ably as additional health services (e.g., mental health care). Average program costs (in 1997 dollars) capacity from $18,837 to $56,047/youth, depending on the emotional state of the adolescent, the sophistication of services required, and Medicaid and juvenile corrections brigade repayment rates.

The second study was an incremental cost-benefit analysis (31) of a therapeutic foster care program compared with average group care. The study found that for both dollar spent in justice system costs, therapeutic foster care save $14.07. Incremental program costs (in 1997 dollars) were $1,912/youth. Incremental benefits for a 37% reduction in crime were $83,576/youth, including taxpayer benefits ($22,263/youth) and crime victim benefits ($61,313/youth).

Taxpayer benefits included reduced hinder on and expense of sheriff organization, courts and county prosecutors, juvenile detention, juvenile probation, juvenile rehabilitation, adult detention centre, state community supervision, and the department of corrections. Crime victim benefits included reduction in medical overheads, profitability losses, and stomach-ache and difficulty. Total net benefits (benefits minus costs) ranged from $20,351 to $81,664/youth. This estimate do not include benefits to youth in the programs (e.g., increased profits and more natural life course).

To see the Table indulge click here and scroll down RESEARCH CONCERNS Additional research is needed to determine whether cluster therapeutic foster care is effective and to evaluate further the effectiveness of program-intensive therapeutic foster care. A research agenda and a full review of the evidence will be published in a adjunct to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

USE OF THE RECOMMENDATION IN STATES AND COMMUNITIES Because of the substantial burden of violence among adolescents in the United States and the swill out of this problem from public health and societal perspective, the strength of individuality of the effectiveness of subsidiary prevention programs (e.g., therapeutic foster care) in reducing associated forms of violence is unfavourable. The finding that program-intensive foster care is effective in reducing violence in the juvenile population should affect and useful in oodles locale. The passport of insufficient evidence to determine the effect of these programs among children with SED might uplift additional evaluations of similar interventions for this horrible population.

The population of chronic delinquent toward whom therapeutic foster care might be targeted is substantial. In 1999, the most recent year for which data are available, 104,237 juveniles were committed to residential placement for delinquency in the United States, including 38,005 (36.5%) youths who were committed for violent offenses (4). Of the total number of juveniles committed, approximately 25,800 (36%) were held in services that were not locked but only "staff secure" (5). Because therapeutic foster care is designed for juveniles brainchild to be adequately not dangerous for treatment within communities, a substantial number of juveniles in residential placement might be eligible for such interventions as therapeutic foster care.

This review assessed only studies of therapeutic foster care that evaluated and assessed intervention effects on violent outcomes. These studies, however, also reported other possible money-making or harmful effects of therapeutic foster care.

Although systematic analysis of other outcomes is over and done the extent of this review, the outcomes are noted. In the randomized research of therapeutic foster care for chronic masculine offenders, self-reported rates of nonspecific delinquency and "index" offenses (a Federal Bureau of Investigation tagging including serious chattels offenses above and beyond as violent interpersonal offenses) were degrade among therapeutic foster care participants than among those in control groups. General delinquency was lower by 55.7%, and index offenses were lower by 62.8% (21).

Youths in therapeutic foster care programs were skilful guilty family behavior and trained to improve school camaraderie, family with teacher and peers, and homework ceremony; measured findings on these outcomes are not reported. On average, foster care participants also spent almost twice over as many days sentient at home after the program as group-care participants.

If unvarying, improvements associated with therapeutic foster care probably would have substantial benefits in the curriculum of a participant's life.

Certain studies reviewed indicated a potentially glum effect of therapeutic foster care among females. One study reviewed found that rates of problem behaviors reported by foster parents increased among womanly participants during the first 6 months of therapeutic foster care (20). Although females had reduced rates of violence after the program, an pilot increase in behavior problems might result in their the boot or deportation from foster homes because of an seeming denial of growth (20).

Communities can use the Task Force recommendation opinionated program-intensive therapeutic foster care for prevention of violence among adolescents with a history of chronic delinquency to support, increase, and improve existing programs and to initiate topical ones. In selecting and implement interventions, communities should guardedly assess the need for such programs (e.g., the burden of violence committed by chronically delinquent adolescents).

For local objectives to be realize, recommendations provided in the Community Guide and other evidence should be used in the context of local information (e.g., resource availability; administrative support; and the economic and social environment of communities, neighborhoods, and health-care systems). Program theory test and design should muse the range of option relevant to the specific communities.

This review and the accompanying recommendation from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services can be used by public health policymakers, program planners and implementers, and researchers. It might help to in safe paw interest, possessions, and commitment for implementing these interventions and provide direction and scientific questions for additional empirical research to improve the effectiveness and usefulness of these programs.

To see the Table please click here and scroll down ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMMUNITY GUIDE Community Guide reviews are all solidify and released as each is completed. Previously published reviews and recommendations shield findings from systematic reviews of vaccine-preventable disease, tobacco use prevention and reduction, motor-vehicle inhabitant injury, physical stir, diabetes, oral health, the effect of the social environment on health, violence prevention (firearms laws and home visitation), skin lowness cancer, and informed result making in cancer screening. A collected works of systematic reviews will be published in book form. Additional information regarding the Task Force and the Community Guide, in cooperation with a list of published articles, is available at REFERENCES 1 Hudson J, Nutter RW, Galaway B. Treatment foster family care: development and customary status. Community Alternatives: International Journal of Family Care 1994;6:1--24.

2 Meadowcroft P. Treating emotionally impatient children and adolescents in foster homes. Child Youth Serv 1989;12:23--43.

3 Bureau of Justice Statistics. Criminal victimization in the United States---statistical table index. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002. Available at /bjs/abstract/cvus/age456.htm.

4 Pastore AL, Maguire K, eds. Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 2001. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002.

5 Snyder HN, Sickmund M. Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999.

6 US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Serious and violent juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998.

7 Huizinga D, Loeber R, Thornberry TP, Cothern L. Co-occurence of delinquency and other problem behaviors. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000; NCJ 182211.

8 Hart TC, Rennison C. Reporting crime to the police, 1992--2000. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2003; NCJ 195710.

9 Dunford FW, Elliott DS. Identifying art offenders using self-reported data. J Res Crime Delinq 1984;21:57--86.

10 Snyder HN. Juvenile arrests 2001. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2003; NCJ 201370.

11 Chamberlain P. Treatment foster care. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Bulletin, December 1998.

12 CDC. First reports evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for preventing violence: early immaturity home visitation and firearm laws. Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. MMWR 2003;52(RR-14):1--20.

13 Briss PA, Zaza S, Pappaioanou M, et al. Developing an evidence-based Guide to Community Preventive Services---methods. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(Suppl 1):35--43.

14 Carande-Kulis VG, Maciosek MV, Briss PA, et al. Methods for systematic reviews of economic evaluations for the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(Suppl 1):75--91.

15 US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. 2nd ed. With command and on an upward arch health and objectives for improving health (2 vols.). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000.

16 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical handout of mental disorders (DSM-IV). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

17 Hann DM, Borek N, eds. Taking cattle of venture factors for child/youth externalizing behavior problems. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, 2001.

18 Zaza S, Wright-de Agero L, Briss PA, et al. Data omnibus instrument and habit for systematic reviews in the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(Suppl 1):44--74.

19 Chamberlain P. Comparative evaluation of specialized foster care for seriously delinquent youth: a first rung. Community Alternatives: International Journal of Family Care 1990;2:21--36.

20 Chamberlain P, Reid JB. Differences in risk factors and adjustment for male and female delinquents in treatment foster care. J Child Fam Stud 1994;3:23--39.

21 Chamberlain P, Reid JB. Comparison of two community alternatives to incarceration for chronic juvenile offenders. J Consult Clin Psychol 1998;66:624--33.

22 Evans ME, Armstrong MI, Kuppinger AD, Huz S, McNulty TL. Preliminary outcomes of an provisional study compare treatment foster care and family-centered intensive case management. In: Epstein MH, Kutash K, Duchnowski A, eds. Outcomes for children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders and their families: programs and evaluation most select practice. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.,1998:543--80.

23 Rubinstein JS, Armentrout JA, Levin S, Herald D. The Parent-Therapist Program: alternate care for emotionally disturbed children. Amer J Orthopsychiatry 1978;48:654--62.

24 Quay H, Peterson D. Manual for the Behavior Problem Checklist. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Children's Research Center, 1975.

25 Achenbach TM, Edelbrock C. Manual for the child behavior checklist and revise child behavior profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry, 1983.

26 Chamberlain P, Reid JB. Using a specialized foster care community treatment classic for children and adolescents leaving the state mental hospital. J Community Psychol 1991;19:266--76.

27 Chamberlain P, Moreland S, Reid K. Enhanced services and stipends for foster parents: effects on retention rates and outcomes for children. Child Welfare 1992;71:387--401.

28 Eddy JM, Chamberlain P. Family management and deviant peer group as disinterested party of the impact of treatment coincidence on youth antisocial behavior. J Consult Clin Psychol 2000;68:857--63.

29 Chamberlain P, Mihalic SF. Blueprints for violence prevention: multidimensional treatment foster care. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado at Boulder, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 1998.

30 Moore KJ, Osgood DW, Larzelere RE, Chamberlain P. Use of pooled time series in the study of intrinsically occurring clinical business and problem behavior in a foster care setting. J Consult Clin Psychol 1994;62: 718--28.

31 Aos S, Phipps P, Barnoski R, Lieb R. The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2001.

To see the Table please click here and scroll down * Points of view are those of the contributor and do not necessarily parallel those of the National Institutes of Health.

Points of view are those of the contributor and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Institute of Justice or the Department of Justice.

Laurie M. Anderson, Ph.D., Division of Prevention Research and Analytic Methods, Epidemiology Program Office, CDC, Olympia, Washington; Carl Bell, M.D., Community Mental Health Council, Chicago, Illinois; Red Crowley, Men Stopping Violence, Atlanta, Georgia; Sujata Desai, Ph.D., Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia; Deborah French, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, Colorado; Darnell F. Hawkins, Ph.D., J.D., University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; Danielle LaRaque, M.D., Harlem Hospital Center, New York, New York; Colin Loftin, Ph.D., State University of New York, Albany, New York; Barbara Maciak, Ph.D., M.P.H., Division of Prevention Research and Analytic Methods, Epidemiology Program Office, CDC, Detroit, Michigan; James Mercy, Ph.D., Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia; John Reid, Ph.D., Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene, Oregon; Suzanne Salzinger, Ph.D., New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York; Patricia Smith, Michigan Department of Community Health, Lansing, Michigan.

As defined by the World Bank, these include Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Channel Islands, Denmark, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, St. Pierre and Miquelon, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

** These databases can be access as track: Medline, /entrez/query.fcgi; Embase, (requires identification/password account); Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, (requires identification/password account); National Technical Information Service (NTIS), /products/types/databases.asp?loc4-4-3; PsychLit (now called PsycInfo), /psycinfo; Sociological Abstracts, /csa/factsheets/socioabs.shtml; National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), /content/AbstractsDB_Search.asp; and Cinahl, /wpages/login.htm (requires identification/password account).

Relative percentage changes were calculated as follows: -- for studies with before-and-after measurements and concurrent comparison groups, effect size (Ipost / Ipre / Cpost / Cpre) -- 1 -- for studies with postmeasurements only and concurrent comparison groups, effect size (Ipost -- Cpost) / Cpost -- for studies with before-and-after measurements but no concurrent comparison, effect size (Ipost -- Ipre) / Ipre, where on earth, --- Ipost cessation reported outcome rate in the intervention group after the intervention; --- Ipre reported outcome rate in the intervention group before the intervention; --- Cpost last reported outcome rate in the comparison group after the intervention; and --- Cpre reported outcome rate in the comparison group before the intervention; and -- for studies in which outcomes were reported in extent measures (as in behavior examine lists) and information on standard peculiarity (s) was available, effect size (Ipost -- Cpost) /sC, where sC is the standard deviation of the control population.

To see the Table please click here and scroll down Task Force on Community Preventive Services* Chair: Jonathan E. Fielding, M.D., Los Angeles Department of Health Services, Los Angeles, California Members: Noreen Morrison Clark, Ph.D., University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan; John Clymer, Partnership for Prevention, Washington, D.C.; Alan R. Hinman, M.D., Task Force for Child Survival and Development, Atlanta, Georgia; Robert L. Johnson, M.D., New Jersey Medical School, Department of Pediatrics, Newark, New Jersey; Garland H. Land, M.P.H., Center for Health Information Management and Epidemiology, Missouri Department of Health, Jefferson City, Missouri; Patricia A. Nolan, M.D., Rhode Island Department of Health, Providence, Rhode Island; Dennis E. Richling, M.D., Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha, Nebraska; Barbara K. Rimer, Dr.P.H.; School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Steven M. Teutsch, M.D., Merck & Company, Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania Consultants: Robert S. Lawrence, M.D., Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; J. Michael McGinnis, M.D., Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey; Lloyd F. Novick, M.D., Onondaga County Department of Health, Syracuse, New York.

* Patricia A. Buffler, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley; Ross Brownson, Ph.D., St. Louis University School of Public Health, St. Louis, Missouri; Mary Jane England, M.D., Regis College, Weston, Massachusetts; Caswell A. Evans, Jr., D.D.S., National Oral Health Initiative, Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, Rockville, Maryland; David W. Fleming, M.D., CDC, Atlanta, Georgia; Mindy Thompson Fullilove, M.D., New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University, New York, New York; Fernando A. Guerra, M.D., San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, San Antonio, Texas; George J. Isham, M.D., HealthPartners, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Charles S. Mahan, M.D., College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida; Patricia Dolan Mullen, Dr.P.H., University of Texas--Houston School of Public Health, Houston, Texas; Susan C. Scrimshaw, Ph.D., University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago, Illinois; and Robert S. Thompson, M.D., Department of Preventive Care, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Seattle, Washington also served on the Task Force while the recommendations were being developed.

To see the Table please click here and scroll down Prepared by Robert A. Hahn, Ph.D.1 Jessica Lowy, M.P.H.1 Oleg Bilukha, M.D., Ph.D.1 Susan Snyder, Ph.D.1 Peter Briss, M.D.1 Alex Crosby, M.D.2 Mindy T. Fullilove, M.D.3,4 Farris Tuma, Sc.D.5* Eve K. Moscicki, Sc.D.5* Akiva Liberman, Ph.D.6 Amanda Schofield, M.P.H.1 Phaedra S. Corso, Ph.D.1 1Division of Prevention Research and Analytic Methods, Epidemiology Program Office, CDC 2Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC 3New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University, New York, New York 4Task Force on Community Preventive Services 5National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland 6National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC The textile in this report was prepared by the Epidemiology Program Office, Stephen B. Thacker, M.D., Director; Division of Prevention Research and Analytic Methods, Anne Haddix, Ph.D., Acting Director.

To see the Table please click here and scroll down

Yesterday I found interesting things about mens health