Investigating the Protective Roles of Family, School, and Neighborhood Contexts in Mitigating the Effects of Traditional and Expanded Childhood Adversities on Substance Use Among Marginalized Young Adults

Background and Purpose: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are established predictors of substance use, but it remains unclear under what conditions adversity translates into behavioral risk. While resilience research suggests contextual and relational supports may buffer such risks, empirical findings remain inconsistent across behavioral outcomes. In addition to traditional ACEs (e.g., abuse, neglect, caregiver mental health), scholars have called for expanded ACEs (EACEs; systemic and community-level stressors like discrimination, exposure to violence, and unsafe neighborhoods) which may be especially relevant for marginalized/minoritized youth. This study examines the moderating effects of protective factors at family, school, and neighborhood contexts on the link between traditional and expanded ACEs on substance use in young adulthood.

Methods: Data were drawn from the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a nationally representative U.S. cohort. The analytic sample included over 2,600 participants with relevant data at ages 15 (predictors) and 22 (outcomes), most of whom identified as non-white (82%), non-heterosexual (19%), or lived below 200% of the federal poverty line (62%). Six hierarchical regression models were estimated to predict: (1) number of substances used, and the frequency of (2) alcohol, (3) vaping, (4) marijuana, (5) tobacco, and (6) illicit drug use. Predictors included ACEs, EACEs, and protective factors measured at age 15: caregiver-child closeness, school connectedness, and neighborhood cohesion. Models entered ACEs/EACEs in Step 1, protective factors in Step 2, and interaction terms in Step 3. Logistic regression was used for dichotomous outcomes.

Results: Traditional ACEs were significantly associated with increased substance use in five models: substance use count (B = .11, p = .005), alcohol use (B = .10, p = .045), vaping (B = .14, p = .001), marijuana use (B = .27, p < .001), and illicit drug use (OR = 1.14, p = .032). EACEs were associated only with marijuana use frequency (B = .11, p = .004). Among protective factors, caregiver-child closeness predicted lower substance use in three models: substance use count (B = –.11, p = .004), alcohol use (B = –.54, p = .007), and illicit drug use (OR = 0.69, p = .003). School connectedness was associated with reduced vaping (B = –.05, p = .010) and lower odds of tobacco use (OR = 0.94, p = .021). Neighborhood cohesion showed no significant associations. None of the interaction terms were significant, indicating no evidence of moderating effects of the presumed protective factors.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings demonstrate the persistent impact of traditional ACEs on young adult substance use and suggest EACEs may have more limited influence. Although caregiver-child closeness and school connectedness were associated with reduced substance use in some domains, they did not moderate the effects of adversity. By illuminating both the promise and limitations of presumed resilience pathways, this research supports a more layered, equity-focused prevention framework that pairs efforts to identify and strengthen protective factors within youth and family systems with efforts to advance structural change aimed at disrupting the social conditions that give rise to early adversity.