Cumulative Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis

• Published date: 01 November 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241267230
• Author: Miranda G. Yannon,Romain Decrop,Mytien Le,Sam Beery,Carolyn J. Tompsett
• Date: 01 November 2024

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2024, Vol. 51, No. 11, November 2024, 1696 –1714.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241267230

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2024 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1696

CUMULATIVE ADVERSE CHILDHOOD

EXPERIENCES (ACES) AND RECIDIVISM

A Meta-Analysis

MIRANDA G. YANNON

ROMAIN DECROP

MYTIEN LE

SAM BEERY

CAROLYN J. TOMPSETT

Bowling Green State University

This meta-analysis quantitatively synthesizes existing literature to investigate the relationship between aggregations of

adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and recidivism among court-involved youth and adults. Preferred Reporting Items for

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, and moderation analyses were conducted. Sixteen studies

(published n = 12), encompassing 101,778 unique participants (girls/women = 21.1%; adults n = 1,204), met the inclusion

criteria. A small overall effect size revealed that an accumulation of ACEs increased the odds of reoffending. The relationship

between ACEs and recidivism was only statistically significant for the subgroup of studies using youth samples. In addition,

ACEs only predicted recidivism in the subgroup of published studies (compared to dissertations). Other moderators (gender,

study location, recidivism time frame) were not significant. Our results suggest that courts, particularly youth courts, would

benefit from screening for cumulative ACEs to help identify those most at risk for reoffending and in need of intervention.

Keywords: trauma; recidivism; juvenile justice; child abuse; meta-analysis; criminal behavior; youth

Recidivism, the recurrence of criminal behavior after one’s first offense (Entzminger,

2020), has been a long-standing concern in the United States (Johnson, 2017;

Katsiyannis et al., 2018). To address this, court systems have utilized screening measures to

evaluate individual level of risk and level of intervention needed. For example, risk factors

from the Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) model, such as criminal history and problems

with family members/spouses, are commonly assessed (Bonta & Andrews, 2023). While

the RNR model has garnered significant empirical support for its ability

to improve treatment outcomes and reduce recidivism, it has received criticism for not

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors have no disclosures or acknowledgements to declare. Correspondence con-

cerning this article should be addressed to Miranda G. Yannon, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green

State University, 822 East Merry Avenue, Bowling Green, OH 43403; e-mail: myannon@bgsu.edu.

1267230CJBXXX10.1177/00938548241267230Criminal Justice and BehaviorYannon et al. / Aces and Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis

research-article2024

Yannon et al. / ACES AND RECIDIVISM: A META-ANALYSIS 1697

adequately considering how childhood trauma can impact reoffending (Fritzon et al., 2021;

Kerig & Becker, 2010; van der Put & de Ruiter, 2016). Childhood traumatic events (e.g.,

physical abuse and family violence) are important to consider in the context of recidivism

given the high prevalence rates of such events among court-involved individuals (e.g.,

Dierkhising et al., 2013). Furthermore, childhood trauma is closely related to other risk fac-

tors for recidivism in the RNR model (e.g., problems with family members/spouses, sub-

stance abuse) which makes it a powerful target for intervention (Fritzon et al., 2021). For

example, some individuals who have experienced trauma may turn to substance use (a risk

factor in the RNR model) as a maladaptive coping strategy, and some research has found

that trauma interventions can reduce both trauma-related symptoms and substance use for

these individuals (Bailey et al., 2019; Leban & Gibson, 2020). Thus, by implementing inter-

ventions that are trauma informed, other risk factors for recidivism may improve as well

(Fritzon et al., 2021).

Existing research has often focused on the relationships between individual types of

childhood traumatic experiences (e.g., physical abuse) and recidivism (e.g., Dalsklev et al.,

2021; Kim et al., 2016; van der Put & de Ruiter, 2016). However, to best understand how

experiencing childhood trauma may increase reoffending risk, it is critical to also explore

how experiencing multiple types of stressful events in childhood can compound risk. To

accomplish this, researchers commonly use measures of adverse childhood experiences

(ACEs) that typically capture three domains (abuse, neglect, and household challenges) of

potentially traumatic events that are directly experienced or witnessed in the household

before 18 years of age (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Kaiser Permanente,

2016; Felitti et al., 1998). Of note, the definition of a traumatic event in the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed., text rev.; American Psychiatric Association,

2022) requires “actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence” (American

Psychiatric Association, 2022, p. 301). Although household dysfunction does not always

threaten death or cause serious injury, Felitti and colleagues (1998) stressed the importance

of including this as a part of ACEs measures because household dysfunction may cooccur

with other forms of abuse and exacerbate negative outcomes. At the same time, while a

diagnosis of a trauma-related disorder requires the assessment of psychological symptoms

secondary to the traumatic event, research on ACEs has found that simply the exposure to a

potentially traumatic event is predictive. Specifically, researchers using ACE measures

have found that ACEs predict various negative outcomes, such as mental health problems,

externalizing behaviors, and substance use, which have led to some public health and men-

tal health practitioners routinely screening patients for ACEs (Burke et al., 2011; Felitti

et al., 1998; Fox et al., 2015; Lacey & Minnis, 2020). Although some juvenile court systems

use screeners that measure ACEs (e.g., Positive Achievement Change Tool; Baglivio,

Jackowski, et al., 2014; Winokur-Early et al., 2012), widespread adoption is lacking. It

would be beneficial for researchers and practitioners to better understand if and how cumu-

lative ACE scores might predict recidivism to inform the selection and utilization of screen-

ing measures as well as the implementation of interventions.

BACKGROUND ON ACES

In the 1990s and early 2000s, researchers noted that individuals often experience more

than one traumatic experience and thus the need for research methods that measured