Activity #1

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice

Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice

Edited by

FRANCINE T. SHERMAN and FRANCINE H. JACOBS

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.�1 Copyright # 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of

the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization

through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers,

MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for

permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ

07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book,

they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and

specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created

or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable

for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable

for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or

other damages.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is

sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If legal, accounting, medical,

psychological, or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. In all instances where

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., is aware of a claim, the product names appear in initial capital or all capital letters. Readers,

however, should contact the appropriate companies for more complete information regarding trademarks and registration.

For general information on our other products and services please contact our Customer Care Department within the U.S.

at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in

electronic books. For more information about Wiley products, visit our Web site at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Juvenile justice: advancing research, policy, and practice/edited by Francine T. Sherman and Francine H. Jacobs.

p. cm.

Includes index.

ISBNs 978-0-470-49704-3; 978-1-118-10586-3; 978-1-118-10585-6; 978-1-118-10587-0; 978-1-118-09337-5

1. Juvenile justice, Administration of—United States. 2. Juvenile corrections—United States. 3. Juvenile

delinquents—United States. I. Sherman, Francine T., 1955- II. Jacobs, Francine H.

HV9104.J864 2011

364.630973—dc22 2011014932

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

To all the children, families, advocates, practitioners,

and policy makers involved with juvenile justice,

acknowledging the critical roles you play in creating

a more humane and effective system

Contents

Foreword Justice for America’s Children xi

Marian Wright Edelman

Preface xv

Francine T. Sherman and Francine H. Jacobs

Introduction xvii

Francine T. Sherman and Francine H. Jacobs

Contributors xxvii

SECTION I

Framing the Issues 1

Chapter 1 A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 3

Marty Beyer

Chapter 2 Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement 24

Kristi Holsinger

Chapter 3 The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 44

Paula Braverman and Robert Morris

Chapter 4 Children’s Rights and Relationships: A Legal Framework 68

Francine T. Sherman and Hon. Jay Blitzman

Chapter 5 A Vision for the American Juvenile Justice System: The Positive Youth Development Perspective 92

Richard M. Lerner, Michael D. Wiatrowski, Megan Kiely Mueller, Christopher M. Napolitano, Kristina L. Schmid, and Anita Pritchard

vii

SECTION II

Understanding Individual Youth 109

Chapter 6 Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry in Juvenile Justice 111

James Bell and Raquel Mariscal

Chapter 7 The Role of Gender in Youth Systems: Grace’s Story 131

Francine T. Sherman and Jessica H. Greenstone

Chapter 8 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Youth and the Juvenile Justice System 156

Laura Garnette, Angela Irvine, Carolyn Reyes, and Shannan Wilber

Chapter 9 Adolescent Parents and the Juvenile Justice System: Toward Developmentally and Socioculturally Based Provision of Services 174

Ellen E. Pinderhughes, Karen T. Craddock, and LaTasha L. Fermin

SECTION III

Understanding Youth in Context 197

Chapter 10 Parents, Families, and the Juvenile Justice System 199

Francine H. Jacobs, Claudia Miranda-Julian, and Rachael Kaplan

Chapter 11 Violence Within Families and Intimate Relationships 223

Linda L. Baker, Alison J. Cunningham, and Kimberly E. Harris

Chapter 12 Making a Place for Youth: Social Capital, Resilience, and Communities 245

Robert L. Hawkins, Maryna Vashchenko, and Courtney Davis

Chapter 13 The Developmental Impact of Community Violence 267

Edmund Bruyere and James Garbarino

viii C O N T E N T S

Chapter 14 The Right to a Quality Education for Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 286

Kathleen B. Boundy and Joanne Karger

Chapter 15 Juvenile Prison Schooling and Reentry: Disciplining Young Men of Color 310

Sabina E. Vaught

Chapter 16 The System Response to the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Girls 331

Francine T. Sherman and Lisa Goldblatt Grace

Chapter 17 How American Government Frames Youth Problems 352

Timothy Ross and Joel Miller

Chapter 18 Youth Perspectives on Health Care 369

Rachel Oliveri, Ila Deshmukh Towery, Leah Jacobs, and Francine H. Jacobs

SECTION IV

Working for Change 389

Chapter 19 Youth-Led Change 391

Barry Dym, Ken Tangvik, Jesus Gerena, and Jessica Dym Bartlett

Chapter 20 The End of the Reform School? 409

Vincent Schiraldi, Marc Schindler, and Sean J. Goliday

Chapter 21 Collaboration in the Service of Better Systems for Youth 433

Anne F. Farrell and Diane M. Myers

Chapter 22 Getting on Board With Juvenile Justice Information Technologies 456

Stan Schneider and Lola Simpson

Contents ix

Chapter 23 Establishing Effective Community-Based Care in Juvenile Justice 477

Peter W. Greenwood and Susan Turner

Chapter 24 Better Research for Better Policies 505

Jeffrey A. Butts and John K. Roman

Afterword 527

Congressman Robert (Bobby) Scott

About the Editors 531

Author Index 533

Subject Index 551

x C O N T E N T S

Foreword: Justice for America’s Children MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN

President, Children’s Defense Fund, Washington, DC

The test of the morality of a society is what

it does for its children.

—Dietrich Bonhoeffer (c. 1940)

Has America turned her back on her most

vulnerable children?

America is the richest nation in the world.

We rank #1 in gross domestic product (GDP),

and we have more billionaires than any other

country. Surely, a nation so blessed will take

care of its children, who are its greatest treasure,

its future, and its most vulnerable population.

Yet the gap between rich and poor in

America is greater than in any other major

industrialized nation 1 and is growing wider,

dooming millions of children to the fate of

growing up poor—if they survive infancy.

Today, tens of thousands of poor babies in

rich America enter the world with multiple

strikes against them: born without prenatal

care, at low birth weight, and to a teen, poor,

and poorly educated single mother and absent

father. Many are funneled from birth into what

the Children’s Defense Fund calls ‘‘the cradle-

to-prison pipeline,’’ which traps children into

life paths marked by abuse, illness, school failure

and suspension, detention, incarceration, and,

too often, early death. Others become trapped

in the pipeline to prison later in life.

At crucial points in a poor child’s develop-

ment, more risks pile on—the loss of a parent,

sibling, or friend; low teacher expectations;

family or neighborhood violence; gang

involvement—making a successful transition

to productive adulthood significantly less likely

and involvement in the criminal justice system

significantly more likely. For children of color,

who are disproportionately poor, the odds of

youth detention and eventual incarceration as

adults greatly exceed those for White children.

Black children are 3 times as likely as White

children to be poor. A Black boy born in 2001

is more than 5 times as likely as a White boy

born that same year to be incarcerated at some

point during his lifetime.

And, in the past 20 years, sentencing for

juveniles in our nation has become increas-

ingly harsh and punitive and there has been an

increase of 72% in the number of children

held in America’s juvenile detention centers; 2

thousands of children are held in adult prisons.

As a number of the chapters in this im-

portant volume illustrate, the experiences of

detained and incarcerated children in America

are rarely rehabilitative. Children and teens

who go through our nation’s juvenile justice

2 Myers, D. M., & Farrell, Anne F. (2008). Reclaiming

Lost Opportunities: Applying Public Health Models in

Juvenile Justice. Children and Youth Services Review 30,

1159–1177.

1 OECD Report (2009), Growing Unequal? Income Distri-

bution and Poverty in OECD Countries, notes that ‘‘the

United States is the country with the highest inequality

level and poverty rate across the OECD, Mexico and

Turkey excepted.’’

xi

system are condemned to long terms at large

youth detention centers and adult prisons only

to languish in cells surrounded by thick walls

and razor wire. Too often, they are locked

down for long periods of the day with no real

opportunities for rehabilitation, treatment, or

education. Many youth become hardened

criminals while incarcerated, and at the end

of their sentences they are released into com-

munities that don’t have adequate resources to

reintegrate them.

Tragically, instead of helping disadvantaged

youth become responsible adults, the juvenile

justice system today has become a major feeder

into the cradle-to-prison pipeline, leading

young people into the adult criminal system.

That pipeline runs through economically de-

pressed neighborhoods and failing schools;

across vacant lots where playgrounds and health

facilities should be; and in and out of broken,

understaffed child welfare agencies. By the time

many children get arrested and are brought

before a juvenile court, they have been pro-

vided far too little loving and thoughtful adult

support—only to face purported child-serving

systems that treat them unjustly.

The high number of cases that juvenile

courts administer—an estimated 1.6 million

cases each year nationwide—is attributable to

the fact that we, the adults, have let our most

vulnerable children down. We don’t pay at-

tention to early warning signs, such as a drop

in grades or a reluctance to go to school, that

indicate poor children need help; we don’t

provide them with adequate mental health

services or other counsel; and we have per-

mitted the increasing criminalization of chil-

dren at younger and younger ages for

behaviors that used to be handled by families,

churches, teachers, and community organiza-

tions. We seem to have forgotten that children

are children, and that our job as adults is to

guarantee their safe passage to successful,

productive adulthood by guiding them, nur-

turing them, protecting them, and teaching

them.

It was not always so. America’s juvenile

justice system was once regarded as one of the

most enlightened in the world. It was founded

over 100 years ago on the principle that chil-

dren, unlike adults, are still developing and that

many of their perceptions, actions, and re-

actions are immature responses to an increas-

ingly complex world. The early American

juvenile justice philosophy taught that, with

the proper guidance, children can learn new

behaviors and attitudes as they mature. The

emphasis was on rehabilitation, not punishment

and retribution. In order to grow into respon-

sible and caring adults, it was believed, youthful

offenders need support, treatment, and care.

The editors of this volume and authors of

individual chapters urge us to remember that

the children involved in our juvenile justice

system are, first and foremost, children. Like all

children, they need the love and guidance of

adults—in their families, in their neighbor-

hoods, in their communities—to develop their

considerable potential and to thrive. And like

all children, they need a nurturing school

environment, the attention of caring and tal-

ented teachers who know their students can

learn, and a rigorous curriculum that gives all

students the skills to succeed in college and the

workplace. The fact that risk factors such as

poverty, discrimination, and personal tragedy

add stress to their young lives and increase their

chances of becoming trapped in the cradle-to-

prison pipeline should not cause us, the adults

in their lives, to lower our expectations for

their success or, worse, write them off or

abandon them. Indeed, their increased vul-

nerability should make us redouble our efforts

to give them the support and care they sorely

need. Repeatedly, in the chapters of this vol-

ume, we are reminded that deficit- and

xii F O R E W O R D : J U S T I C E F O R A M E R I C A ’ S C H I L D R E N

punishment-based approaches to juvenile jus-

tice only feed the pipeline to prison and that

when we identify children’s strengths and

build on those strengths intentionally and

consistently, we can help children in the juve-

nile justice system grow and thrive.

In the pages that follow, you will meet

children involved in the juvenile justice system

who would have benefited from a coordinated,

caring, and developmentally appropriate system

of support. There is Marco, a young boy who

initially did well in school and loved science but

whose grades dropped when he became sad and

fearful in middle school because he was terror-

ized by gang violence in his neighborhood and

witnessed the murder of a friend; no adults

picked up on signs of his stress or bothered to

check in with him to see what was going on. As

his fears grew, Marco succumbed to pressure to

join a gang ‘‘for protection’’ and, before long,

he was charged with being an accessory to a

crime in a drive-by shooting.

You also will hear from Grace, an intelli-

gent and outspoken young girl of color who,

shortly after her placement in a foster home

(a placement she perceived as punishment), was

charged with assault on a public employee and

‘‘disturbing school assembly.’’ After Grace’s

expulsion from school, she was shuttled among

foster homes, residential placements, and secure

detention, as the Department of Family Ser-

vices and the Department of Juvenile Justice

struggled over control of her case. And you will

visit a juvenile justice detention center school

where children 13–20 years old are regarded as

‘‘predators’’ by the adults in charge of their care

and whose ‘‘sentences’’ are extended when they

fall asleep in class.

The authors place such stories in the

context of the latest research and recommend

best practices on child development that

emphasize the importance of an environmen-

tal, developmental approach that builds on a

child’s strengths. The chapter on youth-led

change introduces us to youth who have dis-

covered, within themselves, immense re-

sources not only to change themselves but

to transform their communities, creating ‘‘vir-

tuous cycles’’ (instead of ‘‘vicious cycles’’) that

serve as positive feedback loops building on

increasing strengths.

The lessons in this book remind us that we

can—and that we must—do better, for the sake

of our children, their futures, and the sake of

our nation. Incarceration should not be our

society’s first or primary response to youth in

trouble. Judges need to look for opportunities

to offer poor, young, and minority defendants

the same second chances most privileged youth

can count on. These include alternatives to

incarceration such as restitution, community

service, electronic monitoring, drug rehabilita-

tion treatment, or placement in a ‘‘staff secure’’

(but not locked) community corrections facil-

ity. These youth in trouble must get the educa-

tion, special education, mental health

treatment, and other services they need. We

must ensure that systems intended to support

children actually help them, instead of serving

as entryways into the cradle-to-prison pipeline.

And as the final chapter in this volume makes

abundantly clear, child welfare, juvenile justice,

and education systems all need to collaborate to

design individualized systems of support that

build on each child’s strengths.

There is already good work under way in a

number of states and communities, and you

will read about that work throughout this

volume. Committed leaders and staff are

working to rid the system of the abusive

and punitive treatment of youth in custody

that now too often pushes them into the adult

criminal justice system. Reforms in Missouri’s

juvenile justice system, often now referred to

as the Missouri Model, have replaced large

training schools and detention facilities with

Foreword: Justice for America’s Children xiii

small group programs located as close to

youth’s homes as possible. These small pro-

grams offer a broad range of therapeutic inter-

ventions and are staffed by highly trained and

educated staff who understand that construc-

tive reform is best accomplished through pos-

itive behavioral supports and that the use of

force must be kept to a minimum. The

Missouri Model is being used to promote

juvenile justice reforms in Louisiana; New

Mexico; San Jose, California; and Washington,

DC, and other jurisdictions are waiting in line.

States such as California, Texas, and New York

are also making progress in establishing alter-

natives to secure confinement. The Juvenile

Detention Alternatives Initiative, begun by the

Annie E. Casey Foundation 15 years ago, has

reduced the number of youth in detention

and in some places also reduced the number

of juvenile arrests.

The goal of these and other reforms is to

create throughout our nation a juvenile justice

system that will give children the support they

need to grow into thoughtful, confident, car-

ing, and productive adults as they transition to

the community. We must bring to scale the

reforms already under way that build on the

strengths of children, youth, and families;

provide children and youth with individual-

ized and comprehensive services in the least

restrictive setting appropriate to their needs;

promote evidence-based approaches; and

assist and support the successful return of

youth to their communities. These new

approaches recognize the usefulness and

importance of tracking outcomes for youth

and responses to the new reforms over both

the short and long term.

At the same time, we must take action to

address the root causes of a child’s involvement

with the juvenile justice system so that we

might keep children and youth from ever

entering the system. We must eliminate child

poverty, assure every child comprehensive

health and mental health coverage and the

early childhood experiences and education

required to meet their individual needs, and

offer families the supports needed to keep their

children safe and in nurturing communities.

This volume is a call to action, and I

encourage everyone who reads it to take steps

to ensure that all America’s children are given

an equal chance to succeed. We must all work

together to replace the cradle-to-prison pipe-

line with a pipeline to responsible, productive

adulthood.

xiv F O R E W O R D : J U S T I C E F O R A M E R I C A ’ S C H I L D R E N

Preface FRANCINE T. SHERMAN AND FRANCINE H. JACOBS

The idea for this book grew out of our 5-year

collaboration on the Massachusetts Health Pass-

port Project (MHPP; first the Girls’ Health

Passport Project), which was an effort to de-

velop a system of continuous health-care access

for girls, and then boys and girls, committed to

the Massachusetts Department of Youth Ser-

vices. Fran Sherman was the principal investi-

gator of the core project to develop and

implement MHPP, and Fran Jacobs and her

team at Tufts University, of its evaluation.

Through many hours of discussion, debate,

and mutual education explicating MHPP goals

and teasing out ways to evaluate them, we each

discovered new, more critical ways of thinking

about our own fields, along with new connec-

tions among the worlds of law, policy, and the

social sciences. The experience was both

refreshing and challenging.

For us, that concrete, almost daily collabo-

ration reinforced our belief in interdisciplinary

conversations and understandings of juvenile

justice and broader youth policy. It also re-

inforced the importance of looking behind

practice (however successful you think you

are being) to understand how, and the extent

to which, it reflects current theory and research

on the one hand, and is approaching attainment

of its goals, on the other. That iterative process

of doing and analyzing and then redoing and

reanalyzing, is key to the development of sound

and innovative juvenile justice policy and

practice moving forward, and was practiced,

as well, in the development of this volume. In

that spirit, we hope this book will stimulate

both interdisciplinary conversations among stu-

dents, academics, policy makers and practition-

ers, and links among practice, research, and

theory to develop programs and policies pro-

moting positive development for youth and

their communities.

We have both benefited from the support

and dedication of talented students and col-

leagues. I (Fran Sherman) am grateful to the

Juvenile Rights Advocacy Project clinic and

seminar, which gives me the invaluable, daily

opportunity to see juvenile law and policy

through the fresh eyes and quick minds of

second- and third-year law students; to

Rebecca Vose and Tony DeMarco, my JRAP

colleagues, who have made my work life both

stimulating and fun and have been so generous

with their time, giving me time to work on this

volume, and Judy McMorrow, who has pro-

vided thoughtful and consistent counsel and

friendship through all of my 26 years at Boston

College Law School. I also want to thank my

national juvenile justice colleagues, many of

whom have contributed to this volume, who

demonstrate the power of vision, leadership,

devotion, and intentionality in implementing

smart and effective juvenile justice practices and

policies. The many youth and, particularly

young women, whom I have represented

xv

over 30 years, are an ongoing inspiration and

education, and are, of course at the core of this

volume.

Likewise, I (Fran Jacobs) have much

appreciated the support and encouragement

of colleagues in both of my departments at

Tufts—the Eliot-Pearson Department of

Child Development, and the Department

of Urban and Environmental Policy and

Planning—many of whom, from distinct

and distantly flung perches in the worlds of

child development and public policy, have

had encouraging words to share about the

worthiness of this book. Rachel Oliveri, Ila

Deshmukh Towery, Jessica Greenstone, and

Claudia Miranda-Julian expertly helped us

convert what was learned in the course of

the MHPP evaluation into broader lessons

for juvenile justice policy. And Maryna

Vashchenko and Jessica Dym Bartlett pro-

vided expert substantive consultation and

patient editorial intervention. At Boston

College Law School, Classie Davis, Celeste

Laramie, Kori Burnham, Lauren Whillhoite,

Hilary Jaffe, Coleman Peng, Dan Maltzman,

Mary Ann Neary, and Chester Kozikowski all

provided important research and administra-

tive support.

A number of foundations supported

the Girls’ Health Passport Project and the

Massachusetts Health Passport Project in

some way, and through that support helped

stimulate the thinking behind this volume.

They are: The Blue Cross Blue Shield of

Massachusetts Foundation, The Jacob and

Valeria Langeloth Foundation, The Boston

Foundation, the Florence V. Burden Founda-

tion, The Jessie B. Cox Charitable Trust, and

the Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundation. We

are grateful for their support and for the

encouragement and insight provided by our

grant administrators in each and every case. I

(Fran Sherman) have greatly appreciated the

support and fellowship I have received over the

years from my colleagues at the Annie E. Casey

Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives

Initiative. The many lessons I have learned

from them are woven through this volume.

We both thank our universities, Boston Col-

lege Law School and Tufts University, respec-

tively, for providing us with essential research

leave and support to work on this volume. We

are also grateful to Marian Wright Edelman for

her foreword to this volume; her career as an

advocate for children is unparalleled and stands

as an inspiration.

My (Fran Sherman) boundless love, grat-

itude, and respect go to my three children,

Leah, Sarah, and Jake Tucker for their warmth,

kindness, intelligence, and senses of humor.

This book and so much of my work, which is

centrally about ways to support youth, is dedi-

cated to my children for the way they honor

their many gifts and opportunities. They are my

inspiration, and I look forward to continuing to

watch their adult lives unfold. And most of all,

my gratitude and love go to my husband, Scott

Tucker—my best friend, most solid support,

and biggest booster.

My (Fran Jacobs) deep gratitude goes

to my family—first and foremost to my hus-

band Barry Dym—and then to my children

(Jessica and JJ Bartlett, and Gabriel Dym and

Rachael Kaplan) and grandchildren (Molly

and Jake Bartlett, and Eli Aaron Dym) for

having the patience to see me through this

process, and the good sense to avoid me on

those crunch writing days. My 91-year-old

mother, Miriam Jacobs, kept up on the prog-

ress of this project, celebrating with me the

completion of each phase. This book, about

children and families and the help that every

one of them needs and deserves, pays tribute

to them all.

xvi P R E F A C E

Introduction FRANCINE T. SHERMAN AND FRANCINE H. JACOBS

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (1986) observed that

the history of social policy in the United

States reflects fairly predictable cycles, com-

pleted in 30 years or so, between liberalism

and conservatism—‘‘public purpose and private

interest’’ (p. 31). These cycles of national in-

volvement with issues of social concern invig-

orate our politics with new energy and ideas;

their seeds are sown, during previous cycles, as

forays of innovation that eventually coalesce.

And although it can appear at the ‘‘end’’ of a

cycle, that policy has not advanced much, if at

all, in fact the process is recursive. For better or

worse, we never do return precisely to where

we were, and every so often, the change in

policy direction is bold, significant, and per-

manent. Those of us who came of age in the

1960s and 1970switnessed this transformational

progress in civil rights, women’s rights, and the

rights of persons with disabilities.

And then there is juvenile justice policy. It is

often noted that our national disposition toward

delinquent youth and our approach to addressing

their deeds and needs vacillate, unsurprisingly,

and in the regular cycles that Schlesinger de-

scribed, between punishment and rehabilitation.

Modest changes are often consolidated before

the pendulum swings once again in the opposite

direction; reformers at either end tool up, ready-

ing themselves to undo or modify what has been

codified in the ‘‘down’’ cycle.

The prediction of the ‘‘coming of the super-

predators’’ by John Dilulio (1995, November

27), then a professor at Princeton University, in

the mid-1990s, may represent the apogee of the

pendular swing of that time, the midpoint of that

cycle. Broadly speaking, with the Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention Act and the pro-

cedural due process revolution of the late 1960s

and 1970s, juvenile justice policy had become

more rehabilitative in orientation. Rates of ju-

venile crime arrests increased over the 1980s,

however, and the population of juvenile offend-

ers became increasingly racialized. The rise in

juvenile violent crime arrests during the 1980s

was a complex, multidetermined phenomenon

(Zimring, 1998), however, and by 1994 juvenile

violent crime arrests had already begun their

long decline (Puzzanchera, 2009). Nonetheless,

Dilulio capitalized on, and catalyzed, the grow-

ing sentiment among Americans that these

youth were too dangerous to have in our midst.

They were depraved, thoroughly incorrigible,

and therefore needing to be removed from

society to protect the rest of us.

We know the end of this story: That on-

slaught never materialized—and indeed, juve-

nile crime statistics have evidenced steady

improvement over the ensuing years (Puzzan-

chera, 2009). Nonetheless, the late 1990s wit-

nessed a flurry of state legislation that expanded

punitive approaches for juveniles, including

making it easier to transfer youth to the adult

correctional system.

Meanwhile, reformers were preparing for

the next cycle to emerge, and that cycle is,

xvii

indeed, upon us. There are many recent signs of

progress toward a more rehabilitative posture in

juvenile justice. The Supreme Court’s decisions

in Roper v. Simmons (2005) and Graham v. Florida

(2010) struck down the juvenile death penalty

entirely and juvenile life without parole in non-

homicide cases based, in part, on grounds of

child development and neuroscience. On the

front end of the system, detention reform has

significant national momentum, helping juris-

dictions to be more accountable to youth and

communities and reduce the use of secure de-

tention to cases of greatest community and flight

risk. On the back end of the system, led by

the Missouri Model, states are reducing their

reliance on secure youth institutions and build-

ing networks of community-based youth

programs on principles of positive youth devel-

opment. Around the country there is increasing

use of evaluation—and evidence-based practices

in juvenile justice systems—reflecting a more

thoughtful and hopeful approach to meeting the

goals these systems set for themselves.

With greater interdisciplinary engage-

ment, new ways to understand and support

youth in the system have emerged. Positive

youth development, ecological developmental

theory, family systems theory, and new re-

search on adolescent brain development, for

example, are infiltrating programming and

policy discussions in juvenile justice as well

as the law. This is a moment of hope and

possibilities; and perhaps these new possibilit-

ies will even direct us toward transformational

changes in juvenile justice.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE VOLUME

The organization of this volume, reflecting the

forward-facing trends previously noted, is eco-

logical in structure, considering youth in the

juvenile justice system within the context of

their families, communities, and the multiple

public systems that influence them, and are

influenced by them as well. Although most

of its chapters are scholarly in tone and content,

other authors approach their topics with an

activist orientation—a mix of perspectives we

sought out from the volume’s inception. Chap-

ter authors represent a broad range of disciplines

and perspectives, also necessary, in our view, to

engage meaningful juvenile justice policy.

Followingthisecological road map, Juvenile

Justice: Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice is

divided into four sections: The first, ‘‘Framing

the Issues,’’ offers an introduction to the core

elements of the juvenile justice system—the

youth, the proposed developmental lens (posi-

tive youth development) through which to

consider their behaviors and the system’s re-

sponses to them, and the law that undergirds

and directs the system operations. Next, in

‘‘Understanding Individual Youth,’’ we provide

more in-depth portraits of subgroups of these

youth, according to characteristics that appear

to influence their experiences in the systems—

race and ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,

and family circumstances. Next, in ‘‘Under-

standing Youth in Context,’’ we open the lens

and examine aspects of family, community, and

formal and informal systems particularly rele-

vant to youth’s system involvement. Finally, in

‘‘Working for Change,’’ we highlight some of

the most promising innovations in juvenile

justice; combined they offer a vision for the

future of juvenile justice system policy.

BASIC PREMISES

Although the chapters in this volume present a

range of opinions and approaches to collecting

and validating evidence, certain underlying

premises are represented in the book—obvious

xviii I N T R O D U C T I O N

tous,butworthmentioning—thatcontributeto

the volume’s overall point of view.

& Youth have a set of legal rights that are

central to the structure and operation

of effective and successful public sys-

tems and of society as a whole. The

juvenile justice system is first a legal

system, with youth involvement trig-

gered by an alleged law violation.

Youth do not lose their rights

when they enter this system; rather,

in significant ways, their rights are

appropriately enhanced in counter-

point to the risk the system poses to

them. The rights of system-involved

youth, and of children generally, have

a long history in the United States

and can be understood to advance

youth’s needs and autonomy. Youth

law can also be understood ecologi-

cally, with children’s rights in relation-

ship with those of their parents and

the state. When the legal system

works properly, it both respects and

protects youth. & The course of development is mallea-

ble, at least into earlyadulthood. While

early experiences are core to a child’s

development, a substantial, accumulat-

ing body of theory and research—

reflected in recent Supreme Court

and other court decisions—concludes

that this developmental trajectory is

not set by adolescence. Youth in the

juvenile justice system, therefore, are

still maturing, making them amenable

to rehabilitation and, using value

language, redeemable. & This course of development is also

multidetermined, involving millions

of transactions and ‘‘inputs.’’ Urie

Bronfenbrenner, the developmental

psychologist who coined the term

ecological development for use in his

field, imagined the child as the core

piece in a collection of nested, Rus-

sian dolls—at the center of a set

of concentric circles of influence,

including families; communities; in-

formal and formal, governmental and

nongovernmental institutions and or-

ganizations; and societal values and

beliefs. Youth are both shaped by

and shape their environments, and

interventions to affect individual de-

velopment need to factor these con-

texts, centrally, into the equation. & The juvenile justice system is in the

position both to improve and to de-

grade the functioning and future pros-

pects of youth in its custody. Even

assuming a benign or helping orienta-

tion, the juvenile justice system as pres-

entlystructured(aback-end,after-the-

fact,residualsystem)isnotwell-situated

to achieve its rehabilitation goals; there

is a poor match between what youth

need and what the system can provide.

Given the awesome legal power it

holds,systemreformersareincreasingly

proposingadoptionofthe‘‘First,dono

harm’’ dictum—involvement only or

primarily with those youth whose

actions clearly demonstrate imminent

risk to public safety. & Juvenile justice system reformers un-

derstand that much of the essential

work for youth occurs at local levels.

It follows, then, that efforts should be

directed at families and communities

as the primary vehicles for positive

change for youth. The juvenile justice

process should be used to intention-

ally engage these levels of youth ecol-

ogy with, for example, positive youth

Introduction xix

development models of juvenile

defense, expanded diversion, proba-

tion as brokers of community services,

reduced use of secure detention

and treatment, and expansion of

community- and family-focused treat-

ment at the back end of the system. & The most promising juvenile justice

policy includes respectful, authentic

engagement of the full range of its

participants. Although theory and re-

search, and the wisdom of practition-

ers, are important cornerstones of

juvenile justice policy, so are the be-

liefs, opinions, strategic recommenda-

tions, and visions for the future of

system-involved youth, their parents

and family members, their neighbors,

and other members of the community.

This input is critical to developing

services that youth and families actu-

ally use, and to redressing the long-

standing sense of disregard that these

individuals have experienced. & Interdisciplinarity in research, prac-

tice, and policy is critical to the devel-

opment of a well-functioning system.

Juvenile justice (like most of youth

policy) is a naturally interdisciplinary

field and should be intentionally ap-

proached as such. Practitioners, schol-

ars, andadvocatesinlaw,developmental

psychology, and sociology must make

their work comprehensible across disci-

plines. Demystifying these disciplines

for use by one another contributes to

essential cross-system collaboration. & Policy is also normative, informed by

values. Research can get us only so

far; at a certain point the decision is

about the kind of society in which we

want to live—inclusive or exclusive;

more or less equitable, with more or

less of a generous civic impulse. Effec-

tive juvenile justice systems are self-

reflective in this way, asking them-

selves what they stand for, how they

want to be viewed, and the result is as

much values-based as evidence-based.

We argue that this is as it should be. & Confronting issues of race and pov-

erty is critical to any real progress—

the beachhead to claim during this

cycle. The juvenile justice system

cannot be fixed until it deals with

the issues of race and poverty that

undergird it and give it its present

shape. The disproportionate minority

contact (DMC) mandate, and federal

and state policy behind it, acknowl-

edge the racial impact of much of

juvenile justice policy, a fact that we

are only beginning to address.

SECTION I: FRAMING THE ISSUES

We begin this volume, and this section, with

an introduction to five system-involved youth

whose developmental trajectories Beyer ana-

lyzes in Chapter 1 using a strengths/needs-

based developmental framework. Based on

years of clinical practice, she argues that ado-

lescent delinquent behavior results, in part,

from immature thinking and the effects of trauma

and learning disabilities, all common in this

population. These factors, in addition to the

youth’s strengths, seen within the context of

their families, peers, schools, neighborhoods,

and cultural communities, must be considered

at all points of the juvenile justice decision-

making process.

In Chapter 2, Holsinger, as a criminolo-

gist, bases her portrait of youth in the juvenile

justice system on nationally available data that

detail their demographic characteristics, and

xx I N T R O D U C T I O N

the characteristics of the offenses that trigger

and sustain their system involvement. The

chapter includes an overview of the history,

development, and current operations of the

juvenile justice system, providing a shapshot of

the youth involved at each of its phases.

In Chapter 3, Braverman and Morris, both

physicians, introduce these youth as health-care

providers might encounter them: often high-

risk, underserved young people with a host of

unaddressed health, dental, and mental health

needs. After presenting the youth’s profile from

this vantage point, the authors conclude that

the factors that predispose these youth to poor

health outcomes are not a unique combination

of risks, but rather are shared by other disad-

vantaged young people in the United States.

The final two chapters in this section

provide theoretical and empirical scaffolding

for the remainder of the book. In Chapter 4,

Sherman and Blitzman, lawyer and judge,

respectively, provide an overview of U.S.

children’s law, framed both in terms of auton-

omy-based and needs-based rights, and by the

legal dynamic among child, parent, and state.

They highlight the law of juvenile justice and

child welfare systems, and also examine law

relevant to education and health care, two

central institutions for children. The chapter

proceeds ecologically, acknowledging that

children’s lives, including their legal lives,

are related to their families, communities,

and the social institutions surrounding them.

Finally, in Chapter 5, applied develop-

mental scientist Lerner and his colleagues

argue that the contemporary juvenile justice

system is predicated on a deficit view of the

youth in its custody, and as such demonstrates a

counterfactual and counterproductive under-

standing of the nature of adolescent develop-

ment. The authors provide an alternative

lens—the positive youth development (PYD)

perspective—that capitalizes on contemporary

theory and research on adolescent develop-

ment and has profound implications for the

transformation of juvenile justice policy and

programs.

SECTION II: UNDERSTANDING INDIVIDUAL YOUTH

In Chapter 6, Bell and Mariscal, both lawyers

and advocates, begin with an overview of the

history, causes, and current status of racial and

ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system,

placing contemporary federal policies pur-

porting ‘‘race neutrality,’’ but actually disad-

vantaging Black and Latino youth, in the

context of a deep historical legacy of systemic

racism. They then examine promising policies

and practices for reducing these disparities,

arguing that despite its history, the juvenile

justice system should strive to, and might

achieve, fairness and equity for all young

people.

In Chapter 7, Sherman and Greenstone—

from a legal and developmental perspective,

respectively—describe the experiences of

‘‘Grace,’’ a teenage girl involved with multiple

public systems, including juvenile justice.

Through detailed analysis of primary interview

data with Grace and others responsible for her

care and supervision, and of court case mate-

rial, they shed light on how Grace’s actions

were interpreted and the responses they

evoked. Their case study includes recommen-

dations for implementing gender-responsive

principles across these systems.

In Chapter 8, Garnette, Irvine, Reyes, and

Wilber (as lawyers, researcher, and system

administrator) follow with a discussion of

the experiences and needs of lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth in

the juvenile justice system. The authors offer

a framework for understanding healthy

Introduction xxi

adolescent development within this popula-

tion, and particular ways it can go awry, and

present data on the often harmful effects of

arrest and detention for LGBT youth. The

chapter concludes with policy and program

recommendations for addressing their needs.

Finally,inChapter9,Pinderhughesandcol-

leagues,fromacultural/developmentalperspec-

tive, present the challenges to development—

particularly identity development—and thus

to parenting, encountered by the diverse

population of incarcerated teen parents who

are involved with the juvenile justice system.

The authors recommend that the system adopt

a more strengths-based orientation to these

young parents, including facilitating contact

with their own children during their confine-

ment; this approach would increase the like-

lihood for continued engagement with their

children after their confinement ends.

SECTION III: UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXTS OF YOUTH

The first two chapters in this section focus on

families. In Chapter 10, Jacobs, Miranda-Julian,

and Kaplan—representing a combination of

policy, developmental, and clinical expertise—

detail the current state of family involvement in

juvenile justice, proposing explanations for why

there is evidence of so little. They argue that

more and broader participation is a critical

feature of any juvenile justice system that seeks

or claims to be ‘‘reformed,’’ and review some

promising approaches to engaging families in

the positive development and rehabilitation of

their children.

Chapter 11 focuses on the significant

percentage of system-involved youth who

have experienced and/or perpetrated, vio-

lence in their families. Baker, Cunningham,

and Harris—clinical and developmental

psychologists—usefully identify ‘‘signposts’’

of the effects of family violence, for example,

compromised school success or mental health,

substance abuse, and early home leaving. They

argue for greater attention to the role that

family violence plays in the lives of delinquent

youth, in the service of designing more effec-

tive prevention and intervention programs.

Chapters 12 and 13 focus on communities

as a context for the development of system-

involved youth. In Chapter 12, Hawkins,

Vashchenko, and Davis combine their exper-

tise in urban policy, social work, and develop-

mental psychology to offer a framework,

rooted in resilience and social capital theory,

with which to generate support for youth

reentering their communities after incarcera-

tion. The authors suggest that juvenile justice

reentry programs and policies, and those de-

signed to prevent criminal activity in the first

place, would do well to assess a youth’s access

to positive as opposed to negative social capi-

tal, and then optimize opportunities to build

on the former.

In Chapter 13, Bruyere and Garbarino—

from a developmental perspective—discuss the

effect of risk accumulation, community vio-

lence, and other trauma on youth, some of

whom go on to become involved with the

juvenile justice system. The chapter then

argues for ratification of the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child,

seeing it as providing critically needed guid-

ance for community development to support

this population and reduce the need for

future juvenile incarceration.

Moving to the systems that interact with

delinquent youth, and with other public

youth-serving systems, the next two chapters

examine the role of education before, during,

and after incarceration. In Chapter 14,

Boundy and Karger (lawyers who focus on

educational policy) provide a detailed

xxii I N T R O D U C T I O N

discussion of the two most relevant federal

laws—Title I of the Elementary and Second-

ary Education Act/No Child Left Behind Act

and the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act—which together require states to provide

a quality public education to school-age

youth, with and without disabilities, including

those in delinquent facilities. Despite these

guarantees, they find the education of these

youth is seriously compromised throughout.

The chapter concludes with research-based

practices, targeted at implementing effective

teaching, learning, and planning for transi-

tion, meant to thwart this school-to-prison

pipeline.

In Chapter 15, Vaught, a scholar of urban

education, brings an ethnographic lens to the

issue of race, education, and juvenile justice,

using a Critical Race framework to examine

how institutional schooling practice and policy

function—in one school within a juvenile

prison—to hinder, complicate, and even likely

scuttle altogether, community reentry for in-

carcerated young men. The dynamics explored

here serve as a local window onto national

education policy, raising issues of fairness about,

for example, zero-tolerance policy, and policies

that assure the quality of the schooling offered

to system-involved youth.

Sherman and Goldblatt Grace, from the

perspectives of law, public health, and social

work, examine the system’s response to the

commercial sexual exploitation of children

(CSEC) in Chapter 16, focusing here on girls.

They describe the issue and then examine the

range of international, federal, state, and local

laws and policies, aimed at aiding and enhanc-

ing prosecution of perpetrators of CSEC (i.e.,

pimps, johns), and at providing protection and

services to its victims. They show that, as state

and local authorities implement practice and

policy for this population, those two goals—

law enforcement and victim protection—may

conflict, creating practices that serve neither

goal fully and yielding results contrary to

sound public policy and research. The chapter

concludes with a recommended comprehen-

sive response to CSEC.

In Chapter 17, Ross and Miller bring

youth policy and criminal justice together,

and shift to providing a view of the landscape

of government systems involved with youth

issues. They argue that the structure of

American government, combined with bu-

reaucratic service delivery systems, lead to

fragmented and, at times, inconsistent policies

concerning youth, including youth caught up

in the juvenile justice system. A number of

solutions to these problems are offered, and the

chapter concludes on a hopeful note: that

efforts to address service fragmentation are

improving the circumstances for some of these

system-involved youth.

This section concludes with Chapter 18,

Oliveri and colleagues’ (developmental psy-

chologists) qualitative study of the complex

relationships among system-involved youth

and the multiple systems meant to help

them maintain good health. Beginning with

a detailed review of the literature on health-

care access and utilization among this popula-

tion, the chapter then analyzes primary data

collected from youth regarding their health

behaviors and preferences, and their use of

health care. Its findings are useful to those

working across public sectors interested in

improving the health status of these youth.

SECTION IV: WORKING FOR CHANGE

WithChapter19,Dymandcolleagues(psychol-

ogists and community activists) launch this sec-

tion devoted to promising efforts to reform the

juvenile justice system, with a case study of a

Introduction xxiii

youth-ledcommunitydevelopmentprogram—

the Hyde Square Task Force (HSTF) in Boston,

Massachusetts. Youth at HSTF, with the support

and encouragement of staff, initiate, design,

and implement advocacy projects to improve

their own circumstances and transform their

community. HSTF is nationally recognized as

a model for community-based youth develop-

ment, acting as an antidote to the forces that

pull youth toward involvement in the juvenile

justice system.

We move from program-specific innova-

tion to focus on systemwide reform in

Chapter 20. Schiraldi, Schindler, and Goliday

(experienced system administrators) thought-

fully advocate for systemwide reform to elim-

inate the training school and its mind-set, in

favor of a graduated, primarily community-

based approach to juvenile justice premised on

the tenets of positive youth development.

After reviewing the troubled history of the

reform school, and the promising alternatives

now available, they argue that this route is the

most likely to be able both to support youth

and protect and enhance communities.

In Chapter 21, Farrell and Myers (devel-

opmentalists interested in service systems’

operations) identify collaboration as the ‘‘new

imperative’’ across youth-serving systems. They

present the advantages of, and potential barriers

to, collaboration, and offer suggestions for

increasing service providers’ organizational

capacities to engage in this way. After recom-

mending the development of principles and

guidelines for evaluating systems change efforts,

Farrell and Myers conclude that systems pro-

viding services to at-risk and incarcerated youth

must find ways to communicate, cooperate, and

share accountability for outcomes.

Chapters 22, 23, and 24 focus on the

significant contributions that relevant, reliable,

and accessible information can make to sys-

tems reform. In Chapter 22, Schneider and

Simpson, experienced data system consultants

to child-serving public agencies, highlight

how the quality, availability, and use of data

can either promote or impede agencies’ abili-

ties to plan, operate, and evaluate wisely. The

authors review the role that data systems have

played historically in these agencies, and the

current status, overall, of their information

systems; they then provide a detailed analysis

of the technical, logistical, and resource-

related challenges to be addressed before

agencies can shift to data-driven decision

making, using three JDAI (Juvenile Deten-

tion Alternatives Initiative) jurisdictions as

successful case examples.

In Chapter 23, Greenwood and Turner,

experienced consultants on evidence-based

practices for juvenile justice systems, review

the current state of evidence-based practice,

enumerating its demonstrable benefits, and

noting the challenges it may pose for agencies

adopting it. The chapter then provides the

framework by which the Blueprints for Vio-

lence Prevention project validates program

models as promising or efficacious, and in-

cludes an overview of successful programs.

The authors conclude with examples of the

implementation of such programs in selected

jurisdictions.

Finally, in Chapter 24, Butts and Roman

draw on their extensive experience as pro-

gram and systems evaluators to provide a

clear-eyed review of the research approaches

that inform evidence-based policy. Although

they support the increasing intention, and

practice, of using evidence to inform policy,

they caution against overreliance on it, detail-

ing the limitations of currently available

methods and products of research and eval-

uation for the tasks juvenile justice systems

have at hand. The authors conclude with

recommendations for enhancing the applica-

bility of research in this context.

xxiv I N T R O D U C T I O N

The volume concludes with an afterword

from U.S. Representative Robert ‘‘Bobby’’

Scott of Virginia. Congressman Scott, a na-

tional spokesperson for youth and families in

the juvenile justice system, notes prospective

federal legislation that focuses increasing at-

tention on less advantaged children, and

exhorts the federal government to continue

to demonstrate its leadership by enacting a

number of pending federal bills and initiatives,

such as the reauthorization of the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and

the Youth PROMISE (Prison Reduction

through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interven-

tion, Support, and Education) Act.

In reflecting both the exciting advances

and the considerable challenges currently

evident in the juvenile justice system, Juvenile

Justice: Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice

aims to make a modest contribution to the

movement toward a rehabilitative, youth and

community-centered vision of juvenile

justice.

REFERENCES

Dilulio, J. (1995, November 27). The coming of the

super-predators. Weekly Standard.

Puzzanchera, C. (2009). Juvenile arrests 2009.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice:

Office of Justice Programs: Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Schlesinger, A., Jr., (1986). Cycles of American history.

Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Zimring, F. (1998). American youth violence. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Introduction xxv

Contributors

Linda L. Baker, PhD

Centre for Children and Families

in the Justice System

London, Ontario, Canada

Jessica Dym Bartlett, MSW, LICSW

Tufts University

Medford, MA

James Bell, JD

W. Haywood Burns Institute

San Francisco, CA

Marty Beyer, PhD

Independent Juvenile Justice and Child

Welfare Consultant

Cottage Grove, OR

Honorable Jay Blitzman, JD

Massachusetts Juvenile Court

Lowell, MA

Kathleen B. Boundy, JD

Center for Law and Education

Boston, MA

Paula Braverman, MD

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical

Center

Cincinnati, OH

Edmund Bruyere, MS

Loyola University

Chicago, IL

Jeffrey A. Butts, PhD

City University of New York

New York, NY

Karen T. Craddock, PhD

Education Development

Center, Inc.

Newton, MA

Alison J. Cunningham, MA

Centre for Children and Families

in the Justice System

London, Ontario, Canada

Courtney Davis, MPP

New York University

New York, NY

Barry Dym, PhD

Boston University School of Management

Boston, MA

Marian Wright Edelman, LLB

Children’s Defense Fund

Washington, DC

Anne F. Farrell, PhD

University of Connecticut

Stamford, CT

LaTasha L. Fermin, MA

Tufts University

Medford, MA

xxvii

James Garbarino, PhD

Loyola University

Chicago, IL

Laura Garnette, MPA

County of Santa Clara Probation Department

San Jose, CA

Jesus Gerena

Family Independence Initiative/Hyde Square

Task Force, Inc.

Boston, MA

Lisa Goldblatt Grace, LICSW, MPH

My Life My Choice/Justice Resource

Institute

Boston, MA

Sean J. Goliday, PhD

CSR, Inc.

Arlington, VA

Jessica H. Greenstone, MS

Tufts University

Medford, MA

Peter W. Greenwood, PhD

Association for the Advancement of

Evidence-Based Practice

Agoura, CA

Kimberly E. Harris, PhD

Centre for Children & Families in the

Justice System

London, Ontario, Canada

Robert L. Hawkins, PhD

New York University

New York, NY

Kristi Holsinger, PhD

University of Missouri

Kansas City, MO

Angela Irvine, PhD

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

Oakland, CA

Francine H. Jacobs, EdD

Tufts University

Medford, MA

Leah Jacobs, MA, MSW

University of California

Berkeley, CA

Rachael Kaplan, MSW, LICSW

Clinical Social Worker

Brookline, MA

Joanne Karger, JD, EdD

Center for Law and Education

Boston, MA

Richard M. Lerner, PhD

Tufts University

Medford, MA

Raquel Mariscal, JD

Senior Consultant/Annie E. Casey Foundation

Watsonville, CA

Joel Miller, PhD

Rutgers University

Newark, NJ

Claudia Miranda-Julian, MS, LICSW

Tufts University

Medford, MA

Robert Morris, MD

University of California

Los Angeles, CA

Megan Kiely Mueller, MA

Tufts University

Medford, MA

xxviii C O N T R I B U T O R S

Diane M. Myers, PhD

Assumption College

Worcester, MA

Christopher M. Napolitano, MA

Tufts University

Medford, MA

Rachel Oliveri, MA

Tufts University

Medford, MA

Ellen E. Pinderhughes, PhD

Tufts University

Medford, MA

Anita Pritchard, PhD

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, FL

Carolyn Reyes, MSW, JD

Legal Services for Children

San Francisco, CA

John K. Roman, PhD

The Urban Institute

Washington, DC

Timothy Ross, PhD

Action Research Partners

Brooklyn, NY

Marc Schindler, JD

Venture Philanthropy Partners

Washington, DC

Commissioner Vincent Schiraldi, MSW

Department of Probation

New York, NY

Kristina L. Schmid, MA

Tufts University

Medford, MA

Stan Schneider, MA

Metis Associates

New York, NY

Congressman Robert (Bobby) Scott, JD

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC

Francine T. Sherman, JD

Boston College Law School

Newton, MA

Lola Simpson, MS

Metis Associates

New York, NY

Ken Tangvik, EdD

Hyde Square Task Force, Inc.

Boston, MA

Ila Deshmukh Towery, PhD

The New Teacher Project

Boston, MA

Susan Turner, PhD

University of California

Irvine, CA

Maryna Vashchenko, EdM

Tufts University

Medford, MA

Sabina E. Vaught, PhD

Tufts University

Medford, MA

Michael D. Wiatrowski, PhD

Center for Democratic Policing

Williamsburg, VA

Shannan Wilber, JD

Legal Services for Children

San Francisco, CA

Contributors xxix

SECTION I

FRAMING THE

ISSUES

Juvenile Justice: Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice Edited by Francine T. Sherman and Francine H. Jacobs

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

1 CHAPTER

A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

MARTY BEYER

M arco is a serious 14-year-old whose parents,

born in Mexico, have been stably employed

for many years. Although his family is close, Marco

has faced numerous family problems, including the

death of his grandmother who took care of him, and

his parents’ preoccupation with the problems of his

older siblings, leading to his feeling sad and unloved.

Because his parents worked so hard, it felt ungrateful

for him to disparage them.

Marco’s parents had high aspirations for their

children. When his older siblings dropped out of

school and had children as teenagers, the pressure

was on Marco to be the one to graduate high school.

Marco did well in school and particularly loved

science. But he found his teachers were overly critical

of him—in his view, because they knew his siblings,

who had been problem students in the same school,

and because some had racist attitudes. When his

grades started dropping in eighth grade, the school

did not initiate any special supports. He started

spending time with dropouts, was suspended, and

then arrested for a fight in school; he was diverted

from the juvenile justice system but received no

services. His parents’ disapproval and his own

feeling that he was a school failure were difficult

for Marco to bear.

For several years, Marco had been increasingly

terrorized by gang violence in his neighborhood. He

witnessed the murder of a friend and worried every

time he walked down the street. Marco had been

seriously threatened three times in the 2 weeks before

this arrest. “I tried never to walk alone. If I did, I’d

run to a safe spot where there were people. You

didn’t have to look like a gangbanger. If you ignored

them, they would jump you. If you ran, they would

chase you. This is not the movies. In life, violence is

real. A lot of people have died in my neighborhood.

Death is always there.”

Marco did not talk to his family members or

friends about his sadness or fears. He did not realize

how intense the pressure was and how having to

contend with it alone undermined good decision

making. Marco is emotionally needy, like a younger

teenager, but he does not admit his desire for comfort

and protection. He started spending most of his time

with his brother and his friends, all several years

older and in a gang. As he got more scared, Marco

reluctantly went along with pressure from them to

join their gang. Marco did not realize the risks of

gang protection: “I now know that when I joined a

gang it was not a smart choice, but I thought I had to

have protection.” Working long hours with many

family responsibilities, his parents assumed Marco

was safe with his brother, and did not know that he

had joined a gang, used marijuana, and was

becoming alienated from school.

The day before ninth grade began, a gang leader

gave Marco, his brother, and a friend a ride home.

Unbeknownst to Marco, they were on their way to a

drive-by shooting. “At first, I thought it wasn’t

really going to happen. I realized it too late, but I

could have gotten out of the car. But I was

3

Juvenile Justice: Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice Edited by Francine T. Sherman and Francine H. Jacobs

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

threatened. He pushed everyone around. These

things went on every day in the neighborhood,

shootings and beatings to get revenge. He was

mad about something done to him and he made

us take revenge. It made no sense. But it seemed the

only way out was to do what he ordered.” Marco

talked about how sad he felt for the victim and

expressed sympathy for the family. Marco did not

object to being blamed and took responsibility for

having bad judgment and not getting out of the car.

He knows it was wrong, and if he had seen any

choice, he said he would have left, but felt trapped

even though he never intended to hurt anyone.

How should the juvenile justice system

deal with Marco? What criteria should it use

to assess his culpability and impose an appro-

priate disposition? How does the system cur-

rently act in cases such as his?

Juvenile justice systems make most deci-

sions about youth based on age and offense.

Yet age tells us little about what is behind an

offense—for example, what precipitated it and

what its meaning is for that individual—since

each youth’s developmental progression is

unique, often indexed in only limited ways

to chronological age. The delinquent act itself

also tells us little about the youth, since the

contexts in which many offenses are committed

are so complex. The intricate weave of factors,

individual and contextual, that contributed to

Marco’s involvement in a drive-by shooting

illustrates how much more than age and offense

must be considered in designing an effective

rehabilitative service combination for him.

However, employing a developmental

framework allows for more hopeful and effec-

tive responses from the system and the com-

munity agencies that should be poised to help.

In this chapter, I propose a developmental

framework for making decisions regarding

court proceedings, detention, and services,

based on my training as a psychologist and

my years of experience working with youth in

juvenile programs and evaluating them for

court. Its foundation, and the organizing

premise of the chapter, is that the delinquent

behavior of adolescents must be understood as

resulting from their immature thinking and the

effects of trauma and learning disabilities, which

are ubiquitous among these youth. These core

components are first introduced briefly below,

and then I elaborate on each. I also argue for

including youth’s strengths, and assessing their

capacity for resilience within the context of

their families, peers, schools, neighborhoods,

and cultural communities at all points of the

decision-making process. The chapter con-

cludes with a demonstration of the richness

of a developmental framework in vignettes of

four system-involved youth, ages 13–16, with

a range of offenses; Marco’s story is also in-

cluded in the analyses.

CORE CONCEPTS

To the extent that juvenile justice decisions are

based on developmental concepts, these ap-

pear to be the outmoded, rigidly linear stage-

based, and noncontextual theories of many

years ago (Lerner & Steinberg, 2004). This

view of development does not consider

strengths, the effects of traumatic experiences,

and environmental influences on youth. As

a result, both in understanding the young

person’s behavior and in designing services

to change it, system decisions have not been

developmentally sound, in the complex ways

that we now understand development.

For example, even though there is con-

siderable research on the effects of trauma on

children (Osofsky, 2004), it has not penetrated

the system, perhaps because addressing the

effects of trauma on delinquent behavior is

not compatible with the simplistic view that

offending is a bad choice. Probation and

4 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

juvenile facilities assume that youth control

their behavior to avoid consequences and get

rewards. What this fails to take into account is

that some behavior is reactive to past victim-

ization, and that traumatized youth may be

unable to use rational decision making when

the memories and anxiety from traumatic

events are triggered.

The challenges of learning disabilities have

been well researched across academic and

applied fields. Unfortunately, the application

of research on learning disabilities, including

processing problems, executive function diffi-

culties, and attention deficits, appears to have

been confined to use in schools, not in the

many other realms of children’s lives. The

school—in either the juvenile facility or the

community—is expected to manage disabil-

ities as they pertain to education, rather than

helping everyone involved with the young

person understand that they affect the youth’s

behavior generally, and use this understanding

outside the educational setting. In juvenile

justice, disabilities are seldom used as a lens

to understand the offense or facilitate behavior

change. Instead, it is assumed that youth com-

prehend what to do and are simply being

oppositional and making bad decisions.

The notion that maturity should be as-

sessed as a distinct developmental process,

apart from chronological age, has a fairly

long theoretical history in developmental psy-

chology, but has only recently gained traction

in juvenile justice policy and practice (Ameri-

can Medical Association, 2005). Research has

demonstrated that adolescents are different

from adults (Owen-Kostelnik, Reppucci, &

Meyer, 2006; Steinberg & Haskins, 2008), but

justice systems treat teenagers as adults in many

ways (Bishop, 2000; McGowan et al., 2007).

For example, even intelligent teenagers cannot

appreciate the consequences of waiving their

Miranda rights. Most teenagers say that

although they were told they had a right to

remain silent, they believed they could not

refuse to answer police questions. Typically,

when they are asked what would happen if the

judge heard afterward that they would not talk

to the police, they respond that the judge

would believe they were guilty. These beliefs

demonstrate that they do not comprehend the

meaning of the right to remain silent and their

decision making is influenced by emotions

(Grisso et al., 2003).

Teenagers are also more vulnerable to

psychological manipulation than are adults.

In the police station without a lawyer, young

people may well give statements in response to

questions that reduce their self-confidence and

make them feel hopeless (Ofshe & Leo, 1997;

Warden & Drizin, 2009). While research has

found that adolescents 16 and older have

similar competence-related abilities to adults

regarding understanding facts about court pro-

ceedings (see Scott & Grisso, 1997, for a

review), these findings have been widely mis-

interpreted to mean that youth over 16 should

be considered adults. In fact, even 16- or

17-year-olds with normal intelligence are

often incapable of weighing alternatives, seeing

the risks of taking a plea or going to trial, and

looking into the future in discussions with their

lawyers; youth with learning disabilities are

even further compromised.

Developmentally sound juvenile justice

decisions must be based on more than re-

search on cognitive and psychosocial growth

in adolescence. The developmental frame-

work proposed here is comprehensive—

including immaturity as well as a clinical

perspective on trauma and learning disabil-

ities and using an ecological approach regard-

ing the contexts in which the teenager is

gradually maturing.

Let’s consider the several components of

immaturity first.

A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 5

THE EFFECTS OF IMMATURITY ON TEEN BEHAVIOR

Adolescent development is not a smooth,

uniform, linear progression—there are differ-

ences in maturity among youth of the same age

and across domains within individuals. I have

sketched out in this section a number of ways

that immaturity affects behavior in these years.

Immature Thinking

In real life situations, particularly when influ-

enced by peers and/or under the influence of

substances, young people often have immature

thought processes, including not anticipating,

minimizing danger, reacting to stress, and seeing

only one option.

& Not anticipating. Adolescents often do

not plan or do not follow their plans

and get caught up in unanticipated

events. They usually view as “acci-

dental” the unintended poor conse-

quences of actions that adults could

have predicted. For example, a young

person could go with a group to an

event and, on the way, a friend could

have a conflict with a young person

outside the group; a fight might break

out, and several youth might be

arrested for an assault they never imag-

ined would have happened. Carrying,

and even using, a weapon does not

mean that a teen intended harm or

thought that he or she would use the

weapon. Often, teens feel driven to

self-protection and never picture an

injured victim. & Minimizing danger. Risk taking is typ-

ical of adolescents who seldom can

consider the worst possible outcomes

of their actions (Furby & Beyth-

Marom, 1992; Steinberg, 2008).

Youth do not perceive or weigh risks

accurately, and indeed, it has been

asserted that “it is statistically aberrant

to refrain from such [risk-taking]

behavior during adolescence” (Spear,

2000, p. 421). In comparison to

adults, teenagers attach different value

to the rewards that risk taking pro-

vides (Fareri, Martin, & Delgado,

2008; Scott & Steinberg, 2008).

Difficulty in managing impulses is a

normal characteristic of teens, partly

because they have more rapid and

extreme mood swings than do adults

(Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Impul-

sively defending a friend who is teased

or pushed can quickly escalate into a

situation a youth will regret but did

not view as risky. Similarly, youth get

in trouble with parents, school, and/

or the juvenile justice system for text-

ing they think is benign, and do not

realize can be interpreted as threat-

ening. Drugs and alcohol, also often

not seen as risky, lower inhibitions

and reduce teens’ abilities to use ma-

ture judgment; being high frequently

contributes to delinquent acts. & Reacting to stress. Stress affects the

ability to weigh risks and to override

impulses with rational thought, and

adolescents are more susceptible to

stress and emotional fluctuations

than are adults (Hampel & Petermann,

2006; Larson, Moneta, Richards, &

Wilson, 2002; Seiffge-Krenke, 1995;

Spear, 2000; Wills, Sandy, & Yaeger,

2001). Decision making can be even

more immature when a teen is scared,

particularly if he or she has been

mistreated in the past. A common

form of immature cognitive processes

6 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

in adolescents is reacting to threat that

adults might consider exaggerated.

For example, a young person with

no prior arrests or problems in school

who jumps a subway gate without

paying could get into a physical con-

frontation that leads to the serious

charge of assaulting a police officer.

Afterwards, his parents may find it

difficult to understand how he could

have felt so threatened. & Seeing only one option. Adolescents

only gradually develop the advanced

cognitive ability to weigh alternatives

simultaneously (Wigfield, Byrnes, &

Eccles, 2006). In situations where

adults see several choices, adolescents

may believe they have only one. It

is not unusual even for intelligent

adolescents to imagine only a single

scenario. When things do not unfold

as they imagined, because of their

immaturity, they behave as if they

are incapable of adapting with an-

other reasonable choice. For exam-

ple, a teenage girl who thinks she is

going shopping with a friend may be

surprised when her friend encour-

ages her to shoplift but may feel

unable to leave, go home, or shop

on her own.

Immature Identity

Identity development is among the central

tasks of adolescence (Erikson, 1959; Kroger,

2003). Becoming good at something, for

example, doing well in school, arts, sports,

or religious or cultural practices, is a corner-

stone in the development of a positive identity,

and helps it to solidify. Many system-involved

youth have not experienced success, particu-

larly in school; often, they feel marginalized.

Having an unformed identity makes them

more vulnerable to involvement with delin-

quent peers.

For most teenagers, belonging to a family

provides the basic architecture for identity

development. Family provides cultural,

religious, and other values that are important

to the teenager’s self-definition: sometimes

the youth’s values remain consistent with his

or her family, and sometimes he or she sepa-

rates from the family’s values. Identifying

with peers is another important aspect of

self-definition; group membership is neces-

sary for a young person to feel valued. The

process of developing a stable identity takes

time, during which young people need

approval from family and peers.

An ecological approach to understanding

teenagers in the context of all their relation-

ships—particularly family and peers—recognizes

that development is influenced in complex ways

by these interconnected contexts (Garcia Coll,

Akerman, & Cicchetti, 2000; Lerner, 2002;

Spencer et al., 2006). Conflicting identifications,

between two groups of peers or between family

and peer expectations, may cause unpredictable

behavior in a teenager, especially under stress.

Even protective families find it challeng-

ing to ensure positive friendships for their

teens, and a teen may have positive peers

and still get exposed, often in unplanned

situations, to peer coercion and/or pressure

from the desire for peer acceptance. Some

families think teens cannot be supervised,

and others, whose authoritarian tendencies

increase out of a desire to protect, instead

overlimit the teen’s autonomy, both with po-

tentially disastrous consequences (Dodge et al.,

2006; Putnick et al., 2008). It is difficult for

adults to help youth develop self-confidence to

resist peer pressure when the need to belong is

so strong. Families can be unaware when a

teen, who seems the same at home, becomes

A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 7

more influenced by peers and negative school

and neighborhood environments. Further-

more, in some neighborhoods, resisting the

pressure to commit crimes or to seek protec-

tion from a gang itself puts the young person in

danger (Fagan, 2000).

& Racial and ethnic identity. As their social

networks expand, youth see them-

selves in multiple roles requiring

different self-presentations. Racial

stereotypes and cultural dissonance

make the process of achieving a stable

identity more difficult for youth of

color (Cross & Fhagen-Smith, 2001;

Luthar, 2003). Youth are vulnerable to

racial and ethnic marginalization.

Violence poses a complex series of

threats to resilience for Black males,

including aggression as an adaptive

response to deal with victimization,

which may lead to arrest and reinforces

negative stereotypes (Graham &

Lowry, 2004; Spencer et al., 2006). & Girl identity. Experts disagree about

how much the increase in arrests of

girls represents a change in behavior

as opposed to a change in society’s

responses to girls (Zahn, 2009). De-

velopmental research has identified

stressors on girls that make them

more vulnerable, especially during

physical maturation and school tran-

sitions. For example, many 11- and

12-year-old girls become less out-

spoken and more preoccupied with

perfection and fear being disliked;

and this may contribute to an endur-

ing sense of unworthiness affecting

their involvement in delinquent

acts (Beyer, Blair, Katz, Simkins, &

Steinberg, 2003; Brown & Gilligan,

1992; Chamberlain & Moore, 2002;

Hennessey Ford, Mahoney, Ko, &

Siegfried, 2004; Wood, Foy, Goguen,

Pynoos, & James, 2002a).

A connection to others is the

central organizing feature of develop-

ment in girls, and their relationship

focus and the struggle to be loyal,

including worries about abandon-

ment and disconnection, dominate

girls’thinking. Girls in juvenile justice

include first-time offenders who were

coerced by their older boyfriends.

Many teenage girls report violence

in their dating relationships. Though

some confide in a friend, almost none

talk to adults in their family or at

school about being victimized in

this way and the difficulty of extricat-

ing themselves. Traumatic experien-

ces predict delinquency and risky

sexual behavior, and most girls who

have experienced significant trauma

need, but do not receive, trauma

treatment—including many who

do not have PTSD diagnoses (Smith,

Leve, & Chamberlain, 2006; see also

Sherman & Greenstone, Chapter 7,

this volume). & Sexual orientation and gender identity.

Harassment for gender-nonconforming

appearance or behavior, a nonheter-

osexual orientation or nontraditional

gender identity can lead to a serious

loss of self-esteem (Galliher, Rostosky,

& Hughes, 2004). Homophobic dis-

crimination at school and in the com-

munity is common and hurtful to

teenagers and can lead to youth miss-

ing school or activities because they

feel unsafe (Majd, Marksamer, &

Reyes, 2009). Youth who experience

8 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

antigay victimization in middle or

high school are more than twice as

likely to be depressed and have sub-

stance abuse problems and three times

as likely to report suicide attempts

than lesbian, gay, or bisexual peers

who have not been harassed (Wilber,

Ryan, & Marksamer, 2006; see also

Garnette, Irvine, Reyes, & Wilber,

Chapter 8, this volume). Youth whose

parents reject their sexual orientation

and gender expression are more likely

to be depressed and suicidal; they may

end up living on the street, which may,

in turn, bring them into the juvenile

justice system (Ryan, Huebner, Diaz,

& Sanchez, 2009).

Immature Moral Reasoning

Much has been written about moral devel-

opment during adolescence, stressing youth’s

increasing responsibilities in relationships and

awareness of how others will judge one’s

actions (Eisenberg, Morris, McDaniel, &

Spinrad, 2009). The practical application of

adolescent moral development research to

real-life reasoning under stress is compli-

cated. Committing a delinquent act can be

misconstrued as an indication that the young

person did not know right from wrong

and/or lacked concern for others. But youth

may express strong family and religious values

and are frustrated that they cannot explain

why they used poor moral reasoning during

the offense. Adolescents are generally moral-

istic, insisting on what should be and in-

tolerant of unfairness (Smetana & Turiel,

2003). They may become involved in an

offense naively in order to right wrongs,

often out of loyalty. As a result, they may

not express an adult understanding of the

effect of their offense on victims, despite

the fact that their capacity for empathy

with others may not be impaired.

Next let’s turn to considering the role of

trauma in the lives of these youth.

THE EFFECTS OF TRAUMA ON TEEN BEHAVIOR

The incidence of posttraumatic stress disorder

(PTSD) among youth in the juvenile justice

system is up to 8 times higher than youth in the

community in general (Abram et al., 2004;

Kerig, Ward, Vanderzee, & Moeddel, 2009).

Among nonincarcerated youth seen in juve-

nile court clinics, one in nine met criteria

for PTSD (Brosky & Lally, 2004). In a study

of 50 delinquents, all but two had experienced

trauma, including repeated abuse and/or

parent death and/or abandonment; at least a

third were physically abused and a quarter

were sexually abused; more than half the

girls had been physically or sexually abused

(Beyer, 2006).

In my experience, trauma typically slows

down development in children and can inter-

fere with all aspects of a youth’s functioning.

While other children are growing emotionally,

the child coping with trauma is distracted from

normal developmental tasks and is occupied

with sadness and feeling powerless. Trauma

causes disturbances of emotional regulation,

social relationships, and attachment (Lieber-

man & Van Horn, 2004). Children who have

been abused or were not protected from

violence often blame themselves and have

trouble trusting others (Cohen, Mannarino, &

Deblinger, 2006).

Many youth in juvenile justice have in the

past been involved with child protective ser-

vices and some are in foster care when they are

A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 9

arrested. Children who are exposed to dis-

rupted caregiving (separation from their fami-

lies and multiple foster homes) are at risk for

continued difficulty in emotional regulation

and deficits in social cognitive processing

(Price & Landsverk, 1998).

Depression Associated With Trauma

Depression is common but often not diag-

nosed in traumatized teenagers (Ney, Col-

bert, Newman, & Young, 1986). Their

behavior problems become the focus rather

than their underlying sadness, isolation, and

loss. Depressed children typically express self-

dislike, show distorted thinking, and have a

greater dependence on peers, but being de-

pressed is correlated with teacher and peer

ratings of unpopularity (Cicchetti & Toth,

1998). Often, young people come to juvenile

justice without having received trauma treat-

ment despite persistent depression, aggression,

and school difficulties (Wolfe, Rawana, &

Chiodo, 2006).

Aggression Associated With Trauma

Aggression can be a defense against the help-

lessness common among traumatized children.

Traumatized youth may misinterpret and be

offended by relatively benign things that

others say and react with combative self-

preservation. These young people often have

had difficulty since childhood modulating

their reactions and putting their feelings into

words. They react negatively to outside con-

trols and are often labeled oppositional (Ford,

Chapman, Hawke, & Albert, 2007; Wolfe et

al., 2006). Traumatized teens may not be able

to stop these reactions because they see con-

trolling adults as mean and unfair, to which

past abuse has made them acutely sensitive.

When adults threaten them, they reflexively

protect themselves; even if the adults believe

they are controlling a situation, the teen au-

tomatically reacts as if back in the position of

being victimized. When their feelings are

hurt, they are flooded with anger from the

past, which they are unaware is out of propor-

tion to the present provocation, and they lack

the ability to calm themselves. Unless adults

arrange an environment to meet their needs,

this predictable reflexive reaction will be pro-

voked repeatedly. Multiple placements cause

more loss and anxiety, provoking fear reactions

and reinforcing sensitivity to hostility, rejec-

tion, and perceived unfairness.

Externalizing behaviors—behavior prob-

lems in school, substance use, and truancy—are

correlated with extreme parental permissiveness,

and internalizing behaviors—depression, anxi-

ety, and self-destructiveness—are associated

with extreme parental psychological control

(Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, &

Dornbusch, 1994). Furthermore,

the problem-solving strategies that

boys bring to adolescent and adult

social situations are directly traceable

to the lessons learned from dads . . .

young boys who are aggressive and are

low in pro-social behaviors . . . have

fathers who are more likely to engage

in angry exchanges with them . . .

the [boys] who are most prone to

break down when the going gets

tough are those who have been raised

with the idea that to admit vulnera-

bility, even to themselves, is weak.

(Kindlon & Thompson, 1999, pp.

102–104)

Reactions to Bullying

Youth who have been chronically picked on

have low self-esteem and academic and peer

10 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

difficulties in school, leading to more teasing

and bullying (Horowitz et al., 2004). Bullying

keeps children from perceiving school as a safe

environment. Other students fear that by asso-

ciating with victims they may become targets.

Sometimes victimized children become bullies

themselves, and they tend to have more emo-

tional problems than those who are victims only

(Arseneault et al., 2006; Olweus, 1993).

Pathologizing Trauma-Related Behaviors

It is unfortunate that the effects of trauma on

youth are often overlooked or misunderstood

(see Sedlak & McPherson, 2010; see also

Baker, Cunningham, & Harris, Chapter 11,

this volume). The effects of trauma may sig-

nificantly interfere with the young person’s

life and put him or her at risk of delinquency,

even those whose symptoms do not meet the

PTSD criteria (Widom, 1994; Wood, Foy,

Layne, Pynoos, & James, 2002b) (see also

Braverman & Morris, Chapter 3, this vol-

ume). Adolescents with a history of trauma

have high rates of alcohol and substance

abuse; these youth rely on substances to escape

sad feelings and bad memories (Giaconia,

Reinherz, Paradis, & Stashwick, 2003).

Trauma is considered a significant risk factor,

accounting for numerous items in checklists

of factors connected to delinquency or dan-

gerousness (e.g., the Structured Assessment of

Violence Risk in Youth [SAVRY] and the

Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument

[MAYSI-2]), but is seldom considered in

designing rehabilitative services. Too often,

symptoms from trauma are misinterpreted as

part of the character of the young person,

rather than a guide to what is behind behavior

that can be changed.

Finally, I briefly discuss the effects of

learning disabilities on the behavior of youth

in the juvenile justice system.

THE EFFECTS OF LEARNING DISABILITIES ON TEEN BEHAVIOR

About 17–53% of youth in juvenile justice

systems have learning disabilities, in comparison

to 2–10% in the overall child population

(Kazdin, 2000; Sedlak & McPherson, 2010).

Learning disabilities affect young people not

only in school, but at home and in the com-

munity, particularly in comprehending, follow-

ing directions, and establishing and maintaining

relationships. Learning disabilities include a

variety of problems in listening, remembering,

prioritizing, and strategizing as well as reading

and mathematics. Delinquents

have higher rates of neuro-

psychological deficits as reflected in

language, verbal intelligence, working

memory, and reading. Of special in-

terest are deficiencies in “executive”

functions that are served primarily by

the frontal lobes of the brain . . .

[including] abstract reasoning, goal

setting, anticipating and planning,

self-monitoring and self-awareness,

inhibiting of impulsive behavior,

and interrupting an ongoing sequence

of behavior in order to initiate a more

adaptive behavior (Kazdin, p. 53).

Attention deficit disorder (ADD) and

attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

are the most frequently diagnosed behavior

disorders of childhood. It is estimated that

at least 25% of adolescents (17% of males

and 21% of females) in the juvenile justice

system have ADHD, compared to 9% in the

overall child population (12% of males

and 5% of females; Eme, 2009). Distrac-

tibility and impulsiveness are prominent

characteristics of attention deficit disorders,

making these young people less able to stop

A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 11

behaviors, which may contribute to delin-

quency (especially when they have immature

cognitive processes and are unable to see

alternative choices at the time of an offense).

Difficulties with social skills are also common

among children with attention deficits and,

in myexperience, often lead to indiscriminately

seeking acceptance (even from delinquent

peers). Some youth’s problem-solving skills

are compromised by not accurately per-

ceiving cues from peers and adults, typically

attributing hostility to others and believing

that aggressive acts will result in peer approval

(Dodge, 2003).

By the time the learning disability is

identified, many youth lack the basic skills

necessary to comprehend schoolwork and to

get along with others. Often, the youth who

is embarrassed by poor performance gets

into a negative cycle of attention seeking

that interferes with school participation.

Some youths’ problem-solving skills are

compromised by not accurately perceiving

cues from peers and adults, typically attrib-

uting hostility to others and believing that

aggressive acts will result in peer approval

(Dodge, 2003). Truancy from feeling picked

on by teachers and/or students and frustra-

tion with poor academic progress can begin

early in young people with learning disabil-

ities, and not attending school can lead to

delinquency.

STRENGTHS OF YOUNG PEOPLE AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTS

Youth have strengths that must be built on in

designing supports and services to meet the

needs driving their delinquent behavior

(Eccles & Gootman, 2002; see Lerner et al.,

Chapter 5, this volume). Often, youth can

be engaged in change when their strengths

are recognized. Their aspirations may be

connected to something they are or were

good at, and what may motivate them to

change is to get back on track toward achiev-

ing dreams. Although families are typically

blamed as the cause of delinquency, most

families also have strengths, and youth often

take it personally when their families are criti-

cized (see Jacobs, Miranda-Julian & Kaplan,

Chapter 10, this volume). Peers and neighbor-

hoods also receive blame for youth getting

involved in delinquency, but positive peers

can encourage the youth’s aspirations and

neighborhoods can offer significant support

(such as pastors, relatives, and other adults

and athletic and artistic opportunities) (see

Hawkins, Vashchenko, & Davis, Chapter 12,

this volume). Schools are seen as failing to

address youth problems before they drop out

or are suspended or expelled, but schools also

can meet youth needs with services that offer

youth the opportunity for success.

Through a developmental framework,

juvenile justice can avoid pathologizing and

instead identify the strengths and needs behind

each young person’s behavior. Rather than

viewing the young person as a “bad seed”

likely to become an adult offender, develop-

mentally sound services support the youth’s

resilience so he or she can outgrow un-

acceptable behaviors.

VIGNETTES OF YOUTH IN JUVENILE JUSTICE

The stories of four youth are presented

next, including brief descriptions of their

strengths; family, peer, school, and neighbor-

hood contexts; immaturity; trauma; and dis-

abilities. These vignettes demonstrate how a

developmental framework can guide our

understanding and treatment of these youth,

12 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

as well as our efforts to prevent system-

involvement for others. Marco’s story is

included, as well, in the analysis presented

in Table 1.1.

Dustin

Dustin is a quiet 13-year-old Native American

youth born on a reservation. His mother was

16, his father was incarcerated before his birth,

and he was raised by his grandmother. When

he lived with his mother, he periodically ran

away to his grandmother because of his moth-

er’s physical abuse. His mother married, and

they moved across the country to live with his

new stepfather when Dustin was in seventh

grade, shortly before the birth of his brother. It

was traumatic for Dustin to lose his extended

family and strong cultural roots. His stepfather

was young, had not parented before, and

favored his newborn; his mother’s life centered

around her husband.

Dustin adjusted surprisingly well to his new

school. He had several friends who lived nearby

and he spent most of his time in their homes.

The girl next door was his best friend, and he

felt “adopted” by her parents, who took him to

the water park and skating rink; he resented his

family for not caring enough about him to do

activities together. He worried about his step-

father’s drinking, which caused work and mar-

ital problems. His stepfather was furious when

Dustin protected his mother when he was

about to slap her. Dustin said his stepfather

hit him and constantly reprimanded him for

not doing household chores properly.

Dustin’s mother and stepfather criticized

him for getting poor grades, although he com-

plained that he worked on his homework longer

every afternoon than his friends. Initially, his

teachers attributed his academic struggles to their

assumption that the small reservation school he

had attended from first to sixth grades was

inferior. Because he was so “shy,” his trouble

concentrating and following directions was over-

looked, and they were surprised that on his first

standardized testing in late spring, Dustin scored

more than three grades lower than his classmates.

Although he was not referred for evaluation of

attention deficit (without hyperactivity) and/or

executive function deficits, Dustin was likely

eligible for special education services to address

disabilities, which would have improved his

grades and self-esteem.

During the summer, Dustin’s mother told

him they had to move, but not back to his

relatives. When he told his friend next door, she

cried and Dustin said he held back tears. He

was upset he would have to leave his friends and

their caring families and adjust to a new school.

The week of the offense, it came as a surprise to

Dustin that his mother was sending him to

live with a relative he did not know far from

both his grandmother and where his mother

was moving. He felt rejected, especially since

his stepfather said it was his disobedience and

poor grades that were making them send him

to relatives who could discipline him.

Early physical abuse, being separated from

family members, chronic disapproval, worrying

about his mother’s marriage, and the impending

move was a significant amount of trauma.

Dustin did not have anyone to confide in and

internalized his feelings. Leading up to his ex-

plosion, Dustin was under extreme stress that

compromised his typical immature thinking.

When he walked in the door that night, Dustin

said his mother immediately started yelling at

him. He heated up some food and was watch-

ing television. His stepfather yelled at him to

get off the couch and turn off the TV.

He was real mean about it. I was still

eating. He told me to hurry up. I got

up and moved so he could lie down

on the couch. I went into the kitchen

A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 13

and put my dishes in the dishwasher.

Then he yelled at me because I had

turned the kitchen light on. It made

me mad. I was sick of being yelled at

and not allowed to watch TV in my

own house. I can’t explain what hap-

pened next. I grabbed a knife from the

dishwasher.

Without thinking, Dustin lunged at his step-

father, cutting him seriously before he ran out

of the house. Later, he understood that he had

“bottled up all that anger at my stepfather and

my mother and it all came out at once, but I

didn’t expect it.”

Behind Dustin’s aggression were compli-

cated unmet needs to:

& Understand that the loss and rejection

he experienced are not his fault; & Learn how to respond when criti-

cized and not overreact to rejection; & Learn how to express himself without

holding his feelings in until he erupts; & Feel successful in school; & Recognize the effects of his learning

disabilities on his concentration and

decision making; and & Not be separated from family.

These needs could be met by trauma

treatment, services to learn how to compen-

sate for his learning disabilities, coaching on

expressing his feelings and not overreacting,

and returning to live with his grandmother.

Peter

Peter is a childish, White 14-year-old who

was traumatized by abuse by his mentally ill

mother, and then by abuse in his foster home.

Later, he was moved to his father and step-

mother’s home. When he was in elementary

school, Peter ran away repeatedly because of

his father’s abuse. Child Protective Services

again placed him in a foster home for more

than a year. When he was returned, the school

complained that his father was not cooperative

in dealing with Peter’s academic and behavior

problems. Peter remembers being picked on

since second grade for being behind academi-

cally. As he got older, Peter was upset that he

was teased for being gay. He said he always

liked girls, but kids thought he was gay because

“I’m small and soft.” He felt unfairly treated

by the PE teacher and got Fs in PE because he

was being harassed in the locker room and

refused to change.

Peter’s arms are lined with scars. “I was

always cutting my wrists. My teacher saw it.

My dad saw it. No one did anything about it.”

Peter talked about being isolated and alone,

tolerating physical punishment by his father

and conflict with his stepmother. “I didn’t care

about anybody. I just wanted to be dead.”

Asked what made him get to that point in

eighth grade, he responded, “Thinking no one

cares, people making fun of me all the time.

My whole class made fun of me for being gay

and not being able to do math.”

Because of past trauma, Peter was un-

usually sensitive to criticism. He could not

articulate that he felt hurt when he was teased

and embarrassed about being unable to do his

schoolwork. After years of abuse, Peter expe-

rienced any “no” as another victimization

and he reflexively reacted to protect himself.

He had not learned how to prevent escalation

or how to calm himself down when he was

teased, cornered, pushed, or touched. Peter’s

IEP (Individualized Education Plan) was

blaming, focused on behavior control, and

reflected no understanding of trauma-driven

behavior. Peter got angry when he read his

behavior intervention plan (BIP): “Peter’s

motivation for inappropriate behavior and

language toward peers and teachers is

14 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

avoidance of work and attention seeking.” He

thought his IEP was wrong: “Why do they

think I avoid work? I go to school. I try to do

my work. I need help on a lot of things. I am

frustrated when I can’t get more help.”

After his arrest, a neuropsychological

evaluation found “a severe attentional dis-

order, a slow rate of information processing,

and memory and executive dysfunctions

which constitute a significant functional dis-

ability” that interfered with Peter’s school

performance as well as with interactions

with family and friends. For years he had

IEPs without the required evaluations, which

could have identified his disabilities in order

to design the proper combination of services

to ensure that his social skills, attentiveness,

reading, and math improved. Had instruction

in the give-and-take of communication, how

to avoid talking too much, how to read

others’ nonverbal cues, and how not to mis-

interpret rules as mistreatment been initiated

in the early elementary years when his social

skills deficits were first documented, Peter’s

behavior improvement might have prevented

being picked on. His early depression and

anxiety might have been reduced with

improved peer relationships, although these

were also symptoms of trauma that went

untreated.

The kids were picking on me, calling

me gay every day. The teacher heard

them and didn’t do anything. The PE

teacher yelled at me. The counselor

wouldn’t do anything. No one would

help. Nobody cared. A kid called me a

name, another kid tripped me as I was

walking to my seat. I got angry. My

teacher yelled at me to calm down. I got

more out of hand. She came toward

me, trying to corner me. When I get

angry, I don’t think. I was telling her to

leave me alone. She was yelling just

like my father. She pushed me. I told

her, “You better not touch me again.”

She pushed me against the cabinet.

I went ballistic. I pushed her down,

ran out of the school.

Behind Peter’s aggression were numerous

unmet needs to:

& Learn to separate his past victimiza-

tion from provocation in the present; & Learn to calm himself before reacting; & Understand his pool of anger and

hurt and learn to be less sensitive to

rejection and to express his anger

without hurting himself or others; & Understand his attention, processing,

and executive function difficulties; and & Be successful at something.

These needs could be met by trauma

treatment, services to learn how to compen-

sate for his learning disabilities, a home and

school where he is not maltreated, and guid-

ance for the adults to understand that their

actions might prevent most of his behavior

problems by avoiding power struggles and

deescalating before he gets out of control.

Brandon

Brandon is a bright, engaging African Ameri-

can 15-year-old from a loving family. His

mother is proud of her two older children

in community college and she is raising her

young great nephew who had been neglected.

Brandon’s father’s murder when Brandon

was young led to his family’s move out of a

high-crime area.

Brandon’s arrest for selling marijuana

shocked all of them. His siblings and mother

A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 15

insisted that their family’s love, religious val-

ues, emphasis on school achievement, and

strong work ethic made it inconceivable that

any of the children could be a delinquent.

Family members expressed regret for not re-

alizing that his doing poorly in school and

hanging around with kids who were not suc-

cessful in school or athletics put him at risk.

Brandon kept secrets from his mother for

more than a year. His family said Brandon

remained the same loving, childish, entertain-

ing son and sibling at home, helping with his

cousin and doing chores. But when he was

out, he was using marijuana daily and paying

for it by selling marijuana.

Brandon’s life had changed significantly in

the past 2 years, in a negative direction in

several dimensions simultaneously.

& The loss of basketball. Brandon expe-

rienced a major, painful rejection

when he was not invited to continue

with the elite team he had been on for

years. He felt humiliated, and lost a

sense of belonging and identity that

was critical to him. He stopped play-

ing basketball altogether, believing his

future as an athlete was over. & Less attention from his mother. When he

was in seventh grade, his mother lost

her job and they had to move again.

Her great nephew required a lot of

her assistance when he was removed

from his mother and had to adjust to a

new family and school. Because

Brandon was not playing sports, he

spent less time with his mother, who

had been at all his games. & His brother’s leaving. When Brandon’s

brother left home, he lost the daily

friendship and guidance of the person

to whom he was closest in his family.

This marked the end of Brandon’s life

at home playing video games, since

his brother was his game partner from

second to seventh grade. & The loss of school as a place of success. For

Brandon, like many students, seventh

grade was a difficult adjustment—the

work was more challenging and he felt

the teachers expected too much. Al-

though in elementary school he had

met state standards, getting As and Bs,

in seventh grade Brandon was below

standard in math and reading, did not

like his teacher, and failed a class. In

eighth grade, he was absent 40 days (in

contrast to nearly perfect attendance in

elementary school), got Ds, and was

suspended for getting into an argu-

ment. Not wanting to burden his

mother, he kept his problems from her.

His brother told Brandon “to turn it

around. You are just being lazy.” A

friend’s parent was monitoring her

MySpace and complained to the school

that Brandon wrote threatening state-

ments about the assistant principal; he

was arrested, put on probation, and sus-

pended (even though he said he was

just joking). His probation officer de-

tained him for a week when he was

suspended in the first month of ninth

grade for having marijuana in his

pocket at school.

Unaware of the seriousness of Brandon’s

problems, his family viewed these as minor

“incidents” due to his being unfairly treated

at school and by probation. His mother was

angry at the school for singling Brandon out:

If he had been a White kid, the school

would have given him help a long

16 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

time ago. If he had been White, his

probation officer would have sent him

to a drug program, rather than lock-

ing him up in detention.

Brandon’s immature thinking included

not being able to anticipate the long-term

consequences of poor grades. He did not

imagine that each day his choices about his

schoolwork were taking him off the path of

high school graduation and going to college

on a sports scholarship. Brandon also mini-

mized the risks of his secret life. He was

smoking marijuana every day in ninth grade

and believed that marijuana was benign. Bran-

don said marijuana gave him a “mellow

mind,” and he liked being relaxed. The

only problem he saw with marijuana was cost.

Brandon also had an immature identity.

Prior to seventh grade, Brandon was a suc-

cessful athlete and student, staying close to his

family and home. But he lost some of his

family-centeredness and he lost his sports-

focused identity. Brandon did not want to

turn his back on his close friends, with

whom he had played basketball since elemen-

tary school. They smoked marijuana together,

were barely passing in school, and none were

playing high school sports. He was their sup-

plier, believing he would never get arrested

selling drugs just to people he knew.

Behind Brandon’s illegal behavior were

significant unmet needs to:

& Be successful at school; & Develop a stable, positive identity sup-

ported by successful peers at school; & Talk about how much he has missed

his father and brother; & Learn how to get a “mellow mind”

without using marijuana; and

& Learn how to anticipate consequences,

see risks, and make choices that will

allow him to achieve his goals.

These needs could be met by coaching on

getting involved with college-bound peers,

decision-making skills, returning to sports,

improving study habits, tutorial assistance,

college-preparatory summer programs, and

guidance for his mother in providing supervi-

sion and recognizing Brandon’s successes.

Kristi

Kristi is a 16-year-old biracial girl whose

grandmother said she was “the perfect child

until middle school: good grades, happy, nice

friends, loved sports. She loved her mother;

they had survived hard times together.” Her

parents’ arguments and bitter divorce and her

mother’s remarriage were hard on Kristi. She

missed having her father at home, and by the

time she was in fourth grade, the fighting

between her mother and stepfather was fright-

ening. “I was scared of him. He wasn’t work-

ing and was living off my Mom and me. I

couldn’t understand why she took him back

over and over.” Kristi developed an eating

disorder in sixth grade after her stepfather

was arrested for attacking her mother and

Kristi when she tried to get help.

Kristi’s soccer team was the center of her

life for years, and her mother, grandmother,

and father cheered for her at tournaments: “It

was hard work to be on a travel team. It was

an honor. We went to the state championship

and met girls from all over. We did so well. We

had so much fun.” After the game, Kristi and

her friends got caught drinking and their

coach kicked them off the team. “I was going

to try out for the high school team, but I gave

up. . . . It was a big mistake that I regretted.”

A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 17

Her father talked about the vacuum that not

playing soccer caused in Kristi’s life, observing

that without the discipline of sports she

“became less motivated to do well in school,

had more worries about her weight, and did

not have her good group of friends.”

The combination of reactions to her

parents’ divorce and her mother’s involve-

ment in an abusive second marriage made

Kristi susceptible to an exploitive relation-

ship with an older male. With her worries

about her appearance, the loss of soccer, and

feeling less motivated academically, Kristi

was flattered by his attention, and minimized

keeping him a secret from her parents, who

would not have approved.

He was extremely moody, arguing

with people for no reason. He hit

me with his fists. He said the meanest

stuff to me. And then sweet talk me,

saying beautiful things. I told my best

friend I didn’t want to stay with him,

but I didn’t know how to break it off. I

was so depressed.

Kristi continued,

I was ashamed that I still loved him

and his sweet-talking and hoped our

good times would return. I didn’t ask

for help because I didn’t realize I was

over my head. I knew getting high

with him and skipping school to be

with him were wrong. But I thought I

could quit him anytime.

Kristi said she hid “how bad I felt about

myself ” and did not know how to get coun-

seling without burdening her mother. She

told herself that her substance use was not a

problem. She believed that she would get

serious about school again and achieve her

goal of college.

Lacking experience, Kristi did not cor-

rectly assess many danger signals: “He would

not let me go anywhere without him. His

mood swings were extreme and unpredictable.

He smashed things when he was angry.” His

obsession that afternoon with wanting to run

away with her was annoying, but she thought it

was “just talk” when he kept coming back to

the same subject for hours and was not satisfied

with her telling him she was not leaving home.

What Kristi did not know was that he had been

using meth that day. She was shocked when he

attacked her mother, stabbing her to death with

a kitchen knife when she got home from work:

“It was so quick; I was in shock, shivering and

not understanding what was happening.”

Threatening Kristi with the knife, he ordered

her to get her mother’s car keys and wallet and

made her drive to an ATM to withdraw the

limit in cash from her mother’s account.

When they were apprehended in her

mother’s car, it did not occur to Kristi that

the police would arrest her. She gave a simple

statement about what had happened:

I thought the police wanted informa-

tion about what he did. I didn’t try to

explain it to them. I didn’t understand

what happened myself. I thought they

knew I didn’t have any part in it and

were going to take me home.

Asked whether she told the police she had

been kidnapped, Kristi responded that she

thought kidnapping referred to a small child

or someone being tied up. She added,

I was forced the whole time. I wasn’t

dragged by my hair. But if I had

refused, he would have made me.

The look in his eyes was so threat-

ening. In the car he was holding the

knife. I didn’t have control, of course,

I never did with him.

18 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

Her boyfriend told the police it was Kris-

ti’s idea to kill her mother because she wanted

to run away from home. In her state, 16-year-

olds charged with murder did not have a

hearing where a judge would decide whether

they could be rehabilitated in juvenile court.

Kristi was held for many months in an adult

jail, fortunately supported by maternal and

paternal extended family, before she was

acquitted by a jury in an adult trial.

Behind Kristi’s involvement in an abusive

relationship were complex unmet needs to:

& Recover from her parents’ divorce

and her exposure to domestic vio-

lence, and understand the connection

between her worries about loss of

relationships and her eating problems

and use of substances; & Be proud of her academic performance; & Learn how to have a good dating

relationship without violence or

being controlled; and & Improve her ability to assess the riski-

ness of her choices.

These needs could be met by trauma

treatment, support from teachers and family

for good grades in school, and guidance in

deciding about whether to return to sports.

Commonalities Among These Young People

Of the five youths ages 13–16 arrested for a range

of offenses described previously, all had strengths.

Three had loving families and one had been

raised in the past by a loving grandmother. All

five needed, and had not received, trauma treat-

ment. The behavior for which they came to the

attention of the juvenile justice system (and one

of them to the child welfare system) was linked

to abuse, loss, harassment, and exposure to

violence. None of them understood the con-

nection between past trauma and their present

problems, even the two whose aggression was

directly related to prior victimization.

For two of the youth, their delinquent

behavior was associated with their untreated

learning disabilities. The other three did not

have disabilities, but had become alienated

from school and were not achieving as well

as they had in the past.

Immaturity affected all of their offenses. All

had immature thinking, minimized risk, and

were unable to anticipate the worst possible

outcomes of their behaviors. None of them

had the experience to realize that they needed

help and could not solve their problems them-

selves. One was helped by friends, one was loyal

to friends, two were pressured by older youth,

and one had poor peer relationships. All

expressed moral values and knew right from

wrong, but they were not rational and could

not use mature moral reasoning when caught up

in an offense they did not realize was going to

happen. The range of developmental character-

istics behind the behavior of these five youth is

presented in Table 1.1.

These portraits are quite different than the

standard files of system-involved youth might

suggest. Without minimizing the seriousness of

the acts these young people have committed,

each portrait attempts to explain how the youth

came to be in the situations that led them to

these actions, and based on that information,

what services would likely be successful in

building on their strengths and meeting their

needs so they can achieve adult lives of purpose.

They argue, in my view, for keeping youth out

of adult probation, jails, and prisons—allowing

them the opportunity to mature and to heal

within a juvenile justice system that can provide

developmentally sound support. The vignettes

also identify lost opportunities for intervening

before delinquent acts were ever committed.

A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 19

T a b le

1 .1 .

A D e v e lo p m e n ta l F r a m e w o r k fo r U n d e r st a n d in g F iv e S y st e m -I n v o lv e d Y o u th

D u st in

(A g e 1 3 )

M a r c o (A

g e 1 4 )

P e te r (A

g e 1 4 )

B ra n d o n (A

g e 1 5 )

K ri st i (A

g e 1 6 )

S T R E N G T H S

W an ts to

co m p le te

h ig h sc h o o l

N o p ri o r ar re st s o r su b st an ce

u se

K n o w s h u rt in g so m e o n e is

w ro n g

W an ts to

co m p le te

h ig h

sc h o o l

R e m o rs e fu l

W an ts fr ie n d s, n o n ab u si ve

h o m e

N o p ri o r ar re st s o r

su b st an ce

u se

W an ts to

go to

co lle ge

A th le ti c ta le n t

W an ts to

go to

co lle ge

N o p ri o r ar re st s

A th le ti c ta le n t

F A M IL Y C O N T E X T

A tt ac h e d to

e x te n d e d fa m ily

S tr o n g p o si ti ve

fa m ily

va lu e s

Fe lt cr it ic iz e d b y st e p fa th e r,

b e tr ay e d b y m o th e r

S tr o n g, ca ri n g fa m ily

D id n o t kn o w h o w to

p ro vi d e su p e rv is io n o r

e n co u ra ge m e n t

S e p ar at io n fr o m

m o th e r,

ab u se

in fo st e r h o m e ,

ab u se

b y fa th e r an d

st e p m o th e r

Y e ar s o f fe e lin g u n w an te d

S tr o n g, ca ri n g fa m ily

D id n o t re al iz e h e n e e d e d

m o re

su p e rv is io n an d h e lp

S tr o n g, ca ri n g fa m ily

D id n o t re al iz e sh e n e e d e d

m o re

su p e rv is io n an d h e lp

P E E R C O N T E X T

N o n d e lin q u e n t fr ie n d s

B ro th e r an d fr ie n d s in ga n g

P ic ke d o n e ve ry d ay

in

sc h o o lf o r 6 ye ar s

Fr ie n d s n o lo n ge r at h le te s an d

lik e ly to

d ro p o u t o f sc h o o l

D ai ly m ar iju an a u se

re q u ir e s $

N o n d e lin q u e n t fr ie n d s

e x ce p t h e r b o yf ri e n d

U n ab le to

le av e ab u si ve

b o yf ri e n d

S C H O O L

C O N T E X T

W e ll lik e d b y te ac h e rs

B e h in d ac ad e m ic al ly

N o te st in g fo r se rv ic e s

C ap ab le o f gr ad e -l e ve l

w o rk ,b u t al ie n at e d

Fe e ls te ac h e rs ar e

u n su p p o rt iv e

IE P fo r b e h av io r co n tr o l,

n o t fo r d is ab ili ti e s

Fe e ls n o o n e st o p p e d

m is tr e at m e n t

W as

an e x ce lle n t st u d e n t

W as

an e x ce lle n t st u d e n t

D e cr e as e d co n fi d e n ce

in

sc h o o l

N E IG

H B O R H O O D

C O N T E X T

L o ss o f re se rv at io n cu lt u re

S af e n e ig h b o rh o o d

T e rr ifi e d b y ga n g vi o le n ce

Is o la te d ru ra la re a

W o rk in g- cl as s n e ig h b o rh o o d

w it h in cr e as in g cr im e

L o w -c ri m e n e ig h b o rh o o d

IM M A T U R IT

Y Im p u ls iv e re ac ti o n to

cr it ic is m

D id n o t re al iz e an ge r an d

sa d n e ss co u ld e x p lo d e

D id n o t re al iz e h e n e e d e d h e lp

N o t e x ce lli n g at an yt h in g

M in im iz e d ri sk s o f jo in in g

ga n g

Fe lt h e h ad

n o ch o ic e b u t

to d o w h at w as

o rd e re d

D id n o t re al iz e h e n e e d e d

h e lp

N o t e x ce lli n g at an yt h in g

C an ’t an ti ci p at e

co n se q u e n ce s

D id n ’t w an t to

b e

p e rc e iv e d as

ga y

N o t su cc e ss fu la t an yt h in g

S e lf- d e st ru ct iv e b e h av io r

M in im iz e d ri sk s o f se lli n g

m ar iju an a

D id n o t re al iz e d ri ft aw

ay fr o m

p at h o f sc h o o la n d sp o rt s

D id n o t re al iz e h e n e e d e d h e lp

D id n o t w an t to

b e d is lo ya l

M in im iz e d ri sk s o f

b o yf ri e n d

M in im iz e d ri sk s o f al co h o l

an d m ar iju an a

D id n o t re al iz e sh e n e e d e d

h e lp

D e p e n d e n t

T R A U M A

P h ys ic al ab u se

S e p ar at io n fr o m

fa m ily

C o n st an t cr it ic is m

S tr e ss o f m o vi n g

D e at h s in fa m ily

P ar e n ts p re o cc u p ie d

C o n st an t fe ar fr o m

vi o le n ce

P re ss u re

to ac h ie ve

T o rm

e n te d b y te as in g

R e p e at e d ab u se

ca u se d

re fl e x iv e re ac ti o n to

th re at

D e p re ss e d

Fa th e r’ s m u rd e r

L o ss o f sp o rt s

M o th e r’ s jo b lo ss an d m o ve

B ro th e r le av in g

D iv o rc e

D o m e st ic vi o le n ce

at

h o m e

L o ss o f sp o rt s

D e p re ss e d

D IS A B IL IT

IE S

U n d ia gn o se d A D D an d /o r

e x e cu ti ve

fu n ct io n d e fi ci t

U n tr e at e d p ro ce ss in g,

at te n ti o n an d e x e cu ti ve

fu n ct io n d iffi cu lt ie s

20

Taking an ecologically oriented, trauma-

informed developmental view of who these

young people are, what they need, and what

they might yet become is a step toward provid-

ing them with the effective juvenile services

described in subsequent chapters.

REFERENCES

Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., Charles, D. R., Longworth,

S., McClelland, G., & Dulcan, M. (2004). Post-

traumatic stress disorder and trauma in youth in

juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61,

403–410.

American Medical Association (2005). Amici curiae brief,

Roper v. Simmons, United States Supreme Court,

pp. 4–20.

Arseneault, L., Walsh, E., Trzesniewski, K., Newcombe,

R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Bullying

victimization uniquely contributes to adjustment

problems in young children. Pediatrics, 130(9), 118.

Beyer, M. (2006). Fifty delinquents in juvenile and adult

court. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(2),

206–215.

Beyer, M., Blair, G., Katz, S., Simkins, S., & Steinberg.

A. (2003). A better way to spend $500,000: How

the juvenile justice system fails girls. Wisconsin

Women’s Law Journal, 18(1), 51–75.

Bishop, D. (2000). Juvenile offenders in the adult crimi-

nal justice system. Crime and Justice, 17, 81.

Brown, L., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads.

New York, NY: Ballantine.

Brosky, B. A., & Lally, S. J. (2004). Prevalence of trauma,

PTSD and dissociation in court-referred adolescents.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(7), 801–814.

Chamberlain, P., & Moore, K. (2002). Chaos and trauma

in the lives of adolescent females with antisocial

behavior and delinquency. Journal of Aggression,

Maltreatment and Trauma, 6(1), 79–108.

Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1998). The development of

depression in children and adolescents. American

Psychologist, 53, 221–241.

Cohen, J., Mannarino, A., & Deblinger, E. (2006).

Treating trauma and traumatic grief in children and

adolescents. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Cross, W. E., Jr., & Fhagen-Smith, P. (2001). Patterns of

African American identity development: A life span

perspective. In B. Jackson & C. Wijeyesinghe

(Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development:

A theoretical & practical anthology (pp. 243–270). New

York: New York University.

Dodge, K. A. (2003). Do social information processing

patterns mediate aggressive behavior? In B. Lahey,

T. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct

disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 254–274).

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Lansford, J. E., Miller-

Johnson, S., Petit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2006).

Toward a dynamic developmental model of the role

of parents and peers in early onset substance use. In

J. Dunn & A. Clarke-Stewart (Eds.), Families count:

Effects on child and adolescent development (pp. 104–131).

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. (2002). Community programs

to promote youth development. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Eisenberg, N., Morris, A. S., McDaniel, B., & Spinrad,

T. L. (2009). Moral cognitions and prosocial

responding in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L.

Steinberg, Handbook of adolescent psychology, Vol. 1:

Individual bases of adolescent development (3rd ed.,

pp. 229–265). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Eme, R. (2009). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

and the family court. Family Court Review, 47(4),

650–664.

Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle; selected

papers. New York, NY: International Universities

Press.

Fagan, J. (2000). Contexts of choices by adolescents in

criminal events. In T. Grisso & R. Schwartz (Eds.),

Youth on Trial (pp. 371–402). Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Fareri, D. S., Martin, L. N., & Delgado, M. R. (2008).

Reward-related processing in the human brain:

Developmental considerations. Development and

Psychopathology, 20, 1191–1211.

Ford, J. D., Chapman, J. F., Hawke, J., & Albert, D.

(2007). Trauma among youth in the juvenile justice

system: Critical issues and new directions. Retrieved

from National Center for Mental Health and Juve-

nile Justice Web site: www.ncmhjj.com

Furby, M., & Beythe-Marom, R. (1992). Risk-taking in

adolescence: A decision-making perspective. Devel-

opmental Review, 12, 1–44.

Galliher, R. V., Rostosky, S. S., & Hughes, H. K. (2004).

School belonging, self-esteem, and depressive

symptoms in adolescents: An examination of sex,

A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 21

sexual attraction status, and urbanicity. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 33(3), 235–245.

Garcia Coll, C., Akerman, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2000).

Cultural influences on developmental processes and

outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 12,

333–356.

Giaconia, R. M., Reinherz, H. Z., Paradis, A. D., &

Stashwick, C. K. (2003). Comorbidity of substance

use disorders and posttraumatic stress disorder in

adolescents. In P. Ouimette & P. J. Brown (Eds.),

Trauma and substance abuse (pp. 227–242). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Graham, S., & Lowry, B. (2004). Priming unconscious

racial stereotypes about adolescent offenders. Law

and Human Behavior, 28, 483–504.

Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., Scott, E.,

Graham, S., Lexcen, F., . . . Schwartz, R. (2003).

Juveniles’ competence to stand trial. Law and

Human Behavior, 27(4), 333–363.

Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2006). Perceived stress,

coping, and adjustment in adolescents. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 38, 409–415.

Hennessey, M., Ford, J. D., Mahoney, K., Ko, S., &

Siegfried, C. (2004). Trauma among girls in the

juvenile justice system. Los Angeles, CA: National

Child Traumatic Stress Network.

Horowitz, J. A., Vessey, J. A., Carlson, K. L., Bradley,

J. F., Montoya, C., McCullough, B., & David, J.

(2004). Teasing and bullying experiences of middle

school students. Journal of the American Psychiatric

Nurses Association, 10(4), 165–172.

Kazdin, A. (2000). Adolescent development, mental

disorders, and decision making of delinquent

youth. In T. Grisso & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth

on trial (pp. 33–65). Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Kerig, P. K., Ward, R. M., Vanderzee, K. L., & Moeddel,

M. A. (2009). Posttraumatic stress as a mediator of

the relationship between trauma and mental health

problems among juvenile delinquents. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 38(9), 1214–1225.

Kindlon, D., & Thompson, M. (1999). Raising Cain:

Protecting the emotional life of boys. New York, NY:

Ballantine.

Kroger, J. (2003). Identity development during adoles-

cence. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.),

Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 205–226).

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Larson, R. W., Moneta, G., Richards, M. H., & Wilson,

S. (2002). Continuity, stability, and change in daily

emotional experience across adolescence. Child

Development, 73(4), 1151–1165.

Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human

development (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lerner, R., & Steinberg, L. (2004). The scientific study

of adolescent development past, present, and future.

In R. Lerner and L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of

adolescent psychology (pp. 1–12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lieberman, A., & Van Horn, P. (2004). Assessment and

treatment of young children exposed to traumatic

events. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Young children and trauma

(pp. 194–216). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Luthar, S. S. (2003). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation

in the context of childhood adversities. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Majd, K., Marksamer, J., & Reyes, C., (2009). Hidden

injustice: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in

juvenile courts. Legal Services for Children, National

Juvenile Defender Center, and National Center for

Lesbian Rights. San Francisco, CA.

McGowan, A., Hahn, R., Liberman, A., Crosby, A.,

Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., . . . Task Force on

Community Preventive Services. (2007). Effects

on violence of laws and policies facilitating the

transfer of juveniles from the juvenile justice system

to the adult justice system (Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention). American Journal of Pre-

ventive Medicine, 32(4 Suppl), 7–28.

Ney, P., Colbert, P., Newman, B., & Young, J. (1986).

Aggressive behavior and learning difficulties as

symptoms of depression in children, Child Psychiatry

and Human Development, 17(1), 3–14.

Ofshe, R., & Leo, R. (1997). Decision to confess

falsely. Denver University Law Review, 74, 979–

1122.

Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents

and long-term outcomes. In K. H. Rubin & J. B.

Asendorf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and

shyness (pp. 315–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Osofsky, J. D. (2004). Young children and trauma: Interven-

tion and treatment. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Owen-Kostelnik, J., Reppucci, N. D., & Meyer, J. R.

(2006). Testimony and interrogation of minors:

Assumptions about maturity and morality. American

Psychologist, 61(4), 286–304.

Price, J. M., & Landsverk, J. (1998). Social information-

processing patterns as predictors of social adaptation

and behavior problems among maltreated child-

ren in foster care. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(9),

845–858.

22 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

Putnick, D. L., Bornstein, M. H., Hendricks, C.,

Painter, K. M., Suwalsky, J. T., & Collins, W. A.

(2008). Parenting stress, perceived parenting behav-

iors, and adolescent self-concept in European

American families. Journal of Family Psychology,

22(5), 752–762.

Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M. & Sanchez, J.

(2009) Family rejection as a predictor of negative

health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay

and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 1, 346–352.

Scott, E. S., & Grisso, T. (1997). The evolution of

adolescence: A developmental perspective on juve-

nile justice reform. The Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology, 88, 137–189.

Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescent devel-

opment and the regulation of youth crime. The

Future of Children, 18(2), 15–33.

Sedlak, A., & McPherson, K. (2010). Conditions of

confinement: Findings from the Survey of Youth in

Residential Placement (May). Washington, DC: Of-

fice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-

tion, U. S. Department of Justice.

Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1995). Stress, coping, and relationships

in adolescence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Smetana, J. G., & Turiel, E. (2003). Moral development

during adolescence. In G. R. Adams & M. D.

Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence

(pp. 247–268). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Smith, D., Leve, L., & Chamberlain, P. (2006). Adoles-

cent girls’ offending and health-risking sexual

behavior: The predictive role of trauma. Child

Maltreatment, 11(4), 346–353.

Spear, L. P. (2000) The adolescent brain and age-related

behavioral manifestations. Neuroscience and Biobeha-

vioral Reviews, 417–463.

Spencer, M. B., Harpalani, V., Cassidy, E., Jacobs, C. Y.,

Donde, S., Goss, T. N., . . . Wilson, S. (2006).

Understanding vulnerability and resilience from a

normative developmental perspective: Implications

for racially and ethnically diverse youth. In D. Chic-

chetti (Ed.), Handbook of development and psycho-

pathology (pp. 627–673). New York, NY: Wiley.

Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective

on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review,

28, 78–106.

Steinberg, L., & Haskins, R. (2008). Keeping adolescents

out of prison. Princeton University-Brookings In-

stitution Policy Brief. Retrieved from www.future

ofchildren.org

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts,

N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time

changes in adjustment and competence among

adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, in-

dulgent and neglectful families. Child Development,

65, 754–770.

Warden, R., & Drizin, S. (Eds.). (2009). True stories of false

confessions. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University.

Widom, C. S. (1994). Child victimization and adoles-

cent problem behavior. In R. D. Ketterlinus &

M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Adolescent problem behavior: Issues

and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2006).

Adolescent development. In P. A. Alexander &

P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology

(2nd ed., pp. 87–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wilber, S., Ryan, C., & Marksamer, J. (2006). Serving

LGBT youth in out-of-home care. Washington, DC:

Child Welfare League of America.

Wills, T. A., Sandy, J. M., & Yaeger, A. M. (2001).

Coping dimensions, life stress, and adolescent sub-

stance use: A latent growth analysis. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 110, 309–323.

Wolfe, D., Rawana, J., & Chiodo, D. (2006). Abuse and

trauma. In D. Wolfe & E. Mash (Eds.), Behavioral

and emotional disorders in adolescents. New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Wood, J., Foy, D., Goguen, C., Pynoos, R., & James,

C. B. (2002a). Violence exposure and PTSD among

delinquent girls. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment

and Trauma, 6(1), 109–126.

Wood, J., Foy, D., Layne, C., Pynoos, R., & James, C. B.

(2002b). An examination of the relationships be-

tween violence exposure, posttraumatic stress

symptomatology, and delinquent activity: An

“ecopathological” model of delinquent behavior

among incarcerated adolescents. In R. Greenwald

(Ed.), Trauma and juvenile delinquency (pp. 109–126).

New York, NY: Hayworth.

Zahn, M. (2009). The delinquent girl. Philadelphia, PA:

Temple.

A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 23

2 CHAPTER

Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement

KRISTI HOLSINGER

C onventional wisdom about juveniles and

delinquency control measures in this

country has evolved substantially over time,

yielding fragmented, contradictory, and at

times even chaotic, approaches to managing

juvenile delinquency—hardly a “system” in

any conventional sense and certainly “young”

in its development. In turn, shifting perspec-

tives on who these youth are and how they

should be treated have bedeviled attempts

to standardize how they and their offenses

are described and documented. Based on

nationally available data, this chapter presents

as full and accurate a portrait as possible of

these young people, at each stage of their

involvement with the juvenile justice system.

A brief review of the history of the develop-

ment and current operations of the system will

proceed to provide necessary context for the

data that follow.

THE HISTORICAL LEGACY OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Some mark the beginning of the juvenile

justice system in the early 1800s, when states

began to supersede parental authority and

rights by institutionalizing “deviant” children,

often for cheap labor, however, still treating

them similarly to adult criminals (Mennel,

1972). An important counterdevelopment

occurred in 1841 with the advent of probation

for children; similar “child-helping” initiatives

soon followed with the creation of reform

schools. However, it was during the Progres-

sive Era when reforms that credited the age-

minority status of children, including the

establishment of the first juvenile court in

1899, became widespread.

The reformers of this period saw the main

goal of the juvenile justice court as treatment

and rehabilitation, not punishment. Delin-

quency was a condition that could be identi-

fied, treated, and cured, they argued, through

an individual analysis of the youth’s special

needs and circumstances. In response, the

court eliminated the punitive, adversarial,

and formalized procedures of the adult

criminal process and adopted more informal

proceedings characterized by greatly increas-

ing judicial discretion; as an unintended

consequence, many due process protections

afforded adults were eliminated.

Eventually, common belief held that the

juveniles were getting “the worst of both

worlds” (Kent v. United States, 1966, p. 556),

receiving neither the necessary help or treat-

ment promised by the juvenile court, nor the

procedural protection adults in the criminal

justice system enjoyed. Landmark cases heard

by the Supreme Court (e.g., In re Gault, 1967;

24

Juvenile Justice: Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice Edited by Francine T. Sherman and Francine H. Jacobs

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

In re Winship, 1970) supported this contention,

and the rights of juveniles were greatly

expanded, institutionalizing some of the for-

mality of the adult system in the juvenile court.

Juveniles began to be treated more like adults

in other ways as well; for example, the 1980s

marked efforts by virtually every state to allow

easier transfer of youth to adult court (Feld,

1998; Torbet et al., 1996; see Sherman &

Blitzman, Chapter 4, this volume).

Research in the 1960s and 1970s also

identified serious flaws in the system. Correc-

tional “treatment,” especially in institutions,

was punitive, harsh, and sometimes even sa-

distic (Holland & Mlyniec, 1995; President’s

Commission on Law Enforcement and Ad-

ministration of Justice, 2008; also see Beck,

Harrison, & Guerino, 2010, for a current

review and analysis of sexual victimization in

juvenile facilities), and minor offenders were

incarcerated alongside seriously delinquent

youth. In the 1970s, deinstitutionalization

(providing programs in community-based set-

tings rather than in institutions) and diversion

(keeping youth out of the system to begin with)

were promoted. The decriminalization and

deinstitutionalization of status offenses were

also encouraged, largely due to provisions in

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-

tion Act of 1974.

By the 1980s, a score of social and demo-

graphic factors precipitated a shift away from

the long-standing posture of rehabilitation to

one reflecting a “get tough” mentality (Butts &

Mears, 2001). Crime control policies instituted

for juveniles included lowering the age limit

for juvenile court jurisdiction, the increased

use of preventative detention, the increased

transfer of juveniles to the adult system, a move

toward determinate sentencing for violent

offenders, and even the use of the death

penalty for certain crimes. Data linking these

get-tough measures with reductions in youth

crime have not been forthcoming; in fact, an

in-depth analysis in Florida found such puni-

tive measures to have a negligible impact on

juvenile crime rates (Frazier, Bishop, & Lanza-

Kaduce, 1999). Recent developmental re-

search on adolescent brain functioning also

suggests that youth do not have the same skills

as adults in weighing costs and benefits and

acting rationally (Scott & Steinberg, 2000).

These developments have called into question

the wisdom of the policy shifts of the 1980s

and 1990s.

Interestingly, both of these contradictory

approaches remain part of the current juvenile

justice system. States and counties vary greatly

in their ideological viewpoints on, and their

legislation concerning, juvenile crime; juve-

nile court practices are also determined by the

demographics and geography of states and by

the resources available for youth in a given

community (see Schiraldi, Schindler &

Goliday, Chapter 20, this volume). All this

leads to wide variation across the country in

the youth who are involved in the juvenile

justice system, which in turn produces broad

variation in selection and maintenance of both

person- and crime-specific data.

HOW JUVENILE CASES ARE PROCESSED

There are almost 3,000 juvenile courts in

operation in the United States (Krisberg,

2005). The number of delinquency cases

handled by them remained largely stable be-

tween 2000 and 2007, with approximately 1.7

million cases handled nationwide in 2007

(Knoll & Sickmund, 2010). As can be seen

from Figure 2.1, the juvenile court caseload

climbed steadily from 1960, when 400,000

cases were processed, to the peak year in 1997

with over 1.8 million cases (Puzzanchera &

Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement 25

Sickmund, 2009). Between 1997 and 2007,

there was an 11% decline in delinquency cases

(Puzzanchera, Adams, & Sickmund, 2011).

This decrease has been attributed to reductions

in juvenile violent crime and expanded laws

allowing for juvenile cases to be directly trans-

ferred to adult courts (Adams & Addie, 2010).

The juvenile justice process typically be-

gins with a referral, which can be handled

informally or formally, or diverted. Most juve-

niles (83% in 2007; Puzzanchera et al., 2011)

are referred into the system by law enforce-

ment, although many cases drop out of the

system through informal processing or diver-

sion. Other referrals come from schools,

parents, victims, probation officers, and social

service agencies, largely dependent on the

offense. For example, in 2002 non-law

enforcement referrals accounted for a small

percentage of property (9%), drug (10%) and

person offenses (13%), and a larger percentage

of truancy (86%), ungovernability (70%), run-

away (45%), and public order offenses (39%)

(Snyder & Sickmund, 2004).

Beginning in the 1990s, there has been a

trend of increased school referrals to juvenile

court as the result of zero-tolerance state

laws mandating referral of children to law

enforcement for certain school violations

(see Bell & Mariscal, Chapter 6, this volume;

Boundy & Karger, Chapter 14, this volume;

Vaught, Chapter 15, this volume). An analysis

of school referrals in five states found that

four of the states experienced a greater pro-

portion of referrals from schools to juvenile

court in 2004 compared to 1995 (Krezmien,

Leone, Zablocki, & Wells, 2009). Initially

concerned with drugs, gangs, and weapons,

zero-tolerance laws have expanded to include

behaviors considered disruptive (Skiba, 2001).

This practice has led to a phenomenon

referred to as the “school-to-prison pipeline”

where certain groups of students, particularly

African American students, are put on a path-

way by schools into the justice system (Wald &

Losen, 1995; see Boundy & Karger, Chapter 14,

this volume).

The decision to detain a juvenile must

involve parental notification and a review by

an intake officer or a prosecutor to ensure

sufficient evidence to proceed. At this point

in processing, 44% of the cases are dismissed or

handled informally, while slightly more than

half (56%) result in formal intervention by the

court (Sickmund, 1988). Holding a youth for

an extended period of time (over 24 hours in

Figure 2.1 Number of Delinquency Cases, 1960–2005

Source: Adapted from Puzzanchera and Sickmund, 2008.

26 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

most states) requires a judicial decision and

typically is determined by whether the youth

is believed to be a harm to self or others; the

youth lacks a parent or guardian, which can

include homelessness or runaway status; or it is

believed the youth is unlikely to appear for

future court proceedings (Chesney-Lind &

Shelden, 2004). In 2005, detention hearings

resulted in 21% of youth being detained

(Snyder & Sickmund, 2004).

A delinquency case is handled in either

juvenile or criminal (adult) court. Between

1992 and 1997, 44 states and the District of

Columbia passed laws increasing the likeli-

hood a juvenile would be waived to adult

criminal court, either through changes in

the law or by giving judges and/or prosecutors

increased discretion (Allard & Young, 2002).

The criteria and process for waiver to adult

court are determined by state statute, but

largely reflect an individual or policy decision

about whether a youth or groups of youth are

likely to be rehabilitated by the services pro-

vided in the juvenile court (see Sherman &

Blitzman, Chapter 4, this volume).

Less than 1% of all delinquency cases result

in judicial waiver, and about half are for person-

related offenses (48%), with the other half being

transferred to the adult system for property

(27%), drug-related (13%), or public order

offenses (11%) (Adams & Addie, 2010). This

offense distribution has changed considerably

when compared to transfers 20 years ago. In

1985, most cases involved property offenses

(53%), followed by person (33%), public order

(9%), and drug offenses (5%) (Adams & Addie,

2010). In 2007, approximately 8,500 cases were

waived to criminal court. Most waived cases

involved males (90%) over the age of 15 (88%)

(Adams & Addie, 2010). To date, research on

the use of waivers for juveniles is not supportive

of the practice, as there is no evidence that it

achieves reductions in recidivism or youth

crime, and in fact the practice may lead to

increased recidivism (Bishop, 2000; Bishop &

Frazier, 2000).

Because of waivers, youth are eligible to

receive life sentences. In 2008, the number of

juveniles serving life terms was 6,807, and,

depending on the source, between 26% and

37% of these youth have no chance of parole

(Human Rights Watch, 2008; Nellis & King,

2009). While virtually every state doles out life

terms (exceptions are Indiana, Maine, Ver-

mont, and West Virginia), more than 50%

of these juveniles are from five states: Califor-

nia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Nevada.

Juveniles sentenced to life without parole are

most likely to come from the states of Penn-

sylvania, California, Michigan, and Louisiana.

In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court held that a

sentence of life without parole for juveniles

in nonhomicide cases was unconstitutional

(Graham v. Florida, 2010; see Sherman &

Blitzman, Chapter 4, this volume).

If a case proceeds in juvenile court, an

adjudicatory hearing is scheduled, and the case

is typically decided by a judge (see Figure 2.2

for the typical case flow in the juvenile justice

system). In juvenile court, a separate hearing

is held to determine the disposition of the

case. This separate hearing allows time for a

presentence investigative report to be filed

based on a probation officer’s assessment of

the unique needs and circumstances of the

juvenile and exists as evidence of the court’s

enduring goal of individualized treatment and

rehabilitation. A judge then determines the

disposition of the case, although input from

the prosecution, youth, and probation officers

can be presented (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

Two categories of offenses that come to the

attention of juvenile courts are criminal offenses

and status offenses, the latter of which are

behaviors deemed illegal based solely on the

minor status of the offender (i.e., running away,

Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement 27

truancy, consuming alcohol). Processing for

these two types of offenses is similar; however,

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-

tion Act (JJDPA) of 1974 (P.L. 93-415, 88 Stat.

1109) and subsequent reauthorizations (1977,

1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2002) prohibit the use

of secure detention for status offenses. In the

JJDPA, states were required to use services

outside of the juvenile justice system, such as

group homes or shelter facilities run by family

or social services in lieu of juvenile court

residential placements. However, many status

offenders still find their way into detention and

placements through the valid court order

(VCO) exception, passed in 1980 and included

in subsequent reauthorizations. Under the

VCO exception, status offenders can be de-

tained if they violate a valid court order in the

form, for example, of a probation condition. In

2007, about 11% of all adjudicated status of-

fenders were in court ordered out of home

placement (Puzzanchera et al., 2010).

Due to the less serious nature of most

juvenile crime, the most common disposition

has always been, and remains, probation.

Probation or regularly scheduled meetings

between a probation officer and juvenile of-

fender results in 56% of cases adjudicated

delinquent and typically include other man-

dates such as drug testing, counseling, or

restitution (Sickmund, 2010). After reaching

a peak in 1997, the number of cases adjudi-

cated delinquent and sanctioned to probation

declined 17% by 2007 (Puzzanchera et al.,

2010). Probation, either for a fixed amount

or an open-ended amount of time, is termi-

nated once the specified conditions have been

met (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Regardless

Figure 2.2 Juvenile Justice System Case Flow Diagram

Source: Adapted from Snyder and Sickmund, 2006.

28 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

of the effectiveness of probation, its use suc-

cessfully allows a youth to avoid the many

negative consequences now associated with

incarceration (Bernburg & Krohn, 2003).

Twenty-five percent of offenders adjudi-

cated delinquent are placed in a residential

facility for a specified or indeterminate time,

which is the most severe outcome available for

juveniles within the juvenile justice system

(Sickmund, 2010). Approximately 95,000

youth are held in juvenile justice facilities

and publicly operated facilities house 69% of

juvenile offenders (Livsey, Sickmund, &

Sladky, 2009). In 2007, state-funded, postad-

judicatory, residential facilities cost an average

of $241 per day (American Correctional As-

sociation, 2008). The use of out-of-home

residential placements peaked in 1997 and

decreased 16% through 2007, with the largest

decreases taking place for property offenses

(34% reduction between 1997 and 2007)

and drug offenses (16% reduction) (Puzzan-

chera et al., 2010). Rehabilitative ideals typi-

cally coincide with an indeterminate sentence, in

which the juvenile is held until juvenile justice

professionals feel he or she is adequately

reformed, whereas a determinate sentence, which

is based on the offense and specific sentencing

guidelines determined by states, is more con-

sistent with “get-tough” practices (Forst,

Fisher, & Coates, 1985).

Upon release from residential facilities,

jails, and adult prisons, some form of juvenile

aftercare (referred to as parole in the adult

system) is typically available, but jurisdictions

vary greatly on the extent to which aftercare is

treatment oriented. From an accountability

perspective, there are usually conditions dur-

ing this time period, which, if violated, can

result in recommitment. In spite of very high

recidivism rates for system-involved youth,

aftercare is underdeveloped in most juvenile

justice systems (Mears & Travis, 2004).

Relying on institutions to “fix” juveniles

in the system is problematic, as abusive and

harsh conditions remain a reality (Beck et al.,

2010). A survey conducted by the Associated

Press found 13,000 claims of abuse from 2004

through 2007, but only a fraction of these is

confirmed, likely related to the positions of

authority held by adults in these environments

(Mohr, 2008). A 2010 report by the Bureau of

Justice Statistics based on the National Survey

of Youth in Custody (26,550 youth) found

that 12% (n ¼ 3,220) report experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization

by another youth or facility staff in the past

12 months (Beck et al., 2010). Staff sexual

misconduct accounts for the majority of the

incidents (85%), and boys report more abuse

by staff, while girls are at greatest risk for sexual

victimization by another youth (Beck et al.,

2010). These statistics are of particular con-

cern, given the higher rates of childhood

victimization that exist in the delinquent pop-

ulation compared to the general population

and the potential for additional traumatic

experiences in the girls’ lives.

OFFENSE TRENDS

Much of what is known about juvenile arrests

and offense trends comes from the Uniform

Crime Reports (UCR) compiled by the U.S.

Department of Justice through the Federal

Bureau of Investigation; these data are based

on reports submitted by law enforcement

agencies. In 2008, 95% of the total population

of law enforcement agencies was represented

by the UCR, making it the most comprehen-

sive data set on juvenile crime available (U.S.

Department of Justice, 2009). Nonetheless,

there are questions about the extent to which

the data represent an accurate picture of juve-

nile crime. The most frequent criticism has

Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement 29

been that the data are affected by discretionary

police policies and practices, such as the level

of police presence in a particular area. Further,

many juvenile crimes are committed that

never come to the attention of the police, a

statement particularly true for minor offenses.

Additionally, arrest statistics do not reflect the

guilt of an individual. As a result, when possi-

ble, it is important to examine multiple data

sources that use several different research

methodologies, in addition to arrest statistics,

in order to gain the most complete picture

possible of youth crime. 1

In 2009, the number of juveniles arrested

was 1,919,257, comprising 17.8% of the total

number of arrests for all ages (U.S. Department

of Justice, 2010). This number captures the

number of arrests, not the number of juvenile

offenders, and therefore includes multiple

arrests of the same person within the year.

Additionally, only the most serious offense

is recorded in cases where multiple crimes

are committed.

As shown in Figure 2.3 above, of all the

juvenile arrests, the vast majority (73.4%) were

for less serious felonies and misdemeanors (also

called “nonindex” or Part II offenses). Index

crimes (also referred to as Part I offenses) are

the eight serious, felony-level crimes of mur-

der, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, larceny-

theft (over $50), motor vehicle theft, and

arson. Approximately one quarter (26.6%) of

juvenile arrests were for index crimes (22.2%

for property index offenses and 4.4% for vio-

lent index offenses).

In 1980, approximately 7,400 juveniles

were arrested, a number that continued to

climb to its peak of approximately 9,400

in 1996 (see Figure 2.4). Ten-year trends,

from 2000 to 2009, indicate that arrest rates

of juveniles are down 20.2%, with greater

1 Other data sources available include large self-report

studies, which collect data from the youth themselves

(i.e., the National Youth Survey, www.colorado.edu/

IBS/NYSFS/, Monitoring the Future, www.monitor

ingthefuture.org), the National Crime Victimization

Survey, which gathers data from victims of crimes

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov.bjs), and Juvenile Court Statistics,

which are a compilation of records of cases handles by

juvenile courts (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org).

Figure 2.3 Percentage of Juvenile Arrests by Offense Type, 2009

non-index

property index

violent index

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, 2010.

30 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

reductions seen in index property crimes

(down 20.3%) than in index violent crimes

(down 15.0%) (U.S. Department of Justice,

2010). From 2008 to 2009, juvenile arrests

fell an additional 2.4%, with a decrease in

violent index crimes (2.3%) and an increase

in index property crimes (1.6%) (U.S. Depart-

ment of Justice, 2010). Although the UCR has

been critiqued for reflecting enforcement prac-

tices, these reductions in arrests are substantiated

by the National Crime Victimization Survey

(NCVS), which finds serious violent and

property victimizations at their lowest levels

since 1973 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008).

Between 2005 and 2007, the NCVS showed

reductions in violent crime (1.9%), personal

theft (11.1%), and property crimes (5%). 2

From large self-report studies that rely on

youth’s disclosure about law violations, several

other important factors about juvenile crime

are revealed (Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985;

Nye, Short, & Olson, 1958; Williams & Gold,

1972). First, apropos to this method of data

gathering, unlike official data, self-report

surveys typically tap less serious, even trivial,

delinquent behaviors that are unlikely to come

to the attention of the police. This measure-

ment approach to juvenile crime showed that

minor acts of delinquency are common among

youth in the general population in all socio-

economic groups, thus questioning the social

class–delinquency relationship (Akers & Sellers,

2008). However, shortcomings of the available

data abound, particularly regarding their accu-

racy capturing more frequent and serious

offenses (Elliott & Ageton, 1980). This critique

has led to the development of studies that

identified a relatively small group of chronic

offenders who commit a disproportionate

amount of crime and delinquency (Blumstein,

Cohen, & Farrington, 1988).

An overwhelming strength of self-report

studies is the ability to test theoretical propo-

sitions by collecting a variety of data. For

example, the National Youth Survey, one of

the most comprehensive attempts to measure

delinquency through self-report survey

methodology, found that having delinquent

peers was the best independent predictor of

self-reported offending for early adolescence,

but not an important predictor in childhood

(Elliott & Menard, 1996). These data also

Figure 2.4 Arrests per 100,000 Juveniles, Ages 10–17, 1980–2008

Source: Adapted from Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009.

2 NCVS data are not specific to juvenile offenders, but

rather reports all victimizations regardless of the age of

the offender.

Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement 31

support the contention that juvenile crime has

been relatively stable over time (Osgood,

O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1989). Con-

trary to negative media representation, crime

by juveniles is at its lowest level in decades

(Krisberg, 2005). Reductions in the youth

crime rate have occurred despite slow, steady

growth in the juvenile population over the past

25 years. Although the juvenile population is

not the fastest growing segment of the popu-

lation, it increased by 10 million from 1984

(62.5 million) to 2008 (72.3 million), and is

projected to continue a slow increase through

2025 (Day, 1996).

Another valuable data source on system-

involved youth and the functioning of the

juvenile court is Juvenile Court Statistics,

now including 80% of U.S. juvenile court

activities (Sickmund, Sladky, & Kang, 2008).

These data provide information on the types

and dispositions of cases handled by the juve-

nile courts. In 2005, the referring offense for

juveniles was most often a property offense

(35.3%), followed by a public order offense

(27.9%). Violent or person offenses repre-

sented about a quarter of the cases (25.3%),

with drugs making up the smallest percentage

of cases (11.5%). Marked declines exist when

comparing property offenses committed by

youth over the past 20 years with less dramatic

increases seen in the remaining three offense

categories of person, drug, and public order

offenses (see Table 2.1).

Over the past 20 years, referrals have

become more likely to be handled formally

(55.9% in 2005, compared to 45.6% in 1985)

and more likely to result in adjudication (36.7%

in 2005, compared to 29% in 1985). The use

of detention has been slightly variable without

consistent trends, but the 20-year average is

20%, meaning 2 out of every 10 youth are held

in detention (Sickmund et al., 2008).

RISKS TO, AND STRENGTHS OF, SYSTEM-INVOLVED YOUTH

Historically, system-involved youth have been

characterized by their deficits, even among

those who have advocated for more humane

and rehabilitative approaches to addressing

delinquency. These deficits appear either as

actual conditions or limitations that are

documented at some point during involve-

ment with the system, or as “risk factors”—

characteristics of the individual child, his or

her family, or community that, as statistical

predictors, increase the likelihood of a youth

becoming delinquent. (See Braverman &

Morris, Chapter 3, this volume, for a

comprehensive treatment of risks implicated

in delinquency.) These risks do not predict

offending with certainty, but indeed, a host of

factors—for example, impulsive or aggressive

childhood behavior, or child maltreatment—

have been found to be statistically correlated

Table 2.1. Percentages of Selected Juvenile Court Referral Offense Types, 1985–2005

Year Person Property Drugs Public Order

1985 15.9 60.8 6.7 16.9

1990 19.1 58.4 5.3 17.3

1995 22.0 50.1 9 18.9

2000 23.0 39.8 11.5 25.7

2005 25.3 35.3 11.5 27.9

Source: Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2008.

32 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

with delinquency. The effect of risk factors can

be cumulative, dependent on the timing in

which they occur in a youth’s development;

however, they also may be mitigated by exist-

ing strengths, or “protective factors,” in a

youth’s ecology.

The strengths perspective, also referred to

as a resiliency framework (Masten & Powell,

2003; Saleebey, 2005) and positive youth de-

velopment (Lerner, Taylor, & von Eye, 2002;

see Lerner et al., Chapter 5, this volume),

recognize the strengths in individuals, families,

and communities and seeks to collaborate

with, and utilize, existing resources outside of

the justice system. (See Beyer, Chapter 1, this

volume, for youth profiles that integrate both

strengths and risks.) Strengths are often con-

ceptualized as “protective factors” that can

counteract the negative effects of risk factors

in youth’s lives as well as promote prosocial

behavior in youth. They are defined as “those

factors that mediate or moderate the effect of

exposure to risk factors, resulting in reduced

incidence of problem behavior” (Pollard,

Hawkins, & Arthur 1999, p. 146). At times,

protective factors are the exact opposite of a

given risk factor, forexample, excellent academic

performance versus academic failure. They can

also be “characteristics or conditions that inter-

act with risk factors to reduce their influence”

(Office of the Surgeon General, 2001) but are

not necessarily “cures” to delinquency.

Although a full portrait of youth present-

ing both risks and strengths would help the

juvenile justice system develop more appro-

priate strategies for combating delinquency

and promoting better functioning, the system

remains largely deficit based. The strengths

of these youth are insufficiently identified,

measured, and utilized (Masten & Powell,

2003; see Beyer, Chapter 1, this volume;

Lerner et al., Chapter 5, this volume; Schiraldi

et al., Chapter 20, this volume).

THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF SYSTEM-INVOLVED YOUTH

Understanding exactly who are the youth

involved in the system is a complicated matter.

Any national-level descriptive demographic

profile of juvenile offenders results from offi-

cial data and therefore represents only youth

who are involved in the system, not all youth

who commit offenses and do not come to the

attention of the police, or those who are not

formally processed. Therefore, demographic

data related to age, gender, race/ethnicity, and

geography presented in this section focus on

youth who are processed in the juvenile justice

system. Additionally, disabilities and mental

health issues are reported, given their preva-

lence among this population.

Age

Each state determines the age at which a child

will be under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.

Sixteen states specify a minimum age: 6 years

old (North Carolina), 7 years old (Maryland,

Massachusetts, and New York), 8 years old

(Arizona), and 10 years old (Arkansas,

Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,

Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin), while the

remaining states do not specify an age but rely

on the common-law age of 7 for inclusion in

juvenile court (Snyder & Sickmund, 2004).

The oldest age for juvenile court jurisdiction

in delinquency matters ranges from 16 (New

York and North Carolina) to 18, with 17

being the age limit in 11 states. This has

been an issue on which states have recently

amended their laws, with the trend toward

raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction

to 18, expanding youth’s access to the the

juvenile justice system rather than the adult

criminal justice system (Arya, 2011).

Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement 33

The UCR disaggregates arrest statistics by

age. Arrest data also indicate the mean age at

which youth are arrested for violent offenses

(18 years old) and property offenses (16 years

old) (U.S. Department of Justice, 2008). Data

on arrests of juvenile offenders under the age of

15 show that their involvement in serious

violent crime and serious property crimes is

sizable, 27% and 29%, respectively, and similar

for nonindex offenses (27%; see Figure 2.5,

above). The highest offense categories for this

age group within nonindex offenses are sex

offenses (47%) and vandalism (40%). Their

highest offense category overall is arson, where

they make up 56% of juvenile arrests. In terms

of violent index crimes, youth in the lower age

category are responsible for 34% of forcible

rape arrests and 31% of aggravated assaults.

Of the cases processed in juvenile court in

2005, juveniles under the age of 16 accounted

for 57% of all delinquency cases (4% under the

age of 12, 5% 12-year-olds, 10% 13-year-

olds, 17% 14-year-olds, 23% 15-year-olds)

(Sickmund, 2009; Sickmund et al., 2008).

This younger age group accounted for 64% of

all juvenilepersonoffensecases,59%ofproperty

offense cases, 54% of public order offense cases,

and42%ofdrugoffensecases(Sickmund,2009).

The rank ordering of these cases stays the same

when looking at the proportions of juvenile

cases processed of youth younger than age 14

(24% person offense cases, 20% propertyoffense

cases, 15% public order offense cases, and 8%

drug offense cases) (Sickmund, 2009).

Sixteen-year-olds make up the largest pro-

portion of juvenile court cases (24%), with

involvement lower for 17-year-olds (18%)

(Sickmund et al., 2008). There has been

very little change over time in terms of the

age representation in the juvenile court. The

most notable changes are a 20-year decrease in

the number of youth under the age of 12 (6.4%

in 1985 versus 3.8% in 2005) and slight in-

creases in the numbers of 16- and 17-year-olds

(Sickmund et al., 2008). In 2005, 15% of the

cases transferred to adult court were of youth

age 15 or younger, with the remaining 85%

being 16 or older; however, that profile has

Figure 2.5 Percentage of Juvenile Arrests Under Age 15, by Offense Type, 2008

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, 2009.

34 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

shifted to include younger transfers over time.

In 1985, only 7% of referrals were 15 years old

or younger (Adams & Addie, 2009).

Gender

Females’ involvement in crime is lower com-

pared to boys for the most serious crimes. Girls

make up 18.6% of index violent offense

arrests, 31.3% of index property offenses,

and 18.6% of the nonindex offenses. Notably,

females make up 69.6% of those arrested for

prostitution and 55.2% of those arrested for

running away. Based on the UCR, juvenile

female involvement has been slowly on the rise

over time. In 1980, girls made up 21% of

arrests, with recent data reporting that girls

make up 30% of all arrests in 2008 (U.S.

Department of Justice, 2009).

Between 2000 and 2009, arrest rates de-

creased 22.9% for boys and 13.1% for girls.

The reductions seen during this period are

most significant when looking at index prop-

erty crimes—down 29.2% for boys, but up

almost 1% for girls. Index violent crimes since

2000 are down 14.5% for boys and down

16.9% for girls (U.S. Department of Justice,

2010). The most significant changes in the

female percentage of arrests can be attributed

to increases in simple assaults (up 13% from

1980 to 2008), aggravated assaults (up 8%), and

larceny-theft (up 18%) (U.S. Department of

Justice, 1981, 2009). It is primarily for these

offenses that gender differences are narrowing.

However, detailed data analyses do not con-

clude that girls are becoming overall more

violent; rather explanations focus on how

changes, from law enforcement practices to

zero-tolerance policies in schools, are driving

the increase in girls’ arrests (Zahn et al., 2008).

Juvenile court statistics show that in 2007,

females made up about 27% of youth processed

in juvenile court, a number that has been also

on the rise since 1985, when girls made up 19%

of all court-involved juveniles (Sickmund et al.,

2008). For most offenses, female delinquency

cases have grown more or decreased less than

male delinquency cases (Snyder &

Sickmund, 2006). However, overall, males ap-

pear to be receiving harsher treatment than

females, which could be related to contextual

differences in offending, indicating more serious

typical offenses for males within broad offense

categories (Zahn et al., 2008). For example,

in 2005, males were more likely than females

to be detained (22.5% versus 16.6%), more likely

to be handled formally (58.9% versus 48.0%),

and more likely to be adjudicated delinquent

(39.1% versus 30.5%) (Sickmund et al., 2008).

Limitations in the data collected, such as

the absence of information on the seriousness

of the behavior or a youth’s court history,

both of which can influence case outcome,

require caution in making gender comparisons

(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006; see Sherman &

Greenstone, Chapter 7, this volume).

With the increased concern over how

status offenses are managed, a new problem

has developed, particularly with regard to the

processing of girls for whom status offenses

have always represented a larger proportion

of committing offenses compared to boys

(Chesney-Lind, 1997). When status offenses

are relabeled as criminal offenses or youth find

their way into the system for violating a valid

court order related to a status offense,

the deinstitutionalization of status offenses is

thwarted and what is known as bootstrapping

occurs. In bootstrapping, a status offense

becomes a delinquency through mechanisms

for enforcement of technical violations of

court orders or probation. Evidence exists

that girls are more likely than boys to be

detained for minor offenses such as technical

violation and status offenses (41% versus 25%)

(Sherman, 2005).

Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement 35

Race/Ethnicity

Table 2.2 below presents arrest data by race.

Native Americans (including Alaskan Natives)

and Asians (including Pacific Islanders) com-

prise small percentages of arrest totals consist-

ent with their representation in the

population, and Whites are typically the ma-

jority group for every offense. Several notable

exceptions exist where African American

youth are the majority group represented;

they are the serious violent offenses of murder

(58%), robbery (67.3%), and the nonindex

offenses of prostitution/vice (58.4%) and gam-

bling (92.7%). Given that African American

youth comprise 15% of the population under

18 years of age, they are overrepresented in

every crime category (with the exception of

alcohol-related offenses) compared to their

representation in the population (Federal

Interagency Forum on Child and Family

Statistics, 2009). White youth, 76% of the

Table 2.2. Percentages of Arrests for Persons Under 18 Years of Age, by Crime Type and Race, 2009

Crime Type White Black Native American Asian

Nonindex offenses 67.6 29.6 1.3 1.5

Other assaults 58.6 39.2 1.1 1.1

Forgery and counterfeiting 66.4 32.2 0.5 0.9

Fraud 61.9 36.0 1.1 1.0

Embezzlement 63.8 33.3 0.2 2.7

Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing 54.6 43.6 0.8 1.0

Vandalism 78.4 19.2 1.2 1.2

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 60.7 37.3 0.8 1.2

Prostitution and commercialized vice 39.7 58.4 0.4 1.5

Sex offenses 71.2 26.6 0.8 1.4

Drug abuse violations 72.4 25.6 0.9 1.1

Gambling 6.8 92.7 0.0 0.5

Offenses against the family and children 73.9 24.3 1.3 0.4

Driving under the influence 92.0 5.1 1.8 1.2

Liquor laws 89.4 6.2 3.1 1.3

Drunkenness 88.5 8.7 1.9 0.8

Disorderly conduct 56.8 41.4 1.0 0.8

Vagrancy 71.5 27.3 0.4 0.7

All other offenses (except traffic) 69.2 28.0 1.1 1.8

Suspicion 42.3 57.1 0.0 0.6

Curfew and loitering law violations 60.8 37.1 1.0 1.2

Runaways 65.7 26.7 2.2 5.4

Index Violent Offenses 46.4 51.6 0.8 1.2

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 40.4 58.0 0.9 0.7

Forcible rape 63.4 34.5 0.8 1.3

Robbery 31.1 67.3 0.4 1.2

Aggravated assault 55.4 42.4 1.0 1.2

Index Property Offenses 63.9 33.2 1.2 1.7

Burglary 60.9 37.3 0.9 1.0

Larceny-theft 65.0 31.8 1.2 2.0

Motor vehicle theft 54.0 43.2 1.5 1.4

Arson 76.7 20.6 1.3 1.4

Total Arrests 65.9 31.3 1.2 1.6

Representation in the Population (2009) 77.2 16.2 1.5 5.2

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, 2010.

36 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

total juvenile population in the United States,

represent the vast majority of arrests for

the offenses of driving under the influence

(92.5%), liquor law violations (90.2%), and

drunkenness (88.7%) (Federal Interagency

Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2009).

Fifteen percent of the juvenile popula-

tion in the United States is Hispanic; how-

ever, this number is distributed across racial

categories (22.5% of Native Americans are

Hispanic, while 17.4% of Whites, 4.7% of

African Americans, and 3.4% of Asians are

Hispanic) (National Center for Health Sta-

tistics, 2008). The percentage of Hispanic

youth under 18 years old is projected to

make the most significant gains in the U.S.

population, with one in four youth belong-

ing to this ethnic group by the year 2021,

compared to their current representation of

22% (Federal Interagency Forum on Child

and Family Statistics, 2009). Data on ethnic-

ity are not collected in the UCR or in

juvenile court statistics, so it is difficult to

provide a national profile of Hispanic youth

involved in the system.

Explaining the disproportionate treatment

experienced by minority groups is difficult,

but research suggests a complex interplay

between existing biases in the policies and

practices of law enforcement and justice

systems and social conditions that place youth

at increased risk for delinquency (Pope,

Lovell, & Hsia, 2002; see Bell & Mariscal,

Chapter 6, this volume; Vaught, Chapter 15,

this volume). A 1-day snapshot of youth held

in detention illustrates disproportionate mi-

nority contact, showing that in 2006, African

American youth were 6 times as likely to be

in detention compared to White youth.

Latino youth were more than twice as likely,

and Native American youth were almost

4 times as likely to be held in detention

compared with White youth (W. Haywood

Burns Institute, n.d.) (see Figure 2.6). African

American youth made up 33% of delin-

quency cases handled in 2007 (at 16% of

the U.S. population), although their repre-

sentation increases for person-related offenses

(41%) and public-order offenses (34%), and

decreases for property-related offenses (30%)

and drug offenses (25%) (Knoll & Sickmund,

2010).

Black youth are 12% more likely than

White youth to be formally processed and

9% more likely to be waived to adult court

(Knoll & Sickmund, 2010). Of all the youth

Figure 2.6 Detention Rates Trends by Race (per 10,000 youth)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1997 1999 2001 2003 2006

White African American Latino Native American

Source: W. Haywood Burns Institute.

Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement 37

waived to adult court, African American

youth made up 37% of the waivers, compared

with 59% of the waivers made up by White

youth; however, it is for person and drug

offenses that disproportionate minority num-

bers are most dramatic, as a greater percentage

of Black youth are transferred into the adult

system for these offenses than are White youth

(Adams & Addie, 2010).

Black youth are also 27% more likely to be

placed in a residential setting and 14% less

likely to be given probation compared to their

White counterparts (Knoll & Sickmund,

2010). In 2002, three fourths of the 4,100

juveniles admitted to adult prisons were youth

of color (Poe-Yamagata & Jones, 2007).

Seventy-seven percent of juveniles serving

life sentences are non-White, supporting

research showing the cumulative and increas-

ing disadvantage experienced by minorities

as they move through the juvenile justice

system (Nellis & King, 2009; Poe-Yamagata &

Jones, 2007; see Bell & Mariscal, Chapter 6,

this volume).

Hispanic youth experience similar dis-

proportionate minority contact to African

American youth; however, these youth

have been deemed largely “invisible” due

to shortcomings in available data on ethnicity

(Arya, Villarruel, Villanueva, & Augarten

2009; Poe-Yamagata & Jones, 2007; see

Bell & Mariscal, Chapter 6, this volume).

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia

participated in a study that found that Latino/

a youth were sent to detention and residential

facilities in the juvenile justice system more

often their White counterparts and for

longer periods of time (even when control-

ling for offense type and delinquent histories)

(Villarruel & Walker, 2002). Nationally, 32%

of youth incarcerated are Latino/a, based on

figures from the U.S Census Bureau data on

the incarcerated population in 2000 (Human

Rights Watch, 2002). Latino/a youth were

also transferred to adult court more fre-

quently than their White counterparts (Vil-

larruel & Walker, 2002).

Geography

The UCR does not break arrests down by

specific geographical region and age; how-

ever, arrest rates are highest for juveniles

who live in metropolitan areas, accounting

for 12.1% of all arrests versus 8.8% of all arrests

in nonmetropolitan areas (U.S. Department

of Justice, 2008). Within metropolitan areas,

juveniles make up 15.2% of all arrests in the

suburbs and that number increases to 16.8%

in cities. The highest rates of juvenile crime

involvement in serious violent crimes (17.2%)

and serious property crimes (26.8%) are found

in cities (U.S. Department of Justice, 2008).

Urban jurisdictions are also more likely than

nonurban areas to impose harsher disposi-

tions, a factor compounding minority repre-

sentation due to the concentration of

minority youth in urban areas (Snyder &

Sickmund, 2006).

The growth of the juvenile population has

not been, and is not projected to be, evenly

distributed among states. Between 2005 and

2015, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Florida are

expected to experience the largest increases in

their juvenile population. More than one third

of the states are projected to experience a

decline in this population, with North

Dakota, Vermont, New York, West Virginia,

Maine, and the District of Columbia project-

ing the most significant declines (U.S. Bureau

of the Census, 2005).

Disabilities and Mental Health Issues

Youth with disabilities are overrepresented in

the juvenile justice system, and this assessment

38 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

typically occurs once a youth is involved in the

juvenile corrections system. Having a disability,

however, can also affect a youth’s experiences in

the system (see Beyer, Chapter 1, this volume;

Boundy & Karger, Chapter 14, this volume).

For example, youth with disabilities may be

more likely to confess or to have problems

communicating with their lawyers (Muller,

2005). They are more likely to plead guilty,

be committed, and serve a longer sentence,

and less likely to have their sentence appealed,

be placed on probation, or be given some type

of diversion program (Muller, 2005).

Youth with emotional disabilities account

for about 8% of students with disabilities in the

school system; however, this number goes up

to 47% among a national sample of incarcer-

ated youth (Quinn, Rutherford, Leone,

Osher, & Poirier, 2005; U.S. Department of

Education, 2005). This condition is character-

ized by an inability to build or maintain

relationships, inappropriate behaviors or feel-

ings under normal circumstances, a pervasive

mood of unhappiness or depression, or a

tendency to develop physical symptoms or

fears related to personal or school problems

as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Improvement Act (2004). This

population typically experiences co-occurring

problems related to behavior, academics, drug

use, and mental health (Gagnon & Richards,

2008). Approximately 20% of youth with

emotional disturbances have been arrested,

or are in detention or on probation prior to

leaving school (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

Thirty-nine percent of youth incarcerated

in the juvenile justice system have learning

disabilities and almost 5% meet the classifica-

tion for mental retardation (Gagnon &

Richards, 2008). The majority of youth enter-

ing correctional and detention settings are

testing below skill level (66% below in reading

and 68% below in mathematics) (U.S.

Department of Education, 2006). Youth

with learning disabilities are three times

more likely to join a gang than youth who

are not disabled (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

Mental health concerns and needs are

also prevalent in this population. For exam-

ple, in a large-scale study of Chicago-area

youth in detention facilities, almost 60% of

males and more than two thirds of females

met the criteria for at least one psychiatric

disorder, and more than 40% of the sample

met the criteria for a disruptive behavior

disorder (Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dul-

can, & Mericle, 2002). Significant variations

were found in race and gender with females,

non-Hispanic Whites, and older youth

showing higher rates of most disorders

(Teplin et al.). The connection between

disabilities and mental health needs of youth

in the juvenile justice system have been

inadequately studied and addressed (Gagnon

& Richards, 2008; see Braverman & Morris,

Chapter 3, this volume).

JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM REFORM

A reform agenda in juvenile justice has clearly

begun to take hold but needs empirical

research to flourish (see Butts & Roman,

Chapter 24, this volume). Research is needed

in order to develop a more complete national

picture of youth as they move through the

system. If there were a rich and comprehen-

sive national data collection effort, “who

these kids and families are” might well help

drive reform and the implementation of new

strategies for intervention. At present, there

are many descriptive factors that are simply

not available that might better explain youth’s

initial involvement in the system, as well as

indicate how their circumstances change

Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement 39

as they move through the system. Currently,

the diversity within juvenile court jurisdic-

tions and the lack of standardization make it

impossible to examine the effectiveness of

various sanctions, or to glean a national

picture of the youth, let alone identify the

best predictors of recidivism.

Some global deficiencies in current data

collection efforts even make it difficult to

determine the number of youth who are

actually involved in the system. For example,

the UCR and the juvenile court statistics are

incident based, as opposed to offender based.

This method of tracking incidents makes it

almost impossible to identify high-rate offend-

ers on a systemic level, let alone incidents

that have multiple offenders/defendants (see

Schneider & Simpson, Chapter 22, this vol-

ume). Similarly, the current method of

systemic-level data collection makes it difficult

to ascertain trends in less serious offenses, since

typically only the most serious offense or most

severe disposition is recorded. Likewise, cur-

rently reported statistics do not include the

seriousness of the behavior (which may not

match the charge all that well), contextual

offense variables, or a youth’s prior offenses

making cross-race and sex comparisons in

processing problematic, for example.

As previously mentioned, national level

data sources on system-involved juveniles do

not distinguish ethnicity, nor do they provide

information on youth involved with multiple

systems, particularly related to disability and

mental health. Moreover, most juvenile justice

and other youth agencies do not have the data

capacity to work across agencies to view youth

in their family and community contexts, leav-

ing an incomplete snapshot of youth in indi-

vidual systems (see Schneider & Simpson,

Chapter 22, this volume). Effective reform

requires the deeper understanding that greater

data capacity and research would provide.

REFERENCES

Adams, B., & Addie, S. (2010). Delinquency cases waived

to criminal court, 2007. Washington, DC: Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2008). Criminological

theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. Los

Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Allard, P., & Young, M. (2002). Prosecuting juveniles in

adult court: The practitioner’s perspective. Journal

of Forensic Psychology, 2 (2),65–77.

American Correctional Association. (2008). 2008 Direc-

tory: Adult and juvenile correctional departments, institu-

tions, agencies, and probation and parole authorities.

Alexandria, VA: American Correctional Association.

Arya, N. (2011). State trends: Legislative victories from

2005–2010 removing youth from the adult criminal

justice system. Washington, DC: Campaign for

Youth Justice.

Arya, N., Villarruel, F., Villanueva, C., & Augarten, I.

(2009). America’s invisible children: Latino youth and

the failure of justice. Washington, DC: Campaign for

Youth Justice.

Beck, A., Harrison, P., & Guerino, P. (2010). Sexual

victimization in juvenile facilities reported by youth,

2008–2009. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice

Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life

chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect

effects of official intervention in adolescence on

crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41 (4),

1287–1318.

Bishop, D. M. (2000). Juvenile offenders in the adult

criminal justice system. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime

and justice: A review of research (Vol. 27, pp. 81–167).

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bishop, D. M., & Frazier, C. E. (2000). Race effects in

juvenile justice decision-making: Findings of a

statewide analysis. Journal of Criminal Law & Crimi-

nology, 86, 392–414.

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D. P. (1988).

Criminal career research: Its value for criminology.

Criminology, 26, 1–35.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2008). Crime and victims

statistics, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Butts, J. A., & Mears, D. P. (2001). Reviving juvenile

justice in a get-tough era. Youth & Society, 33(2),

169–198.

40 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female offender: Girls,

women, and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. (2004). Girls,

delinquency, and juvenile justice. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Day, J. C. (1996). Population projections of the United States

by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1995 to 2050.

Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census, U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Elliott, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1980). Reconciling race

and class differences in self-reported and official

estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Re-

view, 45(1), 95–110.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985).

Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage.

Elliott, D. S., & Menard, S. (1996). Delinquent friends

and delinquent behavior: Temporal and develop-

mental patterns. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency

and crime: Current theories (pp. 28–67). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statis-

tics. (2009). America’s children: Key national indicators

of well-being, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-

ment Printing Office.

Feld, B. C. (1998). Juvenile and criminal justice systems’

responses to youth violence. In M. Tonry &

M. H. Moore (Eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review

of Research. Vol. 24: Youth Violence (pp. 189–261).

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Forst, M. L., Fisher, B. A., & Coates, R. B. (1985)

Indeterminate and determinate sentencing of juve-

nile delinquents: A national survey of approaches to

commitment and release decision-making. Juvenile

and Family Court Journal, 36 (2), 1–12.

Frazier, C. E., Bishop, D. M., & Lanza-Kaduce, L.

(1999). “Get tough” juvenile justice reforms:

The Florida experience. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 564, 167–184.

Gagnon, J. C., & Richards, C. (2008). Making the right turn:

A guide about improving transition outcomes of youth

involved in the juvenile corrections system. Washington,

DC: National Collaborative on Workforce and Dis-

ability for Youth, Institute for Educational Leadership.

Graham v. Florida, 120 S. Ct. 2011, 78 USLW 4387

(2010).

Holland, P., & Mlyniec, W. J. (1995). Whatever hap-

pened to the right to treatment? The modern quest

for a historical promise. Temple Law Review, 68,

1791–1835.

Human Rights Watch. (2002). Backgrounders: Race and

incarceration in the United States. New York, NY:

Author.

Human Rights Watch. (2008). The rest of their lives: Life

without parole for youthful offenders in the United States.

Executive summary. New York, NY: Author.

In re Gault. (1967). The Supreme Court of the United

States, 387 U.S. 1. In D. L. Parry (Ed.), Essential

readings in juvenile justice (pp. 87–101). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

In re Winship. (1970). The Supreme Court of the United

States, 397 U.S. 358. In D. L. Parry (Ed.), Essential

readings in juvenile justice (pp. 102–105). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement

Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, § 302, 118 Stat. 2803 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (2004). Retrieved from www.ed.gov/offices

/osers/idea/the_law.html

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974

(JJDPA) (P.L. 93-415, 88 Stat. 1109) and subsequent

reauthorizations (1977, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992,

2002).

Kent v. United States. (1966). The Supreme Court of the

United States, 383 U.S. 541. In D. L. Parry (Ed.),

Essential readings in juvenile justice (pp. 79–86). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Knoll, C., & Sickmund, M. (2010). Delinquency cases in

juvenile court, 2007. Washington, DC: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., Zablocki, M. S., & Wells,

C. (2009) Juvenile court referrals and the public schools:

Nature and extent of the practice of five states.

Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.

Krisberg, B. (2005). Juvenile justice: Redeeming our chil-

dren. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lerner, R., Taylor, C. & von Eye, A. (Eds.). (2002).

Pathways to positive development among diverse youth.

Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

Livsey, S., Sickmund, M., & Sladky, A. (2009). Juvenile

residential facility census, 2004: Selected findings. Wash-

ington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention, U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resiliency

framework for research, policy and practice. In

Luthar, S. (Ed.), Resiliency and vulnerability: Adapta-

tion in the context of childhood adversity (pp. 1–29).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement 41

Mears, D. P., & Travis, J. (2004). Youth development and

reentry. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(1), 3–20.

Mennel, R. M. (1972). Origins of the juvenile court:

Changing perspectives on the legal rights of juve-

niles. Crime and Delinquency, 18, 68–78.

Mohr, H. (2008, March 2). 13,000 abuse claims in juvie

centers. USA Today. Retrieved from www.usa today.com/news/nation/2008-03-02-1668706373

_x.htm

Muller, E. (2005). The juvenile justice system and youths

with disabilities. InForum: Brief Policy Analysis. Alex-

andria, VA: National Association of State Directors

of Special Education.

National Center for Health Statistics. (2008). Estimates of

the July 1, 2000–July 1, 2007, United States resident

population from the Vintage 2007 postcensal series by

year, county, age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin.

Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major

/dvs/popbridge/popbridge.htm

Nellis, A., & King, R. S. (2009). No exit: The expanding

use of life sentences in America. Washington, DC:

Sentencing Project.

Nye, F. I., Short, J. F., & Olson, V. (1958). Socio-

economic status and delinquent behavior. American

Journal of Sociology, 63, 381–389.

Office of the Surgeon General. (2001). Youth violence: A

report to the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. Re-

trieved from www.surgeongeneral.gov/library

/youthviolence

Osgood, D. W., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., &

Johnston, L. D. (1989). Time trends and age trends

in arrests and self-reported illegal behavior. Crimi-

nology, 27 (3), 389–418.

Poe-Yamagata, E., & Jones, M. A. (2007). And justice for

some: Differential treatment of youth of color in the justice

system. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime

and Delinquency.

Pollard, J. A., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. (1999). Risk

and protection: Are both necessary to understand

diverse behavioral outcomes in adolescence? Social

Work Research, 23(3), 145–158.

Pope, C. E., Lovell, R., & Hsia, H. M. (2002).

Disproportionate minority confinement: A review of the

research literature from 1989 through 2001. Washing-

ton, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention, U.S. Government Printing

Office.

President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Ad-

ministration of Justice. (1967). The task force report:

Juvenile delinquency and youth crime. Washington,

DC: U.S Government Printing Office.

Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Sickmund, M. (2010).

Juvenile court statistics 2006–2007. Pittsburgh, PA:

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Puzzanchera, C., & Sickmund, M. (2008). Juvenile court

statistics 2005. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Govern-

ment Printing Office.

Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. E., Osher,

D. M., & Poirier, J. M. (2005). Youth with dis-

abilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey.

Exceptional Children, 71, 339–345.

Saleebey, D. (2005). The strengths approach to practice.

In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The strengths perspective in social

work practice (4th ed., pp. 49–58). Boston, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.

Scott, E., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Rethinking juvenile

justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Sherman, F. (2005). Juvenile detention reform for girls:

Challenges and solutions. Baltimore, MD: Annie E.

Casey Foundation.

Sickmund, M. (2009). Delinquency cases in juvenile court,

2005. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., & Kang, W. (2008). Easy access

to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2005. Retrieved from

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/

Skiba, R. J. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An

analysis of school disciplinary practice. Bloomington:

Indiana Education Policy Research Center.

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders

and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC:

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-

tion, U.S. Government Printing Office.

Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M.,

Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. A. (2002). Psychiat-

ric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives

of General Psychiatry, 59, 1133–1143.

Torbet, P., Gable, R., Hurst, H., Montgomery, I.,

Szymanski, L., & Thomas, D. (1996). State responses

to serious and violent juvenile crime: Research report.

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Government Print-

ing Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2005). Interim projections

of the population by selected age groups for the United

States and the States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2030

42 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

[Data file]. Retrieved from www.census.gov

/population/projections/SummaryTabC1.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Twenty-seventh

annual report to congress on the implementation of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Jessup,

MD: Education Publications Center.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). National Eval-

uation and Technical Assistance Center for the Educa-

tion of Children and Youth Who Are Neglected,

Delinquent, or At Risk (NDTAC). State and na-

tional fast facts. Retrieved from www.neglected-

delinquent.org

U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investi-

gation. (1981). Crime in the United States, 1980.

Retrieved from www.fbi.gov/ucr

U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investi-

gation (2008). Crime in the United States, 2007.

Retrieved from www.fbi.gov/ucr

U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investi-

gation (2009). Crime in the United States, 2008.

Retrieved from www.fbi.gov/ucr

U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investi-

gation (2010). Crime in the United States, 2009.

Retrieved from www.fbi.gov/ucr

Villarruel, F. A., & Walker, N. E. (2002). ¿D�onde est�a la justicia?: A call to action on behalf of Latino and Latina

youth in the U.S. justice system. Washington, DC:

Building Blocks for Youth.

W. Haywood Burns Institute. For Juvenile Justice Fairness

and Equity. DMC Fact Sheet, www.burnsinstitute

.org/downloads/BI%20DMC%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

Wald, J., & Losen, D. J. (2003). Defining and redirecting

a school-to-prison pipeline. New Directions for Youth

Development, 99, 9–15.

Williams, J. R., & Gold, M. (1972). From delinquent

behavior to official delinquency. Social Problems,

20(2), 209–229.

Zahn, M. A., Brumbaugh, S., Steffensmeier, D., Feld,

B. C., Morash, M., Chesney-Lind, M., . . .

Kruttschnitt, C. (2008). Violence by teenage girls:

Trends and context. Washington, DC: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency.

Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement 43

3 CHAPTER

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

PAULA BRAVERMAN AND ROBERT MORRIS

T his chapter begins with a detailed profile

of the physical and mental health of

youth currently in the juvenile justice system

and an overview of some of the salient findings

presented in these studies. The data offered

confirm, unsurprisingly, that these youth have

greater health challenges and less access to

quality health care than would be considered

acceptable in most communities in this coun-

try. Although juvenile justice involvement

may provide an opportunity to improve the

health of these youth by providing services that

may not be available or accessible at home,

being incarcerated can also compromise their

health and well-being.

Clearly, the more potentially efficacious

point at which to intervene is before youth

enter the system altogether. The second sec-

tion of this chapter, then, provides an ecologi-

cal view of the factors associated with both

juvenile delinquency and poor health status,

in an attempt to stimulate the thoughtful

development and implementation of primary

prevention efforts to address these two over-

lapping concerns.

OVERVIEW

Youth entering correctional facilities are a

high-risk, medically underserved population

(Council on Scientific Affairs, 1990; Golzari,

Hunt, & Anoshiravani, 2006) who commonly

present with unaddressed physical and mental

health needs at higher rates than the general

adolescent population (Forrest, Tambor,

Riley, Ensminger, & Starfield, 2000; Morris

et al., 1995; Sedlak & Bruce, 2010; Sedlak &

McPherson, 2010). Although many of their

health problems are the same as youth in their

age group (e.g., dermatologic, respiratory,

dental, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and

metabolic problems), youth in the juvenile

justice system are at greater risk for other

medical issues. In part, this is because many

of these youth engage in high-risk behaviors,

including violence, substance abuse, and un-

safe sexual activity (Morris et al., 1995; Litt &

Cohen, 1974).

A recently published study summarized

data from the Survey of Youth in Residential

Placement (SYRP). This survey, conducted by

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP), utilized audio computer-

assisted self-interview surveys from a repre-

sentative sample of 7,073 youth age 10–20

years in residential placement throughout the

United States in the spring of 2003 (Sedlak &

McPherson, 2010). This self-reported infor-

mation obtained directly from youth echoes

and confirms the other published studies in the

literature, which report on specific clinical

44

Juvenile Justice: Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice Edited by Francine T. Sherman and Francine H. Jacobs

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

data obtained by health-care professionals. The

SYRP report also clearly demonstrates the

disconnect between the need for physical

and mental health services and the provision

of appropriately matched services for youth

in custody. In this chapter, we sketch out

the dimensions and characteristics of these

health needs.

PHYSICAL HEALTH

This section provides an overview of the

health needs of youth in custody. Where

available, more detail is provided on specific

physical health conditions.

Extent of Health Problems

Data from the SYRP provide an overview

of the extent of health needs among youth

in custody (Sedlak & McPherson, 2010).

Approximately two thirds of youth reported

a physical health-care need including dental,

vision, or hearing (37%); illness (28%); injury

(25%); and other unspecified physical health

problems (29%). Males were more likely than

females to report treatment needs related

to injuries while females were more likely

than males to report health-care needs related

to illness, vision, dental, and hearing. This

data are similar to other previously published

studies described below which, although not

in most cases nationally representative data,

provide additional detail not presented in the

SYRP report.

The most comprehensive study evaluating

the health issues of youth in the juvenile justice

system was published in 1980 and described

88,106 youth admitted over 11 years to a

secure detention facility in New York (Hein

et al., 1980). In that survey, 46% of youth

were found to have a medical problem. The

diagnoses ranged from minor dermatologic

complaints to traumatic injuries, drug over-

doses or drug abstinence, psychiatric issues,

and other body systems complaints. Particular

note was made of dental issues, positive tuber-

culosis tests, sexually transmitted diseases,

pregnancy, abnormal Pap smears, and signs

of abuse and medical neglect. Of the 3,353

teens admitted to the infirmary, 20% had

unresolved medical problems that required

follow-up after release from detention.

Two studies provide a national perspec-

tive on the risk taking behaviors that contrib-

ute to health problems among juvenile justice

youth. The first is a 1991 survey conducted by

the National Commission on Correctional

Health Care included 1,801 minors from

39 correctional facilities in the United States

(Morris et al., 1995). These youth were pre-

dominantly younger than age 18 (mean age

of 15.4 years old in short-term facilities and

15.8 years old in long-term facilities) and

had rates of substance abuse, trauma, sexual

activity without protection, suicidal ideation,

and violence that were higher than general

high school populations. The recently

published SYRP confirmed the high rates

of self-reported mental and emotional prob-

lems, substance abuse, and traumatic experi-

ences. This report included a comparison of

reported alcohol and drug use to data

from the 2003 National Survey on Drug

Use and Health demonstrating higher life-

time use among youth in custody (Sedlak &

McPherson, 2010).

Another recent study of 819 youth admit-

ted to a detention center in Alabama over an

18-month period in the mid-1990s found that

16.5% had been hospitalized prior to deten-

tion for sports injuries, trauma, or medical

reasons (Feinstein et al., 1998). Over one third

had medical problems related to trauma from

fights or stab and gunshot wounds. Of the

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 45

youth studied, 16.7% had received previous

treatment for mental illness, and 6.7% had

been treated for substance abuse. In addition,

6.4% reported being on a prescription medi-

cation at the time of admission. The most

common condition was asthma, with others

including orthopedic problems (scoliosis, frac-

ture), mental illness, pregnancy, and hearing

problems (chronic otitis media, perforated

tympanic membranes). Moreover, 10.6%

had a medical condition that required medical

follow-up after release. Similar results were

found among a broader sampling of youth in

15 detention and long-term facilities in the

Maryland Juvenile Justice System during the

same time period (Shelton, 2000). In that

study, over 45% had an identified medical

condition.

Specific Health Conditions

The following section provides more detail on

several specific health conditions.

Trauma As discussed by Feinstein et al. (1998), the causes of injury in these youth

are diverse (see Baker, Cunningham & Harris,

Chapter 11, this volume). Several additional

studies provide detail. In the 1991 National

Commission on Correctional Health Care

(NCCHC) study, almost 70% of youth had

been involved in at least one fight in the

previous year, and one quarter of these youth

had resulting injuries that required medical

care (Morris et al., 1995). Three quarters of

these youth reported that a weapon was in-

volved in at least one of these fights. Self-

injury was also common, with one fifth having

considered suicide, 15.5% making at least one

attempt, and 8.2% injured during an attempt

in the previous year. In the Maryland study,

almost one fifth had an injury, including burns,

musculoskeletal, and head trauma, with 12%

reporting lack of treatment for these injuries

(Shelton, 2000).

Additional detail about the nature of

traumatic events was provided by Woolf

and Funk (1985) in a review of almost all

the medical records (369) of 10- to 17-year-

olds who were admitted to a secure residential

facility in North Carolina over a 4.5-year

period beginning in 1978. One quarter of

these youth were female, and over half had an

injury requiring medical attention. One third

of injuries were sports related, 20% caused

by fights, 13% self-inflicted, 9% suicide

attempts, 8% vocational, 3% horseplay, and

11% designated as “other.” Musculoskeletal

injury (33%) was most common, followed by

scratches/bruises (27%). Fourteen percent

had lacerations requiring closure; 7% had a

fracture; and over one quarter required refer-

ral outside the facility for further evaluation.

The authors concluded that facilities must pay

attention to maintaining physical safety from

accidental and purposeful injury, including

suicide attempts.

Dental Dental issues also stand out as a significant health problem for youth in the

juvenile justice system. Bolin and Jones’s

(2006) study of a random sample, including

419 dental screenings conducted on 12- to 17-

year-olds from the Juvenile Detention Center

in Dallas County, Texas, between September

1999 and December 2003, found that one half

had untreated decay. High-urgency dental

problems, such as infection, tooth or jaw

fracture, pulpitis, or severe periodontal disease

with bleeding, were identified in 6.2% of

youth. Moderate-urgency conditions in

13.1% included cavitated asymptomatic decay

or moderate gingivitis. This study highlighted

the challenges in providing comprehensive

dental care to this population unless they are

long-term detainees.

46 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

Reproductive Health Youth in the juve- nile justice system engage in high-risk behav-

iors including unprotected sexual activity,

which place them at risk for sexually trans-

mitted diseases and HIV infection, as well as

pregnancy and parenthood. The following

sections provide additional information on

reproductive health issues among these youth.

Sexual Activity/Contraception Adolescents in the juvenile justice system have high rates of

sexual activity and sexually transmitted dis-

eases (STDs) compared to other adolescent

populations. The 1991 NCCHC study

found that most of these youth had four or

more lifetime sexual partners (Morris et al.,

1995), a rate much higher than reported

during that same time frame in the general

population of high school youth. Similarly,

STD incidence was double that of the gen-

eral population. Use of contraception or

condoms at last intercourse was reported

by three quarters of high school youth com-

pared to only one half of incarcerated youth,

and 40–50% of high school youth used

condoms as compared to less than one fifth

of incarcerated youth.

STD/HIV The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 2009 Sexually Trans-

mitted Disease Surveillance Report (CDC,

2010) found that the overall rate of chlamydia

positivity among detained adolescent girls age

12–18 was 14.8% (4.7% for females age 12 and

16.2% for those age 16) while adolescent boys

had an overall positivity rate of 6.6% (1.2% for

males age 12 and 10.1% for those age 18).

The overall rate of gonorrhea positivity for

females was 3.9% (1.8% for females age 12 and

4.4.% for those age 16), while the overall

positivity rate for males was 1.0% (0.1% for

males age 12 and 1.4% for those age 18). Rates

for syphilis, which are available in the 2007

Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance

Report (CDC, 2008a), were much lower,

with the median rate of a serologic positivity

of 0.2% (0.0–2.1%) for adolescent girls and

0.1% (0.0–0.9%) for adolescent boys. These

rates are similar to data collected in a compa-

rable study conducted between 1996 and 1999

(Mertz, Voight, Hutchins, Levine, & Jail STD

Prevalence Monitoring Group, 2002). Results

from one juvenile detention facility (Oh et al.,

1994) found that 50% of gonorrhea and 90%

of chlamydia infections were asymptomatic,

while another study (Mertz et al., 2002) found

even higher rates of asymptomatic infection,

with only 2.7% of those with chlamydia and

7.3% of those with gonorrhea having symp-

toms. These studies indicate that most STDs

will be diagnosed only by active screening.

Unprotected sex with multiple partners,

prostitution, injection drug use, and substance

abuse by incarcerated youth puts them at risk

for hepatitis B and C as well as HIV infection.

The high rate of STDs also increases risk for

HIV (CDC, 2008b; Elkington et al., 2008;

Harwell, Trino, Rudy, Yorkman, & Gollub,

1999; Kim, McFarland, Kellogg, & Katz,

1999; Morris, Baker, Valentine, & Pennisi,

1998; Teplin, Mericle, McClelland, & Abram,

2003). The rate of hepatitis B in incarcera-

ted adolescents ranges from 0–6% and the

prevalence of hepatitis C virus is 2–3.5%

(Weinbaum, Lyerla, & Margolis, 2003). Youth

aged 13–17 admitted to a juvenile detention

center in San Francisco between 1990 and

1995 showed an HIV-1 antibody–positive

prevalence of 0.32% among 2,780 tests con-

ducted (Kim et al., 1999). Serum specimens

collected between 1990 and 1992 from ado-

lescents in 33 correctional facilities found a

rate of 0.3% (range 0–6.8%) (Sweeney,

Lindegren, Buehler, Onorato, & Janssen,

1995). Despite the documented need for iden-

tifying youth with STDs, the 2004 Juvenile

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 47

Residential Facility Census reported that only

18.5% of facilities offered STD testing for all

adolescents on admission (Gallagher &

Dobrin, 2007). Further, 8.3% of facilities

did not make STD testing available, and

the rest provided testing only when it was

requested or deemed medically necessary.

Similarly, only 4.3% of the facilities tested all

youth for HIV, and 28.1% did not have HIV

testing available.

Pregnancy/Parenting Self-reported rates of parenthood among incarcerated teens are

higher than in the general adolescent popula-

tion. The nationally representative SRYP study

found that 14% of youth in custody in 2003

reported having a child. Males (15%) were

more likely to report having a child than

females (9%). This compares to rates of 2%

for males and 6% for females age 12–20 in the

general population. Of those who were already

parents, 12% were expecting another child

indicating a female who was currently pregnant

or a male whose female partner was pregnant.

Overall, 20% of both males and females in the

SYRP study were already parents or expecting

a child (Sedlak & Bruce, 2010).

These SYRP data add information to

other studies, which have found that approxi-

mately one third of teens in juvenile correction

facilities report that they have ever been preg-

nant (Lederman, Dakof, Larrea, & Hua, 2004;

Williams & Hollis, 1999). The 2004 Juvenile

Facilities Census study reported that at least

2.1% of girls are currently pregnant at any

particular point in time (Gallagher, Dobrin,

& Douds, 2007). Further in-depth study of

pregnancies in the juvenile justice population

is needed, since teen pregnancy rates vary by

race/ethnicity, geographic location, and socio-

economic level and are continuously evolving.

Fatherhood among adolescent males is also

an important issue that needs further

investigation. One study, of 125 adolescent

males age 14–17 incarcerated in a juvenile

correctional facility in 1994, found that one

quarter had fathered a pregnancy and of those

who were fathers, 41% had fathered more

than one pregnancy (Nesmith, Klerman, Oh,

& Feinstein, 1997).

Pregnancies in these youth are compli-

cated by underlying problems of substance

abuse, posttraumatic stress disorder, and

complex decisions about postdelivery options

(Hufft, 2004). In addition, these young

women may need an altered schedule with

additional rest and may have higher caloric

requirements. Most juvenile justice facilities

do not have arrangements for infant residency

or visitation, and the majority of facilities do

not have parenting classes (Breuner & Farrow,

1995; Hufft, 2004; see Pinderhughes, Crad-

dock, & Fermin, Chapter 9, this volume).

Attention must be paid to the potential for

postpartum depression and other psychologi-

cal consequences.

Despite these high pregnancy rates and

the constellation of health issues they raise,

the 2004 Juvenile Facilities Census found

that only 15–17% of all facilities had universal

pregnancy testing of all girls on admission

(Gallagher, Dobrin, & Douds, 2007).

Further, 4.5–6.6% did not provide pregnancy

testing, and the rest performed testing only

when it was deemed medically necessary

or requested by the adolescent. Prenatal ser-

vices are also lacking in some correctional

facilities and approximately one quarter to

one third of facilities had no obstetrical ser-

vices (Gallager, Dobrin, & Douds, 2007).

Another study with data from 430 facilities

in 41 states found that one third failed to

provide prenatal services and 60% of the

facilities with detained pregnant youth had

at least one obstetrical complication (Breuner

& Farrow, 1995).

48 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Currently available studies indicate that ado-

lescents involved in the juvenile justice sys-

tem have rates of psychiatric and substance

abuse disorders that exceed those of the gen-

eral adolescent population (Desai et al., 2006;

Fazel, Doll, & Langstrom, 2008; Vermeiren,

Jespers, & Moffitt, 2006). Some authors have

suggested that the juvenile justice system

has become the placement of last resort for

youth with mental health disorders who are

not receiving care in their communities

(Martin, 2006; see also Beyer, Chapter 1,

this volume). The SYRP (Sedlak & McPher-

son, 2010) does not provide diagnostic data;

however, the report demonstrates the extent

of self-reported mental and emotional prob-

lems. More than 60% of youth reported being

easily upset, quick to lose their temper,

and often angry. Fifty-one percent reported

being unable to do what they wanted over the

previous several months because of worry or

being nervous and 52% felt lonely “too much

of the time.”

Determining the exact prevalence of these

mental health and substance abuse disorders,

including the specific subcategories of mental

health diagnoses, has been challenging. A

significant proportion of adolescents have

multiple diagnoses (comorbidity) and/or

co-occurring psychiatric and substance abuse

diagnoses. While there are no national preva-

lence statistics on specific mental health diag-

noses available for this population in the

United States, studies from both the United

States and other countries show prevalence

rates ranging from approximately 50% to

100% when disruptive behavior disorders are

included (Boesky, 2002). It is estimated that

approximately one quarter of youth in the

juvenile justice system have a severe mental

health disorder that requires immediate treat-

ment (Shufelt & Cocozza, 2006).

Study Limitations

The difficulty in determining the exact extent

of mental health and substance abuse problems

is related to the fact that most of the published

studies have limitations in study design and

data collection methodology (see Table 3.1). A

few of these limitations warrant further dis-

cussion. The timing of the reported evalua-

tions varied from the detention setting to

longer term facilities. This is important be-

cause the stress of incarceration may affect the

accuracy of mental health diagnoses, exacer-

bating various symptoms including suicidal

ideation and self-injury/mutilation behaviors

(Boesky, 2002).

In addition, the source of information is also

crucial and varies in these studies. Many studies

Table 3.1. Limitations and Variations Within the Literature on Reports About Mental

Health and Substance Abuse Disorders Among Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

� Data are specific to certain states and individual facilities or are from other countries. � Nonstandardized measures and different diagnostic instruments or techniques are used. � Sociodemographic variables such as age, gender, ethnicity, family environment, socioeconomic status, and criminal behavior are not comparable.

� The timing of the evaluation varies from recent detention to postadjudication settings. � Potential bias exists based on selection of youth referred for psychiatric assessment. � Input from parents or teachers is not always added to youth self-report. Sources: Boesky, 2002; Shufelt, 2006; Teplin et al., 2002; Vermeiren, 2006.

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 49

rely on self-reported impairment by youth,

which may not be as accurate as when observa-

tions by parents and others, such as teachers,

are included (Vermeiren et al., 2006). However,

information from other informants is not always

helpful. While one study found that one third of

parents added substantial new information (Ko,

Wasserman, McReynolds, & Katz, 2004), other

studies found that adolescents actually reported

higher rates of disorder and impairment than

did their parents (Ko et al., 2004; Kramer et al.,

2004). Certainly, reports from parents or other

adults may lead to incorrect diagnoses when

they include inaccurate or biased information

(Boesky, 2002; Ko et al., 2004; Kramer et al.,

2004). Parents and other adults may not be

cognizant of the adolescent’s behavior or symp-

toms or may deny existing problems or accept

different levels of behavior (Boesky, 2002;

Vermeiren et al., 2006).

The variation in sociodemographic vari-

ables between studies is important because

mental health disorders result from a combi-

nation of inherited biological or psychologi-

cal vulnerabilities, along with environmental

stressors and supports as well as individual

coping skills (Vermeiren et al., 2006). Studies

of small samples of girls or ethnic minorities

may significantly limit the interpretation of

data since mental health diagnoses vary by

gender and ethnicity (Shufelt & Cocozza,

2006; Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, &

Mericle, 2002). Comparisons within and

between studies is also complicated by the

fact that these youth have been exposed to

different environmental experiences, which

may include family conflict, physical and

sexual abuse, domestic violence, neglect,

experience with the foster care system, paren-

tal mental health and substance abuse, expo-

sure to violence in their community, and

easier access to drugs and alcohol (Boesky,

2002; Vermeiren et al., 2006).

Prevalence

Youth in the juvenile corrections system have a

high prevalence of psychiatric and substance

abuse disorders, with noted differences in

rates when considering race/ethnicity and

gender. These disorders also do not occur in

isolation. Co-morbid psychiatric disorders

and co-occurring psychiatric and substance

abuse disorders have been documented in

multiple studies.

Overall Prevalence Based on a review of the worldwide literature from the 1960s

through the 1990s, Roberts, Attkisson, and

Rosenblatt (1998) found a mean prevalence

rate of 16.5% (range 6.2%–41.3) for mental

health disorders among adolescents in the

general population. This compares to estimates

of 50–100% of youth in the juvenile justice

system with mental health disorders when con-

duct disorder is included (Boesky, 2002). The

issue of whether to include disruptive behavior

disorders such as conduct disorder in the prev-

alence analyses has been raised in the literature

as an interesting issue, since conduct disorder

diagnoses may reflect behavior that the juvenile

will age out of naturally. When assessing self-

reported behavior among adolescents, delin-

quency is very common, and multiple studies

have demonstrated that the majority of adoles-

cents in the general population participate in

behaviors that would be considered delinquent

(Moffitt, 1993). These behaviors are usually

transient and part of the normal adolescent

development, which include imitation of anti-

social models/styles and social reinforcement.

In fact, most of the adolescent offenders (85%)

known to the criminal justice system stop

offending by age 28 and severe persistent

antisocial behavior over time is only found in

approximately 5% of males. Those youth with

early onset in childhood are more likely to be

50 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

persistent than those who begin these behaviors

during adolescence (Moffitt, 1993; Ruchkin,

Koposov, Vermeiren, & Schwab-Stone, 2003).

Until recently, the 1991 NCCHC study

was the only published multisite study in the

United States that identified self-reported sub-

stance use and mental health risk behaviors

among youth in corrections (Morris et al.,

1995). This study found that more than

80% of these youth had smoked cigarettes

and almost all had tried alcohol. Although

marijuana was the most commonly used illicit

drug, 25.6% of females and 13.1% of males had

used other drugs including injection drugs.

Suicidal thought in the previous 12 months

was not uncommon, with 21.8% having seri-

ously considered suicide, 19.5% having made a

plan, 15.5% with at least one attempt, and

8.2% having been injured by an attempt in the

previous 12 months.

The 2003 SYRP study (Sedlak &

McPherson, 2010) found that 85% of youth

had lifetime use of “any illegal drug,” and

50% had used an illegal drug other than mari-

juana. Lifetime alcohol use was reported by

74% of those surveyed, while 84% had used

marijuana/hashish, 30% cocaine/crack, 26%

ecstasy, 22% crystal meth, 19% acid/LSD, and

7% heroin. More than one half of these youth

reported being drunk or high on drugs multi-

ple times a week during the months leading

up to being in custody. In addition, one fifth

of those surveyed reported prior suicidal

ideation; 22% had past suicide attempts.

In order to better characterize the specific

mental health and substance abuse issues

among these youth, several recently published

studies have attempted to eliminate some of

the previous study design issues by using

randomly selected youth, including more

ethnic/racially diverse subjects, and using stan-

dardized screening and assessment instruments

(Shufelt & Cocozza, 2006; Teplin et al., 2002;

Wasserman, McReynolds, Ko, Katz, & Car-

penter, 2005; Wasserman, McReynolds,

Lucas, Fisher, & Santos, 2002). All of these

studies utilized versions of the Diagnostic

Interview Schedule for Children (DISC), a

highly structured psychiatric interview based

on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual criteria.

The Teplin study, conducted between 1995

and 1998, involved 1,829 youth at the Cook

County Juvenile Temporary Detention Cen-

ter; Wasserman and colleagues’ studies, con-

ducted in 1998 and 2001, involved 991 youth

at probation intake in eight Texas counties and

292 youth in secure placement in New Jersey

and Illinois. Shufelt’s 2006 study included

youth from three previously understudied

areas—Louisiana, Texas, and Washington—

and involved over 1,400 youth from 29 differ-

ent programs and facilities with oversampling

of two understudied populations: Hispanic

and Native American youth.

A comparison of the results of these newer

studies shows consistent findings, including

prevalence rates within a smaller range of

45.7–70.4% for psychiatric and substance

abuse diagnoses. Both the Teplin and Shufelt

studies were able to demonstrate that the

prevalence rates were not explained solely

by disruptive behavior disorders, as both

authors similarly found that when conduct

disorder was eliminated from the diagnostic

categories, 60.9% (Teplin) and 66.3% (Shufelt)

of youth had a psychiatric or substance use

disorder. Shufelt found that 45.5% of youth

still had mental health diagnoses when both

substance use and conduct disorder were elim-

inated, indicating a high level of mental illness

in this population. Table 3.2 compares the

results of these studies.

Comorbid and Co-occurring Disorders Comorbidity of two or more psychiatric diag-

noses as well as co-occurring psychiatric and

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 51

substance abuse disorders have been docu-

mented in multiple studies in the United States

and other countries (Abram, Teplin, McClel-

land, & Dulcan, 2003; Atkins et al., 1999;

Dixon, Howie, & Starling, 2004; Domalanta,

Risser, Roberts, & Risser, 2003; Lederman

et al., 2004; Robertson, Dill, Husain, &

Undesser, 2004; Shufelt & Cocozza, 2006;

Teplin et al., 2002; Ulzen & Hamilton,

1998; Vreugenhil, Doreleijers, Vermeiren,

Wouters, & van Den Brink, 2004). In the

study by Shufelt and Cocozza (2006), 79%

of youth with a mental health disorder had two

or more diagnoses with 60% having three or

more mental health diagnoses. Further, 60.8%

of youth with a mental health diagnosis also

had a co-occurring substance use disorder, and

this association was more common among

youth with disruptive behavior disorders and

mood disorders. Youth with substance use

disorders commonly abuse multiple sub-

stances. McClelland, Elkington, Teplin, and

Abram (2004) found that approximately one

half of youth had one or more and one fifth

had two or more substance use disorders. For

those with an alcohol use disorder, 80% also

had a drug use disorder, and for those with a

drug use disorder, 50% also had an alcohol use

disorder. Youth who have substance use prob-

lems are more likely to engage in high-risk

sexual behavior, which places them at in-

creased risk for STDs and HIV/AIDS. This

increased risk includes youth with co-occurring

substance use and other mental health diag-

noses (Teplin et al., 2005).

Racial/Ethnic Differences Utilizing a standardized diagnostic tool, Teplin et al.

(2002) found that non-Hispanic whites had

the highest rates of mental health disorders,

and African American youth had the lowest.

Hispanic youth fell in between these two

groups. This difference, however, does not

mean that minority youth do not have mental

health/substance abuse treatment needs. In

fact, concern has been raised in the literature

that the actions of minority youth may be

considered simply criminal behavior rather

than the result of an emotional problem,

making it more likely for them to become

involved in the criminal justice rather than the

mental health system (Boesky, 2002). Success-

ful access to services may also be affected by

important racial and/or ethnic differences in

attitudes toward diagnosis and treatment of

mental health and substance abuse. Some

insight can be found from a qualitative study

utilizing focus groups of African American

youth in a detention center with diagnosed

mental health disorders (Shelton, 2004). Youth

in this study believed it was unacceptable to

have a mental health disorder, and some were

secretive about their experiences with mental

Table 3.2. Estimated Rates of Mental Health

Disorders from Studies Conducted 1995–2006

Disorder

Rate

Males %

Rate

Females %

Any Disorder 44.8–68.5 49.5–81.0

Any Affective 5.9–18.7 13.0–29.2

Major depressive 5.1–13 11.4–21.6

Any Anxiety Disorder1 17.4–26.4 29.0–56.0

Generalized anxiety 2.1–7.1 3.1–7.3

Panic disorder 0.3–4.8 1.5–3.0

Obsessive-compulsive 4.8–8.3 5.7–10.6

Separation anxiety disorder2 12.9–25.1 18.6–32.8

Any Disruptive Behavior3 20–44.9 20–51.3

ADHD 1.2–16.6 0.5–21.4

Oppositional–defiant 3.1–14.5 10.5–17.5

Conduct disorder 18.3–37.8 16.8–40.6

Any Substance Abuse 26.3–50.7 22–55.1

1 Only Teplin (2002) included “separation anxiety” in the data for the

“Any Anxiety” category. 2Separation anxiety disorder subcategory data is from Teplin (2002) and

Wasserman (2005). 3 Teplin (2002) did not include ADHD under the “Any Disruptive

Behavior” category; ADHD was reported as a separate category.

Note: All subcategories under the bolded “Any” headings are from Teplin

(2002) and Wasserman (2002, 2005).

Sources: Shufelt et al., 2006; Teplin et al., 2002; Wasserman et al., 2002,

2005.

52 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

illness, illustrating the need for awareness

about cultural issues in the diagnosis and treat-

ment of mental illness.

Low mental health service utilization

among African American and Hispanic youth

when compared to non-Hispanic white youth

was also addressed by Rawal, Romansky, Jenu-

wine, and Lyons (2004). They found a need

for addition services since all youth, regardless

of race or ethnicity, had low service utilization

rates. However, minority youth had evidence

of more multisystem needs, and African

American youth had higher scores for care-

giver problems including motivation to pro-

vide care. They note that lower mental health

service utilization among minorities may be

related to a culture that places a stigma on

mental health issues and relies on family mem-

bers and non-mental health professionals.

Gender Differences The better designed studies consistently found that females are

more likely than males to have any psychiatric

disorder, and specifically to be diagnosed with

internalizing disorders such as anxiety and

mood disorders (Shufelt et al., 2006; Teplin

et al., 2002; Wasserman et al., 2005). In

general, both females and males had similar

rates of substance use disorders. However,

within the category of substance abuse, Teplin

and colleagues (2002) found that females had

higher rates of a substance use disorder other

than alcohol or marijuana. Another problem

more commonly found among females is

physical, sexual, and emotional abuse (Mason,

Zimmerman, & Evans, 1998; McCabe,

Lansing, Garland, & Hough, 2002). These

findings were confirmed in the nationally

representative data in the SYRP report

(Sedlak & McPherson, 2010).

Victims of physical or sexual abuse engage

in riskier sexual behavior compared to their

peers who do not report abuse (Hayes, 2009;

Mason et al., 1998). As documented in data

collected in the 1991 NCCHC study, victims

of sexual abuse also had a twofold increased

likelihood of reporting a history of STD as

well as suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts

(Morris et al., 1995). As summarized in a

recent OJJDP report, when considering

both genders, rates of physical abuse vary

from 11% to 73%, while sexual abuse ranges

from 10% to 68% (Hayes, 2009). The SYRP

data showed that, in a nationally representative

sample, 42% of females and 22% of males

reported past physical abuse while 35% of

females and 8% of males experienced prior

sexual abuse (Sedlak & McPherson, 2010).

Specific Mental Health Disorders

Published studies provide additional informa-

tion on specific mental health disorders among

youth in the juvenile justice system.

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)/ Dissociative Disorder Several studies have specifically addressed PTSD and trauma with

dissociation among delinquent youth. In

addition to having higher rates of PTSD than

general community samples, delinquent youth

also report significant histories of witnessing

and experiencing interpersonal violence.

Dissociative disorder, which is associated with

abuse and neglect, is also found in this popula-

tion (Abram et al., 2004; Carrion & Steiner,

2000; Cauffman, Feldman, Waterman, &

Steiner, 1998; Ford, Chapman, Hawke, & Albert,

2007; Steiner, Garcia, & Matthews, 1997).

Suicide Suicidal ideation and suicide attempts are a major concern for youth in

the juvenile justice system. Both the 1991

NCCHC study and 2003 SYRP found that

a history of suicidal ideation and attempts were

common in this population (Morris et al.,

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 53

1995; Sedlak & McPherson, 2010), and several

studies utilizing nationally representative sam-

ples have been published specifically address-

ing suicide within juvenile facilities. The first

was a national census of public and private

juvenile justice facilities in the United States

during the years 2000 and 2002, which found

that the leading cause of death in these facilities

was suicide (20 out of 62 deaths) (Gallagher &

Dobrin, 2006a). The second study included an

analysis of suicides between 1995 and 1999 in

public and private juvenile facilities and found

that staff should be aware of most suicidal

youth because a history of mental illness, as

well as a current diagnosis of depression, was

found in two thirds of victims and more than

onehalf were taking a psychotropic medication

(Hayes, 2009). In that study, hanging was the

method of suicide in virtually all (98.7%) of

the cases and two thirds of victims were in

single occupancy rooms. Approximately one

half of the deaths occurred between 6 PM

and midnight, which includes the time frame

youth were less likely to be alone. For those on

room confinement, they were most likely to

commit suicide during waking hours when

they should have been involved in other in-

teractive activities. This study suggests the

need for further research to better understand

the reasons for and role of confinement in

suicide attempts in juvenile facilities.

Reduction in suicides among juveniles in

confinement may be possible by suicide risk

screening and training staff in suicide preven-

tion, as these efforts resulted in lower rates of

suicide in the facilities described in an OJJDP

report (Hayes, 2009). This finding is similar to

that of Gallagher and Dobrin (2006b), that

facilities screening all youth within 24 hours of

admission had a lower suicide risk. Suicide

prevention strategies need to be improved, as

only one fifth of the facilities in the 2009

OJJDP report had the seven key components

needed for suicide prevention in juvenile

facilities (Hayes, 2009).

Psychotropic Medications There are no national data on the use of psychotropic med-

ications in the juvenile justice system, but data

from two studies conducted in Pennsylvania

and Oregon found that almost one half of

youth in detention facilities and over two

thirds in longer term facilities receive psycho-

tropic medication as part of their mental health

treatment plan. Although ideal treatment plans

for mental health issues may include psycho-

tropic medications, the length of stay, attitudes

of the parent and adolescent, and resources

for continuity of care need to be considered

in prescribing these medications (Desai et al.,

2006). The challenges of mental health screen-

ing, assessment, and continuity of care illus-

trate the complexity of designing and

implementing effective treatment for youth

in the juvenile justice system.

Health-Care Standards

Challenges exist in the provision of quality

health care to youth in correctional facilities.

The NCCHC has published standards for

health services for youth in correctional facili-

ties (NCCHC, 2004). However, data analyzed

by Gallagher and Dobrin from the Juvenile

Residential Facilities Census (2000, 2004; see

Gallagher & Dobrin, 2007) and Census of

Juveniles in Residential Placement (2003;

see Gallagher & Dobrin, 2007) found that

the overwhelming majority of facilities were

not accredited by NCCHC and that there

were significant deficits found when compar-

ing reported practices to NCCHC standards

(Gallagher & Dobrin, 2007). In addition, there

are challenges related to the continuity of care

between community health-care providers

and health-care providers in the correctional

54 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

system (Feinstein et al., 1998; Morris, 2001).

In part, continuity is made more difficult by

the prohibition on utilizing federal money

(i.e., Medicaid benefits) to treat youth while

they are incarcerated as well as, in many cases,

termination rather than suspension of benefits

resulting in a delay in reinstatement once the

youth is released back into the community

(Gupta, Kelleher, Pajer, Stevens, & Cuellar,

2005; Perez, Ro, & Treadwell, 2009).

FACTORS RELATING TO DELINQUENCY AND

HEALTH STATUS

We have just reviewed the literature on the

physical and mental health status and treatment

findings for youth in the juvenile justice sys-

tem. Overall, the research shows that in most

domains of physical and mental health, these

youth fare worse than their counterparts out-

side of the juvenile justice system. The fol-

lowing section begins to explain why that is,

and suggests responses, by reviewing the liter-

ature on factors associated with both delin-

quency and poor health status. These factors

range from the biologic to the cultural and

cover the ecological domains of individual,

family, community, and social institutions. As

these interrelated factors compound, the like-

lihood of delinquency may increase along with

the risk of poor health and reduced access

to health care. Thus, understanding them

is essential to preventing delinquency and

improving youth health.

Socioeconomic Status

Nearly 13 million children live in poverty

(National Center for Children in Poverty,

2009), and socioeconomic status affects both

health status and self-reported delinquency.

Emerson points out that relative child poverty

appears to be associated with health status,

particularly in the macroeconomic aspect of

the health of nations (2009). Child poverty is

associated with unintentional injuries, juvenile

homicide, low educational achievement,

dropping out of school, poor peer relation-

ships, feeling lonely, and mental health prob-

lems (Pickett & Wilkinson, 2007), all of which

also tend to be found in delinquent youth as

documented in the SYRP data (Sedlak &

McPherson, 2010).

Poverty is related to mortality risk, with

the highest risk for 18- to 27-year-olds whose

income is below the median of $20,190

(Rehkopf, Berkman, Coull, & Krieger,

2008). Adverse childhood experiences, such

as frequent moves often associated with

unstable socioeconomic circumstances, appear

to be related to various health risks such as

smoking and suicide (Dong et al., 2005).

Economically disadvantaged communities

with neighborhood violence and deviant peer

groups may put middle childhood youth at

particular vulnerability for antisocial behavior

(Ingoldsby & Shaw, 2002; Seidman et al.,

1998). Girls who live in poverty-stricken

neighborhoods and who are victims of

violence themselves are 2.2 times more likely

to have behaved violently in the past year

compared to girls who were not victimized.

Girls from neighborhoods with poverty and

homicides have higher rates of aggression

(Molnar, Browne, Cerda, & Buka, 2005).

Poverty is related to race and ethnicity in these

findings; in 2007, Black and Hispanic juveniles

were 3 times as likely to live in poverty as non-

Hispanic White youth (OJJDP, 2007).

More generally, Leventhal and Brooks-

Gunn reported the results of a comprehensive

review of research on the effects of neighbor-

hood residence on child and adolescent well-

being. High socioeconomic status (SES) led to

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 55

positive life achievement, while low SES and

residential instability was related to poor

behavioral/emotional outcomes (e.g., increas-

ed delinquency and problem behaviors in

adolescents) (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn,

2000). Sampson (2003) elaborated on social

characteristics of communities and neighbor-

hoods as they affect health disparities in the

inner city. Both articles point to a need to

understand the functions of communities in

order to improve the health of their citizens.

This is particularly evident in a British study of

5- to 10-year-olds in deprived neighborhoods

who displayed higher levels of antisocial be-

havior at school entry and less improvement in

antisocial behavior between ages 5 and 10.

That behavioral finding was offset by neigh-

borhood collective efficacy but only in de-

prived neighborhoods, leading the authors to

suggest that neighborhood efficacy had a pro-

tective effect in young children (Odgers et al.,

2009; see Hawkins, Vashchenko, & Davis,

Chapter 12, this volume).

Race and Culture

Minority youth are disproportionately present

both in the delinquency system and in the

population of youth with reduced access to

health care and poor health. Although there is

a range of explanations offered, youth of color

are represented among arrests and delinquency

placements disproportionate to their presence

in the population, and this disparity permeates

the juvenile custody system including long-

term facilities (see Bell & Mariscal, Chapter 6,

this volume). This disparity remained stable

over the last decade, with a slight decrease of

the minority population in custody from

62% in 1997 to 61% in 2003 (Snyder, 2008;

Snyder & Sickmund, 2006) and an increase in

2006 to 66% (OJJDP, 2007). Except for

Vermont, Black youth’s custody rates in 2003

exceeded rates for White youth across the states

(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Black youth

accounted for 38% of all youth in custody in

2003 (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006) and 41% of

all males in custody in 2006 (OJJDP, 2007).

Asian youth are an exception. In 1997, they

comprised 4% of the juvenile population but

only 2% of youth in secure detention (Hsia,

Bridges, & McHale, 2004), and in 2006, they

comprised 5% of the population but only 1% of

youth in secure placement.

Similarly, numerous studies report that

racial and ethnic minorities have poor health

and health care overall. For example, Shi and

Macinko (2008) examined changes in medical

care experiences between 1996 and 2002 for

various racial groups and found that, although

there were some fluctuations, racial minorities

reported difficulties accessing care, worse

health care, and worse health indicators that

further declined in 2002. Flores and Tomany-

Korman (2008a) found similar results, as did

Simpson and colleagues (2005) reviewing

2000–2002 data. The REACH 2010 Risk

Factor Survey conducted in 21 minority com-

munities showed that racial minorities had

substantially greater socioeconomic risk fac-

tors and health burden than the general U.S.

population, with type and degree varying some-

what among communities (Liao, Tucker, &

Giles, 2004).

The RAND Corporation in 2004

reported a wide range of socioeconomic,

health, safety, and educational disparities faced

by boys and men of color in California, all of

which could increase the risk of offending and

problems accessing health care. These in-

cluded higher poverty rates of 27% as com-

pared with 19% in the general population,

higher HIV/AIDS rates than White peers

(6.9 times higher for African Americans and

3.1 times higher for Latinos) and a higher

likelihood of being imprisoned. Educational

56 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

gaps compared to White youth, as evidenced

by a lack of a high school diploma, are twice as

high for African American youth and 7 times

as high for Latinos (Davis, Kilburn, & Schultz,

2009). Likewise, substantial health disparities

are found in Native American/Alaska Native

youth compared to the general population

(Castor et al., 2006). In a report on adolescent

health and youth of color, the National Asso-

ciation of Social Workers pointed out that

Native American youth have the worst health

of any racial group and highest rate of violent

death compared to “any other racial or

ethnic group” (Clark, 2001). Ethnic minority

youth also report less regular participation in

physical exercise.

A review of the scientific literature by

Elster, Jarosik, VanGeest, and Fleming (2003)

compared 31 studies addressing adolescent

racial and ethnic disparities in health care,

concluding that racial and ethnic disparities,

independent of socioeconomic status, exist in

selected areas of adolescent health care (Elster

et al.). Similar disparities for oral health are

found among racial/ethnic minorities (Die-

trich, Culler, Garcia, & Henshaw, 2008).

Flores and Tomany-Korman (2008b) observed

that children in non-English-speaking homes

experienced multiple disparities in medical

and oral health, access to care, and use of

services, adding another factor that relates to

the racial disadvantage in health care.

Engagement in psychiatric care in partic-

ular is an issue that may not just be related to

access (see Oliveri, Towery, Jacobs & Jacobs,

Chapter 18, this volume). Many Americans

are reluctant to take psychiatric medications

even though they are effective, and their re-

luctance may have cultural roots. Croghan’s

study found that the majority of respondents

would not take psychiatric medications (Crog-

han et al., 2003). This finding may help

explain some of the factors related to whether

detained youth continue on psychiatric medi-

cations when they are released. There are

ethnic differences in perspectives toward de-

pression in that African American and Latino

youth and their parents have less knowledge

about antidepressants and are less willing to

seek treatment (Chandra et al., 2009). Thus,

these negative factors are not confined solely

to delinquent youth, but rather result in poor

mental health outcomes in the communities

from which delinquents come.

Family Structure, Abuse/Neglect, and the Foster Care System

Family dysfunction, and specifically abuse and

neglect, can lead to involvement in the foster

care system. Youth in foster care (a number of

whom will transition to the juvenile justice

system) suffer poor health, and have chronic

medical conditions, mental disorders, and sub-

stance abuse problems (Currie & Tekin, 2006;

see Baker, Cunningham & Harris, Chapter 11,

this volume). In general, suffering greater

levels of abuse leads to a greater likelihood

of engaging in delinquency (Grogan-Kaylor,

Ruffolo, Ortega, & Clarke, 2008; Malmgren

& Meisel, 2004; Stewart, Livingston, & Den-

nison, 2008). However, the contribution of

foster care alone as a cause of delinquency and

poor health cannot be separated from

the various types of severity and duration of

abuse that lead to foster care placement.

An additional confounding element is the

appropriate disposition of foster children who

may commit minor offenses such as hitting a

staff member or fighting in a group home.

There is the tendency to send these children to

the juvenile justice system with no right of

return to the child welfare system. Ross,

Conger, and Armstrong (2002) discuss this

effect and suggest the need for a “human

services” model with the “objective of

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 57

achieving real working partnerships at the

front line (see Ross & Miller, Chapter 17,

this volume).

There is also a link between poverty

(Farrington, 1989; Kirk, 2008), family dis-

ruption (Kirk, 2008; Sampson & Laub, 1994)

and self-reported delinquency. Family dis-

ruption influences juvenile violence, leading

to three interconnected states—poverty,

family disruption, and violent delinquency

(Sampson & Laub, 1994). Children from

two-parent families are less likely to live in

poverty than children from single-parent

families, 8% vs. 17%. Single-mother house-

holds have much higher rates of receiving

public assistance (62%) and food stamps (61%)

compared to two-parent families, 32% and

23%, respectively (OJJDP, 2007).

Youth living with both biologic parents

are less likely to engage in problem behaviors

and crime regardless of whether the neighbor-

hood is well or poorly kept. In fact, family

structure predicts problem behaviors more

than does race or ethnicity (Snyder &

Sickmund, 2006). However, neighborhood

characteristics, including social networks and

Hispanic ethnicity, may influence parent-to-

child aggression, with physical aggression

leading to more severe child maltreatment

(Molnar, Buka, Brennan, Holton, & Earls,

2003). Hispanic and African American youth

are more likely to live in single-parent house-

holds (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). In 2007,

57% of Black youth lived with one parent,

compared to 31% of Hispanic children and

23% of White children (OJJDP, 2007).

Characteristics of parental supervision can

help reduce delinquency so that a high level of

parental supervision is associated with low

delinquency (Fischer, 1983). Positive family

communication (i.e., open vs. closed commu-

nication) with a youth’s parents also helps deter

delinquency (Clark & Shields, 1997). Parents

of delinquent youth tend to lose control of

their children, as evidenced by their inability

to turn their children away from maladaptive

behaviors and toward prosocial activities. This,

in turn, can interfere with the parents’ effec-

tiveness in obtaining services for their children

because of parental feelings of helplessness and

inability to engage their children in agreeing to

attend services. The Smith Sterns (1999) sug-

gest that new approaches are necessary to

empower parents and enhance cooperation

between parents and social service agencies.

The pathway from foster care to the de-

linquency system is more pronounced among

youth of color. Youth of color make up the

majority of foster youth (Clark, 2001). Non-

White children, given in-home abuse avoid-

ance services as opposed to no services, had a

lower risk of juvenile corrections entry. How-

ever, youth receiving mental health services

had a high risk of entering the juvenile cor-

rectional system (Jonson-Reid, 2002). The

same author reporting on children receiving

child welfare services in California reported

similar outcomes for non-White children.

However, girls who experienced foster place-

ment or group home placement had higher

rates of involvement with the juvenile correc-

tions system than girls not placed out of home

(see, e.g., Sherman & Greenstone, Chapter 7,

this volume). Further, children who were

reported as neglected were more likely to be

incarcerated compared to those who were

reported as being physically or sexually abused.

The authors felt that children receiving no

services were at greatest risk for incarceration

(Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000).

Education

Educational failure leads to unemployment

and possibly criminal behavior. Again, these

factors are interrelated, with poor education

58 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

leading to low SES, which is related to both

poor health and health access and to involve-

ment in the delinquency system.

Hispanic and African American youth

drop out of school more often compared to

White youth. In 2005, 2.8% of White, 7.3% of

Black, and 5% of Hispanic youth dropped out

of school (OJJDP, 2007). Youth who neither

attend school nor work have an increased risk

of engaging in high-risk and delinquent

behaviors (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Low-

income families, defined as those in the bottom

fifth income bracket, also have higher dropout

rates with 8.9% of low-income youth dropping

out compared to 1.5% of high-income families

who are in the top fifth income bracket

(OJJDP, 2007).

Biologic Factors

Intrinsic factors, such as genetic variations,

appear to contribute to behavioral traits lead-

ing to delinquent acts, and recent research

shows that the origins of adult illness and

behavioral abnormalities may be biologic

(Shonkoff, Boyce, & McEwen, 2009).

Youth who carry the short allele form of

the serotonin transporter–linked polymorphic

region (5-HTTLPR) gene that is found in 40%

of the general population are prone to impul-

sivity, low self-control, binge drinking, and

substance use (Brody et al., 2009). Other ge-

netic variations involving monoamine oxidase

A (Passamonti et al., 2006) and serotonin

(Lesch & Merschdorf, 2000) influence impulsive,

aggressive behaviors. Serotonin transporter–

promoting gene polymorphism is associated

with violence in relation to personality disor-

ders, impulsiveness, and childhood attention-

deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Retz,

Retz-Junginger, Supprian, Thome & Rosler,

2004). The combination of violent behavior,

impulsiveness, and ADHD also may be related

to dopamine D3 receptor gene polymorphism

(Retz, Rosler, Supprian, Retz-Junginger &

Thome, 2003). There are a number of other

genes that may be involved in antisocial behav-

ior combined with ADHD (Langley, 2009)

and ADHD and impulsivity (Ribases et al.,

2008). Finally, there appears to be a subset of

children with ADHD and antisocial behavior

associated with variations in the catechol-O-

methyltransferase (COMT) gene (Caspi et al.,

2008). Although these genetic variations ac-

count for a small number of incarcerated youth,

further research is likely to discover more of

these inborn tendencies to engage in delinquent

behavior. Some of these antisocial behaviors

that are genetically related may be modified

by prevention programs that can override the

genetic predisposition (Brody et al., 2009).

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pro-

vides another tool to evaluate maturation and

disruption in brain function in normal adoles-

cence and pathologic states. Giedd and his

colleagues followed brain architecture during

childhood into early adulthood and found that

the brain continues to change through the

early 20s. The frontal lobes, where executive

functioning resides, is one of the last areas to

mature (Rhoghel & Giedd, 2006). These

authors point out that changes in the brain’s

structure and the size of various areas of the

brain correspond to enhanced strengths or

weaknesses in brain function such as memory

capacity. They also note that brain maturation

includes interactions between genetic, epige-

netic, and environmental factors. They define

environmental factors as both outside environ-

ment and internal “physiologic milieu.” Thus,

individuals who are stressed beyond their

capacity to cope will develop “compensatory

physiologic responses and behaviors that in

time may affect brain structures” (p. 726).

This can be part of a normal or abnormal

learning process.

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 59

Preliminary MRI studies of youth with

developmental disorders show consistent

changes in brain structure compared to con-

trols, although the physiologic meaning of

these changes is not well understood.

Childhood-onset schizophrenia, Williams

syndrome, ADHD, and fetal alcohol syndrome

all demonstrate abnormal brain morphology

with some areas of decreased size. Although

the abnormalities vary in these disorders, there

also are some similarities among them (Toga,

Thompson, & Sowell, 2006).

Although not directly related to these

neuroimaging studies, many authors have

measured various aspects of adolescent

decision-making processes compared with

that of adults. When engaged with peers,

adolescents are more likely than adults to

make decisions associated with increased

risk. This scenario, which is called “hot

cognition,” is compared to “cold cognition”

when decisions are made in controlled or

nonemotional circumstances (Gardner &

Steinberg, 2005). Modecki (2007) reviewed

the gaps in the maturity of judgment

literature and found that adolescents “display

less responsibility and perspective relative

to college students” (p. 89). There was no

difference between nondelinquent youth and

delinquent youth with regard to maturity of

judgment, but high-level-delinquency youth

have significantly lower maturity of judg-

ment compared to low-level-delinquency

youth (Modecki, 2007). Recent work utiliz-

ing functional MRI studies of normal ado-

lescents 11–13 years old find that sleep

deprivation may be related to compensatory

increases in reward-driven behavior, possibly

increasing risky behavior because of less

activation of the caudate (part of the ventral

striatum) that is related to reward-related

brain function (Holm et al., 2009). Thus,

there may be an interaction between brain

maturation and sleep deprivation, which is

often found in adolescents engaged in delin-

quent behavior at night.

A recent review of childhood roots of

health disparities amplifies the effects of poor

environment on young children, bringing our

understanding to a new theoretical plane. The

authors argue that the origins of adult illness

and behavioral abnormalities result from

biological disruptions caused by toxic stress

beginning prenatally and continuing through

childhood. Unless there are protective relation-

ships to buffer the effects of stress, the individual

develops maladaptive coping mechanisms that

are reinforced by permanent changes in the

brain and other organs. They further point out

that protective and stressful events affecting one

generation can have positive or negative effects

for several successive generations that are facili-

tated by epigenetic changes in DNA methyla-

tion and histamine modification of chromatin

in response to experiences that can influence the

next generation (Shonkoff et al., 2009). Al-

though not part of their argument, there is

the possibility of a multiplying effect in that

parents who have experienced severe childhood

trauma will pass on a genetic predisposition for

poor adaptation to stress and compound the

effect by lacking the ability themselves as parents

to provide supportive relationships to their chil-

dren. These children are likely to experience

substantial, perhaps “toxic stress” because they

remain embedded in the poor social climate of

their parents. At the extreme, the children expe-

rience child abuse, chronic neglect, emotional

abuse, extreme poverty, family violence, and

parental drug abuse (Shonkoff et al., 2009).

Shonkoff and colleagues (2009) also

point out the long-term effects of this stress

on personal well-being, including heart dis-

ease; high blood pressure; obesity; early aging;

pulmonary disease; depression; alcoholism;

teen pregnancy; smoking; anxiety; aggression;

60 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

and poor mental flexibility, memory, and other

cognitive processes. These observations lead to

an understanding that the poor health and

health disparities of many disadvantaged social

groups have an early biologic basis that be-

comes evident as the person ages and illumi-

nates the link between health disparities and

delinquency. They make a strong case for early

childhood interventions to reduce the risks of

both physical and mental health impairments.

They also point out that once these early

processes take effect, it is very difficult to

reverse the early biological damage.

A related article reinforces these concepts

and makes clear the difficulty in changing

behavior in delinquent youth. Abram, Choe,

Washburn, Romero, and Teplin (2009) fol-

lowed 1,653 youth for about three years after

detention and found significant functional

impairment across one or more of the eight

domains. One fifth (21.6%) of youth had

marked global impairment. Only 7.5% had

“no noteworthy impairment.” It would be

expected that those youth who had substan-

tial functional impairments would also have

problems accessing health care after being

released from detention. These data also re-

inforce the difficulties of changing behavior

and functioning that may have roots in early

childhood toxic experiences.

Poor compliance with health care may also

be related to the normal developmental course

of brain maturation discussed in the MRI

studies above. The associated lag in appropriate

and non-risk-taking decision making could

play a role in some youth not seeking health

care or not cooperating with health-care rec-

ommendations. This may be compounded by

poor parental supervision or disordered com-

munities, and these immaturity dynamics could

play a significant role in impeding the seeking

of health care because there is no outside

control on the youth’s behavior.

CONCLUSION

While additional national research is needed,

existing literature confirms the sense in the

field that youth in the juvenile justice system

fare worse than their counterparts in the gen-

eral population in most domains of physical

and mental health. This is explained in part by

the compelling confluence of demographic,

family, and youth traits related to both the

onset of delinquent behaviors and disparities in

health care. Youth from lower socioeconomic

strata, minority race and ethnicity, and disor-

ganized families, including abused youth, are

more likely to be involved in delinquency, and

the same elements impede health care.

Currently, it is not known if delinquent youth

receive worse health care than nondelinquent

youth of similar backgrounds. It may be that

both groups suffer equally because of their

social status. However, nondelinquent youth

may have more supportive functional family

structures that help ameliorate the risk of poor

health care.

At the time youth are incarcerated, there is

a window of opportunity to address their

existing health problems. However, although

the health needs of these youth become evi-

dent and need to be addressed when they

become involved in the juvenile justice sys-

tem, primary prevention efforts, which

address disparate socioeconomic and personal

health risk factors before youth are involved in

the justice system, may be most effective and

most likely will require multiple approaches.

Thus, it is important to view the causes and

remediation of poor health care in detained

and incarcerated youth from the broader per-

spective of their social, economic, and demo-

graphic origins. Efforts to improve the health

status of this underserved population may also

reduce the incidence of delinquency because

the etiology of both is similar. Universal health

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 61

care and culturally sensitive care will address

some of the underlying health disparities

found in economically disadvantaged and/or

ethnic neighborhoods.

REFERENCES

Abram, K. M., Choe, J. Y., Washburn, J. J., Romero,

E. G., & Teplin, L. A. (2009). Functional impair-

ment in youth three years after detention. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 44, 528–535.

Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., McClelland, G. M., &

Dulcan, M. K. (2003). Comorbid psychiatric dis-

orders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of

General Psychiatry, 60, 1097–1108.

Abram, K. M., Teplin L. A., Charles, D. R., Longworth

M. S., McClelland, G. M., & Dulcan, M. K. (2004).

Posttraumatic stress disorder and trauma in youth in

juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61,

403–410.

Atkins, D. L., Pumariega, A. J., Rogers, K., Montgom-

ery, L., Nybro, C., Jeffers, G., & Sease, F. (1999).

Mental health and incarcerated youth. I: Prevalence

and nature of psychopathology. Journal of Child and

Family Studies, 8, 193–204.

Boesky, L. M. (2002). Juvenile offenders with mental health

disorders. Lanham, MD: American Correctional

Association.

Bolin K., & Jones, D. (2006). Oral health needs of

adolescents in a juvenile detention facility. Journal

of Adolescent Health, 38, 755–757.

Brody, G. H., Beach, S. R, Philibert, R. A., Chen, Y. F., &

Murry, V. M. (2009). Prevention effects moderate

the association of 5-HTTLPR and youth risk be-

havior initiation: Gene x environment hypotheses

tested via a randomized prevention design. Child

Development, 80, 645–661.

Breuner, C. C., & Farrow, J. A. (1995). Pregnant teens

in prison: Prevalence, management, and conse-

quences. Western Journal of Medicine, 162, 328–

330.

Carrion, V. G., & Steiner, H. (2000) Trauma and

dissociation in delinquent adolescents. Journal of

the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychi-

atry, 39, 353–359.

Caspi, A., Langley, K., Milne, B., Moffitt, T. E.,

O’Donovan, M., Owen, M. J., . . . Thapar, A.

(2008). A replicated molecular genetic basis for

subtyping antisocial behavior in children with at-

tention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Archives of

General Psychiatry, 65, 203–210.

Castor, M. L., Smyser, M. S., Taualii, M. M., Park, A.

N., Lawson, S. A., & Forquera, R. A. (2006).

A nationwide population-based study identifying

health disparities between American Indians/

Alaska Natives and the general populations living

in select urban counties. American Journal of Public

Health, 96, 1478–1484.

Cauffman E., Feldman, S. S., Waterman, J., & Steiner,

H. (1998) Posttraumatic stress disorder among

female juvenile offenders. Journal of the American

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37,

1209–1216.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010).

Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2009. U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/std/stats09/toc.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008a).

Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2007. U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/main

.htm

CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention.(2008b).CDC

HIV/AIDS Fact Sheet. HIV/AIDS among youth.

Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources

/factsheets/PDF/youth.pdf.

Chandra, A., Scott, J. J., Jaycox, L. H., Meredith, L. S.,

Tanielian, T., & Burnam, A. (2009). Racial/ethnic

differences in teen and parent perspectives toward

depression treatment. Journal of Adolescent Health,

44, 546–553.

Clark, R. D., & Shields, G. (1997). Family communica-

tion and delinquency. Adolescence, 32, 81–92.

Clark, S. (2001). Adolescent health and youths of color.

Adolescent Health, Vol. 2. Retrieved from

National Association of Social Workers Web site:

www.socialworkers.org

Council on Scientific Affairs. (1990). Health status of

detained and incarcerated youths. Journal of the

American Medical Association, 263, 987–991.

Croghan, T. W., Tomlin, M., Pescosolido, B. A.,

Schnittker, J., Martin, J., Lubell, K., & Swindle,

R. (2003). American attitudes toward and willing-

ness to use psychiatric medications. Journal of

Nervous and Mental Disease, 191, 166–174.

Currie, J., & Tekin, E. (2006). Does child abuse cause crime?

Working Paper 06–31. Andrew Young School of

Policy Studies, Georgia State University.

62 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

Davis, L. M., Kilburn, R. M., & Schultz, D. (2009). The

socioeconomic, health, safety and educational disparities

faced by boys and men of color in California. RAND

Health Monograph #MG-745-TCE. Santa Monica,

CA: RAND Corporation.

Desai, R. A., Goulet, J. L., Robbins, J., Chapman, J. F.,

Migdole, S. J., & Hoge, M. A. (2006). Mental

health care in juvenile detention facilities: A review.

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the

Law, 34, 204–214.

Dietrich, T., Culler, C., Garcia, R. I., & Henshaw,

M. M. (2008). Racial and ethnic disparities in

children’s oral health. The National Survey of

Children’s Health. Journal of the American Dental

Association, 139, 1507–1517.

Dixon, A., Howie, P., & Starling, J. (2004). Psycho-

pathology in female juvenile offenders. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines,

45, 1150–1158.

Domalanta, D. D., Risser, W. L., Roberts, R. E., &

Risser, J. M. (2003). Prevalence of depression and

other psychiatric disorders among incarcerated

youths. Journal of the American Academy of Child

and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 477–484.

Dong, M., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Williamson, D. F.,

Dube, S. R., Brown, D. W., & Giles, W. H. (2005).

Childhood residential mobility and multiple

health risks during adolescence and adulthood:

The hidden role of adverse childhood experiences.

Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 159,

1104–1110.

Elkington K. S., Teplin L. A., Mericle A. A., Welty L. J.,

Romero E. G., & Abram K. M. (2008). HIV/

sexually transmitted infection risk behaviors in

delinquent youth with psychiatric disorders: A

longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 901–911.

Elster, A., Jarosik, J., VanGeest, J., & Fleming, M. (2003).

Racial and ethnic disparities in health care for

adolescents: A systematic review of the literature.

Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 157,

867–874.

Emerson, D. (2009). Relative child poverty, income

inequality, wealth and health. JAMA, 301, 425–426.

Farrington, D. P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent

aggression and adult violence. Violence and Victims,

4, 79–100.

Fazel, S., Doll, H., & Langstrom N. (2008). Mental

disorders among adolescents in juvenile detention

and correctional facilities: A systematic review and

metaregression analysis of 25 surveys. Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,

47, 1010–1019.

Feinstein R. A., Lampkin, A., Lorish C. D., Klerman,

L. V., Maisiak, R., & Oh, M. K. (1998). Medical

status of adolescents at time of admission to a

juvenile detention center. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 22, 190–196.

Fischer, D. G. (1983). Parental supervision and delin-

quency. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, 635–640.

Flores, G., & Tomany-Korman, S. C. (2008a). Racial

and ethnic disparities in medical and dental health,

access to care, and use of services in US children.

Pediatrics, 121, e286–e298.

Flores, G., & Tomany-Korman, S. C. (2008b). The

language spoken at home and disparities in medi-

cal and dental health, access to care, and use of

services in US children. Pediatrics, 121, e1703–

e1714.

Ford, J. D., Chapman, J. F., Hawke, J., & Albert, D.

(2007). Trauma among youth in the juvenile justice

system: Critical issues and new directions. Research and

Program Brief. Retrieved from National Center for

Mental Health and Juvenile Justice Web site: www

.ncmhjj.com

Forrest, C. B., Tambor, E., Riley A. W., Ensminger,

M. E., & Starfield, B. (2000). The health profile

of incarcerated male youths. Pediatrics, 105,

286–291.

Gallagher, C. A., & Dobrin, A. (2006a) Deaths in

juvenile justice residential facilities. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 38, 662–668.

Gallagher, C.A., & Dobrin, A. (2006b). Facility-level

characteristics associated with serious suicide

attempts and deaths from suicide in juvenile justice

residential facilities. Suicide and Life-Threatening Be-

havior, 36, 363–375.

Gallagher, C. A., & Dobrin, A. (2007). Can juvenile

justice detention facilities meet the call of the

American Academy of Pediatrics and the National

Commission on Correctional Health Care? A

national analysis of current practices. Pediatrics,

199, e991–e1001.

Gallagher, C. A., Dobrin, A., & Douds, A.S. (2007). A

national overview of reproductive health care ser-

vices for girls in juvenile justice residential facilities.

Women’s Health Issues, 17, 217–226.

Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on

risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision

making in adolescence and adulthood: An

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 63

experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41,

625–635.

Golzari, M., Hunt, S. J., & Anoshiravani, A. (2006). The

health status of youth in juvenile detention facilities.

Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 776–782.

Grogan-Kaylor, A., Ruffolo, M. C., Ortega, R. M., &

Clarke, J. (2008). Behaviors of youth involved in the

child welfare system. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32,

35–49.

Gupta, R. A., Kelleher, K. J, Pajer, K., Stevens, J., &

Cuellar, A. (2005). Delinquent youth in correc-

tions: Medicaid and reentry into the community.

Pediatrics, 115, 1077–1083.

Hayes, L. M. (2009). Juvenile suicide in confinement: A

national survey. OJJDP, U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from www

.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

Harwell, T. S., Trino, R., Rudy, B., Yorkman, S., &

Gollub, E. L. (1999). Sexual activity, substance use,

and HIV/STD knowledge among detained male

adolescents with multiple versus first admissions.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 26, 265–271.

Hein, K., Cohen, M. I., Litt, I. F., Schonberg, S. K.,

Meyer, M. R., Marks, A., & Sheehy, A. J. (1980).

Juvenile detention: Another boundary issue for

physicians. Pediatrics, 66, 239–245.

Holm, S. M., Forbes, E. E., Ryan, N. D., Phillips, M. L.,

Tarr, J. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2009). Reward-related

brain function and sleep in pre/early pubertal and

mid/late pubertal adolescents. Journal of Adolescent

Medicine, 45, 326–334.

Hsia, H. M., Bridges, G. S., & McHale, R. (2004).

Disproportionate minority confinement. 2002 update

(NCJ 201240). Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hufft, A. G. (2004). Supporting psychosocial adapta-

tion for the pregnant adolescent in corrections.

American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing, 29,

122–127.

Ingoldsby, E. M., & Shaw, D. S. (2002). Neighborhood

contextual factors and early-starting antisocial path-

ways. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5,

21–55.

Jonson-Reid, M. (2002). Exploring the relationship

between child welfare intervention and juvenile

corrections involvement. American Journal of Ortho-

psychiatry, 72, 559–576.

Jonson-Reid, M., & Barth, R. P. (2000). From mal-

treatment report to juvenile incarceration: The role

of child welfare services. Child Abuse and Neglect,

24, 505–520.

Kim, A. A., McFarland, W., Kellogg, T., & Katz, M. H.

(1999). Sentinel surveillance for HIV infection and

risk behavior among adolescents entering juvenile

detention in San Francisco: 1990–1995. AIDS, 13,

1597–1598.

Kirk, D. S. (2008). The neighborhood context of racial

and ethnic disparities in arrest. Demography, 45,

55–77.

Ko, S. J., Wasserman, G. A., McReynolds, L. S., & Katz,

L. M. (2004). Contribution of parent report to

Voice DISC-IV diagnosis among incarcerated

youths. Journal of the American Academy of Child

and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 868–877.

Kramer, T. L., Phillips, S. D., Hargis, M. B., Miller, T. L.,

Burns, B. J., & Robbins, J. M. (2004). Disagree-

ment between parent and adolescent reports of

functional impairment. Journal of Child Psychology

and Psychiatry, 45, 248–259.

Langley, K., Fowler, T. A., Grady, D. L., Moyzis, R. K.,

Holmans, P. A., van den Bree, M. B., . . . Thapar,

A. (2009). Molecular genetic contribution to the

developmental course of attention-deficit hyper-

activity disorder. European Child Adolescent Psychia-

try, 18, 26–32.

Lederman, C. S., Dakof, G. A., Larrea, M. A., & Hua, L.

(2004). Characteristics of adolescent females in

juvenile detention. International Journal of Law and

Psychiatry, 27, 321–337.

Lesch, K. P., & Merschdorf, U. (2000). Impulsivity,

aggression, and serotonin: A molecular psycho-

biological perspective. Behavioral Sciences and the

Law, 18, 581–604.

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighbor-

hoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood

residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psy-

chological Bulletin, 126, 309–337.

Liao, Y., Tucker, P., & Giles, W. H. (2004). Health status

among REACH 2010 communities, 2001–2002.

Ethnicity and Disease, 13, S9–S13.

Litt, I. R., & Cohen, M. I. (1974). Prisons, adolescents,

and the right to quality medical care: The time is

now. American Journal of Public Health, 64, 894–897.

Malmgren, K. W., & Meisel, S. M. (2004). Examining

the link between child maltreatment and delin-

quency for youth with emotional and behavioral

disorders. Child Welfare, 83, 175–188.

Martin, A. (2006). Busted! Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Clinics of North America, 15, xv–xvii.

64 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

Mason, W. A., Zimmerman, L., & Evans, W. (1998).

Sexual and physical abuse among incarcerated

youth: Implications for sexual behavior, contracep-

tive use, and teenage pregnancy. Child Abuse &

Neglect, 22, 987–995.

McCabe, K. M., Lansing, A. E., Garland, A., & Hough

R. (2002). Gender differences in psychopathology,

functional impairment, and familial risk factors

among adjudicated delinquents. Journal of the Amer-

ican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41,

860–867.

McClelland, G. M., Elkington, K. S., Telpin, L. A., &

Abram, K. M. (2004). Multiple substance use

disorders in juvenile detainees. Journal of the Ameri-

can Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43,

1215–1224.

Mertz, K. J., Voigt, R. A., Hutchins, K., Levine, W. C.,

& Jail STD Prevalence Monitoring Group. (2002).

Findings from STD screening of adolescents and

adults entering correctional facilities. Implications

for STD control strategies. Sexually Transmitted

Diseases, 29, 834–839.

Modecki, K. L. (2007). Addressing gaps in the maturity

of judgment literature: Age differences and delin-

quency. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 78–91.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolesence-limited and life-course-

persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental tax-

onomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.

Molnar, B.E., Browne, A., Cerda, M., & Buka, S. L.

(2005). Violent behavior by girls reporting violent

victimization: A prospective study. Archives of Pedi-

atric and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 731–739.

Molnar, B. E., Buka, S. L., Brennan, R. T., Holton, J. K., &

Earls, F. (2003). A multilevel study of neighbor-

hoods and parent-to-child physical aggression:

Results from the project on human development

in Chicago neighborhoods. Child Maltreatment, 8,

84–97.

Morris, R. E. (2001). The health of youth in the juvenile

justice systems. Adolescent Medicine: State of the Art

Reviews, 1, 471–483.

Morris, R. E., Harrison, E. A., Knox, G. W., Troman-

hauser, E., Marquis, D. K., & Watts, L. L. (1995).

Health risk behavioral survey from 39 juvenile

correctional facilities in the United States. Journal

of Adolescent Health, 17, 334–344.

Morris, R. E., Baker, C. J., Valentine, M., & Pennisi,

A. J. (1998). Variations in HIV risk behaviors of

incarcerated juveniles during a four-year period:

1989–1992. Journal of Adolescent Health, 23, 39–48.

National Center for Children in Poverty. (2009). Who are

America’s poor children? Retrieved from www.nccp

.org/publications/pub_787.html

National Commission on Correctional Health Care.

(2004). Standards for health services in juvenile detention

and confinement facilities. Chicago, IL: NCCHC.

Nesmith, J. D., Klerman, L. V., Oh, K., & Feinstein,

R. A. (1997). Procreative experiences and orienta-

tions toward paternity held by incarcerated adoles-

cent males. Journal of Adolecent Health, 20, 198–203.

Odgers, C. L., Moffitt, T. E., Tach, L. M., Sampson, A.,

Taylor, R. J., Matthews, C. L., & Caspi, A. (2009).

The protective effects of neighborhood collective

efficacy on British children growing up in depriva-

tion: A developmental analysis. Developmental

Psychology, 45, 942–957.

Oh, M. K., Cloud, G. A., Wallace, L. S., Reynolds, J.,

Sturdevant, M., & Feinstein, R. A. (1994). Sexual

behavior and sexually transmitted diseases among

male adolescents in detention. Sexually Transmitted

Diseases, 21, 127–132.

OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. (2007). Online. Re-

trieved from http://ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/population

/faqs.asp

Passamonti, L., Fera, F., Magariello, A., Cerasa, A.,

Giola, M. C., Muglia, M., . . . Quattrone, A.

(2006). Monoamine oxidase-a genetic variations

influence brain activity associated with inhibitory

control: New insight into the neural correlates of

impulsivity. Biologic Psychiatry, 59, 334–340.

Perez, L. M., Ro, M. J., & Treadwell, H. M. (2009).

Vulnerable population, prison, and federal and state

Medicaid policies: Avoiding the loss of a right

to care. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 15,

142–149.

Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2007). Child well-

being and income inequality in rich societies: Ec-

ological cross sectional study. British Medical Journal,

335, 1054–1055.

Rawal, P., Romansky, J., Jenuwine, M., & Lyons, J. S.

(2004). Racial differences in mental health needs

and service utilization of youth in the juvenile

justice system. Journal of Behavioral Health Services

Research, 31, 242–254.

Rehkopf, D. H., Berkman, L. F., Coull, B., & Krieger,

N. (2008). The non-linear risk of mortality by

income level in a health population: US National

Health and Nutrition Examination Survey mortal-

ity follow-up cohort, 1988–2001. BMC Public

Health, 8, 383.

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 65

Retz, W., Retz-Junginger, P., Supprian, T., Thome, J.,

& Rosler, M. (2004). Association of serotonin

transporter promoter gene polymorphism with

violence: Relation with personality disorders, im-

pulsivity, and childhood ADHD psychopathology.

Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 415–425.

Retz, W., Rosler, M., Supprian, T., Retz-Junginger, P.,

& Thome, J. (2003). Dopamine D3 receptor

gene polymorphism and violent behavior: relation

to impulsiveness and ADHD-related psycho-

pathology. Journal of Neural Transmission, 110,

561–572.

Rhoghel, K. L., & Giedd, J. N. (2006). Brain develop-

ment in children and adolescents: Insights from

anatomical magnetic resonance imaging. Neuro-

science and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 718–729.

Ribases, M., Hervas, A., Ramos-Quiroga, J. A., Bosch,

R., Bielsa, A., Gastaminza, X., . . . Bayes, M.

(2008). Association study of 10 genes encoding

neurotropic factors and their receptors in adult

and child attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Biological Psychiatry, 63, 935–945.

Roberts, R. E., Attkisson, C. C., & Rosenblatt, A.

(1998). Prevalence of psychopathology among chil-

dren and adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry,

155, 715–725.

Robertson, A. A., Dill, P. L., Husain, J., & Undesser, C.

(2004). Prevalence of mental illness and substance

abuse disorders among incarcerated juvenile of-

fenders in Mississppi. Child Psychiatry and Human

Development, 35, 55–74.

Ross, T., Conger, D., & Armstrong, M. (2002). Bridging

child welfare and juvenile justice: Preventing un-

necessary detention of foster children. Child Wel-

fare, 81, 471–494.

Ruchkin, V., Koposov, R., Vermeiren, R., & Schwab-

Stone, M. (2003). Psychopathology and age of

onset of conduct problems in juvenile delinquents.

Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 64, 913–920.

Sampson, R. J. (2003). The neighborhood context of

well-being. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 46,

S53–S64.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1994). Urban poverty and

the family context of delinquency: A new look at

structure and process in a classic study. Child Devel-

opment, 65, 523–540.

Sedlak A. J., & Bruce C. (2010). Youth’s characteristics and

backgrounds: Findings from the Survey of Youth in

Residential Placement. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency. www

.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227730.pdf

Sedlak, A. J., & McPherson, K. S. (2010). Youth’s needs

and services: Findings from the Survey of Youth in

Residential Placement. Washington, DC: U.S. De-

partment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. Retrieved from www.ncjrs.gov

/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227728

Seidman, E., Yoshikawa, H., Roberts, A., Cesir-Teran,

D., Allen, L., Friedman, J. L., & Aber, J. L. (1998).

Structural and experiential neighborhood contexts,

developmental stage, and antisocial behavior among

urban adolescents in poverty. Development and Psy-

chopathology, 10, 259–281.

Shelton, D. (2000). Health status of young offenders and

their families. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32,

173–178.

Shelton, D. (2004). Experiences of detained young

offenders in need of mental health care. Journal of

Nursing Scholarship, 36, 129–133.

Shi, J., & Macinko, J. (2008). Changes in medical care

experiences of racial and ethnic groups in the

United States, 1996–2002. International Journal of

Health Services, 38, 653–670.

Shonkoff, J. P., Boyce, W. T., & McEwen, B. S. (2009).

Neuroscience, molecular biology, and the child-

hood roots of health disparities. JAMA, 301,

2252–2259.

Shufelt, J. L., & Cocozza, J. J. (2006, June). Youth with

mental health disorders in the juvenile justice sys-

tem: Results from the Multi-State Prevalence

Study. Research and Program Brief, National Center

for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from

www.ncmhjj.com

Simpson, L., Owens, P. L., Zodet, M. W., Chevarley,

F. M., Doughert, D., Elixhauser, A., & McCormick,

M. C. (2005). Health care for children and youth in

the United States: Annual report on patterns of

coverage, utilization, quality and expenditures by

income. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 5, 6–44.

Smith Stern, S. B., & Smith Stern, C. A. (1999).

Reciprocal relationships between antisocial behav-

ior and parenting: Implications for delinquency

intervention. Families in Society, 80, 169–181.

Snyder, H. N. (2008, November). Juvenile arrests 2006.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: US De-

partment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

66 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders

and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC:

US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-

grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Steiner, H., Garcia, I. G., & Matthews, Z. (1997). Journal

of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, 36, 357–365.

Stewart, A., Livingston, M., & Dennison, S. (2008).

Transitions and turning points: Examining the links

between child maltreatment and juvenile offending.

Child Abuse and Neglect, 32, 51–66.

Sweeney, P., Lindegren, M. L., Buehler J. W., Onorato, I.

M., & Janssen, R. S. (1995). Teenagers at risk of

immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. Results

from seroprevalence surveys in the United States.

Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 149,

521–528.

Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M.,

Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. A. (2002). Psychiat-

ric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives

of General Psychiatry, 59, 1133–1143.

Teplin, L. A., Mericle, A. A., McClelland, G. M., &

Abram, K. M. (2003). HIV and AIDS risk behav-

iors in juvenile detainees: Implications for public

health policy. American Journal of Public Health, 93,

906–912.

Teplin, L. A., Elkington, K. S., McClelland, G. M.,

Abram, K. M., Mericle, A. A., & Washburn, J. J.

(2005). Major mental disorders, substance use dis-

orders, co-morbidity, and HIV-AIDS risk behaviors

in juvenile detainees. Psychiatric Services, 56, 823–828.

Toga, A. W., Thompson, P. M., & Sowell, E. R. (2006).

Mapping brain maturation. Trends in Neuroscience,

29, 148–159.

Ulzen, T. P., & Hamilton, H. (1998). The nature and

characteristics of psychiatric comorbidity in incar-

cerated adolescents. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,

43, 57–63.

Vermeiren, R., Jespers, I., & Moffitt, T. (2006) Mental

health problems in juvenile justice populations.

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinics of North Amer-

ica, 15, 333–351.

Vreugdenhil, C., Doreleijers, T. H., Vermeiren, R.,

Wouters, L. F., & van den Brink, W. (2004). Psychi-

atric disorders in a representative sample of boys in

the Netherlands. Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 97–104.

Wasserman, G. A., McReynolds, L. S., Lucas, C. P.,

Fisher, P., & Santos, L. (2002). The Voice DISC-IV

with incarcerated male youths: Prevalence of dis-

order. Journal of the American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 314–321.

Wasserman, G. A., McReynolds, L. S., Ko, S. J., Katz,

L. M., & Carpenter, J. R. (2005). Gender differ-

ences in psychiatric disorders at juvenile probation

intake. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 131–

137.

Weinbaum, C., Lyerla, R., & Margolis, H. S. (2003).

Prevention and control of infections with hepatitis

viruses in correctional settings. Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention. MMWR Recommendations

and Reports, 52, RR-1, 1–36.

Williams, R. A., & Hollis, H. M. (1999). Health beliefs

and reported symptoms among a sample of incar-

cerated adolescent females. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 24, 21–27.

Woolf, A., & Funk, S. G. (1985). Epidemiology of

trauma in a population of incarcerated youth. Pedi-

atrics, 75, 463–468.

The Health of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 67

4 CHAPTER

Children’s Rights and Relationships: A Legal Framework

FRANCINE T. SHERMAN AND HON. JAY BLITZMAN

T hough we know that children have a set

of evolving needs and capacities linked

to their development, children’s law in the

United States is not organized around child

development or, in fact, any single organizing

theory. Instead, it is a patchwork of sometimes

contradictory provisions. After all, what de-

velopmental (or other) principle would restrict

a child’s ability to vote until 18, to purchase

alcohol until 21, yet sentence a 14-year-old to

adult prison for life without the possibility of

parole or allow him to waive his right to

counsel in a delinquency case?

Rather than reflecting a coherent vision of

society’s responsibility to children, children’s

law in the United States reflects history, a

particularly American vision of individual

rights, and the occasional nod to child devel-

opment. It is helpful to think of children’s legal

rights in two broad categories: autonomy-based

rights and needs-based rights (see Buss, 2004a;

Meyer, 2003; Woodhouse, 2001). Autonomy-

based rights pertain to children’s competencies

or their abilities to make decisions and act on

their own behalf—to be independent legal

actors. They include the rights to direct

one’s legal representation, make medical deci-

sions as a mature minor, exercise free speech,

contract, and enjoy procedural due process in

court and administrative matters. Needs-based

rights are rights to health, education, safety,

stable housing, and stable relationships; many

of which are discussed as children’s human

rights (United Nations Convention on the

Rights of the Child, 1989). Although auton-

omy and need are useful classifications, these

categories of rights are connected. For exam-

ple, a child’s right to liberty or to freedom from

unnecessary restraint is behind his or her

autonomy-based rights to counsel and formal

process in delinquency cases, but it is also

behind the needs-based right to rehabilitative

treatment should the child be found delin-

quent (Holland & Mlyniec, 1996).

Although its detailed analysis is beyond the

scope of this chapter, the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child

(CRC) (1989), to which the United States is

not a signatory, codifies for the international

community this blend of need- and autonomy-

based rights. The CRC requires signatory

nations to provide education, health care, stable

homes, and a range of children’s needs. But the

CRC also requires consideration of the child’s

autonomy, limiting the exercise of parental

rights to be “consistent with the evolving

capacities of the child” and including children’s

independent rights to speech, religion, associ-

ation, and assembly (Melton, 2005).

In the United States, children’s law devel-

oped through a legal tradition in which chil-

dren were seen foremost as part of their

68

Juvenile Justice: Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice Edited by Francine T. Sherman and Francine H. Jacobs

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

families, with rights historically contingent on

those of their parents (Cunningham, 2006).

Parents retain that authority over their chil-

dren unless parents are found to be unfit, at

which time the state steps in as parens patriae

(literally translated, “parent of country”), a

doctrine drawn from British common law

under which the state serves as parent to

protect and care for the child.

But in U.S. law the child’s, parents’, and

state’s rights coexist, each contributing in some

way to the rights of the others, and can be

viewed as rights in relationship to each other

(Buss, 2004b; Henning, 2006; Meyer, 2003;

Minow, 1986; Ross, 2003). For example,

children need their parents in order to fully

realize many of their individual rights. Parents

help children find lawyers to pursue their rights

and help them obtain health care and education,

and the law recognizes this, giving parents

authority to make most health and education

decisions for their children. Moreover, parents’

rights over their children’s decisions diminish as

the child matures, when the law increasingly

recognizes the child’s ability to make more of

her own decisions—for example, in areas of

health care, abortion, and, through counsel, the

conduct of any delinquency case. The state,

which exercises its authority as both police

power and parens patriae, is authorized by the

needs of the public (e.g., requiring parents to

immunize children and children to be immu-

nized) but also limited by the parents’ and child’s

rights. Thus, the rights of the child, parent, and

state function in relation to each other.

This chapter provides an overview of U.S.

law relating to children. Framed both in terms

of needs- and autonomy-based rights and the legal

dynamics among child, parent, and state, the

chapter describes how the law organizes

the world for children in the United States.

Like the other chapters in this volume, the

discussion focuses on children involved with

the child and family services, juvenile justice,

and other state systems as well as critical

institutions such as schools and health provid-

ers. The chapter discusses children’s law in

relation to each of these systems and institu-

tions independently and explores ways in

which the law crosses or should cross these

systems and institutions on behalf of children

and families. With this ecological frame in

mind, we acknowledge that children’s lives,

including their legal lives, are related to their

families, communities, and the social institu-

tions that surround them.

CHILD, PARENT, AND STATE

Children’s rights are contingent in significant

measure on their parents. As recently as 2000,

the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged this,

upholding a Washington state statute allowing

a custodial parent to restrict grandparents from

visiting with her children. Although the Court

did not deny findings that the grandparents’

visitation had a positive effect on the children,

providing a “large, central, loving family . . . ”

(p. 61), the Court found that “ . . . [t]he

liberty interest at issue in this case—the inter-

est of parents in the care, custody, and control of

their children—is perhaps the oldest of the

fundamental liberty interests recognized by

this court” (Troxel v. Granville, 2000, p. 65,

emphasis added). In its holding, the majority

deferred to the parent’s decision about grand-

parent visitation, even in the face of a possible

contrary interest on the part of the child, who

was not separately consulted or represented

under the statutory scheme. In his dissent,

Justice Stevens suggested that the interest at

work may be the child’s:

While this Court has not yet had

occasion to elucidate the nature of a

Children’s Rights and Relationships: A Legal Framework 69

child’s liberty interests in preserving

established familial or family-like

bonds . . . it seems to me extremely

likely that, to the extent parents and

families have fundamental liberty in-

terests in preserving such intimate

relationships, so, too, do children

have these interests, and so, too,

must their interests be balanced in

the equation. (Troxel, pp. 88–89;

Buss, 2003)

When parents are unfit, the state steps in as

parens patriae. The notion first appeared in U.S.

law in 1839 in Ex Parte Crouse, in which Mary

Ann Crouse’s father challenged her commit-

ment to the Philadelphia House of Refuge

for being “an incorrigible or vicious female

under the age of 18 years” (p. 1). Upholding

the commitment, the court wrote:

The object of charity is reformation,

by training its inmates to industry, by

imbuing their minds with principles

of morality and religion, by furnishing

them with means to earn a living, and,

above all, by separating them from the

corrupting influence of improper

associates. To this end may not the

natural parents, when unequal to the

task of education, or unworthy of it,

be superceded by the parens patriae, or

common guardian of the community?

(Ex Parte Crouse, 1939, p. 2)

The notion of the state as parens patriae was

first recognized by the Supreme Court in two

cases (Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923, and Pierce v.

Society of Sisters, 1925), upholding challenges to

the constitutionality of state statutes interfering

with the rights of parents to control their

children’s upbringing and education. Meyer

and Pierce, both cited approvingly in Troxel,

did not discuss the children’s independent

interests or rights. Concern about children’s

autonomy rights to be heard in court indepen-

dently of the state or parents is a relatively

recent development beginning, perhaps, with

Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the prosecution

of a guardian for violating a child labor law

by permitting her 9-year-old ward to sell

Jehovah’s Witnesses periodicals in the evening.

Although the court upheld the conviction, the

case included references to the rights of chil-

dren to exercise their religion and notes that

“children have rights, in common with other

people, in the primary use of highways”

(p. 169). Ten years later, in the school de-

segregation case, Brown v. Board of Education,

children were the named plaintiffs, and in 1967

the Supreme Court held that children had the

right to be heard directly through their own

attorneys during the adjudicatory phase of

delinquency proceedings (In re Gault, 1967).

The role of counsel and the extent to

which children’s rights should be independent

of adults is still the subject of debate. Does

counsel have a responsibility to represent the

child client’s expressed wishes or should counsel

serve his or her view of the child client’s best

interests? What happens when a parent’s view of

what is best for her child, on a matter of

fundamental interest such as education or

health, conflicts with that child’s view? In an

often-cited dissent in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972),

a case that reversed convictions of Amish par-

ents who had violated a compulsory school

attendance law, Justice Douglas argued that

“(w)hile the parents, absent dissent, normally

speak for the entire family, the education of the

child is a matter on which the child will often

have decided views” (p. 244). Although the

growing consensus is that lawyers for children

serve children best when they represent the

child’s expressed wishes, providing representation

comparable to that which an adult would

70 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

receive (Green & Dohrn, 1996), the relation-

ship between children’s and parents’ rights is a

continuing theme in children’s law.

The Interplay of Child, Parent, and State Rights in Juvenile Justice

The state’s role as parens patriae is clearest in the

child and family services system, where the

rationale for the case is the parents’ abuse or

neglect of their child. When youth are alleged

to be status offenders—committing acts that

are law violations only for children (e.g., tru-

ancy, incorrigibility, running away, underage

drinking)—or delinquent—committing acts

that would be criminal if the child were an

adult—the state exercises its authority both as

parens patriae and policepower. In these cases the

roles and rights of parents are less clear. While

the law increasingly requires parental involve-

ment in these cases (Henning, 2006), it also

blames parents and provides parents relatively

little protection or encouragement, although

the case can result in their loss of custody and

oneof the state’s goals is to assist the child andhis

or her family (see Jacobs, Miranda-Julian, &

Kaplan, Chapter 10, this volume).

As the rights of parents are deemphasized

in delinquency cases, the rights of youth are

emphasized but never equal to those of adults,

and they are often expressed in relationship to

their parents. In 1967 the Supreme Court

found that children charged with delinquency

and subject to possible placement in a

“training school” have a right to counsel

because they risk a loss of liberty protected

by the U.S. Constitution. This liberty interest,

and the procedural rights that flow from it,

belong to the child and not the parents (In re

Gault,1967). Almost 20 years later, the

Supreme Court found that children charged

with delinquency could be detained in locked

facilities with fewer procedural protections

than would be available to adults, reasoning

that, although a juvenile’s

interest in freedom from institutional

restraints . . . is undoubtedly substan-

tial . . . juveniles, unlike adults, are

always in some form of custody . . . .

They are assumed to be subject to the

control of their parents, and if parental

control falters, the State must play its

part as parens patriae. (Schall v. Martin,

1984, p. 256)

Thus, even in the delinquency system with

their individual right to liberty at stake, child-

ren’s rights are conceptualized in relation to

those of their parents.

Although the law in many states requires

that parents participate in the delinquency

process (e.g., attend hearings, contact proba-

tion, pay restitution for their children’s acts),

the juvenile justice process, despite its original

intent, is a crude tool for nurturing the parent–

child bond. Parental responsibility and parent–

child privilege laws illustrate this point.

Parental responsibility laws, which impose

civil, criminal, or quasi-criminal liability on

parents for the illegal acts of their children,

illustrate the conceptual difficulties inherent in

balancing parents’ rights and responsibilities

for their children once those children become

involved in the juvenile justice system. These

laws, which assume that parents are in some

way at fault for their children’s delinquency

and that they can be motivated to do better by

legal liability, have been around for decades

but, perhaps because they feel out of step with

the complex task of parenting, are rarely

enforced absent a high-profile case (Harris,

2006; Henning, 2006).

Parent–child testimonial privilege is an-

other area of inconsistent policy about parents

in relation to their children charged with

Children’s Rights and Relationships: A Legal Framework 71

crimes. Unlike the spousal testimonial privi-

lege, which has a long history in common and

statutory law (Trammel v. United States, 1980),

as of 2006 only four states recognized a parent–

child testimonial privilege, which would

shield confidential communications between

parent and child (Henning, 2006). Scholars

have observed that the absence of a parent–

child testimonial privilege creates a situation in

which a child in trouble with the law would be

wise not to seek help and advice from her

parent. This runs counter to established legal

tradition protecting the privacy of families and

encouraging strong parent–child relationships,

as well as the philosophy of the juvenile court

to encourage parental responsibility for their

children and the child’s trust of their parent,

the juvenile justice process, and of their lawyer

(Henning, 2006; Ross, 2003).

As we examine the details of children’s

rights and the law governing child-serving

systems, we will continue to see a struggle,

with inconsistent results, among the interests

and rights of the child, parent, and state.

CHILDREN’S NEEDS-BASED RIGHTS

Although there is federal constitutional law

relating to children, most of the law governing

children’s rights is state-based, and so there is

significant state-to-state variation in children’s

law and practice (Blitzman, 2007). Federal

children’s policy is typically set through fund-

ing legislation, requiring states to approach

children’s issues in proscribed ways. Federal

constitutional law sets the floor for defining

and protecting children’s rights, leaving states

to pass laws complying with constitutional

minimums, but which may test constitutional

parameters (e.g., minor’s right to abortion)

or to imagine the ceiling and exceed

constitutional minimums in defining and pro-

tecting the rights of the child (e.g., broader

rights to appointment of counsel in juvenile

cases than are constitutionally required; state

laws requiring a jury in a delinquency adjudi-

cation although none is required under the

U.S. Constitution). The essentially local qual-

ity of children’s law and of the systems affecting

children makes for 51 local laboratories that

express community views about children and

the roles of parents and society in relation to

them (see Ross & Miller, Chapter 17, this

volume).

Education

In San Antonio Independent School District v.

Rodriguez (1973), in the context of a school

funding challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court

held that there was no fundamental right to

education in the federal Constitution. While

all 50 states have provisions in their constitu-

tions establishing systems of public education,

only 20 states recognize education as a funda-

mental right (Blumenson & Nilsen, 2003; see

also Boundy & Karger, Chapter 14, this vol-

ume), and the extent of the right varies

(Hubsch, 1989; School Districts’ Alliance for

Adequate Funding of Special Education v. State,

2009). Even where states have established a

child’s right to education, parents exercise that

right, which is subject to restrictions imposed

by the state under its police power. While

parents have a long-standing federal constitu-

tional right to make decisions concerning their

children’s education, they do not have the

ability to direct their children’s education in

the face of reasonable state regulation. For

example, failure to send a child to school

can result in a finding of neglect and state

intervention into the family (see, e.g., Clon-

lara, Inc. v. Runkel, 1989; Ossant v. Millard,

1972; State v. Newstrom, 1985).

72 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

The state’s police power also provides

authority for schools to suspend and expel

students when they violate school rules or

criminal laws or, in some states, when they

are charged with a crime (Anderson, 2004;

Blumenson & Nilsen, 2002; Reyes, 2006).

Again, there is a great deal of state variation

both in expulsion laws and in the extent to

which alternative education is required or

available to expelled students. Because the

Supreme Court held that a student has a

property interest in public education, schools

must provide some procedural protections

before expulsion or other deprivation of edu-

cation (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). However, only a

small minority of states recognize some degree

of a right to alternative education for regular

education students who have been expelled

(Blumenson & Nilsen, 2003; Carroll, 2008).

Despite the lack of a federal constitutional

right to education, federal law sets educational

policy through legislation such as the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000a et seq. (1988), and Title I of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act, also known as

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (20 U.S.C.

§6301 et seq.). These laws condition federal funding for education on a range of policy-

driven requirements. NCLB, for example,

requires that 100% of students demonstrate

proficiently in reading and mathematics by

2014, showing “adequate yearly progress”

(AYP) along the way (No Child Left Behind,

§6316). This mandate sets education policy but is not actually a right to adequate educa-

tion held by any individual child and so is not

individually enforceable (i.e., a child who fails

state tests cannot sue his school district under

NCLB). However, NCLB contains provisions

that may be tools for lawyers seeking to

improve a child client’s education, such as

the ability of a student to transfer from a Title

I school that has not met adequate yearly

progress for 2 years in a row (No Child Left

Behind, §6316; Reichbach, 2004; see Boundy & Karger, Chapter 14, this volume, for a

detailed discussion of education law and juve-

nile justice).

Unlike regular education students,

students with disabilities do have a right to

education under the Individuals with Disabil-

ities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq.), which guarantees a “free and appro-

priate public education” (FAPE) to every child

with a disability in need of special education

services. IDEA applies fully to all children with

disabilities, including those in state systems

such as the juvenile justice system (20 U.S.C.

§§ 1412(a)(3)(A), (7); Blau & Allbright, 2006; see also Boundy & Karger, Chapter 14, this

volume). This includes the right of youth in

the justice system who have identified special

education needs to receive specialized instruc-

tion and necessary developmental, supportive,

and corrective services, and to be provided a

full substantive curriculum (20 U.S.C.§1401 (3)(A); see Boundy & Karger, Chapter 14, this

volume). Approximately one third of youth in

juvenile correctional facilities have been diag-

nosed with learning disabilities, which,

according to advocates and experts, under-

represents the actual population of incarcer-

ated youth with learning disabilities (Quinn,

Rutherford, Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005;

Sedlak & McPherson, 2010; see also Boundy

& Karger, Chapter 14, this volume).

Health

Like education, there is no clear legal right to

health care for children in the United States.

Children living in poverty—particularly poor

children who are foster children, children

in the juvenile justice system, and homeless

children—have difficulty accessing health

care; and their health needs often go unmet.

Children’s Rights and Relationships: A Legal Framework 73

However, Medicaid, the State Children’s

Health Insurance Program (SCHIP, 42 U.S.

C. 1397aa, et seq. (2009)), the Foster Care

Independence Act (FCIA, 42 U.S.C.A. § 670 (1999)), and the 2010 Patient Protection and

Affordability Care Act (PPACA, PL111–148,

2010 HR 3590 (2010)) all have provisions

designed to expand health insurance coverage

for these populations of youth. The extent to

which these access goals are met vary consid-

erably, depending on how these laws are

implemented by the states (English, 2006).

Medicaid provides health insurance to

low-income families as well as to categories

of juveniles based on individual state plans.

Thus, in Massachusetts, for example, youth in

state custody are categorically eligible for

Medicaid (MassHealth), although that is not

the case in other states. Federal SCHIP (2009)

extended Medicaid benefits to children who

would not otherwise be income eligible, and

FCIA originally made youth between 18 and

21, who were in foster care at age 18, an

additional Medicaid-eligible group (English,

2006), which will be extended by PPACA,

beginning in 2014, to age 26 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2004, 10201).

However, the structure of Medicaid cov-

erage and reimbursement leaves coverage gaps

for children, particularly those involved with

state and county systems. For example, under

the “inmate exception” to Medicaid, “an

inmate of a public institution” is ineligible

for Medicaid reimbursement, and that eligi-

bility exception has been interpreted to apply

to youth in delinquency facilities both pre-

and post-adjudication, such as detention and

secure post-adjudication treatment (Burrell &

Bussiere, 2002; Gupta, Kelleher, & Cueller,

2005). As a result, teens who are Medicaid

eligible due to family poverty often have

their Medicaid suspended (or in some cases

terminated) when detained or incarcerated.

When these youth re enter the community,

they must apply to have their benefits rein-

stated, and because they often have little access

to assistance with this process, many youth

are not covered when they return to the

community.

A federal court in Massachusetts addressed

another common gap in Medicaid coverage

for youth, finding that state Medicaid provi-

sions failed to provide adequate medical assess-

ments and coordination of services for youth

with serious emotional disturbance as required

under the “Early and Periodic Screening,

Diagnostic and Treatment” (EPSDT) provi-

sion of the federal Medicaid law (Rosie D. v.

Romney, 2006). To reach this conclusion the

court, like other courts presented with the issue,

held that EPSDT provisions create private

rights that can be enforced in the courts through

a civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. § 1983; e.g., S. D. v. Hood, 2004). Rosie D. further found

that the state had failed to provide adequate in-

home behavioral support services for this pop-

ulation of children, necessitating instead, harm-

ful confinement in residential facilities (Perkins,

2009). The litigation resulted in a statewide

system of assessment and community-based

mental health services (CBHI).

The recent 2010 Patient Protection

and Affordability Care Act (PPACA, P.L.

111–148), and the Health Care and Education

Reconciliation Act (Recon. Act, P.L. 111–

152) expand health coverage for a number of

vulnerable populations of youth. In addition

to extending Medicaid eligibility to age 26

for former foster children (42 U.S.C. §§ 2004, 10201), they increase federal incentives to

states to maintain broad eligibility for children

under SCHIP (42 U.S.C. § 2101(a)) and require states to ensure that children who

do not qualify for Medicaid are enrolled in

a qualified plan through a state exchange

(42 U.S.C. §2101 (b)), simplifying the process

74 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

of enrollment for these children (42 U.S.C.

§2201; National Health Law Program, 2010). Thus, needs-based rights for youth to

education and health in the United States

are addressed through a patchwork of federal

and state laws and court decisions, and vary

considerably from state to state. This patch-

work is complicated for youth in the juvenile

justice system, who tend to have a concentra-

tion of education and health needs, which

often go unmet due to system fragmentation

(see Farrell & Myers, Chapter 21, this volume;

Ross & Miller, Chapter 17, this volume).

For them, strategic use of federal laws

mandating the type of education and health

services states must provide to certain children

is particularly critical.

CHILDREN’S AUTONOMY- BASED RIGHTS

On issues of both education and health, courts

have developed children’s autonomy-based

rights as well as their needs-based rights. For

example, in education, issues of autonomy have

come up in free-speech cases and procedural

rights cases relating to school discipline. In

health,theyariseintheareaofconsenttomedical

treatment and abortion. Like all children’s law,

the cases and statutes in these areas reflect the

sometimes competing interests of the child,

parent, and state. We treat health-care decision

making next, as a case in point.

Health-Care Decision Making

We have recognized three reasons

justifying the conclusion that the

constitutional rights of children can-

not be equated with those of adults:

the peculiar vulnerability of children;

their inability to make critical

decisions in an informed, mature

manner; and the importance of the

parental role in child-rearing. (Bellotti

v. Baird, 1979, p. 634)

As a general rule, minors do not have the

legal right to consent to most medical proce-

dures, whether routine or emergency. This is

based on the belief that children’s judgment is

not sufficiently mature to make medical deci-

sions, and in the overarching legal principle of

deference to parents’ decision making about

their children’s upbringing, absent some

showing of parents’ inability to act in their

child’s interests. In Parham v. J. R. (1979), the

Supreme Court articulated this assumption,

upholding a Georgia law that allowed parents

to “voluntarily” commit their child to a state

mental hospital. The Court reasoned both that

children had limited decision-making ability

about medical matters and that parents gener-

ally have their children’s interests at heart.

The law’s concept of the family rests

on a presumption that parents possess

what a child lacks in maturity, expe-

rience, and capacity for judgment

required for making life’s difficult

decisions. More importantly, it has

recognized that natural bonds of af-

fection lead parents to act in the best

interests of their children. (p. 602)

Under the statutory scheme, which the Court

upheld, the admitting doctor safeguarded

against parents who might not have their

children’s best interests at heart.

Parham expressed the tension between

parents’ rights to raise their children and

children’s individual rights, as well as the

assumption behind much of children’s law—

that parents exercise their children’s rights

in their children’s interests. In this, we see

Children’s Rights and Relationships: A Legal Framework 75

children’s and parents’ rights in relationship to

each other. The court in Parham clearly artic-

ulated the child’s emerging liberty interest:

“. . . we assume that a child has a protectable

interest . . . in being free from unnecessary

bodily restraint . . .” (442 U.S. 584, p. 601),

which was later developed in the delinquency

context in In re Gault (1967) to support pro-

cedural due process rights for children in

delinquency adjudications (Weithorn, 2005).

A number of exceptions to the general

rule that children cannot consent to medical

treatment have been recognized for youth

who are determined, by a physician or judge,

to be “mature minors,” and for certain classes

of health issues (Cunningham, 2006; Hart-

man, 2002; Mutcherson, 2005). State law

also provides for youth to consent to medical

care in areas of public health concern such as

reproductive health, communicable disease,

substance use, or mental health (e.g., Mass.

Gen L. Ann c. 21 §§12F; 12S). In these laws, public health concerns trump parental consent

requirements, because obtaining parental

consent may inhibit youth from accessing

needed treatment. Even the Health Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA,

29 U.S.C.A. § 1181 et seq.), which controls access to medical records, gives 16-year-olds

authority to access and release their medical

information (2009).

In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v.

Danforth (1976) and Bellotti v. Baird (1979), the

Supreme Court considered the rights of a

minor to make the decision to terminate

her pregnancy. In Belotti, the Supreme Court

struck down a Massachusetts statute that

required parental consent for a minor to access

an abortion, holding that minors, like adult

women, have rights to reproductive choice.

However, the Court balanced that autonomy-

based right with its view of the minor’s

“inability to make fully informed decisions

that take account of both immediate and

long-term consequences” (pp. 633–634).

To accommodate limitations on a minor’s

decision-making ability while preserving her

reproductive rights, the Court held that

parental consent provisions are constitutional

as long as the law also provides for a “judicial

bypass,” providing the minor with an alterna-

tive to parental consent.

The law of children’s autonomy-based

rights in the areas of education and health

is, in many ways, a moving target in which

courts try to balance youth’s autonomy to

assert independent interests in education and

health with parents’ well-established right to

make decisions about their child’s upbringing.

Behind it all is the state’s interest in protecting

children and society. That state interest moves

to the foreground when we consider the law

that applies to children in the delinquency and

child and family services systems.

THE JUVENILE COURT AND CHILD-SERVING SYSTEMS

The first juvenile court was established in 1899

in Chicago, and the model quickly spread so

that by 1920 all but three states had some form

of separate court to address the needs of

abused, neglected, and “wayward” youth

(Ainsworth, 1991). The original vision did

not distinguish youth who were abused and

neglected from those who violated the crimi-

nal laws. Rather, these youth were collectively

seen as needing the “care and discipline” of the

state as a “kind, just parent” (see Ayers, 1997).

Youth who violated the criminal laws, like

youth who were abused or neglected, required

treatment and reform, not punishment.

The systems and laws addressing youth

charged with crimes, youth who are status

offenders, and youth who are abused and

76 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

neglected diverged through the 20th century

so that we currently have a continuum of legal

structures and rights. Youth who are charged

with crimes have the most extensive due process

rights, which, with some notable exceptions

(e.g., right to a jury), almost mirror the rights

of adult criminal defendants. These youth are

increasingly considered different from their

counterparts in the child and family services

system, who may have fewer due process rights

but are entitled to greater care and protection.

Children’s Liberty Interests and the State as Parens Patriae and Police Power

One thread of constitutional rights running

through the law relating to children in state

systems has to do with children’s liberty-

related interests—right to be free from re-

straint, freedom of movement, and freedom

of association. These appear in cases about

juvenile curfews, gang statutes, mental health

confinement, and conditions in facilities and

foster homes, and become central to the law

governing the juvenile justice system.

Courts acknowledge that the juvenile jus-

tice system reflects the “good intentions” (In re

Gault, 1967, p. 19) of the state as parens patriae,

and at times they defer to those intentions. In

these situations the state’s parens patriae role can

become conflated with the state’s role as police

power in preventing juvenile crime and pro-

tecting the public; though these are really

distinct, together they allow state conduct in

relation to juveniles that would not be allowed

for adults in the criminal justice system.

An illustration of this can be found in cases

allowing routine strip searches, without rea-

sonable suspicion, of youth detained in the

juvenile justice system (e.g., N. G. v. Connect-

icut, 2004; Smook v. Minnehaha County, 2006).

In these cases the federal courts held that,

because youth in the juvenile justice system

are particularly vulnerable and the state as

parens patriae is responsible for protecting

them, routine strip searches at detention

intake, after visitation, and when youth leave

and reenter the facility are lawful in the name

of child protection. In these cases, the courts

contrast the juvenile justice context with other

youth contexts such as schools (Safford v.

Redding, 2009) and immigration detention

(Reno v. Flores, 1993), finding the state’s inter-

est greater and the juvenile rights reduced in

the juvenile justice context. It should be noted

that Safford v. Redding (2009), in which the

Supreme Court found unconstitutional the

strip search of 13-year-old Savana Redding

by school officials who suspected her of hiding

ibuprofen in violation of school policy, was

decided by the Supreme Court subsequent to

the federal court decisions in the detention

strip search cases, and so may influence that

law in the future. For now, the detention strip

search cases provide a striking illustration of

the way the state’s twin interests in juvenile

justice as parens patriae and police power can

outweigh the child’s individual liberty interest.

Juvenile Justice: Social Welfare Versus Social Control

Asanyparentknowsandasthescientific

and sociological studies . . . confirm,

“[a] lack of maturity and an underde-

veloped sense of responsibility are

found in youth more often than in

adults and are more understandable

amongtheyoung.Thesequalitiesoften

result in impetuous and ill-considered

actionsanddecisions.” . . .Thesecond

area of difference is that juveniles are

more vulnerable or susceptible to

negative influences and outside pres-

sures,includingpeerpressure. . . . The

third broad difference is that the

Children’s Rights and Relationships: A Legal Framework 77

character of a juvenile is not as well

formed as that of an adult. The person-

ality traits of juveniles are more transi-

tory,lessfixed.(Roperv.Simmons,2005,

pp. 569–570)

[D]evelopments in psychology and

brain science continue to show funda-

mental differences between juvenile

and adult minds. For example, parts

of the brain involved in behavior con-

trol continue to mature through late

adolescence. Juveniles are more capa-

ble of change than are adults, and their

actions are less likely to be evidence

of “irretrievably depraved character”

than are theactionsof adults.Itremains

true that “[f]rom a moral standpoint

it would be misguided to equate the

failings of a minor with those of an

adult, for a greater possibilityexists that

a minor’s character deficiencies will

be reformed.” (Graham v. Florida,

2010, pp. 2026–2027)

The tension between the juvenile court’s

twin missions to promote social welfare and

social control permeates the law of delinquency.

Juvenile delinquency proceedings increasingly

resemble adult criminal proceedings, yet they

are described in noncriminal terms. The juve-

nile is adjudicated delinquent, not found guilty, and

he or she is given a disposition, not a sentence. The

due process revolution of the 1960s and 1970s,

resulting in expanded autonomy rights for

youth, came at the cost of reduced dedication

in the law to rehabilitation as the exclusive

mission of juvenile justice. While juvenile jus-

tice still emphasizes rehabilitation as the goal,

an increased segment of youth charged with

crimes are tried and sentenced as adults, and in

their dispositions, many juvenile justice systems

couple rehabilitation with some measure of

retribution, incapacitation, and punishment.

There is a growing consensus that a juve-

nile’s right to counsel—developed in the

40-plus years since Gault—should look as

much like an adult lawyer–client relationship

as possible (Green & Dohrn, 1996; Blitzman,

2007). But how can we give children control

over their cases through client-directed, adult-

style representation, yet acknowledge that

their judgment is influenced by their still

immature status? This is a specific instance

of a paradox in youth law—we simultaneously

base policy on the notion that juveniles are

different from adults and the notion that they

should be treated the same as adults (see Poncz,

2008). The particular question of the younger

juvenile’s role vis-�a-vis counsel is addressed through the law of competency (to consult

with a lawyer and understand the proceedings)

(Dusky v. United States, 1960). Greater under-

standing of the meaning of competency for

juveniles, particularly for juveniles in adult

court, may help protect both the integrity

of the judicial process and the rights of the

child (Cauffman, 1999; Henning, 2006).

The shift from a purely parens patriae

framework for juvenile justice was part of

what has been called the “due process bargain”:

In exchange for procedural due process, courts

limited the youth’s second chances, a founding

principle of the separate juvenile justice system.

For example, although it was the norm in the

1960s, few jurisdictions now completely seal

juvenile records. Children are required

to register as sex offenders, as are adults, if

found delinquent for certain offenses; and

findings of delinquency now carry collateral

consequences such as school expulsion or

ineligibility for subsidized housing (Henning,

2004; Markman, 2008), which can dramatically

reduce a youth’s opportunities for a productive

future and have a significant impact on the lives

of parents and siblings. Despite these significant

consequences, in many juvenile courts the

78 F R A M I N G T H E I S S U E S

culture continues to be casual and un-

accountable, and the defense bar less than zeal-

ous, reflecting the incorrect belief that a finding

of delinquency is a small price to pay for treat-

ment. To combat this view there have

been significant recent efforts to boost juvenile