Trauma and the juvenile justice system are inextricably linked – people involved in the system (as juveniles, victims, or witnesses) have high rates of trauma exposure and involvement in the system itself can cause immense stress and perpetuate trauma symptoms (Dierkhising et al., 2013; Epstein & Goodman, 2019; Ford et al., 2007; Katirai, 2020; Malvaso et al., 2019, 2022; Matheson, 2012; Sickmund, 2016). A trauma-informed approach (TIA) to court is one that recognises this reality by attempting to address past trauma and reduce future traumatisation through implementation of a wide range of practices (called trauma-informed practices; TIPs) related to all aspects of court, from the environment to policies to behaviour of criminal legal personnel (NCJFCJ, n.d.; SAMHSA, 2014). In this study, we sought to better understand the landscape of a TIA in juvenile delinquency court, with a particular focus on judge behaviour, by observing just over 200 court hearings. We first assessed the extent to which over 60 TIPs were implemented in court and then examined whether judges’ engagement with different categories of TIP depended on various case-, judge-, and youth-related factors.

Trauma & the criminal legal system

Trauma is a lasting emotional response to an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that an individual experiences as harmful or life-threatening (SAMHSA, 2014). Trauma is prevalent among people, particularly youth, involved in criminal legal systems around the world: According to a review of 124 studies in 13 countries, 87% of youth in the criminal legal system had experienced at least one traumatic event (Malvaso et al., 2022). Other studies show that rates can be even higher, with up to 90% of youth involved in the US legal system (Dierkhising et al., 2013) and 95% of youth under justice supervision in South Australia reporting exposure to at least one traumatic event (Malvaso et al., 2019). Indeed, individuals who experience childhood trauma are significantly more likely to commit serious and violent crimes as adolescents and as adults, even when controlling for other risk factors for criminal behaviour (Fox et al., 2015; Kar, 2019; Maxfield & Widom, 1996). This relationship between trauma and criminal legal system involvement can be traced, in part, to the physiological impacts of trauma on the brain and body. Childhood trauma disrupts the development of certain cognitive, psychological, and emotional skills, and is associated with challenges that can increase the odds of engagement in violent, reactive, and criminalised behaviours (Fox et al., 2015; Kar, 2019; Pechtel & Pizzagalli, 2011). Beyond individual effects, trauma can also result from and/or exacerbate family-, community-, and societal-level oppressive conditions – such as limited access to resources, community violence, and systemic racism – that can also increase the likelihood of system involvement (Heberle et al., 2020; Slovinsky, 2023). Furthermore, involvement in court itself can cause immense stress, thereby perpetuating a cycle of trauma (Ford et al., 2007). Given these connections, a TIA is necessary to help break the cycle of trauma experienced by many court-involved young people.

A trauma-informed approach & the criminal legal system

A TIA to service delivery is one that acknowledges the trauma individuals have experienced, aims to address its effects, and attempts to prevent re-traumatisation (SAMHSA, 2014). Central to a TIA is the recognition that the impacts of trauma do not have to be permanent – the brain is malleable and can heal (Cozolino, 2017; Purewal Boparai et al., 2018), and people can demonstrate resilience, and even growth, following traumatic events (Clements-Nolle & Waddington, 2019; Harmon & Venta, 2021). The United States’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) provides a framework for a TIA that includes six guiding principles – Safety; Trustworthiness and Transparency; Peer Support; Collaboration and Mutuality; Empowerment, Voice and Choice; and Cultural, Historical and Gender Issues – that can help organisations serve trauma-affected individuals (SAMHSA, 2014). As knowledge of the prevalence and effects of trauma has increased over the past few decades, so have efforts to incorporate TIAs into a wide range of social service sectors and domains, including, but not limited to, healthcare (Oral et al., 2020), education (Carello & Butler, 2015), and social work (Levenson, 2017).

Efforts to implement a TIA in the criminal legal system have also increased. Ample literature – including peer-reviewed articles, primers, and bench cards – as well as an increasing number of educational opportunities (e.g. Bolch Judicial Institute, n.d.; SAMHSA, n.d.) provide guidance on how to incorporate a TIA into the court system. Trauma-focused literature and education offer a vast range of practices, often called trauma-informed practices (TIPs), that court systems can adopt to better promote the goals and values of a TIA. TIPs in this context generally fall into three main categories: (a) courthouse/room environment (e.g. multilingual signs, accessible parking, minimising psychological triggers like loud noises and unpleasant odors); (b) policies and procedures (e.g. eliminating unnecessarily restrictive practices; utilising trauma screenings and assessments, scheduling the docket in intentional ways); and (c) judge behaviour and decision-making (e.g. avoiding demeaning language, providing positive feedback, giving court-involved individuals a space to speak, prioritising less restrictive sentences; collaborating with community-based organisations) (Branson et al., 2017; Cook, 2021; Desai et al., 2019; DeVault et al., 2018; Marsh et al., 2016; McKenna & Holtfreter, 2021; McKinsey et al., 2022; NC Judicial Branch, 2022; NCTSN, 2018; Rice & Meinster, 2019; SAMHSA, 2014). Despite the profusion of TIA-related recommendations directed at legal systems around the world, little is known about the implementation of these practices – that is, whether the practices have been adopted and to what extent.

Judges’ role in implementing a TIA

When it comes to implementing a TIA, judge behaviour warrants outsized attention: judges wield immense influence over various aspects of court, including court-involved people’s experiences and outcomes, courtroom policy and culture, and the behaviours of other court personnel (Edwards, 1992; Salvatore et al., 2011; Traguetto & Guimaraes, 2019). As such, their engagement with and buy-in to TIPs is essential to the successful adoption of a TIA in the court system. While some studies have investigated judges’ attitudes and experiences related to a TIA (McKinsey et al., 2022; 2024), no prior research – to our knowledge – has explicitly and comprehensively examined judge engagement with TIPs in the juvenile courtroom. For instance, one study surveyed 91 state judges in the United States to examine their attitudes and experiences related to a TIA, finding greater self-reported engagement with TIPs related to communication compared to policies/procedures and decision-making (McKinsey et al., 2024). However, because this study solely relied on self-report measures, the extent to which the judges actually implemented these TIPs was unknown.

That said, a host of observational studies have examined judge behaviour in other court settings and with different focuses (e.g. Beier et al., 2014; Knoche et al., 2022; Kopelovich et al., 2013; Salvatore et al., 2011). Most relevant to the present research are studies examining judge behaviour through the lens of procedural justice (PJ) theory (Beier et al., 2014; Knoche et al., 2022; Kopelovich et al., 2013), which has similar processes and goals of a TIA (McKenna & Holtfreter, 2021). The elements of voice, neutrality, respect, and trust form the basis for PJ (Tyler & Jackson, 2014), just as the principles of voice, fairness, respect, and mutuality are central to a TIA (McKenna & Holtfreter, 2021; SAMHSA, 2014). In one such study that assessed the extent to which judges engaged in behaviour aligned with PJ theory in New York City mental health courts, researchers observed 339 judge–defendant interactions across four courts with different resident judges, collecting data on engagement with behaviours related to procedural fairness, respect, inclusion/voice, etc. (e.g. whether the judge spoke directly to the defendant) (Kopelovich et al., 2013). Items were summed to create a Judge Subscale representing the extent to which the judge–defendant interaction aligned with PJ-theory (potential score range = 1–21). Findings revealed that interactions across all courts were fairly positive (M = 16.94, SD = 4.15); however, scores differed significantly across courts demonstrating between-judge variability in practice. While this and other similar studies provide insight into certain judge behaviours that align closely with a TIA, they do not capture the full range of TIPs – like decision-making practices, policy considerations, efforts to understand root cause of problem behaviour, and involvement of family – leaving a gap in knowledge surrounding TIP implementation in courts.

Differential treatment by judges

There is also a dearth of knowledge about whether judges implement TIPs in equitable ways. Research assessing equity in the courts typically examines the influence of legal factors (e.g. offence severity, prior record) and extralegal factors (e.g. race/ethnicity, gender, age of defendant) on judicial decision-making. While there is a general assumption that decision-making based strictly on legal information represents the most rational approach, extra-legal information – which is often rooted in bias and stereotypes – inevitably plays a role as well (Applegate et al., 2000; Carvacho et al., 2023; Hartley, 2014; Micle et al., 2013; Steffensmeier et al., 1998). Many of these prior studies examining the influence of legal- and extra-legal factors, however, focus on decision-making and outcomes (e.g. length of incarceration; placement outcomes), rather than on process (e.g. interactions during court hearings).

When considering a TIA in court, we are primarily talking about process (including the process of making decisions, e.g. collaborating with community groups). Part of taking a TIA in court means recognising that, because nearly all court-involved persons have experienced some form of trauma, it is safest to assume trauma and implement a TIA at all times (referred to as a ‘universal precautions approach’; NCJFCJ, n.d.). This approach also recognises that TIPs can benefit all individuals, even court personnel and court-involved persons who have not endured significant trauma. As such, judge engagement with TIPs within the courtroom should not depend on legal nor extra-legal factors. This expectation can appear contradictory, given the attention to contextual, extra-legal factors within a TIA. For instance, a TIA encourages judges to acknowledge structural inequities, like systemic racism, to understand a child’s court involvement and decide a culturally appropriate consequence (Esaki et al., 2022; McKenna & Holtfreter, 2021). But considering race to better understand a child’s experience is not the same thing as engaging in a TIA to differing extents depending on a child’s race. In other words, a TIA may include attention to selective factors but should not include selectively deploying TIPs. We recognise this distinction is blurry, and therefore greater investigation into equitable employment of TIPs is needed, particularly to ensure that TIPs are not discriminately withheld from minoritized populations.

Though research on the factors (both legal and extra-legal) that influence judges’ differential treatment towards court-involved people (as opposed to decision-making) is lacking, one recent study did investigate this issue (Knoche et al., 2022). Through analysis of audio recordings from 86 hearings from a juvenile court located in the Southwestern United States, Knoche and colleagues found that both personal characteristics of the youth and of the judge predicted certain elements of the judge–youth in-court interaction (e.g. youth race predicted the number of times a judge interacted with them; judge gender predicted the length of judge–youth interaction). Further investigation into the factors that predict judge engagement with a wide range of TIPs is a crucial step in ensuring equitable and comprehensive roll-out of a TIA across court systems.

Current research

The present study aims to fill some of the gaps regarding implementation of TIPs in juvenile delinquency court. Specifically, we conducted systematic court observations of juvenile delinquency court, collecting data on the extent to which the courthouse and courtroom environment, the courtroom policies/activities, and the judges’ behaviours were trauma-informed. We aimed to: (a) better understand the ways in which courts and judges are currently implementing TIPs (research aim #1); and (b) assess the equitable nature of engagement with TIPs by investigating whether judges’ engagement in different categories of TIPs depended on various case-, judge-, and youth-related factors (research aim #2).

Method

Research sites

We observed juvenile delinquency court in seven urban counties in a Southeastern state in the United States. In this state, the juvenile delinquency court is the system that handles complaints against children (i.e. any person under age 18 who is not married, emancipated, or in the military) who are alleged to be either delinquent (i.e. to have engaged in conduct that would be considered a crime if committed by an adult) or undisciplined (i.e. to have engaged in conduct that is considered ‘inappropriate’, such as skipping school). All juvenile delinquency court cases are overseen by district court judges (i.e. judges who hear cases involving civil, criminal, magistrate, and juvenile matters). We used a combination of purposive and convenience sampling to select the seven study counties. We narrowed to only urban counties in a single state to generally control for access to services, resources, and programming (which often differ between urban and rural counties) and to counties with high caseloads to increase the odds of observing a substantial number of hearings on each day that we visited. We also narrowed to counties whose chief juvenile court counsellors (i.e. court-employed professionals who provide services to youth involved in the juvenile court system) were willing to provide us with court schedules in advance. Although we did not officially need permission to observe court (juvenile court is open to the public in the study state), we decided to communicate with court counsellors to assist with creating observation schedules and in case our presence in the courtroom was questioned. We left it to the discretion of the court counsellors about whether to inform the judge of our presence.

Sample

We collected data on 36 court sessions that included 201 juvenile delinquency court hearings overseen by 16 different judges. As for the 16 judges we observed, 55.2% were perceived by observers as women and the rest as men. Just over half were perceived as Black/African American (56.3%), around one-third were perceived as White (31.3%), and the rest as an unknown race. As for youths,¹ of the 201 hearings observed, almost three-quarters of those hearings involved youth perceived as Black/African American (72.1%), nearly 13% involved youth perceived as Hispanic/Latinx, and nearly 12% involved youth perceived as White. Over four fifths of hearings involved youth perceived as boys (83.1%); three fifths of hearings involved youth perceived as Black boys (59.7%). For the 44.3% of hearings in which youth age was publicly shared, the average age was 15.7 years (SD = 1.4, range = 12–19). Just over three fourths of the hearings involved youths who were in court without restraints (76.1%), and the remaining hearings involved an equal number of youths who were in court and restrained to some extent (i.e. hand restraints, leg shackles, or both: 11.9%) and who were currently in secure custody (i.e. joined via teleconferencing from detention centre: 11.9%). For the majority of hearings, only a single parental figure was present (62.2%), and this person was typically the youth’s mother (56.2%). We do not report on victim characteristics (nor judge interactions with victims) because victims were present in only five of the 201 hearings we observed.

Table 1 presents the frequency of hearing types² we observed. The most frequent type was secure custody hearings, which are held to assess the need for continued detention of the youth leading up to their adjudication hearing (i.e. the hearing when the judge determines whether the youth committed the act). The next two most frequent hearing types were first appearances (i.e. initial hearings in which the court informs the youth of the allegations in their petition, confirms presence of counsel, and reviews the responsibilities of a guardian), and continuances (i.e. hearings in which all matters were continued (postponed) to another date). With regard to the level of offences we observed, for nearly 40% of the hearings, observers did not know the highest offence for which the youth was charged. For the hearings in which the highest charge level was known, a majority of those were serious offences (the second highest possible charge level out of three; 35.8% of all hearings), followed by violent offences (the highest possible charge level; 15.9%), followed by minor or undisciplined offences (the lowest charge levels; 9.0%).

Table 1.

Frequency of hearing types.

Note: N = 201. We categorised hearing type as the furthest along that the case moved procedurally during that hearing. ‘First appearance’ category may have included waived probable cause. The ‘Other’ category included reviews, motions for review, writs, transfers, dismissal upon review, and status offences. For inferential analyses, we further collapsed hearing type into six categories (see Supplemental materials).

Data collection materials

We collected data using a three-page paper court observation instrument developed by our research team (see the Appendix). To create the instrument, we conducted a review of both grey and peer-reviewed literature on trauma-informed courtrooms to identify observable practices that can be implemented in the court setting (see the codebook in Supplemental materials for sources for each included practice). We organised the practices into sub-sections on a paper-form format, then piloted the instrument in court for approximately four months. To ensure content validity, we received feedback on the instrument from a juvenile court attorney and a social psychologist who is an expert on TIAs in the criminal legal context. We developed a codebook with operational definitions and examples for each item on the instrument. Below, we describe the sections and items of the instrument for which we report results.

Session-level variables

The first page of the instrument focused on session-level information, or information that observers recorded only once per visit to a particular courthouse and courtroom. Observers collected perceived personal information about the judge (race/ethnicity and gender) and information on different practices related to courthouse/room environment (e.g. temperature, greenery, artwork) and courtroom policies/activities (e.g. docket flexibility, use of restraints on juveniles in custody). Observers rated each practice on a scale from 0 (‘not at all’ or ‘none of the time’) to 3 (‘to a great extent’ or ‘all of the time’) to indicate the level at which they observed this practice or element being present or implemented during the court session. In general, 0 reflected a not trauma-informed score and 3 reflected a trauma-informed score. For example, for the item ‘Docket flexibility’, a rating of 0 meant that the judge was ‘not at all flexible about changes to order or timing of the docket (e.g. does not allow case to be seen out of order; does not wait for parents to log into WebEx)’ and a rating of 3 meant that the judge was ‘very flexible and proactively changed the order or timing of the docket for ease of youths, families, and other legal actors’.

Hearing-level variables

The remaining two pages included hearing-level information, or information that observers recorded multiple times during a visit to a courtroom, for every hearing. Observers recorded hearing type (e.g. first appearance, admission, disposition); offence type and/or level (e.g. ‘larceny’ or Level 1, 2, or 3); perceived personal characteristics of the youth (i.e. race/ethnicity, gender, age [when publicly shared in court]); the youth’s incapacitation level (i.e. degree of restraints and/or detention); guardian information (i.e. which guardian(s) attended hearing); case outcome information (i.e. court actors’ recommendations and the judge’s final decision), and information on judge-specific practices (described below). All information was collected based on observations and limited to the information openly discussed at the hearing (no court records, outside information, or direct identifiers were obtained/collected). As with the session-level environment- and policies/activities-related items, observers rated the judge-specific practice items on a scale from 0 (‘not at all’ or ‘none of the time’) to 3 (‘to a great extent’ or ‘all of the time’) to indicate the level at which the judge engaged with each practice during the hearing. For example, for the item ‘Explains legal jargon (or avoids using it)’, a score of 0 meant that the judge ‘used lots of jargon without providing any explanations or rephrasing’, and a score of 3 meant that the judge ‘avoided jargon entirely or proactively and clearly explained/rephrased’.

Data collection procedure

Our observation team was comprised of nine researchers, all of whom participated in extensive training on the court observation instrument and codebook before beginning official data collection, which lasted from April to September of 2023. Two observers attended each court session on predetermined days and remained in court for the duration of the session. Observers coded their observation instruments separately, filling out the first page of the instrument once per session and the other two pages for every hearing. Following each court session, the two observers engaged in consensus coding, reviewing all objective information (e.g. hearing type, case outcome) and their subjective scores (0–3) for each practice item, identifying any scores that differed by more than one point. Once a week for the duration of data collection, we met as an observation team to discuss discrepancies in coding and how to remedy any confusion or disagreements before beginning the next week of observations. As the final step of data collection, observers entered their individual data into a Qualtrics form that mirrored the observation instrument. A university institutional review board (IRB) approved all study materials and procedures prior to data collection. The requirement for informed consent from study participants was waived because the research involved no more than minimal risk and all data were collected from court sessions that were open to the public.

Analysis

We assessed interrater reliability by calculating percent agreement between the two observers across session-level and hearing-level data for all subjective items (items scored 0 through 3). Percent agreement was calculated with allowance of a one-point difference (given scores would later be averaged). The average percentage of agreement was 95.8% for session-level data across all sessions and 98.4% for hearing-level data across all hearings. For the hearing-level data, we also calculated the percentage of agreement for each of the seven sub-sections of the instrument, which ranged from 97.8% to 99.9% across all hearings.

To create our analytical dataset, we merged the two observers’ responses into one response for each session and hearing. Two members of our research team first reviewed all objective information (e.g. hearing type, case outcome), ensuring that the two coders’ responses for each session and hearing were the same. If so, one of their responses was randomly selected to be in the merged dataset. If differences were identified, observers would attempt to resolve the discrepancy (e.g. by checking their original coding sheets to see if data were simply entered into Qualtrics incorrectly). If observers could not resolve the discrepancy, the response would be recorded as missing in the merged dataset. For all subjective items (i.e. items coded 0–3), we used the average score between the two coders in the merged dataset. If one observer’s response was N/A or missing for an item and the other observer coded a value, we included the coded value in the merged dataset.

To address our first research aim of exploring the extent to which juvenile delinquency court in our study state was trauma-informed, we assessed levels of engagement with TIPs individually and in categories. We categorised all practices into nine main categories. Three categories were at the session-level: (a) Courthouse environment, (b) Courtroom environment, and (c) Courtroom policies/activities (see Table 2). The other six were at the hearing-level: (a) General Communication, which included practices related to the judge’s General Communication with courtroom participants; (b) Understanding/Transparency, which included practices related to the judge ensuring the hearing was transparent and understood by youths and families; (c) Youth Interactions, which included practices related to how the judge interacted with the youth; (d) Family Interactions, which included practices related to how the judge interacted with youths’ family members and/or guardians; (e) Bigger Picture, which included practices related to the judge attempting to understand or acknowledge broader contextual factors that may have contributed to the youth’s court involvement; and (f) Decision-Making, which included practices related to how the judge made decisions in the case and what those decisions were (see Table 3). We computed descriptive statistics for each item individually (i.e. mean, standard deviation, median, mode, minimum, maximum) and computed average scores for each practice category. We reverse-scored some items when calculating means, such that higher mean scores always represented a more trauma-informed approach (e.g. we reverse-scored the mean score for ‘Youths in restraints’ so that a higher score translated to fewer youths being restrained). We present the raw median, mode, minimum, and maximum scores (i.e. not reverse-scored) so that values align with the actual scores coded for those items. The N columns in Tables 2 and 3 display the total number of valid sessions or hearings for each practice, which we used as the denominator when calculating the mean scores (e.g. the N for ‘Youths in restraints’ was 24 because only 24 sessions involved hearings in which youths were brought into court from secure custody (i.e. there were only 24 sessions in which youths could be in restraints); we did not count first appearances and continuances as valid hearings for practices related to decision-making because decisions are not made during those hearings). (See Supplemental materials for explanations of all N exceptions.)

To explore our second research aim of investigating which factors predicted judges’ engagement with different TIP categories, we conducted six multilevel linear models, one for each hearing-level practice category. We conducted multilevel modelling because of the hierarchical nature of the data (i.e. hearings (Level 1) were nested within judges (Level 2)). We first conducted unconditional means models, which allowed us to assess the percentage of variability in the data that was between-judges. We then ran separate multilevel regression models predicting each of the six practice categories that included seven categorical predictor variables – six at the hearing-level, and two at the judge-level (see below). For multi-categorical variables, the reference groups were chosen as the simplest or lowest level, and for binary variables, the reference group was automatically chosen as the lower-coded number. The hearing-level variables, which related to either the case or the youth, included the following: (a) guardian presence (two groups – single parent present, all other guardianship arrangements (reference group)); (b) incapacitation level (three groups – in court with no restraints (reference group), in court in restraints, in secure custody (i.e. youth appearing via teleconference from detention)); (c) hearing type (six groups – first appearance (reference group),³ secure custody, admission, deferred adjudication/deferred disposition/completed disposition, continuance, all other); (d) highest offence level (four groups – minor (reference group), serious, violent, unknown); (e) youth gender (two groups – boy (reference group), girl); and (f) youth race (two groups – not White (reference group), White). There were two judge-level variables: judge race (two groups – not White (reference group), White) and judge gender (two groups – man [reference group], woman).

Results

We report analysis results related to our two main research aims.

Research aim 1: implementation of TIPs

Session-level TIPs

Courthouse & courtroom environment

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for both courthouse and courtroom environment-related items and Figure 1 displays the mean scores. In both categories, the majority of items (62% of courthouse items and 64% of courtroom items) had mean scores between 2 and 3, meaning these elements tended to be present in the courthouses and courtrooms where we observed. The same three items received the lowest scores in both the courthouse and courtroom categories – comfortable seating, artwork, and greenery – which were either completely missing or limited where we observed. Results showed many floor- or ceiling-effects for items, indicating that there was little variability in the degree to which these elements were practiced or present (e.g. almost all courthouses and courtrooms scored the same for items such as clean (3), artwork (0), greenery (0), bad smell (0)). Mean scores for each category revealed that courthouse environments (M = 2.11, SD = 0.43) were overall more trauma-informed compared to courtroom environments (M = 1.88, SD = 0.33).

Courtroom policies & activities

Table 2 also presents the descriptive statistics for the TIP items related to courtroom policies and activities. The majority of items in this practice category also had mean scores between 2 and 3; however, a few practices had markedly lower scores – youths in restraints, judge conducts court from the bench, and judge wearing their robe. The overall mean score for the courtroom policies/activities category was 1.84 (SD = 0.30; see Figure 1).

Hearing-Level TIPs

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for hearing-level practice items, which all relate to judge behaviour and which we categorised into six practice categories. Figure 1 displays the mean scores for each practice category. Judges engaged with practices related to communication (M = 2.35, SD = 0.48) and Transparency/Understanding (M = 1.72, SD = 0.76) to the greatest extent. That said, several practices within those categories still had fairly low scores, such as the practice of greeting the youth and/or family for the hearing, assessing the youth and/or family understanding of the hearing, and explaining procedural steps and purpose of hearing.

The other four practice categories had average scores of less than 1, indicating that judges tended to not implement TIPs at all in those realms or to do so to a small extent (many items had floor effects). Within the practice category of Youth Interactions (M = 0.94, SD = 0.93), the most common practice was inviting the youth to speak, and when the judge did do that, they tended to engage with the youth in a fairly constructive way. The lowest scores in that category were for the practices of providing positive feedback/praise to the youth and involving the youth in decision-making, both of which judges did not engage with at all during the majority of hearings. The Decision-Making and Family Interaction categories had similar mean scores, 0.78 and 0.71 respectively, with the Decision-Making category having slightly less variability (SDs = 0.62 vs. 0.78). The decision-making practice that judges engaged with most, but still not to a great extent, was exploring less restrictive options. As for the other practices in that category, judges very rarely connected youths and family to services, outwardly considered progress when making decisions, or made decisions that involved collaboration with community-based organisations or groups. As for Family Interactions, judges invited family members to speak to a greater extent than they invited youths to speak; however, their engagement with family tended to be less constructive than when they engaged with youth (e.g. using what the family member said against the youth). Judges also rarely sought to connect with family members, provide positive feedback/praise, or involve family in decision-making. Judges engaged the least with practices within the Bigger Picture category (M = 0.41, SD = 0.55), indicating that they very rarely outwardly acknowledged or attempted to understand broader contextual factors that may have contributed to youths’ court involvement, such as personal adversity/trauma or structural inequity, nor recognised youths’ strength and resilience factors.

Research aim 2: Equitable engagement with TIPs

Results of unconditional means models for each of the six judge-focused practice categories showed that for three of the practice categories – General Communication, Understanding/Transparency, and Family Interactions – substantial proportions (i.e. >45%) of variability were due to between-judge differences. For the other three practice categories – Youth Interactions, Bigger Picture, and Decision-Making – 20% or less of the variation was between judges (see Table S1 in Supplemental materials). Results from each of the six multilevel linear regression models are also displayed in the Supplemental materials due to space limitations (Tables S2–7). We describe significant results below. In all six models, other than the intercept (which was significant in all models except the Decision-Making model, indicating that the practice category scores were significantly greatly than 0 with all predictor variables at the reference level), few variables were significant predictors (p < .05), and none were significant in all models. Below, all coefficients can be interpreted as: ‘on average, holding all modelled variables constant’.

Results revealed no significant predictors in the General Communication model (ps ≥ .163) and the Bigger Picture model (ps ≥ .085). For the Understanding/Transparency model, only incapacitation level of youth was a significant predictor, (p = .030 for in restraints and p = .005 for in secure custody). Judges’ scores were higher for youths in court/in restraints by 0.34 points and in secure custody (youth appearing via teleconference) by 0.53 points compared to those in court/no restraints. For the models predicting Youth Interactions, Family Interactions, and Decision-Making, hearing type was a significant predictor. In the model for Youth Interactions, scores for continuances were 0.55 points lower than first appearance hearings (p = .039). In the Family Interactions model, scores were 0.42 points lower for secure custody (p = .025) and 0.38 points lower for continuances (p = .031), compared to first appearances. In the Decision-Making model, scores were higher by 0.59 points for deferred adjudications/deferred dispositions/completed dispositions (p < .001) and 0.43 points higher for ‘other’ types of hearings (p = .017), compared to secure custody hearings.

Despite there being few significant predictors, the random effects by judge for each model revealed notable differences between scores by judge, holding all else constant, in half of the models (see Table 4). These coefficients can be interpreted as judge-specific adjustments to the scores – in other words, a negative score for a specific judge indicates lower levels of observed TIPs compared to average, while a positive score indicates higher levels. For the General Communication, Understanding/Transparency, and Family Interactions practice category scores, 10, 7, and 7 judges, respectively, showed individual intercept adjustments that were significant. Conversely, Youth Interactions, Bigger Picture, and Decision-Making categories showed two or fewer significant judge-specific intercept adjustments.

Discussion

In this observational study, we investigated the presence of TIPs related to courthouse and courtroom environment, courtroom policies/activities, and judge behaviour in juvenile delinquency court. We observed 36 court sessions that included 201 juvenile delinquency court hearings overseen by 16 different judges in seven urban counties in a Southeastern state in the United States. In addition to examining the level of engagement with over 60 TIPs, we also assessed various hearing-, youth-, and judge-related factors as predictors of judge engagement in different categories of TIP. Before reviewing the findings related to our research aims, we discuss the implications from two findings related to our study’s sample – one related to race and the other to type of hearing.

Sample findings & implications

Nearly three quarters of the hearings we observed involved youth perceived by observers as Black/African American, far exceeding the percentage of Black/African American people that comprise the study state’s population, which is less than 25% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). Of the hearings we observed, 12% involved youth perceived as White, while nearly seven-tenths of the study state’s population is White (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). In other words, our sample reveals severe overrepresentation of Black/African American youth and underrepresentation of White youth in the study state’s juvenile court system, mirroring national-level racial disparities at various stages of criminal legal system processing – Black youth are arrested at higher rates compared to White youth for nearly all offences; the rate of involvement in the juvenile justice system for Black/African American youth is five times higher than of non-Hispanic White youth; and one in three Black/African American youth are incarcerated at some point in their lives compared to one in 17 non-Hispanic White youth (National Academies, 2022; OJJDP, 2020). Our study sample substantiates the pervasiveness of racial inequity in the U.S. criminal legal system – a product of past and continuing systemic racism (Najdowski & Stevenson, 2022) – thereby affirming the need for varied and committed efforts to address this issue, such as investing in culturally relevant and responsive community-based programming, emphasising diversion programs at the time of arrest, pursuing innovative discipline options to mediate the school-to-prison pipeline, and implementing wide-scale cultural humility and systemic racism training (Cabaniss et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2020; Sanders, 2021).

The second and third most common types of hearings observed were continuances and first appearances (19.4% and 17.9%, respectively, of all hearings observed). Research demonstrates that the longer a court-involved person is exposed to the legal system, the more their mental health deteriorates (Clemente & Padilla-Racero, 2020). Continuances and first appearances, while administratively useful, prolong a youth’s contact with the court and delay their ability to receive closure to their situation (Butts et al., 2009). This delay has the potential to erode their mental health, adding to any previous trauma they may have undergone. Furthermore, both continuances and first appearances typically last around five minutes (though we did not officially record hearing length), yet the court-involved youth and at least one guardian are required to attend. Given the unpredictable nature of court schedules, attending any hearing, even one that lasts 5 min, typically means missing work for the guardian and school for the child, thereby presenting challenges to employment for the guardian (e.g. risk of losing job because of missed work) and obstacles to consistent education for the child. Given these varied issues, efforts should be made to reduce the frequency of these hearings (e.g. improving docket management and communication between court actors, so that families can be informed ahead of time if their case will be continued) or to conduct such hearings remotely, which many court systems have begun to do (Quintanilla et al., 2023). If unable to avoid these hearings altogether, judges can use these times to set a trauma-informed tone and establish a psychologically safe environment from the start (e.g. by taking time to explain the court process, learn about the youth, etc.), rather than simply rushing through them (McKenna & Holtfreter, 2021; Rice & Meinster, 2019; SAMHSA, 2014).

Summary of research aim findings & implications

Research aim 1: implementation of TIPs

Our first research aim was to explore the landscape of a TIA in the juvenile delinquency court setting by investigating which TIPs are and are not in use, and to what extent. Overall, findings revealed vast gaps in implementation of certain TIPs, highlighting areas where juvenile courts can focus future education, policy, and practice efforts. In regard to both the courthouse and courtroom environment, comfortable seating, artwork, and greenery ranked as the least trauma-informed elements. However, these environmental conditions matter – quantity and quality of seating can contribute to general feelings of ease and comfort, visual artwork can reduce the amount of stress an individual experiences, and greenery can boost psychological wellbeing and increase positive health outcomes (DeVault et al., 2018). These findings highlight opportunities for simple, low-cost changes that, if pursued, can help create more trauma-informed court environments, which is a crucial step towards achieving a more trauma-informed court system overall.

As for court session policies/activities, we observed engagement with such practices to a fair extent. For instance, observers recorded that courtroom policies were generally enforced equitably by both judges and bailiffs (e.g. bailiffs asking all people speaking loudly in the courthouse to quiet down, regardless of identity or role) and that judges appeared to typically allow for docket flexibility from the bench. Several policies and activities related to a TIA, however, were not as well implemented. For instance, ‘Youth in restraints’ received a fairly low score, indicating a good number of youths wore restraints, or were shackled, in the courtroom. Use of restraints can trigger trauma symptoms, exacerbate feelings of isolation, hopelessness, and shame, and perpetuate stigma among young people, making elimination of this practice whenever possible a highly recommended TIP (Branson et al., 2017; Nabha, 2008). Some juvenile justice organisations argue that the harm of shackling far outweighs the oft-proffered justification of courtroom security, advocating, instead, for the use of shackles as an absolute last resort at times when other courtroom attendees are in active danger and when other de-escalation efforts have failed (Nabha, 2008). Our results demonstrate that there is likely still work to be done to reduce reliance on this practice that remains somewhat common in juvenile courtrooms in the United States. Additionally, all judges we observed wore their formal judicial robes (as opposed to going without), and nearly all conducted court fully from the bench (as opposed to, e.g. stepping down into the well). While doing otherwise are undoubtedly unconventional practices, they are simple approaches that may reduce feelings of intimidation, ease communication, and help foster the trauma-informed principles of collaboration and mutuality (McKinsey et al., 2022; NJC, 2017; SAMHSA, 2014).

Regarding hearing-level TIPs, we found the most engagement with practices related to general communication and understanding/transparency and the least engagement with practices related to Youth Interactions, Family Interactions, Bigger Picture, and Decision-Making. These findings are not necessarily surprising – the two practice categories with higher engagement (though still room for improvement) represent some of the most basic TIPs, such as using a cordial tone and reading text clearly; the four practice categories with the lowest scores represent much higher-level engagement of a TIA (e.g. require more time, knowledge of trauma, coordination, judge effort, system-level thinking, questioning the status quo, etc.). The relatively greater engagement with general communication- and transparency/understanding-related TIPs may reflect efforts in recent decades to increase perceptions of PJ by urging judges to make relatively simple changes, such as adjusting their tone, making eye contact, and avoiding complex language (Beier et al., 2014). This is not to say that these practices are not important to promoting a TIA and PJ, or that some of the practices within the other four categories do not also align with PJ-theory (e.g. engaging with youth can promote PJ). But the least used practices, such as those in the Decision-Making and Bigger Picture categories, are more central to a TIA as opposed to merely a PJ-oriented approach. This may indicate that the PJ movement has enjoyed some success in courts while highlighting the need for improved implementation of more complex TIPs.

To expand, judges rarely implemented decision-making-related TIPs core to a TIA, like ordering, or referencing, psychological screenings/evaluations, and connecting youth and families with services (Branson et al., 2017; NCTSN, 2018). This is especially notable because the judge is the only one with the legal authority to issue an order requiring these. Indeed, a TIA is one that not only recognises but also addresses past trauma, which psychological screenings/evaluations and many services are designed to do. Another core tenet of a TIA is to work to better understand the contextual factors that lead to certain behaviours, such as individual- and structural-level adversity, and to take a strengths-based approach to addressing these factors (Baker et al., 2016; SAMHSA, 2014). These practices, which we labelled as ‘Bigger Picture’ practices, were the least commonly implemented in the courtrooms where we observed. These findings align with prior research, such as one study demonstrating South Australian superior court judges’ general avoidance of both acknowledging collective/intergenerational trauma associated with court-involved persons’ Aboriginality and recognising the possible link between trauma and offending behaviour (McLachlan, 2022). This finding may indicate that judges are failing to fully appreciate the varied ways in which outside circumstances and experiences are relevant to a person’s court involvement as well as their path forward, or to understand that their role can and should encompass discussion of these realities. Alternatively, or additionally, judges may not feel confident in how to broach these topics appropriately in an open courtroom. For instance, as McLachlan (2022) pointed out, judges may worry that commenting on factors related to someone’s cultural identity may be perceived as biased or racist, thereby resulting in a general avoidance of these topics, even if such factors were considered in decision-making (2022). As such, future trauma education programming should attend to how judges can engage in discussion of bigger picture factors in appropriate, considerate, and trauma-informed ways.

Our findings additionally support prior postulating that judges, while willing to make surface-level changes to their practice, resist practices that require forethought or coordination with other court actors or that challenge the status quo (McKinsey et al., 2024; Ostrom, 2010), including changes that may threaten the perception of the judge as one whose primary role is to be authoritative and dole out punishment. For instance, engaging with youth and families during the court process, such as involving them in decision-making, may feel counterintuitive to a judge who sees themselves as the leader, expert, and ultimate decider. This may be especially true of juvenile court judges, who question the cognitive ability or psychosocial development of the youth and, therefore, believe the youth should have a limited say in the process (Berryessa & Reeves, 2020). However, a TIA cannot be achieved without centring the principles of choice, voice, empowerment, collaboration, and mutuality (SAMHSA, 2014).

This failure to engage may have real consequences, since research suggests that engagement with youth and families may help achieve more effective and positive outcomes. For instance, we know that accountability and behaviour change are most likely to occur when young people have an input in the process and are offered positive reinforcement instead of solely negative feedback (National Research Council, 2013; Seigle et al., 2014), yet judges rarely engaged with youth in these ways. Additionally, positive interactions with family may lead to better understanding of family and youth needs, which is crucial to effective intervention and rehabilitation efforts (Buffington et al., 2010; Desai et al., 2019). Yet, again, the judges we observed rarely implemented such practices.

Research aim 2: Equitable engagement with TIPs

Our second research aim was to assess whether certain characteristics of the judge (race, gender), youth (race, gender, incapacitation level), and case (guardian presence, hearing type, offence level) predicted judge engagement in the six hearing-level TIP categories. Multilevel modelling revealed that the included variables had minimal and inconsistent predictive influence on judge behaviour. Specifically, we found no significant predictors of judge engagement with the General Communication and Bigger Picture categories. This finding suggests equitable implementation of practices in these categories across the variables as tested as predictors, whether that takes the form of high engagement across the board (as in the case of General Communication TIPs) or very low engagement across the board (as in the case of Bigger Picture TIPs). We did find, however, that incapacitation level of youth predicted judges’ engagement with the Understanding/Transparency category: judges showed greater engagement with youth appearing in court in restraints and youth in secure custody (i.e. joining court via teleconference) compared to youth appearing in court not in restraints. Though taking steps to ensure that all court-involved youth, regardless of incapacitation level, understand court proceedings is essential to a TIA, this particular finding does not necessarily indicate a negative inequity. Instead, it may indicate that judges recognise that youth in restraints or in custody may be experiencing relatively greater levels of withdrawal and/or that they are facing more dire legal consequences (e.g. continued time in detention) – therefore, judges may exert extra effort to ensure these youth are tuned into and understand the court process.

Lastly, we found hearing type predicted engagement in the Youth Interactions, Family Interactions, and Decision-Making categories. Given the goals, required components, and duration of hearing can differ widely across hearing types, this finding makes sense. For example, judges interacted less with family and youth during continuances (which are often focused on simply rescheduling the hearing) compared to first appearance hearings and engaged with decision-making TIPs more in completed or deferred dispositions/adjudications (hearings where the judge determines consequences/orders/goals with a timeline) compared to secure custody hearings. Though intuitive, these findings demonstrate that a TIA is not always applied evenly, thereby highlighting the need for judges to continue to explore ways to embody a TIA, even at times when it appears challenging (e.g. during very brief hearings).

That said, the finding of few significant predictors signals that judges generally implemented TIPs in equitable ways within their courtrooms across the predictors we tested, countering previous research showing differential treatment of court-involved youth by judges based on judge and youth characteristics, like race and gender (Knoche et al., 2022). While this set of findings is encouraging, our analyses also revealed notable differences between judges when it comes to applying TIPs in several practice categories: General Communication, Understanding/Transparency, and Family Interactions. In other words, many judges acted differently from one another in the above-listed categories. (Though, as noted above, these differences were not along lines of judge race and gender.) Though there were few significant differences between judges in the other three categories, the very low levels of engagement in those categories overall indicate ample room for improvement for all judges we observed. As such, children’s exposure to a TIA may essentially depend on the judge to whom they are assigned. These findings substantiate prior research finding significant differences in practices between different judges (Beier et al., 2014) as well as anecdotal reports from members of our observation team who frequently discussed the vast range in judge behaviour that they witnessed (from the ‘exemplary trauma-informed judge’ to the ‘opposite of a trauma-informed judge’). Future efforts should include standardising a TIA across entire court systems through wide-scale trauma education opportunities and addressing all types of barriers to TIA implementation, including lack of judicial buy-in, practical barriers, and systemic barriers (McKinsey et al., 2022). It must be recognised that a court system is far from trauma-informed as long as court-involved people are at risk of ending up in a courtroom with a judge who does not fully appreciate the power they hold to either interrupt a cycle of trauma or to perpetuate it.

Limitations & future directions

Implications should be considered in light of several limitations. First, we collected data from juvenile delinquency courts in just seven counties in a Southeastern state in the United States, thereby limiting the extent to which findings can be generalised across court contexts and geographic regions. However, as this is the first observational study to comprehensively examine a large number of TIPs, the findings provide a solid foundation on which future research can be built. Further, overlaps between our findings and prior studies’ findings, such as a South Australian study on how judges respond to trauma in the lives of Aboriginal persons (McLachlan, 2022), suggest that some of the TIP implementation gaps we found are also present in other contexts and populations. Second, our study examined implementation of TIPs only to the extent that those practices were observable. This greatly limited the extent to which we could assess certain types of TIPs, such as policy-related practices (e.g. a court’s official policy on trauma assessments, physical restraints, cattle calls, etc.). We also recognise that TIPs can be implemented within judges’ minds (e.g. considering the findings from a psychological evaluation when making a decision without stating that they are doing so), especially when disclosure of certain details related to trauma in open court can be triggering or a violation of privacy. But if our team – explicitly on the lookout for TIPs – did not observe them (or even missed or misinterpreted them), it seems unlikely that court-involved individuals experienced those TIPs themselves. And, as others have noted, judicial remarks should be comprehensive enough so that listeners know which factors are – or are not – being considered in decision-making (McLachlan, 2022). Given these limitations, our study may not accurately capture the extent to which courts and judges included in our sample engaged with a TIA; however, we believe it represents the most comprehensive examination to date.

Third, and related, we collected data on practices in the court context that have been deemed to be trauma-informed in the literature. Many of the practices are considered trauma-informed based on their general alignment with overarching TIA principles (e.g. safety, transparency, empowerment; SAMHSA, 2014) or research demonstrating their positive impacts in other contexts (e.g. in detention centres; King, 2017). Research examining the impacts of TIPs within the court context is needed to identify which practices do indeed result in less stress and better outcomes for youth. Fourth and lastly, our analytical decision to assess the influence of judge-, youth-, and case-related factors on categories of TIPs, as opposed to individual practices, presents the possibility that our analyses missed inequitable implementation of individual practices based on these factors. Future research should continue to assess equitable implementation of TIPs within the courtroom.

Conclusion

As efforts to create more trauma-informed courts continue, so must efforts to determine whether and what kind of trauma-informed practices (TIPs) are in fact used in court – and whether they are used equitably. Our court observation study examining their use in juvenile delinquency court in a Southeastern state in the United States demonstrated that, while judges tend to engage with simple, surface-level TIPs that are easily implemented on the fly (e.g. using a cordial tone), they avoid or struggle to implement a large number of TIPs for which we measured, including more substantive and complex TIPs (e.g. seeking to understand the root cause of behaviour), those TIPs that may contradict habit or systemic norms (e.g. avoiding use of restraints), or those that seem to impinge upon a judge’s traditional power (e.g. involving youth in decision-making). Analyses also revealed that, although judge engagement with TIP categories did not depend on judge and youth personal characteristics like race and gender, judges differed significantly in the extent to which they engaged with different categories of TIPs, likely due to their broad discretion and their varied levels of trauma training and buy-in. Taken together, these findings show that TIPs are severely underutilized – and inconsistently utilized – such that children’s court experiences may rely heavily on the particular judge to whom they are assigned. Future education, policy, and reform efforts aimed at creating more trauma-informed courts must attend to these gaps.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Material_Observation Instrument Codebook.xlsx

TPPL_A_2421172_SM1835.xlsx ^{(48.5KB, xlsx)}

Supplemental Materials_Tables.docx

TPPL_A_2421172_SM1834.docx ^{(38.7KB, docx)}

. Appendix

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Summary

The juvenile justice system is closely linked to trauma. Many people involved in the system, including young people, victims, and witnesses, have experienced trauma. The court process itself can also cause stress and worsen trauma. A trauma-informed approach (TIA) in court recognizes this reality. It aims to address past trauma and prevent new trauma by using various practices, called trauma-informed practices (TIPs). These practices cover all parts of the court, from the physical environment to policies and the behavior of court staff.

This study observed over 200 court hearings to better understand how TIAs are used in juvenile delinquency court, especially focusing on judges' behavior. Researchers first looked at how often over 60 TIPs were used in court. Then, they examined if judges' use of different TIPs depended on factors related to the case, the judge, and the young person.

Trauma and the Legal System

Trauma is a lasting emotional reaction to harmful or life-threatening events. Trauma is common among young people in legal systems worldwide. One review of 124 studies found that 87% of young people in the legal system had experienced at least one traumatic event. Other studies show even higher rates, with up to 90% of young people in the U.S. legal system and 95% of young people under justice supervision in South Australia reporting trauma exposure.

Young people who experience childhood trauma are more likely to commit serious and violent crimes as teenagers and adults, even when other risk factors for criminal behavior are considered. This connection between trauma and involvement in the legal system is partly due to how trauma affects the brain and body. Childhood trauma can disrupt the development of important skills and lead to challenges that increase the likelihood of violent or criminalized behaviors.

Beyond individual effects, trauma can also result from or worsen family, community, and societal problems like limited resources, community violence, and systemic racism. These issues can also increase the chance of involvement in the legal system. Moreover, being involved in court can cause significant stress, continuing the cycle of trauma. Because of these connections, a TIA is important to help break the cycle of trauma for many young people in court.

A Trauma-Informed Approach in the Legal System

A TIA acknowledges the trauma individuals have experienced, works to address its effects, and tries to prevent re-traumatization. A key part of a TIA is recognizing that the impacts of trauma are not permanent. The brain can heal, and people can show strength and growth after traumatic events.

The Substance Use and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the United States offers a TIA framework. It includes six guiding principles: Safety; Trustworthiness and Transparency; Peer Support; Collaboration and Mutuality; Empowerment, Voice and Choice; and Cultural, Historical, and Gender Issues. These principles help organizations serve people affected by trauma. As understanding of trauma has grown, so have efforts to use TIAs in many service areas, including healthcare, education, and social work.

Efforts to use TIAs in the legal system have also increased. Much information, including research articles and educational programs, offers guidance on how to use a TIA in court. Trauma-focused resources provide many practices, called TIPs, that court systems can adopt to better support a TIA's goals. TIPs in this context generally fall into three main groups:

• Courthouse/room environment: Examples include multilingual signs, accessible parking, and reducing upsetting stimuli like loud noises.

• Policies and procedures: Examples include avoiding overly strict practices, using trauma screenings, and carefully planning court schedules.

• Judge behavior and decision-making: Examples include avoiding disrespectful language, giving positive feedback, allowing individuals to speak, choosing less restrictive sentences, and working with community groups.

Despite many recommendations for legal systems worldwide, little is known about how widely these practices are actually used.

Judges' Role in Implementing a TIA

When it comes to using a TIA, judges' behavior is very important. Judges have a lot of power over court processes, the experiences and outcomes for people in court, court rules, and the actions of other court staff. Therefore, judges' involvement and support for TIPs are crucial for successfully using a TIA in the court system.

Some studies have looked at judges' views on a TIA, but no previous research has directly and thoroughly examined how judges use TIPs in juvenile courtrooms. For example, one study surveyed 91 state judges in the U.S. and found that judges reported using communication-related TIPs more than those related to policies, procedures, and decision-making. However, this study relied only on judges' self-reports, so the actual extent of TIP use was unknown.

Other observational studies have looked at judges' behavior in different court settings, often focusing on procedural justice (PJ) theory. PJ theory shares similar goals with a TIA. Its elements, such as voice, neutrality, respect, and trust, are also central to a TIA. For instance, one study observed judge-defendant interactions in mental health courts, looking at behaviors related to fairness, respect, and giving individuals a voice. While these studies offer insights into some judge behaviors that align with a TIA, they do not cover the full range of TIPs, such as decision-making practices, policy considerations, efforts to understand root causes of behavior, and family involvement. This leaves a gap in understanding TIP implementation in courts.

Differences in Treatment by Judges

There is also limited knowledge about whether judges use TIPs fairly. Research on fairness in courts usually examines how legal factors (like offense severity) and non-legal factors (like race, gender, or age) influence judges' decisions. While it is generally assumed that decisions should be based only on legal information, non-legal information, often linked to biases, inevitably plays a role. Many of these past studies focus on final decisions and outcomes (like length of incarceration) rather than on the court process itself (like interactions during hearings).

When considering a TIA in court, the focus is primarily on the process, including how decisions are made. A key part of a TIA is assuming that almost all people in court have experienced some trauma and, therefore, applying a TIA at all times. This is called a "universal precautions approach." This approach also recognizes that TIPs can help everyone, including court staff and people in court who have not experienced significant trauma. Therefore, a judge's use of TIPs in the courtroom should not depend on legal or non-legal factors.

This expectation can seem contradictory because a TIA encourages attention to specific, non-legal factors. For example, a TIA prompts judges to acknowledge systemic inequalities, such as racism, to understand a child's court involvement and determine culturally appropriate consequences. However, considering race to understand a child's experience is different from using TIPs to varying degrees based on a child's race. A TIA may involve attention to selective factors but should not involve selectively applying TIPs. This distinction is complex, and more research is needed to ensure TIPs are not unfairly withheld from minority populations.

Research on factors influencing judges' different treatment of people in court (beyond final decisions) is scarce. One recent study found that both the characteristics of the young person and the judge predicted certain aspects of their interaction in juvenile court. Further research into the factors that predict judges' use of a wide range of TIPs is essential to ensure a fair and complete rollout of TIAs across court systems.

Current Research

This study aimed to address gaps in understanding TIP implementation in juvenile delinquency court. Researchers observed court proceedings to collect data on how trauma-informed the courthouse environment, courtroom policies, and judges' behaviors were. The study had two main goals:

1. To better understand how courts and judges are currently using TIPs.

2. To assess the fairness of TIP use by examining whether judges' engagement with different categories of TIPs depended on various factors related to the case, the judge, and the young person.

Method

Research Sites

The study observed juvenile delinquency courts in seven urban counties in a Southeastern U.S. state. In this state, juvenile delinquency court handles cases involving individuals under 18 accused of being delinquent (committing a crime) or undisciplined (engaging in inappropriate behavior like skipping school). District court judges oversee all these cases. The seven counties were selected based on convenience and a specific goal: urban counties in one state to control for access to services and resources, and counties with many cases to increase the number of hearings observed. Court counselors who were willing to provide court schedules were also chosen. While court observation was publicly allowed, communicating with counselors helped organize observations and address any questions about the researchers' presence. Informing judges of the researchers' presence was left to the counselors' discretion.

Sample

Data was collected from 36 court sessions, including 201 juvenile delinquency court hearings overseen by 16 different judges.

• Judges: 55.2% were perceived as women, the rest men. 56.3% were perceived as Black/African American, 31.3% as White, and the rest as an unknown race.

• Youths: Almost three-quarters of hearings involved youth perceived as Black/African American (72.1%), nearly 13% as Hispanic/Latinx, and nearly 12% as White. Over four-fifths of hearings involved youth perceived as boys (83.1%), and three-fifths involved youth perceived as Black boys (59.7%). For hearings where age was shared (44.3%), the average age was 15.7 years. Over three-fourths of hearings involved youths without restraints (76.1%), while 11.9% involved youths with restraints (hand, leg, or both) and 11.9% involved youths in secure custody (appearing via teleconference). In most hearings, only one parent was present (62.2%), typically the mother (56.2%). Victim characteristics were not reported due to their infrequent presence.

Table 1 shows the frequency of hearing types. Secure custody hearings (to assess continued detention) were most frequent. First appearances (initial hearings) and continuances (postponed matters) were the next most common. Regarding offense levels, the highest charge was unknown in nearly 40% of hearings. When known, most were serious offenses (35.8%), followed by violent offenses (15.9%), and then minor or undisciplined offenses (9.0%).

Table 1.

Frequency of hearing types.

Note: N = 201. Hearing type was categorized by the furthest procedural movement in that hearing. "First appearance" might include waived probable cause. "Other" included reviews, motions, writs, transfers, dismissals, and status offenses. For analysis, hearing types were combined into six categories.

Data Collection Materials

Data was collected using a three-page paper court observation tool created by the research team. The tool was developed by reviewing literature on trauma-informed courtrooms to identify observable practices. Practices were organized into sections, and the instrument was piloted for about four months. A juvenile court attorney and a social psychologist expert in TIAs reviewed the instrument for accuracy. A codebook with clear definitions and examples for each item was also developed. The sections and items for which results are reported are described below.

Session-Level Variables

The first page of the instrument collected session-level information, recorded once per courthouse visit. Observers noted perceived personal information about the judge (race/ethnicity, gender) and details about courthouse/room environment practices (e.g., temperature, greenery, artwork) and courtroom policies/activities (e.g., docket flexibility, use of restraints). Observers rated each practice on a 0 to 3 scale, where 0 meant "not at all" or "none of the time" and 3 meant "to a great extent" or "all of the time." A score of 0 generally indicated a not trauma-informed approach, and 3 indicated a trauma-informed approach. For example, for "Docket flexibility," 0 meant the judge was "not at all flexible" and 3 meant the judge was "very flexible and proactively changed the order or timing of the docket for ease of youths, families, and other legal actors."

Hearing-Level Variables

The remaining two pages contained hearing-level information, recorded for every hearing. Observers noted hearing type, offense type/level, perceived youth characteristics (race/ethnicity, gender, age), youth incapacitation level (restraints/detention), guardian information, case outcome, and judge-specific practices. All information was collected through observation and limited to what was openly discussed in the hearing; no court records or outside information were used. Similar to session-level items, judge-specific practices were rated on a 0–3 scale to indicate the extent of judge engagement. For example, for "Explains legal jargon (or avoids using it)," 0 meant the judge "used lots of jargon without providing any explanations" and 3 meant the judge "avoided jargon entirely or proactively and clearly explained/rephrased."

Data Collection Procedure

The observation team consisted of nine researchers who received extensive training on the instrument and codebook. Data collection occurred from April to September 2023. Two observers attended each court session, coding their instruments separately. After each session, they reviewed objective information and subjective scores (0-3), resolving any scores that differed by more than one point through consensus coding. Weekly team meetings addressed coding discrepancies. Finally, observers entered their individual data into a Qualtrics form. A university institutional review board (IRB) approved the study, waiving informed consent because the research involved minimal risk and used publicly available court session data.

Analysis

Interrater reliability was assessed by calculating the percentage of agreement between observers for subjective items (0-3 scores), allowing for a one-point difference. The average agreement was 95.8% for session-level data and 98.4% for hearing-level data. For hearing-level data, agreement for sub-sections ranged from 97.8% to 99.9%.

To create the analytical dataset, observer responses were merged. For objective information, if responses matched, one was randomly selected. If they differed, observers tried to resolve the discrepancy; if not, the response was marked missing. For subjective items (0-3), the average score from both coders was used. If one observer's response was missing or N/A, the other's coded value was used.

To address the first research aim (understanding TIP implementation), levels of engagement were assessed individually and in categories. Practices were grouped into nine categories: three at the session-level (Courthouse environment, Courtroom environment, Courtroom policies/activities) and six at the hearing-level (General Communication, Understanding/Transparency, Youth Interactions, Family Interactions, Bigger Picture, Decision-Making). Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, median, mode, minimum, maximum) were computed for each item, and average scores were calculated for each category. Some items were reverse-scored so that higher means always represented a more trauma-informed approach. Raw median, mode, minimum, and maximum scores were presented. The 'N' columns in Tables 2 and 3 indicate the total number of valid sessions or hearings for each practice used in mean calculations.

To address the second research aim (factors predicting TIP engagement), six multilevel linear models were conducted, one for each hearing-level practice category. This approach accounted for the hierarchical data structure (hearings nested within judges). First, unconditional means models assessed between-judge variability. Then, separate multilevel regression models predicted each of the six practice categories using seven categorical predictor variables: six at the hearing-level (case/youth-related) and two at the judge-level. Reference groups for multi-categorical variables were chosen as the simplest or lowest level, and for binary variables, the lower-coded number was automatically chosen. Hearing-level variables included: guardian presence, incapacitation level, hearing type, highest offense level, youth gender, and youth race. Judge-level variables included: judge race and judge gender.

Results

Analysis results for the two main research aims are reported.

Research Aim 1: Implementation of TIPs

Session-Level TIPs

Courthouse & Courtroom Environment

Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for courthouse and courtroom environment items, and Figure 1 displays mean scores. For both categories, most items (62% of courthouse, 64% of courtroom) had mean scores between 2 and 3, indicating these elements were generally present. The lowest scores in both categories were for comfortable seating, artwork, and greenery, which were often absent or limited. Many items showed little variation in scores, such as cleanliness (score of 3), artwork (0), greenery (0), and bad smell (0). Mean scores showed courthouse environments (M = 2.11, SD = 0.43) were generally more trauma-informed than courtroom environments (M = 1.88, SD = 0.33).

Courtroom Policies & Activities

Table 2 also presents descriptive statistics for TIPs related to courtroom policies and activities. Most items in this category also had mean scores between 2 and 3. However, a few practices scored noticeably lower: youths in restraints, the judge conducting court from the bench, and the judge wearing their robe. The overall mean score for this category was 1.84 (SD = 0.30; see Figure 1).

Hearing-Level TIPs

Table 3 displays descriptive statistics for hearing-level practice items, all related to judge behavior and categorized into six practice areas. Figure 1 shows the mean scores for each category. Judges showed the most engagement with practices related to general communication (M = 2.35, SD = 0.48) and transparency/understanding (M = 1.72, SD = 0.76). However, some practices within these categories still had fairly low scores, such as greeting the youth/family, assessing their understanding, and explaining procedural steps.

The other four practice categories had average scores below 1, meaning judges generally implemented these TIPs minimally or not at all (many items had floor effects, indicating very low use). Within Youth Interactions (M = 0.94, SD = 0.93), inviting youth to speak was the most common practice, and judges engaged constructively when they did. The lowest scores were for providing positive feedback or involving youth in decision-making, which judges rarely did.

Decision-Making and Family Interaction categories had similar mean scores (0.78 and 0.71, respectively), with Decision-Making having slightly less variability. In Decision-Making, exploring less restrictive options was the most frequent practice, though not extensively. Judges rarely connected youth/families to services, considered progress in decisions, or involved community organizations.

For Family Interactions, judges invited family members to speak more often than youth, but their engagement with family was less constructive (e.g., using family comments against the youth). Judges also rarely sought to connect with family, provide positive feedback, or involve them in decision-making.

Judges engaged the least with practices in the Bigger Picture category (M = 0.41, SD = 0.55). This means they very rarely acknowledged or tried to understand broader contextual factors contributing to youth's court involvement, such as personal trauma or systemic inequality, nor did they recognize youth's strengths and resilience.

Research Aim 2: Equitable Engagement with TIPs

Results from unconditional means models for the six judge-focused practice categories showed that for General Communication, Understanding/Transparency, and Family Interactions, a significant portion (over 45%) of the variability was due to differences between judges. For Youth Interactions, Bigger Picture, and Decision-Making, 20% or less of the variation was between judges (see Table S1 in Supplemental Materials). Results from the six multilevel linear regression models are also in the Supplemental Materials (Tables S2–7) due to space limits. Significant results are described below. In all six models, except for the intercept (which was significant in all but the Decision-Making model, indicating that practice category scores were significantly greater than 0 with all predictor variables at the reference level), few variables were significant predictors (p < .05), and none were significant in all models. Coefficients are interpreted as: "on average, holding all modeled variables constant."

No significant predictors were found in the General Communication model (p ≥ .163) or the Bigger Picture model (p ≥ .085). For the Understanding/Transparency model, only the youth's incapacitation level was a significant predictor (p = .030 for in restraints and p = .005 for in secure custody). Judges' scores were 0.34 points higher for youths in court/in restraints and 0.53 points higher for those in secure custody (via teleconference) compared to youths in court/no restraints.

For models predicting Youth Interactions, Family Interactions, and Decision-Making, hearing type was a significant predictor. In the Youth Interactions model, scores for continuances were 0.55 points lower than first appearance hearings (p = .039). In the Family Interactions model, scores were 0.42 points lower for secure custody (p = .025) and 0.38 points lower for continuances (p = .031) compared to first appearances. In the Decision-Making model, scores were 0.59 points higher for deferred adjudications/dispositions/completed dispositions (p < .001) and 0.43 points higher for "other" hearing types (p = .017) compared to secure custody hearings.

Despite few significant predictors, the random effects for each judge in half of the models showed notable differences in scores between judges, holding all other factors constant (see Table 4). These coefficients represent judge-specific adjustments to scores. A negative score for a judge indicates lower levels of observed TIPs compared to the average, while a positive score indicates higher levels. For General Communication, Understanding/Transparency, and Family Interactions, 10, 7, and 7 judges, respectively, showed significant individual intercept adjustments. In contrast, Youth Interactions, Bigger Picture, and Decision-Making categories showed two or fewer significant judge-specific intercept adjustments.

Discussion

This observational study examined trauma-informed practices (TIPs) in juvenile delinquency court, focusing on the courthouse/courtroom environment, policies, and judge behavior. Researchers observed 36 court sessions and 201 hearings involving 16 judges in seven urban counties in a Southeastern U.S. state. The study assessed over 60 TIPs and investigated if factors related to the hearing, youth, and judge predicted judges' use of different TIP categories. Before discussing the findings related to the research aims, two important observations from the study sample regarding race and hearing type are discussed.

Sample Findings & Implications

The observed hearings showed a significant overrepresentation of Black/African American youth (nearly three-quarters) compared to their proportion in the state population (less than 25%). Conversely, White youth were underrepresented (12% of hearings vs. nearly 70% of state population). This disparity highlights severe racial inequality in the state's juvenile court system, mirroring national trends where Black youth are disproportionately arrested and involved in the juvenile justice system. This overrepresentation confirms the widespread nature of systemic racism in the U.S. legal system. It underscores the need for comprehensive efforts to address this issue, such as investing in culturally relevant community programs, promoting diversion programs, exploring alternative discipline options to mitigate the school-to-prison pipeline, and implementing broad training on cultural humility and systemic racism.

Continuances and first appearances were the second and third most common hearing types, accounting for 19.4% and 17.9% of all observed hearings, respectively. Research indicates that prolonged exposure to the legal system worsens mental health. While administratively useful, these hearings extend a youth's involvement with the court and delay resolution, potentially harming their mental health and adding to previous trauma. Furthermore, these brief hearings (often around five minutes) require the youth and at least one guardian to attend. Given unpredictable court schedules, this often means guardians miss work and children miss school, creating employment challenges for guardians and educational disruptions for children. To address these issues, efforts should focus on reducing the frequency of such hearings (e.g., improving court communication and docket management) or conducting them remotely, as some courts have begun to do. If these hearings cannot be avoided, judges can use them to establish a trauma-informed environment and ensure psychological safety from the outset by explaining the court process and engaging with the youth, rather than rushing through.

Summary of Research Aim Findings & Implications

Research Aim 1: Implementation of TIPs

The first research aim explored the landscape of Trauma-Informed Practices (TIPs) in juvenile delinquency court. Findings revealed significant gaps in TIP implementation, indicating areas for future education, policy, and practice improvements.

In terms of courthouse and courtroom environments, comfortable seating, artwork, and greenery were the least trauma-informed elements. These environmental conditions are important: comfortable seating can ease stress, artwork can reduce stress, and greenery can boost psychological well-being and health. These findings point to opportunities for simple, low-cost changes to create more trauma-informed court environments, which is a vital step toward a fully trauma-informed court system.

For courtroom policies and activities, engagement was fair. For example, court rules were generally applied fairly by judges and bailiffs, and judges usually allowed flexibility in the court schedule. However, some TIA-related policies were poorly implemented. For instance, "Youth in restraints" received a low score, meaning many young people wore restraints or shackles in the courtroom. Using restraints can trigger trauma, worsen feelings of isolation and shame, and increase stigma. Eliminating this practice whenever possible is a highly recommended TIP. Some juvenile justice organizations argue that the harm of shackling outweighs security justifications, advocating for its use only as an absolute last resort when there is active danger and other de-escalation methods have failed. These results suggest ongoing work is needed to reduce reliance on this common practice in U.S. juvenile courtrooms. Additionally, all observed judges wore formal robes and conducted court from the bench. While unconventional, not doing so could reduce intimidation, ease communication, and promote trauma-informed principles of collaboration and mutuality.

Regarding hearing-level TIPs, judges showed the most engagement with general communication and understanding/transparency practices, and the least with Youth Interactions, Family Interactions, Bigger Picture, and Decision-Making practices. This is not surprising, as the more engaged categories involve basic TIPs (e.g., cordial tone, clear reading), while the less engaged categories require higher-level TIA engagement (e.g., more time, trauma knowledge, coordination, system-level thinking). The greater use of communication and transparency TIPs may reflect efforts to improve procedural justice by encouraging judges to make simple changes like adjusting tone and avoiding complex language. While these practices are important, the least used practices, particularly in Decision-Making and Bigger Picture categories, are more central to a TIA than just a procedural justice approach. This suggests that procedural justice initiatives have seen some success, but more complex TIPs need better implementation.

Furthermore, judges rarely implemented decision-making TIPs central to a TIA, such as ordering psychological screenings or connecting youth and families with services. This is significant because only judges have the legal authority to mandate these. A TIA aims to address past trauma, which screenings and services are designed to do. Another key TIA principle is to understand contextual factors contributing to behavior, like adversity and structural inequality, and use a strengths-based approach. These "Bigger Picture" practices were the least implemented. This aligns with prior research showing judges' avoidance of acknowledging trauma and its link to offending behavior. This suggests judges may not fully grasp how external circumstances affect court involvement and future paths, or that their role includes discussing these realities. Alternatively, judges may be unsure how to appropriately address these sensitive topics in open court, fearing their comments could be perceived as biased. Future trauma education should teach judges how to discuss "bigger picture" factors in appropriate and trauma-informed ways.

Findings also suggest that judges may be willing to make superficial changes but resist practices requiring forethought, coordination with other court actors, or challenging the status quo, especially those that might diminish their traditional authoritative role. For example, involving youth and families in decision-making might conflict with a judge's self-perception as the leader and ultimate decider. This might be especially true for juvenile court judges who question a youth's cognitive ability or development, believing they should have limited input. However, a TIA requires prioritizing choice, voice, empowerment, collaboration, and mutuality.

This lack of engagement can have negative consequences. Research shows that accountability and behavior change are more likely when young people have input and receive positive reinforcement, yet judges rarely engaged youth this way. Positive interactions with families can also lead to a better understanding of their needs, crucial for effective intervention and rehabilitation, yet judges rarely implemented such practices.

Research Aim 2: Equitable Engagement with TIPs

The second research aim investigated whether specific characteristics of the judge (race, gender), youth (race, gender, incapacitation level), and case (guardian presence, hearing type, offense level) predicted judges' engagement across six hearing-level TIP categories. Multilevel modeling showed that the included variables had minimal and inconsistent influence on judge behavior.

No significant predictors were found for judge engagement with General Communication and Bigger Picture categories. This suggests equitable implementation of practices in these categories across the tested variables, whether through consistent high engagement (General Communication) or very low engagement (Bigger Picture). However, the youth's incapacitation level did predict judges' engagement with the Understanding/Transparency category. Judges showed greater engagement with youth appearing in court in restraints or in secure custody (via teleconference) compared to those without restraints. While ensuring all youth understand court proceedings is vital for a TIA, this finding is not necessarily negative. It may indicate that judges recognize youth in restraints or custody might be more withdrawn or face more serious consequences, prompting extra effort to ensure their understanding.

Lastly, hearing type predicted engagement in the Youth Interactions, Family Interactions, and Decision-Making categories. This makes sense given the varying goals and durations of different hearing types. For instance, judges interacted less with family and youth during continuances (which often focus on rescheduling) compared to first appearances. They also used more decision-making TIPs in completed or deferred dispositions (where consequences are determined) compared to secure custody hearings. While intuitive, these findings show that a TIA is not always applied consistently, highlighting the need for judges to embody a TIA even in challenging situations, like very brief hearings.

Despite few significant predictors, which suggests equitable TIP implementation by judges within their courtrooms across the tested variables (contrary to some prior research), analyses revealed significant between-judge differences in applying TIPs in several categories: General Communication, Understanding/Transparency, and Family Interactions. Many judges acted differently from one another in these categories, although these differences were not linked to judge race or gender. For the other three categories, while there were few significant differences between judges, the overall low levels of engagement suggest ample room for improvement across all judges. This means children's exposure to a TIA may largely depend on the specific judge assigned to their case. These findings support previous research noting significant differences in judicial practices and anecdotal reports of wide variation in judge behavior. Future efforts should standardize TIAs across entire court systems through widespread trauma education and by addressing all barriers to implementation, including lack of judicial buy-in and practical or systemic obstacles. It is crucial to recognize that a court system is not truly trauma-informed if individuals are at risk of encountering a judge who does not fully understand their power to either interrupt or perpetuate a cycle of trauma.

Limitations & Future Directions

Implications of this study should be considered in light of several limitations. First, data was collected from juvenile delinquency courts in only seven counties in a Southeastern U.S. state. This limits how broadly the findings can be applied to other court contexts and regions. However, as this is the first observational study to comprehensively examine many TIPs, the findings provide a strong foundation for future research. Furthermore, similarities between these findings and those from previous studies, such as a South Australian study on how judges respond to trauma in Indigenous populations, suggest that some of the identified TIP implementation gaps are also present in other contexts and populations.

Second, the study examined TIP implementation only through observable practices. This significantly limited the assessment of certain TIPs, such as official court policies on trauma assessments or physical restraints. It is also acknowledged that TIPs can be implemented mentally by judges (e.g., considering psychological evaluation findings without stating them publicly), especially when disclosing trauma details in open court could be triggering or violate privacy. However, if the research team, explicitly looking for TIPs, did not observe them (or possibly missed or misinterpreted them), it is unlikely that court-involved individuals experienced those TIPs firsthand. As others have noted, judicial remarks should be clear enough for listeners to understand which factors are—or are not—being considered in decisions. Given these limitations, this study may not fully capture the extent of TIA engagement by courts and judges in the sample, but it represents the most comprehensive examination to date.

Third, the study collected data on practices in the court context that have been identified as trauma-informed in the literature. Many of these practices are considered trauma-informed based on their general alignment with TIA principles (e.g., safety, transparency, empowerment) or research showing positive impacts in other settings (e.g., detention centers). Research is needed to examine the impacts of TIPs specifically within the court context to identify which practices truly lead to less stress and better outcomes for youth.

Fourth and finally, the analytical decision to assess the influence of judge, youth, and case factors on categories of TIPs, rather than individual practices, means that the analyses might have missed unequal implementation of specific practices based on these factors. Future research should continue to assess the equitable implementation of TIPs within the courtroom.

Conclusion

As efforts to create more trauma-informed courts continue, it is crucial to determine which trauma-informed practices (TIPs) are actually used in court and whether they are applied fairly. This court observation study, examining TIP use in juvenile delinquency courts in a Southeastern U.S. state, showed that judges tend to use simple, easily implemented TIPs (e.g., a cordial tone) but avoid or struggle with many more substantial and complex TIPs. These include practices like seeking to understand the root cause of behavior, avoiding the use of restraints (which goes against habit or systemic norms), or those that challenge a judge's traditional authority (e.g., involving youth in decision-making).

Analyses also revealed that while judge engagement with TIP categories did not depend on personal characteristics of the judge or youth, such as race and gender, judges differed significantly in how much they used different categories of TIPs. This is likely due to their broad discretion and varying levels of trauma training and commitment. Taken together, these findings indicate that TIPs are severely underused and inconsistently applied, meaning children's court experiences may heavily depend on the specific judge assigned to their case. Future education, policy, and reform efforts aimed at creating more trauma-informed courts must address these gaps.

Summary

The juvenile justice system often involves individuals who have experienced trauma. Exposure to the system itself can also cause stress and worsen existing trauma. A trauma-informed approach (TIA) in courts acknowledges these issues. It aims to address past trauma and prevent further harm by using various trauma-informed practices (TIPs). These practices cover all parts of court, from the physical environment to policies and staff behavior.

This study observed over 200 court hearings to understand how TIA is used in juvenile delinquency courts, focusing on judges' actions. Researchers first evaluated the use of over 60 TIPs. Then, they examined if judges' use of different TIP categories depended on factors related to the case, the judge, or the young person.

Trauma and the Justice System

Trauma is a lasting emotional response to harmful or life-threatening events. It is common among young people in justice systems worldwide. Studies show that a high percentage of youth in these systems have experienced at least one traumatic event. For example, some research indicates that up to 90% of youth in the U.S. legal system have been exposed to trauma.

Childhood trauma can increase the likelihood of serious and violent crime later in life, even when other risk factors are considered. This link is partly due to how trauma affects brain and body development. Trauma can disrupt skills needed to avoid violent and criminal behaviors. Additionally, trauma can arise from or worsen problems at family, community, and societal levels, such as lack of resources or systemic racism, which can also increase involvement with the justice system. Court involvement itself can be very stressful and continue the cycle of trauma. Given these connections, a TIA is important for breaking this cycle for young people in the court system.

A Trauma-Informed Approach in the Justice System

A TIA acknowledges the trauma individuals have experienced, works to address its effects, and tries to prevent re-traumatization. A core idea of TIA is that the brain can heal, and people can show resilience and growth after trauma. The Substance Use and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the United States offers a TIA framework with six guiding principles: Safety, Trustworthiness and Transparency, Peer Support, Collaboration and Mutuality, Empowerment, Voice and Choice, and Cultural, Historical, and Gender Issues. These principles help organizations serve people affected by trauma. As understanding of trauma has grown, more efforts have been made to use TIAs in many service areas, including healthcare, education, and social work.

Efforts to use a TIA in the justice system have also increased. A lot of information, including articles and educational programs, offers guidance on how to bring a TIA into the court system. Trauma-focused resources suggest many practices, called Trauma-Informed Practices (TIPs), that courts can adopt. TIPs usually fall into three main areas:

• Courthouse/room environment: Examples include multilingual signs and reducing loud noises.

• Policies and procedures: Examples include avoiding overly strict practices and using trauma screenings.

• Judge behavior and decision-making: Examples include using respectful language, providing positive feedback, allowing individuals to speak, and considering less restrictive sentences.

Despite many recommendations for legal systems, it is not well known how much these practices are actually used.

Judges' Role in a Trauma-Informed Approach

Judges play a significant role in implementing a TIA because they have great influence over court experiences, policies, and the behavior of other court staff. Therefore, their involvement and support for TIPs are crucial for a TIA to succeed in the court system. While some studies have looked at judges' opinions and experiences with a TIA, little research has directly and thoroughly examined how judges use TIPs in juvenile courtrooms. For instance, one study found that judges reported using communication-related TIPs more than those related to policies or decision-making. However, this study relied on self-reports, so the actual use of TIPs was not known.

Observational studies have looked at judge behavior in other court settings, often focusing on procedural justice (PJ) theory. PJ theory shares similar goals with a TIA, emphasizing voice, neutrality, respect, and trust. One study in mental health courts observed judge-defendant interactions and found that interactions were generally positive, but scores varied significantly between judges. While these studies offer insight into some judge behaviors that align with a TIA, they do not cover the full range of TIPs, such as decision-making practices, policy considerations, or efforts to understand the root causes of behavior. This leaves a gap in understanding how TIPs are implemented in courts.

Differential Treatment by Judges

There is also a lack of information on whether judges apply TIPs fairly. Research on fairness in courts usually looks at how legal factors (like offense severity) and non-legal factors (like race, gender, or age) affect judicial decisions. While decisions should ideally be based only on legal information, non-legal information, often linked to bias, can also play a role. However, many of these studies focus on outcomes (like length of incarceration) rather than the process (like interactions during hearings).

When discussing a TIA in court, the focus is largely on the process. A trauma-informed approach suggests assuming that nearly everyone involved in court has experienced some trauma. Therefore, it is best to use a TIA universally, meaning TIPs should be implemented at all times for everyone. This approach also recognizes that TIPs can benefit all individuals, including court staff and those who have not experienced significant trauma. Because of this, judges' use of TIPs in the courtroom should not depend on legal or non-legal factors.

This expectation can seem unclear since a TIA also encourages judges to acknowledge specific factors, like systemic racism, to understand a child's court involvement and decide on culturally appropriate consequences. However, considering race to understand a child's experience is different from applying TIPs differently based on a child's race. In other words, a TIA may involve paying attention to certain factors but should not involve choosing to use TIPs differently based on a person's background. This distinction is complex, and more research is needed to ensure TIPs are applied fairly, especially to avoid withholding them from minority groups.

Although research on factors influencing judges' differential treatment (beyond decision-making) is limited, one recent study found that both personal characteristics of the youth and the judge predicted certain aspects of judge-youth interaction. Further research into factors that predict judges' use of a wide range of TIPs is crucial to ensure a fair and thorough rollout of a TIA across court systems.

Current Research

This study aims to address some of the gaps in understanding how TIPs are used in juvenile delinquency court. Researchers systematically observed juvenile delinquency courts, collecting data on how trauma-informed the courthouse and courtroom environment, courtroom policies and activities, and judges' behaviors were. The goals were:

• To better understand how courts and judges are currently using TIPs.

• To assess the fairness of TIP use by examining whether judges' engagement with different TIP categories depended on various factors related to the case, the judge, and the young person.

Method

Research Sites

The study observed juvenile delinquency courts in seven urban counties in a Southeastern state in the United States. In this state, juvenile delinquency court handles cases involving children under 18 who are accused of either delinquent acts (crimes if committed by an adult) or undisciplined behavior (like skipping school). District court judges, who hear various civil, criminal, and juvenile cases, oversee all juvenile delinquency cases. The researchers selected the seven study counties using a combination of planned and convenient methods. They focused on urban counties in a single state to control for differences in services and resources often found between urban and rural areas. They also chose counties with high caseloads to ensure many hearings could be observed. Additionally, only counties where chief juvenile court counselors were willing to provide court schedules in advance were selected. Although permission to observe court was not legally required (juvenile court is open to the public in this state), researchers communicated with court counselors to help with scheduling and to address any questions about their presence. The court counselors decided whether to inform judges of the observers' presence.

Sample

Data was collected from 36 court sessions, including 201 juvenile delinquency court hearings led by 16 different judges. Of the 16 observed judges, 55.2% were perceived by observers as women and the rest as men. Over half were perceived as Black/African American (56.3%), about one-third as White (31.3%), and the rest as an unknown race.

For the 201 observed hearings, nearly three-quarters involved youth perceived as Black/African American (72.1%), almost 13% involved youth perceived as Hispanic/Latinx, and nearly 12% involved youth perceived as White. Over four-fifths of hearings involved youth perceived as boys (83.1%); three-fifths involved youth perceived as Black boys (59.7%). In the 44.3% of hearings where youth age was publicly shared, the average age was 15.7 years, with a range of 12 to 19.

Most hearings (76.1%) involved youth in court without restraints. The remaining hearings involved an equal number of youth who were restrained (11.9%, with hand restraints, leg shackles, or both) and youth appearing via teleconference from a detention center (11.9%). In the majority of hearings (62.2%), only one parent figure was present, usually the youth's mother (56.2%). Victim characteristics and judge interactions with victims are not reported because victims were present in only five of the 201 observed hearings.

Table 1 shows the frequency of observed hearing types. The most common type was secure custody hearings, which determine if a youth needs to remain detained before their adjudication hearing (where a judge decides if the youth committed the act). The next most frequent types were first appearances (initial hearings where the youth is informed of allegations) and continuances (hearings postponed to a later date).

For nearly 40% of hearings, observers did not know the most serious offense the youth was charged with. When known, most charges were serious offenses (35.8% of all hearings), followed by violent offenses (15.9%), and then minor or undisciplined offenses (9.0%).

Data Collection Materials

Data was collected using a three-page paper court observation tool developed by the research team. To create the tool, researchers reviewed various literature on trauma-informed courtrooms to identify observable practices. The practices were organized into sections, and the tool was tested in court for about four months. A juvenile court attorney and a social psychologist specializing in TIAs in the justice system provided feedback to ensure the tool's content was valid. A codebook with clear definitions and examples for each item was also developed. The sections and items of the tool relevant to the reported results are described below.

Session-level variables

The first page of the tool gathered session-level information, recorded once per visit to a specific courthouse and courtroom. Observers noted perceived personal information about the judge (race/ethnicity and gender) and information on practices related to the courthouse/room environment (e.g., temperature, greenery, artwork) and courtroom policies/activities (e.g., docket flexibility, use of restraints on juveniles). Each practice was rated on a scale from 0 ("not at all" or "none of the time") to 3 ("to a great extent" or "all of the time") to show how much it was present or implemented. Generally, 0 meant not trauma-informed, and 3 meant trauma-informed. For example, for "Docket flexibility," a 0 meant the judge was "not at all flexible," while a 3 meant the judge was "very flexible and proactively changed the order or timing of the docket for ease of youths, families, and other legal actors."

Hearing-level variables

The remaining two pages included hearing-level information, recorded for every hearing during a visit. Observers noted the hearing type (e.g., first appearance, admission), offense type/level, perceived personal characteristics of the youth (race/ethnicity, gender, age when publicly shared), the youth's incapacitation level (restraints and/or detention), guardian information (who attended), case outcome (recommendations and judge's decision), and judge-specific practices. All information came from observations and was limited to what was openly discussed in the hearing; no court records or outside information were used. Similar to session-level items, judge-specific practices were rated on a scale from 0 to 3. For example, for "Explains legal jargon (or avoids using it)," a 0 meant the judge "used lots of jargon without providing any explanations," and a 3 meant the judge "avoided jargon entirely or proactively and clearly explained/rephrased."

Data Collection Procedure

A team of nine researchers collected data from April to September 2023. All researchers received extensive training on the observation tool and codebook before data collection began. Two observers attended each court session on scheduled days and stayed for the entire session. They independently completed their observation tools, filling out the first page once per session and the other two pages for each hearing. After each session, the two observers compared their objective information (e.g., hearing type, outcome) and their subjective scores (0–3) for each practice. They identified any scores that differed by more than one point. Once a week, the observation team met to discuss any coding discrepancies and resolve confusion before the next week's observations. Finally, observers entered their individual data into a Qualtrics form that matched the observation tool. A university institutional review board (IRB) approved all study materials and procedures. Informed consent from participants was waived because the research posed minimal risk, and all data was collected from public court sessions.

Analysis

To check the consistency between observers, interrater reliability was calculated as the percentage of agreement for all subjective items at both the session and hearing levels. A one-point difference was allowed for agreement, as scores would later be averaged. The average agreement was 95.8% for session-level data and 98.4% for hearing-level data. For hearing-level data, agreement for each of the seven sub-sections ranged from 97.8% to 99.9%.

To create the dataset for analysis, the two observers' responses were combined into a single response for each session and hearing. First, two researchers checked all objective information to ensure both coders' responses matched. If they matched, one response was randomly chosen for the merged dataset. If there were differences, observers tried to resolve them (e.g., by checking original sheets). If unresolved, the response was marked as missing. For all subjective items (0–3 scores), the average score from both coders was used. If one observer's response was "N/A" or missing, and the other provided a value, that value was included.

To address the first research aim—understanding how trauma-informed juvenile delinquency court was—the level of engagement with TIPs was assessed individually and in categories. Practices were grouped into nine main categories: three at the session-level (Courthouse environment, Courtroom environment, Courtroom policies/activities) and six at the hearing-level (General Communication, Understanding/Transparency, Youth Interactions, Family Interactions, Bigger Picture, and Decision-Making). Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, median, mode, minimum, maximum) were computed for each item, and average scores were calculated for each category. Some items were reverse-scored so that higher means always indicated a more trauma-informed approach (e.g., a higher score for "Youths in restraints" meant fewer youths were restrained). Raw median, mode, minimum, and maximum scores are presented as coded. The "N" columns in Tables 2 and 3 show the number of valid sessions or hearings used for each practice's mean calculation.

To explore the second research aim—identifying factors that predicted judges' engagement with different TIP categories—six multilevel linear models were conducted, one for each hearing-level practice category. Multilevel modeling was used because hearings (Level 1) were nested within judges (Level 2). First, unconditional means models assessed the percentage of variability in the data that was between judges. Then, separate multilevel regression models predicted each of the six practice categories, including seven categorical predictor variables (six at the hearing-level and two at the judge-level). For multi-categorical variables, reference groups were chosen as the simplest or lowest level; for binary variables, the lower-coded number was automatically the reference group.

Hearing-level variables, related to the case or youth, included:

• Guardian presence: (two groups – single parent present, all other guardianship arrangements (reference group)).

• Incapacitation level: (three groups – in court with no restraints (reference group), in court in restraints, in secure custody (youth via teleconference)).

• Hearing type: (six groups – first appearance (reference group), secure custody, admission, deferred adjudication/disposition/completed disposition, continuance, all other).

• Highest offense level: (four groups – minor (reference group), serious, violent, unknown).

• Youth gender: (two groups – boy (reference group), girl).

• Youth race: (two groups – not White (reference group), White).

Judge-level variables included:

• Judge race: (two groups – not White (reference group), White).

• Judge gender: (two groups – man (reference group), woman).

Results

Analysis results for the two main research aims are reported.

Research Aim 1: Implementation of Trauma-Informed Practices (TIPs)

Session-Level TIPs

Courthouse & Courtroom Environment

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for courthouse and courtroom environment items, and Figure 1 displays their mean scores. In both categories, most items (62% of courthouse items and 64% of courtroom items) had mean scores between 2 and 3, meaning these elements were generally present. The lowest scores in both categories were for comfortable seating, artwork, and greenery, which were either missing or limited. Results showed little variation for many items, indicating consistent presence or absence (e.g., most courthouses scored 3 for "clean" and 0 for "artwork" and "greenery"). Mean scores revealed that courthouse environments (mean = 2.11, standard deviation = 0.43) were overall more trauma-informed than courtroom environments (mean = 1.88, standard deviation = 0.33).

Courtroom Policies & Activities

Table 2 also presents descriptive statistics for TIP items related to courtroom policies and activities. Most items in this category also had mean scores between 2 and 3. However, "youths in restraints," "judge conducts court from the bench," and "judge wearing their robe" received notably lower scores. The overall mean score for courtroom policies/activities was 1.84 (standard deviation = 0.30), as shown in Figure 1.

Hearing-Level TIPs

Table 3 shows descriptive statistics for hearing-level practice items, all related to judge behavior and grouped into six categories. Figure 1 displays the mean scores for each category. Judges engaged most with practices related to communication (mean = 2.35, standard deviation = 0.48) and Transparency/Understanding (mean = 1.72, standard deviation = 0.76). Still, some practices within these categories had fairly low scores, such as greeting the youth/family, assessing their understanding of the hearing, and explaining procedural steps.

The other four practice categories had average scores of less than 1, meaning judges tended to implement TIPs in these areas minimally or not at all. Within "Youth Interactions" (mean = 0.94, standard deviation = 0.93), inviting the youth to speak was the most common practice, and judges were generally constructive when they did so. The lowest scores were for providing positive feedback/praise and involving youth in decision-making, which judges rarely did. "Decision-Making" and "Family Interaction" categories had similar mean scores (0.78 and 0.71, respectively), with "Decision-Making" showing slightly less variability. The most common decision-making practice was exploring less restrictive options, though not extensively. Judges rarely connected youth/family to services, considered progress in decisions, or involved community-based organizations. Judges engaged least with practices in the "Bigger Picture" category (mean = 0.41, standard deviation = 0.55), rarely acknowledging or trying to understand broader contextual factors (like personal trauma or structural inequity) or recognizing youth's strengths.

Research Aim 2: Equitable Engagement with TIPs

Results from unconditional means models for each of the six judge-focused practice categories showed that for "General Communication," "Understanding/Transparency," and "Family Interactions," a significant portion (over 45%) of the variability was due to differences between judges. For "Youth Interactions," "Bigger Picture," and "Decision-Making," 20% or less of the variation was between judges (see Table S1 in Supplemental materials). Results from each of the six multilevel linear regression models are presented in the Supplemental materials due to space limits (Tables S2–7). Significant findings are described below. In all six models, aside from the intercept (which was significant in all models except "Decision-Making," meaning practice scores were significantly greater than 0 with all predictors at the reference level), few variables were significant predictors (p < .05), and none were significant in all models. All coefficients can be interpreted as: "on average, holding all modeled variables constant."

Results showed no significant predictors in the "General Communication" model (p ≥ .163) and the "Bigger Picture" model (p ≥ .085). For the "Understanding/Transparency" model, only the youth's incapacitation level was a significant predictor (p = .030 for in restraints and p = .005 for in secure custody). Judges' scores were 0.34 points higher for youth in court/in restraints and 0.53 points higher for youth in secure custody (appearing via teleconference) compared to youth in court/no restraints. For the models predicting "Youth Interactions," "Family Interactions," and "Decision-Making," hearing type was a significant predictor. In the "Youth Interactions" model, scores for continuances were 0.55 points lower than for first appearance hearings (p = .039). In the "Family Interactions" model, scores were 0.42 points lower for secure custody (p = .025) and 0.38 points lower for continuances (p = .031), compared to first appearances. In the "Decision-Making" model, scores were 0.59 points higher for deferred adjudications/deferred dispositions/completed dispositions (p < .001) and 0.43 points higher for "other" types of hearings (p = .017), compared to secure custody hearings.

Despite few significant predictors, the random effects for each judge in half of the models revealed notable differences between judges' scores, holding all other factors constant (see Table 4). These coefficients represent judge-specific adjustments to the scores; a negative score indicates lower observed TIPs than average for that judge, while a positive score indicates higher levels. For "General Communication," "Understanding/Transparency," and "Family Interactions" practice categories, 10, 7, and 7 judges, respectively, showed significant individual intercept adjustments. In contrast, "Youth Interactions," "Bigger Picture," and "Decision-Making" categories showed two or fewer significant judge-specific intercept adjustments.

Discussion

This observational study investigated the use of TIPs related to the courthouse and courtroom environment, courtroom policies and activities, and judge behavior in juvenile delinquency court. Researchers observed 36 court sessions, which included 201 hearings led by 16 different judges across seven urban counties in a Southeastern U.S. state. The study examined the extent of engagement with over 60 TIPs and assessed whether various factors related to the hearing, youth, and judge predicted judges' engagement with different TIP categories. Before discussing the findings related to the research aims, two important observations from the study's sample – one about race and one about hearing type – are highlighted.

Sample Findings & Implications

Nearly three-quarters of the observed hearings involved youth perceived as Black/African American, which is much higher than their percentage in the state's general population (less than 25%). In contrast, only 12% of observed youth were perceived as White, despite White individuals making up almost seven-tenths of the state's population. This means the study sample showed a significant overrepresentation of Black/African American youth and underrepresentation of White youth in the state's juvenile court system. This mirrors national trends of racial disparities in the justice system, where Black youth are arrested more often, are five times more likely to be involved in the juvenile justice system than non-Hispanic White youth, and have a much higher rate of incarceration. These findings confirm the widespread racial inequality in the U.S. justice system, which is a result of ongoing systemic racism. This highlights the need for various dedicated efforts to address this issue, such as investing in culturally relevant community programs, promoting diversion programs at arrest, using new discipline methods to reduce the school-to-prison pipeline, and providing extensive training on cultural humility and systemic racism.

Continuances and first appearances were the second and third most common hearing types observed (19.4% and 17.9%, respectively). Research shows that longer exposure to the legal system negatively affects a person's mental health. While administratively useful, continuances and first appearances prolong a youth's involvement with the court and delay resolution, potentially worsening their mental health and adding to previous trauma. Both hearing types typically last around five minutes, but the youth and at least one guardian must attend. Due to unpredictable court schedules, attending any hearing often means guardians miss work and children miss school, creating employment challenges for guardians and educational disruptions for children. Given these issues, efforts should be made to reduce the frequency of these hearings (e.g., by improving court scheduling and communication so families know in advance if a case will be continued) or to conduct them remotely, as many courts have started doing. If these hearings cannot be avoided, judges can use this time to establish a trauma-informed and psychologically safe environment from the beginning (e.g., by explaining the court process and learning about the youth) rather than rushing through them.

Summary of Research Aim Findings & Implications

Research Aim 1: Implementation of Trauma-Informed Practices (TIPs)

The first research aim explored the use of TIPs in juvenile delinquency court. Overall, findings revealed significant gaps in implementing certain TIPs, pointing to areas where juvenile courts can focus future education, policy, and practice efforts. For both courthouse and courtroom environments, comfortable seating, artwork, and greenery were the least trauma-informed elements. However, these environmental factors are important: good seating contributes to comfort, artwork can reduce stress, and greenery can boost psychological well-being and health. These findings highlight opportunities for simple, low-cost changes that can help create more trauma-informed court environments, which is a critical step toward a more trauma-informed court system.

Regarding court session policies and activities, engagement with such practices was observed to a fair extent. For instance, courtroom policies were generally applied fairly by judges and bailiffs (e.g., bailiffs asking everyone speaking loudly to quiet down, regardless of their role or identity), and judges seemed to allow for docket flexibility. However, several TIA-related policies and activities were not as well implemented. For example, "Youth in restraints" received a low score, indicating that a significant number of youth were restrained or shackled in the courtroom. Using restraints can trigger trauma symptoms, worsen feelings of isolation, hopelessness, and shame, and increase stigma among young people. Therefore, eliminating this practice whenever possible is a highly recommended TIP. Some juvenile justice organizations argue that the harm of shackling outweighs the common justification of courtroom security, advocating for shackles only as a last resort when others are in active danger and other de-escalation efforts have failed. The results show that more work is needed to reduce reliance on this practice, which remains somewhat common in U.S. juvenile courtrooms. Additionally, all observed judges wore their formal judicial robes (instead of going without), and nearly all conducted court from the bench (instead of, for example, stepping down). While unconventional, these simple changes could reduce intimidation, ease communication, and promote the trauma-informed principles of collaboration and mutuality.

Concerning hearing-level TIPs, the most engagement was found with practices related to general communication and understanding/transparency, while the least engagement was with practices related to Youth Interactions, Family Interactions, Bigger Picture, and Decision-Making. These findings are not surprising; the two categories with higher engagement represent some of the most basic TIPs, such as using a cordial tone and reading text clearly. The four categories with the lowest scores represent a much deeper engagement with a TIA, requiring more time, trauma knowledge, coordination, judge effort, system-level thinking, and a willingness to question existing norms. The relatively greater engagement with communication- and transparency/understanding-related TIPs may reflect recent efforts to improve perceptions of procedural justice (PJ) by encouraging judges to make simple changes like adjusting their tone, making eye contact, and avoiding complex language. This does not mean these practices are unimportant for promoting TIA and PJ, or that practices in the other four categories do not also align with PJ theory. However, the least used practices, such as those in the Decision-Making and Bigger Picture categories, are more central to a TIA than just a PJ-oriented approach. This may indicate that the PJ movement has had some success in courts, while highlighting the need for better implementation of more complex TIPs.

To elaborate, judges rarely implemented decision-making TIPs central to a TIA, such as ordering or referencing psychological screenings/evaluations and connecting youth and families with services. This is especially important because only the judge has the legal authority to order these. A TIA aims to not only recognize but also address past trauma, which psychological screenings and many services are designed to do. Another core tenet of a TIA is to better understand the contextual factors leading to certain behaviors, such as individual and structural adversity, and to use a strengths-based approach to address them. These practices, labeled as "Bigger Picture" practices, were the least commonly implemented. These findings align with previous research, such as a South Australian study showing judges generally avoided acknowledging collective/intergenerational trauma linked to Indigenous court-involved individuals and the possible link between trauma and offending behavior. This finding may suggest that judges are not fully appreciating how outside circumstances and experiences relate to a person's court involvement and their path forward, or that they do not understand that their role can and should include discussing these realities. Alternatively, or additionally, judges may not feel confident in how to approach these topics appropriately in an open courtroom. For example, judges might worry that commenting on factors related to cultural identity could be perceived as biased, leading them to avoid these topics even if such factors are considered in decision-making. Therefore, future trauma education should address how judges can discuss "bigger picture" factors in appropriate, sensitive, and trauma-informed ways.

The findings also support previous ideas that judges, while willing to make superficial changes, resist practices that require forethought, coordination with other court actors, or challenge the status quo, including changes that might threaten the judge's traditional role of authority and punishment. For example, involving youth and families in decision-making might feel counterintuitive to a judge who sees themselves as the leader, expert, and ultimate decision-maker. This might be especially true for juvenile court judges who question a youth's cognitive ability or psychosocial development and believe the youth should have limited input. However, a TIA cannot be achieved without prioritizing the principles of choice, voice, empowerment, collaboration, and mutuality.

This lack of engagement may have real consequences, as research suggests that involving youth and families can lead to more effective and positive outcomes. For instance, accountability and behavior change are most likely when young people have input and receive positive reinforcement, not just negative feedback, yet judges rarely engaged with youth in these ways. Additionally, positive interactions with family can lead to a better understanding of family and youth needs, which is crucial for effective intervention and rehabilitation. Still, the observed judges rarely implemented such practices.

Research Aim 2: Equitable Engagement with TIPs

The second research aim was to assess whether specific characteristics of the judge (race, gender), youth (race, gender, incapacitation level), and case (guardian presence, hearing type, offense level) predicted judges' engagement in the six hearing-level TIP categories. Multilevel modeling showed that the included variables had minimal and inconsistent influence on judge behavior. Specifically, there were no significant predictors of judge engagement with the "General Communication" and "Bigger Picture" categories. This suggests that practices in these categories were implemented fairly across the tested variables, whether this meant high engagement across the board (as with General Communication TIPs) or very low engagement across the board (as with Bigger Picture TIPs). However, youth incapacitation level did predict judges' engagement with the "Understanding/Transparency" category: judges showed greater engagement with youth appearing in court in restraints and youth in secure custody (via teleconference) compared to youth appearing unrestrained. While ensuring all court-involved youth understand court proceedings is essential, regardless of incapacitation, this finding does not necessarily indicate a negative disparity. Instead, it might suggest that judges recognize youth in restraints or custody may be experiencing more withdrawal or facing more severe legal consequences (e.g., continued detention). Thus, judges may make an extra effort to ensure these youth understand the court process.

Finally, hearing type predicted engagement in the "Youth Interactions," "Family Interactions," and "Decision-Making" categories. This makes sense given that the goals, required components, and duration of hearings can vary greatly by type. For example, judges interacted less with family and youth during continuances (often focused on rescheduling) compared to first appearance hearings. They engaged more with decision-making TIPs in completed or deferred dispositions/adjudications (hearings where consequences/orders/goals are determined) compared to secure custody hearings. While intuitive, these findings show that a TIA is not always applied consistently, highlighting the need for judges to continually explore ways to embody a TIA, even when it seems challenging (e.g., during very brief hearings).

Despite finding few significant predictors, the analyses also revealed notable differences between judges in applying TIPs in several categories: "General Communication," "Understanding/Transparency," and "Family Interactions." This means many judges acted differently from one another in these categories. (However, these differences were not linked to judge race or gender, as noted earlier.) Although there were few significant differences between judges in the other three categories, the very low overall engagement in those categories suggests ample room for improvement for all observed judges. Therefore, a child's exposure to a TIA may largely depend on the specific judge assigned to their case. These findings support previous research showing significant differences in practices between different judges and anecdotal reports from the observation team, who witnessed a wide range of judge behaviors. Future efforts should aim to standardize a TIA across entire court systems through extensive trauma education and by addressing all barriers to TIA implementation, including lack of judicial buy-in, practical challenges, and systemic obstacles. It is crucial to recognize that a court system is not fully trauma-informed if court-involved individuals risk being assigned to a judge who does not fully appreciate their power to either interrupt or perpetuate the cycle of trauma.

Limitations & Future Directions

The implications of this study should be considered in light of several limitations. First, data was collected only from juvenile delinquency courts in seven counties in one Southeastern U.S. state, which limits how broadly the findings can be applied to other court contexts and geographic regions. However, as the first observational study to comprehensively examine a large number of TIPs, these findings provide a strong foundation for future research. Furthermore, similarities between these findings and those from previous studies, such as a South Australian study on how judges respond to trauma in Indigenous individuals' lives, suggest that some of the identified TIP implementation gaps are also present in other contexts and populations. Second, the study examined TIP implementation only to the extent that practices were observable. This significantly limited the ability to assess certain types of TIPs, such as policy-related practices (e.g., official court policies on trauma assessments or physical restraints). It is also acknowledged that TIPs can be implemented internally by judges (e.g., considering psychological evaluation findings without explicitly stating it), especially when disclosing trauma-related details in open court could be triggering or violate privacy. However, if the research team, actively looking for TIPs, did not observe them (or even missed or misinterpreted them), it is unlikely that court-involved individuals experienced those TIPs themselves. And, as others have noted, judicial remarks should be clear enough so that listeners understand which factors are—or are not—being considered in decision-making. Given these limitations, the study may not fully capture the extent to which courts and judges in the sample engaged with a TIA; however, it is believed to be the most comprehensive examination to date.

Third, and related, the study collected data on practices in the court context that have been identified as trauma-informed in the literature. Many of these practices are considered trauma-informed based on their general alignment with overarching TIA principles (e.g., safety, transparency, empowerment) or research showing their positive impacts in other contexts (e.g., detention centers). Research is needed to examine the specific impacts of TIPs within the court context to identify which practices genuinely lead to less stress and better outcomes for youth. Fourth and finally, the analytical decision to assess the influence of judge-, youth-, and case-related factors on categories of TIPs, rather than individual practices, means the analysis might have missed unequal implementation of individual practices based on these factors. Future research should continue to assess the fair implementation of TIPs within the courtroom.

Conclusion

As efforts to create more trauma-informed courts continue, it is crucial to determine which trauma-informed practices (TIPs) are actually used in court and whether they are applied fairly. This observational study examined the use of TIPs in juvenile delinquency courts in a Southeastern U.S. state. Findings showed that while judges tend to use simple, easily implemented TIPs (like using a cordial tone), they often avoid or struggle with a large number of more complex and substantive TIPs. These include practices such as trying to understand the root causes of behavior, avoiding habits or systemic norms (like using restraints), or those that might challenge a judge's traditional authority (like involving youth in decision-making).

The analyses also revealed that while judges' engagement with TIP categories did not depend on personal characteristics like race and gender of the judge or youth, judges differed significantly in how much they used various TIP categories. This is likely due to their broad discretion and varied levels of trauma training and personal commitment. Taken together, these findings indicate that TIPs are severely underutilized and inconsistently applied. This means a child's court experience may heavily depend on the specific judge they are assigned. Future education, policy, and reform efforts aimed at creating more trauma-informed courts must address these gaps.

Summary

Trauma and the juvenile justice system are closely connected. Individuals involved in the system, whether as young people, victims, or witnesses, often have high rates of trauma exposure. Additionally, being involved in the system itself can be very stressful and worsen existing trauma symptoms. A trauma-informed approach (TIA) in court recognizes this connection. It aims to address past trauma and prevent further harm by using various practices, known as trauma-informed practices (TIPs). These practices cover all aspects of court, from the physical environment to policies and the behavior of legal staff.

This study aimed to understand how a TIA is applied in juvenile delinquency court, focusing on how judges behave. Researchers observed over 200 court hearings. First, they looked at how often over 60 TIPs were used in court. Then, they examined whether judges' use of different TIPs depended on factors related to the case, the judge, or the young person involved.

Trauma and the Legal System

Trauma is a lasting emotional response to an event, series of events, or circumstances that a person finds harmful or life-threatening. Trauma is common among people, especially youth, in legal systems worldwide. A review of 124 studies in 13 countries found that 87% of youth in the legal system had experienced at least one traumatic event. Other studies show even higher rates, with up to 90% of youth in the U.S. legal system and 95% of youth under justice supervision in South Australia reporting exposure to trauma.

People who experience childhood trauma are much more likely to commit serious and violent crimes as teenagers and adults, even when other risk factors for criminal behavior are considered. This link between trauma and legal system involvement is partly due to how trauma affects the brain and body. Childhood trauma disrupts the development of certain cognitive, psychological, and emotional skills. It is also linked to challenges that can increase the likelihood of violent, reactive, and criminal behaviors.

Beyond individual effects, trauma can also result from or worsen difficult family, community, and societal conditions. Examples include limited access to resources, community violence, and systemic racism, all of which can increase the chance of legal system involvement. Furthermore, being in court can be very stressful, continuing a cycle of trauma. Because of these connections, a TIA is essential to help break the cycle of trauma experienced by many young people involved in the court system.

A Trauma-Informed Approach and the Legal System

A trauma-informed approach (TIA) to providing services acknowledges the trauma individuals have experienced, works to address its effects, and tries to prevent further traumatization. A key part of a TIA is recognizing that the effects of trauma do not have to be permanent; the brain can heal, and people can show resilience and even growth after traumatic events.

The U.S. Substance Use and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) offers a framework for a TIA with six guiding principles: Safety; Trustworthiness and Transparency; Peer Support; Collaboration and Mutuality; Empowerment, Voice, and Choice; and Cultural, Historical, and Gender Issues. These principles can help organizations serve individuals affected by trauma. As understanding of trauma and its effects has grown over recent decades, so have efforts to bring TIAs into many social service areas, including healthcare, education, and social work.

Efforts to use a TIA in the legal system have also increased. A lot of information, including research articles and educational programs, offers guidance on how to use a TIA in the court system. Trauma-focused information and education suggest many practices, often called trauma-informed practices (TIPs), that court systems can adopt to better achieve the goals of a TIA.

In this context, TIPs generally fall into three main groups: (a) the courthouse/room environment (e.g., multilingual signs, accessible parking, reducing upsetting stimuli like loud noises and bad smells); (b) policies and procedures (e.g., removing unnecessarily strict practices; using trauma screenings and assessments, carefully scheduling court cases); and (c) judge behavior and decision-making (e.g., avoiding demeaning language, giving positive feedback, allowing court-involved individuals to speak, choosing less restrictive sentences, working with community organizations). Despite many recommendations for TIAs in legal systems globally, little is known about how these practices are actually put into use.

Judges' Role in a TIA

When it comes to putting a TIA into practice, judges' behavior deserves significant attention. Judges have a great deal of influence over many aspects of court, including the experiences and outcomes for people involved in court, courtroom policies, the overall court atmosphere, and the actions of other court staff. Therefore, their involvement in and support for TIPs are crucial for successfully adopting a TIA in the court system.

While some studies have looked at judges' attitudes and experiences related to a TIA, no previous research, to our knowledge, has thoroughly examined how judges actually use TIPs in juvenile courtrooms. For example, one study surveyed 91 state judges in the U.S. about their attitudes and experiences with a TIA. It found judges reported using TIPs related to communication more than those related to policies/procedures and decision-making. However, since this study relied only on self-reported information, it was unclear how much judges actually used these TIPs.

Many observational studies have examined judge behavior in other court settings with different focuses. Most relevant to this research are studies that look at judge behavior through the lens of procedural justice (PJ) theory, which has similar processes and goals to a TIA. The core principles of PJ are voice, neutrality, respect, and trust, just as voice, fairness, respect, and mutual understanding are central to a TIA.

One such study assessed how much judges showed behavior aligned with PJ theory in New York City mental health courts. Researchers observed 339 interactions between judges and defendants across four courts with different judges. They collected data on behaviors related to procedural fairness, respect, inclusion/voice (e.g., whether the judge spoke directly to the defendant). The findings showed that interactions across all courts were generally positive, but scores varied significantly between courts, showing differences in practice among judges. While this and similar studies offer insight into certain judge behaviors that match a TIA, they do not cover the full range of TIPs—such as decision-making practices, policy considerations, efforts to understand the root cause of problem behavior, and family involvement. This leaves a gap in understanding how TIPs are implemented in courts.

Different Treatment by Judges

There is also a lack of information about whether judges use TIPs fairly. Research looking at fairness in courts usually examines how legal factors (e.g., how serious the offense is, past record) and non-legal factors (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, age of the defendant) influence judicial decision-making. While it is generally assumed that decisions should be based strictly on legal information, non-legal information, often rooted in bias and stereotypes, also plays a role. Many of these studies, however, focus on decisions and outcomes (e.g., length of incarceration, placement), rather than on the court process itself (e.g., interactions during hearings).

When discussing a TIA in court, the focus is mainly on the process (including the process of making decisions, like working with community groups). Part of taking a TIA in court means recognizing that nearly all people involved in court have experienced some form of trauma. Therefore, it is safest to assume trauma is present and apply a TIA at all times (this is called a 'universal precautions approach'). This approach also recognizes that TIPs can benefit everyone, including court staff and people involved in court who have not experienced significant trauma.

Therefore, how judges use TIPs in the courtroom should not depend on legal or non-legal factors. This expectation might seem to contradict the TIA's focus on contextual, non-legal factors. For example, a TIA encourages judges to acknowledge systemic unfairness, like racism, to understand why a child is in court and to decide on a culturally appropriate consequence. However, considering race to better understand a child's experience is not the same as using a TIA to different degrees based on a child's race. In other words, a TIA might involve paying attention to specific factors but should not involve selectively applying TIPs. This distinction is complex, and more investigation into the fair use of TIPs is needed, especially to ensure that TIPs are not unfairly withheld from minority populations.

Although there is little research on the factors (both legal and non-legal) that influence judges' different treatment of court-involved people (as opposed to their decisions), one recent study did explore this issue. By analyzing audio recordings from 86 hearings in a juvenile court in the Southwestern United States, researchers found that both personal characteristics of the youth and of the judge predicted certain elements of the judge-youth interaction in court. For instance, a youth's race predicted how many times a judge interacted with them, and a judge's gender predicted the length of the judge-youth interaction. Further investigation into the factors that predict how judges use a wide range of TIPs is a critical step in ensuring fair and thorough implementation of a TIA across court systems.

Current Research

This study aims to address some gaps in understanding how TIPs are used in juvenile delinquency court. Researchers conducted systematic observations of juvenile delinquency court, collecting information on how trauma-informed the courthouse and courtroom environment, courtroom policies/activities, and judges' behaviors were. The goals were: (a) to better understand how courts and judges currently use TIPs; and (b) to assess the fairness of TIP use by examining whether judges' use of different types of TIPs depended on various factors related to the case, the judge, and the youth.

Method

Research Sites

Researchers observed juvenile delinquency court in seven urban counties in a Southeastern U.S. state. In this state, juvenile delinquency court handles complaints against children (under 18 who are not married, emancipated, or in the military) accused of being delinquent (committing acts that would be crimes if done by an adult) or undisciplined (engaging in 'inappropriate' behavior like skipping school). District court judges, who hear civil, criminal, magistrate, and juvenile cases, oversee all juvenile delinquency court cases.

The seven study counties were selected using a combination of targeted and convenient sampling. Researchers focused on urban counties within a single state to generally control for access to services and resources, which often vary between urban and rural areas. They also chose counties with high caseloads to ensure a good number of hearings could be observed each visit. Additionally, selected counties had chief juvenile court counselors willing to provide court schedules in advance. While permission to observe court was not officially required (juvenile court is public in this state), researchers communicated with court counselors to help with scheduling and in case their presence in the courtroom was questioned. The decision of whether to inform the judge of the researchers' presence was left to the court counselors.

Sample

Data was collected from 36 court sessions, which included 201 juvenile delinquency court hearings overseen by 16 different judges. Of the 16 judges observed, 55.2% were perceived by observers as women and the rest as men. Over half were perceived as Black/African American (56.3%), about one-third as White (31.3%), and the rest as an unknown race.

Regarding the young people, almost three-quarters of the 201 observed hearings involved youth perceived as Black/African American (72.1%). Nearly 13% involved youth perceived as Hispanic/Latinx, and almost 12% involved youth perceived as White. Over four-fifths of hearings involved youth perceived as boys (83.1%); three-fifths involved youth perceived as Black boys (59.7%). For the 44.3% of hearings where the youth's age was publicly shared, the average age was 15.7 years (range 12–19). Just over three-fourths of the hearings involved youths in court without restraints (76.1%). The remaining hearings had an equal number of youths who were in court with some restraints (e.g., hand restraints, leg shackles, or both: 11.9%) and those in secure custody (appearing via teleconferencing from a detention center: 11.9%). In most hearings, only one parent figure was present (62.2%), usually the youth's mother (56.2%). Victim characteristics and judge interactions with victims are not reported because victims were present in only five of the 201 observed hearings.

Table 1 shows the frequency of observed hearing types. The most common type was secure custody hearings, held to determine if a youth needs to remain detained before their adjudication hearing (when the judge decides if the youth committed the act). The next two most common were first appearances (initial hearings where the court informs the youth of the allegations, confirms legal counsel, and reviews guardian responsibilities) and continuances (hearings postponed to a later date). For nearly 40% of hearings, observers did not know the highest offense level charged to the youth. When known, the majority were serious offenses (the second highest of three charge levels; 35.8% of all hearings), followed by violent offenses (the highest level; 15.9%), then minor or undisciplined offenses (the lowest levels; 9.0%).

Data Collection Materials

Data was collected using a three-page paper court observation instrument developed by the research team (see Appendix). To create the instrument, researchers reviewed various literature on trauma-informed courtrooms to identify observable practices. Practices were organized into sections on the paper form and then tested in court for about four months. To ensure the instrument was valid, feedback was gathered from a juvenile court attorney and a social psychologist specializing in TIAs in the criminal legal context. A codebook was developed with clear definitions and examples for each item. The sections and items of the instrument that are relevant to the reported results are described below.

Session-Level Variables

The first page of the instrument focused on information recorded once per visit to a specific courthouse and courtroom. Observers collected perceived personal information about the judge (race/ethnicity and gender). They also gathered information on various practices related to the courthouse/room environment (e.g., temperature, presence of plants, artwork) and courtroom policies/activities (e.g., flexibility of the court schedule, use of restraints on juveniles in custody). Observers rated each practice on a scale from 0 ('not at all' or 'none of the time') to 3 ('to a great extent' or 'all of the time') to indicate how much of the practice or element was observed during the court session. Generally, 0 represented a not trauma-informed score, and 3 represented a trauma-informed score. For example, for the item 'Docket flexibility,' a rating of 0 meant the judge was 'not at all flexible about changes to order or timing of the docket,' while a rating of 3 meant the judge was 'very flexible and proactively changed the order or timing of the docket for ease of youths, families, and other legal actors.'

Hearing-Level Variables

The remaining two pages contained information recorded multiple times during a court visit, for every hearing. Observers noted the hearing type (e.g., first appearance, admission, disposition); offense type and/or level (e.g., 'larceny' or Level 1, 2, or 3); perceived personal characteristics of the youth (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, age when publicly shared); the youth's level of physical restriction (i.e., extent of restraints and/or detention); guardian information (i.e., which guardian(s) attended); case outcome information (i.e., court actors' recommendations and the judge's final decision); and judge-specific practices (described below). All information was based on observations and limited to what was openly discussed at the hearing; no court records, outside information, or direct identifiers were collected. Similar to the session-level items, observers rated judge-specific practice items on a scale from 0 to 3 to indicate how much the judge used each practice during the hearing. For example, for 'Explains legal jargon (or avoids using it),' a score of 0 meant the judge 'used lots of jargon without providing any explanations,' and a score of 3 meant the judge 'avoided jargon entirely or proactively and clearly explained/rephrased.'

Data Collection Procedure

The observation team consisted of nine researchers, all of whom received extensive training on the court observation instrument and codebook before official data collection began, which ran from April to September 2023. Two observers attended each court session on pre-arranged days and remained for the entire session. Observers completed their observation instruments separately, filling out the first page once per session and the other two pages for every hearing. After each court session, the two observers reviewed all objective information (e.g., hearing type, case outcome) and their subjective scores (0–3) for each practice item, identifying any scores that differed by more than one point. Weekly team meetings were held during data collection to discuss coding discrepancies and resolve any confusion before the next week's observations. As the final step, observers entered their individual data into an online form that matched the observation instrument. A university institutional review board (IRB) approved all study materials and procedures before data collection. The requirement for informed consent from study participants was waived because the research involved minimal risk, and all data was collected from public court sessions.

Analysis

To check how consistent the two observers were, researchers calculated the percentage of agreement for all subjective items (scored 0-3) in both session-level and hearing-level data. Agreement was allowed if scores differed by no more than one point, as scores would later be averaged. The average agreement was 95.8% for session-level data and 98.4% for hearing-level data. For hearing-level data, agreement for each of the seven sub-sections of the instrument ranged from 97.8% to 99.9%.

To prepare the data for analysis, the two observers' responses were combined into a single response for each session and hearing. First, two team members checked that all objective information (e.g., hearing type, case outcome) from both coders was identical. If so, one of their responses was randomly chosen for the combined dataset. If differences were found, observers tried to resolve them (e.g., by checking original coding sheets for entry errors). If a discrepancy could not be resolved, the response was marked as missing. For all subjective items (scored 0-3), the average score from both coders was used in the combined dataset. If one observer's response was "N/A" or missing and the other had a value, the coded value was included.

To address the first research aim—understanding how trauma-informed juvenile delinquency court was—engagement with TIPs was assessed individually and by category. Practices were grouped into nine main categories. Three categories were at the session-level: (a) Courthouse environment, (b) Courtroom environment, and (c) Courtroom policies/activities (see Table 2). The other six were at the hearing-level: (a) General Communication, related to the judge's communication with participants; (b) Understanding/Transparency, related to the judge ensuring the hearing was clear to youth and families; (c) Youth Interactions, related to how the judge interacted with the youth; (d) Family Interactions, related to how the judge interacted with family members/guardians; (e) Bigger Picture, related to the judge trying to understand broader contextual factors contributing to the youth's involvement; and (f) Decision-Making, related to how the judge made decisions and what those decisions were (see Table 3).

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, median, mode, minimum, maximum) were calculated for each item, and average scores were computed for each practice category. Some items were reverse-scored for calculating means so that higher scores always meant a more trauma-informed approach (e.g., a higher score for 'Youths in restraints' meant fewer youths were restrained). Raw median, mode, minimum, and maximum scores are presented (not reverse-scored) to match the actual coded values. The N columns in Tables 2 and 3 show the total number of valid sessions or hearings for each practice, used as the denominator for mean scores (e.g., the N for 'Youths in restraints' was 24 because restraints were only possible in sessions where youths were brought from secure custody; first appearances and continuances were excluded for decision-making practices as no decisions are made then).

To explore the second research aim—identifying factors that predict judges' engagement with different TIP categories—six multilevel linear models were conducted, one for each hearing-level practice category. Multilevel modeling was used because the data had a hierarchical structure (hearings were nested within judges). First, unconditional means models were run to assess the percentage of variability in the data that was due to differences between judges. Then, separate multilevel regression models were run for each of the six practice categories, including seven categorical predictor variables (six at the hearing-level and two at the judge-level). For multi-categorical variables, the simplest or lowest level was chosen as the reference group, and for binary variables, the lower-coded number was automatically chosen.

The hearing-level variables, related to either the case or the youth, included: (a) guardian presence (two groups: single parent present, all other guardianship arrangements [reference group]); (b) incapacitation level (three groups: in court with no restraints [reference group], in court in restraints, in secure custody [youth appearing via teleconference]); (c) hearing type (six groups: first appearance [reference group], secure custody, admission, deferred adjudication/deferred disposition/completed disposition, continuance, all other); (d) highest offense level (four groups: minor [reference group], serious, violent, unknown); (e) youth gender (two groups: boy [reference group], girl); and (f) youth race (two groups: not White [reference group], White). The two judge-level variables were: judge race (two groups: not White [reference group], White) and judge gender (two groups: man [reference group], woman).

Results

Results of the analysis for the two main research aims are reported.

Research Aim 1: Implementation of TIPs

Session-Level TIPs

Courthouse & Courtroom Environment

Table 2 provides summary statistics for items related to both courthouse and courtroom environments, and Figure 1 illustrates the average scores. In both categories, most items (62% of courthouse items and 64% of courtroom items) had average scores between 2 and 3. This indicates that these elements were generally present in the observed courthouses and courtrooms. The lowest scores in both courthouse and courtroom categories were for comfortable seating, artwork, and greenery, which were either completely absent or limited. Many items showed little variation in scores, meaning these elements were consistently present or absent (e.g., almost all courthouses and courtrooms scored the same for items like cleanliness (3), artwork (0), greenery (0), bad smell (0)). Average scores for each category showed that courthouse environments (average = 2.11, standard deviation = 0.43) were overall more trauma-informed than courtroom environments (average = 1.88, standard deviation = 0.33).

Courtroom Policies & Activities

Table 2 also presents summary statistics for TIP items related to courtroom policies and activities. Most items in this category also had average scores between 2 and 3. However, a few practices received noticeably lower scores: youths in restraints, the judge conducting court from the bench, and the judge wearing their robe. The overall average score for the courtroom policies/activities category was 1.84 (standard deviation = 0.30; see Figure 1).

Hearing-Level TIPs

Table 3 shows descriptive statistics for hearing-level practice items, all related to judge behavior and grouped into six practice categories. Figure 1 displays the average scores for each category. Judges engaged most with practices related to communication (average = 2.35, standard deviation = 0.48) and Transparency/Understanding (average = 1.72, standard deviation = 0.76). Even so, several practices within these categories still had quite low scores, such as greeting the youth and/or family, assessing their understanding of the hearing, and explaining procedural steps and the purpose of the hearing.

The other four practice categories had average scores below 1, indicating that judges tended not to implement TIPs in these areas, or did so to a very small extent (many items showed floor effects, meaning very low scores). Within the Youth Interactions category (average = 0.94, standard deviation = 0.93), inviting the youth to speak was the most common practice, and when judges did so, they generally interacted constructively. The lowest scores in this category were for providing positive feedback/praise to the youth and involving the youth in decision-making, practices judges did not engage with at all in most hearings. The Decision-Making and Family Interaction categories had similar average scores, 0.78 and 0.71 respectively, with Decision-Making having slightly less variability (standard deviations = 0.62 vs. 0.78). The decision-making practice judges used most, though still not extensively, was exploring less restrictive options. For other practices in that category, judges very rarely connected youths and families to services, openly considered progress when making decisions, or made decisions involving collaboration with community organizations. For Family Interactions, judges invited family members to speak more often than they invited youths; however, their engagement with family tended to be less constructive than with youth (e.g., using what the family member said against the youth). Judges also rarely tried to connect with family members, provide positive feedback, or involve family in decision-making. Judges engaged least with practices in the Bigger Picture category (average = 0.41, standard deviation = 0.55). This means they very rarely openly acknowledged or tried to understand broader contextual factors that might have contributed to youths' court involvement, such as personal adversity/trauma or systemic unfairness, nor did they recognize youths' strengths and resilience.

Research Aim 2: Equitable Engagement with TIPs

Results from models looking at average scores for each of the six judge-focused practice categories showed that for three categories—General Communication, Understanding/Transparency, and Family Interactions—a significant portion (more than 45%) of the variation was due to differences between judges. For the other three categories—Youth Interactions, Bigger Picture, and Decision-Making—20% or less of the variation was between judges (see Table S1 in Supplemental materials). Results from each of the six multilevel linear regression models are also provided in the Supplemental materials (Tables S2–7) due to space limits. Significant results are described below. In all six models, other than the intercept (which was significant in all models except the Decision-Making model, indicating that the practice category scores were significantly greater than 0 with all predictor variables at the reference level), few variables were significant predictors (p < .05), and none were significant in all models. All coefficients can be interpreted as: 'on average, holding all modeled variables constant.'

Results showed no significant predictors in the General Communication model (p ≥ .163) and the Bigger Picture model (p ≥ .085). For the Understanding/Transparency model, only the youth's incapacitation level was a significant predictor (p = .030 for in restraints and p = .005 for in secure custody). Judges' scores were 0.34 points higher for youths in court/in restraints and 0.53 points higher for youths in secure custody (appearing via teleconference) compared to those in court/no restraints. For the models predicting Youth Interactions, Family Interactions, and Decision-Making, hearing type was a significant predictor. In the Youth Interactions model, scores for continuances were 0.55 points lower than first appearance hearings (p = .039). In the Family Interactions model, scores were 0.42 points lower for secure custody (p = .025) and 0.38 points lower for continuances (p = .031), compared to first appearances. In the Decision-Making model, scores were 0.59 points higher for deferred adjudications/deferred dispositions/completed dispositions (p < .001) and 0.43 points higher for 'other' types of hearings (p = .017), compared to secure custody hearings.

Despite few significant predictors, the judge-specific random effects for each model showed notable differences in scores between judges, even when other factors were held constant, in half of the models (see Table 4). These coefficients represent how much each judge's scores adjusted from the average. A negative score for a judge means they showed lower levels of observed TIPs than average, while a positive score means higher levels. For General Communication, Understanding/Transparency, and Family Interactions categories, 10, 7, and 7 judges, respectively, showed significant individual adjustments to their average scores. In contrast, the Youth Interactions, Bigger Picture, and Decision-Making categories had two or fewer significant judge-specific adjustments.

Discussion

This observational study explored the presence of trauma-informed practices (TIPs) related to the courthouse and courtroom environment, courtroom policies/activities, and judge behavior in juvenile delinquency court. Researchers observed 36 court sessions, including 201 juvenile delinquency court hearings, overseen by 16 different judges in seven urban counties in a Southeastern U.S. state. Beyond examining the extent to which over 60 TIPs were used, the study also assessed various factors related to the hearing, youth, and judge as predictors of how judges engaged with different categories of TIPs. Before reviewing the findings related to the research aims, two findings about the study's sample—one on race and one on hearing type—and their implications are discussed.

Sample Findings & Implications

Nearly three-quarters of the observed hearings involved youth perceived as Black/African American, which is much higher than the proportion of Black/African American people in the study state's population (less than 25%). Only 12% of the observed hearings involved youth perceived as White, while nearly seven-tenths of the state's population is White. This means the study sample showed a severe overrepresentation of Black/African American youth and underrepresentation of White youth in the state's juvenile court system. This mirrors national trends of racial disparities at various stages of the legal system: Black youth are arrested at higher rates than White youth for almost all offenses; their involvement in the juvenile justice system is five times higher than non-Hispanic White youth; and one in three Black/African American youth are incarcerated at some point in their lives, compared to one in 17 non-Hispanic White youth.

The study sample confirms the widespread racial inequality in the U.S. criminal legal system, which results from past and ongoing systemic racism. This highlights the need for various dedicated efforts to address this issue. Such efforts include investing in culturally relevant community-based programs, prioritizing diversion programs at the time of arrest, exploring new disciplinary options to reduce the school-to-prison pipeline, and implementing broad training on cultural humility and systemic racism.

The second and third most common types of hearings observed were continuances and first appearances (19.4% and 17.9% of all hearings, respectively). Research shows that the longer a person involved in the court system is exposed to it, the more their mental health declines. Continuances and first appearances, while administratively useful, extend a youth's contact with the court and delay their ability to resolve their situation. This delay can harm their mental health, adding to any previous trauma. Furthermore, both continuances and first appearances usually last about five minutes (though hearing length was not officially recorded), yet the youth and at least one guardian are required to attend.

Because court schedules are unpredictable, attending any hearing, even a short one, typically means the guardian misses work and the child misses school. This can create employment challenges for the guardian (e.g., risk of losing a job due to missed work) and hinder consistent education for the child. Given these problems, efforts should be made to reduce how often these hearings occur (e.g., by improving court schedule management and communication among court actors so families can be informed in advance if their case will be postponed). Alternatively, such hearings could be conducted remotely, which many court systems have started doing. If these hearings cannot be avoided entirely, judges can use this time to set a trauma-informed tone and create a psychologically safe environment from the start (e.g., by taking time to explain the court process and learn about the youth), rather than just rushing through them.

Summary of Research Aim Findings & Implications

Research Aim 1: Implementation of TIPs

The first research aim explored the use of a TIA in juvenile delinquency court by looking at which TIPs were used, which were not, and to what extent. Overall, the findings revealed significant gaps in how certain TIPs were put into practice. This highlights areas where juvenile courts can focus future education, policy, and practical efforts. Regarding both courthouse and courtroom environments, comfortable seating, artwork, and greenery were identified as the least trauma-informed elements. However, these environmental conditions are important; the quantity and quality of seating can contribute to feelings of ease, visual artwork can reduce stress, and greenery can boost psychological well-being and improve health outcomes. These findings point to opportunities for simple, low-cost changes that, if made, can help create more trauma-informed court environments, which is a crucial step towards a more trauma-informed court system overall.

Regarding court session policies and activities, engagement with such practices was observed to a fair extent. For instance, observers noted that courtroom policies were generally enforced fairly by both judges and bailiffs (e.g., bailiffs asking all loud people in the courthouse to quiet down, regardless of their identity or role). Judges also appeared to typically allow flexibility in the court schedule from the bench. However, several policies and activities related to a TIA were not as well implemented. For example, 'Youth in restraints' received a fairly low score, indicating that a significant number of youths wore restraints or were shackled in the courtroom. Using restraints can trigger trauma symptoms, worsen feelings of isolation, hopelessness, and shame, and perpetuate stigma among young people. Therefore, eliminating this practice whenever possible is a highly recommended TIP. Some juvenile justice organizations argue that the harm of shackling far outweighs the common justification of courtroom security, advocating for shackles to be used only as an absolute last resort when other attendees are in active danger and other de-escalation efforts have failed. The results show that more work is likely needed to reduce reliance on this practice, which remains somewhat common in U.S. juvenile courtrooms.

Additionally, all observed judges wore their formal robes (rather than going without), and nearly all conducted court entirely from the bench (rather than, for example, stepping down into the well). While doing otherwise is unconventional, these are simple approaches that could reduce feelings of intimidation, make communication easier, and help foster the trauma-informed principles of collaboration and mutual understanding.

Regarding hearing-level TIPs, researchers found the most engagement with practices related to general communication and understanding/transparency, and the least engagement with practices related to Youth Interactions, Family Interactions, Bigger Picture, and Decision-Making. These findings are not necessarily surprising; the two practice categories with higher engagement (though still with room for improvement) represent some of the most basic TIPs, such as using a polite tone and reading text clearly. The four practice categories with the lowest scores represent a much higher level of engagement with a TIA (e.g., requiring more time, knowledge of trauma, coordination, judge effort, system-level thinking, questioning the existing way of doing things). The relatively greater engagement with communication- and transparency/understanding-related TIPs may reflect efforts in recent decades to improve perceptions of procedural justice by urging judges to make relatively simple changes, such as adjusting their tone, making eye contact, and avoiding complex language. This does not mean these practices are unimportant for promoting a TIA and procedural justice, or that some practices in the other four categories do not also align with procedural justice theory (e.g., engaging with youth can promote procedural justice). However, the least used practices, such as those in the Decision-Making and Bigger Picture categories, are more central to a TIA than to a purely procedural justice-oriented approach. This may suggest that the procedural justice movement has seen some success in courts, while also highlighting the need for better implementation of more complex TIPs.

Judges rarely implemented decision-making-related TIPs that are central to a TIA, such as ordering or referring to psychological screenings/evaluations and connecting youth and families with services. This is particularly noteworthy because the judge is the only one with the legal authority to issue such orders. Indeed, a TIA not only recognizes but also addresses past trauma, which psychological screenings/evaluations and many services are designed to do. Another core principle of a TIA is to better understand the contextual factors that lead to certain behaviors, such as individual and systemic difficulties, and to use a strengths-based approach to address these factors. These practices, labeled as 'Bigger Picture' practices, were the least commonly implemented in the observed courtrooms. These findings align with previous research, such as a South Australian study that showed superior court judges generally avoided acknowledging collective/intergenerational trauma linked to Indigenous court-involved individuals and recognizing the possible connection between trauma and offending behavior. This finding might suggest that judges are failing to fully appreciate how outside circumstances and experiences relate to a person's court involvement and their future path, or to understand that their role can and should include discussing these realities.

Alternatively, or in addition, judges may not feel confident about how to appropriately address these topics in an open courtroom. For example, as one study pointed out, judges might worry that commenting on factors related to someone's cultural identity could be seen as biased or racist, leading them to generally avoid these topics, even if such factors were considered in their decision-making. Therefore, future trauma education programs should focus on how judges can discuss broader contextual factors in appropriate, sensitive, and trauma-informed ways.

The findings also support the idea that judges, while willing to make superficial changes to their practice, resist practices that require careful thought, coordination with other court actors, or that challenge the existing norms. This includes changes that might threaten the perception of the judge as primarily an authoritative figure who delivers punishment. For instance, engaging with youth and families during the court process, such as involving them in decision-making, might feel counterintuitive to a judge who views themselves as the leader, expert, and final decider. This could be particularly true for juvenile court judges who question the cognitive ability or psychological development of youth and therefore believe youth should have a limited say in the process. However, a TIA cannot be achieved without focusing on the principles of choice, voice, empowerment, collaboration, and mutual understanding.

This lack of engagement can have real consequences, as research suggests that interacting with youth and families can lead to more effective and positive outcomes. For example, accountability and behavior change are most likely to happen when young people have a say in the process and receive positive reinforcement instead of only negative feedback, yet judges rarely engaged with youth in these ways. Additionally, positive interactions with family can lead to a better understanding of family and youth needs, which is vital for effective intervention and rehabilitation efforts. However, the observed judges rarely implemented such practices.

Research Aim 2: Equitable Engagement with TIPs

The second research aim was to assess whether certain characteristics of the judge (race, gender), youth (race, gender, level of physical restriction), and case (guardian presence, hearing type, offense level) predicted how judges engaged with the six hearing-level TIP categories. Multilevel modeling showed that the included variables had very little and inconsistent influence on judge behavior. Specifically, there were no significant predictors for judge engagement with the General Communication and Bigger Picture categories. This suggests that practices in these categories were implemented fairly across the variables tested as predictors, whether that meant high engagement across the board (as with General Communication TIPs) or very low engagement across the board (as with Bigger Picture TIPs).

However, researchers did find that the youth's level of physical restriction predicted judges' engagement with the Understanding/Transparency category. Judges showed greater engagement with youth appearing in court with restraints and youth in secure custody (i.e., joining court via teleconference) compared to youth appearing in court without restraints. While it is essential for a TIA to ensure all court-involved youth, regardless of physical restriction level, understand court proceedings, this specific finding does not necessarily point to a negative unfairness. Instead, it might mean that judges recognize that youth in restraints or in custody may be experiencing relatively greater stress or facing more serious legal consequences (e.g., continued time in detention). Therefore, judges may make an extra effort to ensure these youth are attentive and understand the court process.

Finally, researchers found that hearing type predicted engagement in the Youth Interactions, Family Interactions, and Decision-Making categories. This finding makes sense, given that the goals, required elements, and duration of hearings can vary widely by type. For example, judges interacted less with family and youth during continuances (which often focus only on rescheduling the hearing) compared to first appearance hearings. They also engaged more with decision-making TIPs in completed or deferred dispositions/adjudications (hearings where the judge determines consequences, orders, or goals with a timeline) compared to secure custody hearings. Although these findings are logical, they show that a TIA is not always applied consistently, highlighting the need for judges to continue finding ways to embody a TIA, even when it seems difficult (e.g., during very brief hearings).

Despite finding few significant predictors, the analyses also revealed notable differences between judges in how they applied TIPs in several practice categories: General Communication, Understanding/Transparency, and Family Interactions. In other words, many judges acted differently from one another in these categories. (However, as mentioned, these differences were not based on the judge's race or gender.) While there were few significant differences between judges in the other three categories, the very low overall engagement in those categories indicates significant room for improvement for all observed judges. This means a child's experience with a TIA might largely depend on the judge they are assigned. These findings support previous research showing significant differences in practices between different judges, as well as anecdotal reports from the observation team who frequently discussed the wide range in judge behavior they witnessed (from "exemplary trauma-informed judges" to the "opposite of trauma-informed judges"). Future efforts should include standardizing a TIA across entire court systems through extensive trauma education opportunities and addressing all types of barriers to TIA implementation, including lack of judicial support, practical difficulties, and systemic challenges. It is important to recognize that a court system cannot be considered truly trauma-informed if people involved in court are at risk of ending up in a courtroom with a judge who does not fully understand their power to either interrupt or perpetuate a cycle of trauma.

Limitations & Future Directions

The implications of this study should be considered with several limitations in mind. First, data was collected from juvenile delinquency courts in only seven counties in a Southeastern U.S. state. This limits how broadly the findings can be applied to other court settings and geographic regions. However, as this is the first observational study to thoroughly examine a large number of TIPs, the findings offer a strong foundation for future research. Furthermore, similarities between these findings and those of previous studies, such as a South Australian study on how judges respond to trauma in the lives of Indigenous individuals, suggest that some of the observed gaps in TIP implementation also exist in other contexts and populations.

Second, the study only examined TIPs that were observable. This significantly limited the ability to assess certain types of TIPs, such as policy-related practices (e.g., a court's official policy on trauma assessments, physical restraints, or mass hearings). Researchers also acknowledge that judges might implement TIPs internally (e.g., considering psychological evaluation findings when making a decision without stating it), especially when disclosing certain trauma-related details in open court could be upsetting or a violation of privacy. However, if the research team—specifically looking for TIPs—did not observe them (or even missed or misinterpreted them), it seems unlikely that court-involved individuals directly experienced those TIPs. And, as others have noted, judges' comments should be thorough enough so that listeners understand which factors are—or are not—being considered in decision-making. Given these limitations, the study may not fully capture how much the included courts and judges engaged with a TIA; however, it is believed to be the most comprehensive examination to date.

Third, and related, the study collected data on practices in the court setting that have been identified in the literature as trauma-informed. Many of these practices are considered trauma-informed because they generally align with overarching TIA principles (e.g., safety, transparency, empowerment) or because research has shown their positive effects in other settings (e.g., in detention centers). More research is needed to examine the effects of TIPs within the court context to identify which practices truly lead to less stress and better outcomes for youth. Fourth and finally, the decision to assess the influence of judge-, youth-, and case-related factors on categories of TIPs, rather than individual practices, means that the analysis might have missed unfair implementation of individual practices based on these factors. Future research should continue to assess the fair implementation of TIPs within the courtroom.

Conclusion

As efforts to create more trauma-informed courts continue, so must efforts to determine whether and what kinds of trauma-informed practices (TIPs) are actually used in court—and whether they are used fairly. This court observation study, which examined TIP use in juvenile delinquency court in a Southeastern U.S. state, showed that judges tend to use simple, easily implemented TIPs on the fly (e.g., using a polite tone). However, they avoid or struggle to implement many other TIPs measured, including more substantial and complex ones (e.g., seeking to understand the root cause of behavior). This also includes TIPs that might go against habits or systemic norms (e.g., avoiding the use of restraints) or those that seem to challenge a judge's traditional authority (e.g., involving youth in decision-making).

The analysis also revealed that, while judge engagement with TIP categories did not depend on personal characteristics of the judge and youth like race and gender, judges differed significantly in how much they engaged with different types of TIPs. This is likely due to their broad discretion and varying levels of trauma training and support. Taken together, these findings show that TIPs are severely underused—and used inconsistently—meaning a child's court experience can heavily depend on the specific judge they are assigned to. Future education, policy, and reform efforts aimed at creating more trauma-informed courts must address these gaps.

Summary

When children are involved in the court system, it is often tied to past harmful experiences. A special way of handling court cases, called a trauma-informed approach (TIA), tries to understand these past harms. It also works to stop more harmful experiences from happening in court. This study looked at over 200 court hearings for young people. The goal was to see how much TIA ideas were used. It also looked at how judges acted and if they used TIA ideas fairly, no matter who the child was.

Trauma and the Court System

Trauma is a strong, lasting feeling from a scary or harmful event. Many young people in court systems have gone through trauma. Studies show that a large number of youth in court have had at least one traumatic event. These events can make it more likely for young people to get into trouble later. Trauma can change how the brain grows and how a person deals with feelings. This can lead to actions that cause them to be involved in the court system. Also, being in court itself can be very stressful and make trauma worse. This is why using a TIA in court is so important.

A Trauma-Informed Approach in Court

A TIA means that those who help people in court know about trauma. They try to help with its effects and stop new trauma from happening. A key part of TIA is knowing that people can heal from trauma and become stronger. The Substance Use and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has six main ideas for a TIA: Safety, Trust, Support from Peers, Working Together, Giving a Voice and Choice, and caring about Culture, History, and Gender. Over time, more places, like hospitals and schools, are using TIA.

More efforts are also being made to use TIA in court systems. Many guides and classes teach how to do this. These guides share many helpful actions, called trauma-informed practices (TIPs). TIPs can be about how the courthouse looks, the rules it follows, or how judges act. For example, TIPs include having clear signs, making sure loud noises are kept down, avoiding rules that are too strict, and judges speaking kindly. But it is not always clear how much these practices are actually used.

The Judge's Role in Using TIA

Judges have a lot of power in court. Their actions affect how young people feel and what happens in their cases. So, it is very important for judges to use TIPs for TIA to work well. Some studies have looked at what judges think about TIA. But no study has fully checked how judges actually use TIPs in court for young people. For example, one study asked judges if they used TIPs when talking to people. But it did not watch them to see if they really did.

Other studies have watched judges in court. These studies often focus on how fair the process is, which is similar to TIA. These studies look at things like if judges let people speak, treat them fairly, and show respect. These ideas are also key to TIA. For example, one study watched judges in mental health courts. It found that judges often acted in fair and kind ways. But it also showed that different judges acted differently. These studies help us understand some judge actions that fit with TIA. But they do not cover all the many TIPs, like how judges make decisions or involve families. This means there is still more to learn about how TIPs are used in court.

Fair Treatment by Judges

There is not much known about whether judges use TIPs in fair ways for everyone. Research often looks at if judges make decisions based on legal reasons or other things, like a person's race or age. It is thought that decisions should be based only on legal facts. But other factors sometimes play a part. Many past studies have looked at how judges' decisions lead to different results, like how long someone stays in jail. But they have not looked at how judges interact with people during court.

In TIA, it is important to treat everyone with care, assuming they might have experienced trauma. This idea is called 'universal precautions.' It also means that TIPs can help everyone, even those who have not had major trauma. So, how a judge uses TIPs should not change based on who the person is or what they are accused of. A TIA does mean judges should understand a child's background, like if they have faced racism. But this is different from using TIPs less often for some children based on their race. It is important to know if TIPs are used fairly for all, especially for groups who are often treated unfairly.

One study looked at how judges treated young people differently. It found that things like the child's race and the judge's gender changed how much judges talked to them. More study is needed to see what makes judges use TIPs. This is key to make sure TIA is used fully and fairly in all court systems.

This Study

This study wanted to learn more about how TIPs are used in courts for young people. Researchers watched court hearings to see how much the court space, rules, and judges' actions used TIPs. The study aimed to: (a) find out which TIPs courts and judges are currently using; and (b) see if judges used different TIPs based on the child's case, the judge's own traits, or the child's traits.

How the Study Was Done

Places Studied

The study watched juvenile delinquency court in seven cities in a Southeastern state. In this state, this court handles cases for children under 18 who are accused of crimes or acting out (like skipping school). Judges who hear many types of cases also handle these child cases. The researchers picked cities that were large and had many cases. This helped them see many hearings. They also picked cities where court helpers were willing to share court schedules. This helped them plan their visits.

People in the Study

The study collected information from 36 court sessions. These sessions included 201 hearings for young people. Sixteen different judges led these hearings. Most of the judges were seen as women (55.2%) and over half were seen as Black (56.3%). Most of the young people in the hearings were seen as Black (72.1%), followed by Hispanic/Latinx (almost 13%), and White (nearly 12%). Most were seen as boys (83.1%), and many were Black boys (59.7%). When age was shared, the average age was about 15.7 years. Most young people were in court without chains (76.1%). For most hearings, only one parent was there (62.2%), usually the mother. Victims were rarely present, so their traits were not part of the study.

Table 1 shows the types of hearings watched. The most common were hearings to decide if a child should stay in a holding center. Next were first hearings, where the child learns what they are accused of. Then came hearings that were simply put off until another day. For almost 40% of the hearings, the most serious charge was not known. When it was known, most were for serious crimes (35.8%), followed by violent crimes (15.9%), and then minor misbehaviors (9.0%).

How Information Was Gathered

The study used a three-page paper form to collect information. Researchers looked at many papers and studies about trauma-informed courts to find actions that could be watched. They put these actions into different parts of the form. They also tried out the form in court for about four months. Experts checked the form to make sure it was good. A guide explained each item on the form.

Information about Each Session

The first page of the form gathered facts about the whole court session. This included what the judge looked like (race and gender) and things about the court building and room. For example, they looked at how warm it was, if there were plants or art, and if the court rules were flexible. Researchers rated each item from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). A score of 0 meant it was not trauma-informed, and 3 meant it was very trauma-informed. For example, for "flexible court schedule," a 0 meant the judge never changed the order of cases. A 3 meant the judge often changed the order to help young people and families.

Information about Each Hearing

The next two pages of the form were for each separate hearing. Researchers wrote down the type of hearing, the crime, the child's looks (race, gender, age), if the child was held back (like with chains), who the guardian was, what happened in the case, and how the judge acted. All information came from what was said and seen in court. No private records were used. Like with the session information, judges' actions were rated from 0 to 3. For example, for "explains legal words," a 0 meant the judge used confusing words without explaining. A 3 meant the judge did not use confusing words or explained them clearly.

How Information Was Collected

Nine researchers collected the information. They all had a lot of training before starting. Data collection went from April to September 2023. Two researchers went to each court session and stayed the whole time. They each filled out their forms alone. After each session, the two researchers talked about their notes. They made sure all simple facts matched. For ratings, if scores were too different, they talked it over. Once a week, the whole team met to clear up any problems. Last, they typed their notes into an online form. A university board approved all parts of the study to make sure it was safe. No one had to agree to be in the study because the court sessions were open to everyone and had little risk.

How Information Was Understood

Researchers checked how well the two observers agreed on their ratings. They agreed 95.8% of the time for session-level data and 98.4% for hearing-level data, allowing for small differences.

To get the final data, the two observers' notes were combined. For simple facts, if they matched, one was picked. If they did not match, they tried to fix it. If not, it was marked as missing. For the ratings (0-3), the two scores were averaged.

To answer the first study question (how much TIA was used), researchers looked at each TIP and groups of TIPs. They put all TIPs into nine main groups. Three groups were about the whole court session: (a) Court building, (b) Courtroom, and (c) Court rules. The other six groups were about each hearing and how the judge acted: (a) General Talk, (b) Understanding/Clearness, (c) Child Interactions, (d) Family Interactions, (e) Bigger Picture, and (f) Decisions. They figured out the average score for each TIP and group of TIPs. Some scores were flipped so that a higher score always meant more TIA was used.

To answer the second study question (what factors predicted judges' use of TIPs), they used a special math method for data that had layers (hearings inside judges). They looked at how seven different factors affected how judges used the six hearing-level TIP groups. These factors included if a parent was there, if the child was held back, the type of hearing, the seriousness of the crime, the child's gender, the child's race, the judge's race, and the judge's gender.

What the Study Found

The study found answers to its two main questions.

What Was Found for Aim 1: Using TIPs

Session-Level TIPs

Court Building and Courtroom

Table 2 shows facts about the court building and courtroom. Figure 1 shows the average scores. In both areas, most items (62% for court building, 64% for courtroom) had average scores between 2 and 3. This means these things were often present. The three things that scored lowest in both areas were comfy seats, art, and plants. These were either completely missing or very few. Many items had very similar scores, meaning there was not much difference in how they were done (e.g., almost all courts scored a 3 for being clean, and a 0 for art and plants). On average, court buildings (average score = 2.11) were more trauma-informed than courtrooms (average score = 1.88).

Courtroom Rules and Activities

Table 2 also shows facts about court rules and activities. Most items in this group also had average scores between 2 and 3. However, some practices scored much lower: children with chains, judges leading court from their high bench, and judges wearing their robes. The overall average score for this group was 1.84 (see Figure 1).

Hearing-Level TIPs

Table 3 shows facts for TIPs that happened during hearings, which are all about how judges acted. Figure 1 shows the average scores for each group of TIPs. Judges used TIPs related to talking (average = 2.35) and making things clear/understood (average = 1.72) the most. But some practices in these groups still had low scores, like greeting the child or family, checking if they understood, and explaining what would happen.

The other four groups of TIPs had average scores less than 1. This means judges often did not use these TIPs at all, or only a little. In the group about talking with children (average = 0.94), the most common action was asking the child to speak. When they did, judges talked to them in a helpful way. The lowest scores in this group were for praising the child and letting the child help make decisions. Judges almost never did these things. The groups for making Decisions and talking with Family had similar average scores (0.78 and 0.71). Judges often explored less strict choices, but not very much. Judges rarely connected young people and families to help, thought about progress when deciding, or worked with community groups. Judges used TIPs related to the Bigger Picture the least (average = 0.41). This means they rarely talked about or tried to understand larger reasons why a child was in court, like past difficulties or unfair systems. They also rarely saw a child's strengths.

What Was Found for Aim 2: Fair Use of TIPs

The study found that for three TIP groups (General Talk, Understanding/Clearness, and Family Interactions), differences between judges caused a lot of the changes in scores (more than 45%). For the other three groups (Child Interactions, Bigger Picture, and Decisions), judges' differences caused 20% or less of the changes. The detailed results are in the extra materials. Only a few factors were found to predict judge actions, and none predicted actions in all TIP groups.

The study found no factors predicted judge actions in the General Talk and Bigger Picture groups. For the Understanding/Clearness group, only if the child was held back made a difference. Judges scored higher for children in chains or appearing from a holding center. This means judges put in more effort to make sure these children understood, compared to children not in chains.

Lastly, the type of hearing predicted judge actions in the Child Interactions, Family Interactions, and Decisions groups. For example, judges talked less with families and children during hearings that were just being put off. They used more decision-making TIPs in hearings where choices about consequences were being made.

Even though few factors predicted judge actions, the study did find big differences between judges in half of the TIP groups (General Talk, Understanding/Clearness, and Family Interactions). This means that for these groups, some judges acted very differently from others. (But these differences were not based on the judge's race or gender.) For the other three groups, all judges generally had very low scores, meaning there is much room for all judges to improve. This shows that a child's experience in court can depend a lot on which judge they get. This means that efforts are needed to make TIA the same across all court systems, with better training for all judges. It is important that all court-involved people have judges who understand the power they have to help or hurt.

Important Points and Next Steps

These findings should be seen with some things in mind. First, the study only looked at courts in seven cities in one state. So, the results might not be true for all courts everywhere. However, this was the first study to look at so many TIPs. This study can help future research. Also, some findings were similar to those in other studies, suggesting these problems might be common. Second, the study only looked at TIPs that could be seen. This meant some things, like court rules on trauma checks, could not be fully judged. Also, judges might think about trauma without saying it out loud. But if researchers looking for TIPs could not see them, it is unlikely that court-involved people felt them. The study aims to be the most complete look at TIA so far.

Third, the study used TIPs that are thought to be trauma-informed based on other studies. More research is needed to see which TIPs truly reduce stress and lead to better results for young people in court. Fourth, the study looked at how factors affected groups of TIPs, not each single TIP. This means some unfair uses of single TIPs might have been missed. Future studies should keep looking into fair use of TIPs.

Conclusion

As courts try to become more trauma-informed, it is important to know if TIPs are actually used, and if they are used fairly. This study in a Southeastern state found that judges often use simple TIPs, like speaking kindly. But they avoid or struggle with many other TIPs. These include harder TIPs, like trying to understand the root cause of problems, or those that go against old habits, like not using chains. Judges also struggled with TIPs that might make them feel less powerful, like letting young people help make decisions. The study also found that how judges used TIPs was not based on the child's or judge's race or gender. But different judges used TIPs very differently. This means that a child's court experience can change a lot depending on which judge they have. Future training and changes in court rules should focus on these missing TIPs to make courts more trauma-informed for all.