Differential Toxicity of ACEs on Psychosocial Factors of Youth on Probation: Examining Moderating Effects of Gender

Background and Purpose: Court-involved youth are significantly more likely to experience adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) than general population youth. Applying a cumulative disadvantage perspective, social/environmental stressors like ACEs may overwhelm adolescents’ coping capacities, making negative physical, social, and psychological outcomes increasingly likely. Whereas the ACE framework often treats assessed experiences as equally harmful, research suggests that particular experiences may confer greater risk than others as singular contributors (Nurius, Logan-Greene, & Green, 2012), however this is rarely examined. The current study tests the unique and combined effects of twelve different ACEs spanning three domains (childhood maltreatment, family dysfunction, and social disadvantage) on problematic behaviors as well as resilience resources among adolescents on probation. Additionally, we tested for gender differences on types and level of exposures, and examined the potential of gender to moderate the effects of ACEs on outcomes. We hypothesized that: 1) ACE exposure types would differentially effect outcomes, 2) girls would have higher ACE exposures than boys, and 3) gender would moderate the effects of adversity on psychosocial outcomes.

Methods: The sample consists of 5,378 youth on probation (76% boys) located in a Western U.S. State. Data were collected from 2004-2014 using the Positive Achievement Change Tool, a well-established administrative assessment given by probation officers. Outcome variables included problem behaviors (e.g., aggression, substance use) alongside resilience resources (e.g., impulse control, problem solving). Multiple linear regressions controlling for age, gender, and race were examined, after which gender interaction terms with each ACE were modeled.

Results: Girls were more likely to have experienced all ACEs and were more likely to have very high scores: 17.2% of girls had 6+ ACEs compared to 9.7% of boys. ACEs that were particularly toxic for boys were emotional abuse/witnessing family violence, physical abuse, out-of-home placement, and parental mental health problems. For girls, more toxic ACEs were parental employment problems and childhood victimization items. Regressions demonstrated that emotional, sexual and physical abuse, along with parental employment problems, carried significant weight for most psychosocial outcomes. Gender was a significant moderator in many cases, particularly for substance use items.

Conclusions and Implications: This study examines the exposures to and toxicity of ACEs by gender for probation-involved youth, a largely overlooked population compared with detained adolescents. Our hypotheses were partially supported; while girls had higher ACE exposures, gender moderated only certain psychosocial impacts. There were distinct differences in the accumulation of ACEs by gender and within-gender ACE toxicity, but a complicated picture emerged for how ACEs moderate outcomes for girls and boys. This study has important implications for the provision of services for both court-involved and at-risk youth, particularly for the unique needs of girls. One implication is that intensive trauma-informed individual and family programming is clearly needed for probation youth. However, supports should address the higher ACE and interpersonal violence exposure of girls, whereas boys need interventions that address their ACE profiles more broadly.