Abstract
The juvenile justice system serves youth who commit both illegal acts and status offenses. These youth are more likely than their peers to have witnessed and/or survived interpersonal violence. Moreover, cisgender as well as gender-expansive and trans* girls enter the justice system with higher rates of mental health and substance abuse challenges (Teplin et al. 2015a), some of them are pregnant or already have children (Sherman, Balck. Gender injustice: system-level juvenile justice reforms for girls, 2015), many of them have been victims of sexual abuse (Saar et al., The sexual abuse to prison pipeline: the girls’ story. Center on poverty and inequality, Georgetown law, 2015), and most of them have experienced some type or multiple types of trauma (Baglivio et al., J Juvenile Justice 3:9, 2014; Finkelhor et al., Child Maltreat 14(4):316–329, 2009). This chapter examines the intersectionality of justice-involved girls as well as trends and contributors to the number of girls in the juvenile justice system including mental health and substance abuse; interpersonal, family, and community violence; sexual abuse; sexual assault in justice facilities; human trafficking and sex trafficking; child welfare involvement/crossover youth; trauma; and explicit and implicit bias. Evidence-based recommendations and promising practices are offered to improve gender-responsive programming, recognize intersectionality and reduce group disparities, increase trauma-informed services, abolish prostitution-related offenses for minors, increase diversion opportunities, and reduce reliance on detention and secure placement especially for status and non-violent offenders.
Introduction
The juvenile justice system was created to serve youth who commit either offenses that are considered criminal if committed by an adult or status offenses that are statutorily linked to age (e.g., underage possession of alcohol, truancy, running away from home, violating curfew) (OJJDP n.d.). Cases are processed differently through the juvenile system as compared to the adult system (see Fig. 1).Within the juvenile system, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has identified nine contact points: arrest, complaint/referral, diversion/not approved, detention, approved, adjudicated, case disposed/probation, commitment/confinement, and transfer to adult court. As these contact points suggest, the juvenile system also uses distinct terms to refer to its elements of justice (see Table 1).
Individuals in the juvenile justice system are developing children and adolescents who present with complex and intersectional strengths and challenges along various gender identities. Since the late 1990s, overall juvenile delinquency rates have been declining, yet girls’ involvement in the juvenile justice system is increasing (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera 2018). As compared to boys, cisgender as well as gender-expansive and trans* girls enter the justice system with higher rates of mental health challenges (Teplin et al. 2015a), some of them are pregnant and more already have children (Sherman and Balck 2015), many of them have been victims of sexual abuse (Saar et al. 2015), and most of them have experienced some type or multiple types of trauma (Baglivio et al. 2014; Finkelhor et al. 2009). Moreover, juvenile justice system contact can have profound consequences on maturity including but not limited to disrupted development (Lambie and Randell 2013), decreased educa- tional attainment and increased risk of school dropout (Chung et al. 2010), decreased or lower-paying employment opportunities (Abrams and Snyder 2010), and increased reliance on public assistance (Gilman et al. 2014).
According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), housed within the US Department of Justice, the rates of girls in juvenile justice are rising. In 1995, 78% of all juvenile crimes processed in the USA were committed by male offenders, and 22% were committed by female offenders (Puzzanchera et al. 2003). (It is important to note that the majority of federal and local jurisdictions do not offer any additional gender identity classification options – only the cisgender binary of female/male. The authors acknowledge and appreciate additional gender identities, and they are included in this chapter.). In 2016, 72% of juveniles were categorized as male offenders, and 28% were categorized as female offenders (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera 2018). Typically, girls commit offenses that may be reactions to trauma, interpersonal violence, and mental health and substance abuse (Baglivio et al. 2014; Finkelhor et al. 2009; Sherman and Balck 2015; Teplin et al. 2015a); and they are also often processed differently in the juvenile justice system because of explicit and implicit bias as well as gendered policies and practices (AECF 2013; Saar et al. 2015; Vitopoulos et al. 2012). (An investigation into these differences is continued more in-depth throughout the chapter.)
Of the offenses committed by girls in 1995, 24% were person offense cases, 22% were property offense cases, and 14% were drug offense cases (Puzzanchera et al. 2003), as compared to 2016 statistics for girls’ offenses: 32% were person offense cases, 32% were property offense cases, and 11% were drug offense cases (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera 2018). In 2016, male youth accounted for 57% of all petitioned status offense cases as compared to female youth at 43%, with both receiving petitions for truancy most often. Girls were only more likely to be charged with petitions of running away as compared to boys (56%; 44%). That same year, there were 614,900 cases processed through juvenile court for male offenders, compared to 235,600 cases for female offenders. Of those cases, 59% of the cases involving boys had petitions filed for adjudication compared to 49% of cases involving girls. Once petitioned, boys were more likely to be adjudicated delinquent (53%; 49%) and more likely to be assigned to out-of-home placements (28%; 21%). Annie E. Casey’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative reports that although the number of girls in detention rose 50% over just 10 years (1992–2002), the number of seriously violent girls has not changed from 1992 to 2012 (AECF 2013).
Girls were more likely than boys to receive probation as their most severe sanction (64%; 62%). But the most significant difference between girls and boys in offense statistics is regarding status offenses. In 2016, although they comprised 28% of delinquency cases processed, girls represented 43% of all status offense cases petitioned to juvenile court most often truancy and running away (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera 2018). (Exploration of gender disparities for status offenses is offered throughout the chapter.) Additionally, girls typically enter the juvenile justice system at a younger age than boys. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) reports that 42% of girls currently in juvenile facilities nationwide are 15 and under, as compared to 31% of boys who are 15 and under and currently committed to juvenile facilities (NCCD 2009). Practitioners offer that the root of these both status offense and age disparities for girls as compared to boys may be in adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and family violence as well as families and courts not knowing what to do with these girls (Baglivio et al. 2014; Peck et al. 2014; Sherman et al. 2013).
Overall juvenile crime is trending down, but it is important to note that the decrease is larger for male youth than for female youth (Puzzanchera 2018). Girls in the juvenile justice system are not typically there for reasons that threaten public safety, but instead many may be there as a sign of underlying need – such as reactions to trauma, family and relationship violence, forced prostitution/trafficking, and mental health/substance abuse (Baglivio et al. 2014; Finkelhor et al. 2009; Sherman and Balck 2015; Teplin et al. 2015a). (See Fig. 2 for their proportion of juvenile arrests in 2017.)
Background
The number of girls who come into contact with the juvenile justice system is largely influenced by gendered policies and methods of engagement (Saar et al. 2015). Gendered policies are codes or statutes that are not implemented equitably, include bias, and perpetuate disparities by gender (AECF 2013; Covington and Bloom 2003; Vitopoulos et al. 2012). These often have negative outcomes for girls whose behaviors fall outside of socially assigned and socially acceptable female gender norms (Hubbard and Matthews 2008). Previous research suggests that female offenders are punished more often for moral offenses (e.g., actual or suspected sexual behavior) or waywardness (Abrams and Curran 2000; MacDonald and Chesney-Lind 2001; Martin et al. 2008) as compared to their male counterparts. Sherman and Balck (2015) contend that there is an inherent tension in the juvenile justice system, between social welfare and social control, for girls who become court-involved. They suggest that on the one hand, the juvenile court was designed to be protective and paternalistic, and on the other hand, it is set up to maintain social rules and enforce laws (p. 4). Additionally, some scholars offer the gender equality theory or liberation theory which suggests that as women achieve more gender equality and increased independence, we will see an increase in girls’ delinquency rates (Garbarino 2006; Prothrow-Stith and Spivak 2005).
Finally, compared to their male peers, most girls do not commit crimes that are violent or threaten public safety. Instead, girls are disproportionately charged with status offenses such as running away (Barrett et al. 2006; Martin et al. 2008; Peck et al. 2014). The American Bar Association adds that girls within the justice system often encounter the practice of “bootstrapping,” which refers to the practice of charging offenders with a delinquent act for violations such as contempt of court, probation violations, or violations of court orders, more often than boys with the same justice involvement (ABA 2001; Espinosa et al. 2013; Sherman 2005).
Intersectionality
Civil rights activist and legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality in 1989 in a paper for the University of Chicago Legal Forum where she wrote, “Because the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism, any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the particular manner in which Black women are subor- dinated” (Crenshaw, 1989, p. 140). There are many intersectional aspects to under- standing girls’ experiences in the juvenile justice; we examine race/ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity, and socioeconomic status.
Race/Ethnicity. Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) describes how youth of color are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system (McCarter 2011), and in the latest reauthorization (December 21, 2018) of the Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention Act (P.L. 115–385), the term DMC was changed to racial and ethnic disparities. Researchers have found that minority youth are overrepresented at all nine contact points within the juvenile system (Kempf-Leonard 2007; Leiber 2002). Yet, there are no data to suggest that children of color misbehave at rates that correspond to their level of overrepresentation (Fabelo et al. 2011; Leiber and Rodriguez 2011). And much of this disproportionate treatment begins before they reach the justice system, in school and in what has come to be called the school-to- prison pipeline (McCarter 2017). The school-to-prison pipeline (STPP) refers to the policies and practices that negatively affect schoolchildren, decreasing their likeli- hood of educational success and increasing their likelihood of contact with the juvenile/criminal justice systems. It is the pathway between schools and jails, and it disproportionately affects the most marginalized (e.g., students of color, poor students, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ students) in our schools. A Council of State Governments’ longitudinal study of almost a million students in Texas controlled for 83 distinct variables and found that Black students had a 31% higher likelihood of receiving disciplinary action as compared to otherwise similarly situated White and Latinx students (Fabelo et al. 2011). Carter et al. (2014, p. 2) write, “Racial discipline disparities are a consequence of U.S. history, of the biases and stereotypes created by that history, and of the still-strong divisions in lived experience between groups that we call “races.”...Regrettably, our history also left us with pervasive and false ideas about “races” that have shaped our perceptions of who is valued and who is not, who is capable and who is not, and who is “safe” and who is “dangerous.””
Although Black girls only comprise 17% of the national student body, they make up 43% of the girls arrested at school (U.S. Dept. of Education 2014). Given explicit and implicit bias and the social distance between teachers/school administrators and Black female students, school personnel are more prone to view Black girls as “disruptive” or “loud” compared with other groups of boys and girls (see section “Explicit and Implicit Bias” of this chapter). Black girls are more likely to be punished for dress code violations, talking back to teachers, and “defiance” contrib- uting to their disproportionate involvement with the justice system (Morris 2016). And even when scholars control for legal and extralegal variables, Black girls are at least three times more likely to receive school discipline for the same offenses committed by similarly situated White girls (Smith-Evans et al. 2014).
African-American girls specifically face racism and the oppressive experiences of misogynoir, a form of misogyny that is directed toward Black girls that intersects both race and gender (Bailey 2013). In a 2017 report titled Girlhood Interrupted: The Erasure of Black Girls’ Childhood, the authors cite the impact of adultification in the treatment of Black boys and girls who appear to teachers, law enforcement, johns, etc. to be physically older than their chronological age (Epstein et al. 2017). Epstein et al. (2017) found that starting as early as 5 years old, Black girls were more likely to be viewed as seeming older than their true age and that because of this they are more likely to be disciplined for subjective infractions such as dress code violations, loitering, disobedience, disruptive behavior, fighting, and bullying/harassment. The authors also posit that because of the view of Black girls through an adult lens, they are perceived as less innocent and in less need of protection (Epstein et al. 2017).
Moreover, these same disparities evident in the schools are also found in the justice system (Smith-Evans et al. 2014). For every 1000 Asian, Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander girls aged 10–18 in the USA in 2016, 2.9 are juvenile court-involved (Puzzanchera and Hockenberry 2018). The rate is 10.7 per 1000 Latinas, 12.9 for White girls, 16.9 for American Indian and Alaska Native girls, and 35.3 for Black girls. And the rate of out-of-home placements is similar – with the rate for Black girls (1.70 per 1000) at almost three times the rate for White girls (0.583 per 1000) and the second highest rate again for American Indian and Alaska Native girls (1.03 per 1000) (Puzzanchera and Hockenberry 2018).
Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity. According to the 2017 Youth Risk Behav- ior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS), 85.4% of high-school youth identified as hetero- sexual, 2.4% as lesbian or gay, and 8.0% as bisexual, and 4.2% were unsure of their sexual identity (Kann et al. 2018). Despite the absence of any data suggesting differences in school behaviors by sexual orientation and/or gender identity, a national, longitudinal study found that non-heterosexual youth were disproportion- ately suspended, expelled, and arrested (Himmelstein and Brückner 2011). Majd et al. (2009) also found that lesbian, gay, trans*, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) youth are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system with one national report estimating that 40% of girls in juvenile detention describe themselves as lesbian, bisexual, gender questioning/gender nonconforming, or trans* (Sherman and Balck 2015). Russell et al. (2013) surmise that these outcomes might be attributed to students who challenge gender norms/expectations as well as those who are bullied and retaliate against their bullies.
Socioeconomic Status. Children from poorer families are also disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system. One study found that nearly 60% of Tennessee’s juvenile offenders either were on public assistance or had family incomes of less than $20,000/year (Birckhead 2012). Moreover, court officials stated that they steer low-income families into the juvenile justice system, to “help the youth and facilitate the services, accountability, and discipline” (Birckhead 2012, p. 59). Moreover, many of the informal processes that allow youth to exit the juvenile justice system, for example, diversion and community service, require time, resources such as restitution and fees, transportation, and a stable mailing address to receive court communications which can disadvantage low-income youth. Spe- cific to girls, research suggests that girls living in poverty have an increased likelihood of developmental and cognitive delays, acute and chronic stress, school disengagement, substance use, risky sexual behaviors and pregnancy, and poor physical health (Jensen 2009). Poverty also increases a girl’s risk for juvenile justice system involvement as girls from poorer neighborhoods are more likely to be charged with delinquency (Bright and Jonson-Reid 2008) and poorer girls may be less autonomous and more vulnerable to exploitation (Reap 2019).
Trends and Contributing Factors to Girls in Juvenile Justice
It is hard to disentangle the effects of nature and nurture on socialization, gender expectations, and gender roles. Thus, service providers should exercise a great deal of caution, working to avoid the imposition of socially constructed gender expecta- tions (e.g., boys are associated with hammers/men are better suited for construction; girls are associated with brooms/women are better suited for housekeeping) onto the youth they serve (Majd et al. 2009). Heeding that caution, forensic practitioners working with adolescents may still describe some of the more prevalent differences between how youth identify – with boys more often presenting with externalizing behaviors (Dray et al. 2016; Teplin et al. 2013), girls with internalizing behaviors (Sherman and Balck 2015), and LGBTQ+ youth often facing an extra layer of the coming out or gender identity process – increased conflict with parents, religion/ spirituality, homelessness, etc. (Russell et al. 2013). Working with all adolescents, there may also be particular factors that more commonly correlate with justice system involvement. These factors could include mental health and substance abuse issues, interpersonal violence exposure, sexual abuse histories, discrimination from explicit and implicit biases, sexual assault and victimization while in justice facilities, exploitation and trafficking experiences, as well as child abuse/maltreat- ment/neglect and various acute traumas across one’s lived experience.
Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Approximately 22% of US children aged 17 and younger in the general population are estimated to have psychiatric disorders, as compared to approximately 70% of justice-involved children (Teplin et al. 2013). A study conducted for the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice reports that an estimated 80% of female juvenile offenders met the criteria for at least one mental health disorder as compared to 67% of the male juvenile offenders (Shufelt and Cocozza 2006). Fazel et al. (2008) conducted a metaregression to study 16,750 youth aged 10–19 in juvenile detention and correctional facilities in order to assess mental disorders. They found that a higher percentage of girls had major depression and ADHD (29.2%; 18.5%) than boys (10.6%, 11.7%), and about 3% of girls and boys experi- enced psychotic illness – approximately 10 times more than non-justice-involved youth (Fazel et al. 2008).
For girls in the juvenile justice system, mental health conditions are often trauma- related and may manifest in response to exposure to childhood abuse and neglect, including physical, sexual, and emotional (Marston et al. 2012; Quinn et al. 2005). Conditions within correctional facilities often exacerbate any pre-existing trauma experiences and/or mental health conditions and can create further problems for girls both inside the justice system and in their reentry to the community. Examining juveniles detained in Cook County, Chicago’s Juvenile Temporary Detention Center, Teplin and her colleagues (2015a) found that, at intake, more than 61% of male detainees and 65% of female detainees presented with a psychiatric disorder, and 5 years later, more than 46% of formerly detained boys continued to have mental health challenges as compared to 29% of the girls. Though more research is needed to examine potential differential outcomes, these findings may suggest that juvenile justice-involved girls could be more amenable to the benefits of mental health treatment over time.
Substance abuse and disruptive behavior disorders were the most common diagnoses in this sample, and substance abuse disorders were the most likely to persist. Non-Latinx Whites and Latinx youth had higher rates of substance abuse disorder as compared to African-American youth, and over time, boys reported higher rates of continued substance abuse disorders (as compared to girls), and girls reported higher rates of continued depression (as compared to boys) (Teplin et al. 2015a).
Finally, the rate of suicide for those aged 15–19 years is higher for justice- involved youth than for youth in the general population – 21.9 per 100,000 youth in juvenile justice facilities compared to approximately 7 per 100,000 adolescents in the general population (Gallagher and Dobrin 2006; Teplin et al. 2015b). Scholars report that 26% of detained girls have attempted suicide as compared to 7% of detained boys (AECF 2013). Similarly, Martin et al. (2008) and Teplin et al. (2015b) report that incarcerated female youth attempt suicide more frequently than incarcer- ated male youth.
Interpersonal, Family, and Community Violence
Juvenile justice-involved girls report experiencing family-related violence in their families of origin at a rate of almost 38% as compared to boys who report rates around 15% (Kerig et al. 2012). Research also suggests that when family violence results in formal charges, girls are more likely to fight with family members, including siblings (typically being charged with simple assault), whereas boys tend to fight with friends and strangers (more often charged with aggravated assault). Girls are twice as likely as boys to be arrested for a conflict with their parents and/or caregivers (Zahn et al. 2009; Chesney-Lind and Belknap 2004). Some scholars attribute a portion of the increase in female offending rates to mandatory arrest for domestic violence (Sherman 2009). Acoca found that the majority of the time when girls were arrested for domestic assault, the events which took place were actually considered mutually combative between the girls and their parents (1999). The narrative is most often not that the girls are attacking their parents, but rather that they are in mutually violent situations where both parties are likely defending themselves in the manner in which they are accustomed, and typically, the parents hold the power and control and ask for their daughter to be removed/charged (Acoca 1999). Often when girls are acting out in ways the criminal justice system deems are domestically violent, these are learned behaviors that have previously served as protective factors throughout their lives (Sherman and Balck 2015). These behaviors can be learned through exposure to family violence throughout childhood and adolescence, and the realities of how these girls have learned to cope to protect their own safety, sadly, can result in more punitive actions toward them in confined conditions.
A national multi-site study found that girls comprised 40% of the adolescent domestic battery arrests (Nussbaum et al. 2015). Unlike Violence Against Women Act provisions which seek to address the dynamic of power and control, adolescent domestic battery is often characterized by family chaos and conflict. So, Nussbaum et al. (2015) developed the Adolescent Domestic Battery Typologies Tool (ADBTT) to reduce the number of youth arrested and detained for intra-familial violence. The ADBTT includes four typologies:
Defensive – any violence (not just the current incident) directed toward the parent has been in response to a physical threat by the parent.
Isolated incident – violence was an isolated event of aggression born out of atypical family or individual stress. Without such stress youth may have chosen a more appropriate conflict resolution.
Family chaos – a pattern of events in which the youth’s behavior predictably spirals to the point of aggression in order to obtain his or her purposes and is characterized by inconsistent and unclear parental authority.
Escalating – a pattern of behavior designed to intimidate, control, and coerce the parent into giving into the youth’s demands and ultimately to shift parental authority to the youth, effectively establishing the youth in a position of control over the parent.
Nussbaum et al.’s research (2015) did not identify any differences by race, but did note three gender differences. First, boys were more likely to be in the escalating typology (46.1%) than girls (36.3%). Second, girls were more likely to be in the defense typology (17.8%) than boys (11%), and finally, girls were more likely than boys to not fit into one of the four typologies (Nussbaum et al. 2015).
Often, youth who have experienced chronic trauma do not believe that the adults around them can or will protect them, and sometimes they are right. Because of this, what is interpreted as delinquent behavior, or pointless acting out, could often be their attempt to assume the burden of taking care of themselves to the best of their abilities and in response to how they have learned to do so in their families of origin. Holmes et al. (2015) found that often preschool children who witness domestic violence experience lasting effects on their own aggressive behaviors and pro-social skills.
Sexual Abuse
Girls and boys in the juvenile justice system report very different rates of sexual abuse survivorship, prior to system entry. At a rate more than four times that of boys, 31% of girls in the juvenile justice system disclose histories of sexual abuse compared to about 7% for boys (Baglivio et al. 2014). DeHart (2009) reports that 81% of her sample of justice-involved girls reported a history of sexual violence with 41% reporting dating violence. Similarly, a 2006 study found that 93% of the girls in Oregon’s juvenile justice system had experienced physical or sexual abuse (63% had experienced both), and 76% had experienced at least one instance of sexual abuse before turning 13 years old (Smith et al. 2006). Both studies suggest that, as compared to girls without justice system contact, these girls are abused earlier and for longer periods of time (DeHart 2009; Smith et al. 2009). For many of the girls in the juvenile justice system, this abuse occurs in their families of origin (Dierkhising et al. 2013; Ford et al. 2008). Moreover, girls who are abused are much more likely than boys who are abused to be arrested and detained (Sherman 2005).
In 2015, the Human Rights Project for Girls, Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and Inequality, and the Ms. Foundation for Women coproduced a report, titled “The Sexual Abuse to Prison Pipeline: The Girls’ Story” (Saar et al. 2015). In this comprehensive examination of sexual abuse histories and their connections to entry into the child welfare and the juvenile justice systems, the authors concluded, “Girls’ high rates of sexual abuse and their increased involvement in the juvenile justice system is not a coincidence. There is a direct correlation” (Saar et al. 2015, p. 33). This speaks to the need for diversion options as well as trauma-centered programming for at-risk and juvenile justice-involved girls, since unresolved expo- sure to sexual abuse can continue to manifest as negative life outcomes for these young womxn (The intersectional term “womxn” is used to avoid the term “woman” which has Old English and patriarchal roots. “Womxn” is specifically designed to include trans* womxn, womxn of color, womxn from Third World countries, etc. (Key 2017)).
Sexual Assault in Justice Facilities
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), approximately 9.5% of youth in custody in 2012 experienced sexual victimization that was substantiated by an investigation (BJS 2016). Of those, 2.5% were youth victimized by other youth, and 7.7% were victimized by staff, and in 45% of the staff sexual misconduct cases, the youth reported that the perpetrator used physical force, threat of force, or other forms of pressure and coercion (BJS 2016). Moreover, despite the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA 2003), sexual assault occurs more often with juveniles than with adults (Ahlin 2018), and the rates are increasing. Between 2005 and 2012, the rate of allegations more than doubled from 19 to 47 per 1000 youth in state facilities (Beck and Rantala 2016). Further, these youth are at risk of being sexually assaulted by their peers as well as by corrections staff, and unlike adults confined to correc- tional settings, the likelihood of youth sexual victimization escalates the longer they are incarcerated (Ahlin 2018).
Facilities with higher rates of sexual victimization are characterized by not having sufficient staff to monitor what takes place in the facility (Heaton et al. 2016). Facilities with more youth-on-youth assaults are typically female-only facilities and house youth in multiple living units and have youth whose most severe offense is a violent sexual offense. Facilities with more staff-initiated assaults are more likely male-only, are larger in size, have high rates of staff turnover, and have youth whose most severe offense is a crime against a person. Youth who report more sexual assault tend to have a history of victimization and reside in facilities with more reported gang fights and where staff provide special treatment.
High-level risk characteristics for youth-on-youth assault include juveniles who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and those whose most serious offense was a violent sexual assault, whereas characteristics for staff assaults tend to include more male and Black youth victims and those with previous periods of incarceration and occur in facilities that have less than positive perceptions of staff (Heaton et al. 2016). Overall, the rates of sexual victimization were markedly higher in state juvenile systems (5.9 per 1000 youth) than in local or private facilities (2.3 per 1000) from 2007 to 2012 (Beck and Rantala 2016). Finally, although female offenders at the time of their research only comprised 10% of those held in juvenile facilities, they were 32.1% of all victims of sexual assault in those facilities (Beck and Rantala 2016). Girls are more likely to experience sexual abuse both prior to incarceration and as a result of their incarceration as compared to justice-involved boys.
Human Trafficking and Sex Trafficking
Even with advances toward reconceptualizing girls as victims, rather than perpetra- tors, the juvenile justice system is still often used as a mechanism to “help” remove these girls from dangerous and exploitive situations using arrest and detainment (Musto 2013). Further complicating work in this area, the definition of human trafficking has changed over time. The term is used to primarily refer to the movement of individuals across jurisdictional boundaries for the purpose of sale or exploitation, but trafficking has more recently been expanded to include situations where individuals’ liberty or choices about their freedom of moment are restricted for the purposes of mistreatment (Barnhart 2009). The (US) Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 defines human trafficking as “sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery” (22 U.S.C. § 7102(9)). Research from the US Department of Justice suggests anywhere from 100,000 to three million children currently living in the USA have been forced into prostitution, pornography, or sexual slavery (Curtis et al. 2008).
Prostitution, pornography, and sexual slavery are profoundly traumatizing for children, and the impact of this trauma should not be understated (Koken 2010). The implications of using the juvenile justice system as a tool to remove young victims of sex-related exploitation can be far-reaching. Few laws exist which protect trafficked children from incarceration, even though children involved in sex work often do not have the legal ability to consent to the activities in which they are involved (Musto 2009). Transitioning these children into the juvenile justice system, even if altruistic in intention, can add an additional layer of trauma to their already complicated life trajectories and further contribute to the development of maladaptive coping mech- anisms across the life-span (O’Connell 2005).
As the concept of sex trafficking has continued to evolve, further conceptual definition has been useful to align key constructs and improve interprofessional service responses. Reap (2019) developed a concept analysis to summarize what we know about sex trafficking and to clear up any misconceptions. Most service pro- viders loosely define sex trafficking as the coercion, manipulation, or marginaliza- tion of an individual who has pushed into the performance of an array of sexualized activities for the financial or otherwise commercial benefit of another (Reap 2019). Reap’s work outlines the concept attributes with short examples provided (see Fig. 3). As Fig. 3 illustrates, concepts such as consent are not possible in the context of trafficking which is particularly important when considering the increased risk for young girls. Additionally, the notion of autonomy and freedom of movement includes the most recent adolescent brain development and neuroscience research. Unfortu- nately, few adolescents understand the terms – coercion and manipulation – for the purpose of exploitation and the broad range of sexualized activities that could be considered as trafficking, but more and more service providers need to become familiar with the phenomenon of sex trafficking and the implications (Reap 2019).
Child Abuse, Maltreatment, Neglect, and Delinquency: Crossover Youth
Crossover youth are those who experience maltreatment and engage in delinquency but who may or may not be known to the child welfare and/or juvenile justice systems (Herz et al. 2012). A study of youth in Los Angeles County found an arrest rate of 7.1% for youth aged 7–15 years old who had open child welfare cases over a 3-year period (Bogie et al. 2011). Researchers in King County, Washington, discov- ered that 67% of the youth in Seattle’s juvenile justice system had a history with child welfare (Halemba and Siegel 2011). Halemba and Siegel also note that girls and youth of color were significantly more at risk of crossing over from the child welfare system into the juvenile justice system. Also, their findings suggest that the younger youth were when they entered the child welfare system, the younger they were when they became involved with the juvenile justice system (Halemba and Siegel 2011). In Baglivio et al.’s study (2014), 35% of the justice-involved sample had experienced emotional abuse, 35% had experienced emotional neglect, 33.5% had experienced physical abuse, and 15% had experienced physical neglect. Unfor- tunately, much of the research on crossover youth is similar to the child welfare system overall and focuses on secondary prevention and intervention versus primary prevention (Baglivio et al. 2014; Center for Juvenile Justice Reform n.d.).
Trauma
Trauma is any situation or event which produces intense feelings of fear or hope- lessness, through shock, terror, or a sense of being overwhelmed (Gillece 2009). Trauma does not have to be physical in nature, and consistent perceptions of threats to the welfare and safety of an individual can be just as, if not more, psychologically harmful as enacted events (Perry and Szalavitz 2007). Girls with juvenile justice system contact are at a higher risk for trauma throughout their lives (Pflugradt and Allen 2010). Justice-involved girls face repeated exposure, including childhood trauma, community violence, child abuse, maltreatment, neglect, etc., and then the potential added trauma of justice system contact. Experiencing multiple or ongoing traumatic events in one’s life is often referred to as complex trauma, the results of which can have exponential impact (Wamser-Nanney and Vandenberg 2013). No matter the background, sources, or frequency of a person’s trauma history, trauma experiences increase the likelihood of maladaptive behavioral coping mechanisms across one’s life-span (Alisic et al. 2011).
In the mid-1990s, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began a longitudinal study with approximately 17,000 participants to assess how dysfunction in households of origin and experiences of abuse and neglect could impact people over the trajectories of their lives. A 10-point questionnaire was developed to measure (on a scale of 0–10) for the presence of traumatic experiences in childhood, creating an “ACE score” for each participant in the sample. Higher ACE scores represent the presence of more traumas in a person’s childhood. For example, an ACE score of 3 would indicate the presence of three traumatic criteria or situations, such as domestic violence in the home, being the victim of physical abuse, or having a parent with a substance abuse problem, in a person’s childhood/family of origin. The findings from this study have been profound and are being used to explore the connections between adverse childhood experiences and a myriad of physical and mental health issues, as well as a wide assortment of negative behavioral issues (CDC 2019). (For more information regarding the ACE study, please visit the CDC website: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/acestudy/ index.html.) Baglivio et al. (2014) used the ACEs to compare national non-offending youth to 64,329 juvenile offenders in Florida in a project called “The Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) in the Lives of Juvenile Offenders.” They found not only that did ACEs increase the likelihood juvenile justice system contact but that adverse childhood experiences also increased a young person’s likelihood of re- offending after release. The three most prevalent ACE indicators for the justice-involved youth in their sample were family violence, 82.5%; parental separation or divorce, 81%; and household member incarceration, 66.5%. Two-thirds or more of Florida’s juvenile offenders reported experiencing two or more adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), compared to about one-fourth of children in the full state sample, but the number of ACEs varied considerably by gender (Baglivio et al. 2014; Holicky and Phillips-Bell 2016). The average girl in the sample had an ACE composite score of 4.29, whereas the average boy had a composite score of 3.48, and 45.1% of girls experienced five or more ACEs as compared to 27.4% of boys with five or more ACEs. The most significant difference was regarding sexual abuse where the rate was 4.4 times greater for girls than boys. More than a third of the girls in the sample (31%) reported experiencing childhood sexual abuse as compared to boys (7%) (Baglivio et al. 2014).
In addition to specific types of trauma (e.g., ACEs), Finkelhor et al. (2009) suggest that many justice-involved youth experience “poly-victimization.” They found that, though exposure to community violence best explained the pathway to poly-victimization for boys, for girls it was the adversity of living in families characterized by high levels of violence, conflict, and behavioral health problems that leads to poly-victimization. And for those exposed to trauma, studies suggest that girls are more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder when compared to similarly situated boys (Dierkhising et al. 2013; Nooner et al. 2012). Kerig et al. (2012) found that female offenders were twice as likely as male offenders to meet full criteria for a PTSD diagnosis (27.6% vs. 13.6%) and to meet criteria for the reexperiencing cluster (45.9% vs. 29.2%). More research is needed to assess how and why this disparity exists in the juvenile justice system, but the work of Miranda Olff (2017) suggests that womxn experience the impact of trauma differently than men for both situational and biological reasons. Situationally, this research suggests girls are more likely to have survived intimate types of trauma than boys, such as sexual abuse or domestic violence. Additionally, when considering brain chemistry, and the psychological process, womxn may be more likely to experience intense physiological (brain chemistry) responses to trauma and to internalize their experi- ences (psychologically) in ways that make them more vulnerable to PTSD (Olff 2017).
Explicit and Implicit Bias
In their State of the Science: Implicit Bias Review, scholars from the Kirwan Institute define explicit biases as attitudes or beliefs that one endorses at a conscious level (Staats et al. 2017). Explicit biases can be either positive or negative, and because they are accessible through conscious introspection, individuals can choose to conceal or hide explicit biases in order to appear more socially/politically correct. In contrast to conscious biases, Staats and her colleagues explain that the term implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions unconsciously. These biases, which also can include both favorable and unfavorable responses, operate at a level below conscious awareness and without intentional control. They further assert that explicit and implicit biases are “related but distinct mental constructs. They are not mutually exclusive and may even reinforce each other” (Staats et al. 2017). Moreover, “implicit biases do not necessarily align with our declared beliefs” (Staats et al. 2017). Finally, it is important to remember that everyone has implicit biases even those who vow to remain impartial – such as judges. And we must also realize that all biases, though incredibly complex, are malleable and can be gradually changed through a variety of de-biasing techniques.
Bias in the juvenile justice system manifests in both explicit and implicit forms and at both the individual and the system level, but our understanding of these biases is nascent (Staats et al. 2017). That said, most of the studies that have been conducted on jury selection, sentence delivery, and police use of force, for example, reveal that the majority of study participants demonstrate a pro-White bias and tend to view stigmatized groups more unfavorably (Kahn et al. 2016; Levinson et al. 2014; Smith and Levinson 2012). Jennifer Eberhardt has conducted several studies examining subliminal imagery and participants’ cognition which suggest that across all identity intersectionalities, that when research participants were subliminally shown photo- graphs of White individuals, it took them longer to identify crime-related images. Yet when subliminally shown photograph of Black individuals, it significantly sped up their ability to identify crime-related images at a subconscious level (Eberhardt 2019; Eberhardt et al. 2004).
Gender bias is rife within the juvenile justice system and along all decision points from arrest to confinement. Scholars contend that gender bias in juvenile justice stems from societal gender expectations and roles, and these unconscious biases often result in paternalistic treatment of female juvenile offenders (Covington and Bloom 2003; Musto 2013). Biases regarding Black womxn and, thus, Black girls also have demonstrated effects on justice service provision for girls and womxn (Hubbard and Matthews 2008). Feeding the school-to-prison pipeline, Black girls are suspended or expelled at six times the rate of White girls for the same offenses (U.S. Dept. of Education 2014). The discretion that school administrators and resource officers, law enforcement officials, judges, and court and corrections personnel have was intended to protect and rehabilitate youth but has been shown to disproportionately penalize Black and Brown girls and often misses what’s happening with White girls (Epstein et al. 2017; Nanda 2011). Black boys are often perceived as a threat, whereas Black girls are often seen as deviating from White, middle-class femininity and are regarded as being disrespectful and defiant, using profanity and being too loud, and wearing inappropriate clothes that are too revealing (Morris 2016; Smith-Evans et al. 2014). This intersectionality often results in Black, Latinx, and gender-“nonconforming” youth being treated more harshly than other girls.
Evidence-Based Recommendations
Despite, or maybe because of, its origins, the juvenile justice system is still often used as a way to “help” remove girls from dangerous and exploitive situations using arrest, detention, and incarceration (Musto 2013). Evidence-based recommendations to improve juvenile justice programming include improving gender- and culturally responsive programming, recognizing intersectionality for all youthful offenders and reducing group disparities, increasing trauma-informed services, abolishing prosti- tution-related offenses for minors, increasing diversion opportunities, and reducing reliance on detention (especially for status and non-violent offenders).
Improve Gender- and Culturally Responsive Programming
Despite considerable national policies that recommend/require gender-responsive programming for female offenders in the juvenile justice system, the evidence base upon which to base these recommendations is sparse (Walker et al. 2015; Zahn et al. 2009). Walker et al. (2015) conducted a multi-state, mixed-methods study that featured interviews with practitioners who provide services to girls in the juvenile justice system. They contend that even with a paucity of rigorous research demon- strating improved outcomes for gender-responsive programs, “the field remains largely innovative at this stage; however, the similarities across sites in values and focus is powerful evidence that gender-responsive reform is a critical element of juvenile justice best practice” (p. 761).
As noted, the rationale for much of the gender-responsive programming is based on neurophysiological and socio-emotional, individual-level, as well as systemic- level differences that have been identified between boys and girls (the majority of these studies assume a gender binary which, again, the authors do not) (Bennett et al. 2005; Hubbard and Matthews 2008). Garcia and Lane (2013) note that for the most part, the reasons girls get into trouble are different than for boys and that these reasons (substance use; relationships/sex, STDs, and pregnancy; dysfunctional fam- ilies/running away; physical, emotional, and sexual abuse; school disengagement and truancy; and delinquent peers) should match the services they most desire and need (mentoring by caring respectful staff, practical life skills, clinical services for their abuse histories, mental health symptoms, and substance use).
Although boys underreport sexual abuse even more than girls underreport, the significant difference in the rate of sexual abuse for justice-involved youth is profound (Saar et al. 2015). And as Saar and her colleagues (2015) state, “sexual abuse has a uniquely defining impact on juvenile justice involvement for girls” (p. 9). Thus, successful work with female offenders should certainly include assess- ments and address sexual abuse and trauma.
Holsinger (2017) credits gender-responsive programming with offering safe, respectful environments that empower girls and offer services and skill development sessions, but there is no indication that this gender-responsive programming has been normed (implemented and evaluated) with Black, Latinx, Native American, or other cultures. And there is evidence that some gender-responsive programming works with some races/ethnicities but not others (Sherman and Balck 2015). There- fore, researchers and practitioners alike have begun to use these trends in differences, coupled with the importance of tested/evidence-based intervention strategies and an understanding of the intersectionality for womxn in the juvenile and criminal justice system to advocate for more expansive gender- and culturally informed program- ming (Sherman and Balck 2015).
Recognize Intersectionality for All Youthful Offenders and Reduce Group Disparities
This chapter has outlined how girls of color, gender-expansive youth, and girls who identify as LGBTQ+ have disparate outcomes in the juvenile justice system as compared to other groups. There is, however, little evidence to suggest that these outcomes are as a result of different behaviors by these girls (Fabelo et al. 2011; Himmelstein and Brückner 2011; Majd et al. 2009). Thus, scholars rely on theories of differential selection and processing to suggest that individual-level and system- level explicit and implicit biases affect girls’ justice outcomes (Piquero 2008; Sherman and Balck 2015).
Interprofessional practitioners suggest that racial and ethnic disparities result from discrimination and institutional racism that is pervasive across all US systems, and insomuch as the fact that this problem is driven by gender and race, any solutions must be race-focused (Alexander 2010; Clear and Frost 2014; Wise 2010). Wise (2010) suggests that in order to effect change, one needs to have a structural analysis of race and racism; an examination of one’s own internalized preconceptions and implicit biases; many open, honest, and color-conscious conver- sations regarding individual and institutional actions, policies, and procedures; and a commitment to creating real equity of opportunity for all (pp. 158, 167).
The evidence base for LGBTQ+-specific programming is even less developed than for gender-responsive and race-focused services. In June 2016, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention published “OJJDP Listening Session Report: Creating and Sustaining Fair and Beneficial Environments for LGBTQ Youth” following listening sessions they had conducted to explore the topic. Rec- ommendations included examining juvenile justice reform with a sexual orientation and gender identity and expression (SOGIE) lens, strengthening school-justice partnerships to reduce the school-to-prison pipeline, increasing the use of diversion, considering consumer-driven solutions that are appropriate for LGBTQ+ youth including policies and procedures that allow trans youth to choose their placement based on their gender identity, increasing training and technical assistance related to LGBTQ+ youth, and reforming prostitution offense statutes for youth who engage in survival sex. Administrator Listenbee concluded the session by saying, “The time has come for OJJDP to take a closer look at issues affecting LGBTQ youth, including their unique challenges and their disparate treatment in the juvenile justice system, particularly in those instances where sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, and race intersect” (OJJDP 2016, p. 3).
In order to effect change, we have to build upon our evidence base. To that end, data collection, analysis, and dissemination should be improved. In order to reduce disparate outcomes across different groups of youthful offenders, data must include accurate racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, and gender identity information. This will improve the cross-group comparisons and analyses. And then, these data must be disseminated across all youth service-providing agencies and to various jurisdictions (Adelman and Taylor 2006).
Increase Trauma-Informed Services
Branson et al. (2017) examined over 950 unique records to develop an empirically supported framework that promotes trauma-informed cultures within juvenile justice systems. Conceptually, this approach focuses on expanding trauma-informed service delivery from frontline workers to policymakers and legislators and, finally, to overarching organizational structures in service agencies, as well. (This research is readily available, so for the purposes of this chapter, Table 2 briefly summarizes the ten domains identified as crucial.)
Incorporating such an approach would reshape trauma-informed practice in juvenile justice such that in addition to individual and/or group therapy/counseling sessions, mezzo and macro applications would also include a trauma lens. Organizational culture development, policy advocacy, interprofessional collabora- tion, and continuous evaluation and improvement mechanisms are needed to complement and support direct services for justice-involved youth as well as their families and communities. Branson et al. (2017, p. 643) conclude that, “The growth in recognition of the importance of TIC (Trauma-Informed Care) represents an unprecedented opportunity to improve our nation’s juvenile justice system and dramatically reduce the number of young lives damaged each year through harsh and ineffective responses to youth crime.”
It is up to clinicians, policy advocates, and agency and community leaders to use the empirical evidence to develop a shared understanding of the best trauma- informed practice for them and then to implement practices and policies to address the complex needs of this vulnerable population.
Abolish Prostitution-Related Offenses for Minors
Federal law has begun to incorporate the latest neurobiological research on adoles- cent brain development (e.g., Roper v. Simmons. §543 U.S. 551 2005; Steinberg 2009). But state laws and delinquency statutes still vary considerably. This is most notable regarding the age of majority as it depends on in which state you live whether you are considered to be an adult at age 16, 17, or 18 (JPI 2017). (Service provision is profoundly different in the juvenile system versus the adult system; for more information, please see McCarter and Bridges 2011 and Raise the Age: http:// www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/raisetheagesummary_final_3_ 6_16.pdf). The age of majority has specific implications for who the law classifies as minors who engage in commercial sex acts and whether they are regarded as victims of trafficking. State law should prohibit the arrest, detention, and prosecution of children for prostitution, prostitution-related offenses, or other acts related to their sexual exploitation. These laws would then be consistent with those that prohibit minors from being able to legally consent to sex, as well as federal law, which defines any act of commercial sex with a person under the age of 18 as a severe form of trafficking in persons (Saar et al. 2015). To date, 14 states and the District of Columbia have decriminalized prostitution for juveniles, recognizing that those younger than the age of majority charged with this offense been exploited and victimized. Instead, youth previously petitioned for prostitution are regarded as children in need of social services and should not be held responsible due to their age and developmental stage (Sherman and Balck 2015). Between 2010 and 2014, 20 states passed “safe harbor” laws designed to give youth a safe exit from trafficking. These laws vary by state but are all generally designed to address adolescents’ needs through a child welfare response versus juvenile justice responses that criminalize these victims (Saar et al. 2015).
Increase Diversion Opportunities
Diversion can occur before or after youth are petitioned, but it works to keep youthful offenders from having formal contact with the juvenile or adult justice system while still holding them accountable for their actions (National Institute of Justice 2017). Cocozza et al. (2005) suggest that the goals of diversion include limiting youth involvement in the justice system, connecting juveniles with appro- priate services, decreasing offending behaviors and recidivism, increasing system efficiency, and reducing overall costs to the community, youth, and families. Some examples of diversion opportunities are community service, alternative courts (e.g., teen, mental health, drug, treatment), restitution, mediation, restorative justice, life or employment skills, and family counseling (Bartollas 2006; Mears et al. 2016; Schwalbe et al. 2012).
Consistent best practices for juvenile diversion programs include standardized screening and assessment for juveniles which are strengths-based and account for appropriate youth development, reduced interaction with justice systems, use of wraparound and family-centered interventions focused on problem-solving and skill-building, and inclusion of a broad collaborative network of community-based services (Cocozza et al. 2005; Dembo et al. 2007; Winder and Denious 2013). The state of Florida has formed a collaborative with representatives from the state’s attorney’s office, county government, juvenile justice system, schools, county/ municipal law enforcement, public defender’s office, courts, the NAACP, children’s service providers, and local philanthropies called the Civil Citation Oversight Group (Dembo et al. 2008; Sullivan et al. 2010), and the city of Charlotte has formed a similar collaborative called Race Matters for Juvenile Justice (McCarter et al. 2017). They and others suggest that interagency collaboration strengthens juvenile diver- sion programs and also makes them more effective and sustainable (Prothrow-Stith 2004).
Reduce Reliance on Detention (Especially for Status and Non-violent Offenders)
The reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act on December 21, 2018, strengthens the efforts to decarcerate status offenders. Per the JJDPA:
Youth who are found in violation of a valid court order may be held in detention, for no longer than seven days, if the court finds that such detention is necessary and enters an order containing the following: 1) identifies the valid court order that has been violated; 2) specifies the factual basis for determining that there is reasonable cause to believe that the status offender has violated such order; 3) includes findings of fact to support a determina- tion that there is no appropriate less restrictive alternative available to placing the status offender in such a facility, with due consideration to the best interest of the juvenile; 4) specifies the length of time, not to exceed seven days, that the status offender may remain in a secure detention facility or correctional facility, and includes a plan for the status offender’s release from such facility. Such an order may not be renewed. (P.L. 115–385)
Using detention (especially for status and non-violent offenses) disproportionately impacts girls because they are often enforced, as a result of typical behaviors exhibited by girls who have experienced trauma, such as running away and rule violations. Annie E. Casey’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Report (2013) on detention reform for girls includes this quote from a service provider, “Too often, juvenile court and probation officials detain low-risk girls for lack of a safe alternative. For instance, when girls have run away and don’t have anywhere else to go, or in cases of family conflict when girls are upset emotionally and/or parents refuse to come get them and take them home. Courts may also detain girls involved in the sex trade, based on fears that the girls will return to the streets and be further exploited.” Insomuch as decision-makers within juvenile justice often per- ceive girls as being vulnerable or as having high needs, this influences the decision to detain in the absence of any perceived alternatives (Sherman et al. 2013).
Summary and Conclusion
Youthful offenders are developing children and adolescents with complex and intersectional strengths and challenges along various gender expressions and intersectional characteristics and identities. Cisgender as well as gender-expansive and trans girls enter the juvenile justice system with some unique challenges including frequent mental and behavioral health challenges and substance use (Teplin et al. 2015a), pregnancy and parenthood (Sherman and Balck 2015), sexual abuse histories (Saar et al. 2015), and single or complex trauma (Baglivio et al. 2014; Finkelhor et al. 2009). For most youth, families, and communities, incarcerating juveniles does not keep them any safer or strengthen them, but instead results in capital, familial, cultural, and human costs (Underwood and Washington 2016).
Walker et al. (2015) suggest that gender- and culturally responsive programming for girls should be holistic, targeting girls’ needs in multiple areas of life; safe, building trust and using trauma-informed principles; strengths-based, encouraging the development of confidence and competencies; relational, recognizing the ways that girls’ development hinges on positive relationships; and culturally responsive, addressing girls’ intersectional identities, needs, and risks in the context of culture, race, ethnicity, religion, class, sexual orientation, etc. Thus, explicit and implicit biases must be addressed at both the individual and the systemic level (McCarter et al. 2017; Staats et al. 2017).
The juvenile justice system has been regarded as an institution that criminalizes girls for being female and punishes them for the violence they have witnessed and the abuse they have endured in childhood (Simkins and Katz 2002), and that, for some, continues into adolescence (Saar et al. 2015). Thus, juvenile justice practice and policy reform should first seek to avoid juvenile justice system contact and, if youth are justice-involved, that their services be a cross-system collaborative effort among education, child welfare, law enforcement, health/mental health, and justice in order to significantly improve the well-being of all youth (Grisso 2008).
We can no longer reinforce the injustice and disempowerment of our society’s most disadvantaged and vulnerable. Central to any juvenile justice reform is the need to address the systemic and structural injustice and mistreatment that has led to the disparities in the juvenile justice system by gender, gender identity, sexual orienta- tion, race/ethnicity/culture, and exposure to violence and trauma.
Key Points
For youth who must contact the justice system, services are more likely to be developmentally appropriate, and youth have better outcomes when served by the juvenile system as compared to the adult criminal justice system, so practitioners should work to keep youthful offenders in the juvenile system.
Typically, offenses committed by girls do not threaten public safety but instead may be reactions to trauma, interpersonal violence, forced prostitution/trafficking, and mental health/substance abuse.
Cisgender, gender-expansive, and trans girls also enter the justice system with unique challenges including mental and behavioral health and substance use issues, pregnancy and parenthood, sexual abuse/trafficking histories, and single or complex trauma.
Girls in juvenile justice are more likely than their peers to have witnessed or survived interpersonal violence, and most have experienced some or multiple types of trauma.
Once in the justice system, girls are often processed differently (as compared to boys) because of explicit and implicit bias as well as gendered policies and practices.
Micro practice with court-involved girls should recognize intersectionality and provide trauma-informed and gender-responsive services.
Macro practice with court-involved girls should maximize the age of criminal responsibility, abolish prostitution-related offenses for minors, increase diversion, and reduce detention and secure placements.