Prevention of Conduct Disorder

The question arises of whether or not conductcombat the effects of poverty, parenting issues,
disorder can be prevented. Prevention would beeducational issues, as well as whatever the family
the ideal situation as the costs have beenneeds to survive. Children attend Head Start
demonstrated to be very high later when the childwhen they are three years old. Parents play a big
with conduct disorder is out of control. Treatmentrole in the program. They are required to spend
after the fact is costly, not always effective, andsome time in the center, volunteering their time.
reaches very few because of these limitations.They are also required to attend parenting classes
Most early intervention programs include parentwhile their child is receiving services. Head Start is
training toward consistency and fairness ina comprehensive program, and they examine
discipline techniques, positive reinforcement andother areas of the family where services may be
consequence techniques, information about abuseneeded to assure the success of their students.
and neglect, and all of these effects on children.Frequently, it is found that there are other issues,
Overall, few prevention programs have beensuch as housing or lack, lack of job skills in the
evaluated for long-term effects (beyond 5 years),parents, that make the home life difficult for their
but those evaluations have been promising. Little isstudents. They make referrals to the family, not
known about the optimal intervention time orjust the student. The also follow up with the
what mechanisms produce real change in children,family and require parental involvement in the
families, or communities.program. This increases the likelihood of success
Two types of prevention strategies have beenafter the program and increases the advantages
offered, both with good and bad features.the child receives that they otherwise would not
Universal programs are offered at the communityhave.
level for the benefit of all, regardless of riskHead Start mothers were examined for
assessment. By offering the program toeffectiveness of their parenting program. After
everyone, labeling does not occur. Labeling can beintervention, mothers were observed to have
very destructive for some of the followingsignificantly fewer critical remarks and commands,
reasons:moderated their discipline techniques, and were
more confident and positive around their children.
1. The label of abnormal falsifies reality by implyingMothers were also more involved in their children's
most abnormal behavior is qualitatively differenteducation, and children were more socially
than normal behavior.competent with peers. Overall, children in the
2. Diagnosis and labeling distort reality by applyingintervention group showed fewer conduct
artificial criteria to meet the criteria.problems, less noncompliance, and appeared
3. Labeling gives the illusion of explanation forhappier. The effects were examined a year later,
behavior - an excuse.and most improvements were maintained.
4. The label is harmful because it obscuresSeveral other models have been used to prevent
individuality, such that mental health professionalsconduct problems in children. Fast Track is a
treat the "illness" rather than the human being.multi-component intervention program based on a
This can be particularly harmful in the case ofcomprehensive developmental model. The
conduct disorder because the label becomes moreintervention includes academic tutoring, parent
important than the child.training, home visits, and PATHS (Promoting
Universal programs also provide benefit to childrenAlternative Thinking Strategies), a universal
and families not at risk for conduct disorder byclassroom-level program. These multi-year
providing tools for use in normal parenting.interventions were provided to identified at-risk
However, universal programs can be verykindergarten children to provide improvement in
expensive to run and maintain. A beneficial effectcompetencies and reduce conduct problems.
may also be a detriment. These programs mayFindings at the end of Grade 1 were significant
not actually reach those who need them most.reduction of peer aggression and
Targeted programs depend on identification ofhyperactive-disruptive behavior. Parents reported
at-risk children, which is difficult and potentiallygreater satisfaction, less need for discipline, more
labels these children. However, targeting is lessinvolvement, and more consistent and appropriate
expensive as fewer families are involved (aboutdiscipline. Findings were consistent in that the level
20% prevalence of childhood psychiatric disordersat which the intervention was applied and
in the general population). Targeting also providesparticipated in predicted success in outcome.
treatment for families that will really need theSeveral other programs were reviewed, and they
intervention. Currently, the programs that arehave many common features. Parent training in
available target children and families that are atsuch issues such as discipline, plays a big role in
risk in general.prevention programs. Another facet of
There are already several programs available. Theintervention appears to encompass multiple areas
treatment models generally include school, family,of the child's life - school, home, peers, and social
community, and the individual child. Head Start, ainteractions. Diverting conduct problems by some
social program created in 1965 during Presidentmethod of intervention needs to occur early in
Lyndon Johnson's administration, identifies at-riskthe child's life, before life-long patterns are
children and families and offers intervention todeveloped.