J. Robert Flores, Administrator August 2004

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

with inadequate psychometrics, the failure

to consider comorbidity (i.e., co-occurring

conditions), problems with identifying

sample characteristics, and a lack of information regarding when the assessments

were conducted. They note that previous

studies often did not define the timeframe

for symptoms. However, distinguishing

between lifetime and current symptoms

is important not only for determining the

prevalence of disorders but also in planning for immediate service needs.

Although great advances have been made

in reliable mental health assessment of

children and adolescents (Jensen et al.,

1995; Shaffer et al., 1996), assessment practices in juvenile justice settings remain

highly variable and generally have not

used evidence-based, scientifically sound

instruments (Cocozza and Skowyra, 2000;

LeBlanc, 1998; Nicol et al., 2000; Towberman, 1992; Wiebush et al., 1995). A common practice has been to rely on a youth’s

history of using mental health services as

an indicator of whether the youth currently needs services. However, research

suggests that the juvenile justice system

cannot rely on other systems to provide

information on the previous use of mental

health services for all youth at entry. For

example, Novins and colleagues (1999)

Assessing the Mental Health

Status of Youth in Juvenile

Justice Settings

Gail A. Wasserman, Susan J. Ko, and Larkin S. McReynolds

Youth in the juvenile justice system are at

high risk for mental health problems that

may have contributed to their criminal

behavior and that are likely to interfere

with rehabilitation (Loeber et al., 1998;

Lynam, 1996). Emotional impairment due

to an untreated mental disorder may contribute to an adverse reaction to confinement, which in turn may result in a poor

adjustment during incarceration. Poor

adjustment can have a negative impact

on behavior, discipline, and on a youth’s

ability to participate in available program

components designed to address mental

health, emotional, physical, and academic

needs. Together, all of these factors may

increase the risk for recidivism. 

In a review of 34 studies on mental health

needs and services in the juvenile justice

system, Otto and colleagues (1992) found

that rates of mental disorders were substantially higher among youth involved in

the justice system than among youth in

the general population. They also found

that rates of disorder were higher in studies that assessed youth in person than in

those that assessed youth by chart review.

These authors suggested that existing studies of the prevalence of mental disorders

among youth in the juvenile justice system

were limited by the use of instruments

A Message From OJJDP

Serious mental health and substance

use disorders can interfere with the

rehabilitation of youth who come into

contact with the juvenile justice system and increase their risk for recidivism. Too often, the needs of these

youth have gone unrecognized and

untreated because of inadequate

screening and assessment.

One obstacle to assessing the mental

health needs of youth in the juvenile

justice system has been the dearth

of reliable, easy-to-use assessment

instruments. This Bulletin reports the

results of a study of the Voice

DISC–IV, a version of the Diagnostic

Interview Schedule for Children

(DISC) that is self-administered using

a computer and headphones. The

DISC is an extensively tested child

and adolescent diagnostic interview

that has been evaluated in clinical

and community settings. The selfadministered Voice DISC offers several advantages for use within the

juvenile justice system—notably,

minimal staff support requirements,

immediate scoring that generates

provisional DSM–IV diagnoses, and

the assurance of privacy that can enhance the willingness of youth to disclose sensitive personal information.

Based on their findings and those of

other researchers, the authors recommend best practices in assessing the

mental health of juvenile offenders.

This Bulletin provides guidance to

juvenile justice professionals seeking

to establish guidelines for mental

health assessment in juvenile justice

facilities.

Office of Justice Programs • Partnerships for Safer Communities • www.ojp.usdoj.gov
2

third edition revised (DSM–III–R), and of

the World Health Organization’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases

and Related Health Problems, 10th revision

(ICD–10). The DISC–IV provides a detailed

assessment of impairment based on responses to six sets of questions about

the effect of symptoms on the youth’s

relationships with his or her caretakers,

family, or peers and at school.3

The psychometrics of the DISC have been

evaluated extensively in a variety of settings. Five studies of psychiatric disorders in youth in various juvenile justice

settings have reported rates based on

systematic assessment using the DISC 

(Atkins, Pumariega, and Rogers, 1999;

Duclos et al., 1998; Garland et al., 2001;

Randall et al., 1999; and Teplin et al.,

2002). Except for the study by Garland

and colleagues, all of these investigations

were based on earlier, now superseded,

versions of the DISC, and none used the

recently developed Voice DISC, which is

self-administered using a computer and

headphones. Several aspects of the Voice

DISC make it well suited for use within

the juvenile justice system:

◆ Minimal staff support requirements.

◆ Immediate scoring, with a printout

of provisional DSM–IV diagnoses and

symptom counts available for followup

by a clinician.

◆ Increased likelihood of disclosure,

especially for suicidality and substance

use. (The enhanced privacy of the 

self-administered format contributes

to the willingness of youth to disclose

sensitive personal information.)

Preliminary data show that the reliability

of the Voice DISC is comparable to that of

other versions of the DISC (Lucas, 2003).

In contrast to many other assessment

instruments, the Voice DISC provides provisional diagnoses for the youth assessed.

Because diagnosis drives mental health

treatment, having information about a

youth’s diagnosis is critical. Most evidencebased treatment services have been designed for specific disorders and have

been shown to be effective only when

they are provided to youth who have

those disorders. The Voice DISC generates

provisional diagnoses of disorders present

in the past month, which makes it especially useful within juvenile justice settings,

where prompt identification of youth who

need immediate treatment is important.

found that only 34 percent of a sample

of juvenile detainees with a documented

anxiety, affective (mood), or disruptive

behavior disorder had previously received

services for those disorders. Similarly,

the Policy Design Team (1994) found that

approximately 50 percent of the juvenile

detainees in Virginia showed mental

health problems of moderate severity

or higher and that 8.5 percent showed

“severe” problems, but that only 15 percent of the detainees who exhibited mental health problems were receiving mental

health services while in custody. A study

of youth in South Carolina found that

despite higher rates of disorder, incarcerated youth were significantly less likely

to have received outpatient mental health

services previously than were youth

enrolled in a community mental health

service (Pumariega et al., 1999). Other

research suggests that minority youth

and youth of low socioeconomic status

are less likely to have a history of using

mental health services (Pumariega et al.,

1998).1

This Bulletin reports the results of a

study that used a computerized, selfadministered version of the Diagnostic

Interview Schedule for Children (DISC) to

screen for psychiatric disorders in youth

newly admitted to juvenile assessment

centers in Illinois and New Jersey. The

study assessed rates of psychiatric disorders and tested the feasibility of using this

assessment instrument among youth in

the juvenile justice system.2 Recommendations are also offered for “best practices”

for mental health assessment in juvenile

justice settings based on a comparison of

the rates of psychiatric disorder identified

in this study with those found in other

studies in which earlier versions of the

DISC were used in juvenile justice settings.

Diagnostic Interview

Schedule for Children

The Diagnostic Interview Schedule for

Children (DISC) is an extensively tested

child and adolescent diagnostic interview

that has been evaluated in both clinical

and community samples (Shaffer et al.,

1996). A family of highly structured psychiatric interviews designed to assess

more than 25 different mental disorders

in children and adolescents, the DISC

incorporates the diagnostic criteria of

the American Psychiatric Association’s

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders, fourth edition (DSM–IV) and

Study Method

The executive director of the Council

of Juvenile Correctional Administrators

(CJCA) helped to solicit collaboration

from juvenile facilities by announcing the

study at the Council’s 1998 annual conference. The directors of the Illinois Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division,

and the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission provided access to the St. Charles

Reception Center in Illinois and the New

Jersey Training School for Boys. The study

provided training, technical assistance,

assessment materials, and funding for reimbursement of staff time. Local staff agreed

to collect assessments for 100 randomly

selected male youth in Illinois and 200 in

New Jersey.

Altogether, 320 youth were asked to participate; of these, all but 5 agreed. Twelve

assessments were not included for technical and logistical reasons. Seven parents

withdrew their child’s data. Data were

available, then, for 296 youth (94 in Illinois

and 202 in New Jersey), reflecting a response rate of more than 92 percent for

youth approached in both sites.4

For all youth who agreed to participate,

the data collector briefly demonstrated

the operation of the computer program

and made sure the youth was comfortable

proceeding independently after the first

module, which gathers demographic data.

The data collectors remained available at

a distance (to ensure privacy) throughout

the assessment. 

Background information (age, race/

ethnicity, school grade, admission date,

number of prior offenses, and current

offense) was abstracted from reception

center files in each location. Because a

youth could have more than one current

offense, up to four current offenses were

provided from justice records for each

youth.

Results

The average participant in the study was

17 years old and in the 9th grade (i.e., 2

years behind the expected grade), and

more than half (53.7 percent) of the youth

were African American (tables 1 and 2).

Eighty-eight percent of the youth were

assessed within 4 weeks of their admission to the facility, with 40 percent being

assessed within 2 weeks of admission.

Most of the youth had previous contact

with the juvenile justice system; 28 percent

had committed one or more substancerelated offenses.
3

the sample were examined: youth who

met criteria for a substance use disorder

only (n=68), those who met criteria for a

disorder other than substance use (n=53),

and those with no evidence of a disorder

(n=97).5 Sixty-five of these 218 youth were

incarcerated for a substance use offense:

28 who had only a substance use disorder,

10 who had a disorder other than substance use, and 27 who had no diagnosed

disorder. Of these 65 youth, those with a

substance use disorder were significantly

more likely to have been incarcerated for

a substance-related offense than the youth

in either of the other two groups (see the

figure on page 4). 

Discussion

Prevalence of Psychiatric

Disorder in Justice System

Youth

Arriving at a DSM diagnosis requires

consideration of the extent of a youth’s

impairment (i.e., deficits in functioning)

across a number of different domains.

Because the DISC uses the logic of the

DSM–IV, it also provides an impairment

score. For several reasons, the findings

presented in this Bulletin are based on

diagnostic criteria only and do not consider the level of impairment.6

The assessment inquired about 20 psychiatric disorders and took an average of 60

minutes to complete. As would be expected, the youth in whom more disorders

were diagnosed needed more time to complete the assessment. Unsolicited, five

youth commented that they felt safer disclosing information to the computer than

to a person. 

Table 3 presents the number of youth who

met the criteria for each disorder in the

preceding month. Because suicidality is

of great concern for management in residential programs, information on reported

suicidal ideation and attempts is presented

in table 4. 

Table 3 shows high current rates for many

disorders in the sample as a whole. Beyond

the expectably high numbers of youth

meeting criteria for substance use or conduct disorders, the rates of current mood

and anxiety disorders were also high (9.1

percent and 18.9 percent, respectively). In

addition, 9.1 percent of the youth reported suicidal ideation in the past month and

2.7 percent reported having attempted to

commit suicide during the past month. 

To examine the degree to which a Voice

DISC–IV diagnosis of a substance use disorder corresponded to a record of substance use offenses, three groups within

Table 1: Demographic and Offense

Characteristics of the

Study Sample 

Characteristic Mean SD

Age (years) 17.04 1.39

Current school

grade 9.63 1.39

Number of prior 

convictions 4.7 4.4

Number of days 

since admission 18.7 12.6

Table 2: Race/Ethnicity of the Study

Sample

Race/Ethnicity Number Percent

African American 159 53.7

White 81 27.4

Hispanic 49 16.6

Other 7 2.4

Note: Percents do not sum to 100 because of

rounding.

Table 3: Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders Within the Past Month 

Number of Youth 

Disorder (N=296) Percent*

None 97 32.8

Any anxiety disorder† 56 18.9

Anxiety disorder only 17 5.7

Agoraphobia 13 4.4

Generalized anxiety 6 2.0

Obsessive-compulsive 13 4.5

Panic 13 4.5

Posttraumatic stress 13 4.5

Social phobia 7 2.4

Specific phobia 25 8.5

Any mood disorder 27 9.1

Mood disorder only 1 0.3

Manic episode 6 2.1

Hypomanic episode 2 0.7

Major depressive 21 7.2

Dysthymic‡ 2 0.7

Any disruptive disorder 94 31.8

Disruptive disorder only 21 7.1

ADHD 6 2.3

Conduct§ 89 31.7

Oppositional defiant 8 2.8

Any substance use disorder 146 49.3

Substance use disorder only 68 23.0

Alcohol dependence 38 12.9

Alcohol abuse 47 17.0

Marijuana dependence 72 25.7

Marijuana abuse 42 15.0

Other substance dependence 36 12.8

Other substance abuse 11 3.9

Note: Diagnoses are based on DSM–IV criteria only.

* The prevalence for some diagnoses is based on a slightly reduced number because some youth

did not complete the entire DISC interview (e.g., because they were transferred).

† Separation anxiety disorder either not assessed or not included.

‡ Current DISC and DSM–IV criteria necessitate that youth with major depressive disorder do not

also receive a diagnosis of dysthymia.

§ Past 6 months.
4

Although its assessment of disorder

criteria is straightforward, the selfadministered nature of the Voice DISC

relies on a youth’s awareness of the social

and personal consequences of his or her

disorder to determine impairment.

Because the social judgment of youth

found guilty of delinquent or criminal behavior may be particularly poor, the Voice

DISC may substantially underreport the

level of impairment in these youth. A clinician considering impairment for the

purpose of making a diagnosis should rely

on multiple informants and various pieces

of information to determine the level of

impairment. 

Comparison With Other

Studies

As shown in table 5, the rates of disorder

found in the present study are somewhat

lower than those reported by previous

studies that used the DISC in juvenile

justice populations. However, the earlier

studies used earlier versions of the DISC.

Consideration of four basic differences in

instrumentation and sample characteristics between the present study and the

previous investigations puts the differences in the results into context: 

◆ Participants in the present study responded to questions about the month

preceding the interview, a period considerably shorter than the 6-month

reporting timeframe of most of the

earlier studies. In some cases, the rates

of disorder found in the present study

were correspondingly somewhat lower

than those found in the studies that

used a longer timeframe (Atkins,

Pumariega, and Rogers, 1999; Duclos

et al., 1998; Randall et al., 1999; Garland

et al., 2001; Teplin et al., 2002).

◆ The present study evaluated youth

who recently had been sent to secure

placement (likely after they had spent

weeks in juvenile detention). The youth

assessed by Teplin and colleagues

(2002) were being held in detention—

that is, they recently had been in the

community, where they had the opportunity to offend. Garland and colleagues (2001) assessed “wards of the

court” without regard to whether they

were in the community or in custody.

By intent, secure placement limits misbehavior. The more structured and

controlled the setting, the less opportunity youth have to engage in the behaviors characteristic of conduct and substance use disorders. Therefore, rates

for those disorders might be expected

to be lower for the youth in the present

study than for the youth evaluated in

the earlier studies.

◆ The present study relied exclusively on

self-report, whereas Garland and colleagues (2001) pooled diagnostic information received from parents as well as

youth, a procedure that results in increased prevalence rates (Bird, Gould,

and Staghezza-Jaramillo, 1992). Parental informants are more likely than

youth to report symptoms of disruptive behavior disorders such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

(ADHD) and conduct disorder (Jensen

et al., 1999), and this may account for

the variability in the reported rates of

disorder across the studies.

◆ Because many youth entering secure

care will recently have been removed

from their homes, their endorsement of

separation anxiety symptoms may not

reflect enduring disorder. Therefore, in

contrast to the earlier studies, the present investigation did not inquire about

separation anxiety disorder. This decision may have caused the rates for

overall anxiety disorders observed in

the present study to be somewhat

lower than those in the earlier studies. 

The rate of suicide attempts in the past

month (2.7 percent) reported by youth in

the present study is comparable to the

rate of suicide attempts by youth in the

past month that was reported by facilities

in the Conditions of Confinement study

(2.5 percent) (Parent et al., 1994), lending

further support to the validity of the Voice

DISC assessment.

Although the prevalence of conduct disorder in the study sample was high (31.7

percent), the prevalence rates for other

Note: SUD, substance use disorder. Percent

Diagnostic Grouping

No disorder SUD only No SUD

0

10

20

30

40

50

41.2

27.8

18.9

Percent of Youth Incarcerated for a Substance Use Offense Relative to

Disorder Status as Diagnosed by the Voice DISC–IV

Table 4: Prevalence of Suicide Ideation or Attempt

Suicide Ideation Number of Youth

or Attempt (N=296) Percent*

Ideation (past month) 27 9.1

Attempt 

Past month 8 2.7

Lifetime 35 11.8

Note: Diagnoses are based on DSM–IV criteria only.

* The prevalence for some diagnoses is based on a slightly reduced number because some youth did

not complete the entire DISC interview (e.g., because they were transferred).
5

disruptive behavior disorders—ADHD

(2.3 percent) and oppositional defiant

disorder (2.8 percent)—were lower than

might be anticipated. In clinical samples,

as many as 75–90 percent of children with

conduct disorder have also been found to

have ADHD (Abikoff and Klein, 1992). Other

studies have reported a link between the

impulsivity of ADHD and delinquency

(Mannuzza et al., 1993; Masse and Tremblay, 1997; McGee, Williams, and Feehan,

1992; Tremblay et al., 1994).

The rates of self-reported ADHD in other

studies of juvenile justice populations that

used the DISC are similarly low—between

1 and 7 percent (Atkins, Pumariega, and

Rogers, 1999; Randall et al., 1999; Teplin

et al., 2002). In the study done by Garland

and colleagues (2001), who combined

information from parental and youth

reports, almost 13 percent of the youth

received a diagnosis of ADHD, but this

rate is still lower than expected. However,

the rates of mood and anxiety disorders

are high in the present study (9.1 percent

and 18.9 percent, respectively) and across

all five of the other DISC studies in juvenile justice populations (10–35 percent).

Zoccolillo (1992) noted a high rate of

comorbidity between mood and anxiety

disorders and conduct problems in community samples of youth. Further, studies

that used the DISC–2.3 to assess clinicreferred children found associations between anxiety symptoms (“trait anxiety”)

and both conduct problems and aggression

(Frick et al., 1999) and between mania and

conduct disorder (Biederman et al., 1999).

Although a determination of juvenile delinquency is not synonymous with a diagnosis of a disruptive disorder, the results of

the present study and the existing research

indicate systematic underreporting of

ADHD symptoms by youth in the justice

system. This suggests that self-reported

information should be supplemented by

reports from another informant (e.g., a

parent or teacher), especially as parents’

reports are more consistent with other

indicators of conduct disorder, such as

school suspension and police contacts,

than youth’s reports (Loeber et al., 1991).7

Recommendations for

Juvenile Justice Mental

Health Assessment

The findings of the present study shed

light on the prevalence of mental health

disorders among youth in the juvenile justice system. Consideration of the ways in

which case identification is affected by

the assessment method used suggests the

following best practices for clinical assessment in different justice settings:8

◆ Mental health assessments should be

based on multiple methods of evaluation and on the input of multiple informants. A structured interview is

one important component of a mental

health assessment. Other important

components include direct observation, a mental status examination, chart

review, an interview with parent(s) or

caregiver(s), and obtaining a family psychiatric and psychosocial history. 

◆ Assessments should be based on

reliable and valid instruments. Use

of a common assessment “language”

eliminates uncertainty about the criteria used to determine diagnoses and

enables comparison across studies

and facilities.

◆ Assessments should include parental

input. Parental input is valuable in

diagnosing certain disorders, particularly ADHD. Incorporating parental

reports into mental health assessments

of youth in the justice system is complicated by several factors, including

parents’ unavailability or reluctance to

incriminate their children. The accuracy of parental reports may also be

limited due to parent-child separation.

However, when parental and youth

reports of ADHD symptoms are combined, increased rates of this disorder

are detected (Garland et al., 2001). 

◆ Assessments should focus on recent

symptoms in order to determine current treatment needs. Depending on

the purpose of the assessment and the

setting in which it takes place, the timeframe for diagnostic status might vary

from the past year to the past month.

Assessments should be driven by

Table 5: Comparison of Rates of Mental Health Disorders Found in the Present Study With Those Found in Earlier

Studies Using the DISC 

Number Rate of Disorder (percent) Question of Youth

DISC Format and Study Timeframe Evaluated Disruptive Substance Mood Anxiety

Administered by interviewer

Duclos et al. (1998)* Past 6 months 150 21 38† 10 7

Atkins, Pumariega, 

and Rogers (1999) Past 6 months 75 43 20 24 33

Randall et al. (1999)‡ Past 6 months 118 45 NA 14 36

Garland et al. (2001)* Past 6 months 478 48§ NA 7 9

Teplin et al. (2002) Past 6 months 1,826 42 50 19 22

Self-report (Voice DISC)

Present study Past month 296 32 49 9 19

Note: NA, not assessed.

*Study used impairment criteria in the determination of diagnostic status. That is, in addition to meeting diagnostic criteria, youth had to endorse 

a response to one of three impairment questions at the end of individual disorder modules to receive a diagnosis.

† Assessed on the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (Robins et al., 1988). ‡ Aggregate data provided by the authors.

§ Includes responses of both youth and parental informants.
6

practical decisions that take into

consideration needs at various stages

of justice system processing. For example, assessments might aim to accurately identify at least two groups of

youth: (1) those whose mental health

needs should be met quickly, such as

youth who recently have attempted

suicide or who currently suffer from a

panic disorder or substance dependence, and (2) those who need close

supervision and regular reassessment,

such as youth with less severe disorders (e.g., depression or posttraumatic

stress disorder) that may worsen under

the stress of confinement. 

◆ Some youth should be reassessed periodically. Youth should be reassessed

regularly when they are held in custody

over an extended period of time, as

symptom profiles may shift. Mood disorders and anxiety disorders, in particular, may wax and wane over time.

Conclusions

The study reported in this Bulletin represents the first investigation of the Voice

DISC–IV in juvenile justice settings. The

results demonstrate that use of a systematic instrument for assessing psychiatric

disorders is feasible in juvenile justice settings. The assessment was well tolerated

by youth and their parents and by the

agency/institution staff who were involved

in administration procedures. Two findings provide initial support for the validity

of the Voice DISC–IV assessment:

◆ Youth who met the Voice DISC–IV

criteria for substance use diagnoses

had been incarcerated for substance

offenses.

◆ The rate of suicide attempts in the past

month reported by youth in this study

is comparable to the rate of suicide

attempts by youth in the past month

reported by facilities in the Conditions

of Confinement study.

Thus, this initial feasibility study demonstrates that a comprehensive, scientifically sound diagnostic instrument can be a

valuable part of mental health assessment

for youth in the juvenile justice system. 

For Further Information

More information on the authors’ research

using the Voice DISC–IV and on other

assessment-related research is available

online at www.promotementalhealth.org,

the Web site of the Center for the Promotion of Mental Health in Juvenile Justice.

Endnotes

1. The rate of mental health services

received by youth in the juvenile justice

system prior to detention has not been

compared with the rate of previous mental health services for youth in a similar

population (as opposed to the general

youth population). 

2. For a more comprehensive earlier

report, see Wasserman et al., 2002.

3. In addition to the self-report version

of the DISC for youth, a parent-report

version is available. Some juvenile justice

facilities may find this useful when assessing a youth’s mental health.

4. The data reported here include data

for four youth who inadvertently were

not included in an earlier report of this

research by Wasserman and colleagues

(2002). Inclusion of the additional data

does not alter the findings.

5. Youth who had a substance use disorder plus some other disorder (n=78) were

not included in these analyses.

6. See Wasserman et al., 2002, for further

discussion of this issue and for rates that

take impairment into account.

7. Although more research is needed, it is

likely that youth also underreport ADHD

symptoms in other arenas, such as the

child welfare system and the educational

system. Unidentified behavior disorders

can contribute to a youth’s coming into

contact with the juvenile justice system.

8. For an expanded discussion of these

recommendations, see Wasserman et al.

(2003).

References

Abikoff, H.B., and Klein, R.G. 1992.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity and conduct disorder: Comorbidity and implications for treatment. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology 60:881–892.

Atkins, D.L., Pumariega, A.J., and Rogers,

K. 1999. Mental health and incarcerated

youth. I: Prevalence and nature of psychopathology. Journal of Child and Family

Studies 8:193–204.

Biederman, J., Faraone, S.V., Chu, M.P., and

Wozniak, J. 1999. Further evidence of a

bidirectional overlap between juvenile

mania and conduct disorder in children.

Journal of the American Academy of Child

and Adolescent Psychiatry 38:468–476.

Bird, H.R., Gould, M., and StaghezzaJaramillo, B. 1992. Aggregating data from

multiple informants in child psychiatry

epidemiological research. Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry 31:78–85.

Cocozza, J.J., and Skowyra, K.R. 2000.

Youth with mental health disorders: Issues

and emerging responses. Juvenile Justice

7(1):3–13.

Duclos, C.W., Beals, J., Novins, D.K., Martin, C., Jewett, C.S., and Manson, S.M.

1998. Prevalence of common psychiatric

disorders among American Indian adolescent detainees. Journal of the American

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 37:866–873.

Frick, P.J., Lilienfeld, S.O., Ellis, M., Loney,

B., and Silverthorn, P. 1999. The association between anxiety and psychopathy

dimensions in children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 27:383–392.

Garland, A.F., Hough, R.L., McCabe, K.M.,

Yeh, M., Wood, P.A., and Aarons, G.A. 2001.

Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in

youths across five sectors of care. Journal

of the American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry 40:409–418.

Jensen, P., Roper, M., Fisher, P., Piacentini,

J., Canino, G., Richters, J., Rubio-Stipec,

M., Dulcan, M.K., Goodman, S., Davies, M.,

Rae, D., Shaffer, D., Bird, H., Lahey, B.B.,

and Schwab-Stone, M.E. 1995. Test-retest

reliability of the Diagnostic Interview

Schedule for Children (DISC 2.1): Parent,

child, and combined algorithms. Archives

of General Psychiatry 52:61–71.

Jensen, P.S., Rubio-Stipec, M., Canino, G.,

Bird, H.R., Dulcan, M.K., Schwab-Stone,

M.E., and Lahey, B.B. 1999. Parent and

child contributions to diagnosis of mental

disorder: Are both informants always necessary? Journal of the American Academy

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

38:1569–1579.

LeBlanc, M. 1998. Screening of serious and

violent juvenile offenders: Identification,

classification, and prediction. In Serious

and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors

and Successful Interventions, edited by R.

Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 167–193.

Loeber, R., Farrington, D.P., StouthamerLoeber, M., and Van Kammen, W.B. 1998.
7

Antisocial Behavior and Mental Health

Problems: Explanatory Factors in Childhood

and Adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Loeber, R., Green, S., Lahey, B.B., and

Stouthamer-Loeber, M. 1991. Differences

and similarities between children, mothers, and teachers as informants on disruptive child behavior. Journal of Abnormal

Child Psychology 19:75–95.

Lucas, C.P. 2003. The use of structured

diagnostic interviews in clinical child

psychiatric practice. In Standardized

Evaluation in Clinical Practice (Review of

Psychiatry, vol. 22), edited by M.B. First.

Washington, DC: American Psychiatric

Publishing, Inc., pages 75–102.

Lynam, D.R. 1996. Early identification of

chronic offenders: Who is the fledgling

psychopath? Psychological Bulletin

120:209–234.

Mannuzza, S., Klein, R.G., Bessler, A., Malloy, P., and LaPadula, M. 1993. Adult outcome of hyperactive boys. Educational

achievement, occupational rank, and

psychiatric status. Archives of General

Psychiatry 50:565–576.

Masse, L.C., and Tremblay, R.E. 1997.

Behavior of boys in kindergarten and the

onset of substance use during adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry

54:62–68.

McGee, R., Williams, S., and Feehan, M.

1992. Attention deficit disorder and age

of onset of problem behaviors. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology 20:487–502.

Nicol, R., Stretch, D., Whitney, I., Jones, K.,

Garfield, P., Turner, K., and Stanton, B.

2000. Mental health affects needs and

services for severely troubled and troubling young people including young

offenders in an N.S.W. region. Journal of

Adolescence 23:243–261.

Novins, D.K., Duclos, C.W., Martin, C., Jewett, C.S., and Manson, S.M. 1999. Utilization of alcohol, drug, and mental health

treatment services among American Indian adolescent detainees. Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry 38:1102–1108.

Otto, R.K., Greenstein, J.J., Johnson, M.K.,

and Friedman, R.M. 1992. Prevalence of

mental disorders among youth in the juvenile justice system. In Responding to the

Mental Health Needs Among Youth in the

Juvenile Justice System, edited by J.J.

Cocozza. Seattle, WA: The National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal

Justice System, pp. 7–48.

Parent, D.G., Lieter, V., Kennedy, S., Livens,

L., Wentworth, D., and Wilcox, S. 1994.

Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities. Research

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Policy Design Team. 1994. Mental Health

Needs of Youth in Virginia’s Juvenile Detention Centers (153993). Virginia Juvenile

Justice Commission.

Pumariega, A.J., Andres, J., Glover, S.,

Holzer, C.E., and Nguyen, H. 1998. Utilization of mental health services in a triethnic sample of adolescents. Community

Mental Health Journal 34:145–156.

Pumariega, A.J., Atkins, D.L., Rogers, K.,

Montgomery, L., Nybro, C., Caesar, R., and

Millus, D. 1999. Mental health and incarcerated youth. II: Service utilization. Journal of Child and Family Studies 8:205–215.

Randall, J., Henggeler, S.W., Pickrel, S.G.,

and Brondino, M.J. 1999. Psychiatric comorbidity and the 16-month trajectory

of substance-abusing and substancedependent juvenile offenders. Journal of

the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 38:1118–1124.

Robins, L.N., Wing, J., Wittchen, H.U.,

Helzer, J.E., Babor, T.F., Burke, J., Farmer,

A., Jablenski, A., Pickens, R., Regier, D.A.,

and associates. 1988. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview. An epidemiologic instrument suitable for use in conjunction with different diagnostic systems

and in different cultures. Archives of

General Psychiatry 45(12):1069–1077.

Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Dulcan, M.K., Davies,

M., Piacentini, J., Schwab-Stone, M.E.,

Lahey, B.B., Bourdin, K., Jensen, P., Bird,

H., Canino, G., and Reiger, D. 1996. The

NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for

Children (DISC–2.3): Description, acceptability, prevalence and performance in the

MECA study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

35:865–877.

Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M., McClelland,

G.M., Dulcan, M.K., and Mericle, A.A. 2002.

Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile

detention. Archives of General Psychiatry

59:1133–1143.

Towberman, D.B. 1992. National survey

of juvenile needs assessment. Crime and

Delinquency 38:230–238.

Tremblay, R.E., Pihl, R.O., Vitaro, F., and

Dobkin, P.L. 1994. Predicting early onset of

male antisocial behavior from preschool

behavior. Archives of General Psychiatry

51:732–739.

Wasserman, G.A., Jensen, P., Ko, S.J.,

Cocozza, J., Trupin, E., Angold, A., Cauffman, E., and Grisso, T. 2003. Mental health

assessments in juvenile justice: Report on

the Consensus Conference. Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry 42:752–761.

Wasserman, G.A., McReynolds, L., Lucas,

C., Fisher, P.W., and Santos, L. 2002. The

Voice DISC–IV with incarcerated male

youth: Prevalence of disorder. Journal of

the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 41:314–321.

Wiebush, R.G., Baird, C., Krisberg, B., and

Onek, D. 1995. Risk assessment and classification for serious, violent, and chronic

juvenile offenders. In Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders: A Sourcebook,

edited by J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D.

Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications, pp. 171–212.

Zoccolillo, M. 1992. Co-occurrence of conduct disorder and its adult outcomes

with depressive and anxiety disorders: A

review. Journal of the American Academy

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

31:547–556.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant numbers 1998–JB–VX–0115 and 1999–JR–VX–0005

from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention is a component of the Office of

Justice Programs, which also includes the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of

Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 202713

Acknowledgments

Gail A. Wasserman, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for the Promotion of Mental

Health in Juvenile Justice, Division of Child Psychiatry, Columbia University, New

York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY. Larkin S. McReynolds, M.P.H., is

Senior Data Analyst at the Center. Susan J. Ko, Ph.D., Clinical Director at the Center at the time of this study, is currently Director of the Service Systems Core at the

National Center for Child Traumatic Stress, University of California, Los Angeles.

*NCJ~202713*

Subscribe to

News @ a Glance 

Electronic Edition

OJJDP is converting the bimonthly News @ a Glance

to electronic-only dissemination by the end of this year. 

You’ll still get the same convenient overview of news

from OJJDP—only faster. Don’t miss a single issue. 

Subscribe today at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp.