What Can Help? Examining Levels of Substance (Non)use as a Protective Factor in the Effect of ACEs on Crime

• Author: Jessica M. Craig,Jonathan Intravia,Kevin T. Wolff,Michael T. Baglivio
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204017728998
• Date: 01 January 2019
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
2019, Vol. 17(1) 42-61
What Can Help? Examining
ª The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
Levels of Substance (Non)use
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1541204017728998
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj
as a Protective Factor in the
Effect of ACEs on Crime
Jessica M. Craig1, Jonathan Intravia2, Kevin T. Wolff3,
and Michael T. Baglivio4
Abstract
Although the deleterious impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on offending has
been established, less is known about the possible protective factors that may buffer this
relationship. Using a sample of over 28,000 adjudicated delinquents from a large southern state,
the current study investigated the role of substance (non)use on the relationship between
ACEs and recidivism and whether these results differed by race/ethnicity and sex. Results
illustrate that ACEs increase the likelihood of recidivism among youth who engaged in
moderate-to-high substance use. However, this effect was not found among youth who
reported little-to-no substance use. Furthermore, these effects were largely consistent across
race/ethnicity and sex. Policy implications of this buffering effect are discussed as well as lim-
itations and directions for future research.
Keywords
adverse childhood experiences, protective factors, substance use, recidivism
For several decades, scholars have been interested in identifying and examining the impact of
various risk factors (e.g., individual, situational, family, community) on offending across the life
course (Loeber & Farrington, 2000; Piquero, Farrington, & Blumstein, 2003; Sampson & Lauritsen,
1994). A recent area of focus in this domain centers on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs; Felitti
et al., 1998), which represent a set of 10 distinct traumatic events that have been reported to increase
an individual’s likelihood of experiencing negative health and social outcomes (Bellis, Lowey,
Leckenby, Hughes, & Harrison, 2014; Fox, Perez, Cass, Baglivio, & Epps, 2015; Hillis, Anda,
1 Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
2 Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA
3 John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA
4 TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, Tampa, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jessica M. Craig, Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Texas, 410 S. Avenue C, Chilton Hall, 273 L, Denton,
TX 76203, USA.
Email: jessica.craig@unt.edu

---

Craig et al.
43
Felitti, & Marchbanks, 2001; Hillis et al., 2004). Current research has linked heightened exposure of
these adverse events to an increased likelihood of juvenile offending (Baglivio & Epps, 2016;
Baglivio, Wolff, Piquero, & Epps, 2015; Fox et al., 2015; Vaughn et al., 2017; Wolff, Baglivio,
& Piquero, 2017).
Although ACEs and other risk factors have been found to increase crime, less is known about
potential protective factors that may buffer the negative effects of risk factors on crime. While
researchers have started investigating potential risk factors among those generally at risk for offend-
ing (Farrington, Ttofi, & Piquero, 2016; Fontaine, Brendgen, Vitaro, & Tremblay, 2016; Jolliffe,
Farrington, Loeber, & Pardini, 2016; Kim, Gilman, Hill, & Hawkins, 2016; Ttofi et al., 2016), little
is known about which types of protective factors, if any, are important in buffering the deleterious
effects of ACEs on criminal behavior. To the best of our knowledge, only one study to date has
explored a potential protective mechanism in the relationship between ACEs and crime (Craig,
Baglivio, Wolff, Piquero, & Epps, 2017), which found that while social bonds serve to decrease the
likelihood of recidivism, they do not moderate the impact of ACEs on reoffending. The current study
seeks to further this line of inquiry by considering an additional potential moderator, low substance
use, on the ACE–crime relationship.
Understanding the interplay between ACEs, substance use, and offending is important for
several reasons. First, substance use is also a well-known correlate of offending (Dawkins,
1997; Lipsey & Derzon, 1998), and prior research has found that those who experience ACEs
were more likely to use and abuse substances (Anda et al., 1999; Dube, Anda, Felitti, Edwards,
& Croft, 2002; Dube et al., 2003; Perez, Jennings, & Baglivio, 2017; Vaughn et al., 2017;
Young, Hansen, Gibson, & Ryan, 2006). Second, because limited attention has been given to
examining the protective factors that may buffer ACEs on criminal behavior, we know very
little about whether low substance use may impact the ACE–crime relationship. As a result,
identifying potential protective factors, such as low substance use, has important implications
for understanding the components that may modify the negative effects of this risk factor.
Lastly, to the extent that substance use moderates the effect of ACEs on crime, it becomes
important to develop specific interventions aimed at preventing delinquency and future offend-
ing (Farrington & Welsh, 2008).
In the current study, we aim to investigate whether substance use moderates the relationship
between ACEs and offending. Specifically, by considering three distinct levels of substance use
(high, moderate, and low), we seek to understand whether substance use is not only a risk factor but
also a protective factor (among those with no or limited use) in the relationship between ACEs and
crime. Further, as suggested by recent evidence, ACEs may operate differently by race/ethnicity
(DeLisi et al., 2017) and sex (Duke, Pettingell, McMorris, & Borowsky, 2010). As a result, we also
investigate how these relationships differ by race/ethnicity as well as sex. Prior to presenting the
results of our analyses, we first provide an overview of the findings on the ACE–crime relationship,
followed by a discussion on protective factors of crime. From there, our discussion turns to the role
of substance use on offending with a focus on recidivism before we discuss the potential interrela-
tionships on substance use, ACEs, and crime.
ACEs and Crime
ACEs were initially identified by Felitti and his colleagues (1998) among a sample of privately
insured adults. This set of 10 events, which include physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse,
physical neglect, emotional neglect, household substance abuse, violent treatment toward mother,
parental separation or divorce, household mental illness, and having a household member with
incarceration history, were found to increase the risk of a range of negative health outcomes such
as lung disease, cancer, and early death. In order to assess these adverse experiences, individuals are

---

44
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 17(1)
assigned an ACE score that ranges from 0 to 10. For example, a score of “0” indicates none of
the 10 traumatic events have been experienced whereas a score of “10” indicates that the
individual has experienced all of the events at a minimum of one time. The ACE framework
maintains a binary coding of each ACE so that regardless of how many times a particular
individual has experienced a distinct event, they receive a “1” for the ACE. For example, if an
individual was exposed to multiple occurrences of sexual abuse they would still only receive a
“1” for that ACE.
Scholars have reported that ACEs are strongly correlated and have lasting, cumulative
adverse effects on brain development (Anda et al., 2006; Anda, Butchart, Felitti, & Brown,
2010; Cicchetti, 2013; Teicher et al., 2003). Given these enduring effects, it is not surprising
that ACEs have been implicated in a diverse range of negative outcomes. Indeed, using a
variety of different samples, high exposure to ACEs have been linked to reduced educational
attainment, employment issues, sexual promiscuity, morbid obesity, increased substance use,
and of direct relevance to the current study, delinquent behavior (Bellis et al., 2014; Drury
et al., 2017; Fox et al., 2015; Hillis et al., 2001, 2004; Vaughn et al., 2017; Wolff et al., 2017).
For example, using a sample of adjudicated youth from the Florida Department of Juvenile
Justice (FLDJJ), Fox, Perez, Cass, Baglivio, and Epps (2015) reported that youth with more
ACEs were more likely to become serious, chronic, and violent juvenile offenders. Analyses of
a sample of first- and second-generation immigrants revealed that ACEs increased the like-
lihood of being diagnosed with personality, anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders as well
as engaging in nonviolent and violent antisocial behavior (Vaughn et al., 2017). Further,
juvenile offenders from disadvantaged neighborhoods were also more likely to have a higher
ACE score (Baglivio, Wolff, Epps, & Nelson, 2017a). This represents an additional obstacle for
these individuals in avoiding potential negative outcomes as they would not have access to the
same resources as those from more affluent backgrounds.
Recently, DeLisi and his colleagues (2017) investigated for potential racial and ethnic differences
in the impact of ACEs on crime using a sample of 2,520 male juvenile delinquents that were
confined to a juvenile correctional facility in a large southern state. These researchers reported
inconsistent effects in the impact of ACE exposure on committed offense by race/ethnicity. For
instance, African Americans who had only one ACE were less likely to have homicide be their
committing offense while Hispanics with four ACEs were more likely to have been committed for
homicide. Whites, on the other hand, were less likely to be committed for homicide if they had five
or six ACEs....