Voices From the Field: Findings 

From the NGI Listening Sessions

January 2012
Page 2

Acknowledgements

About the National Girls Institute 

The National Girls Institute (NGI) is a federally-funded partnership between the National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency (NCCD) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). NGI is a research-based 

training and resource clearinghouse designed to advance understanding of girls’ issues and improve program and 

system responses to girls in the juvenile justice system. For more information, visit www.nationalgirlsinstitute.org.

About the National Council on Crime and Delinquency 

NCCD promotes just and equitable social systems for individuals, families, and communities through research, public 

policy, and practice. For more information, visit www.nccdglobal.org.

About the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

OJJDP provides national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency 

and victimization. OJJDP supports states and communities in their efforts to develop and implement effective and 

coordinated prevention and intervention programs and to improve the juvenile justice system so that it protects 

public safety, holds offenders accountable, and provides treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of 

juveniles and their families. For more information, visit www.ojjdp.gov.

This project was supported by Grant # 2010-JF-FX-K059 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions in 

this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Justice.

On behalf of the National Girls Institute, the authors would like to thank the girls, parents/caregivers, and the key 

professional stakeholders who participated in the listening sessions, and program administrators who helped 

provide access to these important voices across the country. Special thanks to the facilitators who coordinated 

and conducted listening sessions: Adriane Abe (Hawaii), Antoinette Davis (California), Kathleen DuChene 

(Minnesota), Angela Irvine (California), Mary Johnson (North Carolina), Threasa Miller (Alaska, California, Florida, 

Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee), Dayna Miyasaki (Hawaii), Ann Muno (Washington), Kathy 

Nesteby (Iowa), Sue Odom (Indiana), Winnie Ore (Montana), Vanessa Patino Lydia (Florida), Judge Karen Radius 

(Hawaii), Lawanda Ravoira (Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Virginia), Lori Rinehart (Iowa), Bonnie 

Rose (Florida), Caryn Saxon (Missouri), Kim Selvaggi (Connecticut), Nanon Talley (Utah), Mellony Tracey (Alaska, 

California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee), and Angela Wolf (Florida, 

Texas). Also, special recognition for the interns who assisted the research team in coding qualitative data: Karen 

Griffin and Aleta McDaniel; the administrative staff at NCCD Center for Girls and Young Women: Beth Daniel and 

Cindy Brakefield; and the editing staff at NCCD.

Suggested citation: Ravoira, L., Patino Lydia, V., Graziano, J., Glesmann, C., & Baker, P. (2012). Voices from the Field: Findings 

From the NGI Listening Sessions. Jacksonville, FL: NCCD Center for Girls and Young Women.
Page 3

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Purpose of the NGI Listening Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Sampling Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Facilitator Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Listening Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Data Management and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Listening Session Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Demographic Questionnaires Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Facilitator Summary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Profiles of Participants by Stakeholder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Girls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Key Professional Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Parents/Caregivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

LISTENING SESSION RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Training and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Information and Resource Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

What Works and Ineffective/Harmful Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

NGI Critical Focus Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Standards of Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Facilitator Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Page 4

Table of Contents (continued)

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Peer Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Gender Responsiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Non-Judgmental Approach to Girls and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Multi-System Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Individual and Universal Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Technology and Social Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Within-Girl Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Balance Recognition of Past With Future Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Examination of Policies and Practices Impacting Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Page 5

Abstract

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP) has partnered with the National 

Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) Center for 

Girls and Young Women to create the National Girls 

Institute (NGI). The purpose of the NGI is to provide 

training and technical assistance to prevention, 

intervention, treatment, and aftercare programs for atrisk and delinquent girls across the nation. In addition 

to training and technical assistance, the institute will 

disseminate information; collaborate with researchers 

and program developers; form partnerships with 

federal, state, tribal, and local agencies; and develop 

policy.

OJJDP and NGI are committed to listening to 

the voices of girls, parents/caregivers, and key 

stakeholders from diverse rural, urban, suburban, 

and tribal communities to inform the priorities of the 

NGI. To that end, NGI representatives conducted 64 

“listening sessions” across the country. One of the 

most critical aims of the listening sessions was to 

assess the current training, technical assistance, and 

informational needs of state, tribal, and local entities 

serving girls and their families. Through the listening 

sessions, the NGI also sought to identify strategies and 

practices that work best with girls—and those that are 

ineffective or even harmful— to inform development 

of standards of care. This report details the results 

and implications of the listening sessions, and sets 

forth a series of recommendations for NGI, OJJDP, and 

the field. NCCD’s partnership with OJJDP is a critical 

next step to expand and deepen work regarding girls 

within states and local jurisdictions as well as with 

private organizations. 

Abstract
Page 6

Final Listening Session Report

Participants 

Three key stakeholder groups participated: 

•	 Justice-involved girls: Girls and young women 

currently or previously involved in the juvenile 

justice system, and/or at risk of entering the 

juvenile justice system or being served in a 

prevention or intervention program. Participants 

included girls in prevention, detention, 

probation, commitment, and re-entry services. 

•	 Juvenile justice system stakeholders across the 

entire continuum of services. This included youth 

advocates, judges, law enforcement officers, 

prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers, 

detention workers, and staff from residential 

program/group homes, and girls’ programs. 

•	 Parents/caregivers of justice-involved girls: 

Parents, family members, foster parents, or 

caregivers connected to justice-involved girls. 

Research Questions

Several questions were asked of the listening session 

participants with the aim of answering the full range 

of overarching research questions. Each stakeholder 

group was asked specific questions (see appendix) in 

order to gain understanding and move forward the 

overall research goals of NGI. The guiding research 

questions were:

1. What are the priority training and technical 

assistance needs to improve the response to 

justice-involved girls? 

2. What are the resource and information needs of 

girls, parents, and key stakeholders? 

3. What support, practices, and policies are 

currently working for girls, parents, and key 

stakeholders? What are ineffective and/or 

harmful practices, policies, systems, structures, 

services, programs, etc.?

Introduction

Research and practice over the last two decades has 

helped to advance understanding of girls’ delinquency 

and specialized needs. The significance of the National 

Girls Institute (NGI) lies in the translation of current 

knowledge and research into practical application 

for the dedicated professionals who are committed 

to improving outcomes for girls. The NGI had an 

unprecedented opportunity to involve stakeholders 

across the country from diverse backgrounds and 

locations in this process. This report reviews the 

research conducted across the country with girls, their 

parents/caregivers, and key professional stakeholders. 

The purpose and methods of the listening sessions, 

and the results gleaned, are shared below. The report 

concludes with findings and recommendations for the 

field.

Purpose of the NGI Listening 

Sessions

The listening sessions were designed to inform a 

national assessment regarding key topics and training 

needs while empirically evaluating stakeholders’ 

receptivity to training, technical assistance, and 

information sharing. In addition, the listening sessions 

were tailored to inform the critical focus areas for the 

NGI. This included the improvement of standards of 

care, development of relevant resources for the NGI 

website, and the delineation of “what works,” or what 

strategies/supports are effective for at-risk girls. 

Methods

The primary assessment approach was qualitative, 

where three distinct types of listening sessions were 

conducted based on the participants: at-risk or justice 

system-involved girls, their parents/ caregivers, and 

key professional and community stakeholders. 
Page 7

coordinating a new meeting based on the schedule 

needs of the stakeholders including tribal reservations; 

(2) identifying girls and young women in prevention 

and/or juvenile justice programs and coordinating 

the listening session with program staff and 

administration; and (3) identifying family members/

resource families of girls in or at risk of entering 

the juvenile justice system and coordinating a new 

meeting based on the schedule needs of parents/

caregivers. 

Procedures

Facilitator Training

After securing Institutional Review Board (IRB) 

approval, the listening sessions were scheduled and 

conducted from March through December 2011. 

NCCD facilitated two web-based training sessions 

for the facilitators. The training provided information 

regarding logistics, preparing for the listening 

sessions, reviewing the listening session questions, 

instructions and tips for facilitating the listening 

sessions, and procedures for documentation of 

listening sessions and submitting data reports. 

Facilitators were provided a manual that contained the 

protocol and template forms to conduct the listening 

sessions. Within the manual was a standardized 

protocol that was administered by all facilitators, 

including procedures and listening session questions. 

The listening sessions were semi-structured with 

guiding questions but were flexible enough to allow 

participants to add additional relevant information. 

In addition, participants were administered a 

background questionnaire to supplement information 

collected during listening sessions, including 

demographic and other relevant information 

pertaining to the overarching research questions.

NCCD-trained facilitators were responsible for 

submitting all data to the research team as promptly 

as possible. There were three types of data which 

included (1) transcribed responses from the sessions, 

(2) the participant demographic questionnaires, 

and (3) facilitators’ impressions/notes from the field 

4. What should be NGI’s critical focus areas? 

5. What are the standards of care that should exist 

in all girls’ programming?

Sampling Strategy

NCCD coordinated the listening sessions across 

the country with at-risk or justice system- involved 

girls, their parents/caregivers, and key stakeholders 

representing the continuum of services. The United 

States was divided into distinct regions that included: 

Northeast, Southeast, South, Midwest, Northwest, 

Southwest, and West. Locations within these regions 

were selected using the following key indicators: high 

poverty, foreign born, rural households, infant death 

rate, high school drop-out, child victimization, children 

in foster care, adult crime, and high proportion of 

girls’ incarceration. Listening sessions in each region 

were conducted in urban, suburban, rural, and tribal 

communities.

Recruitment

Both NCCD staff and selected professionals in the 

field acted as facilitators of the listening sessions. 

It was the facilitators’ responsibility to identify, 

recruit, coordinate, and convene sessions with key 

stakeholders through the following strategies: (1) 

securing permission to facilitate a listening session 

as part of a planned meeting or workshop, or 
Page 8

culture) were discussed at conferences and task force 

and community meetings.

Facilitators first reviewed the purpose of NGI and 

provided an overview of the guiding principles (i.e., 

only one person talks at a time, confidentiality is 

assured, etc.) of the session and asked if any additional 

principles should be added. 

Using scripts, facilitators reviewed the goals of the 

listening sessions, issues regarding consent and 

confidentiality, the role of the facilitator, uses of the 

data, and the purpose of the note cards. Note cards 

were distributed to all participants as an opportunity 

for them to provide additional information they did 

not feel comfortable sharing in the larger group. 

The script noted that a demographic questionnaire 

would be distributed at the close of the session. The 

script also reiterated several times that participation 

was voluntary and could be terminated at any time 

without judgment or penalty. The facilitators then 

answered any questions and began the session. The 

manual included structured questions (approved 

by IRB and OJJDP) as well as suggested probes to 

encourage participation and/or clarify the intended 

meaning. As part of the procedure, a note taker was 

designated whenever possible so that one person 

facilitated the session and the other took notes. 

Additionally, facilitators were instructed to provide 

their feedback and impressions of the session to 

evaluate overall engagement of the participants and 

address issues or concerns. 

Data Management and Security

Facilitators were given specific instructions regarding 

the labeling and submission of these three data 

sources. Standard procedures were followed to 

ensure data security. Each listening session facilitator 

signed a confidentiality agreement. Additionally, only 

authorized research staff had access to the data. The 

data was stored on NCCD’s file server, backed up using 

a zip drive that was stored in a locked file cabinet. Hard 

copies were secured in a locked file cabinet.

document. More specifically, for each listening 

session, facilitators were asked to type and submit 

the participants’ responses (verbatim) from the note 

taker for each question using a standardized template. 

Participants were also given note cards to write down 

any information they did not want to share with the 

larger group. The participant survey information 

included a demographic questionnaire, tailored for 

each group, asking participants information such 

as race/ethnicity, age, background, etc. Finally, the 

Facilitator Impressions and Summary of Listening 

Session data provided information about facilitators’ 

overall impressions from the listening sessions, group 

dynamics, and other pertinent information about the 

listening sessions (date, location, setting, etc.). 

Listening Sessions

Listening sessions consisted of approximately 6–15 

participants and lasted between one and two hours. 

Listening sessions were convened in their natural 

settings (conference rooms, space used for scheduled 

meetings, rooms used for girls’ groups) whenever 

possible with an emphasis on participant comfort 

and safety. For girls in juvenile justice settings, it 

was important to secure a space, preferably where 

therapeutic groups are held, that is private from 

passersby as well as program staff. An emphasis was 

placed on including sessions where particular topics 

related to justice-involved girls (gangs, LGBT, race, and 
Page 9

Demographic Questionnaires Analysis

The data from the demographic questionnaires 

consisted primarily of closed-ended questions that 

asked about general demographic and background 

information. The descriptive data was entered 

into SPSS and analyzed. Additionally, open-ended 

questions asked professional stakeholders and girls 

to rank top staff training topics, and asked parents 

to rank the resources they need most. In addition, 

girls were asked about what adults should focus on 

if they really want to help girls. Using the listening 

session codebooks, new variable labels and values 

were created for these open-ended questions. They 

were subsequently entered into SPSS and analyzed 

to supplement and provide context for the listening 

session findings. 

Facilitator Summary Analysis 

Given the many factors that could influence the 

listening sessions, it was important to build into the 

methodology a means of capturing perceptions about 

the listening sessions from the facilitators. Therefore, 

facilitators completed a facilitator summary form for 

each listening session. These facilitator notes from 

the field were used to provide additional information 

in order to augment the results from the listening 

sessions. General information about the listening 

session (number of participants, location, challenges, 

logistics, etc.) were entered and analyzed in SPSS. 

Facilitators also were asked open-ended questions 

about their overall impressions, and if they perceived 

participants felt comfortable sharing their opinions. 

Facilitators were given the opportunity to include 

comments and make suggestions. This information 

was coded by theme and aggregated to provide 

context to report findings where applicable. 

Data Analysis

A mixed methods approach was utilized to analyze 

the three data sources collected from the listening 

sessions. While a mixed methods approach was 

employed, the listening session data, which is the 

primary data source for this report, was analyzed using 

a qualitative approach. Participants also completed 

demographic questionnaires and facilitators 

completed a Facilitator Impressions and Summary 

of Listening Session form. The supplemental data 

from these two additional sources were entered and 

analyzed using quantitative methods. 

Listening Session Analysis

The verbatim transcripts from the listening sessions 

were analyzed utilizing the qualitative data analysis 

program ATLAS.ti. Codebooks were developed 

whereby teams of three coders first individually 

coded session data and then met to discuss and 

reach agreement. All of the transcripts were reviewed 

and coded by a member of the research team using 

the codebooks. Codes and themes were continually 

reviewed by other members of the research team 

to reach consensus and new codes were added as 

needed. Finally, coders used memos to note any 

important theoretical, methodological, and thematic 

observations. 

Data were aggregated by stakeholder group and 

analyzed for general themes and patterns rather than 

descriptions of individual views and experiences. 

After the data from the selected research questions 

were coded, queries were run in ATLAS.ti to determine 

the most common codes. These were reviewed for 

conceptual similarities, differences, and patterns. 

These results form the basis of what is reported as 

the main themes that emerged from the listening 

sessions. The appendix shows the overarching 

research questions and the specific listening session 

questions asked of participants. 
Page 10

Girls

Girls under age 21 (N = 269) had an average age of 

15 years. Regarding race/ethnicity, 36% were African 

American, 21% were White/Caucasian, 14% were 

Hispanic/Latina, 17% were more than one race/

ethnicity, and 10% were American Indian. Alaskan 

Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other each 

accounted for 2% or less of respondents (see Figure 2). 

This group was fairly representative of African American 

and Hispanic/Latina girls involved in the juvenile justice 

system (representing 35% and 17%, respectively); 

however, White/Caucasian and American Indian girls 

account for 42% and 3%, respectively (Sickmund, 

Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2011). See Figure 3.

Participant Demographics

A listening session was defined as having four or more 

participants. Sixty-four listening sessions were held 

across the United States in 2011. Of these, four were 

topical listening sessions (education, gangs, LGBT, and 

tribal police). In addition, due to various challenges 

that prevented the convening of traditional listening 

sessions, 16 small-group sessions (known as supplemental 

interviews) were held with 1–3 respondents during this 

timeframe. In all, 607 people (313 girls, 251 staff, and 43 

parents) took part in a listening session or supplemental 

interview (see Figure 1).

Twenty-one different facilitators conducted listening 

sessions and supplemental interviews; 38% of facilitators 

were NCCD staff who are knowledgeable about justice 

system-involved girls, and 62% were non-NCCD staff 

with similar experience. The largest proportions of girls, 

staff, and parents (61%, 42%, and 33%, respectively) 

were from urban communities. Of important note is the 

overrepresentation of the tribal population (girls, 12%; 

staff, 11%; and parents, 19%). In terms of geographic 

region, the largest proportion represented varied by 

stakeholder group (girls, 23% from the Southeast; staff, 

32% from the Midwest; and parents, 35% from the 

Midwest). 

Profiles of Participants by Stakeholder Group

The profiles in this section are based on listening 

session participants who completed demographic 

questionnaires; for various reasons, not all participants 

completed questionnaires. Therefore, sample size (or N) 

for each stakeholder group may vary when compared 

to total sample size reported above (in Participant 

Demographics). 

Figure 1. Participant Demographics

Parents 

43 (7%)

Staff 

251 (41%)

Girls 

313 (52%)

N = 607

Figure 2. Profile of Participants by Stakeholder Group 

Race/Ethnicity of Participating Girls

African 

American 

36%

Other 

2%

American 

Indian 10%

N = 248

Multi-race/ 

Ethnicity 17%

Hispanic/

Latina 14%

White/

Caucasian 21%

Figure 3. Justice-Involved Girls

National Percentages

African 

American

35%

Other

3%

American 

Indian

3%

Hispanic 

Latina

17%

White/

Caucasian

42%

Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, 

C. (2011). Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in 

Residential Placement. Online. Available:

www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/
Page 11

(6%), and prevention (6%). Seventeen percent of 

respondents were categorized as other. Nearly twothirds (65%) of staff reported that they have worked 

with girls for 10 or more years.

Parents/Caregivers 

Parents/caregivers (N = 39) were 82% female and 18% 

male. Regarding participants’ relationships to girls 

in the juvenile justice system, a little more than half 

(55%) identified themselves as parents, 18% as other, 

11% as an aunt or uncle, 8% as foster parents, and 8% 

as grandparents. In terms of race/ethnicity, 41% were 

White/Caucasian, 18% were African American, 18% 

were Alaskan Native, 8% were other, and 5% were 

Hispanic/Latino. American Indian and Pacific Islander 

each accounted for 3% or less of respondents. 

Listening Session Results

As part of the national assessment, the listening 

sessions provided an unprecedented opportunity 

to hear from hundreds of stakeholders nationwide, 

representing diverse backgrounds and life 

experiences. The results from the listening sessions 

have been used to inform the next steps of NGI 

and provide valuable information for the field in 

general. More specifically, they provide critical 

information about the training, technical assistance, 

and resource needs of stakeholders. Since NGI will 

be providing national TTA, these results were used 

to develop relevant TTA topics and formats and were 

incorporated into planning the NGI website, which will 

provide the field with a clearinghouse of information. 

In addition, the results will inform NGI’s critical focus 

areas, including standards of care and examination of 

policies and practices affecting girls. The results are 

first organized by research question and stakeholder 

group. Quotes from participants are included for 

illustrative purposes since they contextualize the 

themes and patterns that emerged. 

Training and Technical Assistance

To learn more about training and technical assistance 

needs, the following questions were posed to 

stakeholder groups: 

The majority of girls in the study were born in the 

United States (94%) and reported attending school 

(91%). Nearly three-quarters (74%) of girls identified 

as 100% heterosexual and 12% as bisexual. Almost 

one-third (28%) of girls reported having experience 

in the foster care system, 5% had children, and 5% 

were pregnant at the time of the session (see Figure 

4). See Table 1 for girls’ self-reported juvenile justice 

involvement. 

Key Professional Stakeholders

Staff (N = 228) were 73% female. In terms of race/

ethnicity, 65% were White/Caucasian, 12% were 

African American, 8% were Hispanic/Latino, and 

7% were American Indian. Alaskan Native, Asian, 

Pacific Islander, more than one race/ethnicity, and 

other each accounted for 3% or less of respondents. 

Regarding staff’s areas of focus along the juvenile 

justice continuum, major areas included residential 

juvenile justice programs (15%), community-based 

organizations and private providers (14%), juvenile 

probation (14%), education (9%), social services 

Figure 4. Profile of Participants by Stakeholder Group

Participating Girls

5%

5%

12%

28%

74%

91%

94%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Pregnant at Time of Session

Had Children

Bisexual

Experience in Foster Care System

Heterosexual

Attending School

Born in the United States N = 265

N = 267

N = 259

N = 267

N = 259

N = 266

N = 266

Table 1. Juvenile Justice Profile of Grils

(Lifetime Experience)

 Percentage

 “YES” (N)

History of arrest

History of probation

History of detention

History of placement in residential/

juvenile justice program

64%

59%

65%

47%

(N=267)

(N=267)

(N=263)

(N=263)

Juvenile Justice Involvement
Page 12

Key Professional Stakeholders

Training areas. Three main themes arose regarding 

the training needs of key professional stakeholders. 

First, participants named a wide variety of topics that 

were training priorities. These included girls’ trauma, 

mental health, communication and relationships, 

race and culture, sexual abuse, and teen parenting. 

Most broadly, staff asked for information related to 

both general knowledge about trauma as well as 

the impact of PTSD on justice-involved girls. Staff 

requested training specific to identification and 

assessment of abuse, along with information about 

its impact. Staff requested additional trainings aimed 

at increasing staff knowledge about teen parenting, 

and, importantly, asked that trainings be culturally 

responsive to the unique needs of pregnant or 

parenting justice-involved girls. Staff asked for more 

training focused on improving staff communication 

with the girls while also learning about technology 

and other unique ways in which girls interface with 

their peers. Additionally, staff requested training 

to help build the skills necessary to effectively 

communicate with girls and respond to girls with 

troubling or acting out behaviors. 

•	 Girls and staff: Please list the topics in which you 

feel training for STAFF is needed to work with 

girls at risk of or involved in the justice system. 

•	 Key professional stakeholders: 1) In which topics 

or areas do staff who work with girls need 

training? (2) What training format would be most 

effective? (3) What are areas in which you need 

technical assistance to better serve girls? (4) 

Which groups or professions most need training?

Girls and Staff

To gain additional insight into the TTA priorities, 

girls were asked to identify and rank the most 

important staff training areas in their demographic 

questionnaires. The data from the questionnaires were 

analyzed to compare what staff and girls felt were 

the most important training topics (see Table 2). For 

girls who identified staff training topics, the results 

are as follows: listening/communication, valuing girls’ 

perspective, staff positive attitudes, respect, guidance, 

and training to better relate and understand girls’ 

problems. For staff, the topics of girls’ relationships, 

trauma, and mental health were consistently identified 

as top training areas. Training on girls’ issues was 

paramount regardless of staff gender, race/ethnicity, 

length of time working with girls, or region. Mental 

health was one of the most common issues for staff 

in rural and tribal communities. Interestingly, staff 

who reported a longer time working with girls also 

reported that staff approach to girls was a critical area 

for training. 

“Learning to work with girls who 

have been victims of domestic abuse, 

trauma, and rape.”

“Recognizing red flags of abuse, 

neglect, and trauma.”

“We don’t know enough about 

developmental stages; we don’t 

seem to know much about bullying, 

understand that concept, or even 

know to what extent it occurs.”

“How to deal with angry, acting out 

girls who say they don’t care; cuss 

everyone out including the judge.”

Listening/communication

Relate/understand problems

Value perspective

Sta positive attitudes

Respect

Guidance

Trauma

Gender responsive/specic

Mental health

Trauma-informed care

Girls

N=181

Sta

N=194

Culture/cultural competency

Relationships

Table 2. Top Staff Training Areas Identified/

Ranked by Girls and Staff
Page 13

girls move through the justice system. Then juvenile 

justice and social service professionals were named. 

Parents were also identified as a group in need of 

training, which reinforces how problems at school and 

at home often precede justice system involvement. A 

face-to-face training format was identified as effective; 

this approach includes conferences, onsite, regional, 

and district trainings. Numerous responses also 

supported the use of online trainings and webinars, 

and some respondents reported that a combination of 

formats would be most effective.

Technical assistance. Although there were areas of 

overlap between the priority technical assistance and 

training areas, most of the technical assistance priority 

areas were distinct. In addition to desiring skills to 

better inform their responses to acting out behavior, 

staff also wanted technical assistance in programming 

and curriculum development aimed at decreasing/

addressing girls’ behaviors and guided by best 

practices. The other technical assistance area priorities 

included data/research, program development and 

implementation, assessment, program evaluation, and 

funding. Several facilitators commented that technical 

assistance questions were challenging for participants 

to answer. Training may be needed prior to asking 

about technical assistance needs. 

Although the question posed was regarding training 

topics and areas, respondents also discussed the 

approach to training and staff responses to girls. To 

illustrate, participants said the training approach 

should be gender-responsive, trauma-informed, 

strengths-based, simple, and basic, as well as involving 

families.

Training that focuses on how staff respond to girls and 

staff behaviors such as listening, communication, and 

appropriate boundaries emerged as important. It was 

noted that this type of training needs to be delivered 

in a supportive manner. Finally, there was discussion 

regarding external and internal barriers and themes 

related to training challenges. For example, system 

issues, lack of staff training opportunities, program 

environment, and provider challenges acted as 

barriers to training. 

Who needs training and training format. When asked 

who should receive training, the data showed an 

important trend. The most common response was 

school personnel, followed by law enforcement, then 

judges, and attorneys. Interestingly, this reflects the key 

gatekeepers in what is often the typical order in which 

“Recognizing burn-out.”

“Creating developmentally 

responsive programming.”

“Need training as it relates to unique 

gender issues.”

“We see organizations moving 

toward...involving the family. This 

is a positive change – get the whole 

family unit involved in the healing 

process. Change the whole family 

unit.” 

“Physical set-up of program (e.g., 

patdowns, certain tasks that might 

be triggering—how can we do it best 

without causing more trauma?)”

“Data collection— knowing what to 

collect, how to use the information, 

interpret it, and present it.”
Page 14

Girls

When girls were asked what information would be 

helpful, an important theme emerged. Although girls 

named a wide range and variety of topics, their desire 

to share advice and hear girls’ stories, and their need 

for professional help were most prominent. They were 

seeking empowerment, affirmation, understanding, 

and opportunities. The girls wanted information about 

a wide range of topics including communication, 

education, family help, drugs and alcohol, health, 

arts and expressing themselves, STDs, relationships, 

pregnancy, and safe dating. They wanted very 

basic resources in the areas of jobs/employment, 

mentors, state resources, crisis, shelters, legal, sex, 

and medical. Girls also shared preferred formats for 

website information and resources, which included 

chats, videos, blogs, and hotlines. The importance of 

confidentiality emerged repeatedly. 

Key Professional Stakeholders

When staff were asked about the information or 

materials they need, the most common responses 

were for data trends/research, funding, and best 

practices for working with girls. Participants also 

named community guides and information about 

girls’ agencies as areas in which they required more 

resources. The participants expressed a need for tools 

to more effectively work with girls, including girls’ 

curricula and materials. 

Topical Session Feedback

In addition to girls and staff providing input, 

participants from the topical sessions were asked, 

“What are the implications of these issues [critical 

issues facing their population] for staff training and 

technical assistance?” The responses from the topical 

sessions reiterated similar technical assistance needs 

such as resources, as well as training/best practices 

regarding prevalent issues such as abuse and trauma, 

anger, bullying, and how to engage girls and families. 

Other training implications included the need for 

staff to examine their values and to increase cultural 

competency.

Information and Resource Needs

One of the main goals of the listening sessions was 

to gain awareness regarding what information and 

resources are needed by stakeholders. Through its 

website, listserv, and conferences, NGI is positioned to 

provide information about a variety of topics related 

to girls, as well as a catalogue of useful resources. 

To learn more about this topic, the following questions 

were posed to the stakeholder groups: 

•	 Girls: NGI is creating a website with a special 

section for girls. What kind of information 

would be helpful or would you want to have? 

•	 Key professional stakeholders: What 

information or materials do you need? 

•	 Parents/caregivers: (1) We want to have 

information that will be useful for parents. 

What should be on this website? Please list 

what information and/or resources would 

be the most helpful for parents/caregivers of 

girls at risk of being, or already, involved in the 

justice system. (2) What would have helped 

you better understand the process of your 

daughter’s involvement in the juvenile justice 

system? What information did you want/need?

“We need advice columns and blogs 

that let us anonymously share our 

experiences so we can help each 

other.”

“Chat line to share things with other 

girls who are not in your school and 

who would not spread your business, 

needs to be confidential.”
Page 15

education emerged as critical areas. Parents requested 

support groups and other mechanisms for connecting 

with other parents. They also asked for education and 

training that would increase their parenting skills in 

areas such as communication and discipline. Also 

important is the need for resources in areas including 

mental health and prevention, and for parents to 

obtain information about the justice system.

What Works and Ineffective/Harmful Practices

The listening sessions provided a platform to explore 

both what is working with girls’ programming, 

services, and treatment, and what needs to change. 

The information gained from these sessions can help 

to inform policy and practice in the justice system as 

well as in related systems such as education. 

To gain insight on these topics, the following 

questions were posed to the stakeholder groups: 

•	 Girls: (1) What do you think about the way girls 

who get into trouble are treated in [city/state]? 

Is it fair/unfair? (2) Did you feel comfortable 

speaking with staff in your program(s)? Why 

or why not? (3) What are some program rules 

that you think are/were good? Why? and (4) 

Which program rules or things that happen 

in programs need to be changed? Why?

•	 Key professional stakeholders: Are there policies, 

laws, or rules that negatively impact girls?

•	 Parents/caregivers: Did you feel that 

your daughter was helped? In what ways 

did your daughter change as a result of 

being in the juvenile justice system?

Girls

When girls were asked about what works and what 

needs to change in programming and treatment, a 

number of themes that have implications for policy 

and practice emerged. 

Girls’ treatment. Girls noted differences in how they 

were treated as compared to boys, and discussed 

what they considered to be fair and unfair treatment 

Parents/Caregivers

When asked what information would be useful for 

parents and what they would want on a website, 

parents/caregivers reported wanting advice on how to 

help their daughters, parent education, and support. 

In particular, they expressed the desire to understand 

their daughters’ experiences as well as the language 

girls use in today’s society. This extended to the 

Internet, whereby parents expressed need for more 

information about social media, such as Facebook. A 

common response was that parents want information 

about community resources, especially prevention 

and intervention programs, and also need information 

about general activities they can do with their 

children. Regarding system involvement, they need 

help navigating the justice system and information 

about systems in general. Importantly, some parents/

caregivers noted challenges to helping their daughters 

such as peer influence, lack of system understanding, 

and lack of Internet access. Parents’ written responses 

on their demographic surveys corroborated these 

findings, where the need for parent support and 

“Gender-specific community 

resource guide—who is serving what 

ages.” 

“Informational resources for the 

girls—how to apply for a job, life 

skills, balance a checkbook.”

“Group curriculum dealing with 

adolescent girls’ social and 

emotional needs.”

“I would like to have brochures to 

give to girls and their families on 

eating disorders and PTSD.”

“Evaluation and assessment tools.” 

“Map to show what organizations 

are doing with girls.”
Page 16

Negative program rules. Rules for contact with family 

and non-family were by far the most cited rules that 

girls thought need changing. Girls also identified rules 

that were not consistently implemented or followed as 

areas for improvement. 

in general and by decision makers in particular. Some 

girls felt they were treated fairly. For example, they 

stated that the judges were fair, listened, and gave 

them chances. Fair treatment was also described as 

being treated with respect, care, and leniency. Girls 

also named a myriad of ways in which they felt they 

were treated unfairly, including receiving negative 

treatment by law enforcement and program staff. 

Comfort level with staff. Many girls stated that they felt 

comfortable talking with staff, though a large number 

had mixed feelings depending on the staff member 

or did not feel comfortable at all. Girls stated that staff 

were understanding, and listen and communicate 

well, while other respondents reported that staff could 

not be trusted; they judge the girls and often violate 

confidentiality. 

Positive program rules. Rules regarding safety and 

structure were considered positive. In general, rules 

regarding privilege/point systems, confidentiality, 

respect, and substance use were also considered 

positive. 

“Girls get judged too much—it is OK 

for guys to get into trouble because 

they’re guys, but not for girls; this is 

not fair.”

“I have always felt comfortable 

talking to staff members in the 

facilities I have been in because I 

know that they are here to help and 

listen to me, not hurt or ignore me.” 

“Most girls here have not been to 

court in years. We don’t get to talk 

to the judge because we never know 

when we have a court date because 

our caseworker does not call us or 

see us.”

“Getting restrained too much and 

putting their hands on you too 

much.”

“The cameras are good—especially 

the camera rooms because they are 

good if someone is having seizures 

or trying to kill themselves.”

“Rules about no weapons, no 

fighting, no putting your hands on 

others are good.”

“I like the rule about 

confidentiality...what is said here, 

stays here.”

“Respect others and yourself is 

a good rule that should be in all 

programs.” 

“Random drug testing helps me stay 

sober.”

“More phone calls—only once a 

week now and our parents have to 

call us.”

“Visiting hours longer and we should 

be able to bring food in on visits from 

parents.”

“If we curse we get kicked out of 

group and it is the girls who curse 

who need the group.”

“Staff make up their own rules, their 

own handbook.”

“Have to always be with staff. I would 

just like to step outside and be in 

the air to breathe without someone 

deducting points away from me.”
Page 17

Parents/Caregivers

Parents/caregivers shared their thoughts about 

whether their daughters were helped, and how they 

changed as a result of being in the juvenile justice 

system. A lack of family involvement in the process 

was cited as important. Parents/caregivers described a 

lack of knowledge of the system and system processes 

as being harmful to girls. Parents/caregivers also 

mentioned the lack of consistency between what 

different providers and professionals across the system 

said to girls and their families. Similarly, a lack of 

Key Professional Stakeholders

Stakeholders who work with girls are well-positioned 

to speak on what works and what should be changed 

in our efforts to improve response to girls. 

Positive policies and practices. An interesting result 

was that participants spoke to both the need for girlonly space and for women to work with girls in certain 

capacities such as counseling and case management. 

However, they also reinforced the importance of both 

genders working with youth. 

Negative policies and practices. It is critical that we 

not only determine what is working, but also those 

policies and practices with negative consequences. 

Professionals cited numerous policies and practices 

that intersect with family, foster care, school, and 

justice systems. For example, regarding the family, 

policies related to domestic violence and running 

away from home were considered negative, as was 

an emphasis on funding foster care rather than 

strengthening families. School policies and practices 

that were considered negative were related to zero 

tolerance, reentry, and discipline. Participants also 

noted numerous justice system policies that were 

harmful to girls, including lack of same-sex protocols 

for strip searches and interviewing; lack of genderresponsive services and resources, including risk 

assessments; issues related to sexuality, including the 

assumption that girls are heterosexual; and regulatory 

areas. 

“In my community, when there 

is a call of domestic violence and 

an adolescent girl is involved it is 

90% that the girl will be the person 

arrested. We need to educate LEO’s 

on why girls are emotional.”

“Judges think they have to protect 

girls so they send them to programs 

for running away, etc. (things that 

they do not do to boys).”

“In my school, girls are suspended 

more than boys because girls are 

unable to gather and check their 

emotions as fast as boys can.”

“The new law that charges a person 

attempting suicide has a negative 

impact on the girls.”

“Labeling a girl a sex offender when 

it is reactive behavior based on years 

of sexual abuse herself.” 

“Risk assessments are not gender 

responsive and this is the gatekeeper, 

unless there is a diagnosis, we 

cannot treat girls.”

“HIPAA impedes ability to share some 

parts of social history.”

“My agency assigns all girls to female 

counselors.”

“It’s so important making sure that 

people of both genders are working 

with the youth—so they have both 

role models.” 
Page 18

track]? What helped you when you needed 

the help? (5) What kinds of services/activities 

should programs offer to meet girls’ needs? 

•	 Key professional stakeholders: What are the most 

serious issues facing girls at risk of being involved, 

or currently involved, with juvenile justice? 

•	 Parents/caregivers: (1) What could have helped 

or prevented your daughter from entering 

the juvenile justice system? (2) What support 

systems or resources helped you get through 

the time your daughter was locked up? 

Girls 

Girls provided perspectives regarding what NGI’s 

critical focus areas should be, with several key themes 

surfacing. 

Adult Response to Girls. First, instead of discussing a 

particular area of focus, the majority of girls’ responses 

mentioned a need for adults to change the way they 

“respond to girls.” This included focusing on their 

feelings, their communication needs, and a desire for 

increased understanding. For example, girls stated:

The issue of communication was very salient 

and surfaced in a variety of ways. Having trust in 

communication, listening skills, and communication 

with parents and staff were some of the areas in which 

communication was discussed. Girls overwhelmingly 

talked about their need for understanding. They 

seek understanding from others regarding their 

background and life history as well as their present 

circumstances and problems. 

consistent care and follow-through was identified as 

problematic for girls in the system. Some respondents 

even labeled the juvenile justice system “traumatizing” 

for girls especially those with mental health needs. 

Of note, parents/caregivers had difficulty reporting the 

positive policies and practices affecting girls. Rather 

than identifying specific policies or practices, many 

respondents identified specific individuals that were 

helpful (i.e. court staff, social workers).

NGI’s Critical Focus Areas 

Several questions were asked of stakeholders in order 

to elicit ways OJJDP and NGI could better respond, 

either through specialized TTA or other activities, 

resource development/funding, or through system 

decision making/policy development. 

The following questions were posed to the 

stakeholder groups:

•	 Girls: (1) What do girls need to stay on a positive 

track? (2) What do you wish program/probation 

staff knew about you when they make decisions? 

(3) What should adults focus on if they want 

to help girls? (4) What about now; what will 

help you to get back on track [or to stay on 

“They should focus on girls—we 

have different feelings—all girls are 

not the same.” 

“Sensitivity of girls.” 

“Think about how we feel—focus on 

what is good and build on that—

recognize we have feelings.”

“Really like their social workers that 

now work with them.”

“I can call the court staff anytime I 

need their help.”

“The system did not realize that the 

whole family was scared and did not 

understand what was happening.”

“There is no consistency in what 

professionals say to parents and 

what they say to their daughters.”
Page 19

Recognition of Larger Structures. Girls shared the 

need to recognize larger family, program, and system 

issues that also require serious emphasis by adults. 

Girls discussed problems in their families, negative 

adult behaviors, and program and system issues. Girls 

identified several behaviors that appeared particularly 

harmful, such as a lack of family support, disrespect 

from staff, medical neglect, criminalization of survival 

behaviors such as sex trafficking, and racism in 

facilities and at the system level. 

Another prevalent theme was judgment. Girls 

expressed a desire for a clean slate and nonjudgmental approach, which was illustrated by 

comments such as:

In addition to not being judged, the emphasis in 

the listening sessions was on girls’ need for support, 

respect, guidance, good advice, fair treatment, 

individual treatment, trust, positive affirmation, and 

encouragement regarding their strengths and goals. 

Educating Staff. When asked what they wish staff knew 

about them before making decisions, girls’ responses 

clustered around three main themes. They wanted 

staff to understand their emotions and feelings, their 

families, and their goals and plans for the future. 

“[Staff is] rude and disrespectful; they 

don’t care if you are sad or mad, they 

just say, ‘You’re here because it is 

your fault.’ We’ve been here because 

we’ve been abused—we didn’t do 

anything wrong.”

“They don’t treat you like a victim. 

Even if you have been part of human 

trafficking they stereotype - that is 

what you did, that is who you are.” 

“Feel like girls are treated unfairly for 

what they do: I got jumped, knifed 

and because I am Latina they tried 

to arrest me for being in a gang, they 

were going to arrest me! Not looking 

for those that knifed me!”

“What you are trying to do with your 

future, what your goals are.”

“I wish they gave me a chance to 

succeed.”

“Don’t judge us without knowing us.” 

“Not judging us and making 

assumptions—they need to learn to 

listen.” 

“Not judge us because of charges.”

“I wish they knew that I am torn. I 

love my mother, I don’t want to be 

taken away from my little brothers. 

But I also don’t want to live the way 

I had to live. I wish they knew my 

mom needed help. I wish they knew I 

worried about my little brothers. I did 

the best I knew how.”

“Wish they knew actually what was 

going on in our home that we live 

in instead of making assumptions 

of why we do the kinds of things we 

do—we don’t do things on purpose.”
Page 20

Finally, there was an emphasis on their own agency 

where girls cited their individual choices as what 

helped them.

Girls’ Program Services and Activities. Girls listed 

numerous activities and services that they thought 

programs should offer. The most frequently named 

was physical activity, such as sports and recreation. 

They also wanted creative or artistic activities 

and offsite/off campus activities. Also important 

were services that relate to mental health, such as 

counseling or therapy; groups for girls to share and 

learn from each other; and education/schooling 

services. 

Key Professional Stakeholders

When asked to identify the most serious and critical 

issues facing girls, key professional stakeholder 

responses clustered into three main areas: (1) girls’ 

issues, (2) programming issues, and (3) system issues. 

An extensive list of girls’ issues was identified as focus 

areas for NGI; however, the most common were family 

problems (i.e. lack of support), abuse—particularly 

sexual abuse, sex education, pregnancy, and gangs. 

Other themes that surfaced included the girls’ desire 

for alternatives to institutionalization. Girls also 

discussed practical forms of help such as education, 

jobs, and goal setting. 

What Helped. The theme of maternal relationships 

surfaced as both what girls need and what helped 

them. Regarding what girls need, they said:

Family Support. When asked what had helped 

them and/or would help them, girls predominantly 

mentioned family support followed by opportunities 

for positive friends, caring adults, therapy, and 

staff support. Again, there was an emphasis on 

relationships with their mothers:

“We need exercise programs like 

Zumba and yoga.”

“Programs for girls such as music, 

stepping, cheering, acting, drama.”

“More community stuff—just being 

locked up doesn’t teach you what 

to do when you’re out—rec center, 

show us places to go outside of the 

same neighborhood.” 

“We need programs where girls come 

together at least every other week to 

talk about ‘girl issues’ where we have 

experienced women who are willing 

to listen and have good advice.”

“Education, college preparation.”

“My mom lets me tell her my deepest 

things and she doesn’t get mad and 

makes me feel better.” 

“I get most of my ‘staying on track’ 

help from my mom and grandpa. 

Sometimes I do have to count on 

myself.” 

“My mom is always there for me no 

matter what happens, even if we 

fight she is still there.” 

“My family and real friends help me 

stay out of trouble.”

“If my mom watched me, took care 

of me.” 

“To have relationships with mothers 

and to be able to tell mothers/

grandmothers things that they 

would keep in confidence.”

 “More mother-daughter time, 

engaged mothers, listen to what 

your child is telling you.”
Page 21

focus. Finally, parent-specific issues surfaced such as 

parents’ need for support, parent education, activities, 

communication, and information. Parents stated that 

they felt challenged by their lack of control. 

Recommendations for Continued Services. When 

asked what helped their daughters from their 

perspective and/or what helped them, parents 

identified people or services that had a positive 

impact including social services, counselors, and court 

staff. This included responses from parents who felt 

their daughters’ attitudes in general had changed for 

the better as a result of their system experience. Family 

was also identified by parents as having a positive 

impact.

Topical Session Feedback 

Topic specific listening sessions were held to gain 

a deeper understanding from particular factions 

about the needs of groups that may have unique 

experiences within the justice system. Two sessions 

included tribal police and education stakeholders who 

serve justice-involved girls, and another two sessions 

focused on gangs and LGBT youth.

The specific concerns relayed by education and law 

enforcement stakeholders echoed the same themes 

as the general listening sessions, such as abuse, 

sexual abuse, PTSD, aggression, anger, adolescent 

development, and bullying. Interestingly, education 

stakeholders repeatedly mentioned the need for 

judges, law enforcement, and the justice system to 

Trauma, violence, and dating relationships also 

were identified as critical focus areas. Programming 

issues were related to specific challenges to meeting 

the needs of girls and included a lack of transition 

care, lack of staff training, funding, and lack of girls’ 

programming with attention to gender differences. 

Respondents also named system level issues as 

critical focus areas. These included the differences in 

sanctions and treatment for girls based on charges, 

lack of family resources, and the overall system’s 

response to girls. 

Parents/Caregivers

Parents discussed what could have prevented their 

daughters from entering the juvenile justice system 

in order to elicit ways in which NGI could support/

replicate/advocate/make recommendations to 

improve the response to girls in the juvenile justice 

system. 

Support/Lacking Resources for Parents. Parents 

discussed how the school and education systems 

should be critical focus areas. In particular, school 

care/support, involvement, and bully prevention 

programs were named as critical. Community 

involvement, resources, and programs, such as 

early prevention, also were cited as areas of needed 

“There are not enough adequately 

trained people to effectively deal 

with child abuse and neglect issues. 

As a society, we don’t do a good job 

of treating these issues; we don’t 

do a good job of treating the whole 

being.”

“There needs to be transition and 

independent living dollars to assist 

during the transition period.”

“Gap in funding, tools, resources. 

There are political issues—funding 

nightmare.”

“We are growing too—we need help 

with how to work with our daughters 

[and] to understand what life is like 

for them.”

“The high school [needed] to care 

more about what she was doing or 

not doing. They need to do more for 

bullying.”
Page 22

•	 Sexuality and Identity

•	 Sexuality and heteronormative expectations

receive training on sensitivity and girls’ emotions and 

differential treatment. The sessions on gangs and LGBT 

youth generated much more specific responses; for 

example, regarding girls in gangs, staff said:

Three prevailing themes were dominant in the LGBT 

session: (1) gender expectations, (2) sexuality, and 

(3) heteronormative expectations. The intersection 

of gender, race, culture, and sexuality was salient 

throughout each of these themes and support the 

need to recognize within group differences: 

•	 Gender expectations and conformity

“In terms of construction of gender, 

in terms of masculinity and 

femininity – it’s been so safe to think 

about trauma and victimization 

for feminine girls. It’s different as 

you move toward masculine girls 

– [people have] blinders around 

masculine behavior; this can’t be 

associated with any sort of trauma 

background.”

“A barrier to getting out is the 

perception that expressing oneself 

in gender non-conforming ways is 

acting out, or is a way to flaunt the 

rules or challenge authority; the 

kinds of things that end up explicitly 

or implicitly adding to people’s time.”

“Girls value themselves by their 

associations with male gang 

members.”

“Sexualization of female gang 

members.”

“Violence for girls in gangs is 

relational and usually over boys.”

“Families pass on the gang legacy.”

“Often children of incarcerated 

parent.”

“We know about girls and their 

need for intimacy and relationship 

and connection, and how that 

might play out in situations where 

they’re literally confined. You hear 

the phrase “gay for the stay” where 

girls are relating intimately with 

other girls; they might not do this 

otherwise outside.”

“Re: gay for the stay issue ... None 

of the girls I worked with wanted to 

identify as a certain identity. That 

was adults saying: Are you this; are 

you that? The girls didn’t care.” 

“Regarding rewards in custody—

girls are excited about getting their 

fingernails painted; you get makeup 

or your hair done as a reward.”

“They have groups about being a 

young lady, and you get points/

credits if you complete that.”
Page 23

Resources for Girls. Participants named numerous 

resources that had a positive impact on girls’ lives. 

Some resources were basic necessities such as 

medical, dental, and reproductive health care. Other 

responses named creative best practices that are free 

or low-cost considering serious budget constraints. To 

illustrate, participants said:

Standards of Care

For this topic, key professional stakeholders engaged 

in discussions aimed at soliciting information to 

begin to share with the field about what is being 

implemented, and what may be some emerging best 

practices to inform the development of standards of 

care. 

•	 Key professional stakeholders: Has your 

agency/organization implemented any 

best practices for girls that are effective—

regardless of having evidence?

Key Professional Stakeholders

Program Models and Curricula. The overwhelming 

majority of responses cited different programs and 

models that practitioners were using and/or thought 

were effective. For example, many participants 

mentioned existing gender-responsive curricula and 

programming such as Girls Circle, Girls Moving On, 

and VOICES. Others mentioned general programming 

such as female mentors, wrap-around services, and 

therapeutic courts. 

Gender-Responsive Practices and Interventions. The 

second most common response was related to having 

a gender-responsive approach. For example, some 

responses cited:

“We are gender-responsive officers 

and our approach works—TARGET, 

the CARE Program, Voices, Girls 

Circle, Family Support Centers, 

Trauma Clinics, FFT, MTFC, 

Viewpoints, and some therapists 

that facilitate BSFT, FFT, and MST. But 

not all therapists who are trained in 

these models are good with girls.”

“Gender-specific programs, halfway, 

residential, or treatment including 

chemical dependency housed in a 

separate building than boys.”

“In my drug court, gender-enhanced 

services/coordination is effective. 

Girls are assigned to a female 

probation officer; the PO can identify 

with female issues.”

“We’re implementing a lot of 

gender-responsive interventions: 

Girls Circle in the detention facility, 

gender-specific programming at the 

evening reporting center, creating an 

emergency phone numbers booklet 

that girls take out of detention 

so they’ll have those numbers 

accessible to them.”
Page 24

on girls’ delinquency. Given the qualitative nature of 

the data, there is a wealth of information that informs 

the findings, lessons, and next steps in our work. 

Facilitator Impressions 

The data show that the majority of listening session 

participants felt comfortable taking part in the 

discussion, shared openly (even when their comments 

may have been negative), and were engaged in the 

process, according to impressions submitted by the 

facilitators. As might be expected, a variety of issues 

or concerns emerged from the different stakeholder 

groups. For example, some facilitators of girls’ groups 

noted that trust issues (e.g., with adults or the system) 

were important to some of the girls; also, staff were 

present during some of the listening sessions, 

which may have impacted girls’ responses and also 

may be related to trust. The need for connection 

and support was apparent in several of the parent/

caregiver sessions. In some of the staff groups, a key 

issue noted by the facilitators was gender-responsive 

services (including the need for training in this area). 

Across stakeholder groups, facilitators reported that 

a number of participants expressed their gratitude 

for being part of the listening session as well as their 

interest in staying informed about the National Girls 

Institute.

Logistical challenges cropped up in many of the 

facilitators’ notes, with key issues relating to time, 

group management, and listening session questions. 

Regarding time, some facilitators indicated that 

participants needed a substantial amount of time 

to process the questions or to become comfortable 

with sharing their opinions. In addition, some 

facilitators reported that they faced challenges in 

creating an environment that maximized sharing and 

inclusivity (due to issues such as tension between 

group members), or in keeping the group focused 

on the subject matter and questions. The questions 

themselves also presented some challenges. For 

example, some facilitators reported needing to 

rephrase questions or provide additional probes in 

order to increase participants’ understanding. 

Involving Families. Finally, an approach that involves 

families was paramount. 

In sum, the results from the listening sessions 

confirmed and reinforced both existing research 

as well as the anecdotal experiences that many 

stakeholders have expressed as salient in girls’ 

programming. Many new insights were shared that 

make original contributions to the existing literature 

“I think the family group 

conferencing is fantastic.” 

“Tribal girls—family services.”

“Information on how to engage 

parents.”

“Understanding that needs aren’t 

being met like love, acceptance, 

shelter, and belonging—basic 

needs.”

“Longer showers (DT), allowing 

people proper time to clean up (i.e., 

when they are on their periods), 

having tampons/hygiene products in 

all of the bathrooms.”

“We have a girls’ library where 

we provide books specifcally 

geared towards young females—

empowering books”

“Bringing in off-campus groups for 

assemblies: music, saving money/

financial planning.”

“Foundation that supports the extra 

activities because they couldn’t 

afford it otherwise.”
Page 25

While the need to develop communication skills and 

facilitate communication is considered a central aspect 

of gender responsiveness, the frequency and diversity 

of ways in which it surfaced in this study suggest that 

more work is needed in this area. The strength of this 

finding also raises questions about how to define and 

measure effective communication. For example, staff 

and girls may differ in their views of what respectful, 

supportive, and appropriate communication looks 

like. Moreover, gender differences in adolescent 

communication show that girls use communication 

as a way to develop relationships, that they need 

time to process, and that their communication is 

linked to emotions. This divide between language, 

experiences, and expectations creates uncertainty 

for the adults working with the girls and for girls 

who have experienced trauma. Staff reported 

uncertainty with how to communicate holding girls 

accountable for their behavior while also affirming 

and empowering them. Communication can be easily 

stunted or cut short when there is miscommunication 

and/or lack of skills. Building skills to increase effective 

communication is essential in gender-responsive 

practice.

Recommendations:

•	 NGI TTA: Ensure that communication skills 

are given priority and considered an essential 

element of gender responsiveness. This includes 

skills training on effective communication, 

including gender differences in communication.

•	 In the future, federal government could 

support pilot initiatives with small workgroups 

whereby each stakeholder group works to 

understand the perspectives of others in 

terms of improving the processes (i.e., staff to 

hear from girls and parents, parents to hear 

from staff and girls, girls to hear from staff and 

parents) and evaluate and track the results.

Peer Learning

The desire to learn from peers cut across all three 

stakeholder groups. One of the main themes for girls 

Discussion and Recommendations

Some of the findings described above provide further 

evidence for and align with existing research about 

the needs of justice-involved girls, their families, and 

the professionals who work with them. The qualitative 

research design employed in this study allows for 

these findings to be contextualized and provides a 

more detailed and rich description of existing trends. 

These findings also highlight areas that warrant 

additional exploration or support outside of the NGI. 

Below, the results are synthesized and the themes that 

cut across stakeholder groups and specific questions 

are presented. The implications of the findings from 

the listening sessions for the NGI are included and set 

the stage for training, research, information sharing, 

and policy and practice recommendations. 

Communication

Communication surfaced as a theme across all 

stakeholder groups in a variety of forms. Girls 

expressed that communication needs should be 

a priority focus and that the NGI website should 

include information about communication. Girls 

want to talk to their parents and, just as importantly, 

parents and caregivers (particularly mothers) want 

to be able to talk with their daughters, but each 

identified the challenges of effective and meaningful 

communication and uncertainty with how to talk 

with each other in a way that is not argumentative or 

fueled by tension. Both girls and parents/caregivers 

expressed a desire to develop communication 

skills and ways to relate to each other. For parents 

it seemed this challenge was due to generational 

differences in girls’ language, and for girls this was 

about feeling misunderstood by parents. Girls also 

spoke about the importance of effective and healthy 

communication with staff. Interestingly, staff also 

named communication as a main area for training. 

This signifies that while all of the groups agree that 

communication is a key area of concern, numerous 

barriers and challenges exist, and training, education, 

and support is needed to help facilitate positive 

communication across groups.
Page 26

Recommendations:

•	 Provide website resources and information 

regarding opportunities that exist for peer 

sharing through NGI. Identify agencies that are 

already doing this in an effective way and engage 

them in expanding/focusing services to meet 

the needs of justice-involved families/girls.

•	 Provide peer learning opportunities 

as a standard component in NGI fieldinitiated TTA or regional trainings.

•	 Provide support for the field to create or 

disseminate information regarding parenting 

and girls’ websites, blogs, and forums that 

facilitate peer sharing of advice and stories. 

•	 Provide support for the field to maintain 

and monitor a chat line for girls and parents/

caregivers. Create an equivalent website resource 

for staff so they have a forum to share success 

stories and strategies of what works with girls. 

Gender Responsiveness 

The issue of “gender responsiveness” emerged 

consistently, albeit in different ways depending on 

the stakeholder group. Throughout the listening 

sessions girls referenced how they are different from 

boys. They spoke of their need to be understood, 

have their feelings validated, and be affirmed and 

loved. While girls shared specific topics on which 

adults should focus and areas where they would seek 

out more information, they revealed that getting 

their emotional and relational needs met was a 

central priority. Similarly, staff generated numerous 

training topics and informational needs; however, the 

approach to working with girls in a gender-responsive 

manner was of critical importance. 

Feminist scholars posit that girls have unique needs 

that differ from boys primarily around their desire 

for connection with others and their emphasis on 

relationships. Girls’ responses in the listening sessions 

overwhelmingly supported this assertion whereby 

the data show that relational concerns were of the 

utmost importance. This highlights the need to 

was that they wanted to get and receive advice and 

hear other girls’ stories. Parents also wanted advice 

from others regarding how to help their daughters. 

Staff echoed the same, reporting that opportunities to 

learn from their peers are crucial. 

Several important implications relate to this finding. 

For girls, it may be that they feel more comfortable 

learning and sharing with similarly aged peers who 

are developmentally at the same life stage. Parents 

may also feel more at ease with other parents who 

have faced similar issues. It is critical to recognize the 

importance of peer-to-peer sharing and to provide 

opportunities for parents/mothers to share their 

experiences to foster understanding and support. 

This also would help parents to understand they are 

not alone and can learn from each other. Regarding 

staff, similar findings were reported by OJJDP, where 

peer-to-peer learning was in many cases the preferred 

type of TTA method (OJJDP, 2010).1 Staff seek practical 

strategies and the application of theory and research 

to their day-to-day interventions with the girls. While 

training from “experts” is important, knowing what 

to do in stressful situations and what has worked for 

others in the field who encounter similar types of 

situations and challenges is equally essential.

1 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2010). 

National needs assessment of juvenile justice professionals: 2010. 

Washington, DC: Author.
Page 27

have of girls and their families than on the realities 

that girls face, including both individual and societal 

factors” (p. 572). The importance of judgment and girls’ 

life context was a strong theme and provides further 

empirical support to the gender-responsive literature.

Interestingly, both parents and girls identify support 

from their families as helpful in getting back on 

track. This is significant given that most of the 

juvenile justice programs exclude families or present 

barriers to engaging families (i.e., distance from the 

community, lack of transportation, etc.) Stakeholders 

see parents as a problem/risk factor and girls see 

mothers as the solution/protective factors. The result 

is a lack of congruency between what girls see as 

protective factors and the design of juvenile justice 

programming. This gap in perspective demands 

our attention and the importance of including girls/

families.

Staff also recognize family issues as a barrier and 

express the need to know how to engage families. 

These indicators show the need for engaging staff 

to understand family strengths and to reframe how 

families are involved in the intervention process. 

When the system views and labels the family as the 

problem, there is lower likelihood of engaging families 

or creating family-focused care management. That 

can further result in the isolation of girls from their 

families. This is not conducive to building on the 

strengths of families. 

Recommendations:

•	 Include parents as co-facilitators in NGI 

workshops and trainings to challenge 

staff to look at their values about families 

and how this influences their day-today interactions with girls/families.

•	 Integrate information learned from girls and 

parents about a non-judgmental approach into 

the development of standards of care to guide 

programming during the roundtable meeting.

•	 The federal government to provide 

additional funding for piloting of 

family-focused interventions.

be gender responsive when working with girls. A 

major contribution of this study is that it allows us 

to learn what being gender responsive means from 

the perspective of girls and parents. Scholars have 

struggled with defining gender responsiveness, and 

what is noteworthy from our data are the diverse 

definitions from staff on what gender responsiveness 

means. Staff easily named services but struggled with 

articulating the philosophy, values, and approach that 

are fundamental to a gender-responsive environment. 

This study provides a unique opportunity to include 

these voices that have historically been left out of this 

conversation. These points were salient and can build 

upon how we conceptualize gender responsiveness.

Recommendations:

•	 Through federally funded conferences 

and workshops, include girls and parents 

in the conversations, research, and theory 

building about what works for girls.

•	 Along with the NGI advisory board, include 

the voices of parents and girls/young 

women to inform the work of NGI.

•	 Include the perspectives of girls, parents, and 

staff in the OJJDP/NGI roundtable on evidencebased practice (EBP) and gender-responsive 

practice (GRP) to be conducted in 2012.

•	 Through NGI TTA, apply lessons learned 

from the OJJDP national conference on girls/

families that include cutting-edge research 

and the translation of research to best practice 

at the programming and system levels. 

Non-Judgmental Approach to Girls and 

Families

Girls spoke in a very straightforward manner about 

feeling judged and their need for understanding 

from others regarding their background and life 

circumstances. Further, parents also felt judged by the 

system. Gaarder et al (2004)2 found that “juvenile court 

staff often act based more on the perceptions they 

2 Gaarder, E., Rodriguez, N., & Zatz, M. S. (2004). Criers, liars, and 

manipulators: Probation officers’ views of girls. Justice Quarterly, 

21(3): 547–578.
Page 28

Recommendations:

•	 Through OJJDP/NGI partnerships, convene 

a roundtable of leaders/decision makers 

from the various disciplines to identify 

strategies for breaking down silos of child 

welfare, education, mental health, public 

health, recreational opportunities, etc., and 

increasing communication and collaboration.

•	 Provide funding and support to integrate 

services and move away from the 

compartmentalizing of girls’/families’ lives.

•	 In the future, partner with organizations 

that can provide accurate advice, guidance, 

and support, including the medical and 

legal community to stakeholders. 

•	 Through communication networks, involve 

schools, law enforcement, families, and 

gatekeepers in awareness efforts and develop/

provide specialized training for these groups.

•	 The federal government to provide funding for 

piloting of training models that include parents, 

girls, and professionals and create a format for 

states and jurisdictions/long-term sustainability 

to include Training of Trainer models.

•	 The federal government to fund/support 

evaluation of policies and practices across 

agencies and systems that can be streamlined 

while maintaining confidentiality.

•	 Provide NGI website resources regarding national 

providers, existing resources, and organizations. 

•	 Include diverse representation of various 

stakeholders on the NGI advisory board.

Individual and Universal Needs

An important discovery was the many ways girls 

and parents spoke of unique needs and experiences 

related to their justice-system involvement, as well 

as a desire for information that is typical of most 

girls and parents in the United States. For example, 

the girls’ resource needs differed from the general 

•	 The federal government to provide funding 

for research inquiry as to effective strategies 

to engage mothers/families/caregivers 

in the day-to-day treatment milieu.

Multi-System Approach

Girls and parents spoke about how problems within 

the school, family, and justice system require attention 

if we are to truly help girls. It was recognized and 

acknowledged that individual-level solutions are 

grossly inadequate. From the stakeholders’ responses, 

it is clear that the focus of NGI cannot be on individuallevel girls’ issues or training solely on topics, but must 

be multi-level and focus on program- and system-level 

issues as well. For example, we learned that many 

people “outside” of the juvenile justice system were 

identified as needing training (e.g., educators, law 

enforcement).

This finding supports the need for early prevention 

programs. Juvenile justice staff who work with girls 

need to know how other systems work and what 

other resources are available. There is often a lack 

of awareness regarding how to access and utilize 

available resources and to connect girls/families to 

these resources. Parents expressed frustration with 

having to tell the same story over and over because 

the “system people” did not talk to each other. 
Page 29

Girls’ preferred format for receiving Internet-based 

information included chats, videos, and blogs. 

Given the widespread use of the Internet in general 

and social networking sites in particular, this is not 

surprising. Problematic, though, is that parents 

reported they want more information about girls’ 

Internet use including Facebook. There are important 

implications to this finding since cyber bullying can 

be harmful and dangerous, and parents may lack the 

information and resources they need to appropriately 

intervene. 

Recommendation:

•	 The federal government to support 

research to increase the understanding 

of the impact of social media and girls’ 

involvement in the juvenile justice system.

Within-Girl Differences

The importance of recognizing differences among 

girls surfaced most strongly in the topical sessions, 

particularly regarding issues of gender expectations, 

sexuality, and identity. Also mentioned was how issues 

related to race and culture require attention. 

Recommendations:

•	 Ensure that all NGI TTA (e.g., individual 

field-initiated requests, regional trainings) 

acknowledge differences among girls 

and provide training that does not 

reinforce gender stereotypes. 

•	 Disseminate information and resources for the 

field that address differences within gender.

•	 Provide support to continue the 

dialogue regarding the intersection of 

better serving girls in gangs, LGBT girls, 

girls in tribal communities, etc.

Balance Recognition of Past With Future 

Orientation

An interesting finding is that while girls felt the need 

to be understood and for their background and 

circumstances considered, they also maintained a 

population of girls and demonstrated a higher 

level of need, which is noteworthy given the girls’ 

developmental stage. Girls also expressed a desire for 

other information about topics that are very common 

for most teenagers, such as dating, STDs, education, 

jobs, and their goals. Parents expressed the need for 

information about how to navigate the justice system, 

but also wanted general ideas for activities to do 

with their daughters, which again is typical for most 

parents and caregivers of teenagers. 

This finding has important implications for how 

we work with girls and parents. In particular, it 

highlights the need for focused staff training on 

understanding strategies to address the high need, 

versus the historical juvenile justice practices of 

controlling behaviors and neglecting what is driving 

the behaviors. Through improved system response, 

training, technical assistance, and resource provision, 

these issues can be addressed. 

Recommendations:

•	 Provide a clearinghouse of information that 

is responsive to these unique and universal 

needs. The resources must be easily accessible, 

developmentally appropriate, and specific 

to unique needs as well as general needs, 

including parenting and teen resources. 

•	 The federal government to support research 

that continues to track the profile of girls 

entering the juvenile justice system, and their 

families, to monitor changes over time. 

Technology and Social Networking

One listening session was dominated by the topic 

of Facebook. Girls engaged in an intense discussion 

around what is posted on Facebook, and that 

Facebook activity often results in fighting. Moreover, 

girls reported Facebook “is used to spread rumors,” 

“ruined friendships,” “results in bullying,” and that “girls 

mean to hurt other girls” with their Facebook activity. 

With this information comes an opportunity to further 

explore the impact of social networking on girls’ 

experiences with the juvenile justice system.
Page 30

Conclusion

Given the qualitative approach employed in the 

listening sessions, we have a wealth of descriptive 

information that contextualizes and complements 

existing research. These findings can guide next 

steps in working with at-risk and justice systeminvolved girls and their families. Girls, their families, 

and professional stakeholders generously shared 

invaluable information, feedback, and suggestions 

that collectively provide a map to guide the work 

of OJJDP, NGI, and other federal agencies on behalf 

of justice-involved girls. This includes developing 

specialized training protocols, sharing information and 

relevant resources on the NGI website, and guiding 

the recruitment of advisory board members with 

related expertise. One of the clearest messages and 

most profound lessons learned is that we must include 

in this process these key stakeholder groups in a 

respectful and inclusive manner that recognizes both 

the unique and the more universal challenges faced 

by girls, their families, and those who serve them. 

focus on their future. They said they wished staff asked 

about their goals for the future and encouraged them 

to meet those goals. Future orientation is an important 

factor and is related to positive outcomes. 

Recommendations:

•	 Include resources on NGI website for 

girls, parents, and stakeholders that 

acknowledge girls’ future goals and 

reinforce positive future orientation. 

•	 OJJDP to assist with collaboration efforts with 

Department of Education and Department of 

Labor to develop strategies and accessibility 

for education/vocational resources.

•	 The federal government to provide funding 

for local organizations to provide resources at 

the state and local level including alternatives 

to institutionalization, educational/vocational 

programs, and employment opportunities.

Examination of Policies and Practices 

Impacting Girls

Girls noted several differences in how they were 

treated as compared to boys, both by decision 

makers and while in programs. Girls also identified 

positive and negative rules that warrant our attention. 

Although standards have not been formally developed 

and disseminated, practitioners are in the position 

to share what they have learned from experience 

regarding best practices. At this stage, the field would 

benefit from standards of care in working with girls.

Recommendations:

•	 Use the information learned as a guide 

for the advisory board to discuss policy 

development and resource sharing.

•	 Use the information to guide a 

platform for next steps by participants 

of the EBP and GRP roundtable.

•	 Develop NGI resources for the website 
Page 31

Appendix 

NGI Research Questions by Stakeholder

NGI Research Questions by Stakeholder 

Overarching 

Research Question Stakeholder Asked Listening Session/Supplemental Data 

What are the priority 

training and

technical assistance

needs to improve the 

response to justiceinvolved girls? 

Girls Please list the topics in which you feel

training for STAFF is needed to work with

girls at risk of or involved in the justice 

system. 

Supplemental Data 

with girls need training?

Listening Session 

What training format would be most

What are areas in which you need technical 

assistance to better serve girls? 

Which groups or professions most need

training? 

Please list and rank the topics in which you

feel training is needed in order to respond 

the justice system. 

Supplemental Data 

What are the

resource and

information needs of

girls, parents, and 

key stakeholders? 

Girls NGI is creating a website with a special

section for girls. What kind of information

would be helpful or would you want to 

have? 

Listening Session 

 What information or materials do you need? 

Parents We want to have information that will be

useful for parents. What should be on this

website?

What would have helped you better 

understand the process (arrest, probation,

detention, court, commitment, release) of

your daughter’s involvement in the juvenile 

justice system better? What information did 

you want/need?

Please list what information and/or 

resources would be the most helpful for

parents/caregivers with girls at risk of or

involved in the justice system. 

Supplemental Data 
Page 32

Appendix

NGI Research Questions by Stakeholder 

Overarching 

Research Question Stakeholder Asked Listening Session/Supplemental Data 

What support, 

practices, policies are 

currently working for

girls, parents and key

stakeholders? What

and/or 

harmful practices, 

policies, systems,

structures, services, 

programs, etc.?

Girls What do you think about the way girls who 

get into trouble are treated in [city/state]? Is 

it fair/unfair?

Listening Session 

in your program(s)? Why or why not? 

What are some program rules that you think 

are/were good? Why? 

Which program rules or things that happen 

in programs need to be changed? Why? 

Are there policies, laws, or rules that

negatively impact girls? 

Parents Did you feel that your daughter was helped?

In what ways did your daughter change as a 

result of being in the juvenile justice system? 

What/should be

NGI’s critical focus 

areas?

Girls What do girls need to stay on a positive 

track?

Listening Session 

What do you wish that program/probation 

decisions?

What should adults focus on if they really

want to help girls? 

What about now; what will help you to get 

back on track [or to stay on track]? What

helped you when you needed the help? 

What do you wish that program/probation 

decisions?

What kinds of services/activities should Supplemental Data 

 What are the most serious issues facing girls

at risk of/or involved with juvenile justice? 

Listening Session 

Parents What could have helped or prevented your 

daughter from entering the juvenile justice 

system? 

What support systems or resources helped

you while your daughter was locked up?

What are the

standards of care

that should exist in

all girls 

programming?

Are there any best practices that your 

agency/organization has implemented for

evidence? 

Listening Session