Growing Up With Adversity

Child Abuse & Neglect 62 (2016) 63–75
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Child Abuse & Neglect
Growing up with adversity
Growing up with adversity: From juvenile justice

involvement to criminal persistence and psychosocial
problems in young adulthood
Miguel Basto-Pereira ∗ , Ana Miranda, Sofia Ribeiro, Ângela Maia
Psychology Research Centre, School of Psychology, University of Minho, Escola de Psicologia (EPSI), Universidade do Minho, Campus de
Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Several studies have been carried out to investigate the effect of child maltreatment on juve-
Received 8 June 2016 nile justice involvement and future criminal life. However, little is known about the impact
Received in revised form 11 October 2016 of other forms of adversity, beyond abuse and neglect, on juvenile delinquency and crim-
Accepted 13 October 2016
inal persistence. The effect of early adversity on psychosocial problems is underexplored,
Available online 26 October 2016
particularly in juvenile delinquents. This study, using the Childhood Adverse Experiences
(ACE) questionnaire, a tool accessing the exposure to different types of abuse, neglect and
Keywords:
serious household dysfunction, explored the role of each adverse experience on juvenile
Juvenile delinquency
justice involvement, persistence in crime and psychosocial problems during young adult-
Early adversity
Abuse and neglect hood. A Portuguese sample of 75 young adults with official records of juvenile delinquency
Maltreatment in 2010/2011, and 240 young adults from a community sample completed ACE question-
Crime naire and measures of psychosocial adjustment. Seven out of ten adverse experiences were
Psychosocial problems significantly more prevalent in young adults with juvenile justice involvement than in the
community sample, after matching the main demographic variables. The strongest predic-
tor of juvenile justice involvement and criminal persistence during early adulthood was
sexual abuse. Dimensions of child/adolescent emotional maltreatment and a mental illness
in the household predicted a set of psychosocial problems in young adulthood. This study
indicates that early adversity is significantly related to juvenile justice involvement, crim-
inal persistence and psychosocial problems. This study also suggests that each experience
has a different role in this process. There is an urgent need to screen, prevent and stop seri-
ous adversity. Future scientific directions and recommendations for policies are provided.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Worldwide, it is estimated that 38.8% of the population has been a victim of at least one serious adverse experience
during the first 18 years of life (Kessler et al., 2010). Particularly in Portugal, a representative sample of parents (N = 2391)
showed that 25.9% of the participants self-reported committing at least one act of emotional abuse (22.4%) or physical abuse
(12.3%), during the last year alone (Machado, Gonçalves, Matos, & Dias, 2007). Despite the high prevalence in the general
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: id4802@alunos.uminho.pt, miguelbastopereira@hotmail.com (M. Basto-Pereira).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.10.011
0145-2134/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Downloaded for Anonymous User (n/a) at Francisco Marroquín University from ClinicalKey.com by Elsevier on July 26, 2019.
For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright ©2019. Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
64 M. Basto-Pereira et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 62 (2016) 63–75
community, this situation is even more serious among juvenile offenders. A recent study conducted with 64,329 juvenile
offenders in the United States has shown that 98.2% of the youths were victims of abuse, neglect or serious household
dysfunction (Baglivio et al., 2014). This study also showed that the number of adverse experiences substantially increased
the risk of recidivism. However, apart from physical and sexual abuse, the role played by other childhood adverse experiences
in juvenile delinquency and adult criminal behavior is underexplored.
1.1. Early adversity, delinquent behavior and psychosocial problems: scientific evidence
There is a growing body of evidence that identifies child maltreatment as a predictor of lifetime anti-social and criminal
behavior. A recent meta-analysis of 118 longitudinal studies (Derzon, 2010) showed that child maltreatment is a predictor
of aggression, criminal and violent behavior throughout life. For example, the longitudinal study conducted by Widom and
Maxfield (2001) over the course of more than 30 years (N = 1575) indicated that a child who experienced child abuse or
neglect is 59% more likely to be arrested during adolescence, and 28% more likely to be arrested during adulthood.
Physical and sexual abuse are the two subtypes of maltreatment that have been most studied. Several studies have found
that physical and sexual abuse are predictors of childhood anti-social behavior and youth delinquency, even after controlling
for a set of other risk factors (Cernkovich, Lactôt, & Giordano, 2008; Lee, Herrenkohl, Jung, Skinner, & Klika, 2015; McGrath,
Nilsen, & Kerley, 2011). In recent years, the relationship between delinquency and neglect has been also studied. Some
longitudinal studies have found that neglect predicted juvenile delinquency and persistence in crime (Kerig & Becker, 2015).
However, the study conducted by Kazemian, Widom and Farrington (2011) found that this relationship was mediated by
other adverse events (e.g. high-risk family; parental criminality).
The importance of analyzing the influence of other types of adversity, apart from abuse and neglect, on youth delinquency
has been recently highlighted (Kerig & Becker, 2015). For example, one of the few studies exploring the relationship between
childhood adverse experiences and early initiation of problem behaviors (Duke, Pettingell, McMorris, & Borowsky, 2010)
found that each type of adverse childhood experiences is significantly associated with adolescent interpersonal violence
perpetration (eg. delinquency, physical fighting) and also self-directed violence (eg. suicidal attempt). More recently, a
study conducted by Grasso, Dierkhising, Branson, Ford, & Lee (2015), suggested that children and adolescents exposed
to multiple types of adverse experiences have higher rates of subsequent problem behaviors, including juvenile justice
involvement. The same effect was observed on a large sample of youth offenders (n = 22,575), Fox, Perez, Cass, Baglivio,
and Epps (2015) found that exposure to emotional neglect, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, household substance
abuse, exposure to domestic violence, and an incarcerated household member during the first 18 years of life, predicted
serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offending compared to juveniles with one non-violent felony, after controlling for
the main demographic confounding variables and other forms of adversity. In the Portuguese context, a study conducted
among youths with juvenile justice involvement suggested a relationship between serious psychosocial adversity and the
severity of criminal offenses (Lemos & Faísca, 2015). Both psychological and neurological explanations have been proposed
to account for link between early adversity and juvenile offending. Caregiver’s violence and/or rejection could lead to a
pattern of hypervigilance and hostile attribution bias about others intentions (Lee & Hoaken, 2007). Those reactions tend to
increase the likelihood of establishing dysfunctional relationships overtime, affecting the psychological development and
increasing the risk for anti-social behavior (Cicchetti & Toth, 2005; Pinto, Fernandes, Mesquita, & Maia, 2015). Literature has
also suggested that continued exposure to stress situations caused by early adverse events could lead to the dysregulation of
the biological stress system (e.g. abnormal release of cortisol, adrenaline) and affect the maturation of brain structures (e.g.
hippocampus, prefrontal cortex) which are involved in emotional regulation and self-control processes (Lee & Hoaken, 2007;
Watts-English, Fortson, Gibler, Hooper, & DeBellis, 2006). Given the central role of both processes, one possible explanation
is that self-control and emotion regulation may mediate the relationship between early adverse events and a wide range of
psychosocial problems, including youth delinquency (Roberton, Daffern, & Bucks, 2012).
In this line, recent literature has highlighted the importance of deepening and extending this field to populations at high
risk of social marginalization suggesting a relationship between early adverse experiences and adult psychosocial outcomes,
not only in the general population (e.g. Strine et al., 2012), but also in youths with file records of child maltreatment (Pinto &
Maia, 2013a). For example, in the Portuguese context, a retrospective longitudinal study conducted by Pinto & Maia (2013a)
suggested the number of childhood adverse experiences in the child protective service file records is an important predictor
of psychopathology, physical complaints, health risk behavior during late adolescence and young adulthood. Additionally,
juvenile justice involvement and the common psychosocial problems among juveniles with deviant behavior have been
pointed as risk factors for criminal behavior during adulthood (e.g., Bender, 2010).
In the light of this knowledge, studying the relationship between exposure to adversity and future psychosocial problems
in juvenile offenders is relevant, but has rarely been done. As far as we know, this is the first study conducted in Portugal.
Worldwide, the only study we found evaluating the relationship between different forms of child maltreatment and a wide
range of psychosocial problems in juvenile offenders stressed the need to investigate this topic in more depth. This study
evaluated 13,613 young offenders, aged between 12 and 18 years, and showed that juvenile offenders who were victims of
child maltreatment had a significantly higher number of psychosocial problems (e.g., school maladjustment, mental health
problems) than non-victims (Van der Put, Lactôt, Ruiter, & Van Vugt, 2015).
The main purpose of this paper is to explore the role of exposure to different forms of early adversity, including abuse,
neglect, and household dysfunction, on juvenile delinquency, persistence in crime, and psychosocial problems in young
M. Basto-Pereira et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 62 (2016) 63–75 65
adulthood. To accomplish this goal, we first intend to evaluate whether the prevalence of different types of early adversity
in young adults with an official record of juvenile criminal offenses differs from young adults from the general community.
Our second objective was to examine whether the type and frequency of each early adverse experience is associated with
persistence in crime during early adulthood. The final objective was to analyze the relationship between early adverse
experiences and psychosocial problems (illicit drugs use, mental health problems, low perceived quality of life, low academic
achievement and no occupation) in young adults with a record of juvenile criminal offenses.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedures
The current study includes young adults with an official record of juvenile criminal offenses (ORJC), and a matched control
group (CG). The ORJC sample consists of young adults with juvenile sentences in 2010/2011 for crimes committed between
the age of 12–15 years. Participants in the ORJC sample were identified through 28 Portuguese Juvenile Justice Offices or
Probation Offices, where these young adults were serving or have finished non-custodial sentences (e.g., community work)
following convictions in juvenile courts, or in adult courts if their crimes were committed after the age of 15 years. All
participants of over 18 years (minimum 2 years of risk for adult convictions) who met the inclusion criteria were invited to
participate by the General Direction of Prison and Probation Services from the Ministry of Justice (GDPS).
Two hundred and nineteen young adults with ORJC were screened and 96 young adults were invited. The reasons for
exclusion were: a) not attending probation/juvenile justice offices three or more times consecutively where it would formally
be invited to participate in this study (19.6%); b) imprisonment/detention (14.6%); d) recently concluded their sentence and
was impossible to track (9.5%); e) transfer to another office (7.7%); g) emigration (3.6%) or; h) living in a closed therapeutic
community (0.5%). From the ninety-six young adults meeting criteria for inclusion 75 (78.13%) accepted to participate,
representing a high level of participation rate (see Galea & Tracy, 2007). Only 21.3% of the ORJC participants had no adult
criminal record. Of the remaining 78.7%, 29.3% had committed one or more criminal offenses in the last 24 months, 10.67%
being in the past 12 months.
The control group was recruited using convenience and snowball sampling methods (n = 240). These young adults were
aged between 18 and 26 years (the same age range as in the ORJC sample). Participants were recruited through high schools,
universities, workplaces, social welfare and sports organizations across the country.
In order to conduct this research project, we established formal contact with the University of Minho Ethics Committee
and the GDPS. Both institutions authorized this study. At the time of sample collection, the aims of the study, the authorization
to consult the adult criminal record, and the guarantee of confidentiality were explained to each respondent. After signing
the informed consent form, the participants completed the questionnaire in a private room. To ensure confidentiality, on
the same day, the informed consent was separated from the questionnaire.
To achieve the first objective, matched samples of the young adults were created. In order to have an acceptable basis
for comparison, gender, age and race/ethnicity were matched between groups (see Nagin, Cullen, & Jonson, 2009). It was
not possible to match only six individuals from the ORJC sample. A total of 138 young adults were matched regarding the
main characteristics: 69 young adults with official history of juvenile delinquency and 69 young adults as a matched control
group (see Table 1). To achieve the second and the third objectives, the data were analyzed from 75 subjects with official
records of juvenile criminal offenses. See Table 1 for detailed demographic statistics regarding the matched and unmatched
groups.
Table 1
Sociodemographic characteristics of unmatched and matched samples.
Unmatched Samples (N = 315) Matched Samples (n = 138)
ORJC Control ORJC Control

Characteristics (n = 75) (n = 240) (n = 69) (n = 69)
Sex Female 6 (8,00%) 125 (52,08%) 6 (8,70%) 6 (8,70%)

Male 69 (92,00%) 115 (47,92%) 63 (91,30%) 63 (91,30%)
Age brackets 18–20 45 (60,00%) 135 (56,25%) 44 (63,77%) 44 (63,77%)

21–23 28 (37,33%) 59 (24,58%) 23 (33,33%) 23 (33,33%)
24–26 2 (2,67%) 46 (19,17%) 2 (2,90%) 2 (2,90%)
Ethnicity/Race Majority 44 (58,67%) 194 (81,51%) 44 (63,77%) 44 (63,77%)

Minority 31 (41,33%) 44 (18,49%) 25 (36,23%) 25 (36,23%)
Residential area Rural 15 (20,00%) 84 (35,44%) 15 (21,74%) 22 (32,35%)

Urban 60 (80,00%) 153 (64,56%) 54 (78,26%) 46 (67,65%)
Occupation Worker 18 (24,00%) 43 (17,92%) 17 (24,64%) 13 (18,84%)

Student 14 (18,67%) 141 (58,75%) 13 (18,84%) 43 (62,32%)
Student −Worker 1 (1,33%) 30 (12,50%) 1 (1,45%) 8 (11,59%)
Without occupation 42 (56,00%) 26 (10,83%) 38 (55,07%) 5 (7,25%)
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Sociodemographic questionnaire. This questionnaire was used to collect sociodemographic information about gender,
age, race/ethnicity (majority/minority), school grade achievement, residential area (rural/urban) and occupation (stu-
dent/worker/student worker/without occupation).
2.2.2. Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study questionnaire. The ACE study questionnaire (Felitti et al., 1998; Portuguese
version Pinto, Correia & Maia, 2014) evaluates adverse childhood and adolescent experiences. The questions concern three
general areas: abuse, neglect and household dysfunction during the first 18 years of life. Ten different adverse experiences
were evaluated: sexual (4 items), physical (4 items) and emotional abuse (3 items); physical (5 items) and emotional neglect
(3 items); living in a household with domestic violence (3 items), parental divorce (1 item), substance abuse (2 items), mental
illness (2 items) and incarceration (1 item). Abuse and neglect experiences or witnessing domestic violence were evaluated
according to their frequency from “0 = Never” to “4 = Too Often”. For the remaining experiences, the classification is “Yes” or
“No”. Each adverse experience (ACE dimension) was dichotomized according to the original author’s instructions (see Felitti
et al., 1998; Pinto et al., 2014); if the subject scored one or more items as being often or very often the category was considered
present, otherwise it was considered as absent. The questionnaire showed appropriate psychometric characteristics. For
details about the Portuguese version of ACE study questionnaire, see Pinto et al. (2014).
2.2.3. Brief symptom inventory (BSI). The BSI inventory is a self-report multidimensional measure, which evaluates psycho-
logical distress (Derogatis, 1993; Portuguese version Canavarro, 1999). The participants classified, through 53 questions, the
frequency of each psychological symptom occurring in the last 7 days on a 5-point response scale (“0” = Never to “4” = “Very
often”). This questionnaire includes nine symptom dimensions: anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsivity, hostility, para-
noid ideation, psychoticism, phobic anxiety, interpersonal sensitivity and somatization. The BSI also includes three global
indexes: 1) the Global Severity Index (evaluates the overall level of distress); 2) the Positive Symptom Index (the intensity
of the level of distress) and; 3) the Positive Symptom Total (the total number of positive symptoms). The original (Derogatis,
1993) and Portuguese (Canavarro, 1999) versions of the BSI showed good psychometric properties. The Global Severity Index
was used in the current study and showed an excellent level of internal consistency for both samples (␣ = 0.96, ORJC sample
and ␣ = 0.97, CS sample).
2.2.4. EUROHIS-QOL-8. The EUROHIS-QOL-8 index is a one-dimensional measure of perceived quality of life (Power, 2003;
Portuguese version Pereira, Melo, Gameiro, & Canavarro, 2011). This instrument comprises eight items; each has an inde-
pendent five-point response scale. The total score of EUROHIS-QOL-8 is based on the sum of each individual question.
Both Portuguese and original versions of EUROHIS-QOL-8 showed good psychometric qualities. In the current study this
instrument showed good internal consistency with the Cronbachı́s ␣ ranging between 0.82 (ORJC sample) and 0.83 (CS
sample).
2.2.5. Self-report questionnaire for measuring delinquency and crime (D-CRIM). The D-CRIM questionnaire (Basto-Pereira,
Miranda, Ribeiro, & Maia, 2015) evaluates 12 different types of self-reported crimes occurring during the last 12 months and
during the lifetime, namely: theft, robbery, driving without license, domestic violence, aggression, rape, drug trafficking,
illegal carrying of a firearm, homicide, family violence, blackmail and property damage. Two dichotomized variables were
created: 1) self-report of a crime in the last 12 months; 2) self-report of a crime during the lifetime. A study conducted
by Basto-Pereira et al. (2015) showed the D-CRIM Questionnaire showed appropriate psychometrics properties for the
Portuguese population.
2.2.6. Official records—adult criminal convictions. Data concerning the number of convictions and the type and date of the
crimes were collected from the official records. By comparing the date of the last crime with the date of our evaluation it
was possible to determine the time each participant had remained without crimes towards the criminal justice system. A
dichotomized variable was created, based on the commitment of crimes in the last 24 months (Yes/No). The Portuguese
adult criminal justice system starts at the age of 16 and for this reason, at the date of our evaluation, all participants had at
least two years of risk for adult convictions.
2.2.7. Persistence in crime. The participant was classified as non-persistent in crime in the absence of registered offenses in
the last two years and if he/she had not self-reported an offense in the last 12 months. Otherwise, they were classified as
persistent in crime.
2.2.8. Illicit drugs use. The use of illicit drugs was considered if participants self-reported consuming drugs in the last year.
2.3. Data analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (SPSS; Version 22.0, Chicago, IL, USA). Individual matches were
made between the ORJC sample and the control group for data analysis concerning the first objective. Differences between
matched characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity and age brackets) were not analyzed because these characteristics had an
identical representation between groups. Prevalence’s of early adverse experiences (ACE) were presented graphically for
ORJC and control group. The Pearson chi-square was used to find significant associations in function of juvenile justice status.
Multivariate logistic regression was conducted for previous significant predictors.
Seventy-five young adults with official records of juvenile criminal offenses were studied to achieve the second and
third objectives of the study. In the second objective, the predictors of persistence in crime were independently tested
using chi-square test and point bi-serial statistics. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted for previous significant
predictors. In the third objective each ACE dimension was independently tested, using point bi-serial analysis for correlations
with quantitative variables and phi coefficients, for correlations with qualitative variables. The significant variables found
in univariate analysis were entered in the hierarchical multiple regression model. Both aims were tested using hierarchical
regression models in order to evaluate the role of childhood adverse experiences after adjusting for the effect of the main
demographic confounder variables, as described Nagin et al. (2009); therefore, gender, age and race/ethnicity were included
as covariates in the first step of the regression models, whenever significant in the bivariate analysis. The current study
had an adequate sample size to perform the chi-Square test and point bi-serial correlations (Van Voorhis & Morgan, 2007).
Concerning multivariate analyses, the ratio participants/variable included in these regression models was appropriate to
effectively detect significant relationships (Van Voorhis & Morgan, 2007). Logistic and linear regressions assumptions were
evaluated and satisfied (Field, 2009).
3. Results
The results are organized into four sections. The first section presents descriptive data about the interrelationship between
ACE’s dimensions. The second section compares a sample of young adults with an official record of juvenile criminal offenses
(n = 69) with the matched control sample (n = 69). The third section concerns the relationship between early adversity and
persistence in crime in the same sample of young adults with a history of juvenile delinquency (n = 75). The last section
reports the relationship between early adversity and psychosocial problems in young adults with a history of juvenile
delinquency (n = 75).
3.1. Interrelationship between ACEs dimensions
Table 2 presents the prevalence of ACE dimensions’ overlap and the mean number of different ACE’s when each ACE
is present. The upper diagonal shows the results for the ORJC sample and the bottom diagonal for the community sam-
ple. Household substance abuse and parental separation divorce showed the highest prevalence of overlap in ORJC sample
(27.54%), while mental illness in the household and household substance abuse presents the highest overlap in the commu-
nity sample (10.14%). Mental illness in the household (M = 6.14, SD = 2.19) in the ORJC sample, as well as witnessing domestic
violence (M = 5.00, SD = 1.87) and to had an incarcerated household member (M = 5.00, SD = 1.41) in the community sample,
were the ACE dimensions with higher means of others ACE simultaneously present.
3.2. Early adverse experiences: comparisons between young adults with an official record of juvenile criminal offenses, and a
matched control group
Fig. 1 presents the prevalence of each type of early adverse experience reported in the ORJC and its matched control
group. All types of abuse showed a higher prevalence in the ORJC group. The prevalence of self-reported physical abuse
60.0%
52.2%
50.0%
43.5% 43.5% 42.0%
40.0%
31.9%
29.0% 27.5%
30.0% 26.1% 26.1% 27.5%
23.2%
21.7%
20.0% 14.5% 14.5% 15.9%
10.1% 10.1%
10.0% 7.2% 7.2%
2.9%
0.0%
EA PA SA NE NF SD DV HSA MI IM
ORJC Control
Fig. 1. Percentages of ACE dimensions for ORJC (n = 69) and matched control group (n = 69).
Note: emotional abuse (EA); physical abuse (PA); sexual abuse (SA); emotional neglect (EN); physical neglect (PN); parental separation or divorce (SD);
witnessing domestic violence (DV); household substance abuse (HSA); mental illness in the household (MI);incarcerated household members (IM).
68
M. Basto-Pereira et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 62 (2016) 63–75

Table 2
The prevalence of ACE overlap and the mean number of different ACE experiences when each ACE is present.
ORJC matched sample (n = 69)
ACE dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M (SD)

ACE—ORJC by
category
Community matched 1. Emotional abuse – 17.39% 18.84% 10.14% 8.70% 15.94% 7.25% 18.84% 4.35% 10.14% 4.85 (2.11)
sample (n = 69) 2. Physical abuse 1.45% – 17.39% 14.49% 10.14% 20.29% 13.04% 17.39% 4.35% 7.25% 4.82 (2.15)
3. Sexual abuse 5.80% 1.45% – 17.39% 10.14% 23.19% 13.04% 23.19% 5.80% 13.04% 4.27 (1.96)
4. Emotional neglect 5.80% 4.35% 2.90% – 15.94% 21.74% 13.04% 21.74% 7.25% 15.94% 4.17 (2.20)
5. Physical neglect 1.45% 1.45% 2.90% 8.70% – 17.39% 8.70% 15.94% 5.80% 11.59% 5.00 (2.30)
6. Parental separation/divorce 4.35% 2.90% 5.80% 5.80% 5.80% – 17.39% 27.54% 4.35% 15.94% 4.14 (2.15)
7. Witnessing domestic violence 4.35% 2.90% 1.45% 2.90% 1.45% 4.35% – 14.49% 5.80% 10.14% 5.44 (2.00)
8. Household substance abuse 7.25% 4.35% 4.35% 7.25% 5.80% 8.70% 5.80% – 8.70% 20.29% 5.00 (1.69)
9. Mental illness in the household 2.90% 1.45% 1.45% 4.35% 1.45% 7.25% 4.35% 10.14% – 5.80% 6.14 (2.19)
10. Incarcerated household members 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 0.00% 1.45% 2.90% 0.00% – 5.00 (1.76)
ACE M (SD) -CS by category 3.40 (1.84) 4.00 (2.35) 3.71 (1.11) 2.67 (1.71) 3.10 (1.52) 3.07 (1.79) 5.00 (1.87) 3.05 (1.84) 3.09 (2.07) 5.00 (1.41) –
Note: No missing data. CS = Community sample; ORJC = Official records of juvenile delinquency sample.
(31.9% vs. 7.2%), sexual abuse (43.5% vs. 10.1%), parental separation/divorce (52.2% vs. 21.7%), witnessing domestic violence
(23.2% vs. 7.2%) and incarcerated household members (27.5% vs. 2.9%) were more than double in the ORJC group.
The results of Pearson ␹2 tests suggest that seven of the ten ACE dimensions had statistically significant associations with
juvenile justice involvement. The results showed participants with an official history of juvenile delinquency were signif-
icantly more likely than the matched control group to report child or adolescent emotional abuse (2 (1) = 4,26, p = 0.039),
physical abuse (2 (1) = 13.31, p < 0.001), sexual abuse (2 (1) = 19.54, p < 0.001), emotional neglect (2 (1) = 4.60, p = 0.032),
parental separation/divorce (2 (1) = 13.72, p < 0.001), witnessing of domestic violence (2 (1) = 6.80, p = 0.009) and incarcer-
ated household members (2 (1) = 16.23, p < .001). Statistically significant differences were not found regarding to physical
neglect (2 (1) = 2.87, p = 0.090), household substance abuse (2 (1) = 3.19, p = 0.074) and mental illness in the household
(2 (1) = 1.02, p < 0.312).
The results of the logistic model for prediction of juvenile delinquency status, using significant chi-square associations as
predictors, are reported in Table 3. Results of logistic regression indicated that physical abuse (OR = 4.17, 95% CI [1.20; 14.51]),
sexual abuse (OR = 4.51, 95% CI [1.53; 13.29]), parental divorce/separation (OR = 2.74, 95% CI [1.13; 6.66]) and incarcerated
household members (OR = 7.99, 95% CI [1.62; 39.44]) were significant predictors of juvenile delinquency. The model was
statistically significant 2 (7) = 49,07, p < 0.001 and explained 39.9% (Nagelkerke R2 ) of the variance. The ROC curve was
calculated to evaluate the full model discriminant capability; a good discrimination capability (ROC c = 0.83; 95% CI [.76;
.90]) was found. A cutoff minimizing misclassification was calculated. The full model showed a sensitivity of 82.6% and a
specificity of 71.0% with good capability to discriminate between groups.
3.3. Early adverse experiences as predictors of persistence in crime
From the 75 participants, twenty-two participants did not have official records of offenses in the last 24 months and did
not report they had committed crimes in the last 12 months. Fifty-three participants self-reported the commitment of a
crime in the last 12 months (n = 46) and/or were convicted for crimes committed in the last 24 months (n = 22). Fig. 2 presents
the prevalence of each type of early adverse experience reported among those persistent (n = 53) and non-persistent in crime
(n = 22). All types of abuse showed a higher prevalence in the persistent group. The prevalence of incarcerated household
members (35.8 vs. 9.1%), sexual abuse (49.1% vs. 18.2%), emotional abuse (37.7% vs. 9.1%) and physical neglect (32.1% vs.
9.1%) in the crime persistent group was more than double that of the non-persistent in crime group.
Univariate Pearson ␹2 statistics (and point bi-serial Pearson correlation for age) were conducted in order to compare
the proportion of ACE dimensions and sociodemographic characteristics between groups. The results showed that self-
reported or official offenses were correlated with past emotional abuse (␹2 (1) = 6.15, p = 0.013), sexual abuse (␹2 (1) = 6.18,
p = 0.005), physical neglect (␹2 (1) = 4.34, p = 0.037) and incarcerated household members (␹2 (1) = 5.55, p = 0.02). Regarding
to sex (␹2 (1) = 1.34, p = 0.246), age (r = −.03, p = 0.78), race/ethnicity (␹2 (1) = 0.22, p = 0.64), physical abuse (1.23, p = 0.267),
emotional neglect (␹2 (1) = 0.27, p = 0.870), parental separation/divorce (␹2 (1) = 0.53, p = 0.465), witnessing domestic violence
(␹2 (1) = .36, p = 0.550), household substance abuse (␹2 (1) = 0.002, p = 0.962) and mental illness in the household (␹2 (1) = 0.002,
p = 0.963) statistically significant associations were not found. To determine if ACE dimensions with significant differences in
univariate analysis discriminate between subjects persistent and non-persistent in crime, a hierarchical logistic regression
was conducted (see Table 3). Sexual abuse (OR = 4.38, 95% CI [1.09, 17.67]) was a significant predictor of persistence in crime.
The remaining three ACE dimensions were marginally significant, namely emotional abuse (OR = 4.90, 95% CI [0.93, 25.81]),
physical neglect (OR = 4.38, 95% CI [0.81, 23.75]) and incarcerated household members (OR = 4.96, 95% CI [0.94, 26.11]).
The full model was statistically significant ␹2 (4) = 21.12, p < 0.001 and explained 35.0% (Nagelkerke R2 ) of the variance. The
Table 3
Logistic regression analysis for prediction of juvenile justice involvement and persistence in crime.
Variable Juvenile Justice involvement (n = 138) Persistence in Crime (n = 75)
B SE EXP (␤) p B SE EXP (␤) p
Emotional Abuse −0.22 0.60 0.80 0.708 1.59 0.90 4.90† 0.061
Physical abuse 1.43 0.64 4.17* 0..025 – – – –
Sexual abuse 1.51 0.55 4.51* 0.006 1.38 0.67 3.98* 0.040
Emotional neglect 0.57 0.43 1.76 0.193 – – – –
Physical Neglect – – – – 1.48 0.86 4.38† 0.087
Parental separation or divorce 1.01 0.45 2.74* 0.026 – – – –
Witnessing domestic violence −0.23 0.71 0.80 0.751 – – – –
Incarcerated household members 2.08 0.82 7.99* 0.011 1.60 0.85 3.58† 0.058
Constant −1.34 0.33 0.26 0.708 −0.50 4.38 58.93 0.222
2 49,07** 21.124**
DF 7 4
Note:SE: standard error; CI: confidence interval; DF: degrees of freedom.

**
p < 0.01.
*
p < 0.05.
†
p < 0.1
60.0% 54.7%
49.1%
50.0% 43.4% 45.5% 45.5%
41.5% 40.9%
37.7% 35.8% 35.8%
40.0%
32.1%
30.0% 22.7% 24.5%
18.2% 18.2%
20.0%
9.1% 9.1% 9.4% 9.1% 9.1%
10.0%
0.0%
EA PA SA EN PN SD DV HSA MI IM
Crime Persistent Non-persistent in crime
Fig. 2. Prevalence of each ACE dimensions in crime persistent (n = 53) and non-persistent in crime (n = 22) groups.
Note: emotional abuse (EA); physical abuse (PA); sexual abuse (SA); emotional neglect (EN); physical neglect (PN); parental separation or divorce (SD);
witnessing domestic violence (DV); household substance abuse (HSA); mental illness in the household (MI); incarcerated household members (IM).
ROC curve analysis showed a good discrimination capability of the full model (ROC c = 0.81; 95% CI [0.70; 92]) and a cutoff
minimizing misclassification showed a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 68%.
3.4. Early adversity and psychosocial problems in young adults with records of juvenile criminal offenses
Table 4 shows the five psychosocial factors predicted, specifically, psychological distress, perceived quality of life, school
grade achievement, present occupation (working and/or studying) and illicit drug use in the last year.
Table 5 shows the three hierarchical linear regressions performed to predict current psychological distress, perceived
quality of life and school grade achievement (see Table 5). The first step included demographic variables (potentially
confounding variables); to the second model were added the significant adverse experiences tested above.
The model predicting perceived quality of life showed that age (␤ = −0.27, p = 0.016) and the presence of a mental illness
in the household (␤ = −0.27, p = 0.019) negatively predicted the perceived quality of life. Age was a significant predictor in
Models 1 and 2. The full model explained 9.9% of the variance (Radjusted 2 = 0.10, F (4,70) = 4.72, p = 0.023). For psychological
distress, the first model, with sociodemographic variables, was not significant. Model 2 explained 18.7% of the variance
(Radjusted 2 = 0.19, F(6,68) = 3.85, p = 0.002). Psychological distress was predicted by mental illness in the household (␤ = .28,
p = 0.01). School grade achievement was predicted by race/ethnicity (␤ = 0.24, p = 0.032) and negatively predicted by emo-
tional neglect (␤ = 0−.28, p = 0.014). Race/ethnicity was a significant predictor in Models 1 and 2. The full model explained
16.7% of the variance (Radjusted 2 = 0.17, F(4,70) = 4.72, p = 0.002). Reported early emotional neglect predicted a school grade
achievement decrease of 1.23 years. Gender and age were not significant predictors of school grade achievement.
4. Discussion
The aim of this study was to contribute towards a better understanding of the relationship between childhood/adolescent
adverse experiences, juvenile delinquent acts and serious psychosocial problems. Very few studies have addressed the impact
of early adverse experiences (beyond child abuse and neglect) on the beginning of criminal careers, and even less the impact
of those experiences on psychosocial adjustment. This appears to be the first study combining simultaneously the impact of
self-reported adverse experiences on juvenile delinquency, persistence in crime and psychosocial problems.
Table 4
Descriptive statistics of psychosocial problems indicators. Summary of intercorrelations between ACE dimensions and psychosocial problems indicators.
M SD EA SA PA EN PN SD DV HSA MI IM
Psychological distress 0.72 0.54 0.29 *

0.32 **
−0.06 0.01 0.17 −0.07 0.02 0.12 0.32 **
−0.07
Quality of life 3.40 4.90 −0.19 −0.08 −0.03 −0.15 −0.19 −0.03 −0.07 −0.11 −0.24* −0.03
School grade 7.23 2.24 0.04 −.06 0.11 −.34** −0.18 0.09 −0.03 −0.10 −0.09 −0.22†
Occupation (n/%) 33 44% 0.10 −.15 -0.03 0.19† 0.02 −0.21† 0.03 0.04 0.01 −0.05
Illicit drug use (n/%) 42 56% 0.22† 0.23† 0.09 0.08 0.21† 0.22† 0.16 0.14 0.10 −0.17
Note: SD: standard deviation; emotional abuse (EA); physical abuse (PA); sexual abuse (SA); emotional neglect (EN); physical neglect (PN); parental
separation or divorce (SD); witnessing domestic violence (DV); household substance abuse (HSA); mental illness in the household (MI); incarcerated
household members (IM).
**
p < 0.01.
*
p < 0.05.
†
p < 0.1.
Table 5
Hierarchical linear models on psychosocial problem variables (n = 75).
Psychosocial problems
Variable Model 1 Model 2
B SE B ␤ p B SE B ␤ p
Perceived Quality of life

Gender 2.14 2.12 0.12 0.316 2.53 2.05 0.14 0.223
Age −0.81 0.34 −0.26* 0.026 −0.85 0.34 −0.27* 0.016
Race/Ethnicity 0.24 1.16 0.02 0.836 0.07 1.13 0.01 0.951
Mental illness in H. −4.47 1.86 −0.27* 0.019
Adjusted R2 0.40 0.10
F for change in R2 1.99 5.77*
Psychological distress
Gender −0.29 0.24 −0.14 0.238 −0.30 0.20 −0.15 0.171
Age 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.311 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.329
Race/Ethnicity −0.10 0.13 −0.09 0.474 −0.10 0.13 −0.09 0.444
Emotional abuse 0.26 0.14 0.22† 0.064
Sexual abuse 0.23 0.12 0.21† 0.065
Mental illness H. 0.53 0.20 0.28** 0.010
Adjusted R2 0 0.19
F for change in R2 0.86 6.63**
School grade achievement

Gender −0.30 0.93 −0.04 0.75 −0.28 0.90 −0.03 0.756
Age −0.28 0.16 −0.20† 0.08 −0.24 0.15 −0.17 0.117
Race/Ethnicity 1.34 0.52 0.30* 0.01 1.10 0.05 0.24* 0.032
Emotional Neglect −1.2 0.49 −0.28* 0.014
Adjusted R2 0.10 0.17
F for change in R2 3.87* 6.38**
SE: standard Error; DF: degrees of freedom; Mental illness in the H.:Mental illness in the household.
**
p < 0.01.
*
p < 0.05.
†
p < 0.1.
4.1. Juvenile delinquency and persistence in crime
One of the clearest and most impressive findings of this study is that young adults with official records of juve-
nile delinquency are significantly more likely than the control group to report having been victims of seven out of ten
childhood/adolescent adverse experiences. Multivariate analysis showed that sexual abuse, physical abuse, parental sep-
aration/divorce and incarcerated household members are variables significantly related to official records of juvenile
delinquency, after controlling for the remaining predictors. These results are consistent with previous studies (Duke et al.,
2010; Fox et al., 2015; Grasso et al., 2015) showing childhood adverse experiences as important predictors of early initiation
of problem behaviors, including juvenile delinquency and justice involvement.
A key finding is the relationship between sexual abuse and criminal outcomes. Previous studies have suggested that toxic
traumatic stress, such as sexual abuse, is a risk factor for child anti-social behavior (Lee et al., 2015), juvenile delinquency
(McGrath et al., 2011) and persistence in crime (Cernkovich et al., 2008). However, what was unexpected in our results is
the effect size of sexual abuse, which is much greater than that found in previous longitudinal studies. The probability of
reporting at least one experience of sexual abuse during childhood or adolescence was four and a half times higher in the
group of young adults with official records of juvenile delinquency and four times higher in the group persisting in crime
during adulthood. Because the data are self-reported, the relationships between variables could be bidirectional; for this
reason, one important question arises: “Is it possible that juvenile delinquency is a risk factor for sexual abuse? "
In the ORJD sample, the mean age reported for the first sexual abuse was between 15.6 years (data not presented here)
and the sexual intercourse occurred with a person at least five years older (this is the ACE criterion for sexual abuse when
the experience occurs before 18 years of age). Previous studies have shown that delinquent behavior is associated with
having older friends (e.g., McAdams, Salekin, Marti, Lester, & Barker, 2014) and having older friends is related with early
sexual initiation (e.g., Collins et al., 2004). Despite that sexual abuse is a traumatic experience which not rarely occurs in
the home during childhood in general population, it is also reasonable to hypothesize that juveniles with serious delinquent
behaviors throughout adolescence have a greater risk of establishing social bonds with older delinquent groups; this situation
could constitute a risk factor for sexual intercourse between much older people and delinquent youths, who do not have
enough psychosexual maturity to give conscious consent. For this reason, future studies should investigate whether juvenile
delinquency is a risk factor for sexual abuse during adolescence.
Parental separation or divorce and physical abuse were also predictors of juvenile delinquency, but not persistence in
crime. However, it is important to highlight that a risk factor for juvenile delinquency indirectly could be a risk factor for crime
persistence, since juvenile delinquency is one of the most important predictors of adult crime (Bushway, Nieuwbeerta, &
Blokland, 2011; Lee et al., 2015). Prospective studies have found that substantial alterations in family life, such as separation
or divorce, especially if involving serious conflicts between caregivers, could raise the levels of delinquent behavior and
other types of externalizing behaviors, particularly during the adjustment process (eg. Amato, 2001). This relationship may
be reinforced in the Portuguese context, firstly due to the lack of the Portuguese public or affordable programs to give support
to children and parents to cope with the divorce process. Moreover, the economic crisis in Portugal aggravates the financial
distress of divorced parents (Raposo et al., 2011).
In line with our study, past findings have shown that physical abuse is associated with juvenile delinquency but not
persistence in crime (Lee et al., 2015). Continued exposure to stress situations, such as child physical and sexual abuse, can
lead to dysregulation of the biologic stress system, affecting the cognitive processes and affective regulation (Cicchetti & Toth,
2005; Lee & Hoaken, 2007; Watts-English et al., 2006). The negative outcomes include privilege hostile cues, hypervigilance,
impulsiveness, lack of resources to cope with social situations resulting in poor social competence, impulsiveness and,
therefore, behavioral problems, including delinquency (Cicchetti & Toth, 2005; Lee & Hoaken, 2007).
Incarcerated household member is the strongest predictor of official records of juvenile delinquency and the strongest
marginally significant predictor of crime persistence in the transition to adulthood (OR = 4.96; p = 0.058). These results are in
line with those of Fox et al. (2015) who found that to have had a household incarcerated member is the strongest predictor
of the seriousness and the chronicity of juvenile delinquent acts. Besides the potential risk of learning from a criminal role
model, Murray (2007) suggested the reasons for this as being the effect of stigma, poor future prospects and the lack of
economic resources, which are common in families living with people who have been imprisoned.
Similarly, to the findings of Kazemian et al. (2011), our study showed that neglect was not a predictor of juvenile delin-
quency, after adjusting the model for other adverse experiences. Witnessing domestic violence, household mental illness
and household substance abuse were also not associated with juvenile delinquency or criminal persistence after controlling
for the remaining adverse experiences. Nonetheless, some of those experiences could be related with severe psychosocial
problems and social maladjustment.
4.2. Juvenile delinquency and psychosocial adjustment
This is the first study evaluating the relationship between a wide range of early adverse experiences (as well as abuse
and neglect) and psychosocial problems. The most frequent predictor of psychosocial dysfunction was to have lived with
a person with mental illness during childhood or adolescence. To report a mental illness in the household simultaneously
predicted psychological distress and lower quality of life. This problem is even more relevant for Portugal, where a recent
report indicated the second highest prevalence of psychiatric disorders among ten European countries evaluated (Caldas
de Almeida & Xavier, 2013). The explanations for the relationship between caregivers with mental illness and children’s
psychological problems are complex and probably result from interactions between several factors. Potential causes could
include inappropriate parenting styles, greater risk of social exclusion (e.g., parental unemployment or social disadvantage),
genetic factors, and even the direct consequences of behavior associated with the mental disorder (Leen-Feldner et al., 2013;
Manning & Gregoire, 2009).
In our study, emotional neglect was inversely related to school grade achievement and emotional abuse was related with
persistence in crime. In other studies, emotional maltreatment has been associated with several psychosocial malfunctions
(e.g. Van der Put et al., 2015). It is important to note, however, that contrary to other studies (e.g., Pinto et al., 2015), our study
does not establish a direct link between emotional maltreatment and juvenile delinquency. Nonetheless, findings suggest
that emotional abuse or neglect, which is normally under-identified by the child protection services (e.g., Pinto & Maia,
2013b), could compromise important capacities during adulthood, such as good mental functioning or academic success,
that are extremely important factors for avoiding social marginalization and persistence in crime (English, Thompson, White,
& Wilson, 2015).
Contrary to the findings of Van der Put et al. (2015), physical and sexual abuse did not predict psychosocial problems. In
addition to the sample size differences, which affected the capacity of our study to detect smaller effect sizes, our study used
a different approach to screening abuse. In our study, sexual abuse included sexual experiences in middle or late adolescence
with much older peers; physical abuse included not only family violence during childhood, but also situations of violence
between peers (e.g., street/gang fights). These types of abuse are probably insufficiently considered or identified in official
records (as were used by Van der Put et al. (2015)) as they are with self-reported methods, such as the ACE questionnaire
(Pinto & Maia, 2013b). Finally, these results suggest that additional attention should be given to a child living with a person
diagnosed with a mental disorder, or a child suffering from emotional maltreatment, because these two type of adversity,
that are probably correlated, have been under-identified by social services and interventions have consequently not been
carried out (Pinto et al., 2015).
4.3. Recommendations for policies in children and family services
The findings of this study suggest that juvenile delinquents are more likely to have been exposed to serious stressful
experiences. Some of these experiences are also associated with persistence in crime and severe psychosocial problems
throughout adulthood. In the light of these results, a number of recommendations for policies in children and youth services
are suggested.
Our first recommendation highlights the importance of courts, child protection services and juvenile justice services
creating or adopting effective tools for screening for abuse, neglect, and other forms of serious adversity. Child welfare
and juvenile justice services should cooperate closely whenever this would be helpful, improving the available information
and resources to achieve a better psychosocial intervention. Moreover, whenever possible, child and youth public services
should work with families to improve their psychoeducational resources. It is not possible to prevent some potential adverse
experiences, such as parental incarceration or parental mental illness. However, in these cases, youths and their families
could be supported in order to improve their personal resources. Finally, governments should develop main lines of action,
based on current scientific knowledge, in order to allow child welfare and juvenile justice services to systematically screen
and stop serious adverse experiences from occurring, or prevent their harmful effects. If these recommendations are followed
using the resources already available, we believe that significant criminal and psychosocial problems could be attenuated,
with important social and economic benefits.
4.4. Strengths, limitations and future directions
Worldwide, this is one of the very few studies examining a full range of early adverse experiences on justice involvement,
from juvenile delinquency to persistence in crime and social marginalization. A major strength of our work is the important
implications of our findings for research, practice and policies. Some methodologic strengths should be highlighted. Persis-
tence in crime was evaluated with a multi-method strategy (self-report and official records) and all measures are valid and
reliable for the Portuguese population, also demonstrating good psychometric characteristics in both samples. In addition,
the use of a matched control group is also an important strength of our study, allowing us to compare youths with juvenile
justice involvement with the community controlling for the main demographic confounder variables.
The current study contains also some limitations. Despite the fact that persistence in crime was evaluated with a multi-
method strategy, the presence of early adversity was evaluated by self-report; this is the main limitation of our study. Data
derived from child protective services records and self-report measures contain various issues concerning reliability (see
Pinto et al., 2014); to overcome these limitations future studies should combine both methods. The ORJC sample of female
respondents is very small, and generalizations for the findings regarding predictors of juvenile justice involvement in females
may not be valid and should be made carefully. However, the 8% to 10% of females in this study is very close to that found
in the official Portuguese data in terms of juvenile convictions and incarcerated adults (DGRSP, 2012; PORDATA, 2015).
Our study does not have a prospective longitudinal design. Prospective longitudinal designs, with official and self-report
measures of adequate reliability evaluated over time, are very rare but are nevertheless greatly needed to understand the
causality effects between variables. In some European regions, such as in Portugal, the minimum age for adult law to be
applied is 16 years of age (e.g. Belgium, Iceland, Netherlands, Scotland), in contrast in other European regions the minimum
age for adult criminal law starts at 18 years of age (e.g. Albania, Malta, France), for that reason, our results should be seen in
the light of legal and cultural differences among countries (Loeber & Farrington, 2012).
The community sample was collected using a convenience sampling, not being a census or a randomized representative
sample from the Portuguese population due to implementation constraints (for example difficult to obtain a representative
sample of young adults who do not study or work). To overcome this limitation and in the line of the analytic strategy
implemented for previous studies without representative national samples (e.g. Wang, Blomberg, & Li, 2005) matched-
control groups were created in order to establish an acceptable basis of comparison between samples. Finally, due to the
small sample sizes (138 and 75 participants) small effect sizes might not have been detected. Future studies should replicate
this design using larger samples.
This study suggests three important future directions. First, future studies should create or adapt the existing self-report
questionnaire in order to provide more information about the circumstances of abuse. Three additional questions should
be incorporated in the self-reported measures: when, who and the perceived response. That is, when the abuse happened
(during childhood versus adolescence); who perpetrated the abuse (caregivers versus peers); and the perceived response (the
child/adolescent felt the resources to defend them were present/adequate, versus felt vulnerable). These three questions
could be key variables for a better understanding about the long-term consequences of abuse. For example, the long-term
effect of physical abuse resulting from a street fight between gangs during adolescence (with the perceived resources to
protect themselves) could be very different from the effects caused by frequent parental beating during childhood. These
two situations of abuse are, however, currently regarded as the same dimension in most questionnaires. Similar comments
could be directed towards the evaluation of emotional and sexual abuse.
Second, future studies should explore the effects of childhood adversity on delinquent behavior controlling for different
types of crimes, which could deepen our knowledge in this field and may help to define public targets for justice policies
and interventions. Lastly, one of the most intriguing results of our study concerns the large prevalence of adolescent sexual
abuse among young adults with official records of juvenile delinquency. This prevalence is far greater than reported in past
prospective studies. Future research should clarify whether juvenile delinquency is a risk factor of reporting adolescent
sexual abuse, as child sexual abuse is a risk factor for juvenile delinquency. In our opinion, if these directions were to be
followed significant improvements could be made in terms of the evaluation and prevention of, and intervention in situations
of serious adversity.
5. Conclusions
The main objective of our study was to enable a better understand of the relationship between childhood adversity
and the chain of social marginalization from juvenile delinquency to adulthood. Despite the limitations noted, our findings
could be important in several ways. First, we have made recommendations for policies in child and family services that
could be applied with the resources already available in most western countries. Second, we have provided important
recommendations for future studies in order to avoid the limitations of the present study. Finally, we have suggested two
important future directions for further study that may lead to theoretically and practically significant developments.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The first author was supported by a doctoral grant from the Foundation of Science and Technology (FCT)—Portugal
[SFRH/BD/95190/2013]. This study was conducted at Psychology Research Centre, University of Minho, and supported by
the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministery of Education and Science through
national funds and when applicable co-financed by FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement (UID/PSI/01662/2013).
The authors sincerely appreciate the support provided by the professionals of the Direcção Geral de Reinserção e Serviços
Prisionais. We are truly grateful for the comments and suggestions offered by the reviewers.
References
Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355–370.
Baglivio, M. T., Epps, N., Swartz, K., Huq, M. S., Sheer, A., & Hardt, N. S. (2014). The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in the lives of
juvenile offenders. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 3, 1–23.
Basto-Pereira, M., Miranda, A., Ribeiro, S., & Maia, Â. C. (2015). The psychometric properties of a questionnaire for measuring delinquency and crime
(D-CRIM). Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bender, K. (2010). Why do some maltreated youth become juvenile offenders? A call for further investigation and adaptation of youth services. Children
and Youth Services Review, 32, 466–473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.022
Bushway, S. D., Nieuwbeerta, P., & Blokland, A. (2011). The predictive value of criminal background checks: Do age and criminal history affect time to
redemption? Criminology, 49, 27–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00217.x
Caldas de Almeida, J., & Xavier, M. (2013). Estudo Epidemiológico Nacional de Saúde Mental [National Epidemiological Study of Mental Health]. Lisboa:
Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, da Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
Canavarro, C. (1999). Inventário de sintomas psicopatológicos—BSI [Brief Symptom Inventory—BSI]. In M. R. Simões, & M. M. Gonçalves (Eds.), Testes e
provas psicológicas em Portugal (pp. 95–109). Braga: APPORT/SHO.
Cernkovich, S., Lanctôt, N., & Giordano, P. (2008). Predicting adolescent and adult antisocial behaviour among adjudicated delinquent females. Crime and
Delinquency, 54(1), 3–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128706294395
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2005). Child maltreatment. Annual Review Clinical Psychology, 1, 409–438.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144029
Collins, R. L., Elliott, M. N., Berry, S. H., Kanouse, D. E., Kunkel, D., Hunter, S. B., & Miu, A. (2004). Watching sex on television predicts adolescent initiation of
sexual behavior. Pediatrics, 114, 280–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2003-1065-L
Directorate-General of Social Rehabilitation. (2012). Auto-avaliação e relatório de Atividades—DGRS 2011 [Self-assessment and activity Report—DGSR—2011].
Lisboa: DGRSP. Retrieved from: http://tinyurl.com/hv7mdzv
Derogatis, L. R. (1993). BSI brief symptom inventory: Administration, scoring, and procedure manual (4th edition). Minneapolis, MN: National Computers
Systems.
Derzon, J. (2010). The correspondence of family features with problem, aggressive, criminal, and violent behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 6, 263–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9098-0
Duke, N. N., Pettingell, S. L., McMorris, B. J., & Borowsky, I. W. (2010). Adolescent violence perpetration: Associations with multiple types of adverse
childhood experiences. Pediatrics, 125(4), 778–786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0597
English, D., Thompson, R., White, C. R., & Wilson, D. (2015). Why should child welfare pay more attention to emotional maltreatment? Children and Youth
Services Review, 50, 53–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.01.010
Felitti, V., Anda, R., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D., Spitz, A., Edwards, V., . . . & Marks, J. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household
dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245–258.
Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
Fox, B. H., Perez, N., Cass, E., Baglivio, M. T., & Epps, N. (2015). Trauma changes everything: Examining the relationship between adverse childhood
experiences and serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 46, 163–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.01.011
Galea, S., & Tracy, M. (2007). Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. Annals of Epidemiology, 17(9), 643–653.
Grasso, D. J., Dierkhising, C. B., Branson, C. E., Ford, J. D., & Lee, R. (2015). Developmental patterns of adverse childhood experiences and current symptoms
and impairment in youth referred for trauma-specific services. Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(5), 871–886.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0086-8
Kazemian, L., Widom, C., & Farrington, D. (2011). A prospective examination of the relationship between childhood neglect and juvenile delinquency in
the Cambridge study in delinquent development. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies, 2(1/2), 65–82.
Kerig, P. K., & Becker, S. P. (2015). Early abuse and neglect as risk factors for the development of criminal and antisocial behavior. In J. Morizot, & L.
Kazemian (Eds.), The development of criminal and antisocial behavior: Theoretical foundations and practical applications (pp. 181–199). New York:
Springer.
Kessler, R. C., McLaughlin, K. A., Green, J. G., Gruber, M. J., Sampson, N. A., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Williams, D. R. (2010). Childhood adversities and adult
psychopathology in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. British Journal of Psychiatry, 197, 378–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.110.080499
Lee, V., & Hoaken, P. (2007). Cognition, emotion, and neurobiological development: Mediating the relation between maltreatment and aggression. Child
Maltreatment, 12, 281–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559507303778
Lee, J. O., Herrenkohl, T. I., Jung, H., Skinner, M. L., & Klika, J. B. (2015). Longitudinal examination of peer and partner influences on gender-specific
pathways from child abuse to adult crime. Child Abuse & Neglect, 47, 83–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.07.012
Leen-Feldner, E. W., Feldner, M. T., Knapp, A., Bunaciu, L., Blumenthal, H., & Amstadter, A. B. (2013). Offspring psychological and biological correlates of
parental posttraumatic stress: Review of the literature and research agenda. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 1106–1133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.09.001
Lemos, I., & Faísca, L. (2015). Psychosocial adversity, delinquent pathway and internalizing psychopathology in juvenile male offenders. International
Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 42–43, 49–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.007
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2012). From juvenile delinquency to adult crime: Criminal careers, justice policy. In. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Machado, C., Gonçalves, M., Matos, M., & Dias, A. (2007). Child and partner abuse: Self-reported prevalence and attitudes in the north of Portugal. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 31(6), 657–670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.11.002
Manning, C., & Gregoire, A. (2009). Effects of parental mental illness on children. Psychiatry, 8(1), 7–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1383/psyt.2006.5.1.10
McAdams, T. A., Salekin, R. T., Marti, C. N., Lester, W. S., & Barker, E. D. (2014). Co- occurrence of antisocial behavior and substance use: Testing for sex
differences in the impact of older male friends, low parental knowledge and friends’ delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 37(3), 247–256.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.01.001
McGrath, S. A., Nilsen, A. A., & Kerley, K. R. (2011). Sexual victimization in childhood and the propensity for juvenile delinquency and adult criminal
behavior: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(485), 492.
Murray, J. (2007). The cycle of punishment: Social exclusion of prisoners and their children. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7(1), 55–81.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1748895807072476
Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. In Michael Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 115–200).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
PORDATA, (2015, June 26). Prisoners: Total and by sex - Portugal. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/jpkwsjs the 14th of October, 2015.
Pereira, M., Melo, C., Gameiro, S., & Canavarro, M. C. (2011). Estudos psicométricos da versão em Português Europeu do índice de qualidade de vida
EUROHIS-QOL-8 [Psychometric studies of the Portuguese version of the quality of life index EUROHIS-QOL-8]. Laboratório de Psicologia, 9, 109–123.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14417/lp.627
Pinto, R. J., & Maia, Â. C. (2013). Psychopathology, physical complaints and health risk behaviors among youth who were victims of childhood
maltreatment: A comparison between home and institutional interventions. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(4), 603–610.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.01.008
Pinto, R., & Maia, Â. (2013). A comparison study between official records and self-reports of childhood adversity. Child Abuse Review, 22, 367–376.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/car.2232
Pinto, R., Correia, L., & Maia, Â. C. (2014). Assessing the reliability of retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences among adolescents with
documented childhood maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 431–438.
Pinto, R., Fernandes, A. I., Mesquita, C., & Maia, Â. C. (2015). Childhood adversity among institutionalized male juvenile offenders and other high-risk
groups without offense records in Portugal. Violence and Victims, 30(4), 600–614.
Power, M. (2003). Development of a common instrument for quality of life. In A. Nosikov, & C. Gudex (Eds.), EUROHIS: Developing common instruments for
health surveys (pp. 145–159). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Raposo, H., Figueiredo, B., Lamela, D., Nunes-Costa, R., Castro, M., & Prego, J. (2011). Ajustamento da criança à separação ou divórcio dos pais [Child
adjustment to separation or divorce of parents]. Revista de Psiquiatria Clínica, 38(1), 29–33.
Roberton, T., Daffern, M., & Bucks, R. S. (2012). Emotion regulation and aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(1), 72–82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.09.006
Strine, T., Dube, S., Edwards, V., Prehn, A., Rasmussen, S., Wagenfeld, M., . . . & Croft, J. B. (2012). Associations between adverse childhood experiences,
psychological distress, and adult alcohol problems. American Journal of Health Behavior, 36(3), 408–423.
Van Voorhis, C., & Morgan, B. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for
Psychology, 3(2), 43–50.
Van der Put, C., Lanctôt, N., Ruiter, C., & Van Vugt, E. (2015). Child maltreatment among boy and girl probationers: Does type of maltreatment make a
difference in offending behavior and psychosocial problems? Child Abuse & Neglect, 46, 142–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.012
Wang, X., Blomberg, T. G., & Spencer, D. L. (2005). Comparison of the educational deficiencies of delinquent and nondelinquent students. Evaluation
Review, 29, 291–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193841X05275389
Watts-English, T., Fortson, B., Gibler, N., Hooper, S., & DeBellis, M. (2006). The psychobiology of maltreatment in childhood. Journal of Social Issues, 62(4),
717–736.
Widom, C. S., & Maxfield, M. G. (2001). An update on the "Cycle of Violence ". Washington (DC): National Institute of Justice.

Growing Up With Adversity - From Juvenile Justice Involvement To Criminal Persistence and Psychosocial Problems in Young Adulthood

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Growing Up With Adversity - From Juvenile Justice Involvement To Criminal Persistence and Psychosocial Problems in Young Adulthood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child Abuse & Neglect 62 (2016) 63–75

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

Growing up with adversity: From juvenile justice

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2.1. Participants and procedures

Unmatched Samples (N = 315) Matched Samples (n = 138)

ORJC Control ORJC Control

Sex Female 6 (8,00%) 125 (52,08%) 6 (8,70%) 6 (8,70%)

Age brackets 18–20 45 (60,00%) 135 (56,25%) 44 (63,77%) 44 (63,77%)

Ethnicity/Race Majority 44 (58,67%) 194 (81,51%) 44 (63,77%) 44 (63,77%)

Residential area Rural 15 (20,00%) 84 (35,44%) 15 (21,74%) 22 (32,35%)

Occupation Worker 18 (24,00%) 43 (17,92%) 17 (24,64%) 13 (18,84%)

2.3. Data analysis

3.1. Interrelationship between ACEs dimensions

M. Basto-Pereira et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 62 (2016) 63–75

ORJC matched sample (n = 69)

ACE dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M (SD)

3.3. Early adverse experiences as predictors of persistence in crime

Variable Juvenile Justice involvement (n = 138) Persistence in Crime (n = 75)

B SE EXP (␤) p B SE EXP (␤) p

Note:SE: standard error; CI: conﬁdence interval; DF: degrees of freedom.

Psychological distress 0.72 0.54 0.29 *

Variable Model 1 Model 2

Perceived Quality of life

School grade achievement

4.1. Juvenile delinquency and persistence in crime

4.2. Juvenile delinquency and psychosocial adjustment

4.3. Recommendations for policies in children and family services

4.4. Strengths, limitations and future directions

The authors declare no conﬂicts of interest.

You might also like