Measuring the costs of crime using the willingness-to-pay method.

BACKGROUND: Criminal justice policy decisions are increasingly being influenced by the ratio of the monetary benefits to the monetary costs. While policies based on evidence and analysed via cost-benefit studies are a welcome development, cost-benefit calculations are only as robust as the data upon which they are based. For England and Wales up to the present, cost-of-crime estimates used in cost-benefit analyses have been calculated by the Home Office using a multi-method approach. However, the intangible costs of crime have not been estimated adequately in England and Wales. AIM: The main aim was to quantify the intangible costs of crime using the willingness-to-pay (WTP) method. Also, stated preferences for different crime reduction methods were investigated. METHOD: This study utilises samples from the City of Cambridge (n = 534) and from Criminal Justice Practitioners (n = 124), to assess their WTP to prevent a range of crimes from happening in their neighbourhood, and their preferred crime reduction techniques. A Contingent Valuation Survey (CVS) was used. RESULTS: Overall, both samples gave a higher WTP for low volume, high harm crimes than for high volume, low harm crimes. Both samples supported funding youth programmes in preference to other forms of crime reduction initiatives. CONCLUSION: It is proposed that a CVS should be included in the next Crime Survey for England and Wales, in order to collect relevant WTP data on crime at the national level.

A Longitudinal Study on Stability and Transitions Among Bullying Roles.

Trajectories of stability and change in bullying roles were examined through a longitudinal prospective study of 916 school students followed up biannually from age 11 to 17. Perpetrators and victims had relatively stable trajectories with most of the children remaining in the same role over time or becoming uninvolved. Bully/victim was the most unstable role with frequent transitions to perpetrators or victims. Developmental change in bullying roles was found with a decrease in physical forms over time in bullies and victims but with persistently high perpetration and victimization in bully/victims. These findings open new horizons in research and practice related to bullying and can be useful for its early detection or design of targeted interventions.

Risk factors for dating violence versus cohabiting violence: Results from the third generation of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development.

BACKGROUND: Dating violence is an important problem. Evidence suggests that women are more likely to perpetrate dating violence. AIMS: The present study investigates the prevalence of dating violence compared with cohabiting violence in a community sample of men and women and assesses to what extent child and adolescent explanatory factors predict this behaviour. A secondary aim is to construct a risk score for dating violence based on the strongest risk factors. METHODS: The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development is a prospective longitudinal survey of 411 men (generation 2) born in the 1950s in an inner London area. Most recently, their sons and daughters [generation 3 (G3)] have been interviewed regarding their perpetration of dating and cohabiting violence, utilising the Conflict Tactics Scale. Risk factors were measured in four domains (family, parental, socio-economic and individual). RESULTS: A larger proportion of women than men perpetrated at least one act of violence towards their dating partner (36.4 vs 21.7%). There was a similar pattern for cohabiting violence (39.6 vs 21.4%). A number of risk factors were significantly associated with the perpetration of dating violence. For G3 women, these included a convicted father, parental conflict, large family size and poor housing. For G3 men, these included having a young father or mother, separation from the father before age 16, early school leaving, frequent truancy and having a criminal conviction. A risk score for both men and women, based on 10 risk factors, significantly predicted dating violence. CONCLUSION: Risk factors from four domains were important in predicting dating violence, but they were different for G3 men and women. It may be important to consider different risk factors and different risk assessments for male compared with female perpetration of dating violence. Early identification and interventions are recommended. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Prevalence, frequency, onset, desistance and criminal career duration in self-reports compared with official records.

AIM: The main aim of this article is to compare prevalence and frequency, ages of onset and desistance, and criminal career duration, according to self-reports and convictions. METHOD: In the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, 411 London males have been followed up from age 8 to age 48, in interviews and criminal records. RESULTS: Virtually all males admitted at least one of eight offences, compared with about one third who were convicted. In self-reports, the number of offences was over 30 times greater, the age of onset was earlier and the career duration was longer, compared with convictions. However, the age of desistance was generally later according to convictions. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported ages of desistance may be affected by increasing concealment with age. The gap between the first self-reported offence and the first conviction provides an opportunity for early intervention.

Risk and protective factors, longitudinal research, and bullying prevention.

This chapter presents the results from two systematic/meta-analytic reviews of longitudinal studies on the association of school bullying (perpetration and victimization) with adverse health and criminal outcomes later in life. Significant associations between the two predictors and the outcomes are found even after controlling for other major childhood risk factors that are measured before school bullying. The results indicate that effective antibullying programs should be encouraged. They could be viewed as a form of early crime prevention as well as an early form of public health promotion. The findings from a systematic/meta-analytic review on the effectiveness of antibullying programs are also presented. Overall, school-based antibullying programs are effective, leading to an average decrease in bullying of 20 to 23 percent and in victimization of 17 to 20 percent. The chapter emphasizes the lack of prospective longitudinal research in the area of school bullying, which does not allow examination of whether any given factor (individual, family,. or social) is a correlate, a predictor, or a possible cause for bullying. This has important implications for future antibullying initiatives, as well as implications for the refinement of theories of school bullying. It is necessary to extend the framework of the traditional risk-focused approach by incorporating the notion of resiliency and investigating possible protective factors against school bullying and its negative consequences.

Bullying as a predictor of offending, violence and later life outcomes.

AIM: The main aim of this paper is to investigate to what extent self-reported bullying at age 14 predicts later offending, violence and other life outcomes. METHOD: In the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, 411 South London males were followed up from age 8-10 to age 48-50, using repeated face-to-face interviews and searches of criminal records. RESULTS: Bullying at age 14 predicted violent convictions between ages 15 and 20, self-reported violence at age 15-18, low job status at age 18, drug use at age 27-32, and an unsuccessful life at age 48. These results held up after controlling for explanatory and behavioural childhood risk factors at age 8-10. CONCLUSIONS: Bullying might increase the likelihood of these later outcomes. Interventions that decrease bullying would most likely be followed by decreases in violent offending, drug use, and unsuccessful lives.

The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: a systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies.

BACKGROUND: Although bullying and delinquency share similar risk factors, no previous systematic review has ever been conducted to examine possible links between school bullying and criminal offending later in life. AIMS: To investigate the extent to which bullying perpetration at school predicts offending later in life, and whether this relation holds after controlling for other major childhood risk factors. METHOD: Results are based on a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis of studies measuring school bullying and later offending. Effect sizes are based on both published and unpublished studies; longitudinal investigators of 28 studies have conducted specific analyses for our review. RESULTS: The probability of offending up to 11 years later was much higher for school bullies than for non-involved students [odds ratio (OR) = 2.50; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.03-3.08]. Bullying perpetration was a significant risk factor for later offending, even after controlling for major childhood risk factors (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.55-2.14). Effect sizes were smaller when the follow-up period was longer and larger when bullying was assessed in older children. The age of participants when outcome measures were taken was negatively related with effect sizes. Finally, the summary effect size did not decrease much as the number of controlled risk factors increased. CONCLUSIONS: School bullying is a strong and specific risk factor for later offending. Effective anti-bullying programmes should be promoted, and could be viewed as a form of early crime prevention. Such programmes would have a high benefit : cost ratio.

Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

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; I 2 = 73.716) and bullying victimization (Q = 387.255; df = 87; p < .001; I 2 = 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.

What works in anti-bullying programs? Analysis of effective intervention components.

Previous research has shown that many school-based anti-bullying programs are effective. A prior meta-analysis (Gaffney, Ttofi, & Farrington, 2019) found that intervention programs are effective in reducing school-bullying perpetration by approximately 19-20% and school-bullying victimization by approximately 15-16%. Using data from this prior meta-analysis, the aim of the current study was to examine the relationship between effectiveness estimates and specific elements of anti-bullying programs. Specific intervention components in line with a socio-ecological framework were coded as present or absent. Components were coded on the following levels: school, classroom, teacher, parent, peer, individual, and intervention. Meta-analytical subgroup comparisons analogous to ANOVA were computed to examine the relationship between the presence of specific components and the effectiveness in reducing bullying perpetration (n = 82) and victimization (n = 86). Results indicated that the presence of a number of intervention components (e.g., whole-school approach, anti-bullying policies, classroom rules, information for parents, informal peer involvement, and work with victims) were significantly associated with larger effect sizes for school-bullying perpetration outcomes. The presence of informal peer involvement and information for parents were associated with larger effect sizes for school-bullying victimization outcomes. Meta-regression analyses showed no significant relationship between effectiveness and the number of intervention components included in a program. The present report contributes to the understanding of 'what works' in reducing school-bullying perpetration and victimization. The impact of these findings on future anti-bullying research is discussed.

Development of adolescence-limited, late-onset, and persistent offenders from age 8 to age 48.

This article investigates the life success at ages 32 and 48 of four categories of males: nonoffenders, adolescence-limited offenders (convicted only at ages 10-20), late-onset offenders (convicted only at ages 21-50), and persistent offenders (convicted at both ages 10-20 and 21-50). In the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, 411 South London males have been followed up from age 8 to 48 in repeated personal interviews. There was considerable continuity in offending over time. Persistent offenders had the longest criminal careers (averaging 18.4 years), and most of them had convictions for violence. Persistent offenders were leading the most unsuccessful lives at ages 32 and 48, although all categories of males became more successful with age. By age 48, the life success of adolescence-limited offenders was similar to that of nonoffenders. The most important risk factors at ages 8-18 that predicted which offenders would persist after age 21 were heavy drinking at age 18, hyperactivity at ages 12-14, and low popularity and harsh discipline at ages 8-10. The most important risk factors that predicted which nonoffenders would onset after age 21 were poor housing and low nonverbal IQ at ages 8-10, high neuroticism at age 16, and anti-establishment attitudes and motoring convictions at age 18. It was suggested that nervousness and neuroticism may have protected children at risk from offending in adolescence and the teenage years.

Empathy and Callous-Unemotional Traits in Different Bullying Roles: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Bullying is an extremely damaging type of violence that is present in schools all over the world, but there are still many gaps in knowledge regarding different variables that might influence the phenomenon. Two promising research lines focus on empathy and callous-unemotional traits but findings from individual studies seem to be contradictory. This article reports the results of a systematic review and a meta-analysis on empathy and callous-unemotional traits in relation to school bullying based on 53 empirical reports that met the inclusion criteria. Bullying perpetration is negatively associated with cognitive (odds ratio [ OR] = 0.60) and affective ( OR = 0.51) empathy. Perpetration is also positively associated with callous-unemotional traits ( OR = 2.55). Bully-victims scored low in empathy ( OR = 0.57). There is a nonsignificant association between victimization and empathy ( OR = 0.96), while the relationship between callous-unemotional traits and victimization is significant but small ( OR = 1.66). Defenders scored high on cognitive ( OR = 2.09) and affective ( OR = 2.62) empathy. These findings should be taken into account in explaining and preventing bullying.

Reintegrative Shaming Theory, moral emotions and bullying.

This article investigates the usefulness of Reintegrative Shaming Theory (RST) in explaining the bullying of siblings in families and peers in schools. Questionnaires were completed by 182 children aged 11-12 years in ten primary schools in Nicosia, Cyprus, about sibling and peer bullying. A vignette-based methodology was used to investigate children's expectations of the type of shaming their parents would offer in response to their possible wrong doing. Children were also asked questions about the emotions they would have felt (i.e. shame, remorse, guilt or anger) if they were in the position of the child in the vignette. The level of bonding toward each parent was also examined. In agreement with the theory, a path analysis showed that mother bonding influenced children's expectations of the type of shaming offered by parents. Disintegrative shaming (i.e. shaming offered in a stigmatizing or rejecting way) had a direct effect on the way children managed their shame. Shame management directly influenced sibling and peer bullying. Father bonding had no direct or indirect effects in the model. Against the theory, reintegrative shaming (i.e. shaming offered in the context of approving the wrongdoer while rejecting the wrongdoing) did not have a direct effect on shame management. Beyond the postulates of RST, mother bonding-a plausible indicator of family functioning-had a direct effect on sibling and peer bullying. Mother bonding had a stronger effect for boys than for girls. It is concluded that RST is useful in explaining the link between family factors and bullying, and that RST has cross-cultural applicability.

School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: a systematic review.

This Campbell systematic review examines the impact of interventions to reduce exclusion from school. School exclusion, also known as suspension in some countries, is a disciplinary sanction imposed by a responsible school authority, in reaction to students' misbehaviour. Exclusion entails the removal of pupils from regular teaching for a period during which they are not allowed to be present in the classroom (in-school) or on school premises (out-of-school). In some extreme cases the student is not allowed to come back to the same school (expulsion). The review summarises findings from 37 reports covering nine different types of intervention. Most studies were from the USA, and the remainder from the UK. Included studies evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions to reduce the rates of exclusion. Interventions were implemented in mainstream schools and targeted school-aged children from four to 18, irrespective of nationality or social background. Only randomised controlled trials are included. The evidence base covers 37 studies. Thirty-three studies were from the USA, three from the UK, and for one study the country was not clear. School-based interventions cause a small and significant drop in exclusion rates during the first six months after intervention (on average), but this effect is not sustained. Interventions seemed to be more effective at reducing some types of exclusion such as expulsion and in-school exclusion. Four intervention types - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers - had significant desirable effects on exclusion. However, the number of studies in each case is low, so this result needs to be treated with caution. There is no impact of the interventions on antisocial behaviour. Variations in effect sizes are not explained by participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, or the quality of the intervention. Independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention. Plain language summary: Interventions can reduce school exclusion but the effect is temporary: Some interventions - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers - appear to have significant effects on exclusion.The review in brief: Interventions to reduce school exclusion are intended to mitigate the adverse effects of this school sanction. Some approaches, namely those involving enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring and those targeting skills training for teachers, have a temporary effect in reducing exclusion. More evaluations are needed to identify the most effective types of intervention; and whether similar effects are also found in different countries.What is this review about?: School exclusion is associated with undesirable effects on developmental outcomes. It increases the likelihood of poor academic performance, antisocial behavior, and poor employment prospects. This school sanction disproportionally affects males, ethnic minorities, those who come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, and those with special educational needs.This review assesses the effectiveness of programmes to reduce the prevalence of exclusion.What are the main findings of this review?: What studies are included? Included studies evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions to reduce the rates of exclusion. Interventions were implemented in mainstream schools and targeted school-aged children from four to 18, irrespective of nationality or social background. Only randomised controlled trials are included.The evidence base covers 37 studies. Thirty-three studies were from the USA, three from the UK, and for one study the country was not clear.School-based interventions cause a small and significant drop in exclusion rates during the first six months after intervention (on average), but this effect is not sustained. Interventions seemed to be more effective at reducing some types of exclusion such as expulsion and in-school exclusion.Four intervention types - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/ monitoring, and skills training for teachers - had significant desirable effects on exclusion. However, the number of studies in each case is low, so this result needs to be treated with caution.There is no impact of the interventions on antisocial behaviour.Variations in effect sizes are not explained by participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, or the quality of the intervention. Independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.What do the findings of this review mean?: School-based interventions are effective at reducing school exclusion immediately after, and for a few months after, the intervention (6 months on average). Four interventions presented promising and significant results in reducing exclusion, that is, enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, skills training for teachers. However, since the number of studies for each sub-type of intervention was low, we suggest these results should be treated with caution.Most of the studies come from the USA. Evaluations are needed from other countries in which exclusion is common. Further research should take advantage of the possibility of conducting cluster-randomised controlled trials, whilst ensuring that the sample size is sufficiently large.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies published up to December 2015. This Campbell systematic review was published in January 2018. Executive Summary/Abstract: BACKGROUND: Schools are important institutions of formal social control (Maimon, Antonaccio, & French, 2012). They are, apart from families, the primary social system in which individuals are socialised to follow specific codes of conduct. Violating these codes of conduct may result in some form of punishment. School punishment is normally accepted by families and students as a consequence of transgression, and in that sense school isoften the place where children are first introduced to discipline, justice, or injustice (Whitford & Levine-Donnerstein, 2014).A wide range of punishments may be used in schools, from verbal reprimands to more serious actions such as detention, fixed term exclusion or even permanent exclusion from the mainstream education system. It must be said that in some way, these school sanctions resemble the penal system and its array of alternatives to punish those that break the law.School exclusion, also known as suspension in some countries, is defined as a disciplinary sanction imposed by a responsible school authority, in reaction to students' misbehaviour. Exclusion entails the removal of pupils from regular teaching for a period during which they are not allowed to be present in the classroom or, in more serious cases, on school premises.Based on the previous definition, this review uses school exclusion and school suspension as synonyms, unless the contrary is explicitly stated. Most of the available research has found that exclusion correlates with subsequent negative sequels on developmental outcomes. Exclusion or suspension of students is associated with failure within the academic curriculum, aggravated antisocial behaviour, and an increased likelihood of involvement with punitive social control institutions (i.e., the Juvenile Justice System). In the long-term, opportunities for training and employment seem to be considerably reduced for those who have repeatedly been excluded. In addition to these negative correlated outcomes, previous evidence suggest that the exclusion of students involves a high economic cost for taxpayers and society.Research from the last 20 years has concluded quite consistently that this disciplinary measure disproportionally targets males, ethnic minorities, those who come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, and those presenting special educational needs. In other words, suspension affects the most vulnerable children in schools.Different programmes have attempted to reduce the prevalence of exclusion. Although some of them have shown promising results, so far, no comprehensive systematic review has examined these programmes' overall effectiveness.OBJECTIVES: The main goal of the present research is to systematically examine the available evidence for the effectiveness of different types of school-based interventions aimed at reducing disciplinary school exclusion. Secondary goals include comparing different approaches and identifying those that could potentially demonstrate larger and more significant effects.The research questions underlying this project are as follows: Do school-based programmes reduce the use of exclusionary sanctions in schools?Are some school-based approaches more effective than others in reducing exclusionary sanctions?Do participants' characteristics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) affect the impact of school-based programmes on exclusionary sanctions in schools?Do characteristics of the interventions, implementation, and methodology affect the impact of school-based programmes on exclusionary sanctions in schools? SEARCH METHODS: The authors conducted a comprehensive search to locate relevant studies reporting on the impact of school-based interventions on exclusion from 1980 onwards. Twenty-seven different databases were consulted, including databases that contained both published and unpublished literature. In addition, we contacted researchers in the field of school-exclusion for further recommendations of relevant studies; we also assessed citation lists from previous systematic and narrative reviews and research reports. Searches were conducted from September 1 to December 1, 2015.SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion and exclusion criteria for manuscripts were defined before we started our searches. To be eligible, studies needed to have: evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions intended to reduce the rates of suspension; seen the interventions as an alternative to exclusion; targeted school-aged children from four to 18 in mainstream schools irrespective of nationality or social background; and reported results of interventions delivered from 1980 onwards. In terms of methodological design, we included randomised controlled trialsonly, with at least one experimental group and onecontrol or placebo group.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Initial searches produced a total of 42,749 references from 27 different electronic databases. After screening the title, abstract and key words, we kept 1,474 relevant hits. 22 additional manuscripts were identified through other sources (e.g., assessment of citation lists, contribution of authors). After removing duplicates, we ended up with a total of 517 manuscripts. Two independent coders evaluated each report, to determine inclusion or exclusion.The second round of evaluation excluded 472 papers, with eight papers awaiting classification, and 37 studies kept for inclusion in meta-analysis. Two independent evaluators assessed all the included manuscripts for risk of quality bias by using EPOC tool.Due to the broad scope of our targeted programmes, meta-analysis was conducted under a random-effect model. We report the impact of the intervention using standardised differences of means, 95% confidence intervals along with the respective forest plots. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression were used for examining the impact of the programme. Funnel plots and Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill analysis were used to explore the effect of publication bias.RESULTS: Based on our findings, interventions settled in school can produce a small and significant drop in exclusion rates (SMD=.30; 95% CI .20 to .41; p<.001). This means that those participating in interventions are less likely to be suspended than those allocated to control/placebo groups. These results are based on measures of impact collected immediately during the first six months after treatment (on average). When the impact was tested in the long-term (i.e., 12 or more months after treatment), the effects of the interventions were not sustained. In fact, there was a substantive reduction in the impact of school-based programmes (SMD=.15; 95%CI -.06 to .35), and it was no longer statistically significant.We ran analysis testing the impact of school-based interventions on different types of exclusion. Evidence suggests that interventions are more effective at reducing expulsion and in-school exclusion than out-of-school exclusion. In fact, the impact of intervention in out-of-school exclusion was close to zero and not statistically significant.Nine different types of school-based interventions were identified across the 37 studies included in the review. Four of them presented favourable and significant results in reducing exclusion (i.e., enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, skills training for teachers). Since the number of studies for each sub-type of intervention was low, we suggest that results should be treated with caution.A priori defined moderators (i.e., participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, and quality of the intervention)showed not to be effective at explaining the heterogeneity present in our results. Among three post-hoc moderators, the role of the evaluator was found to be significant: independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.Two researchers independently evaluated the quality of the evidence involved in this review by using the EPOC tool. Most of the studies did not present enough information for the judgement of quality bias.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that school-based interventions are effective at reducing school exclusion immediately after, and for a few months after, the intervention. Some specific types of interventions show more promising and stable results than others, namely those involving mentoring/monitoring and those targeting skills training for teachers. However, based on the number of studies involved in our calculations, we suggest that results must be cautiously interpreted. Implications for policy and practice arising from our results are discussed.

School bullying and drug use later in life: A meta-analytic investigation.

The main aim of this article is to investigate whether there is a significant long-term association between bullying at school and drug use later in life. A meta-analysis is presented based on results from major prospective longitudinal studies with available unadjusted and adjusted effect sizes. Results are based on thorough systematic searches of the literature across 19 databases and 63 journals. The unadjusted summary effect size suggests that youth who bully are at least twice as likely compared with noninvolved students to use drugs later in life (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.60-3.07). The adjusted summary effect size is markedly reduced to an OR of 1.41 (95% CI: 1.20-1.66) suggesting that a lot of variation in the final model is explained by other contributing factors, while bullying has a significant yet small effect over and above the contribution of these factors. Contributing factors include childhood risks falling within the individual, family, and school domains that are significantly associated with both the predictor and the outcome. It is concluded that school bullying, drug use, and other problem behaviors are intercorrelated; thus, highlighting the need to create a meaningful holistic framework for the prevention of drug problems and other associated mental, emotional, and behavioral maladies. Implications for policy and practice arising from these findings are discussed.