Last updated: August 2014 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

LGBTQ Youths in the Juvenile Justice System

Youths’ sexual orientations and gender identities are complex. Youths experience an ongoing process 

of sexual development as they mature into young adults. Adolescence presents a time in people’s 

lives when they are unsure of themselves and begin to question who they are (Poirier et al. 2014; IOM 

2011). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youths may present unique 

challenges in the juvenile justice system. Research has shown that LGBTQ youths are more likely to 

confront certain barriers and environmental risk factors connected to their sexual orientations and 

gender identities. For example, compared with their heterosexual classmates and peers, LGBTQ 

youths are more likely to experience bullying at school (Mitchum and Moodie–Mills 2014), more 

likely to experience rejection or victimization perpetrated by their parents/caregivers (often resulting 

in youths’ running away from home) [Friedman et al. 2011], more likely to face homelessness 

(Burwick et al. 2014), twice as likely to be arrested and detained for status offenses and other 

nonviolent offenses (Irvine 2010), and at higher risk for illicit drug use (Heck et al. 2014). 

Definitions 

Sexual orientation (lesbian, gay, or bisexual) is based on the gender of the person or persons someone is 

emotionally, physically, sexually, or romantically attracted to. A lesbian is a girl or woman who is 

emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to girls or women, while gay typically refers to an 

individual who is emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to individuals of the same sex, 

made more often in reference to boys or men. The term bisexual refers to an individual who is 

emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to both males and females (Irvine 2010).

Questioning means that an individual, usually a younger person, is exploring or unsure about his or 

her sexual orientation or gender identity (ACLU 2013). Intersex involves a physical disorder or sexual 

development. A person has gonads (testes or ovaries) of one sex but often ambiguous external 

genitalia (Hopkins and Dickson 2014). 

Gender identity refers to an individual’s internal sense of being male or female, or in between, 

regardless of the person’s sex assigned at birth (Irvine 2010; ACLU 2013). Gender expression has to do 

with the manner in which a person expresses his or her gender identity, such as through clothing, 

mannerisms, or chosen name (Irvine 2010; ACLU 2013). Gender nonconforming refers to youths who 

have gender identities or gender expressions that break social norms (Irvine 2010).

Transgender is a term that encompasses a variety of ways people may identify or express their gender, 

usually in opposition to the biological sex (Hopkins and Dickson 2014). As Irvine explains: “[A]

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2014. “LGBTQ Youths in the Juvenile Justice System.” Literature review. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/LGBTQYouthsintheJuvenileJusticeSystem.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

transgender girl is a girl whose birth sex was male but who understands herself to be female. A 

transgender boy is a boy whose birth sex was female but who understands himself to be male” (2010, 

1). Transgender is not defined by whether a person has undergone surgery or hormone treatment to 

change his or her appearance or anatomy. Rather, it is defined by a person’s internal sense of feeling 

male or female (Shuster 2014).

Many of these terms may overlap in meaning. For example, gender nonconforming is a broad term 

that can include, but is not limited to, transgender youth. However, any youth that does not conform 

to the social norms or expectations of his or her gender (through mannerisms, behavior, or even 

clothing choices) may be considered gender nonconforming, although that individual may not 

necessarily be LGBTQ (FindYouthInfo.gov 2014).

The Number of LGBTQ Youths in the Juvenile Justice System

While they vary, some studies have estimated the prevalence of youths who identify as LGBTQ in the 

juvenile justice system. Available research has estimated that LGBT youths represent 5 percent to 7 

percent of the nation’s overall youth population, but they compose 13 percent to 15 percent of those 

currently in the juvenile justice system (Hunt and Moodie–Mills 2012; Majd, Marksamer, and Reyes 

2009). 

A few studies have provided insight into the number of LGBTQ youths at particular stages of the 

juvenile justice system. Irvine (2010) conducted a study on pretrial detention and administered a 

survey of 2,100 youths in six juvenile justice jurisdictions across the country: Albuquerque, N.M.; 

Birmingham, Ala.; Las Vegas, Nev.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Portland, Ore.; and Santa Cruz, Calif. Youths 

in the pretrial detention population at each site were asked questions about demographics as well as 

histories of bullying and harassment, suspension and expulsion from school, and detention. Youths 

were categorized as LGB if they disclosed having a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or other sexual orientation; 

or they reported questioning their sexual orientated; or they had same-gender sexual attraction; or 

they had a history of running away or being kicked out of their home because of their gender identity 

or sexual orientation. The results from the survey showed that 11 percent of youths identified as being 

sexually attracted to individuals of the same gender and categorized as LGB (Irvine 2010). 

With regard to adjudicated youth in custody, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in 2012 conducted 

the National Survey of Youth in Custody to estimate the rates of sexual victimization in juvenile 

facilities. Responses were gathered from approximately 18,100 adjudicated youths placed in juvenile 

facilities across the country. Of those surveyed, 2,200 youths (about 12 percent) self-identified as 

nonheterosexual (that is, youths who identified their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or 

other) [Beck et al. 2013], a rate similar to that reported in the 2010 study by Irvine. 

Identifying the number of LGBTQ youths in the juvenile justice system is problematic. Reliable 

statistics are difficult to find, partially because they often rely on youths disclosing this information 

about themselves. However, youths may hide their gender identities and sexual orientation out of 

fear of reprisal from justice system officials, family members, or friends. In addition, many data 

collection systems do not include questions to record such information. When looking at the records 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

collected from six cities, Irvine (2010) found there were no jurisdictions collecting formal data on 

youths’ sexual orientation and gender identity.

Risk and Protective Factors

Risk Factors 

LGBTQ youths face many of the same everyday challenges related to growing up as their 

heterosexual peers (such as getting good grades, deciding which college to attend, or posting on 

various social media sites). But they also face additional obstacles related to their sexual orientation 

and gender identity, which heterosexual youths may not experience. A 2011 IOM report on health 

issues related to LGBT individuals stated: 

LGBT youth face the same challenges as their heterosexual peers, but also stigma that may contribute to 

the identified disparities in health status between sexual- and gender-minority youth and heterosexual 

youth. [2011, 142] 

Research has shown that adolescence is a time of heightened risk-taking behavior and, as indicated 

above, there are several unique risk factors that LGBTQ youths are more likely to experience, thus 

increasing the odds they will come into contact with the juvenile justice system.

At home, research has shown, LGBTQ youths are more likely than sexual nonminority youths to have 

experienced childhood sexual and physical abuse. For instance, a meta-analysis by Friedman and 

colleagues (2011) found that sexual minority adolescents (i.e., youths who experience same-sex 

attractions; or self-label as gay, lesbian, or bisexual; or engage in same-sex sexual activity) were 2.9 

times more likely to report childhood sexual abuse, compared with sexual nonminority youths. This 

result was moderated by gender, as sexual minority boys were 4.9 times more likely to experience 

childhood sexual abuse, compared with sexual nonminority boys. Youths may also experience verbal 

and physical abuse from their family because of rejection of their sexual orientation or nonconforming 

gender behavior. As many as 30 percent of LGBTQ youths experience family violence after “coming 

out” to family members (Himmelstein and Brückner 2011). The Family Acceptance Project (a research 

initiative studying the influence of family reactions on the physical and mental health of LGB 

adolescents and young adults) examined the effect of family rejecting reactions to sexual orientation 

and gender expression during adolescence on later health problems (Ryan et al. 2009). The results 

showed that higher rates of family rejection were significantly associated with poor health outcomes. 

Specifically, LGB young adults who experienced higher levels of family rejection during adolescence 

were 8.4 times more likely to have reported attempting suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high 

levels of depression, and 3.3 times more likely to use illegal drugs (Ryan et al. 2009). Countless 

LGBTQ youths are kicked out or “thrown away” by their family, and many decide to run away from 

home because of familial rejection. This can in turn lead to increased odds that a youth will be placed 

in a group home or foster care, or experience homelessness. One study found that LGB and gender 

nonconforming youth were twice as likely as their heterosexual and gender-normative peers to report 

they had been removed from their home by a social worker, had lived in a group or foster home, and 

had ever been homeless after being kicked out of their home or running away (Irvine 2010).

In school, LGBTQ youths face bullying and victimization from classmates and even from teachers or 

administrators. The 2009 National School Climate Survey conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4

Education Network found that 84.6 percent of LGBT students were verbally harassed (e.g., called 

names or threated), 40.1 percent were physically harassed (e.g., pushed or shoved), and 18.8 percent 

were physically assaulted (e.g., punched, kicked, injured with a weapon) at school because of their 

sexual orientation (Kosciw et al. 2010). Further, the 2011 meta-analysis by Friedman and colleagues 

found that in school sexual minority students were 1.7 times more likely to report being threatened or 

injured with a weapon or otherwise assaulted, compared with sexual nonminority students, and 2.8 

times more likely to report missing school because of fear. The hostile school environment can 

contribute to higher rates of truancy, absenteeism, and dropping out, in addition to lower academic 

scores/grades and psychological trauma (Mitchum and Moodie–Mills 2014). LGBTQ youths are also 

more likely to face harsh disciplinary actions, including expulsions, from school administrators 

(Himmelstein and Brückner 2011; Morgan et al. 2014). 

In addition to increased victimization at home and at school, LGBTQ youths, especially those who are 

homeless, are more likely to engage in high-risk sexual behaviors, such as survival sex or other sex 

work, compared with heterosexual youths (Burwick et al. 2014). A 2013 report by the Institute of 

Medicine (IOM) and the National Research Council (NRC) found that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or 

transgender was an individual-level factor that increases boys’ and girls’ vulnerability to commercial 

sexual exploitation and sex trafficking. The report identified numerous factors that contribute to this 

potential vulnerability, including several of those mentioned previously such as homelessness, 

physical and emotional abuse, and family rejection (IOM and NRC 2013).

Moreover, recent research suggests that LGBTQ youths are also at higher risk to experience dating 

violence. A 2014 study by Dank and colleagues found that significantly higher percentages of LGB 

youths reported being victims of physical, psychological, and cyber dating abuse, as well as sexual 

coercion, compared with heterosexual youths. However, the study also found that higher percentages 

of LGB youth reported perpetrating these forms of dating violence. Because previous studies on 

youth dating violence studies have not distinguished LGBTQ youth in their sample, it is unclear 

whether the study’s findings are in line with prior research (Dank et al. 2014).

Finally, LGBTQ youths are also at higher risk for depression, mood and anxiety disorders, and 

suicidal ideation and attempts, compared with their heterosexual peers. On average, LGBTQ youths 

are 2 to 7 times more likely to have attempted suicide; are at higher risk for substance abuse 

disorders; and have higher rates of reported smoking, alcohol use, and drug use (IOM 2011; Craig, 

Austin, and Alessi 2013). 

Protective Factors

Although a great deal of research has focused on the challenges and obstacles faced by LGBTQ youth, 

some research has focused on factors that can promote the health and well-being of youth. For 

example, although family rejection can have a negative impact on youths, especially those who have 

revealed their sexual orientation or gender identity, family acceptance can be an important protective 

factor. A 2010 study from the Family Acceptance Project found that LGBTQ young adults who 

reported high levels of family acceptance during adolescence had significantly higher scores on selfesteem, social support, and general health and significantly lower scores on measures of depression, 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5

substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, suicidal thoughts, and suicidal attempts, compared with 

young adults who had reported low levels of family acceptance (Ryan et al. 2010).

School climate can also serve as a protective factor for LGBTQ youth. Schools that promote awareness 

and acceptance of youth, offer support and resources for students and teachers, and ensure the safety 

of students can promote positive outcomes for LGBTQ youth. For example, in 1993, Massachusetts 

established the Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students (SSP). The initiative had four 

components: 

1. Develop school policies to protect gay and lesbian students from harassment, violence, and 

discrimination.

2. Offer training to school personnel in crisis and suicide intervention.

3. Support the establishment of school-based support groups (e.g., Gay–Straight Alliances).

4. Provide school-based counseling for family members of gay and lesbian students. [Szalacha 

2003] 

Although the results were mixed, an evaluation of the initiative found that on average students in 

schools with even one of the recommendations of the SSP implemented believed that their school was 

a safer, less sexually prejudiced environment compared with students in schools that did not 

implement any component (Szalacha 2003).

LGBTQ Youths in the Juvenile Justice System

Studies have suggested that LGBTQ youths are disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice 

system. For example, Himmelstein and Brückner (2011) found that youths who self-identified as LGB 

were significantly more likely to be stopped by police than youths who identified as heterosexual. 

The 2010 study by Irvine found that LGB and gender-nonconforming youths were twice as likely to 

have been previously held in secure detention for truancy, warrants, probation violations, running 

away, and prostitution compared with their heterosexual and gender-normative peers. However, 

there were no differences when comparing the prevalence of detention for serious charges such as 

violent offenses, weapon charges, property offenses, and alcohol or drug offenses. Rather, the results 

seemed to suggest that LGB and nonconforming youths were detained for nonviolent offenses that 

could be linked to occurrences of out-of-home placements and homelessness (Irvine 2010).

Majd, Marksamer, and Reyes (2009) surveyed more than 400 juvenile justice professionals (including 

judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and probation officers) and found that LGBTQ youth may face 

higher risks of detention or residential placement for numerous reasons. For example, a perceived 

lack of family support was found to be a significant factor in the courts’ decisions to detain youth. 

Judges or court personnel may believe youths lack the support from family members to return home, 

or believe it is in the youths’ best interest to remove them from what could be a hostile environment 

at home. Instead, kinship care, foster care, or even detention is viewed as a more appropriate option 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6

(Majd, Marksamer, and Reyes 2009). Unfortunately, biases and misconceptions about LGBTQ youths’ 

behavior may also factor into detention decisions. LGBTQ youths may come across as aggressive or 

hostile, and court personnel may view them as at greater risk of reoffending. One public defender 

who was interviewed noted criticism of her state’s risk-screening instrument because “it scores youth 

as ‘higher risk’ if they have had sexual experiences with someone of the same sex” (Majd, Marksamer, 

and Reyes 2009, 97). 

In secure detention or correctional facilities, LGBTQ youths face harassment, emotional abuse, 

physical and sexual assault, and prolonged periods spent in isolation (Majd, Marksamer, and Reyes 

2009). Passed in 2003, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) requires the U.S. Department of Justice 

(DOJ) to gather data on the incidence of prison rape and recommend national standards for facilities 

holding individuals in the adult and juvenile justice systems. In the final summary of PREA 

regulations, DOJ “recognized ‘the particular vulnerabilities of inmates who are [lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

transgender and, intersex] LGBTI or whose appearance or manner does not conform to traditional 

gender expectations’” (ACLU 2013, 1). For instance, LGBTI individuals may be placed against their 

will in highly isolating and restrictive settings to keep them “safe” from victimization by other 

inmates (Majd, Marksamer, and Reyes 2009). However, isolation may not keep them entirely safe 

(particularly from abuse perpetrated by staff), and it may cause damage to their health or mental 

health, as well as prevent opportunities for early release because of limited access to reentry 

programming (ACLU 2013). 

With regard to victimization, the National Survey of Youth in Custody, conducted by BJS, showed that 

nonheterosexual youths reported a significantly higher rate of youth-on-youth sexual victimization 

(10.3 percent) compared with youths who identified as heterosexual (1.5 percent); however, there 

were similar rates of reported sexual victimization from staff for both nonheterosexual and 

heterosexual youths (7.5 percent versus 7.8 percent) [Beck et al. 2013].

PREA created protections to address the issues surrounding LGBTI individuals in custody. For 

example, correctional agencies are now required to make individualized housing and program 

placements for all transgender and intersex individuals. This is a departure from previous practice, 

when people were assigned to male or female facilities based solely on genital characteristics or birth 

assigned at sex (ACLU 2013).

Outcome Evidence

There are only a handful of programs that are designed to target the specific needs of LGBTQ youth, 

and even fewer evaluations examining the effectiveness of such efforts. 

One school-based intervention that attempts to promote positive health outcomes for LGBTQ youth is 

the Gay–Straight Alliance (GSA). GSAs are student-led organizations that try to create a supportive 

school environment for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, by reducing 

prejudice, discrimination, and harassment of sexual minority students (Mitchum and Moodie–Mills 

2014; Heck et al. 2014). GSAs exist in more than 4,000 U.S. schools and colleges (Walls, Wisneski, and 

Kane 2013). They send a message that biased language and harassment will not be tolerated, offer 

support and resources to LGBTQ youths and their allies, and attempt to challenge the 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7

institutionalized bias that many sexual minority youths experience at school. A recent study asked 

adolescents who identified as LGBT, or as another sexual/gender minority identity, to complete an 

online survey and answer questions about factors and experiences that contributed to certain mental 

health and substance use outcomes. The study showed that youths who attended schools without 

GSAs were more likely to report lifetime use/misuse of illicit substances overall. Further, these 

youths were at increased odds of reporting lifetime use of cocaine, marijuana, hallucinogens, and 

prescription pain medication compared with youths who attended schools with GSAs (Heck et al. 

2014). Other studies have also shown the positive influence that GSAs can have in school. For 

example, Walls, Wisneski, and Kane (2013) found that the presence of GSAs in a school or college was 

associated with decreased suicidality, while actual membership in GSAs was associated with 

decreased substance use and increased comfort with gender expression among a sample of sexual 

minority youths and young adults. The results suggest that GSAs may be useful tools to help reduce 

the stressors that LGBTQ youth may experience at school.

Some research has begun to identify the importance of adapting treatment and services for LGBTQ 

youths, to properly address the particular risk factors that they experience differently from their 

heterosexual peers. For example, Craig, Austin, and Alessi (2013) argue that the increased risk for 

negative or maladaptive behaviors among sexual minority youth can be explained by the minority 

stress theory. Minority stress theory contends that lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals encounter 

constant stress owing to their experiences of prejudice, discrimination, and stigmatization, which may 

cause higher rates of psychiatric disorders among this group (IOM 2011). Sexual minority youths in 

particular face constant stress because of the possibility of total rejection from their families and no 

ongoing support. Craig, Austin, and Alessi (2013) believe that cognitive–behavioral therapy 

approaches can better handle the needs of sexual minority youth by incorporating gay affirmative 

practices, which focus on affirming sexual minority identities and empowering youth by using a 

strengths-based perspective. In addition, Goldbach and Steiker (2011) contend that substance abuse 

prevention programs should be tailored to consider substance use risk factors that are shown to be 

higher for LGBTQ youth. They examined the adaptation of an evidence-based prevention program 

that was tailored based on guidance from LGBT youth at a drop-in center; however, a formal 

evaluation of either program has not yet been conducted.

Overall, the research on services and treatment for LGBTQ youth, including adaptations of evidencebased programs, is still being developed. There are few rigorous evaluation studies (with an 

appropriate comparison group) that have been conducted to determine the efficacy of interventions 

specifically targeting LGBTQ youths, especially those in the juvenile justice system. The research that 

has been conducted suffers from several limitations, including lack of comparison groups, small 

sample sizes, short follow-up periods, and selection bias (Craig, Austin, and Alessi 2013; Goldbach 

and Steiker 2011; Craig, Austin, and McInroy 2014).

Recommendations to Reform Policies and Practices

Several reports have come out providing guidance and recommendations for policymakers and 

practitioners who work with LGBTQ youth in the juvenile justice system. The reports have 

concentrated on changing how system-involved LGBTQ youths are handled and on encouraging 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 8

reforms to policies and practices to ensure equitable treatment and effective responses to LGBTQ 

youth (Majd, Marksamer, and Reyes 2009).

The Coalition for Juvenile Justice (2013) recently created the National Standards for the Care of Youth 

Charged With Status Offenses. Some of the standards address the particular challenges facing LGBTQ 

youth charged with status offenses and provide recommendations for juvenile justice system 

professionals to address such issues. For example, system professionals are encouraged to take the 

following steps to ensure fair treatment of LGBTQ youth:

 Ensure that LGBTQ youths have access to care consistent with best practices for these 

populations.

 On an individual level, professionals must treat all youths, including those who identify as 

LGBTQ or nongender conforming, with respect and fairness.

 Ensure that LGBTQ youths receive appropriate services—such as connecting youths to 

affirming social, recreational, and spiritual opportunities—and that confidentiality is 

respected.

 Recognize and acknowledge that experiences at home, in placement, in school, in the 

community, and in the juvenile justice system may have been traumatic, and that LGBTQ 

youth may need support, intervention, or treatment for trauma. 

 Identify when youths are entering the juvenile justice system because of alienation, exclusion, 

or persecution they have experienced at home, in foster care, in group homes, in the 

community, or at school owing to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Ensure that steps 

are taken to preserve youths’ safety and well-being, which includes protecting confidentiality, 

rather than forcing them back into a hostile environment.

 In situations where family rejection is an issue because parents/caregivers reject the youths 

based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, ensure that counseling and other services 

are offered to the whole family, that every effort is made to keep children with their families, 

and that alternative supportive residential arrangements are made when caregivers are 

unwilling to reengage despite being offered or participating in appropriate interventions. [CJJ 

2013, 43–44]

In addition, the Equity Project is a multiyear initiative aimed at ensuring that LGBT youths involved 

in the justice system are treated with dignity, respect, and fairness. The 2009 report Hidden Injustice: 

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth in Juvenile Courts concentrates on the juvenile court 

process, from arrest through postdisposition, and provides numerous recommendations targeted at 

court personnel. Among the core recommendations, the report suggests:
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 9

 Juvenile justice professionals must treat all LGBT youths with fairness, dignity, and respect, 

including prohibiting any attempts to ridicule or change youths’ sexual orientation or gender 

identity.

 Juvenile justice professionals must promote the well-being of transgender youths by allowing 

them to express their gender identity through choice of clothing, name, hairstyle, and other 

means of expression and by ensuring that they have access to appropriate medical care if 

necessary.

 Juvenile justice professionals must receive training and resources regarding the unique 

societal, familial, and development challenges confronting LGBT youth and the relevance of 

these issues to court proceedings.

 Juvenile justice professional must develop individualized, developmentally appropriate 

responses to the behavior of each LGBT youth, tailored to address the specific circumstances 

of his or her life.

 All agencies and offices involved in the juvenile justice system must develop, adopt, and 

enforce polices that explicitly prohibit discrimination and mistreatment of youth on the basis 

of actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity at all stages of the juvenile justice 

process, from initial arrest through case closure. [Majd, Marksamer, and Reyes 2009, 137–38]

Conclusion

More research is still needed to further understand risk/protective factors, prevalence, experiences, 

and outcomes of LGBTQ youth involved in the juvenile justice system. For example, youths’ 

experiences are rarely influenced by one factor in their lives, but rather they represent the intersection 

between various demographic or sociodemographic characteristics (sexual orientation/gender 

identity, race/ethnicity, gender, age, etc.). Research studies are merely beginning to explore the impact 

of this intersection on youths. For instance, studies have begun to examine the experiences of LGBTQ 

youths who are part of a racial minority group (Dank, et al. 2014). 

Although more research is needed, there has been an increased emphasis and recognition of the 

specific needs of this population in recent years. For example, federal agencies have begun to 

recognize and develop policies that focus on guaranteeing the rights and safety of system-involved 

LGBTQ youth, such as the DOJ’s PREA (ACLU 2013) and the Supportive School Discipline Initiative, 

which is a collaboration between DOJ and the U.S. Department of Education targeting school 

disciplinary policies that push youth out of school and into the justice system (Morgan et al. 2014). 

Resources and guides from various government agencies and organizations are also available for 

family members, friends, or other individuals who wish to offer support to youths (Ryan et al. 2009; 

Poirier et al. 2014). Additional research will continue to build awareness and knowledge about 

LGBTQ youth and the juvenile justice system.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 10

References

ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). 2013. End the Abuse: Protecting LGBTI Prisoners From Sexual 

Assault. Washington, D.C.: American Civil Liberties Union. 

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/012714-prea-combined.pdf

Beck, Allen J., David Cantor, John Hartge, and Tim Smith. 2013. Sexual Victimization in Juvenile 

Facilities Report by Youth, 2012. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry12.pdf

Burwick, Andrew, Vanessa Oddo, Laura Durso, Daniel Friend, and Gary Gates. 2014. Identifying and 

Serving LGBTQ Youth: Case Studies of Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Grantees. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, 

Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.

(CJJ) Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 2013. National Standards for the Care of Youth Charged With Status 

Offenses. Washington, D.C.: Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 

http://www.juvjustice.org/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/National%20Standards%20for%20the%20Care%20of%20Youth%20Charged%20with%20Stat

us%20Offenses%20FINAL_0.pdf

(CJJ) Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 2014. LGBTQ Youth and Status Offenses: Improving System Responses 

and Reducing Disproportionality. Washington, D.C.: Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 

Craig, Shelley L., Ashley Austin, and Edward Alessi. 2013. “Gay Affirmative Cognitive Behavioral 

Therapy for Sexual Minority Youth: A Clinical Adaptation.” Clinical Social Work Journal 41:258–66.

Craig, Shelley L., Ashley Austin, and Lauren B. McInroy. 2014. “School-Based Groups to Support 

Multiethnic Sexual Minority Youth Resiliency: Preliminary Effectiveness.” Child and Adolescent 

Social Work Journal 31:87–106.

Dank, Meredith, Pamela Lachman, Janine M. Zweig, and Jennifer Yahner. 2014. “Dating Violence 

Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 

43:846–57.

FindYouthInfo.gov. 2014. “LGBT Youth.” Accessed July 2, 2014. Available at: 

http://findyouthinfo.gov/youth-topics/lgbtq-youth#_ftn

Friedman, Mark S., Michael P. Marshal, Thomas E. Guadamuz, Chongyi Wei, Carolyn F. Wong, 

Elizabeth M. Saewyc, and Ron Stall. 2011. “A Meta-Analysis of Disparities in Childhood Sexual 

Abuse, Parental Physical Abuse, and Peer Victimization Among Sexual Minority and Sexual 

Nonminority Individuals.” American Journal of Public Health 101(8):1481–94.

Goldbach, Jeremy T., and Lori K. Holleran Steiker. 2011. “An Examination of Cultural Adaptations 

Performed by LGBT–Identified Youths to a Culturally Grounded, Evidence-Based Substance 

Abuse Intervention.” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 23:188–203.

Heck, Nicholas C., Nicholas A. Livingston, Annesa Flentje, Kathryn Oost, Brandon T. Stewart, and 

Bryan N. Cochran. 2014. “Reducing Risk for Illicit Drug Use and Prescription Drug Misuse: High 

School Gay–Straight Alliances and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth.” Addictive 

Behaviors 39:824–28.

Himmelstein, Kathryn E.W., and Hannah Brückner. 2011. “Criminal Justice and School Sanctions 

Against Nonheterosexual Youth: A National Longitudinal Study.” Pediatrics 127(1):49–57. 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 11

Hopkins, Adam E., and Margaret A. Dickson. 2014. “The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and 

Intersex Inmate Population: ‘A 21st Century Dilemma!’” U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Corrections, National Jail Exchange.

Hunt, Jerome, and Aisha C. Moodie–Mills. 2012. The Unfair Criminalization of Gay and Transgender 

Youth: An Overview of the Experiences of LGBT Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. Washington, D.C.: 

Center for American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2012/06/pdf/juvenile_justice.pdf

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2011. The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a 

Foundation for Better Understanding. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council). 2013. Confronting Commercial 

Sexual Exploitation and Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National 

Academies Press.

Irvine, Angela. 2010. “’We’ve Had Three of Them’: Addressing the Invisibility of Lesbian, Gay, 

Bisexual, and Gender Nonconforming Youths in the Juvenile Justice System.” Columbia Journal of 

Gender and Law 19(3):675–701.

Kosciw, Joseph G., Emily A. Greytak, Elizabeth M. Diaz, and Mark J. Bartkiewicz. 2010. The 2009 

National School Climate Survey: The Experience of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in Our 

Nation’s Schools. New York, N.Y.: GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network).

Majd, Katayoon, Jody Marksamer, and Carolyn Reyes. 2009. Hidden Injustice: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, 

and Transgender Youth in Juvenile Courts. San Francisco, Calif.: Legal Services for Children and 

National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Mitchum, Preston, and Aisha C. Moodie–Mills. 2014. Beyond Bullying: How Hostile School Climate 

Perpetuates the School-to-Prison Pipeline for LGBT Youth. Washington, D.C.: Center for American 

Progress.

Morgan, Emily, Nina Salomon, Martha Plotkin, and Rebecca Cohen. 2014. The School Discipline 

Consensus Report: Strategies From the Field to Keep Students Engaged in School and Out of the Juvenile 

Justice System. Washington, D.C.: Council of State Government, Justice Center.

Poirier, J.M.; S.K. Fisher; R.A. Hunt; and M. Bearse. 2014. A Guide for Understanding, Supporting, and 

Affirming LGBTQI2–S Children, Youth, and Families. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for 

Research. http://www.nasmhpd.org/content/LGBTQI2-S%20Guide,%2012-11-13.pdf

Ryan, Caitlin, David Huebner, Rafael M. Diaz, and Jorge Sanchez. 2009. “Family Rejection as a 

Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young 

Adults.” Pediatrics 123:346–52.

Ryan, Caitlin, Stephen T. Russell, David Huebner, Rafael M. Diaz, and Jorge Sanchez. 2010. “Family 

Acceptance in Adolescent and the Health of LGBT Young Adults.” Journal of Child and Adolescent 

Psychiatric Nursing 23(4):205–13.

Shuster, Terry. 2014. “PREA and LGBTI Rights.” American Jail Association. 

http://www.americanjail.org/prea-and-lgbti-rights/, March 7.

Szalacha, Laura A. 2003. “Safe Sexual Diversity Climes: Lessons Learned From an Evaluation of 

Massachusetts Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students.” American Journal of Education 

110(1):58–88.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 12

Walls, N. Eugene, Hope Wisneski, and Sarah B. Kane. 2013. “School Climate, Individual Support, or 

Both? Gay Straight Alliances and the Mental Health of Sexual Minority Youth.” School Social Work 

Journal 37(2):88–111.