linked in this study did not capture educational service usage in both community and residential settings, which should be explored in future research. Third, service usage was only observed as incurring within-participant; costs of conduct problems that are incurred by others, including family members and victims of crime, were not captured. This omission is especially relevant with respect to criminal convictions, given the large costs for victims of crime and for society at large (Erskine et al., 2014). Moreover, this omission can be expected to bias our estimates of societal costs associated with the LCP pathway downward. Fourth, this study was restricted to a single cohort in New Zealand and, as such, findings warrant replication in other contexts. Finally, this analysis was descriptive and does not allow for causal inference about the effect of conduct disorder itself versus other potentially explanatory or confounding factors on the number or types of services utilized.
