E M P I R I C A L R E S E A R C H
Youth Pathways to Placement: The Influence of Gender, Mental
Health Need and Trauma on Confinement in the Juvenile
Justice System
Erin M. Espinosa • Jon R. Sorensen •
Molly A. Lopez
Received: 9 April 2013 / Accepted: 27 June 2013 / Published online: 4 July 2013
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Although the juvenile crime rate has generally
declined, the involvement of girls in the juvenile justice
system has been increasing. Possible explanations for this
gender difference include the impact of exposure to trauma
and mental health needs on developmental pathways and
the resulting influence of youth’s involvement in the justice
system. This study examined the influence of gender,
mental health needs and trauma on the risk of out-of-home
placement for juvenile offenders. The sample included
youth referred to three urban juvenile probation depart-
ments in Texas between January 1, 2007 and December 31,
2008 and who received state-mandated mental health
screening (N = 34,222; 30.1 % female). The analysis
revealed that, for both genders, elevated scores on the
seven factor-analytically derived subscales of a mental
health screening instrument (Alcohol and Drug Use,
Depressed-Anxious, Somatic Complaints, Suicidal Idea-
tion, Thought Disturbance, and Traumatic Experiences),
especially related to past traumatic experiences, influenced
how deeply juveniles penetrated the system. The findings
suggest that additional research is needed to determine the
effectiveness of trauma interventions and the implemen-
tation of trauma informed systems for youth involved with
the juvenile justice system.
Keywords Detention � Incarceration, disposition �
Gender disparity � Trauma � Mental health
Introduction
Adolescence is a period of developmental transition char-
acterized by changes in family, school, peers, self-concept,
and general physical development (Bergman and Scott
2001). Although most youth navigate this developmental
period successfully, incidents of rule breaking and behav-
ioral problems are common and can result in involvement
with law enforcement. Some research suggests that inter-
vention by the criminal justice system during the critical
period of adolescence may negatively impact youth out-
comes, including decreasing opportunities for meeting
educational goals and increasing the risk for later
involvement in delinquency and deviance (Sampson and
Laub 2005; pipeline articles). Recent trends have shown a
steady decline in juvenile offending overall, particularly
among violent crimes. However, statistics have also shown
a trend toward increased delinquency in females. For
example, Snyder (2008) reported that between 1994 and
2006, arrests for simple assault declined by 4 % for boys
while the rate increased by 19 % for girls. Given the
gender differences in adolescent development, it seems
critical to examine the pathways that lead to youth
involvement in the juvenile justice system through this
lens.
Research consistently shows gender-related differences
in delinquent behavior. The literature suggests these
E. M. Espinosa (&) � M. A. Lopez
Texas Institute for Excellence in Mental Health, Center
for Social Work Research, School of Social Work,
The University of Texas at Austin, 1717 West 6th Street,
Ste. 335, Austin, TX 78703, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
M. A. Lopez
e-mail: [email protected]
J. R. Sorensen
Department of Criminal Justice, East Carolina University,
Rivers Building, Office #245, Mail Stop 505, Greenville,
NC 27858, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:1824–1836
DOI 10.1007/s10964-013-9981-x
differences first emerge early in child development and
become more pervasive in adolescence. Some leaders in
criminology have suggested that gender differences in
delinquent behavior can be attributed to differential
socialization between genders (Bottcher 2001), while oth-
ers have argued that differences are tied to offender status
in a gender-stratified society (Chesney-Lind 2002). How-
ever, a third model emerges when examining both the
developmental criminological and the developmental psy-
chology literature. The developmental psychology litera-
ture has shown that females are more likely to exhibit
internalizing symptoms that may not come to the attention
of the adults in their life (Rosenfield et al. 2005), while
males are more likely to exhibit externalizing behaviors,
which are problematic for other people and society
(Compton et al. 2002; Kazdin 2005). Greater internalizing
results in girls having increased rates of depression, bipo-
lar, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and other mood disor-
ders. Boys tend to have higher rates of conditions such as
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defi-
ant disorder, and conduct disorder. Therefore, one possible
explanation of the gender differences found in the
involvement of youth in the juvenile justice system could
be explained by differences in mental health conditions that
may develop and/or intensify in adolescence.
Gendered Pathways to Delinquency
Pathways toward and through the juvenile justice system
differ between girls and their male counterparts. This may
be related to how boys and girls develop their self-concepts
and identities. Boys’ self-concepts and identities are
developed in relationship to the world, while girls’ and
young women’s self-concepts and identities are developed
through their interactions with others (Gilligan and Brown
1992). Gilligan and Brown contend that female moral
development is based on a personal view and commitment
to others. Although female offenders occasionally engage
in conduct more stereotypical of males, such as aggression
and assaultive behavior, more often they suppress their
aggression and struggle with the difficulty of managing
their emotions, especially those associated with depression
and anxiety (Ford et al. 2006). Delinquent girls have a
higher risk of self-devaluation, suicidality (Wasserman
et al. 2005), and conflict with family and school compared
with their male counterparts (Zoccolillo et al. 1996).
Attachment, interdependence and connectedness are criti-
cal to the foundation of their identity.
Gender Disparity in System Processing
Studies of delinquency and the response of the juvenile
justice system have consistently found both legal and extra-
legal factors contribute to the detention and dispositional
outcomes of youth involved in juvenile offending. How-
ever, findings have been inconsistent regarding the effects
of gender on case outcomes in post-adjudication disposi-
tion decisions (Belknap and Holsinger 2006). Some studies
have revealed girls were the recipients of more severe
sanctions than their male counterparts, especially in
response to status offenses (Chesney-Lind 2002). Other
studies indicated females received more lenient outcomes
for delinquent behavior (class B misdemeanor and higher
offenses) than males. Some research discovered that out-
comes depend on the stage of processing. For instance,
MacDonald and Chesney-Lind (2001) reported no differ-
ence between boys and girls in the decision to petition an
offense. However, during the adjudication stage, ‘‘charge
seriousness’’ was more important for girls than boys with
the reverse trend during the disposition stage. Thus, when
female juvenile offenders were adjudicated delinquent,
they were ‘‘more likely than boys to be given a restrictive
sanction for a less serious offense’’ (p. 187).
It has become common knowledge in criminology that
by engaging in a practice referred to as bootstrapping,
courts detain females through findings of contempt of
court, probation violations, or violations of court orders for
underlying status offenses or minor delinquent behavior
(Sherman 2005). As a result of bootstrapping, early evi-
dence suggests more female juvenile offenders are detained
prior to adjudication for offenses less threatening to the
community than those of their male counterparts. Data
from the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI),
launched by the Annie E. Casey Foundation in 1992,
demonstrated the number of juveniles housed in secure
detention nationwide increased by 72 % between 1985 and
1995 (Sherman 2005). While it may be assumed this
increase reflected the need for community safety, less than
one-third of the juvenile offenders detained in 1995 were
charged with a violent offense. Across both genders, more
youth were detained for status offenses than violent
offenses, with violations of court orders accounting for
39.9 % of the detention population. This trend was even
greater for female juvenile offenders, who were more likely
than their male counterparts to be detained for status
offenses and technical violations (Sherman 2005). Similar
findings have been demonstrated in several study replica-
tions (American Bar Association and the National Bar
Association 2001; Sickmund et al. 2004).
For instance, Gavazzi et al. (2006) noted girls were more
likely to be detained for incorrigibility and domestic vio-
lence, and parents were more likely to be the complainants.
Their findings also indicated boys were more likely to be
arrested for property offenses, with complainants more
likely to be community citizens. The authors summarize
the difference between male and female juvenile detention
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:1824–1836 1825
123
decisions by stating that: ‘‘boys are detained as a response
to public safety issues, whereas girls are detained because
of problems at home’’ (p. 608). By 2003, this trend had
extended to custodial placements other than detention as
well, with females accounting for 40 % of the status
offenders but only 14 % of delinquents held in custody
(Snyder and Sickmund 2006).
Mental Health Disorders and Delinquency
Recent studies suggest a correlation between juvenile jus-
tice system processing and psychiatric disorders, with some
research indicating girls with mental health needs are
funneled deeper into the system for less serious offenses
than their male counterparts. Abram et al. (2003), in a
study of Cook County Juvenile Detention youth, found
females were 1.4 times more likely than males to meet
diagnostic criteria for at least one disorder, and they also
were more likely to have at least one co-morbid disorder.
Davis et al. (2009) discovered females receiving care in the
community mental health system were arrested at younger
ages and more frequently than girls not receiving public
mental health treatment. In addition, for those youth
needing hospitalizations, girls had shorter lengths of stay
than boys (Pavkov et al. 1997). These findings have lead
some researchers to suggest girls are typically undertreated
for their mental health needs and others to suggest this lack
of treatment results in their involvement in the juvenile
justice system (Wasserman et al. 2005).
Youth involved with the juvenile justice system often
have not one, but several co-morbid psychiatric disorders.
Wasserman et al. (2005) found the prevalence of youth
meeting criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder to be
39 %, with 16 % meeting criteria for three or more disor-
ders. In addition to the growing prevalence of youth with
mental health challenges in the juvenile justice system,
studies also indicate mental health disorders are correlated
with delinquent behavior. Several prospective studies
indicate hyperactivity (Lynam et al. 2000), conduct disor-
ders and emotional disorders (Copeland et al. 2007; Boots
2008; Boots and Wareham 2009) serve as key indicators
for involvement with the justice system. Specifically, Co-
peland et al. (2007) found 20.6 % of female juvenile
offending and 15.3 % of male juvenile offending was
attributable to mental health disorders, after controlling for
offense level and poverty. Among specific psychiatric
profiles, the findings indicate co-occurring anxiety and
depressive disorders had the strongest association with
delinquent behavior. Boots and Wareham (2009) extended
these findings further when they demonstrated a moderate
correlation between depression and anxiety (r = .577) and
future offending.
Trauma and Delinquency
Although not all youth who experience trauma engage in
delinquent activity, studies of youth involved with the
juvenile justice system have found high rates of trau-
matic experiences, generally between 70 and 90 %
(McMackin et al. 1998; Steiner et al. 1997). Some
studies have found boys and girls involved with the
juvenile justice system experienced different types of
traumas, with males more likely to have witnessed a
violent event and females more likely to have been the
victim of violence. The Survey of Youth in Residential
Placement, conducted on a sample of over 7,000 incar-
cerated youth, indicated females were almost twice as
likely to report prior physical abuse (42 % of females
versus 22 % of males), and females reported a higher
likelihood (69 % of females versus 40 % of their male
counterparts) of the perpetrator of the physical abuse
being a sibling or mother (Sedlak and McPherson 2010).
Researchers also found girls who reside in violent homes
have heightened risk factors for engaging in delinquent
activity, such as truancy, sexual promiscuity, running
away, and substance abuse (Thornberry et al. 2004). Not
surprisingly, female juveniles arrested for running away
frequently report experiences of family violence and
emotional, physical, and sexual abuse and report these
conditions as their primary motivation for leaving home
(Chesney-Lind 2002). Furthermore, studies indicate
females who have experienced trauma develop mental
health problems as a result of that trauma more often
than their male counterparts (Crimmins et al. 2000).
Some studies found girls who have mood disorders are
more likely to have experienced trauma and are more
likely to have post-traumatic stress disorder (Wasserman
et al. 2005).
Sexual victimization, in particular, is a common form
of trauma experienced by girls involved in the justice
system and is likely a contributing factor to the complex
mental health needs of this population. Although virtually
absent from formal theories of female delinquency, some
studies examined the correlation between sexual abuse
and female juvenile delinquency. In a study of chroni-
cally delinquent offenders, Sherman (2005) found 77 %
of female offenders had a history of sexual abuse in
comparison to only 3 % of the males, suggesting a
potential relationship between trauma and chronic delin-
quency in girls. Furthermore, Goodkind et al. (2006)
found juvenile justice-involved girls who have experi-
enced some form of sexual abuse had poorer mental
health and more substance use, risky sexual behavior, and
delinquent behavior than those who had not experienced
this form of trauma.
1826 J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:1824–1836
123
Hypotheses
Despite the overall decline in the rate of juvenile delin-
quency, the involvement of girls with the juvenile justice
system has increased. In addition, there has been an
enhanced recognition of the disproportionate representation
of youth with mental health needs and trauma histories in
the juvenile justice system. While males typically are
associated with externalizing problems, females dispro-
portionately are identified with internalizing problems and
interpersonal aggression. This changing demographic of
juvenile delinquency poses challenges to the traditional
juvenile justice system accustomed to handling behaviors
associated with externalizing manifestations of delin-
quency. Analyzing the extent to which mental health need,
trauma, and gender influence juvenile justice system pro-
cessing will provide a more comprehensive understanding
of the pathways youth take in the juvenile justice system,
as well as identify potential modifications needed to
address the unique needs of youth accessing the system in
the future.
First, we hypothesized that more girls would be placed
outside of the home for bootstrap level offenses, such as
status offenses and violation of probation, than boys. This
analysis sought to determine whether girls are funneled
deeper into the system for lower level offenses than their
male counterparts. Second, we hypothesized that greater
mental health need, as measured by the mental health
screening instrument, would be associated with a greater
risk of out-of-home placement. Finally, we formed an
exploratory hypothesis aimed toward examining the influ-
ence of the endorsement of prior traumatic experiences, as
measured by the mental health screening instrument, on the
restrictiveness of out-of-home placement decisions. We
were interested in whether a trauma history increased the
likelihood of a juvenile being removed from their home. In
addition to these three primary hypotheses, a secondary
analysis explored the relative importance of these variables
on different types of out-of-home placement.
Method
The study sample included all youth referred to three urban
juvenile probation departments in Texas during the period
of January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008. Only youth
who received the state-mandated mental health screening,
the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second
Version (MAYSI-2) were included (N = 34,222; 30.1 %
female). This secondary dataset included all demographic,
offense, disposition and placement data collected by
trained juvenile probation officers and clinicians within the
departments. Data was obtained with approval from the
Chief Juvenile Probation Officer and the juvenile board and
the protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institu-
tional Review Board at the researchers’ university.
Measures
The main predictor variables considered were referral
offense seriousness, gender, and level of mental health
need. Gender is a dichotomous static variable and was
coded as male (0) or female (1) for analysis. The referral
offense seriousness and level of mental health need vari-
ables could be interpreted with a broad array of values;
therefore, specific operational definitions and categorical
values for these variables were developed prior to con-
ducting analyses.
Offense Seriousness
Youth could have been referred to local juvenile probation
departments for multiple offenses on any one referral
event. Therefore, this study targeted the referral offense
associated with most severe disposition during the sample
period. The categorical coding guidelines identified within
the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC) data
codebook were used for establishing operational definitions
and assigning categorical values for offense seriousness.
The TJPC data codebook is used by juvenile probation
officers collecting and entering data into the state’s data
collection system. This coding process categorized the
4,019 types of offenses into a continuous classification
variable ranging from the least serious 1 (status offenses) to
the most severe 8 (capital felony). The classifications
between status offense and capital felony included the
following: 2 = Class B misdemeanor; 3 = Class A mis-
demeanor; 4 = State-jail felony; 5 = Third-degree felony;
6 = Second-degree felony; and 7 = First-degree felony.
In addition to the ordinal offense severity code, two
dichotomous indicator variables were constructed to eval-
uate the potential bootstrapping of juveniles into and
through the juvenile justice system. Bootstrapping has been
defined in the literature as engaging in a practice whereby
courts detain females through findings of contempt of
court, probation violations, or violations of court orders for
underlying status offenses or minor delinquent behavior
(Sherman 2005). A traditional bootstrap variable (Status)
included offenses that have been typically categorized as
status offenses (otherwise known as ‘‘Conduct Indicating
Need for Supervision Offenses’’ or CHINS offenses), Class
C misdemeanors, and contempt of court referrals. These
types of offenses include runaway, truancy, and curfew
violations. Class C misdemeanors are typically violations
of city or county ordinances and are processed in a manner
similar to status offenses. A second bootstrap variable
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:1824–1836 1827
123
(VOP) included violations of probation or juvenile court
order.
Mental Health Need
Texas has adopted the MAYSI-2 for mental health
screening within the juvenile justice system (Grisso 2004;
Schwank et al. 2003). The MAYSI-2 is a 52-item, self-
report screening instrument completed by youth between
the ages of 12 and 17 upon intake in the juvenile justice
system. The MAYSI-2 contains seven factor-analytically
derived subscales: Alcohol and Drug Use, Angry-Irritable,
Depressed-Anxious, Somatic Complaints, Suicidal Idea-
tion, Thought Disturbance, and Traumatic Experiences.
Studies have demonstrated good concurrent validity when
comparing MAYSI-2 scales with scores on other mental
health measures (Archer et al. 2004; Grisso and Barnum
2006). Test–retest reliability up to eight days later was
moderate to good, ranging from 0.53 to 0.89 (Grisso and
Barnum 2006). Cut-off scores for the MAYSI-2 subscales
(excluding Traumatic Experiences) were developed to
identify youth scoring greater than 90 % of the normative
sample on each subscale (Grisso and Barnum 2006).
Overall mental health need was defined as the total number
of subscales reaching this ‘‘warning’’ cut-off, ranging from
0 to 6.
The traumatic experiences subscale of the MAYSI-2
does not have established warning cut-offs, and so was kept
in its original reporting format, with a scoring range of 0–5.
Four questions on the subscale are common to both gen-
ders: ‘‘Have you been badly hurt or been in danger of
getting badly hurt or killed?’’, ‘‘Have you ever in your
whole life had something very bad or terrifying happen to
you?’’, ‘‘Have you ever seen someone severely injured or
killed?’’, and ‘‘Have you had a lot of bad thoughts or
dreams about a bad or scary event that happened to you?’’.
For boys, the fifth question is ‘‘Have people talked about
you a lot when you’re not there?’’. For girls, this fifth
question is ‘‘Have you ever been raped or been in danger of
getting raped?’’.
Level of Placement
Level of placement was categorized into a five-point
ordinal variable, with higher scores on the scale repre-
senting more ‘‘severe’’ placements. Categorization reflec-
ted not only the determination of whether the facility was
secure or non-secure, but also consideration of what
intercept point in the juvenile justice system (pre or post
disposition) the juvenile could be placed within the facility.
No placement is reflected by a ‘‘0’’ on the scale and
detention is reflected by a ‘‘1’’. Although often a secure
setting, juvenile detention facilities are the first type of
facility within the juvenile justice system a youth can be
placed and are frequently used to hold juveniles while
awaiting court decisions pre-adjudication. The next three
levels of placement severity within the composite were
non-secure (2), county secure (3), and state correctional
facility (4). Non-secure facilities included facilities
licensed by the state child welfare agency to provide foster
care or treatment services and included residential treat-
ment centers, emergency shelters, substance abuse treat-
ment facilities, therapeutic camps, and foster care. Local
juvenile probation departments contract with non-secure
facilities to care for juveniles who are considered low risk
and in need of some form of treatment or other basic care
needs. County secure facilities included county-operated
secure post-adjudication programs registered with the
state’s juvenile justice department to serve as an interme-
diate placement option for moderate or high-risk juveniles.
These facilities may include juveniles who have been
adjudicated of either misdemeanor or felony offenses. State
correctional facilities included high security facilities
intended for high-risk juveniles with felony adjudications
and represent the state’s youth prison system (Texas
Juvenile Justice Department 2012).
Control Variables
Control variables included age at first referral, age at target
referral, ethnicity, severity of offense history and prior
probation referrals. Ethnicity was reflected by dummy
coding two variables—Hispanic (1) or White (0) and Black
(1) or White (0). Both age at first referral and age at target
referral were also included in the analyses. Almost half of
the juveniles in the sample had a prior record with the
partnering juvenile probation departments (n = 16,077).
Severity of offense history was categorized using the same
procedures as the target referral offense. The seriousness of
offense history ranged from 0, indicating no prior record, to
8, indicating prior referral for a capital murder. Prior pro-
bation referrals were defined as the number of prior dis-
positions to probation supervision.
Procedures
Differences in variables of interest and control variables by
gender were examined through independent t-tests and Chi
square analyses. Multivariate analyses examined level of
placement by gender and mental health need. First, the
analyses sought to establish the general influence of mental
health need and gender on level of placement. The exam-
ination of the general influence of the predictor variables
on level of placement for all facility types utilized an OLS
regression model with gender (0 = male, 1 = female)
included in the equation, along with other predictor
1828 J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:1824–1836
123
variables, regressed on facility composite (0 = no place-
ment, 1 = detention, 2 = non-secure, 3 = secure, 4 =
corrections). The OLS regression model is presented for
ease of interpretation. Results from ordinal logistic
regression and probit models confirmed the significance,
direction, and relative magnitude of coefficients presented
in the OLS model.
Additional analyses examined the influence of the pre-
dictor variables by specific facility type and gender at both
the pre-adjudicatory and post-adjudicatory phases, requir-
ing separate female and male models. A dichotomous
outcome variable was created for the pre-adjudicatory
detention decision and coded as either not detained (0) or
detained (1). Binary logistic regression was used to model
the detention decision. Multinomial logistic regression was
used to model post-adjudicatory placement, which includes
separate panels to describe the influence of predictors on
placement in non-secure facilities, county operated secure
facilities, and state correctional facilities. Alternatives to
placement served as the reference category for the multi-
nomial comparisons. Detention was included as a predictor
variable in the post-adjudicatory placement model. Status
offense had to be removed from the post-adjudicatory
placement model. Limited cell size prevented model con-
vergence when status offense was included. Additional
analysis was conducted to test for differences between
regression coefficients of the gendered models. The for-
mula suggested by Brame et al. (1998) was used to test for
differences between the model coefficients:
Z ¼
b1 � b2
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
SEb21 þ SEb22
p
Results
Table 1 presents outcomes, offense seriousness, mental
health need, and control variables by gender. The mean
facility composites show boys are placed deeper in the
system overall. The binary outcomes show males are more
likely to be placed in each type of confinement, with the
exception of non-secure placement, where girls are twice as
likely to be placed. Part of the reason is apparent in the
Table 1 Level of placement,
offense seriousness, mental
health need, and control
variables by gender
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01;
*** p \ .001
Female
Mean (SD)
Male
Mean (SD)
Test of difference
Level of placement
Facility composite 0.496 (0.748) 1.024 (1.212) t = -49.130***
Detention 0.373 0.531 v2 = 725.656***
Non-secure placement 0.068 0.033 v2 = 213.268***
County secure placement 0.013 0.142 v2 = 1293.434***
State correctional commitment 0.008 0.048 v2 = 332.220***
Offense seriousness
Offense composite 2.091 (1.956) 2.789 (1.641) t = -48.709***
Status offense (Boot1) 0.144 0.068 v2 = 512.619***
VOP (Boot2) 0.089 0.143 v2 = 192.406***
Mental health need
Warnings (total #) 0.284 (0.697) 0.232 (0.688) t = 6.400***
Drug 0.023 0.020 v2 = 4.854*
Angry 0.109 0.068 v2 = 166.115***
Depressed 0.104 0.047 v2 = 385.650***
Somatic 0.065 0.036 v2 = 143.961***
Suicide 0.141 0.059 v2 = 628.816***
Thought 0.164 0.113 v2 = 94.904***
Trauma score 1.1300 (1.470) 1.120 (1.232) t = 11.182***
Control variables
Race–Black 0.363 0.373 v2 = 3.386
Ethnicity–Hispanic 0.390 0.413 v2 = 15.993***
Age at referral 14.900 (1.275) 14.956 (1.387) t = -3.581***
Age of onset 14.383 (1.399) 14.140 (1.560) t = 14.225***
Severity of offense history 0.894 (1.508) 1.691 (2.163) t = -39.075***
Prior probated dispositions 0.208 (0.560) 0.455 (0.830) t = -32.108***
Prior facility composite 0.205 (0.536) 0.521 (0.985) t = -38.208***
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:1824–1836 1829
123
level of offense, which shows that girls, on average,
commit less serious offenses and are more than twice as
likely as boys to be referred for status offenses. Girls also
had less serious prior records, as evidenced by the control
variables. They also tended to be …