Child welfare has finally got an ACE up its sleeve
IT IS widely understood that our experiences as children can have a profound impact on our lives.
When we feel loved and supported as kids, we develop the confidence and self-esteem that makes us more resilient in the face of life’s challenges.
It follows that if we aren’t supported or nurtured to the same degree, that it becomes likelier we will fair less well than those who are.
Much of the recent discussion and research in this area is known as Adverse Childhood Experiences, which has been condensed into the rather irritating acronym ACEs.
ACEs refer to episodes of trauma, neglect or extreme stress that may occur in a child or young person’s life which can have a long-term impact on their health and well-being, relationships, education and even their chances of being imprisoned.
In the last 10 years, the ACEs movement – which originated in the United States – has gained traction globally, providing a new way thinking about and discussing childhood adversity.
In this model, it’s seen as existing in three main categories: abuse, neglect and household adversity.
Studies in the US identified ACEs as a catalyst for many conditions and health-risking behaviours from alcoholism and depression, to illicit drug use and suicide attempts.
ACEs are measured using a score-based system – the higher number of ACEs a person has, the more risk there is that they will develop psychological problems, health issues or suffer from addiction and social exclusion. However, as the ACEs movement sweeps Scotland, many have expressed reservations. The score-based system is regarded by critics as a gimmick.
It is felt ACEs do not account for the complexity of traumatic experiences, nor do they explain why some children who experience trauma don’t go on to develop problems while others (whose experiences were not as severe) often do.
There are fears that the ACEs movement is the latest fad to emerge in the ever-expanding poverty industry, where professionals extract value from traumatised young people by diagnosing their complex problems simplistically, using methods with no evidential basis.
Where the plights of the great unwashed are used as a Trojan-horse to smuggle trendy, Ted-Talkie pseudoscience into public policy across education, policing, criminal justice and social work. But that would hardly be anything new, would it?
Personally, my main concern is the ACEs movement currently lacks a socioeconomic analysis. You rarely hear arguments for the eradication of child-poverty, for example. That’s too political.
Instead, you’ll hear talk of a child’s need to become “resilient”, rather than society’s responsibility to address social inequality. This may explain why politicians have taken to the ACEs framework like ducks to water.
For me, the pros far outweigh the cons. Discussion about the long-term impact of childhood adversity was virtually non-existent until the ACES movement came along.
As a framework for thinking about childhood adversity, it is tremendously useful. At no time in my life have I witnessed such interest and enthusiasm to better understand how trauma impacts the outcomes of our children.
Yes, claims made by ACEs advocates about the impact of trauma on health must be caveated where necessary.
Anecdotes must not be cited like scientific evidence. And a cottage industry must not be allowed to grow out of human suffering. But let’s get real – this movement has put the welfare of children on the agenda like nothing else. Criticise, sure, but let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture.