The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: Understanding the Role of Trauma and 

Violence Exposure on Justice-Involved 

LGBTQA and GNC Youth in Hennepin 

County, MN

Author(s): Andrea Hoffmann, M.P.P., Danette 

Buskovick, M.S.W., Margaret Vohs, M.P.P., 

M.S.W., Jessica Wildermuth, Ph.D.

Document Number: 254495 

Date Received: January 2020

Award Number: 2016-MU-MU-0066

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
Understanding the Role of Trauma and Violence Exposure on Justice-Involved LGBTQA and 

GNC Youth in Hennepin County, MN

Technical Report Submitted to

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

GRANT NUMBER: 2016-MU-MU-0066

Authors:

Andrea Hoffmann, M.P.P.

Danette Buskovick, M.S.W.

Margaret Vohs, M.P.P., M.S.W.

Jessica Wildermuth, Ph.D.

Project Manager: Nancy Holmblad, M.Ed.

Hennepin County, Minnesota

Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation

Disclaimer: This project was supported by Grant No. 2016-MU-MU-0066 awarded by the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily represent the official position or polices of the U.S. Department of Justice.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Acknowledgements 

This report is the result of a collaboration among numerous contributors and individuals. We would like 

to especially thank Amy Nyren and Erin Lewis with the Hennepin County Center of Innovation and 

Excellence for researching and compiling a literature review for use in this study. Thanks also to Shannon 

Hagerman from the Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation for editing support 

throughout this process. A major thanks to Hannah Dietrich and Debra Nonemaker of the Hennepin 

County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation for their continued support and 

guidance on this project. 

Availability and access to human services records was a critical part of this project. Thank you to Jill Trei, 

Kristin Johnson, and Thomas Walton of the Hennepin County Department of Human Services and Public 

Health Department for their efforts to pull human services records for purposes of this report. 

This project would not have been possible without the continued support of our Steering Committee 

members: 

 Angela Cousins, Systems of Care Planning and Oversight 

 Craig Riggs, Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Center 

 Deborah Dayon, Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Center

 Donna Gillitzer, Hennepin County Juvenile Probation

 Jerald Moore, Hennepin County Juvenile Probation

 Karen Kuglar, Institution Services

 Monica Long, Hennepin County Home School

 Randy Bacon, Hennepin County Home School

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Abstract

The Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation Office of Policy, 

Planning and Evaluation surveyed 150 youth to examine the role of trauma and violence on justiceinvolved lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning/unsure or asexual (LGBTQA) and gender non-conforming 

youth in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Youth were surveyed and administrative human services and 

juvenile justice data was also analyzed. A subset of youth (N = 60) were interviewed using the Juvenile 

Victimization Questionnaire Revised Version 2 (JVQ-R2) and the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) 

tool to assess trauma and victimization. Eighteen percent of the youth surveyed identified as LGBTQA 

and 21% stated that they had experienced gender nonconformity-based rejection (GNCR). Youth who 

identified as LGBTQA/GNCR were more likely than heterosexual/gender conforming youth to have 

experienced homelessness but had similar levels of child welfare involvement, human services 

placement stays, prior detention and correctional placements, and criminal history scores. 

LGBTQA/GNCR youth answered “yes” to an average of 4.5 of the 10 adverse childhood experiences 

found on the tool compared with 2.53 for heterosexual/gender conforming youth. More LGBTQA/GNCR 

youth also reported peer harassment, verbal abuse, neglect, and various forms of sexual violence than 

heterosexual/gender conforming youth. The study found no differences between groups in their 

delinquency experiences. Results indicated that experiences with child maltreatment and need for 

protection appear to be related to age of entry into the justice system, regardless of gender identity or 

expression. Information is provided as to how corrections agencies can better work with justice involved 

LGBTQA/GNCR youth and the importance of being a trauma informed organization. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table of Contents

Background ...................................................................................................................................................1

Research Questions and Objectives..............................................................................................................6

Study Sample ................................................................................................................................................8

Survey and Interview Findings....................................................................................................................10

Participant Characteristics......................................................................................................................10

Sexual Orientation among Justice-Involved Youth..................................................................................11

Gender Expression of Justice-Involved Youth..........................................................................................13

Intersection of Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression.....................................................................15

Differences in Trauma and Justice System Indicators.............................................................................15

Demographics Characteristics by Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression .......................................16

Living Situation and History of Homelessness.........................................................................................16

School Suspension and Expulsions ..........................................................................................................19

Social Services and Justice System Involvement .....................................................................................19

Victimization Histories ............................................................................................................................20

Pathways into the Juvenile Justice System..............................................................................................26

Experiences of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System ...............................................................................31

Trauma within a Corrections Organization.................................................................................................35

Participants.............................................................................................................................................35

Survey and Data Collection .....................................................................................................................36

Factor Analysis........................................................................................................................................37

Identification of Strengths and Areas for Improvement .........................................................................38

Discussion....................................................................................................................................................40

Study Limitations.....................................................................................................................................43

Implications for policy, practice, and future research................................................................................45

Future Research ......................................................................................................................................50

Hennepin County specific implications....................................................................................................51

References ..................................................................................................................................................53

Appendix A. Juvenile Client Questionnaire.................................................................................................59

Appendix B. JVQ-R2, Abbreviated Interview Version, Youth Lifetime Form ..............................................60

Appendix C. Factor Analysis Tables.............................................................................................................86

Appendix D. Unforeseen Circumstances Protocols ....................................................................................90

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1 | P a g e

Background

Recent research suggests that youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, 

asexual (LGBTQA), or gender non-conforming (GNC) are an overrepresented but understudied 

population in the juvenile justice system. They likely demonstrate different pathways into the juvenile 

justice system and experience a heightened risk for victimization while in the system compared to 

heterosexual or cisgender youth. This highlights the need for juvenile justice systems not only to 

develop and implement trauma-informed practices, but also increase the understanding of the LGBTQA

and GNC youth being served and how their experiences in the juvenile justice system may serve as a 

risk factor for further victimization.

Hennepin County is the most populous county in Minnesota. According to the 2015 American 

Community Survey, Hennepin County’s population of 1,197,776 represents 22% of the state’s 

population, with 29% of its population under 18. In terms of race and ethnicity, the county's non-white 

and Hispanic/Latino population is approximately 26%.

As the state’s largest urban county, Hennepin reflects a disproportionate “at risk for crime” population 

when issues such as population density and poverty are considered. Consequently, Hennepin County 

crimes represent a disproportionate share of the state’s overall crime rate. Hennepin County crime in 

2016, as reported in Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Uniform Crime Reports, included 59% of the 

state’s robberies, 40% of the state’s aggravated assaults, and 35% of the state’s murders (MN DPS, 

2016).

On any given day, staff and volunteers of Hennepin County’s Department of Community Correction and 

Rehabilitation (DOCCR) provide services to about 45 pre-adjudicated adolescents at the Juvenile 

Detention Center, educational and treatment programs for about 33 juveniles at the County Home 

School, and supervision for about 1,000 juveniles in the community. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2 | P a g e

The Hennepin County DOCCR Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation was awarded a grant to study 

the role of trauma and violence exposure on justice-involved LGBTQA and GNC youth in Hennepin 

County, Minnesota. DOCCR strives to be a leader in evidence-based practices. This exploratory research 

supports that goal in several ways. Exploring the experiences and pathways into the juvenile justice 

system gives greater understanding and insight into how our organization can effectively work with 

juveniles. The specific issues related to the trauma experienced by our LGBTQA and GNC youth can also 

be more fully addressed with the knowledge gained. 

Traumatic experiences, both physical and emotional, are known to impact child development and have 

lingering consequences throughout a person’s life (Adams, 2010; Ko, Ford, Kassam-Adams, Berkowitz, 

Wilson, & Wong, M, 2008; Steinberg, Pynoos, Briggs, Gerrity, Layne, Vivrette, & Fairbank, 2014). 

Mounting evidence shows the connection between childhood trauma and criminal behavior, both for 

youth and adults (Cuevas, Finkelhor, Shattuck, Turner, & Hamby, 2013; Hurley Swayze & Buskovick, 

2015; Letich, 2017; Wolff, Baglivio, & Piquero, 2017). The prevalence of trauma among youth involved 

in the criminal justice system is so high that trauma-informed practices are paramount at every point of 

intervention (Adams, 2010; Buckingham, 2016; Dierkhising et al., 2013; Hurley Swayze & Buskovick, 

2015).

Childhood maltreatment is associated with increased risk of running away, homelessness, criminal 

history, prostitution, and substance use (Espinosa, Sorensen, & Lopez, 2013; Ko et al., 2008; McIntyre & 

Widom, 2011; Wilber, 2015). Although some may experience a single traumatic event, others 

experience many such events over the course of their life. Research has shown that the impact of 

multiple experiences of trauma is cumulative (Cronholm et al., 2015; Dube et al., 2003; Felitti et al., 

1998; Finkelhor, Omrod, et al., 2005; McCoy, Leverso, & Bowen, 2016). Those who experience repeated 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 | P a g e

victimization are at higher risk of negative long-term effects and problematic behaviors (Finkelhor, 

Ormrod, et al., 2005; Hurley Swayze & Buskovick, 2015; Vidal et al. 2017).

The symptoms exhibited by survivors of maltreatment are often misinterpreted as intentionally 

delinquent behaviors rather than being recognized as the effects of current or historical trauma 

(Buckingham, 2016; Duke, Pettingell, McMorris, & Borowsky, 2010; Hurley Swayze & Buskovick, 2015; 

Ko et al., 2008). When a survivor experiences a stimulus that triggers a trauma-based response, they 

may go into a state of hyper-arousal that can include symptoms such as hyper-activity, hyper-vigilance, 

mania, anxiety, panic, irritability, rage, and pain (Letich, 2017). The ensuing behaviors are frequently 

criminalized (Buckingham, 2016; Duke et al., 2010; Hurley Swayze & Buskovick, 2015; Ko et al., 2008). 

Data from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (Dierkhising et al., 2013) found that the most 

common externalized responses to trauma were rule breaking and aggression, while another study 

showed that anger and irritability is positively correlated with the number of traumatic events a youth 

has experienced (McCoy et al., 2016). When such behavior occurs in school settings, it is typically met 

with disciplinary action, which may include suspension, expulsion, and referral to the justice system 

(Eckenrode, Laird, & Doris, 1993; Ko et al., 2008). When the behaviors occur in community settings, law 

enforcement has a higher chance of becoming involved, as it is a less protective environment (McCoy 

et al., 2016; Ream & Forge, 2014). 

Based on data from the 2013 Minnesota Student Survey, 82% of youth in correctional facilities have 

experienced at least one traumatic event before incarceration, compared to 43% of students in 

mainstream schools (Hurley Swayze & Buskovick, 2015). Prevalence estimates in the research literature 

vary by the type of sample, but studies show an estimated 75 to 93% of youth in the justice system 

have experienced some form of trauma in their lifetime (Adams, 2010). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
4 | P a g e

While a greater understanding of trauma is beginning to influence practices in the juvenile justice 

system (Herz, Ryan, & Bilchik, 2010; Metzler, Merrick, Klevens, Ports, & Ford, 2017; Olafson, Halladay 

Goldman, & Gonzalez, 2017; Wilber, 2015), there is little research on the specific impact of trauma for 

justice-involved youth who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, and asexual (LGBTQA). 

While there are a number of definitions used in this area, the term “queer” will be used 

interchangeably as an umbrella term for LGBTQA youth generally. Studies show that queer youth are 

overrepresented in the justice system, with the best available estimates being that 12-20% of youth in 

the system are queer (Development Services Group, Inc., 2014; Irvine, 2010; Irvine & Canfield, 2016; 

Wilber, 2015; Wilson et al., 2017) versus an estimated 5-8% of youth overall (Development Services 

Group, Inc., 2014; Wilber, 2015). Considering sexual orientation, lesbian and bisexual girls are 

overrepresented in the justice system at a much higher rate than gay and bisexual boys. An estimated 

27-40% of girls identify as non-heterosexual versus 11-14% of boys (Irvine, 2010; Wilber, 2015). In 

addition, rates of LGBTQ identities in the general population are consistent across races, contrary to a 

popular assumption that most queer youth are white (Irvine, 2010).

Despite this overrepresentation, a myth prevails among those who work in the juvenile justice field 

that they serve very few queer youth, as described in Irvine’s 2010 article, “We’ve Had Three of Them.” 

This is because, contrary to popular belief, LGBTQA identities are often unrecognizable unless youth 

choose to disclose them (Curtin, 2002; Irvine, 2010; Mountz, 2016). Remaining closeted is an 

understandable effort to protect themselves, given that queer youth have often experienced previous 

victimization and that those in the justice system have reported maltreatment from other youth as well 

as from staff (Abrams et al., 2008; Curtin, 2002; Mountz 2016; Beck et al., 2013). To be identified as 

LGBTQA is to be at risk of prejudice and victimization, while remaining invisible makes it more difficult 

to combat discrimination and maltreatment (Woods, 2017).

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5 | P a g e

Not only are queer youth overrepresented in the juvenile justice system, they have been found to 

follow different paths into the system than do their peers who are both heterosexual and cisgender. 

Queer youth often cross over into the juvenile justice system after experiencing family rejection, child 

welfare involvement, and homelessness at much higher rates than heterosexual or cisgender youth.

(Irvine & Canfield, 2016). Although general trauma-informed practices should be helpful for any youth 

with a history of trauma, LGBTQA youth experience unique forms of victimization, such as verbal and 

physical sexual orientation victimization, (D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2006; Dragowski, Halkitis, 

Grossman, & D’Augelli, 2011) and have specialized support needs (Wilber, 2015). LGBTQA youth are 

also disproportionately likely to have other experiences that are correlated with juvenile justice 

involvement and that put them at risk for victimization. They are overrepresented in the homeless 

population, with 36% of homeless youth and young adults age 24 and younger identifying as LGB 

(Wilder Research, 2016). LGBTQA youth are also disproportionately involved in the child welfare system 

(Irvine & Canfield, 2016; Mountz, 2016; Wilber, 2015; Woods, 2017). School can also be a setting of 

victimization and rejection (Dragowski et al., 2011; Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006; Wilber, 2015; Wilber et 

al., 2006). LGBTQA youth are more likely to be truant than their heterosexual and cisgender peers 

(Wilber, 2015) and also more likely to receive harsher punishment as a result, including being referred 

to the justice system when other youth would be disciplined by the school (Himmelstein & Bruckner, 

2011; Wilber, 2015). Finally, substance use or abuse is more prevalent among queer youth, which can 

be a crime in itself, but also increases the likelihood of other delinquent behaviors and victimization 

(Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006; Himmelstein & Bruckner, 2011; Hurley Swayze & Buskovick, 2015; Murphy 

& Hardaway, 2017; Wilber, 2015; Wilber et al., 2006).

Research has well-documented the relationship between childhood violence exposure, victimization, 

and experiences of trauma (Finkelhor, Turner, Hamby, & Ormrod, 2011; Smith & Thornberry, 1995), as 

well the overrepresentation of LGBTQA and GNC youth in the juvenile justice system. Where previous 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6 | P a g e

research has focused on a more theoretical framework for juvenile justice systems, the current study is 

meant to provide a practical framework for understanding trauma and pathways into the juvenile 

justice system and apply a trauma-informed framework specifically for corrections agencies. This study 

is meant to close the gap in our own knowledge within Hennepin County. This study will help us to not 

only understand the prevalence of LGBTQA or GNC in the DOCCR juvenile services area, but to raise 

awareness about how their histories or trauma and violence exposure may affect their developmental 

pathways into the juvenile justice system compared to heterosexual or cisgender youth. While there is 

the availability in our current case management system to document youth’s identified sexual 

orientation, this information is not consistently asked or entered by all staff who work with juveniles in 

Hennepin County. Furthermore, this information only asks about sexual orientation (not gender 

identity), and staff are not provided training on how to ask this question or what information to put in 

the field, so the data we do have may be unreliable to project best guess estimates of the number of 

clients served by DOCCR who identify as LGBTQA. Given this, we are not able to identify even a rough 

estimate of the number of LGBTQA or GNC clients we serve, limiting both our understanding of their 

experiences in the system and how best to serve to their needs while in our system. The qualitative and 

quantitative data we collect from youth in our system, in combination with an organizational selfassessment, will inform how we might address our current policies and practices to be traumainformed for all juvenile justice clients, while being mindful of the sensitive needs of clients who 

identify as LGBTQA or GNC.

Research Questions and Objectives

To fully understand the history and experiences of LGBTQA and GNC youth in our juvenile justice 

system, we conducted a rigorous, mixed methods study of youth in correctional custody of Hennepin 

County DOCCR. Participation was solicited from justice-involved youth who openly identify as LGBTQA, 

transgender or non-binary, as well as youth who identify as heterosexual or cisgender, affording us a 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7 | P a g e

research design using natural comparison groups. With this design, we were able to recognize 

similarities and differences across justice-involved youth based on sexual orientation and gender 

identity/expression. Our study focused on the following research questions: 

1) What is the estimated percentage of youth in the DOCCR juvenile services area who identify as 

LGBTQA or GNC? 

2) What is the developmental pathway into the juvenile justice system for LGBTQA or GNC youth 

compared to heterosexual or cisgender youth? 

3) What are the experiences of justice-involved LGBTQA or GNC youth compared to justiceinvolved heterosexual or cisgender youth? 

4) How well do current DOCCR juvenile services’ policies and practices adhere to trauma informed 

principles?

We explored these research questions through the use of the following instruments and methods, 

including:

 Youth Survey. The survey measured participant demographics, including gender identity and 

sexual orientation, parental acceptance or rejection, history of bullying or harassment, selfreported instances of home removals, school suspensions and expulsions, and housing stability.

Survey questions were comparable to previous studies that examine the number of LGB and 

gender nonconforming youth in the juvenile justice system (Irvine, 2010). 

 Youth Interviews. A subset of youth responding to the youth survey were asked to participate 

in an in-person interview using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire Revised Version 2 

(JVQ-R2) and the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) tool. The JVQ-R2 contains 34 

questions that cover a broad range of potential victimization experiences, such as conventional 

crime, child maltreatment, peer and sibling victimization, sexual victimization, and witnessing 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8 | P a g e

indirect violence (Hamby et al, 2011). The ACEs tool contains 10 questions on traumatic events 

that youth may experience in their childhood. Youth were interviewed individually in a 

separate room away from their peers to ensure confidentiality. 

 Administrative Data. Research staff utilized system databases to collect data on participant 

demographics, criminal histories, juvenile justice system involvement, detention history, 

system placements, and child welfare involvement. 

 Organizational Self-Assessment. The organizational assessment measured the extent to which 

DOCCR staff believe trauma-informed practices are implemented, and identified opportunities 

for improvement. Respondents included probation officers, correctional officers, support staff, 

and other department employees who worked with juvenile clients in their day to day work.

This mixed-methods approach allowed us to examine both the individual and system-level aspects 

regarding the role of trauma on justice-involved youth. The use of qualitative and quantitative data 

from both self-report and administrative data methods bolstered our understanding of youth’s internal 

experiences with delinquency and records of juvenile justice system involvement. Further, assessing

our juvenile justice system’s trauma-informed practices lends support to our recommendations for

ensuring that our system does not exacerbate experiences of trauma or violence for the youth we 

serve. Analytical techniques included chi-square, independent samples t-tests, analysis of variance 

(ANOVA) and covariance (ANCOVA), and factor analysis to answer our primary research questions. 

Study Sample

Over the course of five months, 150 surveys were completed with youth in each of the three DOCCR 

juvenile service areas: the Juvenile Detention Center (JDC), the County Home School (CHS), and Juvenile 

Probation. The services youth receive in each of these areas differ, as do their policies and practices, so 

by reaching youth in all areas we aimed to study the full scope of juvenile services in Hennepin County. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
9 | P a g e

The majority of surveys (80%) were conducted at the JDC, as this location is where most youth enter 

the justice system, therefore providing the most convenient access to youth. Youth were excluded from 

the study if they were under age 14, if they declined to participate, or if a DOCCR staff member 

identified the youth as non-cooperative or unfit for cognitive or psychological reasons. 

The research team endeavored to offer the survey to every eligible youth entering the two facilities 

(JDC and CHS) during the five months of data collection. However, with the large number of youth 

entering and exiting the facilities on a daily basis, it was not feasible to reach all youth. Over the course 

of the five months, 427 youth were in or entered the JDC but the median length of stay per youth 

during this time was only two days1, providing a small window of opportunity. Of the 427 youth, 405 

were above age 14, and research staff had the capacity to invite 137 (34%) of those youth to 

participate in the study. Of the 137 youth asked to participate, 120 (88%) completed the survey and 17 

either declined to participate or were excluded. 

At the CHS, 42 youth were already in or entered the facility during the five months of data collection. 

To allow youth to adapt to their new environment, research staff agreed to solicit participation only 

from youth with a current length of stay of 30 days or more. Of the 42 total youth, 11 had already been 

asked to participate in the study while in custody at the JDC2. Of the other 31 youth, all were over age 

14 but one had not reached the 30 day minimum length of stay during the timeline of data collection. 

Twenty-six (87%) of the remaining 30 eligible youth were invited to participate and completed the 

survey (100% completion rate). 

Reaching youth participants on juvenile probation was the most difficult, as it required coordination 

with the youth’s probation officer and arrangements to meet the youth in community. As a result, only 

 

1 The mean length of stay in the JDC during the timeline of data collection was 11.4 days due to a few inflating 

outliers. 

2

It is not uncommon for youth to enter the County Home School after a stay at the Juvenile Detention Center. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
10 | P a g e

four surveys were conducted in community during the timeline of the research study. Despite low 

numbers of surveys conducted in community, experiences of youth on probation were still captured in 

the study; 65% of the youth surveyed at the CHS and JDC were on or were to return to probation once 

they left the facility. 

After the survey identified youth by their sexual orientation and gender identity/expression, this 

information helped determine the sample of youth invited to interview. The research team strived to 

interview equal numbers of DOCCR juvenile clients across sexual orientation and gender 

identity/expression to create two groups: one group who identified heterosexual and cisgender and 

another group who identified as either LGBTQA, transgender/non-binary or GNC. Over the five months 

of data collection, 60 interviews were conducted with youth at the JDC, CHS, and on juvenile probation. 

Youth interviewed received an incentive with a value of $10 for their participation. Thirty-eight 

interviews (63%) were conducted at the JDC due to convenience, with 20 (33%) of the remaining 

conducted at the CHS and two (3%) with youth in community.

Survey and Interview Findings 

Participant Characteristics 

A total of 150 surveys and 60 in-person interviews were conducted to examine the trauma and 

victimization histories of youth involved in Hennepin County corrections. Demographics of survey and 

interview participants are shown in Table 1. Eighty-seven percent (N = 131) of those surveyed and 73% 

(N = 44) of those interviewed identified as male. Most of those in the current sample identified as 

Black/African American (56% of the survey sample and 50% of the interview sample). Youth could selfidentify as multiple races; 21% of those surveyed and 28% of those interviewed identified as 

multiracial. When looking at multiple responses, 74% of overall survey participants (N = 111) identified 

as Black/African American, 18% (N = 27) identified as white, 16% (N = 24) said they were 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
11 | P a g e

Native/American Indian, 14% (N = 21) responded being Latino/Hispanic, 1% (N = 2) were Asian, and 5% 

(N=8) said they belonged to another racial group. Respondents ranged in age between 14-20 years old, 

with an average of 16.07 for the survey sample and 15.82 years old for the interview sample. 

Demographic characteristics generally coincided with characteristics of the overall youth served in 

Hennepin County corrections. 

Table 1. Demographics of Survey and Interview Participants

Survey (N = 150) Interview (N = 60)

Birth Sex Male 131 87.3% 44 73.3%

Female 19 12.7% 16 26.7%

Race

Black/African American 84 56.0% 30 50.0%

Latino/Hispanic 14 9.3% 6 10.0%

Native/American Indian 7 4.7% 3 5.0%

White 13 8.7% 4 6.7%

Multiracial 31 20.7% 17 28.3%

Other 1 0.7% 0 0.0%

Age

Average 16.07 -- 15.82 --

14 21 14.0% 9 15.0%

15 35 23.3% 18 30.0%

16 34 22.7% 14 23.3%

17 38 25.3% 13 21.7%

18 and older 22 14.7% 6 10.0%

Sexual Orientation among Justice-Involved Youth

Youth were asked questions on their sexual orientation. Eighteen (12%) of the 150 youth surveyed 

identified themselves as lesbian or gay, bisexual, questioning/unsure, or asexual. This corresponds 

with findings presented in Dr. Irvine’s (2010) research on the estimates of LGB and GNC youth in the 

juvenile justice system, which found that 11% of their survey respondents identified as LGB. 

Table 2. Sexual Orientation of Surveyed Participants

Sexual Orientation Total (N = 150)

Straight 132 88.0%

LGBTQA 18 12.0%

Lesbian or Gay 4 2.7%

Bisexual 12 8.0%

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
12 | P a g e

Sexual Orientation Total (N = 150)

Questioning/Unsure 1 0.7%

Asexual 1 0.7%

Only those who identified as non-heterosexual (N = 18) were asked to comment on whether they had 

been kicked out, run away, or bullied because of their sexual orientation. One (6%) of the 18 LGBTQAidentified youth said they had been kicked out of the home or run away because of their sexual 

orientation and 33% (N = 6) said they had been bullied or harassed because of their sexual orientation. 

Fifty-six percent (N = 10) of those identified as LGBTQA said their parents knew of their sexual 

orientation and were supportive, 11% (N = 2) mentioned their parents were aware of their sexual 

orientation but were not supportive, and a combined 34% (N = 6) said their parents did not know, or 

were unsure whether their parents knew of their sexual orientation. 

Sexual orientation was associated with gender identity in that girls were more likely to express being 

lesbian, bisexual, or questioning (X

2 = 27.254, p < 0.001). In fact, 68% (N = 13) of the 19 females 

surveyed identified as being lesbian, bisexual, or questioning compared with 4% (N = 5) of the 131 boys 

surveyed. The higher prevalence of girls indicating a non-heterosexual orientation has been well 

documented in several previous studies (Irvine, 2010; Irvine & Canfield, 2015; Wilson et al, 2017). The 

reason for this difference, however, is largely unknown and was not explored in the current study. One 

possible explanation may be that gay, bisexual, and questioning boys may be less willing to share 

information due to the stigmatization and risk of subsequent victimization that may not persist as 

deeply for girls (Kittilstad, Tolman, & Bright, 2018). The current sample generally supports this type of 

conclusion. For instance, 60% (N = 3) of the 5 boys identified as gay, bisexual, questioning, or asexual 

reported having been bullied or harassed at school because of their sexual orientation compared with 

23% (N = 3) of the 13 girls who reported being lesbian, bisexual, questioning, or asexual. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
13 | P a g e

Gender Expression of Justice-Involved Youth

Similar to questions relating to sexual orientation, youth were asked a series of questions relating to 

their gender identity and gender expression. While the questions included in the current survey 

generally align with previous research in this area, it is important to understand that this study did not 

actually estimate gender nonconformity, but rather identified youth who experience gender 

nonconformity-based rejection (GNCR). For instance, clients who have experienced GNCR have been 

kicked out of their home and/or bullied or harassed due to their gender expression, meaning youth had 

been kicked or and/or harassed because they are perceived as not being masculine or feminine 

enough. Youth could have responded in three ways: “yes” responses indicate they had been kicked out 

or bullied because of their gender expression; “no” implies either they had never been kicked out or 

bullied or that this instance was unrelated to their gender expression; and “not sure” responses 

indicate they had been kicked out or bullied though they were unsure whether this was because of 

their gender identity. The majority of those surveyed (74%, N = 111) had never experienced GNCR 

compared with 21% (N = 31) who had either been kicked out and/or bullied because of their gender 

expression and 5% (N = 8) who had likely been kicked out or harassed but were unsure whether this 

was related to their gender expression, as shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Incidence of GNCR

8.7%

N=13

16.0%

N=24

20.7%

N=31 4.0%

N=6

2.0%

N=3

5.3%

N=8

87.3%

N=131

82.0%

N=123 74.0%

N=111

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Have you been kicked out or run

away because of your gender

expression?

Have you been bullied or harassed

because of your gender expression?

Combined (kicked out or bullied)

Yes Not Sure No

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
14 | P a g e

For purposes of this study, those who responded as “not sure” were combined with those who 

responded “yes” to the GNCR questions since their outcomes and responses to subsequent interview 

questions more closely mirrored the experiences of those who had experienced GNCR generally. Given 

this, 13% (N = 19) had been kicked out of the house or ran away from home, 18% (N = 27) had been 

bullied or harassed, and 26% (N = 39) had experienced some form of GNCR. A higher percentage of 

boys in this sample expressed experiencing gender nonconformity-based rejection (23%) than had 

identified being gay, bisexual, or questioning (4%). Similar to findings with sexual orientation, however, 

girls were still more likely to experience GNCR generally. Girls were significantly more likely (p = 0.008, 

Fisher’s Exact Test, FET) to be bullied or harassed due to their gender expression than boys (42% 

compared with 15%) and significantly more likely to have experienced any GNCR (p = 0.046, FET) 

compared with boys (47% compared with 23%). There was no significant difference between boys and 

girls in terms of being kicked out of the house or running away because of their gender expression; 

being kicked out or running away for their gender expression was a relatively rare occurrence for both 

boys and girls, as depicted in Figure 2 below. It should also be noted that youth were asked whether 

they identified as transgender or gender non-binary; however, none of the youth in this sample 

expressly identified as a gender contrary to their birth sex or explicitly identified as intersex. 

Figure 2. Differences in GNCR by Gender Identity

10.5% 13.0%

42.1%

14.5%

47.4%

22.9%

89.5% 87.0%

57.9%

85.5%

52.6%

77.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Female (N = 19) Male (N = 131) Female (N = 19) Male (N = 131) Female (N = 19) Male (N = 131)

Kicked Out/Ran Away Bullied/Harassed Any GNCR

Yes No

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
15 | P a g e

Intersection of Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression

Intersecting sexual orientation with gender expression allows us to estimate the percentage of youth 

who identify as LGBTQA or who have experienced GNCR. Table 3 describes four distinct categories of 

youth in our sample using sexual orientation and gender nonconformity-based rejection as two 

separate constructs. Youth can identify as neither LGBTQA nor among those having experienced GNCR, 

which depicted 68% of our current sample. They can identify as both LGBTQA and those who have 

experienced GNCR (6%). Finally, they can identify as either LGBTQA and in the non-GNCR group (6%) or 

among those who are heterosexual and have experienced GNCR (20%). Taken together, it is estimated 

that 32% of Hennepin justice-involved youth identify as either LGBTQA or have experienced GNCR 

(see Table 3). 

Table 3. Intersection of Sexual Orientation and GNCR 

GNCR = No GNCR = Yes

Heterosexual/Straight 102

68.0%

30

20.0%

LGBTQA 9

6.0%

9

6.0%

Differences in Trauma and Justice System Indicators

Comparing the experiences and histories of our two groups – those who identify as LGBTQA or are 

among those with GNCR experiences (N = 48; 32%) compared with heterosexual, non-GNCR youth (N = 

102; 68%) – allows us to draw a research design using natural comparison groups to determine how 

experiences and pathways into the juvenile justice system differ between the two groups. The first step 

in this analysis was to determine the degree to which LGBTQA/GNCR youth differ from heterosexual or 

non-GNCR youth with regard to individual characteristics known to affect outcomes (e.g., age, trauma 

history, criminal history, etc.) and use variables showing significant baseline differences as covariates in 

subsequent analyses to control for the effects of these variables.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
16 | P a g e

Demographics Characteristics by Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression

Table 4 provides a comparison between LGBTQA or GNCR youth and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth 

based on demographic characteristics. There was no difference between LGBTQA or GNCR youth 

compared with heterosexual, non-GNCR youth on age or race. There was a higher proportion (X2 = 

27.254, p < 0.001) of girls in the LGBTQA or GNCR group (33%) compared with heterosexual, non-GNCR 

youth (3%), which is not surprising given the higher likelihood of girls to identify as lesbian, gay, or 

bisexual and be among those who have experienced gender nonconformity-based rejection. In fact, 

84% (N = 16) of girls in this sample were among the LGBTQA/GNCR group compared with 24% (N = 32) 

of boys. 

Table 4. Demographics Characteristics by Cohort Group

Demographic Category LGBTQA/GNCR 

(N=48)

Straight/NonGNCR (N=102) Overall (N=150)

Birth Sex Male 32 (66.7%) 99 (97.1%) 131 (87.3%)

Female 16 (33.3%) 3 (2.9%) 19 (12.7%)

Race

Black/African American 25 (52.1%) 59 (57.8%) 84 (56.0%)

Latino/Hispanic 3 (6.3%) 11 (10.8%) 14 (9.3%)

Native/American 

Indian 3 (6.3%) 4 (3.9%) 7 (4.7%)

White 6 (12.5%) 7 (6.9%) 13 (8.7%)

Multiracial 11 (22.9%) 20 (19.6%) 31 (20.7%)

Other 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.0%) 1 (0.7%)

Age

Avg 15.96 16.12 16.07

14 10 (20.8%) 11 (10.8%) 21 (14.0%)

15 9 (18.8%) 26 (25.5%) 31 (23.3%)

16 10 (20.8%) 24 (23.5%) 34 (22.7%)

17 13 (27.1%) 25 (24.5%) 38 (25.3%)

18 and older 5 (12.5%) 16 (15.7%) 22 (14.7%)

Living Situation and History of Homelessness 

Youth were asked to comment on their current living situation from the following: parent(s), 

grandparent(s), boyfriend/girlfriend’s, friend’s place, shelter, group home, foster home, own place, 

hotel, on the street, or another location. Other responses were coded for commonalities and living 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
17 | P a g e

situations were collapsed into four dichotomous (yes/no) groups indicating whether youth responded 

to living with a parent or extended family, whether the youth was living with a friend, significant other, 

or on their own, whether the youth was living in a shelter or placement setting, and whether the youth 

was living in another or unknown arrangement. They could be depicted in multiple categories, but 

LGBTQA or GNCR youth were compared with heterosexual, non-GNCR youth across each of the four 

groups (see Figure 3). LGBTQA or GNCR youth were significantly less likely to be living with a parent or 

family member (X

2 = 5.584, p = 0.018) and were significantly more likely to be living in another 

arrangement (p = 0.034, FET) compared with heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. For instance, 85% of 

heterosexual, non-GNCR youth reported to living in a family arrangement compared with 69% of 

LGBTQA/GNCR youth. 

Other studies indicate that LGBTQA youth are also disproportionately likely to have other experiences 

that are correlated with juvenile justice involvement and that put them at risk for victimization. Selfreported histories of homelessness also differed between LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR 

youth. Fifty-two percent (N = 25) of LGBTQA/GNCR youth said they had been homeless after being 

kicked out or running away compared with 28% (N = 29) of heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. This 

difference was statistically significant (X

2 = 7.925, p = 0.005). Conversely, heterosexual, non-GNCR 

youth were significantly more likely (X

2 = 5.823, p = 0.016) to be able to identify a trusted adult in their 

life currently (87% for heterosexual, non-GNCR youth compared with 71% for LGBTQA/GNCR).

This supports findings in previous studies that LGBTQA youth are overrepresented in the homeless 

population, due at least in part to rejection of their sexual orientation or gender identity at home or in 

placement (Mountz, 2016; Ream & Forge, 2014; Woods, 2017). Some are kicked out of their homes, 

becoming what are referred to as throwaway youth who are prevented from returning “home” and 

have no alternative housing options available (Hammer, Finkelhor, & Sedlak, 2002). Other queer youth 

may choose to leave due to maltreatment (Curtin, 2002; Ream & Forge, 2014), becoming runaways. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
18 | P a g e

Once homeless, whether throwaway or runaway, they face greater victimization than youth who are 

not queer (Ream & Forge, 2014; Wilber, 2015). 

Figure 3. Current Living Situation and Homelessness History

Youth were also asked whether they had been removed from their homes for their own safety, because 

someone was hurting them at home, or because they got in trouble. Self-reported accounts of home 

removals were examined with administrative data around child welfare, placement, and detention 

histories to identify differences between LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. Based on 

self-reported information, LGBTQA/GNCR youth were significantly more likely (X

2 = 6.597, p = 0.010) to 

be removed from their home by a social worker or police for their own safety. Forty-nine percent (N = 

23) of LGBTQA/GNCR youth were removed for their own safety compared with 28% (N = 28) of 

heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. There was no significant difference between LGBTQA/GNCR and 

heterosexual, non-GNCR youth in terms of placement because they were being hurt at home or 

because they got in trouble. 

68.6%

20.8%

14.6% 10.4%

52.1%

85.3%

16.7%

7.8%

2.0%

28.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Living with Family Living with Friends or

On Own

Living in Shelter or

Placement

Living in Another or

Unknown

Arrangement

% Yes

Living Situation Homeless History

LGBTQA/GNCR (N = 48) Straight/GC (N = 102)

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
19 | P a g e

School Suspension and Expulsions 

Youth were also asked to comment on the number of times they had been suspended and/or expelled 

from school. Both LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth had extensive histories of 

suspensions and expulsions with no significant differences between the two groups. Over half of 

LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth had been suspended eight or more times and over 

60% of both groups had been expelled from school between one and seven times. While this is not 

necessarily impacted by LGBTQA/GNCR status, this shows youth’s educational instability, which 

generally supports previous findings school disengagement is often tied to increased involvement in 

the juvenile justice system (Henry, Knight, & Thornberry, 2015). 

Table 5. Number of Suspensions and Expulsions by LGBTQA/GNCR Status

Suspensions Expulsions

LGBTQA/GNCR Straight/NonGNCR

LGBTQA/GNCR Straight/NonGNCR

0

3

6.3%

7

6.9%

14

29.2%

39

38.2%

1 – 7

19

39.6%

44

43.1%

33

68.8%

62

60.8%

8 or More 26

54.2%

51

50.0%

1

2.1%

1

1.0%

Social Services and Justice System Involvement

A number of indicators were examined using administrative data across placement records, detention 

admissions, and child protection (CP) and child welfare (CW) involvement to determine the different 

levels of system involvement between LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. Other risk 

factors for LGBTQA youth crossing over into the delinquency system include disproportionate 

involvement in the child welfare system (Irvine & Canfield, 2016; Mountz, 2016; Wilber, 2015; Woods, 

2017). In the foster system, queer youth may bounce from placement to placement due to rejection of 

their sexual orientation or gender identity by caregivers or other youth in the home (Wilber, 2015; 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
20 | P a g e

Wilber, Reyes, & Marksamer, 2006). However, within our findings, there were no statistically significant 

differences between LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth, though child protection 

intakes was approaching significance (p = 0.057). LGBTQA/GNCR youth were referred for CP intake, on 

average, 7.9 times compared with 4.9 for heterosexual, non-GNCR youth (p = 0.057). Otherwise, 

LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth had statistically similar levels of child welfare 

involvement, human services placement stays, prior detention and correction placements, and criminal 

history scores, which is determined based on the level and severity of youth’s prior adjudicated 

offenses. 

Table 6. Prior Human Services and Justice System Involvement

System Involvement Indicator LGBTQA/GNCR 

(N=48)

Straight/NonGNCR (N=102) T-Test Pvalue

Avg # of CP Intakes 7.88 4.91 1.942 0.057

Avg # of CW Intakes 0.83 0.73 0.542 0.588

Avg # of Prior HS Placements 0.60 0.44 0.942 0.348

Avg # of Days in HS Placements 185.05 108.16 1.231 0.220

Avg # of Prior HS Foster Home Placements 0.94 0.85 0.192 0.848

Avg # of Days in HS Foster Homes 104.69 89.58 0.308 0.759

Avg Criminal History Score 10.13 12.59 -1.240 0.217

Avg # of Prior Detention Admissions 3.60 3.63 -0.036 0.972

Avg # of Days in Detention 33.53 40.87 -0.802 0.424

Avg # of Prior Corr. Placements 0.73 0.91 -0.767 0.444

Avg # of Days in Corr. Placements 102.60 132.10 -0.785 0.434

Victimization Histories

Sixty youth – 30 LGBTQA/GNCR and 30 heterosexual, non-GNCR – were subsequently interviewed using 

the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire, 2nd Revision (JVQ-R2) (Finkelhor, D., Turner, S., & Ormrod, R., 

2011). The tool includes 34 questions on their victimization histories and helps examine differences in 

traumatic experiences between LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. The JVQ-R2 

contains questions regarding whether the youth had ever experienced specific events (e.g., assault, 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
21 | P a g e

theft) whether the event occurred in the past year, whether they were physically hurt by the incident, 

and characteristics about the perpetrator. The interview also included questions from the Adverse 

Childhood Experiences (ACE) tool, which measures stressful or traumatic events across ten domains 

known to be linked to long-term negative mental and physical outcomes. 

Incidence questions (i.e., “did this happen to you”) from the JVQ-R2 and the ACEs tool were coded into 

yes/no responses to determine the difference in occurrence for LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, nonGNCR youth (Tables 7 and 8). LGBTQA/GNCR had higher victimization rates across each of the 

individual ACE events and significantly higher across a number of areas, including: 

 Living with anyone who is a problem drinker or alcoholic or who uses street drugs (53% versus 

27%, X

2 = 4.444, p = 0.035) 

 Witnessing violence against a mother or stepmother (47% versus 27%, X

2 = 6.239, p = 0.012) 

 Experiencing physical or verbal threats (37% versus 13%, X

2 = 4.356, p = 0.037) or physical 

abuse (37% versus 13%, X

2 = 4.356, p = 0.037)

 Being sexually assaulted (30% versus 3%, X

2 = 7.680, p = 0.006) 

LGBTQA/GNCR youth had significantly higher (t = 3.141, p = 0.003) average ACE scores (M = 4.50, SD = 

2.957) when compared with heterosexual, non-GNCR youth (M = 2.53, SD = 1.737). LGBTQA/GNCR

youth answered “yes” to an average of 4.5 of the 10 ACE questions compared with 2.5 for 

heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. Furthermore, 70% (N = 21) of heterosexual, non-GNCR youth 

responded to experiencing between one and three ACE events compared with 43% (N = 13) of 

LGBTQA/GNCR youth while 23% (N = 7) of LGBTQA/GNCR youth responded to having experienced 

seven or more ACE trauma events compared with 3% (N = 1) of heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. Given 

the cumulative impact of multiple experiences of trauma(Cronholm et al., 2015; Dube et al., 2003; 

Felitti et al., 1998; Finkelhor, Omrod, et al., 2005; McCoy, Leverso, & Bowen, 2016), those who 

experience repeated victimization are at higher risk of negative long-term effects, problematic 

behaviors (Finkelhor, Ormrod, et al., 2005; Hurley Swayze & Buskovick, 2015; Vidal et al. 2017), 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
22 | P a g e

internalizing psychiatric disorders (Bielas et al, 2016) and violence perpetration, including delinquency 

involvement (Duke, Pettingell, McMorris, & Borowsky, 2010). Therefore, not only do LGBTQA/GNCR in

this sample experience individual events at higher rates compared with their heterosexual, non-GNCR 

peers, but their combined ACE scores indicate a higher cumulative incidence of trauma which, in turn, 

increases their likelihood of violence perpetration and long-term mental health issues. 

Table 7. ACE Traumatic Incidence by Cohort Group

ACE Traumatic Events 

LGBTQA/ 

GNCR 

(N = 30)

% Yes

Straight/

Non-GNCR 

(N=30)

% Yes

P -

value Sig.

Average ACE Response (out of 10) 4.50 2.53 ***

Divorce 83% 80% 0.739

Prison 53% 30% 0.067

Substance abuse 53% 27% 0.035 **

Mental health 43% 30% 0.284

Emotional neglect 43% 30% 0.165

Witness violence against mother 47% 17% 0.012 **

Physical or verbal threats 37% 13% 0.037 **

Physical abuse 37% 13% 0.037 **

Neglect 27% 17% 0.347

Sexual Assault 30% 3% 0.006 ***

LGBTQA/GNCR youth also had higher rates of victimization across most of the areas on the JVQ-R2, 

with the exceptions of gang assault, witnessing indirect violence, dating violence, and witnessing war. 

There were a number of areas that were frequent (i.e., more than 75% indicating they had experienced 

a given incident), such as attack without a weapon and witnessing violence without a weapon. These 

are shown in orange on Table 8. There were also a number that were prevalent (i.e., more than 50% 

indicating they had experienced a given incident) across both groups, such as theft, witnessing weapon 

violence, assault with a weapon, and gang assault. These are highlighted in green on Table 8. 

LGBTQA/GNCR youth, in particular, experienced a number of individual incidents at significantly higher 

rates than heterosexual, non-GNCR, including: 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
23 | P a g e

 Peer harassment (53% versus 27%, X

2 = 4.444, p = 0.035) 

 Verbal abuse (43% versus 7%, X

2 = 10.756, p = 0.001) 

 Neglect (33% versus 10%, X

2 = 4.812, p = 0.028) 

 Sexual harassment (30% versus 7%, X

2 = 5.455, p = 0.020) 

 Forced sex (33% versus 0%, X

2 = 12.000, p = 0.001) 

 Sexual assault by known adult (20% versus 0%, p = 0.024, FET) 

 Nonspecific sexual assault (20% versus 0%, p = 0.024, FET) 

Table 8. JVQ-R2 Individual Victimization Events by Cohort

JVQ-R2 Victimization Event 

LGBTQA/ 

GNCR 

(N = 30)

% Yes

Straight/

Non-GNCR 

(N=30)

% Yes

Sig.

Attack without a weapon 97% 80%

Witness Violence without a Weapon 87% 77%

Witness Community Violence 80% 73%

Theft 70% 73%

Witness Weapon Violence 73% 67%

Assault with a weapon 63% 63%

Gang Assault 53% 63%

Peer Assault 67% 50%

Exposed to Murder 67% 50%

Threatened Assault 57% 43%

Statutory Rape 50% 47%

Witness Indirect Violence 40% 47%

Robbery 47% 37%

Vandalism 43% 40%

Peer Harassment 53% 27% **

Attempted Assault 43% 27%

Witness IPV 43% 27%

Abuse by Caregiver 40% 27%

Dating Violence 27% 33%

Verbal Abuse 43% 7% ***

Family Abduction 27% 23%

Bias Crime 27% 17%

Neglect 33% 10% **

Witness Child Maltreatment 23% 20%

Nonsexual Genital Assault 23% 13%

Sexual Harassment 30% 7% **

Witness War 10% 27%

Kidnapping 23% 10%

Forced Sex 33% 0% ***

Peer Bullying 23% 3%

Indecent Exposure 20% 7%

Sexual Assault by Known Adult 20% 0% **

Nonspecific Sexual Assault 20% 0% **

Sexual Assault by Peer 7% 3%

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
24 | P a g e

Individual questions were also combined to create separate domains for specific types of victimization 

across seven domains: property crime, physical assault, sexual assault, physical/sexual harassment, 

child maltreatment, witnessing interpersonal violence, and witnessing any violence (Table 9). When we 

look at whether youth answer “yes” to any of the questions in the incidence domains (e.g., sexual 

assault, physical/sexual harassment, child maltreatment), we see that youth’s victimization experiences 

are similar between LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. LGBTQA/GNCR more often

indicated having experienced almost all of the seven victimization domains included on the JVQ-R2. 

However, there was no significant difference in rates between LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, nonGNCR youth with the exception of sexual assault. Sexual assault showed a significant difference 

between LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth where LGBTQA/GNCR were significantly 

more likely (73%) to have answered yes to at least one of the five sexual assault questions than 

heterosexual, non-GNCR youth (43%).

Table 9. JVQ-R2 Domain Incidence by Cohort

Domain Area

LGBTQA/ 

GNCR (N = 30)

% Yes

Straight/ NonGNCR (N=30)

% Yes

Pvalue Sig. 

Property Crime 76.7% 80.0% 0.754

Physical Assault 96.7% 93.3% 0.554

Sexual Assault 73.3% 46.7% 0.035 **

Physical/Sexual Harassment 76.7% 63.3% 0.260

Child Maltreatment 66.7% 50.0% 0.190

Witness Interpersonal Violence 43.3% 26.7% 0.176

Witness any Violence 100.0% 100.0% -

A total victimization index was created to calculate the total number of “yes” responses to the 34 

victimization events on the JVQ-R2, with 34 being the maximum index score a youth could receive. The 

scores in this area ranged from a minimum of 1 “yes” response to 27 “yes” responses on the individual 

incidence questions. The index was further collapsed to determine those who answered “yes” to a 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
25 | P a g e

lower number of victimization incidences (< 15 “yes” responses) and those who answered “yes” to a 

higher number of victimization incidences (15 or more “yes” responses). This cutoff was chosen as a 

general mid-point based on the maximum “yes” responses to the JVQ-R2. LGBTQA/GNCR were more 

likely (X

2 = 7.500, p = 0.006) to indicate higher levels of victimization (50%) when compared with 

heterosexual, non-GNCR youth (17%). 

Table 10. Overall Victimization Level by Cohort

Low (< 15) High (15 +)

Heterosexual/Straight 25

83.3%

5

16.7%

LGBTQQA 15

50%

15

50%

Furthermore, individual questions were added to create a cumulative score in each of the domains on 

the JVQ-R2. When we look at the average score differences between the two groups, LGBTQA/GNCR 

youth scored higher in each area when compared with heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. LGBTQA/GNCR 

youth scored significantly higher across sexual assault (t = 3.279, p = 0.002), physical/sexual harassment 

(t = 2.939, p = 0.005), child maltreatment (t = 2.593, p = 0.013), and overall victimization (t = 2.327, p = 

0.024). This further points to differences in the cumulative impact of traumatization between 

LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. While LGBTQA/GNCR youth did not have 

significantly higher incidence rates in the individual domains on the JVQ-R2 generally, they were more 

likely to respond “yes” to more of the individual events in the identified domains. 

The likelihood of a queer youth displaying posttraumatic stress symptoms (PSS) or being diagnosed 

with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is related to the number and types of victimizations they 

endure, as well as their reactions to those experiences. Those who are physically abused and those who 

find victimization experiences highly upsetting are more likely to develop PTSD (D’Augelli et al., 2006). 

However, the number of victimization experiences seems to be a better predictor of PSS and PTSD, 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
26 | P a g e

with more victimization correlated with higher rates of posttraumatic stress (D’Augelli et al., 2006; 

Finkelhor, Omrod, et al., 2005).

Table 11. Average JVQ-R2 Domain Indices Score by Cohort Group 

Victimization Index LGBTQA/ 

GNCR (N = 30)

Straight/ NonGNCR (N=30)Pvalue Sig. 

Property Crime (out of 3) 1.60 1.50 0.719

Physical Assault (out of 9) 4.20 3.57 0.207

Sexual Assault (out of 5) 1.30 0.50 0.002 ***

Physical/Sexual Harassment (out of 6) 2.27 1.13 0.005 ***

Child Maltreatment (out of 4) 1.43 0.67 0.013 **

Witness Interpersonal Violence (out of 3) 0.47 0.27 0.138

Witness any Violence (out of 8) 4.23 3.87 0.397

Total Victimization (out of 34) 14.63 10.97 0.024 **

Pathways into the Juvenile Justice System

While we understand that LGBTQA/GNCR youth experience more traumatic and victimization events 

generally, it is important to understand trauma’s impact on justice system involvement. Since all of the 

youth involved in this sample were involved in the juvenile justice system to some degree, we are not 

necessarily trying to predict involvement in the justice system generally. Instead, age at first disposition 

was examined to determine factors related to early entry into the juvenile justice system. However, it 

should be noted that age at first disposition does not necessarily indicate first entry into the justice 

system. Youth may have a number of interactions early in the juvenile justice system that may not rise 

to the level of adjudication. 

Regardless, age at first adjudication should give a sense of early involvement in the justice system. To 

test this, a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to identify statistically significant 

differences between sexual assault, physical or sexual harassment, and child maltreatment on age at 

first adjudication controlling for LGBTQA/GNCR status and child protection and welfare involvement. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
27 | P a g e

Independent variables were coded as dichotomous indicators (i.e., whether youth had experienced 

particular victimization events or not) to determine whether this impacted earlier involvement in the 

juvenile justice system. Prior child protection involvement was reduced into a single factor using 

principle components factor reduction from child protection and child welfare intakes, and prior 

human services placements. Child protection and welfare history (F = 5.267, p = 0.026) helps predict 

age at first disposition, though LGBTQA/GNCR status does not have a significant effect on age of first 

adjudication. There is also a significant effect of child maltreatment on age at first adjudication when 

controlling for LGBTQA/GNCR status and child protection and welfare history (F = 8.437, p = 0.005).

Neither sexual assault nor physical or sexual harassment had a significant effect on age at first 

adjudication. 

Table 12. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Model 

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: Age at First Disposition 

Source

Type III Sum of 

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Partial Eta 

Squared

Corrected Model 32.819a 5 6.564 3.263 .012 .232

Intercept 6259.235 1 6259.235 3111.247 .000 .983

Sexual Assault .168 1 .168 .083 .774 .002

Physical/Sexual Harassment 3.532 1 3.532 1.756 .191 .031

Child Maltreatment 16.973 1 16.973 8.437 .005 .135

LGBTQA/GNCR Status .324 1 .324 .161 .690 .003

Child Protection History 10.595 1 10.595 5.267 .026 .089

Error 108.638 54 2.012

Total 13971.892 60

Corrected Total 141.457 59

a. R Squared = .232 (Adjusted R Squared = .161)

When looking at mean differences in age at first disposition for those with prior child maltreatment 

compared with those with no prior child maltreatment experiences, youth with prior child 

maltreatment tended to have a higher age at first disposition. A possible reason for this may be that 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
28 | P a g e

those with prior child maltreatment experiences are among those who are more likely to receive 

services outside of the juvenile justice system at earlier ages, which may prompt a different response at 

earlier points than those who are not receiving services. 

To further explore the relationship between age at first disposition, child protection history, and 

victimization experiences (e.g., sexual assault, physical or sexual harassment, and child maltreatment), 

a correlation matrix was created to examine the relationship between the variables in the initial 

ANCOVA model. 

Table 13. Correlation of Model Variables

Correlations

Age at First 

Disposition

LGBTQA/ 

GNCR Status

Child 

Protection 

History

Sexual 

Assault

Physical/ 

Sexual 

Harassment

LGBTQA/ 

GNCR Status

Corr. -.045

Sig. .732

N 60

Child 

Protection 

History

Corr. -.253 .303*

Sig. .051 .019

N 60 60

Sexual 

Assault 

Corr. .160 .395** .318*

Sig. .221 .002 .013

N 60 60 60

Physical/ 

Sexual 

Harassment 

Corr. .136 .360** .252 .546**

Sig. .300 .005 .052 .000

N 60 60 60 60

Child 

Maltreatment

Corr. .352** .322*.292*.531** .614**

Sig. .006 .012 .024 .000 .000

N 60 60 60 60 60

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) 

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) 

Based on the correlation matrix presented in Table 13, child maltreatment appears to be an important 

variable, as it is positively correlated with other variables explored in the current model. This generally 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
29 | P a g e

indicates that increased child maltreatment exposure generally coincides with increases in child 

protection involvement (r = 0.292, p = 0.024), sexual assault (r = 0.531, p < 0.001) and physical or sexual 

harassment (r = 0.614, p < 0.001) victimization. It is also significantly correlated with LGBTQA/GNCR 

status (r = 0.322, p = 0.012) in that LGBTQA/GNCR youth tend to experience more child maltreatment, 

which is not surprising given findings discussed previously. It is, however, interesting to note the 

direction of the relationship between child maltreatment and age at first disposition since it is contrary 

to what we would expect. We would expect a negative association between entries into the juvenile 

justice system and child maltreatment with increases in child maltreatment being associated with 

younger age of first disposition. However, there is a statistically significant positive association between 

child maltreatment and age at first disposition (r = 0.352, p = 0.006), meaning that increases in child 

maltreatment exposure generally coincide with increases in age at first disposition. 

As a next step, a linear regression model was conducted to determine factors related to early

involvement in the juvenile justice system. However, the path to juvenile justice system is complex and 

not necessarily linear. For this reason, it is not necessarily clear the outcome and predictors from the 

variables identified. It could be that youth transition between the juvenile justice system more fluidly in 

that they may start in social services and cross over into the juvenile justice system while others may 

start in the delinquency system and subsequently become enmeshed in the child welfare system due to 

identification of trauma and maltreatment in the justice system. This, as a result, warrants two 

essential questions: 1) does social services intervention lead to early entry in the juvenile justice system 

or 2) does early entry in the juvenile justice system make social services intervention more likely? Two 

regression models were fit using the variables identified in the initial ANCOVA model: one predicting 

age at first adjudication and one predicting social services interventions from LGBTQA/GNCR status and 

cumulative sexual assault, physical or sexual harassment, and child maltreatment scores. These full 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
30 | P a g e

models were simplified using a backward elimination approach in which a single variable is deleted at a 

time from the full model. The final models are included in Tables 14 and 15. 

Table 14. Age at First Disposition Regression Model

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized 

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 14.579 .236 61.720 .000

Child Protection History -.528 .161 -.389 -3.269 .002

Child Maltreatment .601 .154 .466 3.914 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Age at First Disposition

b. R Squared = 0.262 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.236)

Table 15. Social Services Intervention Regression Model

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized 

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 4.160 1.357 3.065 .003

Age at First Disposition -.299 .092 -.406 -3.269 .002

Child Maltreatment .414 .118 .435 3.502 .001

a. Dependent Variable: Child Protection History

b. R Squared = 0.230 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.203)

Child protection history (t = -3.269, p = 0.002) and child maltreatment (t = 3.914, p < 0.001) are both 

significant predictors of age at first disposition, with an adjusted R-square indicating that nearly 24% of 

the variance in age at first disposition can be explained by child protection history and child 

maltreatment. Similarly, age at first disposition and child maltreatment were significant predictors of 

child protection history, with approximately 20% of the variance in child protection history explained 

by these two variables (see Table 15). 

Based on these results, there is a generally negative relationship between juvenile justice and social 

services involvement. As youth experience more extensive child protection and child welfare 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
31 | P a g e

involvement, they are likely to get involved in the juvenile justice system at earlier ages and vice versa. 

Child maltreatment is also an important predictor in system involvement generally. For instance, youth 

with more child maltreatment experiences are likely to also experience more extensive involvement in 

human services. Yet, youth with more child maltreatment experiences are likely to have later entries 

into the juvenile justice system, which is contrary to what we would expect given the connection 

between child protection and delinquency involvement and the impact of child maltreatment on child 

protection history. 

This could be for a couple of different reasons. It could be that trauma is not being given enough 

attention with older children when compared to younger children. The juvenile justice system may be 

more likely to recognize trauma, and specifically child maltreatment, in younger children and be more 

prone to handling earlier involvement within other agencies until a certain point or age. It is also 

possible that due to the self-reported nature of child maltreatment, children with extensive 

maltreatment exposure may minimize their experiences. They may choose not to disclose such 

information, and perhaps disengage to avoid system involvement at earlier ages, which would make 

later entry in the justice system reasonable. 

However, there is not sufficient data to fully support these conclusions. There are a number of factors

that are generally unknown. Since we are pulling a sample of those who are already intertwined in the 

juvenile justice system, for example, we do not necessarily know the trauma and child protection 

histories of those involved in human services who do not subsequently cross over into the justice 

system. As a result, we may be missing information to explore this finding more fully. 

Experiences of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 

Another intent of this study was to identify how the experiences of LGBTQA and GNCR youth compared 

with heterosexual and non-GNCR youth in the juvenile justice system. This involved asking questions 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
32 | P a g e

regarding the extent to which youth felt their gender identity and/or sexual orientation influenced their 

experiences of trauma and violence. Most (77%, N = 46) responded that their gender identity and/or 

sexual orientation did not seem to have an impact on their experiences of trauma and violence. 

Fourteen (23%) of the overall 60 youth interviewed responded that their gender identity and/or sexual 

orientation played a role in their trauma experiences, most of which were LGBTQA/GNCR youth (12 of 

the 14).

A number of themes were identified from individual responses. Seven of the 30 LGBTQA/GNCR youth 

interviewed (23%) said being judged by others for their gender identity and/or sexual orientation often 

led to physical or verbal harassment, which further contributed to their experiences of trauma and 

violence. This typically involved feeling a lack of support from family or friends. Additionally, six of the 

30 (20%) LGBTQA/GNCR youth experienced bullying, violence, or harassment because of their gender 

identity or sexual orientation, and four (13%) felt their experiences of trauma and violence were 

interrelated with gender expectations placed on them by others. One female youth, for example, 

commented that “sometimes I think I don’t want to be female because you get treated like a sex 

object” and one male participant said that “as a boy, people are more likely to do something to me. In 

fights they are willing to beat you up worse.” Youths’ experiences with trauma and victimization appear 

to be connected with youths’ understanding of what it means to be a boy or girl and societal 

expectations associated with masculinity and femininity. 

Regardless of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, youth were asked how being a part of the 

juvenile justice system generally has influenced their experiences of trauma and violence. Two-thirds 

(67%) of the 60 interviewed youth (N = 21, 70% LGBTQA/GNCR; N = 19, 61% heterosexual, non-GNCR 

youth) provided a response to this question. There were a number of themes that came across in both 

groups. For instance, 20% of each group expressed feeling the juvenile justice system was unfair or illequipped to working with youth. This ranged from feeling staff and facility rules were sometimes 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
33 | P a g e

inconsistent to feeling like programs and systems were unable to care for their needs. For instance, one 

youth commented on a particularly dangerous incident where 

“....a friend was restrained improperly and dropped on his head. Because the placement was 

unfit for us that is why I ended up back in the [detention center]....”.

This exemplifies the emotional turmoil and potential re-traumatization youth go through when 

interacting with the juvenile justice system, especially one that is perceived by them as unfit to meet 

their needs. 

Youth also commented that witnessing violence in the facilities played a role in their trauma and 

violence exposure. Twenty percent (N = 6) of the LGBTQA/GNCR and 17% (N = 5) of the heterosexual, 

non-GNCR youth expressed witnessing fights while they had been involved in the juvenile justice 

system. While a number of youth expressed that fights were relatively commonplace in juvenile 

facilities, they also indicated this was not necessarily common behavior in the community. One youth 

commented that “bad things happen inside here, like fights. Outside those things don't happen to me.”

Although both LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth witnessed violence nearly equally, 

LGBTQA/GNCR youth more often said they personally experienced bullying, harassment, and/or 

violence as opposed to merely witnessing violence. Five (17%) of the 30 LGBTQA/GNCR said they had 

been bullied or harassed during their involvement in the juvenile justice system compared with 3% (N = 

1) heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. While most of the comments were inexplicit to the kinds of bullying, 

harassment, and violence they had experienced, one youth mentioned being bullied for their sexual 

orientation specifically. Similarly, LGBTQA/GNCR youth more often expressed having issues with staff in 

the facilities. Nearly one-fourth (23%) of all LGBTQA/GNCR responded to having issues with facilities 

staff compared with 13% (N = 4) of heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. This ranged from staff not 

intervening in incidents in the facilities, to staff escalating situations, to staff providing inconsistent 

rules and orders, and feeling as though staff were rude or judgmental toward youth. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
34 | P a g e

Some LGBTQA/GNCR (13%) and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth (10%) also expressed feeling stuck in 

the system. Youth felt frustrated by not being able to go home and seemed to perceive the system as a 

never-ending cycle. One youth commented that “...they keep sending me away, since I was about 10 

years old. I’ve been here a lot so it's nothing new. I got used to it. I still don't want to be here though.”

A number of youth also felt fear and anger from being in the system, though this was more prominent 

in LGBTQA/GNCR youth (23%) compared with heterosexual, non-GNCR youth (7%). Youth expressed 

feeling angrier than when they are at home and felt the system has made them more violent. One 

youth said “I don’t yell or fight when I’m at home but I do that here. I act different. I have so much 

anger. I will get mad and then later realize it was for no reason.” A number of youth felt upset to be in 

the system and one youth expressed what they did not want: 

“I never want to be in a place where there are handcuffs or police officers. I don't want 

to go to a mental health institution, hospital, or a placement. I don't want to be locked 

in a room. I don't want any part of anything that involves the justice system or police 

officers. I'll freak out. When I leave here I'm going to run free. When I get home it'll feel 

so good.” 

This provides the crux of what youth seem to need from the system and demonstrates the potential for 

re-traumatization from being in detention or placement. The experiences are relatively comparable 

between LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. However, adding in gender identity and 

sexual orientation seems to potentially lead to more experiences of anger, violence, and issues in the 

justice system. 

Due to the nature of the interviews and asking sensitive or potentially re-traumatizing questions, we 

considered it equally important to help youth vocalize their strengths and ensure they were 

comfortable before returning to their programming at the detention or residential treatment center. 

Not surprisingly, youth in this sample resembled many other American teens in terms of their 

strengths, the things they enjoy doing, and what they do to cope with stress and trauma. Both 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
35 | P a g e

LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth pointed to sports and games (52%) as being among 

their biggest talents. One fifth of youth (20%) also said music, art, and writing was something they 

enjoyed. Otherwise, youth tended to spend time with family and friends or talking with others as 

something they do to make themselves feel better. 

With regard to sexual orientation and gender identity more specifically, there were few youth who 

expressed a general sense of resiliency in terms of being able to accept themselves, though this was 

not an overwhelming theme. Two of the 30 (7%) LGBTQA/GNCR youth commented on their own 

feelings of self-acceptance despite judgement from others. One LGBTQA/GNCR youth, in particular, 

commented that 

“I accept myself and know myself. Certain people are raised in a way where they don’t accept 

it; my dad raised me that way. He would say ‘don’t hang around gay people’. I’m okay with 

myself but others aren’t okay with it.” 

While this was not a dominant theme, this demonstrates that youth can present a sense of resilience in 

spite of judgement, trauma, and victimization they may have experienced.

Trauma within a Corrections Organization

As a part of the trauma grant work, we also wanted to evaluate the Department of Community 

Correction’s (DOCCR) current status as a trauma-informed organization. Currently, there is no standard 

for where DOCCR should be in implementing or adhering to trauma-informed care. Therefore, the 

trauma-informed agency self-assessment surveys were an attempt to get a baseline for how juvenile 

service departments are doing with regard to trauma-informed care practices in the DOCCR.

Participants

A total of 420 staff from DOCCR participated in the trauma-informed organizational assessment. 

Respondents included probation officers, correctional officers, support staff, as well as any employee 

that dealt with clients to some degree in their daily work. The overall response rate was 49%. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
36 | P a g e

Table 16. Respondents Surveyed by Division

Division Total Surveyed Total Completed Response Rate

Adult Corrections Facility 170 85 50%

Adult Field Services 316 187 59%

County Home School 89 35 39%

Community and Client Restoration 79 36 46%

Family Court Services 25 14 56%

Juvenile Detention Center 87 26 30%

Juvenile Probation 98 57 58%

TOTAL 864 420 49%

Survey and Data Collection

A 47-item survey, the “DOCCR Trauma Informed Agency Self-Assessment”, was developed and adapted 

from the Agency Self-Assessment for Trauma-Informed Care created by Orchard Place/Child Guidance 

Center’s Trauma Informed Care Project (2010). This tool was selected because it was considered userfriendly, contained a number of the key principles identified in Fallot & Harris’ (2009) assessment 

planning protocol, and could be easily adapted to fit corrections staff and populations. The survey 

asked Hennepin County corrections staff to respond to a web or paper survey and rate how well 

trauma-informed care is embedded into daily practice across four key areas depicted in Table 17. 

For each statement, respondents were asked to choose the option that most closely matched their 

thoughts about the division in which they worked. The response choices were: almost always, often, 

sometimes, seldom, never, and not applicable.

Table 17. Four Organizational Self-Assessment Domain Areas

Area Description

Supporting Staff Development How well does corrections include trauma-informed care 

into training, staff supervision and self-care? 

Creating a safe and supportive 

environment

How does corrections establish physical and emotional 

safety for clients? 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
37 | P a g e

Area Description

Assessment and planning services How does corrections include trauma-informed care 

components into assessments and service delivery? 

Involving clients and adapting policies How does corrections ensure clients and staff are involved 

in creating and modifying policies and practices? 

Factor Analysis

Because this assessment was adapted for use in community corrections, we wanted to ensure the 

survey was actually measuring the domains we wished to understand. Data on the 47-item assessment 

was analyzed using factor analysis performed in SPSS to reveal the underlying factors in the 

assessment. Nine factors were identified based on the initial rotated (varimax) solution with 

eigenvalues greater than 1. The nine factor solution explained approximately 68% of the total variance.

During several steps, a total of 13 items were eliminated (see Appendix C) because they did not 

contribute to a simple factor structure and failed to meet a minimum criteria of having a primary factor 

loading of .5 or above and no cross-loading of .49 or above, meaning items were excluded if they failed 

to predominantly load onto a single factor. The principle components extraction factoring method was 

conducted on the remaining of 34-items, resulting in six components with eigenvalues over Kaiser’s 

criterion of 1 extracted by means of the scree test. These six factors explained 68.6% of the total 

variance. The factor structure was then rotated using the varimax method. Table 18 depicts the six 

factors, their eigenvalues, and the proportion of variance explained by each of the factors. 

Table 18. Factors, Eigenvalues & Percent of Variance Explained

Factors Factor Name Eigenvalues % of Variance

1 Assessments & Case Planning 6.30 18.54

2 Trauma Training for Staff 5.18 15.22

3 Client’s Rights & Safety 3.29 9.68

4 Client Informed Policies 3.10 9.12

5 Staff Informed Policies 2.90 8.51

6 Honoring Client Diversity 2.60 7.53

Kaiser normalization (KMO = 0.904). Bartlett’s test of sphericity, ꭓ2 (6569.49), p = .000, indicated that there was a 

correlation between items, and for factor analysis we need some relationships between variables (Field, 2009).

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
38 | P a g e

To ensure factors were internally consistent, reliability analysis were performed. The six factors and 

their corresponding alpha levels are detailed in Table 19 below. 

Table 19. Reliability Analysis

Factor Factor Name Cronbach’s Alpha

1 Assessments & Case Planning 0.94

2 Trauma Training for Staff 0.93

3 Client’s Rights & Safety 0.80

4 Client Informed Policies 0.82

5 Staff Informed Policies 0.77

6 Honoring Client Diversity 0.75

Appendix C depicts the retained items that loaded onto each of the six factors. The number of items 

vary from nine items on “Assessments and Case Planning” (Factor 1), to three items on “Honoring 

Client Diversity” (Factor 6). As anticipated, questions on the adapted survey measured the key 

principles we sought to identify. For this reason, we feel the adapted assessment is an appropriate tool 

to measure DOCCR’s baseline as a trauma-informed organization. 

Identification of Strengths and Areas for Improvement 

A total of 118 staff from juvenile services divisions (Table 20) responded to the organizational 

assessment and are analyzed as a subset of the total survey responses to better understand areas of 

strength and improvement in juvenile services more specifically. The overall response rate was 43%.

Table 20. Respondents Surveyed by Juvenile Divisions

Division Total 

Surveyed

Total 

Completed

Response Rate

County Home School (CHS) 89 35 39%

Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) 87 26 30%

Juvenile Probation (JP) 98 57 58%

Total Responses 274 118 43%

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
39 | P a g e

Frequency analyses of the responses to statements for the juvenile divisions were performed. 

Responses were analyzed to identify areas of strengths and areas of improvement. The following 

responses to questions indicated department strengths (Table 21) and where more work is needed 

(Table 22). 

Table 21. Areas of Strength

Statement 

Almost 

Always/

Often

Sometimes Seldom/ 

Never

Not 

Applicable/ 

Missing

Physical spaces are welcoming to clients of all backgrounds 

(i.e., culture, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, 

disability, etc.)

70.3% 18.6% 6.8% 4.2%

Staff in my division practice motivational interviewing 

techniques with clients (i.e., open ended questions, 

affirmations, and reflective listening).

86.4% 9.3% 1.7% 2.5%

Staff use language that is appropriate and respectful to 

clients of different cultures, religions, sexual orientations, 

and gender identities.

85.6% 11.9% 0% 2.5%

Client assessments include a history of trauma (i.e., 

physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, neglect, loss, 

domestic/community violence...)

63.6% 18.6% 10.2% 7.6%

Staff in my division are able to support clients experiencing 

intense emotions. 59.3% 26.3% 8.5% 5.9%

Table 22. Areas for Improvement

Statement 

Almost 

Always/ 

Often

Sometimes Seldom/ 

Never

Not 

Applicable/ 

Missing

My division offers training on what traumatic stress is. 19.5% 39.8% 38.1% 2.5%

My division offers training on how to help clients identify 

triggers (i.e., reminders of dangerous or frightening things 

that have happened in the past).

20.3% 35.6% 33.1% 11.0%

My division offers training on how to help clients minimize 

re-traumatization using coping mechanisms, de-escalation 

strategies, or similar techniques ...

28.0% 33.1% 36.4% 2.5%

My division brings in outside experts with expertise in 

trauma to provide ongoing education and consultation. 29.7% 43.2% 25.4% 1.7%

My division addresses topics related to trauma at team 

meetings. 28.8% 41.5% 24.6% 5.1%

Staff in my division ask clients for their definitions of 

emotional safety. 35.6% 30.5% 23.7% 10.2%

Staff in my division are expected to educate clients about 

traumatic stress and triggers. 25.4% 22.0% 44.1% 8.5%

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
40 | P a g e

There were five statements related to trauma-informed care and practices that stood out as areas of 

strength based on participant responses. Two of those statements (e.g., “physical spaces are 

welcoming to clients of all backgrounds” and “staff use language that is appropriate and respectful to 

clients of different cultures, religions, sexual orientations, and gender identities”) use language that 

relate to honoring client diversity. Two of the statements (e.g.., “staff in my division practice 

motivational interviewing techniques with clients” and “client assessments include a history of 

trauma”) aim to assess clients’ needs in an evidence-based and trauma-aware manner. The statement, 

“staff in my division are able to support clients experiencing intense emotions” suggests that staff have 

the emotional capacity to interact with clients who have experienced trauma.

Areas for improvement were more mixed across content areas, which may mean that there is a lack of 

understanding or clarity about what is actually done on a daily basis. However, a pattern does appear 

to emerge in that there is little to no training being offered relating to trauma-informed care and 

practices currently. This includes bringing in outside experts for consultation and discussing traumarelated issues at team meetings. One possible explanation, then, for a quarter of participants 

responding that staff are seldom or never expected to educate clients about traumatic stress and 

triggers, may be because they themselves are not trained in the area. 

Based on these results, it appears that the desire to adhere to trauma informed principles is present, 

but what may be lacking is the skill, expertise, or training to do so. Therefore, the next step to advance 

these divisions and the department towards a more trauma-informed organization would be to 

implement specific training that addresses and integrates trauma-informed care and practices.

Discussion

The current sample drawn from 150 surveys and 60 interviews estimates that 32% of justice-involved 

youth are LGBTQA and/or among those who have experienced gender nonconformity-based rejection 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
41 | P a g e

(GNCR). Similar to previous studies, girls are overrepresented among LGBTQA and GNCR youth; 84% of 

girls in this sample identified as LGBTQA or GNCR compared with 24% of boys. However, there was no 

significant difference between LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth in terms of prior 

human services and corrections system involvement. Youth in both groups had significantly similar 

numbers of child protection and child welfare intakes, detention admissions, and placement histories. 

Where the two groups of youth differed, however, was with regard to their trauma and victimization 

experiences. LGBTQA/GNCR youth were less likely than heterosexual, non-GNCR youth to live with a 

parent or family member (69% versus 85%) and less likely to identify a trusted adult in their life 

currently (71% versus 87%). Conversely, LGBTQA/GNCR youth were more likely to have a history of selfreported homelessness (52% versus 28%) and have been removed from their homes for their own 

safety (49% versus 28%). 

While some victimization experiences (e.g., assault, theft, witnessing interpersonal or community 

violence, and gang or peer assault) were relatively common across all youth in this sample, 

LGBTQA/GNCR appear to have significantly more pronounced experiences of trauma and victimization 

than their heterosexual, non-GNCR peers. This came across in both incidence questions (i.e., did this 

happen to you) on the JVQ-R2 and ACEs instruments, as well as comments made during interviews. 

More often than heterosexual, non-GNCR youth, LGBTQA/GNCR youth experienced things associated 

with bullying by peers or family members. For instance, LGBTQA/GNCR youth were more likely to have 

been harassed by peers (53% versus 27%), experienced verbal abuse by adults in their lives (43% versus 

7%), and neglect by a caregiver (33% versus 10%). This may not be particularly surprising given the 

stigma and societal disapproval after disclosing lesbian, gay, or bisexual identities (Saewyc et al, 2006). 

It may make sense that LGBTQA/GNCR youth receive adverse reactions or treatment from peers or 

family because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identities more so than youth who identify as 

heterosexual or cisgender, though this was not measured directly in this study. Furthermore, 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
42 | P a g e

LGBTQA/GNCR youth experienced an overwhelming exposure to sexual trauma and violence. 

LGBTQA/GNCR youth were significantly more likely to have forced intercourse (33% versus 0%), have 

been sexually assaulted by a known adult (20% versus 0%), and have experienced nonspecific sexual 

assault (20% versus 0%) than heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. 

It is also apparent that LGBTQA/GNCR youth experience more cumulative trauma and victimization 

than their peers. For instance, LGBTQA/GNCR youth answered “yes” to 4.5 of the 10 questions on the 

ACE compared with 2.5 for heterosexual, non-GNCR youth. They were also significantly more likely to 

have experienced a number of different sexual assault events, physical or sexual harassment instances, 

and child maltreatment experiences. Experiencing more cumulative events, as a result, increases the 

likelihood of developing posttraumatic stress symptoms (PSS) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 

(D’Augelli et al., 2006; Finkelhor, Omrod, et al., 2005), as well as risk for involvement in the juvenile 

justice system. 

Based on regression and ANCOVA findings presented previously, there appears to be a connection 

between age of entry into the juvenile justice system, social services involvement, and child 

maltreatment. Child maltreatment was a significant predictor for social services involvement, as well as 

entry in the juvenile justice system. While greater child maltreatment experiences generally indicated 

increased social services involvement, child maltreatment had the opposite impact on age of entry into 

the juvenile justice system based on age at first disposition. More extensive child maltreatment tended 

to coincide with delayed entry into the juvenile justice system. The inverse relationship between child 

maltreatment and age of entry into the juvenile system may indicate that the justice system tends to 

recognize and respond to trauma in younger kids through diversion or alternative system services, 

which may delay entry into the justice system. However, more work is needed to more fully examine 

this relationship. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
43 | P a g e

Regardless, current research shows that exposure to trauma places youth at higher risk for juvenile 

justice system involvement (Duke, Pettingell, McMorris, & Borowsky, 2010). Based on the differences 

between LGBTQA/GNCR and heterosexual, non-GNCR youth found in this study, trauma appears to 

play a part in youth’s involvement with the juvenile justice system. Most of the indicators that would 

indicate a criminogenic pathway, such as early involvement in detention or placement, or adjudication 

history, were statistically non-significant. Where youth differed was related to their trauma history. 

Trauma indicators, such as sexual assault, child maltreatment, physical/sexual harassment, adverse 

childhood experiences indices, and overall victimization, were the only factors appearing related to 

sexual orientation and/or gender identity generally. Furthermore, LGBTQA/GNCR youth also 

experienced more individual trauma events than their heterosexual, non-GNCR peers, which may have 

a cumulative impact on entry into the justice system. It is also apparent that child maltreatment is an 

important factor for system involvement generally and should be explored further in future research. 

Study Limitations

It is clear from this study, as well as prior research, that the path into the juvenile justice system is 

complex and multifaceted. While trauma appears to be heavily interwoven into system-involved 

youths’ lives, and in particular connected deeply with those who identify as LGBTQA or GNCR, this 

study does not necessarily indicate this was a factor in earlier justice system involvement. However, 

there are a number of factors that may limit our ability to fully understand and accurately identify 

youths’ pathways into the juvenile justice system. In examining justice system entry, there is a lot of 

information that is unknown. For instance, the current sample may be those with more extensive 

histories and involvement with the juvenile justice system. Youth in the JDC, which comprise the largest 

proportion of our sample, are screened for risk to reoffend or failure to appear for subsequent court 

hearings (i.e., pretrial failure). If they are deemed low risk for pretrial failure, they can be released 

home prior to subsequent court proceedings. Given the quick entry and exit of youth in detention, it is 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
44 | P a g e

likely that our sample missed those with minimal justice system involvement. Instead, our population 

may have been comprised of more youth with more substantial, or “deep end” system involvement, 

which may limit our ability to accurately measure and differentiate indicators for early entry into the 

system. 

Given this, it may also make it difficult to accurately predict the percentage of system-involved youth 

who identify as LGBTQA or GNCR. While our estimates of LGB youth generally coincide with previous 

literature (Irvine, 2010), there were a greater number of youth identified as experiencing gender 

nonconformity-based rejection (GNCR). This could be for a number of different reasons. First, this could 

be a definitional difference from previous literature. Where other literature may have estimated 

gender nonconformity more explicitly, our research identifies those who have experienced 

nonconformity-based rejection more generally. This is a much broader definition. 

This could also be related to the “deep end” nature of the current sample. The link between trauma 

and subsequent violence perpetration has been well-established. Understanding the higher likelihood 

of LGBTQA and GNC youth to experience trauma in previous literature, as well as the current sample, 

may help understand the deviation from prior studies. It could be that LGBTQA and GNCR youth in 

Hennepin County are more likely to penetrate further into the juvenile justice system, so excluding 

those with more entry-level involvement may actually overestimate the percentage of LGBTQA or 

GNCR youth in the system. However, this is largely unknown. 

Another potential reason for the greater percentage of GNCR youth in the sample may be due to 

methodology differences from previous literature. In Irvine’s (2010) prior study, youth were offered 

surveys upon intake by admissions staff. In our study, a dedicated research assistant solicited 

participation from youth. The research assistant provided details about the purpose of the study and 

informed youth that their participation was voluntary, would be kept private, and did not impact their 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
45 | P a g e

treatment at the detention center or placement facility. Given that our research assistant was not 

affiliated with the facility directly may have impacted youth’s perception of neutrality and 

confidentiality. In this regard, they may have been more likely to participate and answer questions 

openly. 

Another possible limitation with the current study revolves around the trauma-informed organizational 

self-assessment. While we were able to identify some key strengths and areas for improvement, this is 

only reflective of 43% of our juvenile services divisions. It is unclear whether this is reflective of the 

remaining staff in the divisions surveyed. Given this was meant to provide a baseline to gauge where 

the department is with regard to trauma-informed practice, more exploration of other aspects of being 

a trauma-informed organization is needed. 

Implications for policy, practice, and future research

It is a common misconception that juvenile justice systems do not serve youth who identify as LGBTQA

and/or GNC (Irvine, 2010). However, youth often do not openly disclose their sexual orientation or 

gender identity as opposed to them being absent from the system generally. Furthermore, mounting 

evidence shows the connection between childhood trauma and criminal behavior (Cuevas, Finkelhor, 

Shattuck, Turner, & Hamby, 2013; Hurley Swayze & Buskovick, 2015; Letich, 2017; Wolff, Baglivio, & 

Piquero, 2017). This highlights the need for juvenile justice systems to not only develop and implement 

trauma-informed practices, it also requires us to have a better understanding of the youth we serve 

and how their experience in the juvenile justice system may serve as a risk factor for further 

victimization and re-traumatization. Although general trauma-informed practices should be helpful for 

any youth with a history of trauma, LGBTQA youth experience unique forms of victimization (D’Augelli, 

Grossman, & Starks, 2006; Dragowski, Halkitis, Grossman, & D’Augelli, 2011) and have specialized 

support needs (Wilber, 2015).

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
46 | P a g e

Youth with trauma histories are likely to have a more negative response to distressing events (Adams, 

2010; Letich, 2017; McCoy et al., 2016). Practices such as handcuffing, invasive searches upon entering 

a facility, and the use of isolation may cause fear, shame, and loneliness (Adams, 2010). Prevailing 

cultures of violence in facilities can lead to constant fear and hypervigilance (Abrams, Anderson-Nathe, 

& Aguilar, 2008; Letich, 2017; Mountz, 2016), while lack of privacy might be especially triggering for 

those with a history of sexual abuse (Mountz, 2016). This became increasingly clear in interviews with 

youth. Many youth said being at the detention or placement facility makes them more easily agitated 

and angered than they feel at home. They often lose their temper, are triggered in the facility, get into 

fights, and feel like things are out of their hands. Whether a youth is in a community or facility setting, 

it is critical to train staff to recognize trauma and its symptoms and then respond to the resulting 

behaviors with a trauma-informed approach (Adams, 2010; Ko et al., 2008; Letich, 2017; Steinberg et 

al., 2014). 

A first step becomes identifying and understanding youths’ trauma histories. This involves being more 

intentional about identifying trauma and asking youth what they need from the system. Youth 

interviewed for this study responded positively to an opportunity to share their experiences. Youth 

were generally excited to provide feedback and would have liked to share specific feedback for the 

facility and/or staff. Asking questions that help the system understand youth’s trauma and what they 

need from the system allows youth to advocate for themselves and their peers. As a result, if the 

system can start to identify youth’s trauma, it can start to address their trauma and examine policy and 

procedures around how we work with youth who have experienced trauma so as not to re-traumatize 

them.

Identifying trauma, however, is just a first step. Implementing trauma-informed systems, practices, and 

treatments are pivotal in helping all youth overcome the maladaptive thought and behavior patterns 

that have essentially become “wired in” to their brains by trauma (Letich, 2017; Steinberg et al., 2014). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
47 | P a g e

A precursor to providing trauma-informed, neuroscience-based services is to acknowledge the 

strengths and positive experiences that a youth brings (Letich, 2017). One shortcoming of most tools 

for assessing trauma is that they focus solely on negative experiences, which means that case and 

treatment plans are typically based around correcting deficits rather than building on assets and 

resilience (Letich, 2017). It is important to incorporate both the positive and negative in case planning 

(Letich, 2017), yet it has been found that probation officers are less likely to endorse strengths than 

they are to identify areas of risk in their assessments (Holloway, Cruise, Morin, Kaufman, & Steele, in 

press). Such positive endorsements benefit not only the youth, who may feel better heard and 

understood when their strengths are recognized, but also staff, who might feel more hope for the 

youth’s future (Holloway et al., in press; Letich, 2017). 

In addition, implementing a trauma-informed and neuroscience-based approach means focusing on 

“practical skills” (Letich, 2017). The goal is to increase a person’s capacity for self-regulation, allowing 

them to recognize their own feelings and reactions, and giving them the tools to choose an appropriate 

response to the situation at hand. Models that promote skills in self-regulation can improve outcomes 

for youth (Ford & Blaustein, 2013; Letich, 2017). In some cases, the processes and policies of the 

juvenile justice system can be modified to enhance self-regulation. For example, when doing intake 

interviews and assessments, intermixing questions about negative experiences and risks with questions 

that focus on positive experiences and strengths can balance activation and calming (Letich, 2017). 

Other parts of self-regulation require therapy, training, or individual practice of skills that increase 

calming or activation, as the situation demands (Letich, 2017). Letich (2017) discusses how these skills 

can change behaviors. Youth might then be able respond to situations with prosocial behaviors instead 

of delinquent ones.

However, there is a difference between simply asking about whether a youth has experienced trauma 

and being able to recognize symptoms of trauma in that youth’s behavior and demeanor (Adams, 2010; 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
48 | P a g e

Letich, 2017). Training staff to recognize this distinction becomes increasingly critical. This practice

involves routinely embedding trauma and related topics into ongoing trainings and organizational and 

team meetings. This includes ensuring staff have an understanding of how trauma impacts the brain, 

how to work with youth who have experienced trauma, and the cumulative impacts of trauma on 

behavior and delinquency. This was evident in the current organizational assessment, as common areas 

for improvement indicated a need for more training and increased access to resources and expertise 

around trauma. 

Similarly, it is important for staff to have an understanding of the unique pathways into the system and 

trauma histories of different youth. To improve experiences for LGBTQA youth specifically, there is a 

need for culture change within the juvenile justice system rather than just a new program or standards 

(Wilber, 2015). Buy-in from frontline staff may be harder to elicit than from administration, and existing 

structural processes may conflict with and undermine changes (Haight et al., 2014). Non-discrimination 

policies that explicitly include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression are a 

foundational component, and these policies must be enacted and enforced (Wilber, 2015; Wilber et al., 

2006). Staff should be trained to understand distinctions between these concepts, as well as how these 

components of a person’s identity may interact (Wilber, 2015). Additional training is necessary to 

ensure that staff can interact competently with queer youth, appropriately supporting their identities 

while protecting their safety and privacy (Wilber, 2015). For example, basic cultural competency with 

transgender youth requires asking, respecting, and using each individual’s pronouns according to their 

wishes. 

While there were no transgender youth in this sample, there are additional concerns for transgender or 

non-binary youth, particularly within detention or placement facilities. The initial issue is deciding 

whether to house them in a girls’ or boys’ facility, and the youth’s sex assigned at birth should not be 

the deciding factor. Decision-makers and staff need to balance youth’s preference while ensuring their 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
49 | P a g e

safety (Abrams et al., 2008; Curtin, 2002; Mountz 2016; Wilber, 2015; Wilber et al., 2006). Given the 

particularly heightened victimization that transgender people experience (Wilber, 2015), physical 

safety is a very real concern, and it is understandable that many staff and facilities think primarily about 

preventing physical harm (Wilber at al., 2006). However, a trauma-informed approach demands 

consideration of each individual’s needs and desires (Wilber, 2015; Wilber et al., 2006). There is 

potential to cause great psychological harm by secluding transgender youth for their own protection 

(Wilber, 2015; Wilber et al., 2006) or by denying them the right to express their gender identity as they 

would like. The disproportionality in mental health diagnoses and suicidality for transgender people 

must be part of the decision-making process (James et al., 2016). Staff should consider whether 

providing an individual room and privacy during showering and grooming would enable a transgender 

youth to be safely housed in the facility of their choice (Wilber et al., 2006). Additionally, they should 

be provided with the clothing and grooming items they prefer (Wilber et al., 2006). Finally, it is 

essential to provide appropriate medical care and gender-affirming treatments. This must be a 

standard component of care provided in the facility and should adhere to the standards set out by the 

World Professional Association for Transgender Health (Wilber, 2015).

Given the re-traumatization that is likely to occur in the justice system (Adams, 2010; Hurley Swayze & 

Buskovick, 2015), diverting youth from the system entirely is perhaps the most trauma-informed 

approach. Many risk factors for queer youth’s involvement in the justice system are well-documented, 

with certain systems and settings already positioned to be points of early intervention. If these risk 

factors were to trigger more intensive, interdisciplinary supports for a youth and their family, much 

harm could be prevented (Metzler et al., 2017). This requires a great deal of coordination across 

systems that historically have not collaborated (Haight, Bidwell, Marshall, & Khatiwoda, 2014; Herz et 

al., 2010; Ko et al., 2008; Olafson et al., 2017). It would also take resources, training, and funding. 

However, early involvement with the system is a predictor of the need for many other costly services 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
50 | P a g e

later in life (Abrams et al., 2008; Dierkhising et al., 2013). Taking a long-term, holistic view of a youth’s 

needs and of the associated costs is necessary to realize better outcomes and potentially substantial 

savings.

The rate of trauma and victimization for welfare-involved youth is very high, as it is typically traumatic 

events which trigger entry into this system (Ko et al., 2008). Involvement in the child welfare system is 

itself a risk factor for youth delinquency and justice involvement, whether the youth is queer or not 

(Herz et al., 2010; Snyder & Smith, 2015; Tam, Abrams, Freisthler, & Ryan, 2016; Vidal et al., 2017). 

Additionally, by the time the welfare system intervenes in a youth’s life, they are very likely to have a 

number of other risk factors. For example, they are more likely to have experienced homelessness 

(Coates & McKenzie-Mohr, 2010; Logan-Greene et al., 2016), and there is greater prevalence of mental 

health and substance use issues (Herz et al., 2010; Tam et al., 2016; Tsai, Edens, & Rosenheck, 2011).

To better serve welfare-involved youth, implementing models that emphasize early identification of 

those at risk of entering the juvenile justice system and putting diversionary supports in place is critical

(Olafson et al., 2017). These services should address the full spectrum of the youth’s needs, including 

economic, health, educational, and emotional (Logan-Greene et al., 2016). For queer youth, this 

includes providing support specifically around their queer identities and ensuring that other services 

are similarly inclusive and supportive. Systems should also focus on recognizing and addressing 

symptoms of trauma (Letich, 2017; Olafson et al., 2017; Yoder, Bender, Thompson, Ferguson, & 

Haffejee, 2014).

Future Research 

The current study identifies the percentage of youth identified as LGBTQA or GNCR amongst Hennepin 

County’s detention, placement, and probation department, as well as their trauma and victimization 

compared with heterosexual, cisgender youth. LGBTQA and GNCR youth represent 32% of juvenile 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
51 | P a g e

justice population in Hennepin County, and their experiences of trauma and victimization are 

extensive. LGBTQA and GNCR youth are more likely to experience sexual assault, child maltreatment, 

and physical or sexual harassment in particular, as well as more cumulative trauma than heterosexual, 

cisgender youth. Although prior research has pointed to unique pathways into the juvenile justice 

system for LGBTQA and GNC youth, more work is needed to confirm the different pathways into the 

justice system for youth. The current sample includes youth with extensive juvenile justice 

involvement. Further research should identify early entry points in the juvenile justice system to better 

differentiate pathways. It may be beneficial to collect social services and victimization information for 

youth who both cross over into the delinquency system, as well as those who do not enter the justice 

system, in order to further examine how trauma impacts justice system entry. Further research should 

also continue to solicit youth voice and continue to identify youth’s trauma and victimization 

experiences, while also ensuring processes are in place to prevent further re-traumatization. Youth 

provide a critical voice in determining how the system can be more trauma-informed and responsive to 

youth’s needs. 

Hennepin County specific implications

In Hennepin County specifically, it is important to get a better estimate within juvenile probation more 

specifically. Although 65% of youth surveyed and interviewed in Hennepin’s detention and placement 

facilities were also on probation, the estimates of LGBTQA/GNCR population may vary within a 

community setting. Further research in Hennepin should involve identifying how many of youth on 

probation identify as LGBTQA or experience gender nonconformity-based rejection, as well as 

information around homelessness and general trauma and victimization histories. 

Further work in Hennepin County should also be to explore the findings from the trauma-informed 

organizational assessment. As a first step, it may be beneficial to explore training needs for traumaThis resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
52 | P a g e

informed care in Hennepin County. This may include identifying appropriate topics for introducing 

trauma-informed care to staff in various roles, developing an understanding in how trauma manifests 

in client’s behaviors, and methods for helping clients manage trauma responses and triggers. It is also 

recommended that the trauma-informed organizational assessment be re-administered periodically to 

ensure that DOCCR is making progress in further implementing and fully integrating trauma-informed 

care principles into daily practice. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
53 | P a g e

References 

Abrams, L. S., Anderson-Nathe, B., & Aguilar, J. (2008). Constructing masculinities in juvenile 

corrections. Men and Masculinities, 11(1), 22-41. doi:10.1177/1097184X06291893

Adams, E. J. (2010, July). Healing invisible wounds: Why trauma-informed care for children makes sense.

Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. 

Beck, A. J., Cantor, D., Hartge, J., & Smith, T. (2013). Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported 

by Youth, 2012. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry12.pdf

Bender, K. (2012, January). The mediating effect of school engagement in the relationship between 

youth maltreatment and juvenile delinquency. Children & Schools, 34(1), 37-48. doi:10.1093/cs/cdr001

Beilas, H., Barra S., Skrivanek, C., Aebi, M., Steinhausen, H.C., Bessler, C., & Plattner, B. (2016). The 

associations of cumulative adverse childhood experiences and irritability with mental health disorders 

in detained male adolescent offenders. Child and adolescent pshychiatry and mental health, 10, 34. 

doi:10.1186/s13034-016-0122-7

Buckingham, S. (2016). Trauma informed juvenile justice. American Criminal Law Review, 53, 641-692. 

Chang, J. J., Chen, J. J., & Brownson, R. C. (2003, April). The role of repeat victimization in adolescent 

delinquent behaviors and recidivism. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 272-280. doi:10.1016/S1054-

139X(02)00564-5

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016, June 14). About the CDC-Kaiser ACE Study. Retrieved 

from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/about.html. 

Chesney-Lind, M., & Merlo, A. V. (2015). Global war on girls? Policing girls' sexuality and criminalizing 

their victimization. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(1-2), 71-82. doi:10/1080/088974454.2015.1026776

Coates, J., & McKenzie-Mohr, S. (2010, December). Out of the frying pan, into the fire: Trauma in the 

lives of homeless youth prior to and during homelessness. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 

XXXVII(4), 65-96.

Cronholm, P. F., Forke, C. M., Wade, R., Bair-Merritt, M. H., Davis, M., Harkins-Schwarz, M., & Patcher, 

L. M. (2015). Adverse Childhood Experiences: Expanding the concept of adversity. American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 354-361. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.02.001

Cuevas, C. A., Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. (2013, October). Children's exposure 

to violence and the intersection between delinquency and victimization. OJJDP National Survey of 

Children's Exposure to Violence, 1-9.

Curtin, M. (2002). Lesbian and bisexual girls in the juvenile justice system. Child and Adolescent Social 

Work Journal, 19(4), 285-301. doi:10.1023/A:1016301828661

D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2006). Childhood gender atypicality, victimization, and 

PTSD among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(11), 1462-1482.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
54 | P a g e

Development Services Group, Inc. (2014). Literature review: LGBTQ youths in the juvenile justice 

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

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

Dierkhising, C. B., Ko, S. J., Woods-Jaeger, B., Briggs, E. C., Lee, R., & Pynoos, R. S. (2013). Trauma 

histories among justice-involved youth: Findings from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network. 

European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 4(1), 1-12.

Dragowski, E. A., Halkitis, P. N., Grossman, A. H., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2011). Sexual orientation 

victimization and posttraumatic stress symptoms among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of 

Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 23(2), 226-249. doi:10.1080/10538720.2010.541028

Dube, S. R., Felitti, V. J., Dong, M., Giles, W. H., & Anda, R. F. (2003). The impact of adverse childhood 

experiences on health problems: Evidence from four birth cohorts dating back to 1900. Preventive 

Medicine, 37, 268-277. doi:10.1016/S0091-7435(03)00123-3

Duke, N. N., Pettingell, S. L., McMorris, B. J., & Borowsky, I. W. (2010, March). Adolescent violence 

perpetration: Associations with multiple types of adverse childhood experiences. Pediatrics, 125(e778). 

doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0597

Eckenrode, J., Laird, M., & Doris, J. (1993). School performance and disciplinary problems among 

abused and neglected children. Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 53-62.

Eisenberg, M. E., & Resnick, M. D. (2006). Suicidality among gay, lesbian and bisexual youth: The role of 

protective factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 662-668. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.04.02

Espinosa, E. M., Sorensen, J. R., & Lopez, M. A. (2013). Youth pathways to placement: The influence of 

gender, mental health need and trauma on confinement in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Youth 

and Adolescence, 42, 1824-1836. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9981-x

Fallot, Roger, and Harris, Maxine. (2009). Creating Cultures of Trauma-Informed Care (CCTIC): A SelfAssessment and Planning Protocol. Community Connections; Washington, D.C.

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamon, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., & Marks, J. S. 

(1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of 

death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine, 14(4), 245-258.

Field, A. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications Ltd. 

Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S. L., Ormrod, R., & Turner, H. (2005). The Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire: 

Reliability, validity, and national norms. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 383-412. 

doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.11.001

Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S., Turner, H., & Omrod, R. (2011). Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire, 2nd

revision (JVQ-R2). Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center.

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). Measuring poly-victimization using the 

Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1297-1312. 

doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.06.005

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
55 | P a g e

Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. (2013, January). Improving the Adverse Childhood 

Experiences Study scale. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(1), 70-75. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.420

Ford, J. D., & Blaustein, M. E. (2013). Systemic self-regulation: A framework for trauma-informed 

services in residential juvenile justice programs. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 665-677. 

doi:10.1007/s10896-013-9538-5

Haight, W. L., Bidwell, L. N., Marshall, J., & Khatiwoda, P. (2014). Implementing the Crossover Youth 

Practice Model in diverse contexts: Child welfare and juvenile justice professionals' experiences of 

multisystem collaborations. Children and Youth Services Review, 39, 91-100. 

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.02.001

Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., & Turner, H. (2005, June). The Juvenile Victimization 

Questionnaire (JVQ): Administration and scoring manual. Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children 

Research Center.

Hamby, S., Finkehor, D., Turner, H., & Kracke, K. (2011). The Juvenile Victimization Toolkit.

Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., & Sedlak, A. J. (2002). Runaway/thrownaway children: National estimates 

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

Henry, K. L., Knight, K. E., Thornberry, T. P. (2015). School Disengagement as a Predictor of Dropout, 

Delinquency, and Problem Substance Use during Adolescence and Early Adulthood. Journal of Youth 

and Adolescence, 41(2), 156-166. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10964-011-9665-3

Herz, D. C., Ryan, J. P., & Bilchik, S. (2010). Challenges facing crossover youth: An examination of 

juvenile-justice decision making and recidivism. Family Court Review, 48(2), 305-321.

Himmelstein, K. E. W., & Bruckner, H. (2011). Criminal-justice and school sanctions against 

nonheterosexual youth: A national longitudinal study. Pediatrics, 127(1), 49-57. 

doi:10.1542/peds.2009-2306

Holloway, E. D., Cruise, K. R., Morin, S. L., Kaufman, H., & Steele, R. D. (in press). Juvenile probation 

officers’ evaluation of traumatic event exposures and traumatic stress symptoms as responsivity 

factors in risk assessment and case planning. American Psychological Association. 

doi:10.1037.lhb0000283

Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). Glossary of terms. Retrieved from 

http://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms. 

Hurley Swayze, D., & Buskovick, D. Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Justice Programs. 

(2015). Youth in Minnesota correctional facilities and adverse childhood experiences: Responses to the 

2013 Minnesota Student Survey. St. Paul, MN. 

Irvine, A. (2010). “We’ve had three of them”: Addressing the invisibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual and 

gender non-conforming youths in the juvenile justice system. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 

19(3), 675-701. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
56 | P a g e

Irvine, A., & Canfield, A. (2016). The overrepresentation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning, gender 

non-conforming and transgender youth within the child welfare to juvenile justice crossover 

population. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 24(2), 243-261. 

James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 

U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.

Kittilstad, Eleanor, Tolman, Arielle, & Bright, Lizzie. (2018). Illinois’ Incarcerated Girls and LGBTQ Youth. 

Children and Family Justice Center, Community Safety & the Future of Illinois' Youth Prison, Vol. 4.

Ko, S. J., Ford, J. D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S. J., Wilson, C., & Wong, M. (2008). Creating 

trauma-informed systems: Child welfare, education, first responders, health care, juvenile justice. 

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(4), 396-404. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.39.4.396

Letich, L. (2017). Action steps using ACEs and trauma-informed care: A resilience model. Health and 

Justice, 5(5), 1-10. doi:10.1186/s40352-017-0050-5

Logan-Greene, P., Kim, B., & Nurius, P. S. (2016). Childhood adversity among court-involved youth: 

Heterogeneous needs for prevention and treatment. OJJDP Journal of Juvenile Justice, 5(2), 68-84.

Maschi, T., & Schwalbe, C. S. (2012). Unraveling probation officers’ practices with youth with histories 

of trauma and stressful life events. Social Work Research, 36(1), 21-30. doi:10.1093/swr/svs007

McCoy, H., Leverso, J., & Bowen, E. A. (2016). What the MAYSI-2 can tell us about anger-irritability and 

trauma. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(5), 555-574. 

doi:10.1177/0306624X14555855

McIntyre, J. K., & Widom, C. S. (2011). Childhood victimization and crime victimization. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 26(4), 640-663. doi:10.1177/0886260510365868

Metzler, M., Merrick, M. T., Klevens, J., Ports, K. A., & Ford, D. C. (2017). Adverse childhood experiences 

and life opportunities: Shifting the narrative. Children and Youth Services Youth, 72, 141-149. 

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.10.021

Minnesota Department of Public Safety. (2016). Uniform Crime Report. Retrieved from 

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/mnjis/Documents/2016-Minnesota-Uniform-CrimeReport.pdf. 

Montgomery, K. L., Thompson, S. J. & Barczyk, A. N. (2011). Individual and relationship factors 

associated with delinquency among throwaway adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 

1127-1133. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.02.005

Mountz, S. E. (2016). That’s the sound of the police: State-sanctioned violence and resistance among 

LGBT young people previously incarcerated in girls’ juvenile justice facilities. Journal of Women and 

Social Work, 31(3), 287-302. doi:10.1177/0886109916641161

Murphy J., & Hardaway, R. (2017). LGBTQ adolescents of color: Considerations for working with youth 

and their families. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 21(3), 221-227. 

doi:10.1080/19359705.2017.1320741

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
57 | P a g e

National Center for Transgender Equality. (2016a). Frequently asked questions about transgender 

people. Retrieved from https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-peoplefaq. 

National Center for Transgender Equality. (2016b). Understanding transgender people: The basics. 

Retrieved from https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-people-thebasics. 

Olafson, E., Halladay Goldman, J., & Gonzalez, C. (2017). Trauma-informed collaborations among 

juvenile justice and other child-serving systems: An update. OJJDP Journal of Juvenile Justice, 1-13.

Ream, G. L., & Forge, N. R. (2014). Homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth in 

New York City: Insights from the field. Child Welfare, 93(2), 7-22. 

Saewyc, E.M, Skay, C.L., Pettingell, S.L, Reis, E.A., Bearinger, L., Resnick, M., Murphy A., & Combs, L. 

(2006). Hazards of Stigma: The Sexual and Physical Abuse of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Adolescents in 

the United States and Canada. Child Welfare, 85(2). Retrieved from http://seawayvalleychc.ca/wpcontent/uploads/sites/19/2018/03/Hazards-of-Stigma.pdf. 

Smith, C.A., and Thornberry, T.P. (1995). The relationship between child maltreatment and 

adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology, 33(4), 451-481. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-

9125.1995.tb01186.x

Snyder, S. M., & Smith, R. E. (2015, October). The influence of school engagement on counts of 

delinquent behaviors among maltreated youths. Children & Schools, 37(4), 199-206. 

doi:10.1093/cs/cdv015

Steinberg, A. M., Pynoos, R. S., Briggs, E. C., Gerrity, E. T., Layne, C. M., Vivrette, R. L., & Fairbank, J. A. 

(2014). The National Child Traumatic Stress Network core data set: Emerging findings, future directions, 

and implications for theory, research, practice, and policy. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, 

Practice, and Policy, 6(S1), S50-S57. doi:10.1037/a0037798

Tam, C. C., Abrams, L. S., Freisthler, B., & Ryan, J. P. (2016). Juvenile justice sentencing: Do gender and 

child welfare involvement matter? Children and Youth Services Youth, 64, 60-65. 

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.02.028

Tsai, J., Edens, E. L., & Rosenheck, R. A. (2011, August). A typology of childhood problems among 

chronically homeless adults and its association with housing and clinical outcomes. Journal of Health 

Care for the Poor and Underserved, 22(3), 853-870. doi:10.1353/hpu.2011.0081

Vidal, S., Prince, D., Connell, C. M., Caron, C. M., Kaufman, J. S., & Tebes, J. K. (2017). Maltreatment, 

family environment, and social risk factors: Determinants of the child welfare to juvenile justice 

transition among maltreated children and adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 63, 7-18. 

doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.11.013

Wilber, S. (2015). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in the juvenile justice system: A guide to 

juvenile detention reform. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Wilber, S., Reyes, C., & Marksamer, J. (2006). The Model Standards Project: Creating inclusive systems 

for LGBT youth in out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 85(2), 133-149.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
58 | P a g e

Wilder Research. (2016, September). 2015 homeless youth – Minnesota statewide survey data. 

Retrieved from http://mnhomeless.org/minnesota-homeless-study/detailed-datainterviews/2015/StatewideMNyouth2015age_Tables1-20.pdf.

Wilson, B. D. M., Jordan, S.P., Meyer, I. H., Flores, A. R., Stemple, L. & Herman, J.L. (2017). 

Disproportionality and disparities among sexual minority youth in custody. Journal of Youth 

Adolescence, 46, 1547-1561. doi:10.1007/s10964-017-0632-5

Wolff, K. T., Baglivio, M. T., & Piquero, A. R. (2017). The relationship between adverse childhood 

experiences and recidivism in a sample of juvenile offenders in community-based treatment. 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(11), 1210-1242. 

doi:10.1177/0306624X15613992

Woods, J. B. (2017). LGBT identity and crime. California Law Review, 105, 667-734. 

doi:10.15779/Z389W08Z24

Yoder, J., Bender, K., Thompson, S. J., Ferguson, K. M., & Haffejee, B. (2014). Explaining homeless 

youths' criminal justice interactions: Childhood trauma or surviving life on the streets? Community of 

Mental Health Journal, 50, 135-144. doi:10.1007/s10597-013-9690-7

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
59 | P a g e

Appendix A. Juvenile Client Questionnaire 

1. How old are you?

__________years

A2. What is your race or ethnicity? Circle all that 

apply. 

White African American Latino/Hispanic Native American 

Asian Other (explain)_____________________________

A3. What sex were you assigned at birth? male female intersex

A4. Which best describes your current gender 

identity? Circle all that apply. male female non-binary or no gender transgender

A5. Have you ever been kicked out of your home or 

run away because you are not masculine (manly) or 

feminine (girly) enough? 

yes no not sure

A6. Have you ever been bullied or harassed at school 

because people didn’t think you are masculine 

(manly) or feminine (girly) enough? 

yes no not sure

A7. Which best describes your sexual or romantic 

orientation? Circle all that apply.

straight lesbian or gay bisexual questioning/unsure queer 

asexual

If you identify as lesbian/gay, bisexual, questioning/unsure, queer or asexual, please answer 7a-C1 (entire survey). 

If you identify as straight, move on to question B1. 

7a. Have you ever been kicked out of your 

home or run away because of your sexual 

orientation? 

yes no not sure

7b. Have you ever been bullied or harassed at 

school because of your sexual orientation? yes no not sure

7c. Do your parents or guardians know your 

sexual orientation? 

yes, they’re supportive yes, but they’re not supportive 

no, they don’t know unsure

B1. Where do you live right now? Circle all that 

apply. 

Parent(s) Grandparent(s) Boyfriend/Girlfriend’s Friend’s place 

Shelter Group Home Foster Home My own place Hotel On the 

street Other: (explain)_____________________________________

B2. Have you been suspended from school? If no, 

circle “0.” If yes, how many times? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+

B3. Have you been expelled from school? If no, 

circle “0.” If yes, how many times?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+

B4. Have you ever been removed from your home 

by a social worker or police for your own safety?

yes no not sure

B5. Were you ever placed in a group home or foster 

home because someone was hurting you at home?

yes no not sure

B6. Were you ever placed in a group home or foster 

home because you got in trouble (including the 

County Home School)?

yes no not sure

B7. Have you ever been homeless after being kicked 

out of home or running away?

yes no not sure

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
60 | P a g e

C1. Do you have a trusted adult (22 years or older) in 

your life right now?

yes no not sure

Appendix B. JVQ-R2, Abbreviated Interview Version, Youth Lifetime 

Form

Now we are going to ask you about some things that might have happened in your life.

Module A: CONVENTIONAL CRIME

Notes to interviewer: a) Do not read Module labels (“Conventional Crime” etc). These are for your info 

only.

b) If it’s apparent there was more than one incident, say, “Answer the next questions about the last 

time this happened.”

c) Try to complete follow-ups from open-ended response to questions. Read response categories only if 

youth needs help.

d) For multiple perpetrators, collect information for up to 5 perpetrators.

C1) At any time in your life, did anyone use force to take something away from you that you 

were carrying or wearing? 

1 YES Go to C1a

2 NO Go to C2

C1a) Did this happen in the last year? 

1 Yes

2 No

C1b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition] “Hurt means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.”

1 Yes

2 No

C1c) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
61 | P a g e

C1d) Was this person a man, woman, boy, or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

C2) At any time in your life, did anyone steal something from you and never give it back? Things 

like a backpack, money, watch, clothing, bike, stereo, or anything else?

1 YES Go to C1a

2 NO Go to C3

C2a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

C2b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition] “Hurt means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.”

1 Yes

2 No

C2c) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

C2d) Was this person a man, woman, boy, or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

C3) At any time in your life, did anyone break or ruin any of your things on purpose?

1 YES Go to C3a

2 NO Go to C4

C3a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
62 | P a g e

C3b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

C3c) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

C3d) Was this person a man, woman, boy, or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

C4) Sometimes people are attacked with sticks, rocks, guns, knives, or other things that would 

hurt. At any time in your life, did anyone hit or attack you on purpose with an object or 

weapon? Somewhere like: at home, at school, at a store, in a car, on the street, or anywhere 

else?

1 YES Go to C4a

2 NO Go to C5

C4a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

C4b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day, you had a bruise, 

you had a cut that bled, or anything more serious like a broken bone. 

1 Yes

2 No

C4c) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
63 | P a g e

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

C4d) Was this person a man, woman, boy, or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

C4e) Did the person who did this use any of these? 

1 Gun

2 Knife

3 Stick, rock, bottle, pipe, or tool such as a hammer or wrench

4 Other (Specify _____________________)

5 No weapon used

C5) At any time in your life, did anyone hit or attack you without using an object or weapon? 

1 YES Go to C5a

2 NO Go to C6

C5a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No 

C5b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No 

C5c) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

C5d) Was this person a man, woman, boy, or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
64 | P a g e

C6) At any time in your life, did someone start to attack you, but for some reason, it didn’t 

happen? For example, someone helped you or you got away?

1 YES Go to C6a

2 NO Go to C7

C6a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

C6b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

C6c) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

C6d) Was this person a man, woman, boy, or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

C7) At any time in your life, did someone threaten to hurt you when you thought they might 

really do it?

1 YES Go to C7a

2 NO Go to C8

C7a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

C7b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
65 | P a g e

C7c) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

C7d) Was this person a man, woman, boy, or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

C8) When a person is kidnapped, it means they were made to go somewhere, like into a car, by 

someone who they thought might hurt them. At any time in your life, did anyone try to 

kidnap you?

1 YES Go to C8a

2 NO Go to C9

C8a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

C8b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain the next day, you had a bruise, a cut that 

bled, or anything more serious like a broken bone. 

1 Yes

2 No

C8c) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

C8d) Was this person a man, woman, boy or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
66 | P a g e

C8e) Were you actually kidnapped or did you get away before it happened?

1 Kidnapped

2 Got away (Note to interviewer: This includes with any help)

C9) At any time in your life, have you been hit or attacked because of your skin color, religion, or 

where your family comes from? Because of a physical problem you have? Or because 

someone said you were gay? 

1 YES Go to C9a

2 NO Go to Module B, M1

C9a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

C9b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain the next day, you had a bruise, a cut that 

bled, or anything more serious like a broken bone. 

1 Yes

2 No

C9c) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

C9d) Was this person a man, woman, boy or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

C9e) What was the reason? Was it because of:

1 Your skin color

2 Your religion

3 Where your family comes from

4 Because of some physical problem you have

5 Because someone said you were gay

Module B: CHILD MALTREATMENT

Next, we are going to ask about grown-ups who take care of you. This means parents, babysitters, 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
67 | P a g e

adults who live with you, or others who watch you. Before we begin, I want to remind you that 

your answers will be kept totally private. If there is a particular question that you don't want to 

answer, that's O.K. But it is important that you be as honest as you can, so that the researchers 

can get a better idea of the kinds of things that kids your age sometimes face. 

M1) Not including spanking on your bottom, at any time in your life, did a grown-up in your life 

hit, beat, kick, or physically hurt you in any way?

1 YES Go to M1a

2 NO Go to M2

M1a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

M1b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

M1c) Who did this?

1 Father

2 Step-father

3 Foster father

4 Mother

5 Step-mother

6 Foster mother

7 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who lives with you

8 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who does not live with you

9 Uncle, aunt, grandparent, or other adult relative who lives in your home

10 Grown-up relative, such as uncle, aunt, grandparent, who does not live with you

11 Grown-up you know but do not live with, such as teacher, coach, neighbor, or 

babysitter

12 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if none in caregiving role)

M1d) Was this person a man, or a woman? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

M1e) Did the person who did this use any of these? 

1 Gun

2 Knife

3 Stick, rock, bottle, pipe, or tool such as a hammer or wrench

4 Other (Specify _____________________)

5 No weapon used

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
68 | P a g e

M2) At any time in your life, did you get scared or feel really bad because grown-ups in your life 

called you names, said mean things to you, or said they didn’t want you?

1 YES Go to M2a

2 NO Go to M3

M2a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

M2b) Who did this?

1 Father

2 Step-father

3 Foster father

4 Mother

5 Step-mother

6 Foster mother

7 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who lives with you

8 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who does not live with you

9 Uncle, aunt, grandparent, or other adult relative who lives in your home

10 Grown-up relative, such as uncle, aunt, grandparent, who does not live with you

11 Grown-up you know but do not live with, such as teacher, coach, neighbor, or 

babysitter

12 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if none in caregiving role)

M2c) Was this person a man, or a woman? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

M3) When someone is neglected, it means that the grown-ups in their life didn’t take care of 

them the way they should. They might not get them enough food, take them to the doctor 

when they are sick, or make sure they have a safe place to stay. At any time in your life, did 

you get neglected? 

1 YES Go to M3a

2 NO Go to M4

M3a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

M3b) Who did this?

1 Father

2 Step-father

3 Foster father

4 Mother

5 Step-mother

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
69 | P a g e

6 Foster mother

7 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who lives with you

8 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who does not live with you

9 Uncle, aunt, grandparent, or other adult relative who lives in your home

10 Grown-up relative, such as uncle, aunt, grandparent, who does not live with you

11 Grown-up you know but do not live with, such as teacher, coach, neighbor, or 

babysitter

12 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if none in caregiving role)

M3c) Was this person a man, or a woman? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

M3d) Did you get sick when this happened?

1 Yes

2 No 

M4) Sometimes a family fights over where a child should live. At any time in your life, did a 

parent take, keep, or hide you to stop you from being with another parent? 

1 YES Go to M4a

2 NO Go to Module C, P1

M4a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

M4b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

M4c) Who did this?

1 Father

2 Step-father

3 Foster father

4 Mother

5 Step-mother

6 Foster mother

7 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who lives with you

8 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who does not live with you

9 Uncle, aunt, grandparent, or other adult relative who lives in your home

10 Grown-up relative, such as uncle, aunt, grandparent, who does not live with you

11 Grown-up you know but do not live with, such as teacher, coach, neighbor, or 

babysitter

12 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if none in caregiving role)

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
70 | P a g e

M4d) Was this person a man, or a woman? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

M4e) Did this person take, keep or hide you to try to keep you from ever living with this other parent? 

1 Yes

2 No

Module C: PEER AND SIBLING VICTIMIZATIONS

Notes to interviewer: 

a) If it’s apparent there was more than one incident, say, “Answer the next questions about the last 

time this happened.”]

b) Try to complete follow-ups from open-ended response to questions. Read response categories only if 

youth needs help.

P1) Sometimes groups of kids or gangs attack people. At any time in your life, did a group of kids 

or a gang hit, jump, or attack you?

1 YES Go to P1a

2 NO Go to P2

P1a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

P1b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

P1c) Did the people who did this use any of these? 

1 Gun

2 Knife

3 Stick, rock, bottle, pipe, or tool such as a hammer or wrench

4 Other (Specify _____________________)

5 No weapon used

P2) (If Yes to P1, say: “Other than what you just told me about.....”) At any time in your life, did 

any kid, even a brother or sister, hit you? Somewhere like: at home, at school, out playing, 

in a store, or anywhere else? 

1 YES Go to P2a

2 NO Go to P3

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
71 | P a g e

P2a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

P2b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

P2c) Who did this?

1 Brother (including step-brother and foster brother)

2 Sister (including step-sister and foster sister)

3 Other child who lives with you (such as cousin)

4 Relative under 18 years old who does not live with you (such as cousin, young uncle)

5 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

6 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, or someone from school (under 18)

7 Stranger under 18 years old (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

8 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if not juvenile)

P2d) Was this person a boy or a girl? 

1 Boy

2 Girl

P2e) Did the person who did this use any of these? 

1 Gun

2 Knife

3 Stick, rock, bottle, pipe, or tool such as a hammer or wrench

4 Other (Specify _____________________)

5 No weapon used

P3) At any time in your life, did any kids try to hurt your private parts on purpose by hitting or 

kicking you there?

1 YES Go to P3a

2 NO Go to P4

P3a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

P3b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

P3c) Who did this?

1 Brother (including step-brother and foster brother)

2 Sister (including step-sister and foster sister)

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
72 | P a g e

3 Other child who lives with you (such as cousin)

4 Relative under 18 years old who does not live with you (such as cousin, young uncle)

5 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

6 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, or someone from school (under 18)

7 Stranger under 18 years old (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

8 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if not juvenile)

P3d) Was this person a boy or a girl? 

1 Boy

2 Girl

P3e) Did the person who did this use any of these? 

1 Gun

2 Knife

3 Stick, rock, bottle, pipe, or tool such as a hammer or wrench

4 Other (Specify _____________________)

5 No weapon used

P4) At any time in your life, did any kids, even a brother or sister, pick on you by chasing you or 

grabbing you or by making you do something you didn’t want to do? 

1 YES Go to P4a

2 NO Go to P5

P4a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

P4b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

P4c) Who did this?

1 Brother (including step-brother and foster brother)

2 Sister (including step-sister and foster sister)

3 Other child who lives with you (such as cousin)

4 Relative under 18 years old who does not live with you (such as cousin, young uncle)

5 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

6 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, or someone from school (under 18)

7 Stranger under 18 years old (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

8 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if not juvenile)

P4d) Was this person a boy or a girl?

1 Boy

2 Girl

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
73 | P a g e

P5) At any time in your life, did you get scared or feel really bad because kids were calling you 

names, saying mean things to you, or saying they didn’t want you around?

1 YES Go to P5a

2 NO Go to P6

P5a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

P5b) Who did this?

1 Brother (including step-brother and foster brother)

2 Sister (including step-sister and foster sister)

3 Other child who lives with you (such as cousin)

4 Relative under 18 years old who does not live with you (such as cousin, young uncle)

5 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

6 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, or someone from school (under 18)

7 Stranger under 18 years old (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

8 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if not juvenile)

P5c) Was this person a boy or a girl?

1 Boy

2 Girl

Note: P6 is only asked for youth aged 12 and over.

P6) At any time in your life did a boyfriend or girlfriend or anyone you went on a date with slap 

or hit you?

1 YES Go to P6a

2 NO Go to Module D, S1

P6a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

P6b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

P6c) Who did this?

1 Brother (including step-brother and foster brother)

2 Sister (including step-sister and foster sister)

3 Other child who lives with you (such as cousin)

4 Relative under 18 years old who does not live with you (such as cousin, young uncle)

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
74 | P a g e

5 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

6 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, or someone from school (under 18)

7 Stranger under 18 years old (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

8 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if not dating incident)

P6d) Was this person a boy or a girl? 

1 Boy

2 Girl

P6e) Did the person who did this use any of these? 

1 Gun

2 Knife

3 Stick, rock, bottle, pipe, or tool such as a hammer or wrench

4 Other (Specify _____________________)

5 No weapon used

Module D: SEXUAL VICTIMIZATIONS

Notes to interviewer: 

a) If it’s apparent there was more than one incident, say, “Answer the next questions about the last 

time this happened.”

b) Try to complete follow-ups from open-ended response to questions. Read response categories only if 

youth needs help.

c) For multiple perpetrators, collect information for up to 5 perpetrators. 

S1) At any time in your life, did a grown-up you know touch your private parts when they 

shouldn’t have or make you touch their private parts? Or did a grown-up you know force you 

to have sex?

1 YES Go to S1a

2 NO Go to S2

S1a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

S1b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

S1c) Who did this?

1 Father

2 Step-father

3 Foster father

4 Mother

5 Step-mother

6 Foster mother

7 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who lives with you

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
75 | P a g e

8 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who does not live with you

9 Uncle, aunt, grandparent, or other adult relative who lives in your home

10 Grown-up relative, such as uncle, aunt, grandparent, who does not live with you

11 Grown-up you know but do not live with, such as teacher, coach, neighbor, or 

babysitter

12 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if not known adult)

S1d) Was this person a man, or a woman?

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

S1e) Did this person (persons) put any part of their body inside you?

1 Yes

2 No 

S2) At any time in your life, did a grown-up you did not know touch your private parts when they 

shouldn’t have, make you touch their private parts or force you to have sex? 

1 YES Go to S2a

2 NO Go to S3

S2a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

S2b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

S2c) Was this person a man or a woman? 

1 Man

2 Woman

S2d) Did this person (persons) put any part of their body inside you?

1 Yes

2 No

S3) Now think about kids your age, like from school, a boy friend or girl friend, or even a brother 

or sister. At any time in your life, did another child or teen make you do sexual things?

1 YES Go to S3a

2 NO Go to S4

S3a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
76 | P a g e

S3b) Were you physically hurt by what happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

S3c) Who did this?

1 Brother (including step-brother and foster brother)

2 Sister (including step-sister and foster sister)

3 Other child who lives with you (such as cousin)

4 Relative under 18 years old who does not live with you (such as cousin, young uncle)

5 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

6 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, or someone from school (under 18)

7 Stranger under 18 years old (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

8 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if not juvenile)

S3d) Was this person a boy or a girl?

1 Boy

2 Girl

S3e) Did this person (persons) put any part of their body inside you?

1 Yes

2 No 

S4) At any time in your life, did anyone try to force you to have sex, that is sexual intercourse of 

any kind, even if it didn’t happen?

1 YES Go to S4a

2 NO Go to S5

S4a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

S4b) Were you physically hurt by what happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

S4c) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
77 | P a g e

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

S4d) Was this person a man, woman, boy or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

S4e) Did this person (persons) put any part of their body inside you? 

1 Yes

2 No

S4f) When this happened, did someone actually use physical force by pushing, grabbing, hitting, or 

threatening you with a weapon? 

1 Yes

2 No

S5) At any time in your life, did anyone make you look at their private parts by using force or 

surprise, or by “flashing” you? 

1 YES Go to S5a

2 NO Go to S6

S5a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

S5b) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

S5c) Was this person a man, woman, boy or girl?

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
78 | P a g e

S6) At any time in your life, did anyone hurt your feelings by saying or writing something sexual 

about you or your body? 

1 YES Go to S6a

2 NO Go to S7

S6a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

S6b) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

S6c) Was this person a man, woman, boy or girl?

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

Note: S7 is only asked for youth aged 12 and over.

S7) At any time in your life, did you do sexual things with anyone 18 or older, even things you 

both wanted?

1 YES Go to S7a

2 NO Go to Module E, W1

S7a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

S7b) Were you physically hurt by what happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain in your body the next day. You are also hurt 

when you have a bruise, a cut that bleeds, or a broken bone.

1 Yes

2 No

S7c) Who did this?

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
79 | P a g e

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

S7d) Was this person a man or a woman?

1 Man

2 Woman

S7e) Did this person (persons) put any part of their body inside you? 

1 Yes

2 No

Module E: WITNESSING AND INDIRECT VICTIMIZATIONS

Notes to interviewer: 

a) If more than one incident, say, “Answer the next questions about the last time this happened.”

b) Try to complete follow-ups from open-ended response to questions. Read response categories only if 

youth needs help.

W1) At any time in your life, did you SEE a parent get pushed, slapped, hit, punched, or beat up by 

another parent, or their boyfriend or girlfriend?

1 YES Go to W1a

2 NO Go to W2

W1a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

W1b) Who did this? [Be sure to get relationship of youth to perpetrator, not perpetrator to victim.]

1 Father

2 Step-father

3 Foster father

4 Mother

5 Step-mother

6 Foster mother

7 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who lives with you

8 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who does not live with you

9 Uncle, aunt, grandparent, or other adult relative who lives in your home

10 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if not in parental role)

W1c) Was this person a man or a woman?

1 Man

2 Woman

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
80 | P a g e

W1d) Who did this happen to? [Be sure to get relationship of youth to victim, not perpetrator to victim.]

1 Father

2 Step-father

3 Foster father

4 Mother

5 Step-mother

6 Foster mother

7 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who lives with you

8 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who does not live with you

9 Uncle, aunt, grandparent, or other adult relative who lives in your home

10 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if not in parental role)

W1e) Was this person a man or a woman? 

1 Man

2 Woman

W2) At any time in your life, did you SEE a parent hit, beat, kick, or physically hurt your brothers 

or sisters, not including a spanking on the bottom? 

1 YES Go to W2a

2 NO Go to W3

W2a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

W2b) Who did this? [Be sure to get relationship of youth to perpetrator, not perpetrator to victim.]

1 Father

2 Step-father

3 Foster father

4 Mother

5 Step-mother

6 Foster mother

7 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who lives with you

8 Parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend who does not live with you

9 Uncle, aunt, grandparent, or other adult relative who lives in your home

10 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if not in parental role)

W2c) Was this person a man or a woman? 

1 Man

2 Woman

W2d) Who did this happen to? [Be sure to get relationship of youth to victim, not perpetrator to 

victim.]

1 Brother (including step-brother and foster brother)

2 Sister (including step-sister and foster sister)

3 Other child who lives with you (such as cousin)

4 Relative under 18 years old who does not live with you (such as cousin, young uncle)

5 Other ___________ (write in who it was, recode if not co-resident child)

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
81 | P a g e

W2e) Was this person a boy or a girl? 

3 Boy

4 Girl

W3) At any time in your life, in real life, did you SEE anyone get attacked on purpose WITH a stick, 

rock, gun, knife, or other thing that would hurt? Somewhere like: at home, at school, at a 

store, in a car, on the street, or anywhere else? 

1 YES Go to W3a

2 NO Go to W4

W3a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

W3b) Who did this? [Be sure to get relationship of child to perpetrator, not perpetrator to victim.]

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

W3c) Was this person a man, woman, boy or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

W3d) Who did this happen to? [Be sure to get relationship of child to victim, not perpetrator to victim.]

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

W3e) Was this person a man, woman, boy, or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
82 | P a g e

W4) At any time in your life, in real life, did you SEE anyone get attacked or hit on purpose 

WITHOUT using a stick, rock, gun, knife, or something that would hurt? 

1 YES Go to W4a

2 NO Go to W5

W4a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

W4b) Who did this? [Be sure to get relationship of youth to perpetrator, not perpetrator to victim.]

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

W4c) Was this person a man, woman, boy or girl?

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

W4d) Who did this happen to? [Be sure to get relationship of youth to victim, not perpetrator to 

victim.]

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

W4e) Was this person a man, woman, boy or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

W5) At any time in your life, did anyone steal some thing from your house that belongs to your 

family or someone you live with? Things like a TV, stereo, car, or anything else?

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
83 | P a g e

1 YES Go to W5a

2 NO Go to W6

W5a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

W5b) Who did this? [Be sure to get relationship of youth to perpetrator, not perpetrator to victim.]

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

W5c) Was this person a man, woman, boy or girl?

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

W5d) Who did this happen to? Whose things were stolen? [Be sure to get relationship of youth to 

victim, not perpetrator to victim.]

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

W5e) Was this person a man, woman, boy, or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

W6) When a person is murdered, it means someone killed them on purpose. At any time in your 

life, was anyone close to you murdered, like a friend, neighbor or someone in your family? 

1 YES Go to W6a

2 NO Go to W8 (W7 is omitted)

W6a) Did this happen in the last year?

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
84 | P a g e

1 Yes

2 No

W6b) Who did this? [Be sure to get relationship of youth to perpetrator, not perpetrator to victim.]

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

W6c) Was this person a man, woman, boy or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

W6d) Who did this happen to? Who was killed? [Be sure to get relationship of youth to victim, not 

perpetrator to victim.]

1 Brother, sister, or other child who lives with you (cousin, foster sibling, etc.)

2 Father (including step-father, foster father, or live-in boyfriend)

3 Mother (including step-mother, foster mother, or live-in girlfriend)

4 A relative who lives in your home (uncle, grandparent, etc.)

5 A relative who does not live with you 

6 Your boyfriend, girlfriend, date, or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend

7 Someone else you know such as a friend, neighbor, teacher, or someone from school 

8 Stranger (a stranger is someone you don’t know)

9 Other ___________ (write in who it was)

W6e) Was this person a man, woman, boy, or girl? 

1 Man

2 Woman

3 Boy

4 Girl

W8) At any time in your life, were you in any place in real life where you could see or hear people 

being shot, bombs going off, or street riots?

1 YES Go to W8a

2 NO Go to W9

W8a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
85 | P a g e

W8b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain the next day, you had a bruise, a cut that 

bled, or anything more serious like a broken bone. 

1 Yes

2 No

W9) At any time in your life, were you in the middle of a war where you could hear real fighting 

with guns or bombs?

1 YES 

2 NO 

W9a) Did this happen in the last year?

1 Yes

2 No

W9b) Were you physically hurt when this happened? [If this is first time injury question is asked, read 

definition:] “Hurt” means you could still feel pain the next day, you had a bruise, a cut that 

bled, or anything more serious like a broken bone. 

1 Yes

2 No

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
86 | P a g e

Appendix C. Factor Analysis Tables 

Table A. Rotated Component Matrix

Survey Item FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 FACTOR 6

Assess3 .897

Assess5 .856

Assess4 .848

Assess1 .834

Assess2 .791

Assess9 .671

Assess8 .668

Assess10 .625

Assess6 .621

Assess7 .588

Supp1 .841

Supp2 .815

Supp3 .814

Supp0 .772

Supp4 .724

Supp7 .646

Supp5 .638

Supp8 .575

Safe6 .713

Safe5 .694

Safe2 .660

Safe7 .610

Safe11 .602

Assess14 .787

Assess15 .776

Assess21 .746

Assess13 .578

Assess20 .820

Assess17 .735

Assess18 .647

Assess19 .645

Safe17 .822

Safe16 .745

Safe4 .695

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
87 | P a g e

Factor 1: Assessments and Case Planning

Survey Item Statement

Assess3 Client assessments include family and community supports.

Assess5 Client assessments include history of mental health and substance abuse issues.

Assess4 Client assessments include history of trauma (i.e., physical, emotional or sex abuse, 

neglect, loss, domestic/community violence, combat, past homelessness).

Assess1 Client assessments include personal strengths.

Assess2 Client assessments include cultural background.

Assess9 Staff in my division seek clients’ collaboration in setting their own goals.

Assess8 Staff in my division observe clients on how they are doing and responds 

appropriately throughout the assessment process.

Assess10 Staff in my division develop a plan t address any future needs before discharge.

Assess6 Staff in my division inform clients about why questions are being asked.

Assess7 Staff in my division inform clients about what will be shared with others and why.

Factor 2: Trauma Training for Staff

Survey Item Statement

Supp1 My division offers training on the following topics: How to help clients identify 

triggers (i.e., reminders of dangerous or frightening things that have happened in the 

past).

Supp2 My division offers training on the following topics: How to help clients minimize retraumatization using coping mechanisms, de-escalation strategies, or similar 

techniques (i.e., ways to help clients calm down before reaching the point of crisis).

Supp3 My division offers training on the following topics: Vicarious or secondary trauma 

and ways of minimizing its effects, including self-care, resiliency and/or 

personal/professional boundaries.

Supp0 My division offers training on the following topics: What traumatic stress is.

Supp4 My division offers training on the following topics: Cultural competency, including 

different cultural responses to trauma.

Supp7 My division addresses topics related to trauma at division or team meetings.

Supp5 My division brings in outside experts with expertise in trauma to provide ongoing 

education and consultation.

Supp8 My division addresses topics related to self-care at division or team meetings (i.e., 

vicarious trauma, burn-out, and stress reducing strategies).

Factor 3: Client’s Rights and Safety

Survey Item Statement

Safe6 Staff are expected to review rules, rights, and grievance procedures with clients.

Safe5 Staff in my division ask clients for their definitions of emotional safety.

Safe2 Staff in my division ask clients for their definitions of physical safety.

Safe7 Client’s rights are posted in places that are visible.

Safe11 Staff are expected to inform clients about the extent and limits of privacy and 

confidentiality (i.e., kinds of records kept, who has access, obligations to report).

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
88 | P a g e

Factor 4: Client Informed Policies

Survey Item Statement

Assess14 My division provides recruits former clients to serve in an advisory capacity.

Assess15 Mu division invites former clients to share their thoughts, ideas, and experiences 

with the department.

Assess21 My division involves clients in its review of policies.

Assess13 My division provides opportunities for clients to offer their input and suggestions for 

improvement.

Factor 5: Staff Informed Policies

Survey Item Statement

Assess20 My division involves staff in its review of policies.

Assess17 My division helps staff members debrief after a crisis.

Assess18 My division provides opportunities for staff input into program policies.

Assess19 My division reviews its policies on a regular basis.

Factor 6: Honoring Client Diversity

Survey Item Statement

Safe17 Staff use language that is appropriate and respectful to clients of different cultures, 

religions, sexual orientations, and gender identities.

Safe16 Staff in my division practice motivation interviewing techniques with clients (i.e., 

open-ended questions, affirmations, and reflective listening).

Safe4 Physical spaces are welcoming to clients of all backgrounds (i.e., culture, religion, 

sexual orientation, gender identity, disabilities, etc.)

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
89 | P a g e

Eliminated Survey Items

Survey Item Statement

Assess11 Staff in my division are expected to educated clients about traumatic stress and 

triggers.

Assess12 Staff in my division have access to a clinician with expertise in trauma and traumarelated interventions (on-staff or available for regular consultation).

Assess16 My division’s written policies are established based on an understanding of the 

impact of trauma on clients and corrections staff.

Safe1 My work location monitors who is coming in and out of the building.

Safe3 The space around my work location is safe (i.e., parking lot and sidewalks well lit, 

directions to the building or program are clear).

Safe8 Materials are posted about traumatic stress.

Safe9 Information for clients is available in different languages.

Safe10 Staff and clients are allowed to speak their native languages.

Safe12 My co-workers and other professionals in my division talk about clients in common 

spaces.

Safe13 There are private spaces for staff and clients to discuss issues.

Safe14 Clients have a written crisis prevention plan, which includes a list of triggers and

strategies.

Safe15 Staff in my division are able to support clients experiencing intense emotions.

Supp6 My division holds regular division or team meetings.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
90 | P a g e

Appendix D. Unforeseen Circumstances Protocols 

County Home School (CHS)

What presents: Who: Initial response: 2

nd response 

option(s):

Notes / 

Policies:

Any negative effect of the grant 

work

RA or 

CHS 

Staff

Research Assistant or CHS staff will 

notify the Project Manager and 

provide the youth’s name, location, 

and details of the incident/behavior

Follow other protocols 

as described herein. 

Research Assistant believes a 

youth would be well served by 

seeing a Mental Health 

Practitioner

RA Research Assistant completes a Mental 

Health Referral form, places it in an 

envelope and delivers it to the Medical 

Unit.

Research Assistant notes issues 

about a youth’s demeanor, affect 

or disclosures that raise safety 

concerns.

RA Research Assistant will call and 

communicate their concerns directly to 

a CHS staff member.

1. Research Assistant

will write an 

Incident report.

2. CHS staff logs the 

information.

After grant involvement, youth

requests CHS staff contact 

Research Assistant so youth can 

speak with them, knowing 

Research Assistant is not a 

counselor and will not be 

available at all times, nor 

multiple times

CHS 

Staff

At appropriate time a social worker

contacts Research Assistant and either 

places youth on phone with them or 

Research Assistant makes an 

appointment with the youth’s SW to 

come speak with youth

If becomes a pattern 

then youth’s SW / or the 

Program Director will be 

consulted

Research 

Assistant’s 

Cell

After grant involvement, youth

noticeably withdraws, when 

questioned says it is about the 

interview

CHS 

Staff

If imminent safety is of concern 

Medical staff will be notified. If no 

imminent harm is suspected Mental 

Health Referral form will be completed 

by the SW or the Duty Supervisor. 

Youth’s SW or a CHS staff

is notified, issue is noted 

in the Shift Log and in

the journal. 

Immediately after grant 

involvement, youth is obviously 

agitated 

CHS 

Staff

SW or JCO initiates a conversation, 

offers journaling exercise, meditation, 

time one-on-one, other options as 

possible and logs all pertinent 

information for future reference

1. Contact Research 

Assistant

2. Contact Duty 

Supervisor

3. Contact Medical

4. Contact SW 

Program Director

After grant involvement, youth

expresses mental health 

breakdown (anxiety, depression, 

etc.) no self-harm indications

CHS 

Staff

See above plus Medical will be notified Contact Duty Supervisor

After grant involvement, youth

expresses self-harm ideation

CHS 

Staff

Implement protocols for self-harm, and 

connect with Medical, Call Duty 

Supervisor, 

Youth may go on 

Intensive Observation 

Status (IOS) or Suicide 

Risk (SR) status to be 

determined by Nurse

IOS / SR 

policies

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
91 | P a g e

Juvenile Detention Center (JDC)

What presents: Who: Initial response: 2

nd response 

option(s):

Notes / 

Policies:

Any negative effect of the grant 

work 

RA or 

JDC 

Staff

Research Assistant or JDC staff will 

notify the Project Manager and 

provide the youth’s name, location, 

and details of incident/behavior

Follow other protocols 

as described herein. 

Research Assistant believes a 

youth would be well served by 

seeing a MHP 

RA Research Assistant completes a Mental 

Health Referral form and gives it to the 

Duty Supervisor

Research Assistant notes issues 

about a youth’s demeanor, affect 

or disclosures that raise safety 

concerns.

RA Research Assistant will return youth to 

the Mod, communicate to the JCO 

there are well-being concerns and then 

notify the Duty Supervisor 

immediately. 

Research Assistant will 

write an Incident report.

After grant involvement, youth 

requests staff contact Research 

Assistant so youth can speak with 

them, knowing Research 

Assistant is not a counselor and 

will not be available at all times, 

nor multiple times

JDC 

Staff

At appropriate time JCO contacts 

Research Assistant and either places 

youth on phone with them or Research 

Assistant makes an appointment to 

come speak with youth

If becomes a pattern 

then Mod Supervisor will 

be consulted

Research 

Assistant’s 

Cell 

After grant involvement, youth

noticeably withdraws, when 

questioned says it is about the 

interview

JDC 

Staff

If imminent safety is of concern 

Nursing staff will be notified. If no 

imminent harm is suspected Mental 

health referral form will be completed 

by the JCO. 

Mod Supervisor is 

notified, issue is noted in 

the Shift Log and in the 

journal. 

Immediately after grant 

involvement, youth is obviously 

agitated 

JDC 

Staff

JCO initiates a conversation, offers 

journaling exercise, meditation, time 

one-on-one, other options as possible 

1. Contact Research 

Assistant.

2. Contact Duty 

Supervisor

3. Contact Nurse

After grant involvement, youth

expresses mental health 

breakdown (anxiety, depression, 

etc.) no self-harm indications

JDC 

Staff

See above plus referral to the Nurse

After grant involvement, youth

expresses self-harm ideation

JDC 

Staff

Implement protocols for self-harm, i.e. 

call Nurse, call Duty Supervisor.

Youth may go on 

Intensive Observation 

Status (IOS) or Suicide 

Risk (SR) status to be 

determined by Nurse

IOS / SR

policies 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
92 | P a g e

Juvenile Probation (JP)

What presents: Who: Initial response: 2

nd response 

option(s):

Notes / 

Policies:

Any negative effect of the grant 

work 

RA or 

PO

Research Assistant or JP staff will 

notify the Project Manager and 

provide the youth’s name, location, 

and details of incident/behavior

Follow other protocols 

as described herein. 

Research Assistant has concerns 

about a youth’s demeanor, affect 

or disclosures that raise safety 

concerns

RA Research Assistant will process the 

concerns as appropriate with the youth 

and communicate to the PO that there 

are well-being concerns. If Research 

Assistant is with a JP client currently 

residing in an OHP, communication will 

include Placement staff.

Research Assistant will 

write a report via email 

to Grant PM, the PO and 

CUS.

After grant involvement, youth

noticeably withdraws/acts 

out/significantly changes 

behaviors and when questioned 

says it is about participation in 

the interview

PO PO supports youth appropriately 

dependent on circumstances and 

documents behaviors and concerns in 

an email to Project Manager. 

PM will follow up to 

determine if UAE needs 

reported.

After grant involvement, youth 

contacts PO expressing mental 

health breakdown (anxiety, 

depression, etc.) no self-harm 

indications

PO See above plus referral to Mental 

Health provider

1. PO notifies CUS

2. PM investigates for 

UAE occurrence. 

After grant involvement, youth 

contacts PO expressing self-harm 

ideation

PO See above plus immediate 

implementation of protocols for selfharm, i.e. immediate resources referral, 

police, etc...

See above

Due to the fact that Juvenile Probation youth are not in custody we set the following protocols for mitigation and 

management of an unintended adverse effects of participation in the study. 

1. At all times the Research Assistant will have a complete list of community resource referral options that 

routinely contract with the Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation. In addition we have a 

list of other community agencies that may be utilized if current offerings are not sufficient. 

2. Upon the completion of every interview the Research Assistant will complete a short list of questions to 

ascertain the current mental state and needs of the youth, including:

a. How are you feeling right now?

b. What do you need now to be safe and feel supported?

c. What will you do in the future if you are not feeling safe?

If any of those questions generate a need of immediate support or an opportunity to make a referral to a 

community agency, the Research Assistant will make those connections. This will be done in conjunction with 

the youth’s Probation Officer or the On-Call Probation Officer of the Day.

Upon the completion of all interviews the youth will be given a laminated card with the contact information of the 

primary agencies utilized by Juvenile Probation when connecting youth with community agencies. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.