Sheet1Genesis Energy WACCItemAmount ($000)InterestWeighted TotalR.docx

Sheet1Genesis Energy WACCItemAmount
($000)%InterestWeighted TotalRateRateAccounts
Payable300,0007.50%Short-term Note Payable100,0002.50%
Total Current Liabilities 400,000Long-term Note
Payable400,00010.00%Mortgage Payable1,200,00030.00%
Total Liabilites1,600,000Common Stock
Equity1,500,00037.50%Operating Equity500,00012.50%Total
Liabilities and Equity4,000,000100.00%Genesis Energy Captial
ProjectsInitial InvestmentCash FlowCash FlowCash FlowCash
flowCash FlowCashflowY1Y2Y3Y4Y5Y6-10Project A: 25-emp
facility2000-200-300-4002004001000Project B: 40-emp
facility2500-200-2001004004001500Project C: 75-emp
facility3000-300-400-1006007002000Equipment 1 - fully
automatic1500-100100200400200800Equipment 1 - semi-
automatic1000-50-100200200300600Equipment 1 -
manual750150150150150150750Equipment 2 - Standard800-
175200250250300700Equipment 2 - top of line1500-
1002753253253251500Equipment 3 - 3-man machine700-200-
200300400400In-house
inspection1800100500500300300800Contract
inspection200200200100100
RESEARCH REPORT
Childhood and adolescent antecedents of
substance use in adulthood
Margaret E. Ensminger, Hee Soon Juon & Kate E. Fothergill
Til-- loin I'. H : ) | ) k i i i , U n .,':'> •,f. B . i l l i n ' ! . •?.. M

D , L I V
('onv^poiulnnr lo: ABSTR ACT
VUii'iiMrcl !•'. I'ltsintiijicr
lll'LliirlNU'ltl III lll.Mllil I'diicV 4 • r,- . I •! I L 1 . 1 J r' -• 1
Aims Id examine childhood iiiitwcdcnls ol rn;jnju:iaa and
cocaine use in
antl Vl'iiliigi'iili'iil
Tln'Hlo,i(iihiTg,Sili.Mlur I'ublJt lliMllh ildllllhood,
ilii'liihris iii)|)kiiisiiiiiv,Tsiiy l^osiyii I'pidetniiilogjcyi,
liingiluditial cohorl study ol' African A m e r i c a n lirst
(.24 Norlh linKidwnv gradcrs (agi' h] followed to age M.
li.iiliniijR'. Ml) 1 I 2ns i i . • . . . . .1 -I J , r 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 c I- .
. I .• 1 1
['articipiints t hildren (, = I 242] and lamilies in t h e ' ) / lirsl
grade classrooms
Irom VVdodliuvn. an inner-city conitnunity in Chicago, l-'irst
grddc teachers,
Subiiiiiirtl I i lirtcinlxT 211011: molhcrs and children provided
assessments over the life course. During adult-vi.'vv .,i,ii|.kird
11 .pril 2001: (,(,,^1, 9^2 participants were re-intcrvicwed.
.Measurements first yrade teaeher behavior ratings, rt-adiness
lor school lests,
seM'-reports of adolescent drug ui:ic. s{)cial bonds and adult
self-reports of drug
use were the primary variables.

I'indings Males who were boili .shy and aggressive in lirst
grade were more
likely lo be adult drug users compared to those who were
neitlier. Shy females
in tirst grade were less likely to he adult marijuana users than
non-shy females.
Adolescent social bonds did not moderate the relationships of
earlier childhood
behavior to adult drug use. Males who had a 'high/superior'
readiness to learn
scores in lirst grade were less likely to be cocaine users as
adults, even though
in earlier work we showed that they were more likely to initiate
adolescent drug
use. i'cinales scoring as poor periormcrs in lirst grade were less
likely to ever use
cocaine compared to females witti higher scores.
Conciusions The combination of sliy and aggressive behavior is
an important
anieeetlent for later male drug use and may help distinguish
those who will be
persistent users in adulthood from those who experiment in
adolescence.
K E Y W O R D S African Ameriean. aggressive and withdrawn

behavior,
cocaine use, etiology, longitudinal sludy, school achievement,
st)cial bonds.
INTRODUCTION adolescent social bonds predicted drug use in
adolescence.
in this paper we extend these inquiries into adulthood.
I'oliey makers often describe drug use as a crucial issue We
examine two fretjucntly cited risk factors for drug
alfectiiig thehciiltli and wellheinj; wilhiii inner-city com- use
across tfie life course: antisocial or aggressive hehav-
mimities. However, few studies have focused on examin- ior
and school achievement, further, we examine the
ing either the £-ourse of drug use or the etiology of drug
combination of sliy and aggressive behavior as a risk
use within such populaiions. hi this study we follow a factor for
adult drug use. In addition, we lest the hypoth-
cohorl of inner-city children inio adulthood in order to esis that
social bonds during adolescence may moderate
imderstand better the antecedents of drug use within the relation
between childhood antisocial behavior and
such populaiions. In previous work with this population, later
adult drug use,
we found that aggressive and shy-aggressive behavior The
cohor! of children that we follow hegan lirst grade

m lirst iirade, readiness for school at an early age and in
VVoodlawn, an inner-city community in Chicago in
' • 2 0 ( 1 2 S o r i n y ( o r l f i r . S i i i d y o f . A d i l i i - l i
u n I n . k ' o h o l i i i i d O I I I . T D r i i j i s AMrliim 9 7
.S i i - K 4 4
Rnsmitiiicr ci ai.
- 67. These cliildrcn were al bigli risk I'or drug use
Inr Ivvo rciison.s. Firstly, llic'v were at risk
hefuii.se ol' Lheir age coiiorl. 'I'hc' assessment ot iidoleseent
clruj.; use comlucled every year siiu't' 1 9 7 T by lhe
LniwrsJty ol' Michigan in lhe moiiiloringlheruture study
shows lliiil lhe Iwo liigliesl years of illicit ilrug use by
Ivvell'lh jiraders iialion-wide were in 197S and 147'̂ J
l|ohnslnn.()*Mailcy&i5aehrnaii 1S)99); lhe cxpeticd dale
o[ gradualiiiii from high school for Ihe VVoodiawii cohorl
was 1978.
Sceoiidly. these children were also al risk because
of Iheir residenee during iirst grade within a high-risk

commiinily. in I 9 d 5 . VVoodlawn had high rales di' u n -
einpioyment and ranked among lhe most impoverished
neighborhoods in fhicagd. Over 9 5','ii of VVoddlavvn resi-
dents were Alrican Ameriean |l)e Vise i 4 6 7 ] . Altfiough
rales oi drug use by /M'ritan Aiuerican adolescents are
less than rates ibr white ackilescents (i5achiuaii et id.
I 9 9 i | . roruparisons (if adults suggest that African
Americans develup more priiblematic use during
adult hood li ietd l9S(i: National institute (if h-ug
,'bi.ise I 9 9 i | . C'oniparistms ol' the adull drug use oi'
the VVnodlawn population with a ruitiotuil population
of their age cdiiorl. assessed in the NalioTia! LS C'li-
morbictity Stutly (Kessier ct (//. 1994). showed that the
pasl year prevalence of the two mosl widely used illicit
drugs, marijuana and cocaine, were considerably iiigher
within the VVoodlawn populatinn. tiieir lil'c-timeand past
year priivaieneeoi' heroin was higher, and that their lirug
use was more problematic in terms of rales oi' abuse and

dependence (ijisininger. Anlhony & Met)rd i 9 9 7 i .
Many stLklies have examined cither ronciu'rent iir lon-
giludinal predictors uf adoleseenl drug use, but i'ewcr
stutlies have examined eansal iniluences irom childhood
to adulLhoiid. One dl' the most cdnsistent findings in Lhe
IdiigHndinal studies of drug use that do span this age
range is that addlesccnt aiul adult drug use is preeeded
by a history of ciutdhood anlisdcial bebavior (Kdbins
196(1. I97.S; IJlock, IJIock ^i Kcyes i 9 8 « ; MeCord I98S;
Hawkins. Ciitalano & Miller 1 9 9 i ; Brook cl al. I 9 9 T ) .
Wliile less examined, some studies (including our
ovvnl have Umnd tbaL children who are botb shy and
aggressive have later risk of antisocial behavior dnring
adolescence. .Shy betiavior and aggressive behavior are
ol'leii thought td be polar tipposites, but in some chiidren
(hey docd-deeur (i.add & liurgcss 1999). iSeverai inves-
tigators lernuhisbehavi))r as withdrawn ralherLhan shy;
we use t!ie lerms interchangeably bere.l These ebildren.

while lacking in sneial contael wiLh others, engage in
behaviors thought of as aggressive, such as bitting, bul-
lying or other misbehavior. Shy or withdrawn behavior
withoul aggression is protective I'or later drug use or
otber aiitisoeial behavior Ilinsminger el al. i 9 8 5: Kerr
el il/. 1497); bowever. the combination df withdrawn
(shy) behavior w i t h aggressive behavior is assoeiated
with higher levels df drug use and delinquency in
ad(.)lescence ll''nsminger ct al. 19S J; Kellam H al. 198 5:
Moskowitz. Schwarlzman ^ l.edingham 19SS; I5loek
etal. l9HS;McCdrd. 198N: Kerr c( <!/. 1997).
1'he adoleseent period is a peak time in the life eourse
I'or bdth drug use and delinquent aetivities. and with
Ihe transitidii to adullh(Hid lhe prevalente o[' anti-
sticial behavior declines (Ilirschi & llditlredsoti I9N5:
VVdlfgang. Thornberry & I'iglio 1 987: Mol'litt I 99 5: Chen
c-v Kandel 1995: DeWi! cl al. 19951. Some evidence sug-
gesls that those who continue having behavior problems

sueh as drng abuse as adults have distinet characterislits
eompared to those wiidse problems are limited to adti-
lesccnce. Moffiti's ( i 99 5| developmental theory, for
example, distinguishes 'life-course-persistent' antisocial
behavior IVdm 'addlesccnce-limited' anlisoeial bebavior.
She propcises thai Ihe majorily of adolescent antisocial
behavior is lemptirary. beginning and ending in adoles-
cence, but tbat ibere are some teens wtiose antisocial
behavior is rooted in cbildbood problems, and these teens
are more likely to continue wilh antisocial behavior inlo
adulthood.
In this paper, we focus tin whether ehildhoiid anli-
soeial behavior, parlicnlarly the combinatitin o! shy and
aggressive bebavior. increases the risk of marijuana use
and eoeaine use in young adulthotid. We hypothesize
that the early combination of shy/wilbdrawn bebavior
and aggressive behavior is one of lhe early risk faelors
that distinguishes among ttiose who continue w i l h anti-

social bebavior. including drug use. and tfiose whodcmoi
(in .Moflit's lerms, the lil'e course persisienl versus Ihc
adoleseent limiteiil.
We also examine whetber soeial bonds during ailoles-
eenee predict adult drug use and/nr serve as moderator
ol' the relalionship helween early aggressive or shy-
aggressive behavior and later substanee use. Aeeording
U) social control thetiry. sirong !ies to sticielal institutions
such as I'amily. sehool, or work decrease the likelihood
that individuals will engage in deviant behavior (Ilirschi
19641. Social bonds during adolescence may inlkienee
drug use behaviors in several ways. I'irst, strong soeial
bonds increase the likelihood of monitoring by teacliers
and i'amily members, w b i d i would alfecl bolh laler inili-
ation (or no initiation) and less use of ilJieit stibstances.
Secondly, tbe mutual responsibilities entailed by strong
ties to school and I'amily lead t(t more self-regulation of
bebavior. I'here is ample evidence that social bonds

(family bonds, school bonds, and parental supervision!
during adoleseenee intluences adolescent drug use
(Rnsminger. Hrown & Kellam 1982: Klliott. Hui/inga
& Ageton 1985; White, i^andina & l.aCrange I9S7:
Hawkins c( ((/. 1999, 1992).
'I'he quest ion is whether adolescent bonds continue lo
•c 201)2 Socjflv ibr Ihc Study of Addifliiiii lo Alfohol and
Other . 97. SH S44
Anleeedents of adult stibstiwte use
remain iniporlttiil as itilluL'nccs on aduli drug LI.SL". Both
sthool iiiid I'tiniily rcprL'scnl iniporluril social inslitulions
Ibr aciolL'sc[?nls. hul doe.s lhe imptift of these adolcsft^nt
lies l;isl into adttllhood? Adok-sfciit social bonds may
inllucncc adull drttg use by setting a trajcetory leading
to etlttcational achieveiiient and family tics ttiat would
itthibit the initiittion or roniinuatioti of drtig use as an
adult. Kesearcfi has demonstrated tliat aduli soeial ties
are relatetl to aiittit ri.sk htihaviors (Lewis & Rook 1944:

Hinberson 1487: Satiipsort & Latib I ')4<)). btit few studies
liavr looked at ihe lons^itudinal effeet of adoieseent soeial
ties on subsequent tlrtig itse in adultbood. An important
exei'ption is Brunswick's prospecti'e sltidy of African
.American adolesceiUs (Brunswick, .Messei & Titus I 9921.
which Ibtmd that adolescent lies to relij^ioiis institutions
were protective against heay drtig tise in adultbood.
I'urthermore, tliere is iittle research on adolescent
social bonds as a moderator ot the relationship hetween
childhood risk factors and adult drug use. There is sotne
evidence that adtilt siicial honds moderate childhood pre-
diciors of adult deviant behaviors. Sampson & l.anb
I I 9901 have showi! thiit children Iblkiwetl longi!it(iinally
were less likely to con tin tic in deviant behavior ii they haci
adult social attacliments to jobs atul spouse iiiui commit-
ment toeilucational. work and economic goals.'I he Social
ncvciopment VloLlel (Catalaiio î Hawkins 2I)(I()). whicb
synthesizes social control, social learning aitd differential

assoeiation theories, also supports the hypothesis that
adolescent social honds would nioderale the impact ol
early chiklhood risk laetors on adult substaiu e use.
Poor s( hool performance has been linked Irequently to
tlie initiation of drug use in adolescence (|obnston I 97 i:
Kandel 1978: Kandel. Kessler^ .Viarguiies 1978)- I'ariier
lindings irom the VVoodlawn sttidy showed the opposite
relationship. We Ibund that liiiiher school-readiness test
scores in lirst grade were associated with earlier initiation
of alcobol aitd niiirijiiana use and delinquency in
adolescence (ijisrninger et ul. I 9 S J : I'leniing. Kellani &
BrovMi I9N21. In reporting ihese results, we speculated
that ebikiren wlio were more ready Ibr (irst grade tasks
might also be more ready ti) initiate drug use earlier as
part of adolescent experimentation, hut would not be at
risk lor heavy drug use ov continuation of drug tise. We
now have tbe data to test this speculation. In tbi.s paper,
we will examine wbetber school readiness test scores are

rehited to substance use in young adtilthood and, if so, if
tbe relationship is reverseil from tbe earlier (inding.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
'I'he analyses are designed lo iinswer the following
qtiestions:
I Does early childhcmd beha'ior, particularly the cotnbi-
nation of shy and aggressive behavior, increase the iike-
lih{)od of substance use in adultbood.-
2 Do family and school bonds in adolescence decrease
the likelihood of drug use in adultbood.^
5 Do lamily and school bonds moderate lhe relationship
between early ehiidhood aggressive behavior or the com-
bination of shy and aggressive behavior and adult sub-
stance use.'
4 i)o high readiness lo learn scores in lirst grade, wbich
increased the risk of drug use in adolescence, cotitiiiue lo
inlinence tlriig use in adulthood.'
METHODS

Study design and data collection
Tbe priispective study started in i 9hh-h7 in W(H)dlawn.
an inner-city neighborhood on the south side of Chieago,
VVoodlawn was the tilth poorest of tbe 7h Chicago
neighborhoods when the study began: however, there
was diversity within the neighborhooi! w i t h pockets of
middle-class residents who owned their own homes and
had steady employment. Virttially all the residents
of Woodlawn were African American. Nearly all lirst
graders ( f i = 1 2421 iiUhe nine public and three parochial
schools in tbe fhicagii neighborliood of Woodlawn were
enrolled in tbe study. There were I 5 families who did not
consent for their child to he included in the project.
Teachers assessed the children three times in lirsl grade,
and mothers also provided ratings of their lirst graders in
a home interview iKellam et id. 197S),
In I 9 7 5 - 7 h , when lhe children were teenagers, they
and their mothers were reintervieweii. The detailed

methodology for tbis follow-np has been published else-
where (Kellani, llnsminger ^ Simon 1980: Knsminger
149(1). In terms of attrition bias, we Ibtind that mothers
not reassessed were more likely to have been teen parents
and to have moved frequently before the child was in (irst
grade, but otherwise they were not different from the
mothers we assessed. We (bund no signidcant dilTerenccs
in the early child behavior ratings or psychological well-
being between the teenagers who were interviewed and
those who were not (Kellani el dl. I 480: Hnsminger cl til.
19821.
In 1492-9 i we again tracked the cohort at age 12.
The aim was to rcinterviewall 1242 original participants
regardless of where they lived: lOJS (8 },S%| were
located successfully. Of these. 9S2 were re-interviewed,
59 refused to participate, 44 were tieccascd and three
were (00 incapacitated to participate. The young adults
who were interviewed were compared to those not

interviewed in terms t)f their (Irst grade and adolescent
characteristics to examine attrition bias, Inhere were no
.ilitpi1juii In .•ildinioii. 97. S i i-S44
8 56 Manjiircl i:. Ensuiiuiicr
dilTcrences between the individubils who were ynd were
not interviewed iii tidLiltliood in terms of their mothers'
cdtieiitioruii uttiiirnnenl. their mothers' age :it lirst birth,
Lhe lirst grade teachers' behavior ratings or adolescent
dru^ use (hlnsmiTiger cl ui 1497; |uon & linsminger
I 997l.'rheydiddiircrbv their poverty stat us in lirst grailc
and latnily type, 'I'hose in fauiilies who were living below
tlie ol'tieial poverty line in first grade (7V,'ijl were less
likely lo be iiucrvicwed than thi>se who were not (8 ".'>,).
"Those who were interviewed were more likely to eome
from mcither-i'athcr I'auiilics 18 i",i> than those who were
nol (7V;;il. These dilTerenees were relatively small, but
statistically signilieant.
Interviews eondueted with the young adidts lasted
between 40 minutes and J hours and included questions
on laniily, work, erimirud activity, health, neighborh(H)d
eharaeteristies. social support, psychiatric symptoms
and sell'-reporLs of drug and alcohol use. The National
Opinion Research Center eondueted the interviews Ibr
the study. Interviewers were trained extensively hoth in
iiUeriewing skills and in location and reeruitment ol'the
cohort, Viosi interviewers lived in the Chicago area, and
all were AlVican .American.
Measures

.•diiil subsluiicc use measures were based on self-reports
of drug and alcohol u.se obtained irom the adulis in
1942-4 5 with Ihe Miehigan version of the Composite
International Diagnostic Interview (Cll)ll, which was
useil in Ihe Nalional i!S Co-Morbidity Study (Kessler cf ai
19441 to assess psychiatric diagnoses and substance use
disorders among a nationally representative sample. The
queslions focused on age of initiation, frequency, quan-
tity ol use and abuse and dependence. I'or this paper, we
locus on uiarijuana and cocaine use, Kesptiridents were
asked how often they bad ever used marijuana in their
life-time and how often they had done so in ihe past year,
A three-eategiiry variabie was created that classilied
respondents according to whether they had never used
marijuana, had used marijuana but not in Ihe past year
(previous userl or had used (narijmina in the past year
(current user), A siuiilar 'ariable wasereuted for cocaine
(see Knsminger ct ui 194f>, for a more detailed deserip-
tion of the alcohol anil drug use measure}. We foeus on
previous use as well as current use so we can examine tbe
hypothesis of adtilescent bmitcd drug use compared tn
persistent drug use into adulthood,
Adok'scciil nuirijuuiiu use was measured by asking ado-
lescents the frequency of using marijuana during the
past month and in their life-time. We use the life-time
reports here. Adolescents could choose from six cate-
gories ranging from never (= 11 to tnore than 40 times
(r-- (-,]. 'î hc responses were tJien divided into three cate-
gories based on distribution in this cohort: 0-2. 5-i4
times and more tban 40 times. These categories eorre-
spond to low, moderate and frequen! use. The frequencies
of these respoiisi^s are shown in Table f for males and
females,

I'irsl ijradc lUjijrcssm' bchuvior uiul shij bcliuvior were
assessed by tcacfiers' ratings of the student's social
adaptation to the classroom. The leacher's observa-
tion of elassroom adaptation (TOCAI contains rating
scitlcs ill live different domains: achievement, concentra-
tion, social withdrawal (sbynessl, authority acceptance
(aggression! anii maturity. These live domains were
designed originally by teachers as being important indi-
cators of how the child was doing al adapting to lirst
grade (Kellam cl ul. I97S), Children rated as aggressive,
shy, or those rated as both shy and aggressive were com-
pared with those rated as neither shy nor aggressive (see
fable 11,
h'irsi (jnidc iiiclropolitaii rcadiucss lesl IMRT) is a s t a n -
dardized test used to measure a child's readiness for
scbool learning by scoring the I'hild's initial responses to
the cognitive tasks of lhe classroom (Anastasi 1968). It
was administered either by the (irst grade teachers or
seliooi staff in the public schools, Tbe test designers
(lelined the MKT levels of readitiess: unready, low normal,
average, high normal and superior. We combined
high/normal and superior scores (see Table 1),
.'dalcscciit sociul bonds were measures of the teenager's
attachments and commitments to two imptirtant social
contexts ol' adolescence, family and sclmol, I'lirentiil
supervision ol' drug use was also included, Stlwol bonds
(tive Items, alpha = 0,6N) rcllected the teenager's attach-
ments and commitments to sdiool (i.e. how important is
doing well in school, how do your teachers think you are
doing, how satisfied are you with your teachers' opinion,
how far would you like to g<i in sehool. and how far do

you think you will go in sehool), h'(unihi bands Itbree
items, alpha = 0,76) were reports oi ieenagers ahout their
family attachments {i.e, enjoy being witii members of
family, how your parents think you are doing at bome,
antl how satislicd with yvur parents' opinion of bow you
arc doing). These measures were dichotomized as liigh
and not high, lnvi!Ud snpcrviHioii (three items, alpha =
0,641 asked teenagers what kinds of rules their parents
have about their use of (I} beer and wine, (21 drugs and
( J) eigarettcs. Responses ranged from parents absolutely
forbidding the use to leaving the decision up to tbe ad{)-
leseiMit, Tbese three items were summed together Io uiake
a parental supervision on drug rule seale from > to 18,
Th{)se who scored about a balf standard deviation above
the mean were considered to bave high parental super-
vision (see Table 1).
Iwuihi kiihiivund ineluded measures of poverty and
residential mobility based on mothers' reports. The ofli-
I i .SoLit̂ l> Inrlhf Sillily nl' .Xtldirtioii lo Ak'ohiil <ind 01 her
•,klh-lui}}. 4 7 , ^ S 5 H44
Antecedents of adult suhstamr use 8 17
Table I C h i k i h o o l rtnd ."idolescent
'intecedenl^. .ind .idult ^ubitanrc uic, by
."•cndcr
Femaler, (%) A'lci/cs i%) p-vclue
l--t fyadc . , 0 - 1242)

Family backj;i"Qund
p!;ver ty ir'dex, 1967 I'below poverty)
Moljilily, biiih to 196/ C'- +)
C'"'ildhood behavior
•leithi^r :,h/ rior .lgtye'v'iivf?
•v.y nnlv
iy,gi p-.sive oniy
i"x')th sh/ .md dggre'̂ sive
M l ! i ^(orcb ('. ^ 1029;
rnndture
',)A' . O'TTl.ll
. i v e i ,v-]i?
iii:nn al/;upcTior
Adolcsce-:c (n = 705)
I :ig'"̂ •KhccI bonds
Hifh ramily Donds
|-'.'ient(il iJiJcrvision
l-l;?,h Tiariiuana u^e ('10+;

50 7
3fi,b
49 0
16.-1
14,2
10'-
16.6
38.6
32.4
12.4
56.1
44.1
44 8
16.3
20.1
[ 8 9
17.6
4 ' ; 0
26.2

1 Li
0.06
<0.05
<O.OI
0.09
39.7
41.?;
1 1.4
34.6
52.2
2fl8
2h7
<O.OI
<O.OI
<0.OI
<O.OI
M.̂ n|Lia-"'a use
neve'
|iievifiu^. user

r.iirient use"
Cocairie use
novel
|i'"evious L.ser
(Ul lenl usei
'1 /.6
"37. :
15.3
79.4
111
7.5
37.5
37.9
24.6
70.2
18.0
1 1.8 <0.01
ciiil l.S gdVLTtiMicMi di'linilioti ol povLTly based on house-
hold income iind liimily size vviis used. .Mobility was
measured as Ibc luiniber (if limes < child's residence
eluuiged trom birlli Id lirsl grade, (.liildren wbo moved

Iwo or more limes before iirsi griitie were considered
mobile (see Table ! ).
Analyses
I'irsily, we exriinlne Ihe relations ol" early first grade
bebavior. adolesceni iTiarijuana use and adolescent soeial
bonds lo fater marijuana and coe;iine use in adulthtiod in
inullivariate logistic analyses. We ais{) Ies! for iiiler-
actions belween the early first grade behaviors and ado-
lescent soeial bonds in relation to later drug use. We iben
examine tlie relation ol' early ilnidbood readiness lo
iearn and adull dru;; use In hivariate and mullivariate
analyses.
.All analyses were performed for males and females
separately for several reasons. I-'irsI, otber investifiators
bavc emphasized Ibe need lor examining; Ibe etiology of
drng use separately for nudes and females (Dunean H al.
1^97; Newfomb 1997). Secondly, for several import;int
predictors tfiat we study (lirst grade aggressive and shy
behavior, soeial bunds and adolescent drug use), the fre-
quency of lhe responses and the pattern of Ihc responses
differ for males and females (see Table 11. Thirdly, in pre-
vious analyses of Woodlawn data, males and females
differ in iheir eliology of drug use. I'or example, lirst
gntde aggressive and sliy and aggressive behavitir biis
been relaled lo adolescent subsiance use, delinquency
and sebool dropoul for boys bul nol Ibr girls (linsminger
(•/ al. i4SJ; Kellam [•( al. 19S3; IJisminger, lamkin &
[acobson 1 99fi|. Family bonds were related to adolescent
subslance use for females bul nol males (Hnsmiiiger ctd/.
19S i). Ik'cause of Ibesc pasl ctiological differences, we
bave stratified the analyses by gender.

Longitudinal sludies always eneounter some missing
data problems, mosl ofien because of allrition. One
nielboJ for di'aling with missing dala is Ui delete all eases
for which dala are missing, whicb deereases the sample
si/e and use of available data signilieanlly. In some analy-
ses we have calegorized tbose who were missing as one of
the data categories that is analyzed. Thus, we can sec
whelher Ihe missing category is significant in tbe analy-
ses. When the missing data are not signiHcant. eonclu-
2iUl2 Sofk-ly Ibr llR'Siuily nl .Addii-liun In .lL-nliol aiul 1)1
h e r
ii. 4 7 . K i i - S 4 4
8 5N r.. I'.nsmingi'rei al.
sions can be drawn with some ;isstir;inct' ihat iittrilion is
not hiiising Ihc rcsuils. ['Or (liosc iiiUilysL's in vviiicii l]f
inissing d;itii fiilcgnry is signilicant. we nceci lo L-oncltjdc
lh;it those pnrliriptinls wJio were nttl iisscsscd ;il ;i spe-
cilie pdinl dilTered on tlie ottteome hcing exiimined.
For tlie iidiileseenl mcasnrcs. we crcalcd un additionai
eatcgory ol" missing Ibr tluise wlio did not eonipletc an
adolesfcnt iiilervievv but ediiipleted an atlult interview
(II == tS il. These respondents were ineluded in the analy-
ses by creating it inissinj; data eategory Ibr aM adiileseent
variabies in order to eotitrol Ibr any bias related io noL
completing an adolesecnl interview: We perlbrnied wo
dilTerent sets of atialyses: 1 1) including respondents
present al all three time points in = bOO): and |2l Inelud-
ing responilcnis interviewed in adulthood with an
adciitioiial eategory of missing in adoleseenee {n = 4^2]
lor those not assessed during adolescence. These sets of

analyses were eoiiipared to ensure that any assoeiation
between early eharaeteristies and iaicrdrtig tise would be
eonseri'ative. In the analyses tfuiL ineiuded adolescent
missing category, no dilYerenees ol' Ihe eslimales ol otids
ratio were noted (results nol shown).
RESULTS
Frequency of youny adult drug use
Of the 4S2 young adults, ahotil 20';;. were eurrent mari-
juana usiTs. )7.S"'i. were previous users ILhey had u.sed
niarijuana but not in the past year) and 42.H"i, reported
ihey had never tised marijtiariii. Vor eoeaiiie tise, l)%
were ctirrcTit cocaine tisers, ! S% were prev ious users and
7S'!'i) reported ihey htui never used cocaine. Males were
more likely than females io be ctirrcTit inariiiiana i25".i
males. 1 SVii females) and ciK'aine users (i 2";) males. H%
fenialesl.
Shy/aggressive behavior, adolescent school bonds and
drug use in younj- adulthood
We examine lirst whether adolesccn! social bonds oiotl-
erale the relations between lirsl grade behaviors and
young adult nse. None of the interactioti terms lor
Tnales or females was signiticant. so we did not include
these inienietions in the mnltivariak' tnoLtels o' stib-
stanee tise.
Mariiutum use

The multivariate analyses of predictors of adult mari-
juana and cocaine use include the shy-aygrcs.sive be-
havior from lirsl. grade, adolescent school bonds and
adi>lescent mariitiana tise. Parental supervision, family
bonds and sehotil bonds were highly intercorrelated so
we ran separate multivariate tests Ibr eaeh one without
the other two. We ordy diseuss here the resulls for school
bonds. We also ran two separate mtiltivariate analyses to
lest the effect o' parental supervision and tamily hoTids.
I'amily poverty and family mobility from lirst j;rade were
included as eoTitrols.
Male iidult use oj iiuiriiwuni. In the multivariate analysis,
both the eotnbinaticin of shy/withdrawn and aggres-
sive behavior in childhood and adolescent marijtiana
tise were assoeiated with mak^ adult marijtiana nse,
while ad{)!csccnt school bonds were not assoeiated (see
Table 2). Those males raied as both shy aiid aggressive in
childhood were more likely than those who were neither
to be etirrent marijtiana tiscrs (OK = 2.66] than pre ions
users in adullhood. Maie adults whti hat! used marijuana
more than 41) times tiuring adiilescence (heavy iisersi
were more likely to be previous users of marijuana
(OK = i.4S) or eurrent users (OK = 4.40) compared to
those who liatl used marijuana 0 - 2 times (low users) as
an adoleseenl. Those who had used marijnana three to
59 times during adolescence (moderate users) were more
likely lo he previous users eompared lo those who were
low users as adolescents (OK = J.Sfi). Neither of ihe
family background ariables were asstieiatcd with adtill
marijuana tise.

I'e)}uile (tduh use of iiianjmuui. In the multivariate analy-
sis, shy behavior in lirst grade and adolescent marijuana
use were assiieialed with female marijuana use in adtilt-
hood. Those rated as shy were less likely to be a eurrent
marijuana user than a previous user in adullhood
(OK = i).2h. eompared to those rated as neither shy nor
aggressive in tirsi grade. Adult females who were heavy
users of marijuana as an adolescent were more likely to
reporl beinga curreni user (OK = (>.69) than a never user,
eompared lo those with low use as an adolescent. Those
who were moderate marijuana users during adolescence
were also more likeiy lo he a current user (OK = 2.98)
or a previous user (OK = 2.46) than a never user, in
comparison to low users in adolescence. Adolescent
school bonds were associated marginally: those Ibmales
with low bonds lo schoi)! as an adoleseent were more
likeiy to currenlly be using marijuana a( age 52 than
those with high bonds (OK = 2.17. /' = 0.05 5) (see
Table 2].
Although nol shown here, we suhstituted parental
stipervision or faniily bonds for school bonds hi separate
analyses. 'The lindings were similar in that neither
parenlai supervision nor family boiids were related to
marijuana use among adult males, but family bonds were
proteetive against marijuana use among adult females at
a marginal />-level value (OK = 1.76, p = 0.1)5 !).
21)02 Sociciv i u r l h c S l i i i l v of A d i i i r h o n io Acam
;iiul D I I U T l)rus;s Aildii'thni 97. S 1 i-S44
AnU'cedcnls of luiull siih.slancc usi' H
Table 2 Odds ratios of the effects of iamily background,

childhood behavior, school bonds, and adoiescenl marijuana use
on adult
rr,,ii iju.ina use '.>y .jendei:
rarriily uatiigi ound
Poverty index ! i
MobilityT
(_hildhood bc^i.ivioi
neitnor i = Oj
ihy onlv
a.ijgressive only
Doth
School Donds I'H .. 0|
lole'v; e.n'i mtir yuana
{0 2 •--- 01
,'Vlen ('n
Ckkii .•!/
cm rent
use fve,
.neve. .,'.

!.O4
[ .06
- 275)
,0,' ei lou'i
v,^ Kse f . e f q j .
0.67
0.65
OdJi, of
cu!'cn!
use (Versus
1,55
1 63
Woir)en (n =
Od(/s of
f.uncnt
use fvefsus
' " ' ' ' • ' ' " ' ' ' '
0.63

1 43
/9/i)
O(kh of
pi'.VIOUS
use (versus
nevc^u^ej ^
0.60"
0.68
Ocids of
current
use (Versus"
pievious use)
1.06
2.1 1'
.54
I.BJ
4.40
0.74

i.-13
2.66'
0.46
1 02
2 16
1.78
1.79
1.85
0,26
0.57
1.16
3 4 5'
.60
0.4 7''
..27
2.98''
6.69'
2.46^
2.28'
37

I 21
2,94''
0 '0: ;̂ < COS • n ..: 0,01
Ctxuinc use
Bcfausc of snuill numbers of cticainc users, we compare
current users to never users und previous users to never
users, und we exclude the comparison of current users to
previous users. As with theiiutilysisof miirtjuaiiti use, we
show !hc' results with school bonds in the model,
Male adiill u.se of eoeaine. ht the midtivariate ;inijiysis,
btith Ibe combinatitin of sbv and aggressive behiivior in
lirst yrade anci atioleseent marijuana use were associated
with cocaine use in young adulthood, while adolesceni
schooi bonds were no{ associated. Those rated as botb shy
and aggressive were more likely to be current eoeaine
users a.s jidulls (OK = i. 51) tbaTi lliose wbo were neither
shy ntir aggressive in lirst grade. Those who were higti
users of marijuana during adolesccucc uere more iikely
to be a current cocaine user (OR = 2,56| or a previous
user (OR = 2,fiSl thtin those who Iiad low marijuiina u,se
as a teenager. Neither childhood poverly tuir mobility was
related to adult drug use isee'l'able ]•].
Vemule adult use uf eoeaine. l-irst grade poverty und ado-
lescent marijuana use were associated with cocaine use
in young adult tcmales. Those who had lived in poverty
in childhood were less likely to have used eoeaine in
adulthood (previous user) than those who had not lived
in poverty (OR ---^ 0,28). Females who were high users of

marijuana in adoieseenee were more likely tban those
wbo were low or moderate marijuana users to be a
current cocaine user (OR - 4.(-> or previous cociiine
user (OR = 4.7()| in adultbood. I lowever, tirst grade
shy and aggressive behaviors were not associated with
adull female cocaine use, Adolesceni. school bonds were
associated marginally with previous use ol' cocttine
(OR = 2.1 J,/;<(),()S),
In two separate muitivariate analyses we substituted
parental supervision or family btinds for school bonds,
rind tbe lindings remained similar. Thai is, for males
neither of the honds was related to adult cocaine use. For
females, those with bigb family bonds were more likely to
be a never user tban a previous user, while females with
low parental supervision in adolescence were more likely
to be a current user tban a never user (OR = S,69) (these
results are nttt sbown).
First tirade readiness lo learn (MRTj seores and
adult drutj use
We eondueted separate multiviiriate analysis of first
grade MRT scores on adult drug use, controlling for
family background and adolescent marijuana use. MRT
scores were not related to adult marijuana use and those
results are not shown here. MRT seores were associated
witb aduU eoeaine use. For males, those with high
normal/superior MRT scores were less likely to be current
S,jci.'lylorIlu',Slui;lyiir A ID Alcohol ijiid OIIUT Aihiinion. y?,
K i 5 - « 4 4

8 4 0 Margaret I'., i'.nsmingcr el u.
T a b l e 3 O d d : , raiios o f t h e effects o f family
background, childhood behavior: ;>chool bond^, and ddolescenl
maniuana use on adult cocaine
use by j^encl-ei.
iniiiy bdc kgrOLind
Povorly index, 9 6 /
M o o i h ! / , t j i r l n t o 1967 ("3 +)
Men
d'ds of aneiit
VVISU IH'W! ii'S
09
C h i l d h o o d Dehavior
neither shy :ior aggressive
shy onlv
aggressive onlv
b o t h shy and aggressive
School hnnds (high - 0)
'ovy/mcdium
Ac^olescent mannjana use

(0 / limes ^ 0)
3- 39 times
4 0 + times
1,60
1.68
•i 5 r
1 0/
1 93
2.56'
Odd-, Of
0.80
0.96
0.83
1.84
0,97
Wonien (n = 296)
"eviOLi's (jse Cki:ls oi current use
't-f ;j.s-e) l','er:,US nevtf USe)

2.65
0S5
0.39
0,57
65
I 6 /
4.61'
Odds 0,'
0.95
0.67
1.15
1.89
2 . ' 3
4 /a
(I <- O . i O : ;- •.. O.OI
i'n =- 363)
MRT scales
lmiTi,ilure ( -

1 o w norm-ii
Averag;^
0 ]
Oa<k at
curreri!
use ('ve,'SL.'s
n<yv! LAf-;
0./9
0.90
OdLh ol
j)>ev!oui
use (versus
liVVC U<C)
1 )(>
1.05
Odns 0
cu'ieu!
L(se (w
p!ev:ou

0 6]
0 86
li,qn noi-mal/su|5erior 0 I / ' 2 19 O.O
HT'I ;'n = 39
Odds o; O d N
0,8/
use (v'ecsiJ^
r/evef use)
4.65'
6 40''
5.68'
0 10, ','••• OD'.i î .i ,;r,id" povei : / ,inr| i-'obilrty j n 4 ,i(lolc-
,:ciT. mj'i|u.in,i use.
T a b l e 4 O d d s ratios of the effect o l l i i - , ! -
O'Vide reading readiness scores ( M i l l ) o n
adult cocaine use by gender
cdcaine users t.han those wilh the lowest scores
(OR = O.Ofil. I'or i'cnmles. those who seored in the lowest
catt;gory (i.e. immature) were k̂ ss likely to he a previous
eoi'aine ust-r than Ihose in the highei- eategories (see

Table 4),
Summary (il findings
1 Adoleseents who had used marijuima Trequently were
more likely than adtiiescents who were never or less Ire-
queni users lo use marijuana und eoeaine as adults. This
was true Ibr hoth males and Icmales.
2 iuirly aggressive behavior was not assoeiated direetly
with either marijuana use or cocaine use Ibr male or
female adults. I lowever. males who were rated as hoth
shy ami aggressive in lirst grade were more Ihan two
times as likely to he current users of marijuana in adult-
htiod eompared to those who were neither shy nor
aggressive. I'irsI grade males who were both shy aiid
aggressive also had Ihree times lhe odds of being a
eurrent eoeaine user as an adull than those who
were neither shy nor aggressive in lirst ynide. Ciiven
Ihat adoleseent drug use was included in lhe mndel.
these resulls indicale lhe importance of shy and
aggressive behavior in inilueneing drug nse beyond
adoleseenee.
^ I'emales rated as shy in lirst grade were iess likely to be
current marijuana users as young aduits than females
who were neither shy nor aggressive in childhood.
4 Adoleseent soeial honds were related to adult mari-
juana aTid eoeaine use ibr females |at a p < II. Id level),
but noi for males. More speeilieally. sehool bonds, lamily
21)02 Siwiflv lor 11 If Sluily o' A d d i d i n n l o A l and
(IIIKT
'iklh'lioii. 4 H44-

Antecedents of adult substance use 841
bonds and ptirental supt'rvision during adolescence were
proleclive iigainst ll-malc drug use.
T There was no evidence that adolescent social bonds
modi'rtitcd ihc relalionship of early lirsl gr;idc be-
havior with later adult drug use Ibr eitlicr males or
lemalL's.
fl Males who had 'high/superior' readiness Lo learn
scnrcs in lirsl t^raile werr much it'ss likely thaii those who
IUKI 'inmialnre' readiness to learn scores to be current
cocaine nsers as aclults. The lindings were reversed for
tile fetnales—females seorinji in the immature rant^e in
lirst grade were less likely to repor! ever using cocaine
compareil to lemales with hight-r rcaditu'ss to learn
scores.
As indicated in lhe above summary statements, pat-
terTis of relationships differed ibi' males and lemales.
While not a main researeh L]uesiion. we did iind that
early childhooii pnvcrty vvas proteciive for females, both
with regarii to use of marijuana and cocaine.
DISCUSSION
This researc'h extends our longitiuiinai study of a cohort
o!' African Americans Irtim Woodlawn. ('hicag<i. Having
begini our research when this poiiidatidii was in tirst
grade, we now e|ilore facUirs that increase ihe risk of
drug use in young adulthood. In particidar, we inesli-

gate whether lhe risk factors we identilied when Ihe
cohort vvas in adoleseenee conlinni. lo increase tlie like-
lihood of drug usv in young adidthood.
Allhougii we lound previously thai childhood aggres-
sive behavior inereased Ihe likelihood of drug use among
iTiale teenagers, we do not lindil lo be related signilieantly
fo atlult drug use lor eilher mak's <;r lemales. Whatever
impac! of early aggressive bchav ior on later adnll drng
use Ihere is. il appears to be medialed ihnmgh its initial
impael on adoleseenl drug usi;. Tiiere seems lo he no
additional diR-cl contribution.
1 lowever, we diii lind Ihat Ihc combination ol' aggres-
sive and shy behavior continues to inerease Ihc risk of
male drug use in adulthood, suggesling that it not (inly
inlluences indirectly adult drug use through adoleseent
ilriig use. but also contributes directly to atlnl! tirug
use for [nales. This is an important tinding since 'cv
studies have examined the impact of this conihination o(
behaviors, and fewer ha'c examined it prospcttively
for JS years. These data suggest that thi- combination of
shy and aggressive behavior is an indicalor of who will
become a 'persislent' rather than an 'adoleseenl limiletl'
(using Moflit's terminology} user as an adull.
The iinilings Ihat the niities with the i-ombination of
shy anti aggressivL> behavior had j!,reatcr risk of ilrug
problems in ailulth<iod ma liave Sk'verai explanations.
First, these results are consistent with lhe notion that
multiple risks increase an individual's vulnerability
IRultcr 1980; SamerolT et al. 1993). A second explana-
tion, as suggesled hy Ladd & Burgess (1999). is Ihat
others may interpret aggressive behavior wilh with-
drawn heliavior differently Ihan aggressive behavior

alone. 'J'hat is. when individuals are both aggressive and
withdrawn, others may perceive the withdrawn hehavior
as a sign of arrogance or conlempl for others. This may
set up a pattern of difticull relalionships with leachers
and peers that persists across the life course with impli-
cations for relationships during adulthood. Thirdly, the
[)resenceof withdrawn hehavior may signal other delicits
that inereaselhe likelihood of eonlinued problems. Those
who are bolh withdrawn and aggressive may be laeking
social skills that inhibit their relationships with others. In
turn, this would decrease the expectations and obliga-
tions that others have for them. Roth the secfind and third
explanations are consistent with earlier lindings that
children who are witlidrawn and aggressive lended to
develop relational difliculties with teachers and peers
li.add & iiurgess 1999). We suggest that these relational
difficulties persist across the life eiiiirsc and are related to
the piTsistetice of drug use during adulthood,
Childhood shy hehavior. which was protective during
adolescence for males, Init not females, is protective lor
adult lemales. It appears that shyness did nol hincicr
adolescent cxperimentatitm among these females (as it
did anmng the males), but it did decrease their chance
of conlinuing marijuana use in young adulthood. Shy
behavior may solicit protectiveness trom others in the
environmen!. In addition, those who are shy may be
more anxious about Iheir interpersonal hehavior and this
might translate into a relnclance to engage in hehavior
ihat is perceived as tlangerous or deviant. Kerr ct ai
(1997) argue thai lhe proteetive parl of shy heliaviiir
is hchavioral inhibition. Behavioral inhibition may de-
crease the risk of antisoeial behaviors hy interfering with
exposure to deviant peers and by inereasing the anxiety
or fear surrounding participating in strange or new activ-
ities, as snggested above.

llxplanalions by Kerr ct al. (1997) imply thai while
shy behavior results in behavioral inhibition, there
may be dilTerent elTeels from 'withdrawn' hehavior as
indicaletl by a lack of social interactitins. Thus the
consirncis of shy and withdrawn may be contbnnded.
Measures of shy behavior may nol ditferentiaie these
two aspeds. Withdrawn behavior may be nn)re likely to
be measnred when I'hildren were rated as heing both
shy anil aggressi'c while behavioral inhibilion would be
lhe aspec! of the eonsiruct mosl likely when children
were only rated as shy. Therefore, current measure-
ment schemes should attempt to differentiate these two
constructs.
2 S i i r J t ' l y I b r w S l i i d v o l . X i l i l i c l i i i n t o
l i - i ) l u ) l i i i k l O l i i i T Aiklirlioii. 97. S i i-S44
8 4 2 Margaret K. Hnsmingcr et al.
liarlicr we found thai a child with high normal/
superior mcfropDlitan readiness tcsl (MRT) scores was
at an increased risk of drug use in adolescence (Kellam
(•; ((/, I 480: I'Icminy ct ai 1982|, 1'his had hcc-ii a sur-
prising linding, given the exicnsivc litcriJlurc dcTnon-
slrating Ihc inverse relationship bcivvccn iiUclligciicc and
later drug use, and we had hypothesized that Ihis result
was due to ihc priiclivity of those with higher sfores to
t'xpcrinicn! wiih drugs lor a short-term perioii. The lind-
ings in this paper support this hypoihesis, t'nmhininy Ihc
results in this paper with our earlier tindings. tnales
having high normal/superior MRT scores in childhood
were more likely to initiate drugs in adolescence but were
also nuirc likely tii diseiintinue this behiivior as young

adults. Rather than conclutiL' 1hat school readiness in
chiklhood is a risk factor lur drug use, we ean now show
Ihat while it is u risk for 'iidolescent liruilCLl' initiiition til
drug use, it seems In be protective in terms t>' long-term
or persisU'iil use for males,
I'or I'cntales, scoring in the lowest o' the lour cate-
gories on the lirst grade MK'!' was protective iti terms of
iidult drug use. These low-scoring i'emalcs srem id have
othi'r protective mechanisms ai work; other work has
shown that these girls are more likely io he comiected
to family and less likely to have strong peer bonds
(Knsminger 19901,
In U'rms of prevention and early intervention, our
results suggest that those children who exhibit both shy
and aggressive behavior can be a focus of programs.
Several prevention programs have targeted early aggres-
sive behavior (Coic !'»9(); Kellam ^ Anthony IM9S:
Kellam d al. 14981 as a risk Ibr later drug use and
antisocial behavior: ihese lindings suggest that those
cbiklrcn. especially males, who have both aggressive and
withdrawn behavior may be important targets as well.
Several limitalions of this study should be noted.
He-cause the cohiirt members were initially Irom a single
comtnunity area in Chicago, we do not know whelher
similar results would lie found in other populations.
While Woodlawn is unique in several ways, the results we
loufKl in this paper are consistent with others' lindings
both from similar and dissimilar populations, HOVVCVIT,
lhe generalizability of these lindings can he answered
(iiily by replications in other populations from different
|{)cales atui icihorts.
Sample attrition is always present in longitudinal

studies, evi-n those with fairly high rates of retrieval such
as ours hacj. Our analyses indicate that poverly and
i'amily lypc were related lo who was ri'interviewed as
adults and may inlluence the tindings, Hariy poverty was
related to aduli. drug use for females, but in a contrary
direction than we would have hypothesized, i.e, thtise
who lived in poor i'ariiiiics Initially were less likely to be
current drug users as adults. If there had been no attri-
tion bias, we might have reported even lower rates of
drug use for the females. However, il is important to
remember that no otber variables that we examined were
related to who was successfully interviewed, including
self reports of adolescent drug use, early teacher ratings
of beiiavion adolescent psychological wellbeing or olher
characteristics of the families (Hnsmingcr ct id. 1947:
)uon ^ Mnsminger 19971,
I'inally, our assessment of adult drug use relied on self-
reports which may lead to an underestimation of drug
use, liarlier analyses (I'nsmingcr, Anthony & ,McCord
1497) indicated that Woodlawn study participants who
reported no illicit drug use were willing to disclose antiso-
cial, criminal and otherwise socially undcsirabk' eveiits,
1'herc was also relatively high agreement between oflicial
crime reports am! self reports of crimijial involvement.
These' lindings suggest that the study participants were
willing to report many adverse behaviors, and thus
increases onr conlidence in the self reports of drug use.
The strengths of the study are its initial cpidcminlogi-
caliy delined cohorl nf children starting school in an
inner city followed prospectively to adulthood and the
generally high levels of success in locating and inter-
viewing participants. Since we had a delined population
to begin with we k[U)w who is missing from the atlull

survey, A Hmitation of many cross-sectional surveys is
that they often have high initial refusal rates: they may
miss itmer-city populatitins Ihat arc likely to be mobile
and/or arc incarcerated. It is difticuli in such surveys to
know who is missing from the surveyed populalii>n,
hecause we had a delincd cohort of lirst graders we know
who was not found, who was incarcerated and who was
dead. Similarly, school sur'cys that begin later in a child's
career may miss studetits who have dropped out of school
or are altentling school very ini'reqtiently. This is less
likely when iirst grade is the point of initial cotitad.
Ltingitudinal studies provide a rare (ipportunity to
study risk behaviors over the life course. This study
allowed us to examine the relation between childhood
and adolescent risk factors and adult drug use within an
inner-city community. Overall, we lind thai chiklln)od
behavior and readiness to learn, social bonds in adoles-
cence, and adolescent marijuana use are relaU'd to the
risk oi' drug use in adulthotul, but Ihese risk factors vary
by gender. In order to understand belter both the iiiitia-
lion and maintenance (if drug use, it is critical ihat we
stttdy lhe antecedents o' male and female drug use sepa-
rately and over a long period of time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is supported by National Institute of Drug
Abuse DA0b6M), Vac their supporl and cooperaiion in
,Sncii'lv l(ir tlic S(inl of AiidiclJon In Alrolml Uiul Oilier
.d(lk-lion. 9
Aiiteecilcnts of adult substance use H4 3

this project over many years, we wish to thank the
Woodlawn Community and the participants and their
families. We acknowledge our colleagues |eannette
liranch MA. Sheppard (!, Kellam MO and Deiian King
and the Woodlawn Project Board,
REFERENCES
Ariiistasi, A. 'I'rstiiui, >rcl cdn. London:
t i a c i i r i i a r i . | , . VVutliice, | , . O ' M u l k - y , I'., i i i l
i r i M n r i . ... K i i r t h , C- I,.
iX N e i y h l i i i r s . II. I 1 9 9 1} R a c i a l / t ' t h i i i c
ditt'erL'nci's in s m o k i n y ,
(Iriiikint^, Liiid ilticil d r u g u s e i i m o n g A m i ' r i c i i n
h i i j h s c i m i i t
s t ' i i i o r s , I ' i 7 f i - K ' - ) . .^inci-h'iiii linir!}iil ot I'libiir
Ihvltli. 8 1 .
',72 577.
Btoc'k. |., ISIiick, j . & Ki-yL-H, S. i 19SS} l.nngilijdiiKilly
larctL-lliiig
d r u g UNiigL' in adulcsceiiCL': farly rliikihood |X'r.si)niitil' a
n d
environmoiUat p r e c u r s o r s . ('/(//(/ Dnrlopiiii'iii, S9, 5 5(i
S T T .
Urook, ). S., VVliili-i-niiii, M., Cohen, I', Sha])ir(i, . & Ualka.
-.. ii,

11 ')')S) i.ongiliidinally prediriiii^ lali- adoti-scenl a n d vmiiiy
[HILJII d r u g use: ehitdlioiid a n d udoti'sreni preciirsors.
louriuil
i>l ilu- .•ii!t'i-iuii! l i i i i / c i ' i i y !>/ Child mid.:!oifi(i'iu /
' s i / i / i i i i f n / . i 4 ,
2 •,() I 2'.(•).
Hriinsvvic-k, .., Messeri, i'. & Titus, S. I 19421 IVctlJclivf
lacUirs
ill iidiitl sLilislanee a b u s e ; ,i |iros|K'liv(^ > t̂ iniv of
Al'riean
.rriiTk'iin a d o l e s c e n l s . In: (liiiiil^, M. & Tii-keiis, K..
eds.
'uliirriibiliin u> Mnisc. pp. 41 ' J - 4 72. Viishirij;t<in, 1)1":
Aineriiari I'syctioiogy Associalion.
t ' a l a l a n o , K, Ŝ. I h i n i i i n s , . 1). (201)1)) The soehil
developnieni
miiilei. A t h e o r y of aritisoeia! belia'i<ir. In: i l a n k i i i s ,
[. I)., ed.
Di'Jiiniiii'iHii (Uiil Criiiw: Ciirrrt}! Tiiforn's. p p . 1 4 9 - 1 9 7
. e v v
York: C a n i b r i d j i c I n i v e r s ! l ' i ' r e s s .
( . ' h e n . K. & K a r u l e l , 1), l l 9 9 S | ' r h e n a U i r a l h

i s t o r y lit i t r u j ; LISC>
triiin a d o l e s c e n c e i n l h e m i d I h i i l i e s in a g e n e r
a l p o p u l t i l i d i i
saiTiple. .niiriiiin lounuil oj I'uhtii lU-nlih. 8 5 , 4 I 4 7 .
(•(lie. j . t). [ t M'Kli i ' d u a r d a I h e o r y oi p e e r c e j e e l
i o n . I n : A S I K T ,
S. K. i i j , I). Coil', e d s . Vvcr Rcji'diDn IJJ Chihihnod. [ip. l
l i S - 5 9 8 .
N e w Y(irk: t ' a m h r i i l j i e l . i i i v e r s i l y P r e s s .
DfA'ise. P. I 1 9 6 71 Chifiuio's iilcnhuj Culm- Cap. i n l e r l
l n i v e r s i l y
S o c i a l H e s e a r e l i t ' o n i i T i i l t e e K e p o r l n o . 2
. t ' l i i e a g o , IL: C h i c a g o
Ke!;i<inal I l o s p i l a l .
i ) e V ' i l , l ) , . S i l v e r r i i a n , { ; , , ( ; o o d s U i d L
M. iK S t o t l u l o , C. ( I ' l ' l o i T t i e
( o i i s l r u e l i o n of risk a n d p r o t e c t i v e l a e t o r i n
d i e e s lor a d o l e s -
e e n l alc-otiol a n d o d i o r d r u g u s e . joiiniii! ol Dnuj
Issues. 2 S ,
N '>7 <S(i5.
D u n e a n , S. C. A i p e r L A,, t X n i e a n . 'i'. '.. & H o p s
. i l . | I 9 9 7 }

. A d o l e s e e n l a l c o h o l u s e d o v e l o p m e n i a n d y
o u n g adLilt o u l -
eonies. Driiii nnd Miolioi Di'pciulfiifc. 49. !') 48.
I ' l l i o u . I ) . , l l u j ^ i j i g a , I ) . A A g e l o i i , S . ( I M
8 T I i : . : p h i i n u n !
DrliDiiucufij iiDtl Driifi Usi-. I 5 e c r l v l i i l i s . CA: S a j
; e .
linsniing.T, ,VL t;. ) I 9 ' ) l ) | Se.iiai aeli'ity a n d proliieni
betiai<irs
a m o n j ; tiiack. urt-)an adoleseerils. t. hikl Dm-h^vucm. 6 1 .
2(1 ;2-2(l4(-).
Lnsniinjier, il. 1'.., ,nlliony, .& Vlet'oid, ], { ̂ -^971 I lie
inrier-eit
a n d d r u g use: niiliai lindings from an epidemiologieid smdy.
Driujiiiul Mi ohol Di'paidnnr. 48. I 7S-1S4.
I ' J t s m i n g e r , M. !•.. l i r o v v n . C. IL ^ K e i l a m . S.
C. ( 1 9 8 2 1 S e x dif-
f e r e n c e s in a n i e e e d e n t s iil s u t i s l i j i u e u s e a
m o n g a d n k ' s e e n l s .
loiiniiil ol Sodti! Issues. Mi. 2 T - 4 2 .
LnsiTiinge]-, .L !•:.. Kellam, S. C. iK Hutiiii, I!. K. I 198 i l S
r I i o o l a n d

family origins nl delini_|Liciu-: e o m p a - i s o n s tn sex. in:
'ari
Dusen, K. T. & Mt'dnick, S. A., eds. I'n'spccliw Sludi&s of
Criiiic
iniil DcliiHiiicnqi. pp. 7 3-97, linston, MA: Kluwcr-Mjhoff.
Lnsminger. M. E., Lanikin, R. 1'. & |acobsoii, N, (]99h) School
k'tiving: a longitudinal perspeetive including neighborhood
eftecls. Child DcvclopinniL 67, 2 4 0 0 - 2 4 i 6.
rieming, ).. Kcltam, S. (i. ^ lirown, C H. (19S2I I'iarty
predictors
of age of lirsl use of aieofiot, marijuiiiia. and cigarettes. Driuj
(indAholwl Dcpnidfim: 9. 28S-5O5-
Hawkins. [- tJ.. Ciitatano, R- K. Kosterman, R.. Abbolt, K. &
Hill,
K. Cl. ( t 9 9 9 | i'rt'venting adoteseenl heatth-risk behaviors
by slrertglheniiig proleetion during ehitdhood. .•irhivi's of
I'cdialrir and .Adolcsd'nt MfdUiiw. 1 S I 22(i 2 34,
Hawkins, . I)., Catalano, R. L .!i .VLiller. j . Y, 119921 Rî k
and
priiteclive faclors fur ulcoliol and other drug problems in

adolesceni'f anil early adulthood: implications tor sutistance
abuse prevenlion. rsiichoioiiit'id Hiiliciiii. 1 12, h4-l()T.
H e r d , I). i l 9 8 h ) A Review ol Ihiiikhui I'mtTiis and
AhoiwI
I'rolileins Aiiioiiii CS lilncks. W a s h i n g t o n , IX': t i n i t e
d S t a l e s
Department of Healtti iind Human Strvices.
Hirsehi. 1.119(i9) Cmisesof Di'lhujih-iirii. Berkek'v, CA:
Universily
of California.
Hirschi.'t. & Cottfred.son, M. (I 98 51 Age and the exptanation
of
I r i m e . A}}h'rieiui lotirnu! of Soeiohyii. S 9 , S S 2 S S 4 .
l o t m s t o n , L. ( 1 9 7 5 ) Drufis nnd An}eritnn )oiilli. A n n
Arbor:
Institute for Soeial Keseareti.
J o h n s t o n , L., O'.Malley, I'. & t i a c h m a n , . 11999)
Nntiona! Surwij
liesiili.'i on Dinij I.'.M' /rojn llw Moiiiloniin the I'utnre Studii.
1'I7> !'•}'•)?<. Vastiington, X': United Slates iJepjirnnent of
lU'altli anil H i n n a n Services,

l u o n , ii, S, iS; t-Jisininger, M. !•;, ( 1 9 9 7 ) Chitdhood.
adotescejit,
a n d y o u n g adLdt prediciors ot suieidal tiehaviors: a
prospee-
live sludy of African .Anterieans. journal of Child I'siicholofiji
ami I'siiehitUrji. iH. 5 T 5 - S f ) 5 .
taridel, I). 119781 Convergences in prospeetive longitudinal
sureysof drug use in norin;il populaii<iris. In: Kandel, I)., ed.
lA'iijiitndinu! Heseiurh on Drnji Vsc: i'.nipirieiil /•/Jidinif.s and
Mi'lhodolofih-id l.'<snes. pp. 5- i S . W a s h i n g t o n . DC: H
e m i s p h e r e
I'ubiistiing.
Kandel. I)., Kessler, K. & Miirgulies, K. i l 9 7 8 l .Aitleeedenls
of
adoteseent initiation into stages ot d r u g s use: a
ctevetopmentat
analysis. In: Kandel, I)., cd, Lounilndinti! Rcscm-ih in Dnifi
Use:
i'niplrii-id I'indinns fiud Mflhodoloijunl issues, pp. 7 5 9 9 .
Wastiington, K': lleniisphere--VViley.
Keitani,S,t.;.i!i Anttiony, |. C, ( I 9 9 8 ) Targeting e a r t y i u i
t c c e d e n t s

lo [irevent lobaeeo s m o k i n g : iiiulirigs from an
epidemioiogi-
catly basett raniloiui/ed lietd trial. A]nerieiin journal ol I'ubliv
lieidlh. HH. I Pit] I 4 9 S .
tseltam, S. C , tirancti. . I)., Agravvat. K. C, & Hnsmingcr. ,VL
i'.
I 1 9 7 5 ) Mi'iiuil llealih anil Gohuj to School: ilw Woodiawn
I'uhfnun ol Assessment. I'.iirlji lulrrwntion. iind Ewdualion.
Chicago, IL: Mniversily of Chieago I'ress,
Keltam, 8. C , ISniiieli, |. I)., Agrawal, K. C. & Kiisntingcr,
.VL V..
(19751 Mental health and going to sehoot: the Woodtaivn
program of iisses.smenl, earty inlervention, and evatLiation,
Ctiieago. IL: Lniversily of Chicago IVes.s.
Keltam, S. C. I5r<ivn, C. fL, Rubin, 15. R. ^ linsminger, . ti.
1 198 51 t'alhs leading lo teenage psyi-tiiatrie syntploins and
sutislance use: devetopmenlal epittemioiogieat sludies in
Wooitlawn. hv. Cuv.c. S.. tiarts, V. & t5arrett, .. eds.
Childliood
l'siiehoi>iiiholoii!i <uid Developnienl. p p . 1 7 - 5 1 . N o w Y

o r k : R a v e n
I'ress.
Kettani, S. C,.. Lnsniinger. M. !•:, & Simon, M. t5. ( 1 9 8 0 )
.Vtental
healtti iii lirsl g r a d e a n d t e e n a g e d r u g , ntcohot. a n d
eigarelte
use. DrnjiandAholiolDept'iidenet'. 5, 2 7 5 - 5 0 4 ,
2 0 0 J Sijcicty Ibr ilicSliiilv ni' AditimiiHi In ;iiui O I I U T l l
n i "
X 4 4 Margiirt'l /•,'. !''usn]iiuji'r cl a l .
Kellam. S. (i.. Ling, X., iVkTisca, R,, ISrovvn, C. H. & lalongo.
N. National Institule of Drug Abuse ( 1 9 9 1 ) .'((/i(ijji((
Uousi'th>!d
{ I 99S} The efl'eet of Ihe level of aggression in lhe lirst grade
Snrvfii on /Jni;/ Ainisc: Main l-'iudintis. 1990. VVashingtiin,
DC:
elassniom on t h e e o u r s e and mallecibilily oi' ag^li'essive
behav- [S Department ol' Health aiid Human Services.
i o r i n t o m i d d l e s c h o o l , ikvclopineni iind
I'siiiinipinlioioiiii, 1 0 , Neve<imb, VI, 1). i 1 9 9 7 } I ' s y c l
i o s o c i a l prcctictors a n d e o i i -
l ' l T - l S S . s e ( | u c n c c s ol driiji. u s e : a
iiev(.;lo|)riicntal [K'rspectivc vvitiiui

K e r r k , ' I ' r e m b l a y , R. !•!,, I ' a g a n i , L, & V i l a r
o , F, ( ] ' ) 9 7 } li<iys' a p t " o s | i c c i i c s t u d y ,
loiiiiuil ol •ddii'iiY Disctiscs. I d , S I
beh;ivioral inhibilion and the ri.sk of laler delini|uency, S9.
r i - h h ' c s III i i i ' i i c n i ! i ' s i i c h i t i t r f i , S 4 , S ( )
9 - S l h , R o b i n s , L. (19(-i(ii Ih-vlujii Childn-n iiri'wn I'p.
I5aiiirnore:
Kessler. K., M c ( i o n a g l e , k . , / h i i o , S., S h a n y a n g
. N., t ' l i r i s t o p h e r , VVilkens.
P.,. H u g h e s , ,L, L s h l c m a n . S., VViilehen, H.-i . ^ K e
n d l e i , k , S. R o b i n s , L. ( I 9 7 K 1 S t u r d y c h i l d h o
o d p r e d i e t o r s ol' iidull o u l -
( l S i 9 4 i LiTetinie iind l _ ? - i n o n t h p r e t ' a i e n e e ol'
DS1-III-K c<iiiie,s: r c p l i e i i t i o i i s I'rom l o n s j i t u d
i n a l s l u d i e s . Psiii'holiuiit'id
p s y c h i a l r i c d i s o r d e r s in l h e 1 n i t e d S l a t e s : r
e s u l l s I'rom l h e ,lci/ici»K', 8 , d l 1 - ( t 2 2 .
Niilional ('omorbidit>' Survey, ,]yclii'i's of (ifiicnd
I'siii'liinlrii, Rutler, 1 , (19S()1 Chdittiiiuj YoiUh in n
Chiuuiiisii .S'licicf;/.
5 1 . S 19. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Tress.
Ladd, C, VV, ̂ lUirgess. k. B, ( 1999) Charling the
reliitionshi]> SamerolT, A, |,. Seiler, K., T.iildvvin, A. ^
lialdwiii, C. ( 199 il
Irajeclories of iiggressive, withdrawn, ami aggressive/ Slabilit'

of intelligence Troin preschool lo adolescence: tlu'
withdrawn ehildren during early grade seho<il. Child inlluenee
oi' social aud I'iunily risk i'aclors. i'lidil /iri'i'/njiDicni.
Dcvi'lopincnl, 7 0 , 911} 9 i 9 . ()4, SI}--97.
Lewis, M. I'i Rook, K. M 9 9 9 | Soeial eonlrol in personal
relation- Sampson. K. |. î Laub, |, (i 9901 Crime and deviLinee
over lhe
ships: lnip;iet on iieallh behaviors and psyeiiological distress.
lil'eeourse: llie salience oi' aduit soeial bonds. Aiiwrictiii
llciillh I'sijt'holofi!!, I S, h i 7 1 , Soiiohyicid Hcvinv. 5S, d(19-
h2 7.
McCord, |, (i 9S,Sl Identifying developmental paradigms
Hmberson. i). 11 9 S 7 | I'arnily status and heallh behaviors:
soeial
l e a d i n g lo a l e o i u i l i s n i . joiinud of SUidles on
.liohol. 4 4 , e o n t r o l .is a d i m e n s i o n ol' s o e i a l i n t
e g r a l i o n . lounud ol llcidlti
{ S 7 - ) ( i 2 . m i d S o f i t i l B c l u i v i o r , 2 ^ . 5 1 ) d 5 1
9 .
MoilllL'l'. 1 199 51 ,d<ileseenee-limited and lifc-c-otirse-
persistenl While, IL. Tandina, R, t̂ LaCrangc. K. ( i 9 S 7 )
Longiludinal pre-
antisociiil behavior: a ileveliipmental taxonomy, Psiirliolonirtd
dictorsol' serious substance useaiiiidelini.|ueney, Crim/n.t/ni/.ij.
Rnic^y. 1 0 0 , 1 -IH. i , 7 1 S - 7 4 ( 1 .

M o s k d w i t / . I),, S c l n v L i r t / m a n , / , t̂ L e d i n g i
i a m , |, i 1 9 S S i VX'oll'gaug, M.. ' r h o r n b e r r y , T. iK'
I'i^lio, R. I I 9 N 7 I i'miii
S t a b i l i t y a n d c h i i n g e in a g g r e s s i o n a n d w i t h
d r a w a l in Dinj to Miui- -Irom DcHiiqiic}}!;! lo Crime:
/•"iif/du'-l.'/i to the
midiile childhood and early adoicsceuee. joiivnid of .bnoniiii!
I'hihiddpliiii Cohort ol /9-J^, Chicago, IL:l niversity of Chicago
I'SIHUOIOIIII. 9 4 , iu 4 1 , Tress,
i]'ll lit}} *J~ S ' ' S 4 4
• ilKIJ Sofidv I'lirlhi.' Stiii-ly oi Adiliclion In Aieohol and
Dllifr Drugs . u u i i u i i r r , / / , .

Sheet1Genesis Energy WACCItemAmount ($000)InterestWeighted TotalR.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Sheet1Genesis Energy WACCItemAmount ($000)InterestWeighted TotalR.docx

Similar to Sheet1Genesis Energy WACCItemAmount ($000)InterestWeighted TotalR.docx (20)

More from maoanderton

More from maoanderton (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Sheet1Genesis Energy WACCItemAmount ($000)InterestWeighted TotalR.docx