Trauma and criminal behavior examines the psychological mechanisms through which adverse, threatening, or overwhelming experiences — particularly those occurring in childhood and adolescence — elevate the probability of subsequent criminal conduct. The empirical association between trauma exposure and criminal behavior is robust across measurement approaches, sample types, and research designs: individuals who have experienced physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence exposure, community violence, and other traumatic events are substantially more likely to engage in criminal behavior than those who have not, with the strongest effects for early and repeated trauma, for trauma occurring within caregiving relationships, and for trauma that disrupts the developmental processes most central to behavioral self-regulation. Psychology and Criminology approaches this relationship through the specific psychological and neurobiological mechanisms that trauma research has identified — not as an argument for reducing criminal accountability, but as a foundation for designing the trauma-informed interventions that reduce criminal behavior more effectively than approaches that ignore trauma’s role in producing it.
The concept of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) — developed by Felitti and Anda through their landmark retrospective study at Kaiser Permanente in the late 1990s — has provided the most influential framework for understanding how childhood adversity accumulates across experience domains to produce adult health and behavioral outcomes. The ACEs framework documents that adverse childhood experiences including abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction are far more prevalent than previously recognized in the general population, that they cluster rather than occurring in isolation, that their effects on adult outcomes are dose-dependent (more ACEs produce worse outcomes), and that they extend across a remarkably broad range of health, mental health, and social outcomes including — centrally for criminological purposes — substance use, violence, and incarceration.
Introduction
Understanding the trauma-crime relationship requires distinguishing several analytically distinct but empirically overlapping questions. First, there is the question of prevalence: how common is trauma exposure in criminal populations? The answer is unambiguous — dramatically more common than in comparable non-criminal populations, with research documenting that the vast majority of incarcerated individuals have experienced significant trauma, particularly in childhood. Second, there is the question of mechanism: through what psychological and neurobiological processes does trauma translate into criminal behavior? Third, there is the question of specificity: which types of trauma, at which developmental stages, and under which contextual conditions, most strongly predict which types of criminal behavior? Fourth, there is the question of intervention: what trauma-informed approaches most effectively reduce criminal behavior by addressing the trauma pathways through which it was produced?
Each question requires different evidence and generates different policy implications. The prevalence question establishes the scale of the problem and justifies investment in trauma-informed approaches. The mechanism question specifies what those approaches must address to be effective — the specific psychological and neurobiological consequences of trauma that, if unaddressed, perpetuate criminal behavior regardless of other interventions. The specificity question enables targeting of the most intensive interventions toward the populations with the highest trauma-crime risk. And the intervention question provides the evidence base for the specific programs and practices that criminal justice and community systems should implement.
Adverse Childhood Experiences and Criminal Outcomes
The ACE Study and Its Criminal Justice Extensions
The original ACE study — published by Felitti and colleagues in 1998 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine — documented the extraordinary prevalence of childhood adversity in a relatively affluent, predominantly white, insured California population: 28% reported physical abuse, 21% sexual abuse, 11% witnessed domestic violence, and similar proportions reported household substance use, mental illness, parental separation or divorce, and incarcerated household members. The dose-response relationship between ACE score and adult outcomes was remarkably consistent: each additional ACE category increased the probability of virtually every adverse health and social outcome studied, with individuals with four or more ACEs showing dramatically elevated rates of depression, substance use, suicide attempts, sexually transmitted infections, and early mortality.
Subsequent research extending the ACE framework to criminal justice outcomes has found consistent dose-response relationships between ACE scores and incarceration, arrests, and violence. Research by Duke and colleagues using the National Survey of Children’s Health found that ACEs were strongly predictive of youth violence perpetration, with each additional ACE substantially increasing the probability of violence. Research on incarcerated populations using the ACE questionnaire has consistently found ACE score distributions dramatically shifted toward the high end relative to general population norms: studies typically find that 70–90% of incarcerated individuals have experienced at least one ACE category, and that the mean ACE score in incarcerated samples is three to four times the general population mean.
The practical implication of the ACE research for criminal justice is direct: any criminal justice system that fails to screen for and address ACEs in the individuals it processes is ignoring the primary developmental pathway through which many criminal careers are produced and maintained. ACE-informed screening, trauma-specific treatment, and the structural policies that prevent ACEs from occurring — including child welfare reform, domestic violence intervention, and poverty reduction — address the criminal justice problem at its developmental source rather than only at its behavioral expression.
Developmental Timing and Sensitive Periods
Research on the developmental timing of trauma exposure has established that the same traumatic experience can have different neurobiological and psychological consequences depending on the developmental stage at which it occurs, because different brain systems and psychological capacities are in sensitive periods of development at different ages. Early childhood trauma — occurring during the first three years of life when attachment systems, stress response systems, and the basic architecture of emotional regulation are forming — produces the most pervasive and most difficult-to-reverse consequences, affecting the foundational developmental systems that subsequent development builds upon.
Research on the neurobiological consequences of early childhood maltreatment has documented that chronically maltreated children show altered hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis functioning, with both hyper-reactive stress responses (in some maltreated children, particularly those with active PTSD) and blunted stress responses (in others, particularly those with histories of severe neglect) relative to non-maltreated comparison children. These HPA axis alterations represent a biological embedding of early adversity that persists into adulthood and that shapes the stress reactivity, emotional regulation, and threat sensitivity that determine behavioral responses to provocative and frustrating situations — the situations most directly associated with reactive violent crime.
Table 1. Trauma Types and Criminal Behavior Pathways
| Trauma Type | Developmental Period Most Affected | Primary Psychological Mechanism | Primary Crime Association | Evidence Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical abuse | Early childhood through adolescence | Hostile attribution bias; normalized violence; PTSD hyperarousal | Physical violence; domestic violence perpetration | Strong — prospective longitudinal |
| Sexual abuse | Any — particularly damaging in early childhood | PTSD; dissociation; shame; disrupted attachment | Sexual offending; prostitution; substance use crime | Moderate-strong — prospective longitudinal |
| Neglect | Early childhood (most sensitive) | Attachment disruption; self-regulation failure; social cognition deficits | General crime; property crime; substance use | Strong — longitudinal; natural experiments |
| Domestic violence witnessing | Early childhood through adolescence | Social learning of violence; PTSD; disrupted attachment | Domestic violence perpetration; general crime | Moderate-strong — longitudinal |
| Community violence exposure | Adolescence (most common) | Hypervigilance; desensitization to violence; altered threat perception | Violent crime; weapon carrying | Moderate — cross-sectional; some longitudinal |
| Polyvictimization (multiple types) | Any — cumulative | Compound neurobiological and psychological disruption | Elevated across crime types | Strong — dose-response relationship |
Neurobiological Mechanisms
Stress Response Dysregulation
Research on the neurobiological consequences of chronic early trauma has documented specific alterations in the brain systems that regulate stress, threat, and emotional responding — alterations that have direct implications for the self-regulatory failures associated with criminal behavior. The amygdala — the brain’s primary threat detection system — shows increased reactivity and reduced habituation in chronically traumatized individuals, producing the hypervigilance to threat cues that clinical descriptions of PTSD identify and that research on trauma-exposed criminal populations documents as elevated sensitivity to social threat signals.
Research on the prefrontal cortical systems that regulate amygdala reactivity — the emotion regulation systems that enable controlled, deliberate responding to threat rather than automatic reactive aggression — has documented both structural (reduced volume) and functional (reduced activation) differences in chronically traumatized individuals relative to non-traumatized comparison groups. These prefrontal differences represent the neurobiological substrate of the self-regulation deficits that developmental and clinical research documents as the primary psychological consequence of chronic childhood maltreatment — the impaired capacity to modulate emotional reactivity, to override aggressive impulses, and to apply deliberate cost-benefit analysis in the high-stress situations where criminal decisions most often occur.
Research connecting epigenetics to trauma-crime research has documented that the neurobiological consequences of early trauma are partly transmitted through epigenetic mechanisms — changes in gene expression that do not alter DNA sequence but that alter how genetic information is read and expressed in specific tissues. Research by McGowan and colleagues documenting epigenetic differences in the glucocorticoid receptor gene between suicide completers with and without childhood abuse histories established that abuse produced specific epigenetic modifications that altered stress response functioning in ways that persisted into adulthood. The epigenetic pathway establishes a biological mechanism through which trauma’s effects on stress regulation are embedded at the molecular level and, potentially, transmitted intergenerationally — producing a biological dimension of the intergenerational cycle of trauma and violence that the psychological literature documents.
Research by Raine and colleagues synthesizing the neuroscience of violence across multiple methodologies — brain imaging, neuropsychological testing, psychophysiological recording, and genetic studies — has documented converging evidence for prefrontal cortical deficits in violent individuals that are most pronounced in those with early developmental adversity. The practical implication of this neurobiological research for criminal justice is not determinism — these neurobiological differences do not make criminal behavior inevitable or uncontrollable — but it does establish that the stress regulation deficits of chronically traumatized individuals require specific, neurobiologically-informed treatment approaches rather than the generic cognitive-behavioral interventions designed for individuals whose regulatory systems are intact.
Attachment Disruption and Relational Deficits
Research applying attachment theory to criminal behavior has documented that insecure and disorganized attachment — particularly the disorganized attachment produced by abusive or frightening caregiving — predicts subsequent conduct problems, aggression, and criminal behavior through its effects on the internal working models of relationships and the relational competencies that prosocial behavior requires. Research by van IJzendoorn and colleagues documented that disorganized attachment in infancy predicts hostile-aggressive behavior in childhood and adolescence, with the strength of the prediction increasing for children whose disorganized attachment is embedded in chronically disrupted caregiving environments rather than single traumatic incidents.
The relational mechanism is particularly important for understanding domestic violence perpetration and sexual offending — crime types that reflect not only self-regulatory failures but specific deficits in the relational schemas and empathic capacity that intimate relationships require. Research on the attachment histories of domestic violence perpetrators has found elevated rates of anxious and disorganized attachment, with the specific attachment insecurity profiles predicting the controlling, jealous behavior that characterizes the coercive control perpetration pattern alongside the reactive violence that situational conflict assessment instruments identify.
Complex Trauma, Polyvictimization, and Compounded Risk
Complex PTSD and Criminal Behavior
Research on complex PTSD — the variant of post-traumatic pathology associated with prolonged, repeated interpersonal trauma rather than discrete traumatic incidents — has identified a specific constellation of symptoms beyond the standard PTSD criteria that has particular relevance for criminal behavior: emotional dysregulation, dissociation, distorted self-perception (including chronic shame and guilt), relational disturbances, and alterations in consciousness. The ICD-11’s formal recognition of complex PTSD as a distinct diagnostic category, and research on its specific neurobiology and treatment implications, has advanced clinical and research engagement with the trauma experiences most relevant to criminal justice populations.
Research on emotional dysregulation in complex PTSD has documented that individuals with this presentation show dramatically impaired capacity to modulate emotional states — the states of fear, rage, shame, and grief that trauma experiences repeatedly evoke — producing the reactive, emotion-driven behavioral patterns that characterize much of the interpersonal violence and self-destructive behavior in criminal justice populations. The specific emotional dysregulation of complex PTSD differs from the impulsivity of antisocial personality disorder in its experiential phenomenology — driven by overwhelming emotional experiences rather than by diminished emotional depth — and requires correspondingly different intervention approaches that address emotion regulation alongside behavioral modification.
Research on polyvictimization — the accumulation of multiple types of trauma victimization in the same individual — has documented that polyvictimized children show dramatically elevated distress and behavioral problems relative to children with comparable total trauma exposure who experienced only one type of trauma, establishing that the complexity of trauma experience matters alongside its severity. Research by Finkelhor and colleagues using the Developmental Victimization Survey found that polyvictimized children were four to five times more likely to show clinical-level distress than children with limited trauma exposure, establishing polyvictimization as a specific high-risk category that warrants priority assessment and intervention in any system serving trauma-affected youth.
The Cycle of Violence
Research on the intergenerational transmission of violence — the well-documented tendency for individuals who were abused as children to abuse their own children — and the related cycle of violence hypothesis — that childhood victimization increases the probability of adult violent offending — has been central to the trauma-crime literature since Widom’s landmark prospective study in 1989. Widom’s research, which followed a large sample of substantiated child abuse and neglect cases through official records into adulthood, documented that abused and neglected children were significantly more likely to be arrested for violent crime as adults than matched comparison children without abuse or neglect records — establishing the cycle of violence hypothesis with the prospective design that cross-sectional and retrospective research could not achieve.
Subsequent research on the cycle of violence has found that the relationship is probabilistic rather than deterministic — many abused children do not become violent adults — and that specific protective factors, including stable supportive adult relationships, above-average intelligence, and school achievement, substantially buffer the abuse-violence pathway. Research by Herrenkohl and colleagues using the Lehigh Longitudinal Study documented that the presence of three or more protective factors essentially eliminated the elevated violence risk associated with child maltreatment, establishing resilience as a genuine and reachable outcome rather than an exceptional individual achievement.
The policy implications of the cycle of violence research are bidirectional: preventing child abuse prevents adult crime by interrupting the cycle before it begins, and treating the traumatic consequences of abuse in individuals who have already experienced it can interrupt the cycle before it produces crime or is transmitted to the next generation. Both sides of this bidirectionality justify investment in child maltreatment prevention as crime prevention.
Gender, Trauma, and Criminal Justice
Research consistently documents that women in the criminal justice system have substantially higher rates of trauma exposure than their male counterparts and that the specific types of trauma most prevalent in criminally involved women — childhood sexual abuse, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault — are both more prevalent than in incarcerated men and more directly connected to their criminal justice involvement through the pathways that feminist pathways research has identified. Research by Bloom, Owen, and Covington on women in the criminal justice system found that 80–90% of women in jails and prisons had experienced significant physical or sexual abuse prior to incarceration, and that the pathway from abuse to criminal involvement typically ran through substance use, mental health consequences of trauma, and survival strategies in the context of abusive relationships.
Research on the specific trauma presentations of criminally involved women has documented that PTSD, depression, and substance use disorder are dramatically over-represented relative to general population prevalence and relative to male criminal justice populations — not because women are more psychologically fragile but because the specific types of trauma most prevalent in their histories produce these specific sequelae, and because the social structural conditions of gendered poverty, intimate partner violence, and sexual exploitation that produce their criminal justice involvement also produce the psychological consequences that compound with structural vulnerability.
The evidence-based response to women’s trauma in criminal justice is gender-responsive programming — programs specifically designed to address the specific trauma types, psychological sequelae, and social structural conditions most prevalent in criminally involved women, rather than applying male-centered programs without modification to female populations. Research on gender-responsive programming — including Moving On, Helping Women Recover, and the Women’s Risk-Need Assessment (WRNA) approach — has found better engagement, retention, and outcomes for gender-responsive approaches relative to conventional programs in female criminal justice populations, establishing both that trauma type matters and that gender-specific program design is both feasible and effective.
Trauma-Informed Approaches in Criminal Justice
Core Principles of Trauma-Informed Practice
Trauma-informed care — the organizational approach that recognizes the widespread impact of trauma, integrates knowledge about trauma into policies and practices, and seeks to actively avoid retraumatization — has been endorsed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration as a fundamental framework for all health, mental health, and social service systems that serve trauma-affected populations. In criminal justice settings, trauma-informed practice requires that staff at all levels understand the behavioral presentations of trauma — including aggression, defiance, and treatment resistance — as potential trauma responses rather than simply as disciplinary problems or treatment failures.
Research on trauma-informed corrections — the application of trauma-informed principles to correctional facilities — has found that training correctional officers in trauma awareness and trauma-responsive communication reduces both staff use of force and incarcerated individuals’ institutional misconduct, consistent with the theoretical prediction that reframing behavioral problems as trauma responses produces more effective responses than punitive discipline that retraumatizes without addressing the underlying trauma. Research by Swavola, Riley, and Subramanian documented that facilities implementing trauma-informed approaches showed improvements in both institutional climate measures and individual behavioral outcomes.
Evidence-Based Trauma-Specific Treatments
Beyond trauma-informed practice as an organizational approach, specific trauma-focused treatments have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing PTSD symptoms and associated behavioral problems in criminal justice populations. Seeking Safety — a present-focused therapy developed by Lisa Najavits that simultaneously addresses PTSD and substance use without requiring trauma processing — has shown positive effects on PTSD symptoms, substance use, and psychological functioning in multiple studies with criminal justice-involved women. Trauma Recovery and Empowerment Model (TREM) — a group therapy approach addressing trauma, mental health, and substance use simultaneously — has been evaluated in jail and prison settings with women, finding improvements in mental health symptoms and trauma symptoms alongside positive staff and participant reports of program quality.
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) and Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) — the two trauma-focused treatments with the strongest evidence bases in clinical populations generally — have been adapted and piloted in criminal justice settings with generally positive results, though the research base in criminal justice specifically remains smaller than their evidence bases in non-justice clinical settings. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) maintains a database of evidence-based trauma treatments with information on settings, populations, and evidence levels that practitioners in criminal justice settings can use to guide treatment selection.
Reentry, Trauma, and Community Reintegration
Research on the trauma consequences of incarceration itself — independent of the pre-incarceration trauma that most justice-involved individuals bring into the system — has documented that the prison environment produces specific traumatic experiences including sexual victimization, violence exposure, extended solitary confinement, and the profound social losses of family separation and community disconnection. Research by Haney on the psychological effects of solitary confinement — which is used for approximately 61,000 Americans on any given day — has documented severe psychological consequences including anxiety, hallucinations, paranoia, and depression that constitute a specific trauma of incarceration that compounds pre-existing trauma histories.
Research on reentry following incarceration has found that trauma is a primary barrier to successful community reintegration: the hypervigilance, interpersonal distrust, emotional dysregulation, and substance use that trauma produces impair the ability to maintain employment, sustain relationships, and navigate the complex social service systems that successful reentry requires. Research on trauma-informed reentry programs — which explicitly address the trauma dimensions of reentry alongside the practical dimensions of employment, housing, and supervision — has found better outcomes than conventional reentry programs that address practical needs without the trauma-specific support that clinical symptoms require.
The most effective reentry approach for trauma-affected individuals combines practical support (housing placement, employment connection, benefit enrollment) with trauma-specific treatment (preferably initiated before release and continued in the community), peer support from individuals with lived experience of trauma and incarceration, and the procedurally just and trauma-aware supervision practices that avoid the retraumatization that conventional supervision can produce. Research by Petersilia and colleagues on reentry evidence has identified this integrated approach as the most promising available, though its full implementation requires the coordination between correctional and community systems that American federalism makes organizationally challenging.
Community Violence Exposure and Urban Trauma
Research on community violence exposure — the experience of witnessing or being victimized by violence in one’s residential neighborhood — has documented this as a specific and extremely prevalent form of trauma in the urban communities where criminal behavior is most concentrated, producing psychological consequences that connect directly to the elevated crime rates those communities show. Research by Gorman-Smith and Tolan on community violence exposure in Chicago youth found that exposure to community violence was nearly universal in high-violence neighborhoods, and that its effects on mental health and aggressive behavior were substantial even after controlling for direct victimization — establishing community violence witnessing as an independent trauma exposure rather than merely a proxy for individual victimization.
Research on the specific psychological consequences of repeated community violence exposure — the hypervigilance, emotional numbing, threat sensitivity, and social schema changes that chronic exposure produces — has documented a specific adaptation to high-violence environments that researchers call “community trauma” or “secondary traumatic stress”: a pattern in which the chronic stress of violent community environments produces PTSD-like symptoms without necessarily involving direct personal victimization. Research documenting that children in high-violence neighborhoods show cortisol response patterns more similar to populations with diagnosed PTSD than to low-violence-neighborhood comparison children — even without direct victimization — establishes community violence exposure as a genuine biological stressor whose effects are comparable to those of individual trauma.
The criminological significance of community violence exposure is its role in the normalization and desensitization to violence that repeated exposure produces — the specific cognitive and emotional adaptation through which violence becomes subjectively ordinary rather than aberrant. Research documenting that youth in high-violence communities are more likely to perceive violence as an acceptable and effective conflict resolution strategy than comparable youth in low-violence communities has established the specific cognitive pathway through which community violence exposure contributes to violent behavior: not through simple imitation but through the gradual erosion of the subjective moral prohibitions against violence that low-exposure environments maintain through violence’s continued subjective extraordinariness.
Conclusion
Trauma and criminal behavior are connected through the specific neurobiological and psychological mechanisms — stress response dysregulation, attachment disruption, prefrontal impairment, and the cognitive schemas through which traumatic experiences are encoded and applied — that chronic early adversity produces and that chronic neglect of trauma in criminal justice settings perpetuates. The evidence supporting trauma-informed approaches to criminal justice is both theoretically coherent and empirically supported: treating the trauma that underlies criminal behavior reduces that behavior more effectively than ignoring it, and preventing the childhood adversity that produces the trauma in the first place is the highest-return crime prevention investment available.
The criminal justice system’s potential contribution to breaking the trauma-crime cycle is substantial but requires organizational transformation rather than merely program addition. A criminal justice system that screens for trauma, connects individuals to trauma-specific treatment, avoids retraumatization through procedurally just and trauma-aware practices, and coordinates with the child welfare, mental health, and housing systems that address the structural conditions producing trauma — would address the roots of criminal behavior rather than only its behavioral expression. That transformation is demanding; the evidence that it would produce meaningfully better outcomes is not in serious dispute.
References
- Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Bremner, J. D., Walker, J. D., Whitfield, C., Perry, B. D., Dube, S. R., & Giles, W. H. (2006). The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 256(3), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-005-0624-4
- Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. Basic Books.
- Briere, J., & Scott, C. (2015). Principles of trauma therapy: A guide to symptoms, evaluation, and treatment (2nd ed.). SAGE.
- Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(3–4), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2527(99)00011-4
- Chesney-Lind, M., & Pasko, L. (2013). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime (3rd ed.). SAGE.
- 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. Pediatrics, 111(3), 564–572. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.111.3.564
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0597
- Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8
- Ford, J. D., Chapman, J., Mack, J. M., & Pearson, G. (2006). Pathways from traumatic child victimization to delinquency: Implications for juvenile and permanency court proceedings and decisions. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 57(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6988.2006.tb00111.x
- Herrenkohl, T. I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Moylan, C. A. (2008). Intersection of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 9(2), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838008314797
- Kilpatrick, D. G., Saunders, B. E., & Smith, D. W. (2003). Youth victimization: Prevalence and implications (NCJ 194972). National Institute of Justice.
- Najavits, L. M. (2002). Seeking safety: A treatment manual for PTSD and substance abuse. Guilford Press.
- Perry, B. D., & Szalavitz, M. (2006). The boy who was raised as a dog. Basic Books.
- Raine, A. (2013). The anatomy of violence: The biological roots of crime. Pantheon.
- Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, et al. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), e232–e246. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2663
- Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. Transaction.
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach (HHS Publication No. SMA 14-4884). SAMHSA.
- Swavola, E., Riley, K., & Subramanian, R. (2016). Overlooked: Women and jails in an era of reform. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/publications/overlooked-women-and-jails-report
- Teicher, M. H., & Samson, J. A. (2016). Annual research review: Enduring neurobiological effects of childhood abuse and neglect. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(3), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12507
- van IJzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early childhood: Meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11(2), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579499002035
- Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244(4901), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2704995
- Widom, C. S., Czaja, S. J., & Dutton, M. A. (2014). Child abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A prospective investigation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(4), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.11.004
- Wolff, N., & Shi, J. (2012). Childhood and adult trauma experiences of incarcerated persons and their relationship to adult behavioral health problems and treatment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(5), 1908–1926. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9051908
- Zlotnick, C., Najavits, L. M., Rohsenow, D. J., & Johnson, D. M. (2003). A cognitive-behavioral treatment for incarcerated women with substance abuse disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder: Findings from a pilot study. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 25(2), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-5472(03)00106-5