Journal of Criminal Justice 90 (2024) 102143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcrimjus

The conditioning role of perceptions of collective efficacy in the

relationship between adverse childhood experiences and delinquency
Ter'Ricka F. Brundidge , Lindsay Leban *
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1201 University Boulevard: Suite 210, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States of America

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Purpose: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are stressful or traumatic incidents linked to various negative
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) outcomes, including delinquent behavior. Although research has demonstrated that exposure to ACEs increases
Delinquency involvement in delinquency, there is a lack of understanding of factors influencing this relationship. Not all who
Collective efficacy
encounter adversity engage in delinquency, which suggests that other conditions can affect how youth respond to
ACEs. We examine the potential influence of neighborhood collective efficacy on the relationship between ACEs
and delinquency.
Methods: Using prospective longitudinal data from the Longitudinal Studies on Child Abuse and Neglect
(LONGSCAN), we investigate relationships between ACEs, perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy, and
adolescent delinquency among a sample of 802 at-risk youth.
Results: Negative binomial regression estimates and evaluation of marginal effects reveal that the relationship
between ACEs and delinquency is moderated by perceptions of collective efficacy, implying that stronger
perceived collective efficacy attenuates the impact of ACEs on delinquency. This moderation effect is specific to
youth exposed to five or more ACEs.
Conclusions: These findings suggest that neighborhood conditions play a crucial role in shaping the outcomes of
youth exposed to ACEs. Implications for policy and future research on the interplay between ACEs, neighborhood
factors, and delinquency are discussed.

Experiences during childhood have wide-ranging implications on an
individual's life. Growing up in a chaotic and violent household and
experiencing abuse and neglect can put youth at risk for a host of
negative social, health, and behavioral outcomes throughout the life
course (Bunting et al., 2018; Felitti et al., 1998; Jaffee, 2017; Widom,
2014). When youth accumulate multiple types of stressful and traumatic
experiences, the compounding and cumulative effects of these adver­
sities can lead to an especially pronounced risk of harmful and lasting
consequences (Felitti et al., 1998; Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007;
Turner & Lloyd, 1995). The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)
approach focuses on the cumulative impact of exposure to adverse,
stressful, and traumatic childhood events (Felitti et al., 1998; Hughes
et al., 2017). Measured as a cumulative score of types of maltreatment
and household dysfunction, ACEs have a graded relationship with a host
of negative health, social, and behavioral outcomes later in life, in which
the risk and severity of these outcomes increase with the higher number
of ACEs experienced (for a review, see Hughes et al., 2017). One such
negative outcome of ACEs is involvement in criminal and delinquent
behaviors, with research demonstrating the link between ACEs and
violence, delinquency, and justice-system involvement (Baglivio et al.,
2014; Duke, Pettingell, McMorris, & Borowsky, 2010; Fagan & Novak,
2018; Gajos, Leban, Weymouth, & Cropsey, 2023; Graf, Chihuri, Blow,
& Li, 2021; Leban & Delacruz, 2023b; Leban & Gibson, 2020; Pierce &
Jones, 2021).
Although ACEs are an important precursor of offending behaviors, it
is important to note that not all who encounter adversity engage in
criminal behavior (Derzon, 2010; Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Polo-Tomas, &
Taylor, 2007). In fact, many youth exposed to adversity do not develop
negative health, social, and behavioral outcomes (DuMont, Widom, &
Czaja, 2007), pointing to the importance of other conditions that can
affect how youth respond to ACEs and whether they engage in de­
linquency. Indeed, youth development occurs within several domains of
influence, ranging from the individual, family, peer, contextual, and
societal levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979). The neighborhood envi­
ronment is one context that may condition the influence of ACEs on
delinquency, particularly the level of neighborhood collective efficacy.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tbrun18@uab.edu (T.F. Brundidge), leleban@uab.edu (L. Leban).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102143
Received 12 October 2023; Received in revised form 4 December 2023; Accepted 4 December 2023
Available online 8 December 2023
0047-2352/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.F. Brundidge and L. Leban
Defined as social cohesion among neighbors and a willingness for
neighbors to actively work together to prevent crime and unwanted
behavior in their neighborhood, collective efficacy is related to
decreased crime and delinquency (Browning, Feinberg, & Dietz, 2004;
Morenoff, Sampson, & Raudenbush, 2001; Sampson, Raudenbush, &
Earls, 1997). Collective efficacy can also operate as an important source
of social support, providing youth with a connected set of adults con­
cerned with their wellbeing, serving as role models, offering security,
and affording potential social bonds (Sampson et al., 1997; (Sampson,
Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002). Indeed, research has shown that
neighborhood collective efficacy can serve as a protective factor against
negative outcomes and promote positive outcomes among residents
(Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000), and
may help compensate for adversities occurring in the home environment
(Fagan, Wright, & Pinchevsky, 2014; Madigan, Wade, Plamondon, &
Jenkins, 2016; Wilkinson, Lantos, McDaniel, & Winslow, 2019; Yonas
et al., 2010).
Despite the relevance of both ACEs and collective efficacy in un­
derstanding delinquency, only minimal empirical attention has focused
on the neighborhoods in which ACEs and youth delinquency are
embedded (e.g., Baglivio, Wolff, Epps, & Nelson, 2017; Wolff, Cuevas,
Intravia, Baglivio, & Epps, 2018), and work has yet to examine the po­
tential for neighborhood collective efficacy to attenuate the impact of
ACEs on delinquency. Drawing on data from a longitudinal study of at-
risk youth, the current study investigates how neighborhood collective
efficacy can condition the relationship between ACEs and delinquency.
In doing so, we shed light on the interplay between the neighborhood
context and ACEs, illuminating the potential for the neighborhood
environment to build resilience to the harms of ACEs.
1. Adverse childhood experiences and delinquency
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) refer to the accumulation of
stressful and potentially traumatic events during childhood that can put
youth at risk of adverse health and behavioral outcomes later in life
(Felitti et al., 1998; Hughes et al., 2017). Typically encompassing
various forms of maltreatment (neglect and physical, sexual, emotional/
psychological abuse) and household dysfunction (witnessing parental
intimate partner violence, loss or illness of family members, and expo­
sure to family members with substance use problems, mental health
problems, and criminal involvement), ACEs are measured as an overall
score of the cumulative number of adversities experienced in youth
(Karatekin et al., 2022). Exposure to ACEs is highly interrelated, in
which youth exposed to one type of ACE are at an increased likelihood of
experiencing other types of ACEs (Duke et al., 2010; Felitti et al., 1998).
Recent estimates indicate that approximately 61% of adults have been
exposed to at least one type of ACE, and 16% have experienced four or
more ACEs (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). Much of
the early scholarship on ACEs documented the association between
ACEs and poor functioning in adulthood, including many of the leading
causes of death, poor mental health, and substance use (Dube et al.,
2003; Dube, Anda, Felitti, Edwards, & Croft, 2002; Edwards, Holden,
Felitti, & Anda, 2003; Felitti et al., 1998).
More recent work highlights the influence of ACEs on delinquent
outcomes (e.g., Baglivio et al., 2014; Fagan & Novak, 2018; Leban &
Gibson, 2020). There are several potential theoretical explanations for
this relationship. Applying general strain theory (Agnew, 1992), ACEs
may increase the likelihood of delinquency by operating as a source of
strain, eliciting negative emotions that youth attempt to alleviate
through “acting out” and engaging in violence and delinquency (e.g.,
Leban & Delacruz, 2023b; Pierce & Jones, 2021). From a social learning
perspective (Akers, 1985), exposure to violent and adverse events early
in life may serve as a source of modeling by which youth learn to
replicate these behaviors (e.g., Fagan & Novak, 2018), endorse aggres­
sive and antisocial attitudes, and differentially associate with delinquent
peers (e.g., Jones, Pierce, & Shoaf, 2023). It is also possible that
2
Journal of Criminal Justice 90 (2024) 102143
exposure to ACEs may disrupt the formation of self-control (Gottfredson
& Hirschi, 1990), further increasing the likelihood of involvement in
delinquent behaviors (e.g., Chapple, Pierce, & Jones, 2021; Leban &
Gibson, 2020).
Indeed, ACE exposure is pronounced among youth who engage in
delinquency. Research has demonstrated a positive relationship be­
tween ACEs and self-reported delinquent behaviors in adolescence, such
as violence (Duke et al., 2010; Fagan & Novak, 2018; Leban & Delacruz,
2023b) and overall frequency of delinquent behavior (Brown & Shil­
lington, 2017; Gajos et al., 2023; Leban & Delacruz, 2023a; Leban &
Gibson, 2020; Novak, Boutwell, & Smith, 2023; Pierce & Jones, 2021).
ACEs are related to forms of justice-system contact in adolescence,
including arrests and police stops (Fagan & Novak, 2018; Graf et al.,
2021; Jackson et al., 2022; Leban & Delacruz, 2023a). Justice-involved
youth have a much higher prevalence of ACEs exposure compared to the
general population (Baglivio et al., 2014), and greater numbers of ACEs
are predictive of reoffending (Craig, Baglivio, Wolff, Piquero, & Epps,
2017) as well as more serious, violent, and chronic offending behaviors
among justice-involved youth (Fox, Perez, Cass, Baglivio, & Epps, 2015;
Perez, Jennings, & Baglivio, 2018).
Despite the importance of histories of adversity among those who
engage in crime and delinquency, it is important to note that not all who
experience trauma and victimization engage in criminal behavior
(Derzon, 2010; Jaffee et al., 2007). In fact, many youth exposed to
adversity fare well as adults (DuMont et al., 2007), implying that there
are likely other important factors influencing how youth respond to the
harms of ACEs. Unfortunately, there is a gap in our understanding of
how and why ACEs translate to criminal involvement for some and not
for others. Some work on ACEs has begun to explore the potential for
other conditions and characteristics to moderate the influence of ACEs
on crime and delinquency. Protective factors such as psychological and
socioemotional well-being (e.g., coping skills, self-esteem, intelligence,
interpersonal skills, lack of neuroticism), health-promoting behaviors (e.
g., physical activity, sleep quality), and parent/family functioning (e.g.,
parental monitoring, quality family relationships, parental mental
health, lack of parental stress) have been shown to reduce the influence
of ACEs on various negative health and behavioral outcomes, albeit little
attention has been paid to criminal outcomes (see Karatekin et al.,
2022). An emerging body of work on Positive Childhood Experiences
(PCEs) examines how a cumulative inventory of protective factors can
counteract the harms of ACEs, demonstrating that higher numbers of
overall protection can decrease the relationship between ACEs and de­
linquency (Novak & Fagan, 2022) as well as reduce the risk of rearrest
and reconviction among justice-involved youth with varying levels of
ACEs exposure (Baglivio & Wolff, 2020; Craig, Wolff, & Baglivio, 2022).
Despite these attempts to understand how other characteristics can in­
fluence the ramifications of ACEs, research on factors that condition the
impact of ACEs on delinquent outcomes remains relatively scant in the
ACEs literature, and most of the work on ACEs and protective factors
focused on experiences at the individual and household level (Karatekin
et al., 2022). There remains a need for work exploring how conditions
and experiences external to the household environment can moderate
the relationship between ACEs and delinquency.
A few studies have explored how neighborhood context may be
related to the link between ACEs and juvenile delinquency (Baglivio
et al., 2017; Wolff et al., 2018). Baglivio et al. (2017) found that resi­
dence in neighborhoods characterized by disadvantage was associated
with higher ACEs scores among a sample of justice-involved youth in
Florida, and neighborhood affluence was related to lower ACEs scores
among this sample. Using the same data, Wolff et al. (2018) examined
latent classes of patterns of ACE exposure, finding that concentrated
disadvantage in the neighborhood was associated with patterns of
higher ACE exposure, and neighborhood residential instability was
related to patterns of moderate ACEs exposure among justice-involved
youth. Alternatively, concentrated affluence and immigrant concentra­
tion at the neighborhood level both decreased the likelihood of higher
T.F. Brundidge and L. Leban
ACE exposure classes. Wang et al. also found that neighborhood features
were associated with ACEs exposure, both directly and indirectly
influencing adolescent delinquency (Wang, Choi, & Shin, 2020).
Recently, in examining relations between traditional household-based
ACEs and adverse conditions at the neighborhood level, Warner,
Leban, Pester, and Walker (2023) revealed that adolescents' likelihood
of delinquency and other negative outcomes was especially heightened
when neighborhood adversities accompanied household-based ACEs.
Although these studies did not explicitly examine the role of neighbor­
hood factors in moderating the relationship between ACEs and de­
linquency, these studies highlight that neighborhood context may play
an important role in shaping the process through which exposure to
ACEs can manifest in adolescents' delinquent behavior.
2. Perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy and
delinquency
The neighborhood environment can expose youth to antisocial and
prosocial influences, and this context can operate as a source of both risk
and protection for youth (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008; Bronfen­
brenner, 1977; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000).
The perspective of ecological-development theory emphasizes how
youth development occurs within multiple layers of protection and risk,
which include the ontogenic (i.e., individual) level, microsystem (i.e.,
family) level, exosystem (including neighborhoods), and the macro­
system (i.e., broader societal level) (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979). Thus,
the impact of family processes (which can include types of ACEs) on
youth development should be contingent upon the characteristics of the
surrounding neighborhood context.
Notably, features of the neighborhood environment can shape
involvement in crime and delinquency among residents. The work on
neighborhood effects in criminology largely emerged from the social
disorganization perspective, which proposed that neighborhoods with a
high concentration of poverty, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential
mobility create a state of social disorganization that allows for crime and
delinquency (Kornhauser, 1978; Shaw & McKay, 1942). This body of
work evolved to focus on the mechanisms through which social disor­
ganization can produce crime, highlighting how these conditions un­
dermine the ability of residents to form strong social ties with one
another and engage in informal social control of their neighborhoods,
defined as the willingness for residents to work on behalf of the common
good of the neighborhood to prevent crime (Bursik Jr & Grasmick, 1999;
Sampson & Groves, 1989; Warner & Rountree, 1997). The concept of
collective efficacy is particularly important in preventing neighborhood
crime, which refers to trust among neighborhood residents and their
willingness to intervene when facing neighborhood problems to restore
social order (Sampson et al., 1997). Due to frequent social interaction
and bonds among residents, neighborhoods with strong collective effi­
cacy are characterized by a shared consensus of norms and values.
Residents can collectively work to control crime and unwanted behavior
in their neighborhoods. Indeed, a large body of work has demonstrated
that higher neighborhood collective efficacy is related to decreased
crime and delinquency (Browning et al., 2004; Morenoff et al., 2001;
Sampson et al., 1997; Sampson et al., 2002).
Apart from reducing crime in the neighborhood, perceptions of col­
lective efficacy can also operate as a protective and promotive factor
that increases positive outcomes among residents (Aisenberg & Her­
renkohl, 2008; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). In particular, percep­
tions of collective efficacy may help counter the harmful influences of
risk experiences like ACEs. Collective efficacy involves neighborhood-
level collective supervision of youth and readiness to step in to reduce
crime, which can help reduce overall involvement in delinquency and
discourage youth from engaging in delinquency outside of the home
environment (Sampson et al., 2002). Moreover, these other adults in the
neighborhood can serve as socializing agents that reinforce the collec­
tive consensus on norms and values in the neighborhood, promoting
3
Journal of Criminal Justice 90 (2024) 102143
prosocial attitudes and discouraging crime and delinquent behaviors
(Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). Collective supervision and a strong com­
munity of prosocial norms may be especially important for preventing
delinquency among youth exposed to ACEs who may have deficits in
these areas in their home lives.
Further, perceptions of collective efficacy reflect strong ties, cohe­
sion, and social support among neighbors. For youth with high ACE
exposure, perceptions of collective efficacy may set the stage for sup­
portive relationships and interactions that offset bad experiences. Mul­
tiple residents in the neighborhood playing caregiving roles helps
provide youth with a more consistent sense of security and aids them in
overcoming challenges (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008). The presence
of adults involved in the neighborhood may also serve as positive role
models who can provide guidance for youth. Indeed, work has docu­
mented the importance of connections with positive adult role models in
promoting positive outcomes among youth with ACE exposure (Bellis
et al., 2017). Moreover, social bonds with other adults in the neigh­
borhood may discourage youth from engaging in delinquency in an
effort to prevent letting down and jeopardizing relationships with pos­
itive adult role models to whom they are bonded (Catalano & Hawkins,
1996; Hirschi, 1969). Thus, collective efficacy may mitigate the influ­
ence of ACEs on delinquency by increasing the availability of positive
role models, social support, and supervision that may be lacking in the
home environment of youth with ACEs.
Despite the potential importance of collective efficacy and neigh­
borhood context in understanding the ramifications of ACEs, most work
on protective factors against the harms of ACEs and child maltreatment
has focused on conditions related to the family and individuals with
much less focus on the role of community factors (Afifi & MacMillan,
2011; Karatekin et al., 2022). However, several studies have shown that
perceptions of collective efficacy can reduce the impact of ACEs on
various negative outcomes. For instance, Madigan and colleagues found
that perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy diminished the
impact of ACEs on marital conflict among a sample of mothers in a
Canadian longitudinal study (Madigan et al., 2016). Other measures of
community resilience (community help, access to adults, opportunities
to use abilities, being treated fairly, supportive friends, role models, and
opportunities for cultural engagement) have been shown to decrease
poor health in childhood among those with four or more ACEs (Bellis
et al., 2018). Outside of work on ACEs, research has shown that per­
ceptions of collective efficacy can mitigate the impact of some specific
types of ACEs, such as the effect of neglect on childhood aggression
(Yonas et al., 2010) and the influence of abuse and neglect on trajec­
tories of offending behaviors from adolescence to young adulthood
(Wilkinson et al., 2019) and community-level collective efficacy can
mitigate the association between witnessing violence and substance use
(Fagan et al., 2014). However, research has yet to examine how
neighborhood collective efficacy may mitigate the relationship between
cumulative ACEs and delinquency.
3. Current study
Prior research and theorization suggest that ACEs and neighborhood
context are both independently important for delinquency. However, a
research gap exists in how perceived neighborhood characteristics affect
the relationship between ACEs and delinquency. Based on this gap, the
objective of this study is to examine the possible conditioning effects of
neighborhood collective efficacy. We rely on prospective longitudinal
data on at-risk youth to determine whether perceptions of neighborhood
collective efficacy moderate the relationship between ACEs and
adolescent delinquency. Grounded in prior theorization and research on
collective efficacy and involvement in crime and delinquency, we hy­
pothesize that stronger perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy
can attenuate the impact of ACEs on delinquency.
T.F. Brundidge and L. Leban Journal of Criminal Justice 90 (2024) 102143

4. Methods
4.1. Data and sample
This study used data from Longitudinal Studies on Child Abuse and
Neglect (LONGSCAN), a longitudinal study of at-risk youth initially
developed to examine the causes and consequences of child maltreat­
ment (Runyan et al., 1998). As part of this study, information was
collected from five sites selected to provide participants from the
Northwest, Midwestern, Eastern, Southwest, and Southern regions:
Chicago, Illinois; Baltimore, Maryland; Chapel Hill, North Carolina; San
Diego, California; and Seattle, Washington. The LONGSCAN over­
sampled at-risk youth based on socioeconomic factors, maternal sub­
stance abuse, and Child Protective Services records of maltreatment. At
the baseline wave in 1991, data were collected from 1354 children ages
4 to 6. Additional waves of follow-up data were collected every two
years when youth were ages 8, 12, 14, 16, and 18. The rate of attrition
was 31.2% throughout the entire study (Runyan et al., 1998).
Our study sample consists of 802 youth. This comprises all partici­
pants who remained in the LONGSCAN study through the age 16 data
collection wave and answered the Delinquent & Violent Behavior sur­
vey. There were no differences in cumulative ACEs scores, perceived
collective efficacy scores, or demographics (i.e., sex, family income,
household status, race/ethnicity) between youth missing information on
the delinquency outcome measure and those in the study sample. Over
half (61.95%) of the study sample resided in single-parent households,
and 27.16% were from low-income households. There were slightly
more girls in the sample than boys (52.62% vs. 47.38%). Regarding race
and ethnicity, the majority of the sample was Black (53.62%), followed
by White (24.06%), Hispanic (7.36%), and 14.96% fell into other racial
groups.
4.2. Delinquency
An index of delinquency was the dependent variable for his study. As
part of the Delinquent & Violent Behavior questionnaire, 16-year-olds
were asked about their participation in violent crimes, thefts, and
weapon carrying during the previous year. Responses to 22 items were
summed to generate a variety index of delinquency, an approach rec­
ommended to ensure validity and overcome bias in delinquency out­
comes (Sweeten, 2012). The delinquency index ranged from 0 to 19,
with higher scores reflecting greater involvement in delinquent acts.
ACEs, youth were coded as having experienced a given ACE if an alle­
gation was present at any assessment point.
Five forms of household instability and dysfunction were included as
ACEs. Mental illness in parents was measured during the surveys for
children aged 4, 6, 8, and 12 when caregivers responded to questions
about depression and mental illness. Youth were recorded as having
encountered this ACE if the caregiver had clinical levels of depression
and/or mental illness. Intimate partner violence between parents was
measured during the age 6, 8, and 12 surveys when caregivers provided
information about intimate partner violence they had experienced with
their partner. Children were classified as having experienced this ACE if
their caregivers reported major violence. Parent substance abuse was
measured in surveys conducted at ages 4, 8, and 12, when caregivers
reported their use of alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, PCP,
acid, heroin, speed, and tranquilizers. Children were considered to have
been exposed to this ACE if the caregiver reported current use of illegal
drugs and/or problematic levels of alcohol use. Parent criminal
involvement was measured during each data collection wave for chil­
dren between ages 6 and 12 when caregivers indicated whether a child's
parent had been arrested or imprisoned in the previous year. Parental
criminality was noted if either parent had been detained or arrested.
Family trauma was gathered from age 6 through 12 surveys when the
caregiver indicated whether the child's parents or siblings had a serious
accident, illness, or death in the previous year. If at any time one of these
incidents occurred during one of these surveys, youth were considered
to have experienced family trauma.
4.4. Perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy
An index of perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy was
examined as a moderator variable. Defined as perceptions of social
cohesion among neighbors combined with their willingness to intervene
on behalf of the common good, perceived collective efficacy was
measured from the Neighborhood Survey in the age 16 wave. On a 4-
point scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree,”
caregivers responded to 10 items in which they rated their opinions of
neighborhood informal social control (e.g., “Neighbors could be counted
on to intervene in various ways if a fight broke out in front of their
Table 1
Descriptive statistics (N = 802).
Mean/% SD Min Max

Delinquency 1.45 2.60 0 19

4.3. ACEs ACEs 3.76 2.30 0 10
0 ACEs 5.99%
A cumulative score of ACEs served as the key independent variable. 1 ACE 11.47%
2 ACEs 17.58%
Ten dichotomous ACE indicators capturing various forms of child
3 ACEs 14.34%
maltreatment and home dysfunction were constructed and summed to 4 ACEs 14.96%
create a cumulative index of ACEs ranging from 0 to 10.1 In line with the 5 ACEs 10.35%
developmental stage typically defined as “childhood” (Collins, 1984; 6 ACEs 10.72%
Fagan & Novak, 2018), we measured ACEs through age 12. 7 ACEs 8.35%
8 ACEs 4.74%
Five types of child maltreatment were included in ACEs: sexual
9 ACEs 0.87%
abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect (failure to 10 ACEs 0.62%
provide), and supervisory neglect (failure to supervise). These ACEs Collective efficacy 2.93 0.53 1 4
were derived from Child Protective Services (CPS) maltreatment alle­ Low-income status 27.16% 0 1
Single-parent household 61.95% 0 1
gations at each data collection point. For each of the five maltreatment
Race/ethnicity
Black 53.62% 0 1
White 24.06% 0 1
1
Although some studies have examined ACEs as separate categories by ACE Hispanic 7.36% 0 1
scores (e.g., Jackson et al., 2022; Pierce & Jones, 2021), we relied on a tradi­ Other 14.96% 0 1
tional cumulative ACEs index. There were small cell sizes across joint distri­ Sex
Male 47.38% 0 1
bution of ACEs scores over delinquency scores, raising concern over power
Female 52.62% 0 1
issues. These concerns may also be why much of the current work on ACEs and
delinquency continues to examine ACEs using a cumulative summative score Note. Means are displayed for delinquency, ACEs, and collective efficacy, while
approach (e.g., Fagan & Novak, 2018; Gajos et al., 2023; Leban & Gibson, 2020; sample percentages are listed for individual numbers of ACEs and dichotomous
Warner et al., 2023). variables. SD = standard deviation.

4
T.F. Brundidge and L. Leban Journal of Criminal Justice 90 (2024) 102143

Table 2 4.6. Analytic strategy

Relationships between ACEs, perceptions of collective efficacy, and de­
linquency: Negative binomial estimates (N = 802). After removing participants who did not remain in the study through
IRR b SE p age 16 and those who did not complete the Delinquent & Violent
ACEs 1.10 0.10 0.01 < 0.001
Behavior survey, missingness on control variables ranged from 0 to
Collective efficacy 0.85 − 0.16 0.11 0.155 5.74%. Little's test (Li, 2013; Little, 1988) revealed that data were not
Low income 1.00 − 0.00 0.16 0.985 missing completely at random (MCAR), implying that the data were
Single-parent household 1.11 0.11 0.17 0.428 likely missing at random (MAR). Given concerns that MAR data can
White 1.10 0.09 0.22 0.671
yield biased estimates when analyses are limited solely to the portion of
Hispanic 1.65 0.50 0.22 0.022
Other race 1.38 0.32 0.25 0.188 the sample with complete information (Donders, Van Der Heijden,
Male 1.42 0.35 0.07 < 0.001 Stijnen, & Moons, 2006), multiple imputation with chained equations
Intercept 1.07 0.07 0.41 0.873 was employed to impute missing data (MICE; White, Royston, & Wood,
F-test 123.34 < 0.001 2011). Using the mi impute package in Stata 18 (StataCorp, 2023), the 45
Note. IRR = incidence rate ratio; b = slope coefficient; SE = standard error multiply imputed datasets3 were generated using all model variables as
(robust). Estimates reflected pooled averages across 45 multiply imputed sam­ predictors of missing values. Although delinquency was included in the
ples. All models adjusted for clustering by site. Black served as race/ethnicity imputation model, we excluded observations with missing values on this
reference group. outcome in analyses in line with recommendations proper MICE pro­
cedures (White et al., 2011).
Analyses proceeded in several stages. All study variables were first
Table 3
examined descriptively. Because delinquency was a positively skewed
Average marginal effects of ACEs on delinquency across levels of perceived
and over-dispersed4 count outcome, negative binomial regression was
collective efficacy (N = 802).
used to estimate the influence of ACEs and perceptions of neighborhood
AME SE p
collective efficacy on delinquency while adjusting for control variables
Low collective efficacy 0.156 0.02 < 0.001 across 45 multiply imputed datasets.5 Diagnostic tests revealed that
Medium collective efficacy 0.131 0.01 < 0.001 variance inflation factor (VIF) values for independent variables ranged
High collective efficacy 0.106 0.03 < 0.001
from 1.00 to 1.30 (mean = 1.12), indicating that multicollinearity was
Note. AME = average marginal effect; SE = standard error (delta method). not a concern in analyses. For ease of interpretation, incidence rate ra­
Models adjusted for other covariates set to their means. tios (IRR) were calculated from regression slopes to estimate the percent
change in the expected count of delinquency. Models were estimated
house”) and social cohesion (e.g., “People around here are willing to with robust standard errors to adjust for clustering by research site.
help their neighbors”). These questions matched those used in the The next stage assessed whether perceptions of neighborhood col­
seminal work on collective efficacy (Sampson et al., 1997). The average lective efficacy conditioned the relationship between ACEs and de­
of the 10 responses was used to generate the index of perceived col­ linquency. Given recent scholarship indicating that moderation cannot
lective efficacy (α = 0.89) ranging from 1 to 4, with higher scores be established in nonlinear models merely based solely on the signifi­
indicating stronger perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy. cance of interaction term coefficients, we relied on tests of marginal
effects to determine moderation (Mize, 2019; Mustillo, Lizardo, &
McVeigh, 2018). A single imputed dataset was extracted to allow for the
4.5. Control variables
evaluation of marginal effects. The prior negative binomial model was
re-estimated with the inclusion of a multiplicative interaction term
Several demographic indicators were included as statistical control
reflecting the product of ACEs and neighborhood collective efficacy.
variables in analyses. Binary indicators of single parent household and
Marginal effects from the interaction model were calculated and
low income status were measured at age 16. Youth were coded as
graphed across levels of ACEs and collective efficacy. Following com­
residing in a single parent household if their caregivers reported not
mon guidance for graphing interactions (e.g., Aiken, West, & Reno,
being married, and youth were recorded as low income if the caregiver
1991), we estimated predicted values of delinquency across three strata
stated that the household made less than $15,000 per year, following
of perceived collective efficacy: 1) at the mean, 2) at one standard de­
poverty line data for the year of data collection (Villodas et al., 2012).
viation above the mean, and 3) at one standard deviation below the
Race/ethnicity of each child was reported at baseline and was recoded
mean. We define these strata as “medium,” “high,” and “low,” respec­
into a series of dichotomous variables to reflect the categories of White,
tively. We then tested whether marginal effects significantly differed at
Black, Hispanic, or other. Black was treated as the reference group, given
each ACE score across the three levels of perceived collective efficacy.
that the majority of the sample fell into this category. Gender was also
reported at baseline as 1 (male) or 0 (female). In response to recent work
5. Results
demonstrating the contributions of theoretical variables in the link be­
tween ACEs and delinquency, we refrained from using theoretical con­
Descriptive statistics for the sample are presented in Table 1. The
trol variables (e.g., delinquent peer association, low self-control) due to
average number of ACEs experienced by the sample was 3.76 (SD =
concerns about introducing collider bias. That is, rather than being true
2.30). Only 5.99% of the sample did not experience any ACEs, while
confounders, these theoretical variables may serve as colliders, in which
35.66% of the sample experienced 5 or more ACEs. The majority of the
they are caused by both ACEs and delinquency cause them (Novak et al.,
2023).2 This control variable selection is consistent with prior work on
ACEs and delinquency using the LONGSCAN data (Leban & Delacruz,
2023a, 2023b; Novak & Fagan, 2022). 3
Based on the fraction of incomplete cases for our sample (44.46%), we
imputed 45 datasets following the rule of thumb that the number of imputations
should exceed this fraction of incomplete cases (White et al., 2011).
2 4
For example, research shown that ACEs can lead to both delinquent peer Dispersion was evaluated using the overdisp test in Stata 18 (Fávero, Bel­
association (Jones et al., 2023) and decreases in self-control (Chappel et al., fiore, dos Santos, & Souza, 2020), which indicated significant overdispersion of
2021), while research also suggests that delinquency can shape low self-control the delinquency outcome (b = 1.92, p < .001).
5
(Billen et al., 2022; Vazsonyi & Jiskrova, 2018) and delinquent peer association Compared to multiply imputed data, negative binomial models conducted
(Thornberry, Lizotte, Krohn, Farnworth, & Jang, 1994). on unimputed data did not result in meaningful differences in estimates.

5
T.F. Brundidge and L. Leban Journal of Criminal Justice 90 (2024) 102143

Fig. 1. Average marginal effects of ACEs across levels of perceived collective efficacy.

sample (58.35%) experienced 1 through 4 ACEs. The average perceived across higher levels of perceived collective efficacy. Compared to low
collective efficacy score for the sample was 2.93 (SD = 0.53). The perceived collective efficacy, the average marginal effect of ACEs on
average delinquency score for the sample was 1.45 (SD = 2.60). delinquency was 0.050 lower at high perceived collective efficacy, and
Table 2 displays results from the negative binomial regression model 0.025 lower at medium perceived collective efficacy. The average
estimating the impact of ACEs and perceptions of collective efficacy on marginal effect of ACEs on delinquency was 0.025 lower at medium
delinquency. ACEs were significantly related to adolescent delinquency perceived collective efficacy relative to high perceived collective effi­
at age 16 (IRR = 1.10, b = 0.10, p < .001), indicating that each added cacy. These results illustrate reductions in ACE's impact on delinquency
ACE exposure increased the youth's number of delinquent acts by 10%. across stronger perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy,
Perceptions of collective efficacy were not related to delinquency in this providing initial evidence of a conditioning effect.
model. Regarding demographics, youth who were Hispanic engaged in Predictive margins for each number of ACEs were calculated across
significantly more delinquency (IRR = 1.64, b = 0.50, p = .022) relative levels of perceived collective efficacy. Presented in Table 4 and visually
to Black youth, and males had significantly more delinquent involve­ depicted in Fig. 2, these predictions reflect the predicted counts of de­
ment (IRR = 1.42, b = 0.35, p < .001) than females. linquency at each ACE score by all three levels of perceived collective
To examine the conditioning role of perceptions of collective efficacy efficacy with other covariates set to their means. These results again
on the relationship between ACEs and delinquency, average marginal implied that collective efficacy moderated the impact of ACEs on de­
effects of ACEs were first estimated across levels of perceived neigh­ linquency, in which the positive relationship between ACEs and de­
borhood collective efficacy while holding other model covariates at their linquency was weaker across higher levels of perceived collective
means. As displayed in Table 3 and Fig. 1, these results show that the efficacy relative to lower perceptions of collective efficacy. However,
relationship between ACEs and delinquency is significant at high (AME this moderation effect varied in significance depending on the number of
= 0.106, p < .001), medium (AME = 0.131, p < .001), and low (AME = ACEs youth experienced. (See Table 5.)
0.156, p < .001) levels of perceived collective efficacy. Although ACEs Tests of differences in margins indicated that collective efficacy
were associated with increases in predicted delinquency at all levels of significantly moderated the impact of ACEs on delinquency for ACE
perceived collective efficacy, the magnitude of the increase was lower scores of 5 through 10. Across each pairwise comparison of levels of
perceived collective efficacy, the predicted count of delinquency was
Table 4
lower for the higher level of collective efficacy (e.g., high vs. low; high
Margins across levels of perceived collective efficacy (N = 802). vs. medium; medium vs. low collective efficacy), but these reductions
were statistically significant only for ACE scores of 5 or greater. This
Low Medium High
Collective Efficacy Collective Efficacy Collective Efficacy
moderation was approaching significance for ACE scores of 4 (high
compared to low collective efficacy: p = .066; high compared to medium
ACEs Margin SE Margin SE Margin SE
collective efficacy: p = .051, and medium versus low collective efficacy:
0 1.04 0.21 0.93 0.07 0.82 0.11 p = .089). See Table 4 for specific predicted counts of delinquency across
1 1.15 0.21 1.03 0.08 0.90 0.10
all levels of this interaction.
2 1.27 0.21 1.13 0.08 0.99 0.08
3 1.41 0.20 1.25 0.09 1.08 0.07
These results demonstrate that perceptions of collective efficacy
4 1.56 0.19 1.38 0.09 1.19 0.05 significantly moderated the association between ACEs and delinquency
5 1.73 0.18 1.52 0.10 1.30 0.04 for youth exposed to 5 or more ACEs and may also moderate the asso­
6 1.91 0.17 1.67 0.11 1.42 0.06 ciation between 4 ACEs and delinquency. Perceptions of collective ef­
7 2.12 0.16 1.84 0.12 1.56 0.09
ficacy did not moderate the effect of 3 or fewer ACEs on delinquency.
8 2.35 0.16 2.03 0.13 1.71 0.14
9 2.60 0.18 2.24 0.15 1.87 0.20 This suggests that perceptions of collective efficacy have buffering
10 2.88 0.22 2.47 0.17 2.05 0.27

Note. SE = standard error (delta method). Margins were estimated with other
model variables set to their means.

6
T.F. Brundidge and L. Leban Journal of Criminal Justice 90 (2024) 102143

Fig. 2. Predictive margins across levels of perceived collective efficacy.

Table 5
Differences in marginal effects across levels of perceived collective efficacy (N = 802).
High vs. Low High vs. Medium Medium vs. Low
Collective Efficacy Collective Efficacy Collective Efficacy

ACEs Contrast SE p Contrast SE p Contrast SE p

0 0.21 0.30 0.477 0.11 0.15 0.453 0.10 0.15 0.501

1 0.25 0.29 0.388 0.13 0.14 0.360 0.12 0.15 0.415
2 0.28 0.26 0.284 0.15 0.13 0.255 0.14 0.14 0.312
3 0.33 0.24 0.170 0.17 0.11 0.144 0.16 0.12 0.196
4 0.37 0.20 0.066 0.19 0.10 0.051 0.18 0.11 0.084
5 0.43 0.17 0.009 0.22 0.08 0.006 0.21 0.09 0.014
6 0.49 0.13 < 0.001 0.25 0.06 < 0.001 0.24 0.07 < 0.001
7 0.56 0.12 < 0.001 0.28 0.06 < 0.001 0.28 0.06 < 0.001
8 0.64 0.16 < 0.001 0.32 0.08 < 0.001 0.32 0.09 < 0.001
9 0.73 0.26 0.004 0.37 0.12 0.002 0.36 0.14 0.009
10 0.83 0.38 0.029 0.42 0.18 0.017 0.41 0.21 0.046

Note. SE = standard error (delta method). Margins were estimated with other model variables set to their means.

effects only against high levels of ACEs and may not play a supportive
role for those with lower ACE exposure.6
6. Conclusion and discussion
Youth exposure to ACEs has been linked to a wide array of subse­
quent harmful and problematic outcomes, including involvement in
crime and delinquency. Yet, many people who experience adversity and
trauma in childhood do not engage in crime and delinquency, raising
questions about other conditions and experiences that shape responses
to ACEs. The neighborhood environment is an influential context for
youth, and in particular, neighborhood collective efficacy is an impor­
tant source of collective social support that can reduce crime and
6
In supplemental analyses, we re-estimated our models substituting a binary
indicator of high vs. low ACEs (1 = 5+ ACEs) in place of the cumulative ACEs
score. These results did not change meaningfully from those in the models using
the cumulative ACEs score. There continued to be a positive and significant
association between ACEs and delinquency in negative binomial estimates and
marginal effects revealed that stronger perceptions of collective efficacy
significantly moderated the impact of experiencing 5 or more ACEs on
delinquency.
delinquency. Despite the relevance of both collective efficacy and ACEs
to understanding delinquency, there is a gap in our understanding of
how ACEs and collective efficacy interact with one another and how
their interaction relates to delinquency. Accordingly, the goal of this
study was to investigate the conditioning role of perceptions of neigh­
borhood collective efficacy in the relationship between ACEs and de­
linquency in adolescence.
Our research revealed several key insights. Perceived neighborhood
collective efficacy moderated the impact of ACEs on delinquency, such
that stronger perceptions of collective efficacy ameliorated the influence
of ACEs on adolescents' involvement in delinquency. More specifically,
we found that perceived collective efficacy diminished the impact of
ACEs on delinquency for youth exposed to high levels of adversity (5 or
more ACEs). For youth who have experienced a considerable amount of
adversity in their home environment, high levels of perceived collective
efficacy in the neighborhood may provide an important source of social
support to weaken the impact of ACEs and provide the added capacity
for informal social control to reduce involvement in delinquency.
Although our study indicated that the impact of ACEs on delinquency
decreased across higher levels of perceived collective efficacy, ACEs
were significantly related to delinquency regardless of the level of
perceived neighborhood collective efficacy. Despite its supportive

7
T.F. Brundidge and L. Leban
benefits, there was no point at which perceptions of collective efficacy
removed the effect of ACEs on delinquency altogether. These results
imply that ACEs remain a persistent force in the face of potential pro­
tective factors and underscore the crucial role of ACEs in delinquent
involvement.
These findings have important theoretical relevance for under­
standing the interplay between collective efficacy and adversity.
Although the relationship between collective efficacy and crime and
delinquency has been well-documented, fewer studies have investigated
the role of perceptions of collective efficacy as a protective factor against
risk, and (to our knowledge) no prior work has examined the potential
for perceptions of collective efficacy to buffer the influence of ACEs on
delinquency. Our results add to this small body of literature by
demonstrating that perceptions of collective efficacy have buffering ef­
fects against moderate and high levels of ACEs as it relates to adolescent
involvement in delinquency. These findings suggest that the impact of
ACEs on delinquency may be at least partially mitigated by strong per­
ceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy. Further, our results imply
that perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy do not play a sup­
portive role for those with lower ACE exposure. It is plausible that a
threshold effect exists wherein perceived collective efficacy offers pro­
tection only among those with higher risk. This may reflect the stress-
buffering or immunity model of resilience, which emphasizes that pro­
tective factors should be most protective for those with higher levels of
exposure to risk (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen,
1984).
The current study has several limitations that should be considered
along with its findings. The LONGSCAN followed a sample of at-risk
youth, so caution should be taken in generalizing results to other pop­
ulations. Although such a sample was important to ensure sufficient
prevalence of adversity for the current study, an at-risk sample may be at
an already heightened likelihood of engaging in delinquency. ACE items
reflecting forms of child maltreatment were based on officially reported
Child Protective Services allegations, which may have captured fewer
incidents than self-reports. This approach may also reflect a pronounced
visibility of maltreatment, as the more severe, ongoing, and visible
patterns of maltreatment may be most likely to be reported. In addition,
the LONGSCAN did not follow a multilevel neighborhood-based study
design in which data are collected from individuals nested within
neighborhoods, yielding data at both the individual and neighborhood
levels of analysis. Although containing items identical to the seminal
collective efficacy measure (Sampson et al., 1997), our collective effi­
cacy measure could not be aggregated to the neighborhood level. Thus,
collective efficacy scores in our study were measured at the individual
level and reflect parents' reported perceptions of collective efficacy in
their neighborhoods. It should be noted that the characteristic is typi­
cally aggregated to the neighborhood level and defined as an emergent
characteristic of neighborhoods, although other studies have measured
collective efficacy as individual-level perception as we did (e.g., Arm­
strong, Katz, & Schnebly, 2015; Gibson, Zhao, Lovrich, & Gaffney,
2002), including much of the prior work on the protective effect of
collective efficacy (e.g., Madigan et al., 2016; Wilkinson et al., 2019;
Yonas et al., 2010).
Nonetheless, our study highlights the significance of perceived col­
lective efficacy in shaping the ramifications of ACEs and the potential for
protective experiences to offset the damaging effects of ACEs on de­
linquency, and in doing so, reveals several important opportunities for
continued research in this area. While the current study found that
perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy attenuated the impact of
ACEs on delinquency, the precise mechanisms of this process remain
unclear. Future research should examine more specifically how collec­
tive efficacy operates to reduce delinquency among youth exposed to
ACEs, perhaps investigating characteristics such as the presence of social
support and guidance from adults in the community, frequency of
interaction between residents, or level of monitoring and surveillance by
adult residents. Such nuanced information can provide more specific
8
Journal of Criminal Justice 90 (2024) 102143
guidance for policy and practice. In addition, our focus was on percep­
tions of collective efficacy, but there is a need to evaluate other neigh­
borhood protective factors that could buffer the impact of ACEs on
delinquency. For instance, future work should consider factors such as
neighborhood social activity patterns or the availability of institutional
resources in the neighborhood like libraries, childcare, and organized
social and recreational activities. Moreover, researchers might further
investigate the relevance of protective factors from other domains
beyond the neighborhood context. Youth can be exposed to positive
experiences and conditions at the family, peer, school, community, and
societal levels, which all could be relevant in influencing resilience to
ACEs. It is also worth examining how protective factors may operate in
conjunction with one another to reduce the consequences of ACEs. For
instance, work on Positive Childhood Experiences (PCEs) examines the
cumulative impact of various protective conditions and experiences in
promoting positive outcomes and reducing negative outcomes (Baglivio
& Wolff, 2020; Craig et al., 2022; Novak & Fagan, 2022). Gaining
knowledge of how various sources of adversity and protection interact is
critical for understanding the process of developing resilience.
Future work should consider expanding the way we approach and
conceptualize adversity to allow for a more nuanced understanding of
the link between ACEs and delinquency. Our study relied on a tradi­
tionally constructed cumulative ACEs index comprised of ACE items
reflecting household-based adversities, but future research should
expand the conceptualization of ACEs beyond the household domain to
provide a more comprehensive evaluation of adversity (Warner et al.,
2023). Such an expansion could allow for more nuanced examinations of
how adverse conditions interact with protective experiences. Relatedly,
in the pursuit of unraveling the nuanced relationships between ACEs,
protective factors, and delinquency, it is important for work to explore
how these processes may vary by subgroups. Given that work has
demonstrated differences in the impact of ACEs by race (Fagan & Novak,
2018; Leban & Masterson, 2022) and gender (Leban, 2021; Leban &
Gibson, 2020; Pierce & Jones, 2021), examining how neighborhood
characteristics may interact with ACEs differently by subgroups is a
valuable line of future inquiry.
Our findings are of practical importance for policy and practice
aiming to reduce delinquency and build resilience in the face of adver­
sity. Our results suggest that communities marked by strong perceptions
of collective efficacy can lessen the impact of ACEs on juvenile de­
linquency. Consequently, one key tactic to help reduce the consequences
of ACEs and lower crime and delinquency may be to develop strong
communities with high collective efficacy. Yet, despite the promise of
increasing strategies to improve neighborhoods, efforts to prevent ACEs
remain critical. Even when accounting for perceptions of neighborhood
collective efficacy, our findings showed a consistent association between
ACEs and delinquent involvement, underscoring the importance of
prioritizing strategies to reduce ACEs as a whole.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ter'Ricka F. Brundidge: Conceptualization, Formal analysis,
Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Lindsay Leban: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Methodology.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
T.F. Brundidge and L. Leban
Appendix A. Appendix
Items in Indices.
A.1. Neighborhood collective efficacy
People around here are willing to help their neighbors.
This is a close knit neighborhood.
People in this neighborhood can be trusted.
People in this neighborhood do not share the same values. (Reverse
coded).
People in this neighborhood generally don't get along. (Reverse
coded).
My neighbors could be counted on to intervene in various ways if
children were skipping school.
Neighbors could be counted on to intervene in various ways if chil­
dren were spray-painting graffiti on a local building.
Neighbors could intervene in various ways if children were showing
disrespect to an adult.
Neighbors could be counted on to intervene in various ways if a fight
broke out in front of their house.
Neighbors could be counted on to intervene in various ways if the fire
station closest to their home was threatened with budget cuts.
A.2. Delinquency
How many times in the last year have you:
Carried a hidden weapon?
Avoided paying for things such as movies, bus or subway rides, food,
or computer services?
Stolen or tried to steal money or things worth $5 or less?
Purposely damaged or destroyed property that did not belong to you
(for example, breaking, cutting or marking up something)?
Stolen or tried to steal money or things worth between $5 and $50?
Snatched someone's purse or wallet or picked someone's pocket?
Knowingly bought, held, or stolen goods or tried to do any of these
things?
Gone joyriding, that is, taken a motor vehicle such as a car or
motorcycle for a ride or drive without the owner's permission?
Used a slug or fake money to pay for something?
Used or tried to use checks, credit or bankcards without the owner's
permission?
Tried to cheat someone by selling them something that was worthless
or not what you said it was?
Attacked someone with a weapon or with the idea of seriously
hurting or killing them?
Thrown objects such as rocks or bottles at people (other than events
you have already mentioned)?
Purposely set fire to a house, building, car, or other property or tried
to do so?
Gone into or tried to go into a building to steal something?
Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle such as a car or motorcycle?
Stolen or tried to steal money or things worth $100 or more?
Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle such as a car or motorcycle?
References
Afifi, T. O., & MacMillan, H. L. (2011). Resilience following child maltreatment: A review
of protective factors. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(5), 266–272.
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency.
Criminology, 30, 47–88.
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Sage.
Aisenberg, E., & Herrenkohl, T. (2008). Community violence in context: Risk and
resilience in children and families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(3), 296–315.
Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (3rd ed.) Wadsworth.
9
Journal of Criminal Justice 90 (2024) 102143
Armstrong, T. A., Katz, C. M., & Schnebly, S. M. (2015). The relationship between citizen
perceptions of collective efficacy and neighborhood violent crime. Crime &
Delinquency, 61(1), 121–142.
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 oaf Juvenile Justice, 3(2).
Baglivio, M. T., & Wolff, K. T. (2020). Positive childhood experiences (PCE): Cumulative
resiliency in the face of adverse childhood experiences. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 19(2), 139–162.
Baglivio, M. T., Wolff, K. T., Epps, N., & Nelson, R. (2017). Predicting adverse childhood
experiences: The importance of neighborhood context in youth trauma among
delinquent youth. Crime & Delinquency, 63(2), 166–188.
Bellis, M. A., Hardcastle, K., Ford, K., Hughes, K., Ashton, K., Quigg, Z., & Butler, N.
(2017). Does continuous trusted adult support in childhood impart life-course
resilience against adverse childhood experiences-a retrospective study on adult
health-harming behaviours and mental well-being. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 1–12.
Bellis, M. A., Hughes, K., Ford, K., Hardcastle, K. A., Sharp, C. A., Wood, S., … Davies, A.
(2018). Adverse childhood experiences and sources of childhood resilience: A
retrospective study of their combined relationships with child health and
educational attendance. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–12.
Billen, E., Garofalo, C., Weller, J. A., Kirisci, L., Reynolds, M., Tarter, R. E., & Bogaerts, S.
(2022). Bidirectional associations between self-regulation and deviance from
adolescence to adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 34(1), 335–344.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. The
American Psychologist, 32(7), 513.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
Brown, S. M., & Shillington, A. M. (2017). Childhood adversity and the risk of substance
use and delinquency: The role of protective adult relationships. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 63, 211–221.
Browning, C. R., Feinberg, S. L., & Dietz, R. D. (2004). The paradox of social
organization: Networks, collective efficacy and violent crime in urban
neighborhoods. Social Forces, 83(2), 503–534.
Bunting, L., Davidson, G., McCartan, C., Hanratty, J., Bywaters, P., Mason, W., &
Steils, N. (2018). The association between child maltreatment and adult poverty - a
systematic review of longitudinal research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 77, 121–133.
Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Grasmick, H. G. (1999). Neighborhoods & crime. Lexington Books.
Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of
antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories
(pp. 149–197). Cambridge University Press.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Adverse Childhood Experiences
(ACES): Preventing early trauma to improve adult health. CDC Vital Signs. November
https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/82318.
Chapple, C. L., Pierce, H., & Jones, M. S. (2021). Gender, adverse childhood experiences,
and the development of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 74. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101811
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.
Collins, W. A. (1984). Development during middle childhood: The years from six to twelve.
National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216778.
Craig, J. M., Baglivio, M. T., Wolff, K. T., Piquero, A. R., & Epps, N. (2017). Do social
bonds buffer the impact of adverse childhood experiences on reoffending? Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15(1), 3–20.
Craig, J. M., Wolff, K. T., & Baglivio, M. T. (2022). Clustering of adverse and positive
childhood experiences: The nature and correlates of risk and protective factors. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105878
Derzon, J. H. (2010). The correspondence of family features with problem, aggressive,
criminal, and violent behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
6(3), 263–292.
Donders, A. R. T., Van Der Heijden, G. J., Stijnen, T., & Moons, K. G. (2006). A gentle
introduction to imputation of missing values. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(10),
1087–1091.
Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., & Croft, J. B. (2002). Adverse
childhood experiences and personal alcohol abuse as an adult. Addictive Behaviors, 27
(5), 713–725.
Dube, S. R., Felitti, V. J., Dong, M., Chapman, D. P., Giles, W. H., & Anda, R. F. (2003).
Childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use:
The adverse childhood experiences study. Pediatrics, 111(3), 564–572.
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), e778–e786.
DuMont, K. A., Widom, C. S., & Czaja, S. J. (2007). Predictors of resilience in abused and
neglected children grown-up: The role of individual and neighborhood
characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(3), 255–274.
Edwards, V. J., Holden, G. W., Felitti, V. J., & Anda, R. F. (2003). Relationship between
multiple forms of childhood maltreatment and adult mental health in community
respondents: Results from the adverse childhood experiences study. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 160(8), 1453–1460.
Fagan, A. A., & Novak, A. (2018). Adverse childhood experiences and adolescent
delinquency in a high-risk sample: A comparison of white and black youth. Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice, 16(4), 395–417.
Fagan, A. A., Wright, E. M., & Pinchevsky, G. M. (2014). The protective effects of
neighborhood collective efficacy on adolescent substance use and violence following
exposure to violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1498–1512.
Fávero, L. P. L., Belfiore, P., dos Santos, M. A., & Souza, R. F. (2020). Overdisp: A Stata
(and Mata) package for direct detection of overdispersion in poisson and negative
T.F. Brundidge and L. Leban
binomial regression models. Statistics, Optimization & Information Computing, 8(3),
773–789.
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., &
Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to
many of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences
(ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258.
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected
component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(1), 7–26.
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.
Gajos, J. M., Leban, L., Weymouth, B. B., & Cropsey, K. L. (2023). Sex differences in the
relationship between early adverse childhood experiences, delinquency, and
substance use initiation in high-risk adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38
(1–2), 311–335.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in
children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development,
55, 97–111.
Gibson, C. L., Zhao, J., Lovrich, N. P., & Gaffney, M. J. (2002). Social integration,
individual perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities. Justice
Quarterly, 19(3), 537–564.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University
Press.
Graf, G. H. J., Chihuri, S., Blow, M., & Li, G. (2021). Adverse childhood experiences and
justice system contact: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 147(1).
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hughes, K., Bellis, M. A., Hardcastle, K. A., Sethi, D., Butchart, A., Mikton, C., …
Dunne, M. P. (2017). The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health, 2(8), e356–e366.
Jackson, D. B., Jindal, M., Testa, A., Ganson, K. T., Fix, R. L., & Nagata, J. M. (2022).
Adverse childhood experiences and adolescent police contact in the United Kingdom.
Pediatrics, 150(4), Article e2021055889.
Jaffee, S. R. (2017). Child maltreatment and risk for psychopathology in childhood and
adulthood. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13(1), 525–551.
Jaffee, S. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Polo-Tomas, M., & Taylor, A. (2007). Individual,
family, and neighborhood factors distinguish resilient from non-resilient maltreated
children: A cumulative stressors model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(3), 231–253.
Jones, M. S., Pierce, H., & Shoaf, H. (2023). Early exposure to adverse childhood
experiences and delinquent peer association among youth. Family Relations. https://
doi.org/10.1111/fare.12856
Karatekin, C., Mason, S. M., Riegelman, A., Bakker, C., Hunt, S., Gresham, B., …
Barnes, A. (2022). Adverse childhood experiences: A scoping review of measures and
methods. Children and Youth Services Review, 136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2022.106425
Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic models.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leban, L. (2021). The effects of adverse childhood experiences and gender on
developmental trajectories of internalizing and externalizing outcomes. Crime &
Delinquency, 67(5), 631–661.
Leban, L., & Delacruz, D. J. (2023a). Adverse childhood experiences and delinquency:
Does age of assessment matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 86. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102033
Leban, L., & Delacruz, D. J. (2023b). Gendered relationships between adverse childhood
experiences, negative emotional states, and violent delinquency. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 38(15–16), 9132–9158.
Leban, L., & Gibson, C. L. (2020). The role of gender in the relationship between adverse
childhood experiences and delinquency and substance use in adolescence. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrim- jus.2019.101637
Leban, L., & Masterson, M. (2022). The impact of childhood school suspension on
dropout and arrest in adolescence: Disparate relationships by race and adverse
childhood experiences. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(4), 550–569.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of
neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin,
126(2), 309.
Li, C. (2013). Little's test of missing completely at random. The Stata Journal, 13(4),
795–809.
Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with
missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202.
Madigan, S., Wade, M., Plamondon, A., & Jenkins, J. M. (2016). Neighborhood collective
efficacy moderates the association between maternal adverse childhood experiences
and marital conflict. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57(3–4), 437–447.
Mize, T. D. (2019). Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear
interaction effects. Sociology of the sciences, 6, 81–117.
Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality,
collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39(3),
517–560.
Mustillo, S. A., Lizardo, O. A., & McVeigh, R. M. (2018). Editors’ comment: A few
guidelines for quantitative submissions. American Sociological Review, 83(6),
1281–1283.
10
Journal of Criminal Justice 90 (2024) 102143
Novak, A., Boutwell, B. B., & Smith, T. B. (2023). Taking the problem of colliders
seriously in the study of crime: A research note. Journal of Experimental Criminology.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09565-x
Novak, A., & Fagan, A. A. (2022). The conditioning effects of positive experiences on the
ACEs-offending relationship in adolescence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 134. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105915
Perez, N. M., Jennings, W. G., & Baglivio, M. T. (2018). A path to serious, violent, chronic
delinquency: The harmful aftermath of adverse childhood experiences. Crime &
Delinquency, 64(1), 3–25.
Pierce, H., & Jones, M. S. (2021). Gender differences in the accumulation, timing, and
duration of childhood adverse experiences and youth delinquency in fragile families.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 59(1), 3–43.
Runyan, D. K., Curtis, P. A., Hunter, W. M., Black, M. M., Kotch, J. B., Bangdiwala, S., …
Landsverk, J. (1998). LONGSCAN: A consortium for longitudinal studies of
maltreatment and the life course of children. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3(3),
275–285.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-
disorganization theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing “neighborhood
effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology,
28, 443–478.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime:
A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of
Chicago Press.
StataCorp. (2023). Stata statistical software: Release 18. College Station, TX: StataCorp
LLC.
Sweeten, G. (2012). Scaling criminal offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28,
533–557.
Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Farnworth, M., & Jang, S. J. (1994).
Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test of
interactional theory. Criminology, 32(1), 47–83.
Turner, R. J., & Lloyd, D. A. (1995). Lifetime traumas and mental health: The significance
of cumulative adversity. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36(4), 360–376.
Vazsonyi, A. T., & Jiskrova, G. K. (2018). On the development of self-control and
deviance from preschool to middle adolescence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 56,
60–69.
Villodas, M. T., Litrowick, A. J., Thompson, R., Roesch, S. C., English, D. J., Dubowitz, H.,
… Runyan, D. K. (2012). Changes in youth’s experiences of child maltreatment
across developmental periods in the LONGSCAN consortium. Psychology of Violence,
2(4), 325–338.
Wang, D., Choi, J. K., & Shin, J. (2020). Long-term neighborhood effects on adolescent
outcomes: Mediated through adverse childhood experiences and parenting stress.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(10), 2160–2173.
Warner, B. D., & Rountree, P. W. (1997). Local social ties in a community and crime
model: Questioning the systemic nature of informal social control. Social Problems,
44(4), 520–536.
Warner, T. D., Leban, L., Pester, D. A., & Walker, J. T. (2023). Contextualizing adverse
childhood experiences: The intersections of individual and community adversity.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52(3), 570–584.
White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. (2011). Multiple imputation using chained
equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30(4), 377–399.
Widom, C. S. (2014). Longterm consequences of child maltreatment. In J. Korbin, &
R. Krugman (Eds.), Vol. 2. Handbook of child maltreatment. Dordrecht: Springer.
Wilkinson, A., Lantos, H., McDaniel, T., & Winslow, H. (2019). Disrupting the link
between maltreatment and delinquency: How school, family, and community factors
can be protective. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–15.
Wolff, K. T., Cuevas, C., Intravia, J., Baglivio, M. T., & Epps, N. (2018). The effects of
neighborhood context on exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACE) among
adolescents involved in the juvenile justice system: Latent classes and contextual
effects. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 2279–2300.
Yonas, M. A., Lewis, T., Hussey, J. M., Thompson, R., Newton, R., English, D., &
Dubowitz, H. (2010). Perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy moderate the
impact of maltreatment on aggression. Child Maltreatment, 15(1), 37–47.
Ter'Ricka F. Brundidge received her bachelor's degree in criminal justice from the Uni­
versity of Alabama at Birmingham in 2023. She is currently enrolled in the master's
criminal justice program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and plans to grad­
uate in spring 2025. Her research interests include juvenile justice, victimization, labeling
theory, and social learning theory.
Lindsay Leban, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham. She earned her PhD in Criminology from the
University of Florida in 2018. Her research lies within the domains of victimization and
drug/substance use, with a particular focus on gender and criminological theory. Much of
her current work centers on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), with the aim of un­
derstanding the variability in the effects of ACEs and their intersection with other forms of
disadvantage.