The major aim of this Metropolitan Area Child Study is to increase the understanding of the etiology and prevention of aggressive and antisocial behavior by evaluating the impact of three complementary, multi-year preventive interventions for high-risk, urban youth. These intervention programs, firmly grounded in psychological theory, reflect the view that only multi-context, long-term interventions that have an impact on multiple dimensions of the child's environment are likely to be effective. The three on-going interventions are directed towards preventing the emergence of serious antisocial behavior in 7-13-year-old predominantly minority children living in high violence inner city and urban communities. These interventions are being conducted and evaluated in the framework of an experimental design in which four schools were assigned at random to each of the three intervention conditions and a no-treatment control condition (16 schools in all). Each intervention condition represents a more intense and comprehensive level of intervention: Level A: A general enhancement classroom-based social-cognitive and peer- relationship training program (Yes I Can) combined with an extensive teacher training program focused on the enhancement of classroom and school environment; Level B: The same treatments as in Level A plus small group social-cognitive and peer-relationship training corresponding for high-risk children; and Level C: The same treatments as in Level B plus a family intervention for the high-risk children and their families. While the teacher-training component of the general enhancement program is given to all grade 1-6 teachers in all schools in the Level A, B, and C conditions (as an initial one-year seminar series, followed by yearly bi- monthly maintenance seminars and continued classroom monitoring), the child (social-cognitive and small group) and family components of each intervention treatment (Levels A, B and C) are two-year programs given only in the 2nd/3rd grade (Early treatment) and in the 5th/6th grade (Late treatment). At the start of this proposed continuation period, we will have completed two years of teacher training in each grade in each school in the Level A, B, and C conditions (12 schools). In addition, in these 12 schools, two cohorts (Cohorts 2 & 3: Grades 2 & 3 in 91-92) will have completed the appropriate two-year Early treatment; one cohort (Cohort 5: Grade 5 in 91- 92) will have completed the appropriate two-year Late treatment; one cohort (Cohort 4: Grade 4 in 91-92) will have completed one year of the Late treatment; one cohort (Cohort 1: Grade 1 in 91-92) will have completed one year of the Early treatment; and the respective comparison groups from these cohorts will have been assessed in the no-treatment schools (4 schools). The proposed 3-year continUation will enable us to (1) provide the Late treatment for Cohorts 2 and 3 that have received the Early treatment; (2) complete the Late treatment for Cohort 4; (3) complete the Early treatment for Cohort 1; and (4) add an Early treatment for Cohort O (Kindergarten in 91/92) and Cohort -1 (Preschool in 91/91). Under this plan, we will be able to provide all high-risk children beyond the 2nd grade in the selected schools at least one complete treatment by the end of the continuation period. This will enable us to compare the full ecological effects of our impact on entire schools.
