The Informant

CDCR

By Richard Gilliam

An article in the March 21, 2011 New Yorker magazine entitled “The Poverty Clinic” by Paul Tough discusses the effects–physiological, psychological, and cognitive–of  Adverse Childhood Experiences on children and adolescents. The discussion was largely based on a study on the long-term effects of childhood trauma. The “ACE study” as it is commonly called, assessed the health outcomes of patients enrolled at Kaiser Permanente between 1994 and 1998. Study subjects were asked to fill out a questionnaire describing what types of, if any, traumatic experiences they had as children. The survey garnered some startling results.

For the “ACE” score, researchers assigned a point for each category of trauma subjects said they had experienced. The categories included parental divorce, physical abuse, emotional neglect, sexual abuse, and others, such as whether subjects had grown up with family members who suffered from mental illness, alcohol, or drug problems.

The study found a “stunning” correlation between adverse childhood experiences and negative adult outcomes, from addictive behavior to a myriad of chronic diseases. For example, “those with an ACE score of 4 of higher were twice as likely to smoke, 7 times as likely to be alcoholics, and 6 times more likely to have sex before the age of 15.” Subjects with ACE scores of 4 or higher were 12 times more likely to attempt suicide and men with an ACE score of 6 or higher were 46 times more likely to inject drugs than men who had no history of ACEs.

This an other studies led researchers to believe that repeated instances of childhood trauma actually alter the chemistry of DNA in the brain “through a process called methylation.”

During the 1960s, lawmakers were influenced by such research. Out of this was created childhood programs such as Head Start and “Sesame Street.” But, since childhood trauma still exists, societal manifestations of that trauma remain.

Several approaches to correct the effects of early childhood trauma are being examined. Psychopharmacology: combatting chemical imbalances with chemicals is one. Evidence also exists that changing the behavior (where possible) of parents or caregivers can help repair a child’s overtaxed stress-response system. A Delaware study tracked the success of promoting more secure emotional attachments between children and foster parents. In terms of helping older subjects, there is evidence that certain cognitive-behavioral therapies can reduce anxiety and depression in patients that suffer from the stress of early trauma.

But what about adults suffering from the effects of early childhood trauma? And what does this mean in the criminal justice context?

It means that the individual is the product of his or her environment and not solely responsible for his behavior.

With this new information in hand, why not re-evaluate the way we treat and rehabilitate offenders? It’s time to remove the care and treatment of offenders from those possessing a law enforcement background and entrust it to medical and psychological professionals trained to assess and treat the root causes of behavioral problems. Hard science backs this up. A study conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that cognitive-behavioral treatment programs in prison reduced recidivism by 8.2 percent on average. This translates to reduced prison populations and a significant savings for taxpayers. And at a time of economic stress, that’s just sound thinking.

Richard Gilliam is a writer serving time in a California Prison.