In concluding his review of the historical underpinnings of the field of developmental psychopathology, Cicchetti (1990) asserted the following: . . . this discipline should contribute greatly to reducing the dualisms that exist between the clinical study of and theoretical research into childhood and adult disorders, between the behavioral and biological sciences, between developmental psychology and psychopathology, and between basic and applied research. (p. 20)

The end of the last millennium witnessed an unprecedented degree of public awareness regarding mental disorder as well as motivation for policy change. Like Sartorius, we contend that the continued stigmatization of mental illness may well be the central issue facing the field, as nearly all attendant issues (e.g., standards of care, funding for basic and applied research efforts) emanate from professional, societal, and personal attitudes towards persons with aberrant behavior. We discuss empirical and narrative evidence for stigmatization as well as historical trends regarding conceptualizations of mental illness, including the field's increasing focus on genetic and neurobiological causes and determinants of mental disorder. We next define stigma explicitly, noting both the multiple levels (community, societal, familial, individual) through which stigma operates to dehumanize and delegitimize individuals with mental disorders and the impact of stigma across development. Key developmental psychopathology principles are salient in this regard. We express concern over the recent oversimplification of mental illness as “brain disorder,” supporting instead transactional models which account for the dynamic interplay of genes, neurobiology, environment, and self across development and which are consistent with both compassion and societal responsibility. Finally, we consider educational and policy-related initiatives regarding the destigmatization of mental disorder. We conclude that attitudes and policy regarding mental disorder reflect, in microcosmic form, two crucial issues for the next century and millennium: (a) tolerance for diversity (vs. pressure for conformity) and (b) intentional direction of our species' evolution, given fast-breaking genetic advances.

Children's healthy mental development has never been the focus of long-term, committed public health policy in the way that early physical health and development have been. We discuss four types of societal response to illness—cure, care, control, and prevention—and trace the history of public health in terms of its special responsibility to control and prevent disease. We identify four periods in the history of public health: the Sanitarian era (up to 1850), the Bacterial era (1850–1950), the Behavioral era (1950–present), and the Communitarian era (the next century). Looking at this history from the viewpoint of the developmental psychopathology of the first 2 decades of life, we trace progress in public health responses to children with mental illness, from a philosophy of control by isolation toward one of preventive intervention. We examine primary, or universal, prevention strategies that have been tried, and we suggest some that might be worth reconsidering.

This article explores the implications of recent welfare-related policy change for the well-being of children in low-income families, and for research investigating child development processes and outcomes. It provides an overview of current welfare-related policies and explores the implications for developmental researchers. The article also synthesizes early findings from research, highlighting both overall impacts and the more nuanced evidence that while families are transitioning off welfare, only a small number are transitioning out of poverty, and a subgroup of families at risk are not faring well. It then examines, from a theoretical and methodological framework, what developmental psychopathology might bring to the study of welfare-related impacts on children in the context of this complex and changing policy landscape, and what welfare researchers might bring to the field of developmental psychopathology. The article concludes with broad recommendations for both research and policy.

In recent years, womens' roles have changed dramatically, prompting researchers to examine the impact of these changes on the development of women and children. In this article, we examine three major changes that women have experienced over the past several decades: increased participation in the paid labor force, changes in domestic labor and child-care patterns, and increased numbers of female-headed single-parent families. For each, we first describe the nature of the changes that have occurred over the last 50 years. We then review research concerning the effects of these changes on the development of women and children. Finally, we discuss the implications for social policy that stem from this research. It is broadly concluded that research informed by a developmental–contextual perspective may contribute importantly to the development of social policies focused on promoting the well-being of women and children.

Social support can have significant stress-preventive and stress-buffering benefits for troubled individuals in everyday circumstances. Consequently, it is not surprising that many therapeutic and preventive programs enlist social support to address problems of child and family psychopathology, especially in the context of “two-generation interventions” that seek to improve child well-being by strengthening parental functioning and parent–child relationships. Home visitation programs are the best known of these two-generation strategies and have become the focus of state-level and national efforts to support families and prevent harm to children. The conclusions of basic research studies on social support converge significantly with the findings of evaluation studies of the impact of home visitation programs to yield important new insights into the conditions in which formal social support is likely to be beneficial, or ineffective, in improving child and family well-being. Both basic and applied research literatures emphasize the importance of linking formal social support to informal social networks in extended families, neighborhoods, and communities, and attending to the complex reactions of the recipients of support and the needs of support providers. These studies are reviewed and evaluated to highlight the connections between social support, developmental psychopathology, and social policy.

This article summarizes the research on the developmental outcomes of postinstitutionalized children and discusses the implications for social policy. Postinstitutionalized children often reach their adoptive families with varying degrees of physical growth retardation, cognitive delays, and socioemotional problems. Many children demonstrate remarkable recovery following adoption. Unfortunately, some of the children continue to display significant problems that require professional intervention. It appears that the children's recovery may be influenced by their early experiences with their birth family and in institutional care, and there is suggestive evidence that postadoption experiences also play a role. These findings indicate that preadoption and postadoption services may support the outcome of postinstitutionalized children.

This article provides a targeted review of the scientific literature on the effects of experience on early brain and behavioral development and later outcome as it pertains to risk for some forms of child psychopathology. It is argued that ample evidence exists indicating that the prenatal and early postnatal years likely represent a sensitive period with respect to the effects of stress on the developing nervous system and behavioral outcome, and with respect to the long-term beneficial effects of early interventions on brain and behavioral development for some genetically based disorders, such as phenylketonuria and autism. Moreover, evidence suggests that parental mental health during the first years of life has a significant influence on early brain activity and behavior, and long-term behavioral outcome. It is concluded that, although prevention and early intervention efforts should not exclusively focus on the earliest years of development, such efforts should begin during this period. By directing such efforts toward promoting optimal prenatal and infant–toddler development, the long-term negative consequences of factors that have their greatest influences during early development and which set the stage for future development can be minimized or avoided entirely. Several recommendations for public policy and future research pertaining to the effects of early experience on child outcome are offered.

Conceptions of mental illness in children are bound by cultural and social conventions of what constitutes healthy and unhealthy development. To understand current conceptualizations of disorders in children, we review the history of these conceptualizations from three intertwined perspectives: a sociopolitical history of American children and families, the history of the mental health fields and scientific disciplines involved in diagnosing children, and the evolution of children's role in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. We review where the field has been in its conception of childhood mental illness throughout the past century, where we believe it is now, and raise questions about the direction in which child diagnosis may be headed as we enter the new millennium. We conclude with social policy recommendations based on theory and research regarding mental disorders in children.

An early onset of delinquency prior to age 13 years increases the risk of later serious, violent, and chronic offending by a factor of 2–3. Also child delinquents, compared to juveniles who start offending at a later age, tend to have longer delinquent careers. This article summarizes the report of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Study Group on Very Young Offenders, chaired by Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington. The Study Group, consisting of 16 scholars and 23 coauthors, worked for 2 years on preparing a report, undertaking extensive secondary data analyses, and writing chapters in different speciality areas. The report consists of a state of the art review of the developmental background of child delinquents. The report also summarizes risk and protective factors in the individual, family, peer group, school, and neighborhood that affect that development. Lastly, the report renews relevant preventive and remedial interventions in the juvenile justice system, families, peer groups, schools, and neighborhoods, and makes a case for improvement in the integration of services for child delinquents. Policy recommendations are presented to improve methods of dealing with child delinquents by juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental health agencies.

In this article we address several issues regarding problem or antisocial behavior in adolescents. First, we discuss conceptualizations of adolescent problem behavior to answer the question “What do we think we know so far?” Then, we briefly characterize current interventions designed to reduce these behaviors, and their relative success in doing so. Next, we examine earlier attempts to prevent and ameliorate problem behavior (including juvenile delinquency), situating them in the historical context of America from the turn of the century to World War II. Here, we attempt to answer the questions “How did we get to where we are?” and “How can we learn from the past?” Following this, we try to answer the question “Where do we go from here?” and articulate some research and policy implications relevant to developmental psychopathology that arise from these considerations. We argue that problem behavior is viewed most productively in its double aspect, which John Hughlings Jackson called a “double symptom,” with the positive aspect of the symptom reflecting adolescents' attempts to satisfy their developmental needs.

Drug abuse research and theory has become much more sophisticated over the last 2 decades, and some of the advancements parallel concepts that are part of the developmental psychopathology approach. The application of the developmental psychopathology perspective to recent drug abuse research findings can provide a greater understanding of that information and point to important areas of future research. Among the drug abuse research areas discussed here and viewed from this perspective are antecedent and co-occurring psychopathological conditions and other problem behaviors; the diversity of the nature of, paths to, and processes and outcomes related to drug abuse; the role of intermediary influences; the interaction of individual and environmental predisposing and protective factors; the role of families and other social institutions in intervention; and developmental stage characteristics. Directions for future research are also discussed.

This article presents policy recommendations relating to two aspects of primary prevention in mental health: (a) preventing adverse negative outcomes and (b) building health and wellness from the start and maintaining it thereafter. Recommendations for reducing diverse negative outcomes and end states reflect interconnections and bidirectional influences among physical, social–interpersonal, cognitive–academic, and “mental health” outcomes.

This article considers the implications of theory and research in developmental psychopathology for existing and emerging social policy concerning treatment of child and adolescent psychopathology. Based on the concept that all psychopathology is a process, four core principles of a developmental psychopathology perspective are discussed. In turn, each is applied to an evaluation of policy issues with implications for intervention, including mental health parity, treatment guidelines, mental health reimbursement, and level of intervention. It is concluded that social policy on treatment must be based on an empirically supported theory of developmental psychopathology and on evidence-based interventions that link treatments to pathogenic processes.

The focus of this article is on the interface between research on resilience—a construct representing positive adaptation despite adversity —and the applications of this work to the development of interventions and social policies. Salient defining features of research on resilience are delineated, as are various advantages, limitations, and precautions linked with the application of the resilience framework to developing interventions. For future applied efforts within this tradition, a series of guiding principles are presented along with exemplars of existing programs based on the resilience paradigm. The article concludes with discussions of directions for future work in this area, with emphases on an enhanced interface between science and practice, and a broadened scope of resilience-based interventions in terms of the types of populations, and the types of adjustment domains, that are encompassed.