In part, this is due to a lack of rigorous review of the empirical literature required to best inform data-driven approaches to intervention and lack of a coherent framework for applying data-driven recommendations. Department of Justice has also called for trauma-informed juvenile justice system reform, yet there is little agreement on the specific trauma-informed practices and policies that should be implemented when a youth endorses exposure to ACEs or “screens positive” for ACEs ( Branson, Baetz, Horwitz, & Hoagwood, 2017). Policy makers have begun recognizing the broad and profound impact of ACEs and responded by launching initiatives such as California’s new ACEs screening program for publicly-insured (i.e., Medi-Cal) youth. Justice-involved youth report particularly high rates of ACEs ( Baglivio et al., 2014), which place them in greater need of behavioral health intervention ( Clements-Nolle & Waddington, 2019) and at greater risk for continued justice involvement ( Fox, Perez, Cass, Baglivio, & Epps, 2015 Wolff & Baglivio, 2017). Ten ACEs within three broad categories: abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), neglect (physical, emotional), and household dysfunction (caregiver substance abuse, caregiver mental illness, caregiver divorce/separation, caregiver incarceration, domestic violence) comprise the framework for characterizing and quantifying effects of childhood adversity across different settings and populations ( Felitti et al., 1998 Hughes et al., 2017 Oral et al., 2016). Implications for clinical services (e.g., targeting youth dysregulation and aggression), agency context (e.g., training police officers in trauma-responsive practices), and system-level changes (e.g., intervening at the time of first ACE documentation such as parent’s arrest) are discussed.Ī plethora of research documents the link between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and health outcomes, including heart disease, alcoholism, drug use, depression, sexually transmitted diseases, and premature death among adults. Studies included delinquency (e.g., recidivism n=5), psychiatric ( n=4), substance use ( n=3), and other ( n=2 e.g., academic, pregnancy) outcomes, documenting high prevalence of ACEs and significant associations between ACEs and a variety of outcomes. Eight unique studies were included in 40 articles examining ACEs among justice-involved youth 38% were longitudinal/prospective analyses and none were intervention studies. The current systematic scoping review synthesizes existing literature related to the impact of ACEs on justice-involved youth and offers recommendations for data-driven intervention along the Sequential Intercept Model, which describes five different points of justice system contact (i.e., first arrest, court diversion, detention, community supervision) in which there is opportunity to intervene and improve youth behavioral health, legal and associated outcomes. Yet, there is currently no available review of the literature on ACEs and their impact on justice-involved youths’ psychological, legal and related (e.g., academic) outcomes to rigorously guide such reform efforts. Policy makers, government agencies, and professionals working with justice-involved youth have called for trauma-informed juvenile justice reform. Justice-involved youth experience high rates of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), placing them in great need of behavioral health treatment and risk for continued justice involvement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |