Adverse Childhood Experiences, Protective Factors, and Mental Health Problems Among Court-Involved Youth

Purpose: Although histories of childhood trauma are common amongst juvenile justice-involved youth, reports detailing breadth of experiences, including nonviolent adversities and social disadvantage, remain sparse. Court-involved youth are also more likely than other youth to have a mental health problem; an estimated 20% have a diagnosable disorder, with higher numbers struggling with symptoms (Cocozza & Skowyra, 2000). There is growing recognition of the vulnerability of this population, however there is relatively little guidance for practitioners in the field (National Center for Mental Health & Juvenile Justice, 2010). Practitioners especially need malleable targets for interventions that address histories of adversity and mental health disorders. This study aims to fill that gap, drawing on general strain theory (Agnew, 2001) to conceptualize the relationships between adversity, coping, mental health, and delinquent behaviors. The sample fills an important gap between nonadjudicated samples and those in detention, residential centers or group homes.

Methods: System-entrance psychosocial assessment data (used in 17 states, Barnoski, 2003) were linked with court records for moderate- and high-risk youth (n=5030) adjudicated to probation in an urban, diverse Western region during an 8-year period. Data captured adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) including victimization (physical, sexual, emotional, neglect), nonviolent adversity (including familial incarceration and substance use), and economic disadvantage (including parental employment problems, poverty). Mental health problems (MHPs) assessed whether individual had current diagnoses, whether the problems affected daily living, and suicide ideation. Three protective factors assessed social skills (e.g., problem solving), impulse control, and parenting practices. Stepped multiple regression was used to test the unique and cumulative contribution of ACEs as well as protective factor mediation and moderation.

Results: 75% reported one or more serious victimization experiences, half had two or more forms of nonviolent adversity, and two-thirds had indicators of economic disadvantage. 26.7% reported current MHPs with 6.3% reporting serious suicidal ideation. MHPs were strongly correlated with victimization, and modestly with nonviolent and economic adversities. All three ACEs dimensions and MH problems had moderate-to-strong correlations in the expected direction with the protective factors. In multivariate analyses, victimization had the strongest unique contribution to MHPs, controlling for covariates; nonviolent adversity was nonsignficant. Tests revealed modest mediation effects of impulse control and social skills, with parenting nonsignificant. Moderation tests suggested that all three protective factors moderated the pathway between victimization and MHPs; those with low protective factors and high victimization were significantly more likely to have MHPs.

Implications: These results resonate with recent calls to attend to the serious trauma and mental health burdens among court-involved youth. Results elaborate characterization of adversity histories among court-involved youth, and demonstrate that all assessed ACE dimensions function as indicators of possible MHPs, with victimization the strongest predictor within this multivariate framework. The models also suggest that social skills, parenting practices, and impulse control may all serve as targets to buffer the effects of adversity on MHPs, providing important, practical recommendations for service providers who connect with this population. Findings underscore the need to deepen personnel and system readiness to work effectively within therapeutic/rehabilitative paradigms with delinquent youth.