U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

55–181 PDF 2010

MEETING THE CHALLENGES FACED BY 

GIRLS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHY 

FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 11, 2010 

Serial No. 111–50 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Paul Tonko, New York 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Dina Titus, Nevada 

Judy Chu, California 

John Kline, Minnesota, 

Senior Republican Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

Tom McClintock, California 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Barrett Karr, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHY FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES 

CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York, Chairwoman 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Paul Tonko, New York 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

George Miller, California 

Judy Chu, California 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 11, 2010 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities ................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Additional submissions: 

Escobar, Dory Magasis, director of healthy communities, St. Joseph Health System—Sonoma County, CA, prepared statement 

of ...................................................................................................... 45 

Just Detention International (JDI), prepared statement of ........... 46 

Saar, Malika Saada, executive director; Kathleen Shakira Washington, policy director, Rebecca Project for Human Rights, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 49 

Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, Senior Republican Member, Subcommittee 

on Healthy Families and Communities, prepared statement of ............... 44 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Carrio ́n, Rachel, former detained youth, board member, Community Connections for Youth, New York, NY .............................................................. 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Huff, Hon. J. Brian, presiding judge, Jefferson County Family Court, 

North Birmingham, AL ................................................................................ 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Ivory, Gary, national director, program development, Youth Advocate 

Programs, Inc. ............................................................................................... 35 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37 

Romer, Cameron, probation officer, York County, PA ................................... 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40 

Sherman, Francine T., clinical professor and director, juvenile rights 

advocacy project, Boston College Law School ............................................. 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Teplin, Linda A., Ph.D., professor; director, psycho–legal program, Northwestern University ........................................................................................ 26 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28 

(1) 

MEETING THE CHALLENGES FACED BY 

GIRLS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM 

Thursday, March 11, 2010 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:50 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn McCarthy 

[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McCarthy and Polis. 

Also Present: Representative Murphy of Connecticut. 

Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Calla Brown, Staff Assistant, Education; Jody Calemine, General Counsel; Denise Forte, 

Director of Education Policy; Ruth Friedman, Senior Education Policy Advisor; David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Sharon Lewis, 

Senior Disability Policy Advisor; Sadie Marshall, Chief Clerk; 

Bryce McKibbon, Staff Assistant; Meredith Regine, Junior Legislative Associate, Labor; Alexandria Ruiz, Administrative Assistant to 

Director of Education Policy; Melissa Salmanowitz, Press Secretary; Kim Zarish-Becknell, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on 

Healthy Families and Communities; Stephanie Arras, Minority 

Legislative Assistant; Kirk Boyle, Minority General Counsel; Allison Dembeck, Minority Professional Staff Member; Ryan Murphy, 

Minority Press Secretary; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Services Policy; and Mandy Schaumburg, Minority Education Policy Counsel. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. By House and committee rules, two 

Members can constitute a quorum. No bipartisan requirement; two 

Members of same party will suffice. 

A quorum is present. The hearing of the House Committee on 

Education and Labor, Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee, on ‘‘Meeting the Challenges Faced by Girls in the Juvenile Justice System’’ will come to order. 

Before we begin, I would like everyone to take a moment to make 

sure your cell phones and your BlackBerrys are on silence or off. 

Also, joining this hearing we are expecting two of our colleagues, 

Representative Woolsey, who is a member of the full committee, 

and Representative Chris Murphy, to attend the hearing. I ask 

unanimous consent for them to sit on the dais, to listen to testimony, and to ask questions. 

So ordered. 
2 

I now recognize myself, followed by Ranking Member Todd 

Platts. He is going to be detained a little bit, but as soon as he 

comes in, he will have his opening statement. 

First, I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here 

today. We really do appreciate it. This is an important hearing. 

And I think what is also important is a lot of people don’t actually 

know what is going on in some of our systems. 

We have assembled a panel of folks who are just incredibly 

knowledgeable in juvenile justice issues that affect girls especially. 

They are bringing their personal experience and a wealth of information from research and work in the field. 

Although we are focusing on the need for gender-specific juvenile 

justice reform, the issues we will cover, such as status offenses, 

valid court orders, confinement conditions, and mental health 

issues, have an impact on both young men and young women. We 

have decided to focus on young ladies today because, unfortunately, 

the number of girls in the system is on the rise and the juvenile 

justice system was developed around boys, in terms of policies, 

practices, and staff training. 

We have not held any hearings on gender-specific challenges, and 

there can be a significant difference on how girls and boys wind up 

in the system and how they are handled once in the system. I believe these issues are important to explore as we move forward to 

reauthorization on the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention 

Act, but I want to emphasize that each of the areas we will cover 

will affect young men and women. 

Across the country in the 1980s and the 1990s, States largely 

abandoned the focus on juvenile justice rehabilitation and treatment in favor of an approach that responded to delinquent behavior with punished sanctions and institutional placement. Now, 

nearly 3 decades later, most practitioners, academics, policymakers, and the public believe that that approach has failed us. 

The current system does little to protect public safety or help 

youth become more productive, law-abiding citizens. And, in many 

cases, the youth that we are funneling into the juvenile system are 

the victims of trauma, have mental health issues, and have been 

accused of status offenses such as truancy or running away from 

home. 

Under the valid court order exception of the JJDPA, or VCO exception, runaway youth and other status offenders may be incarcerated. Specifically, the VCO exception allows status offenders to be 

locked up in their second and subsequent status offenses for violating the court’s order not to commit another offense. 

We know that once they are part of the juvenile system, their 

long-term outcomes become very bleak. To put a juvenile in detention for a status, nonviolent, noncriminal offense is, in my opinion, 

criminal. 

Data has shown, in 2001, girls made up 19 percent of detained 

youth, but 24 percent of those were detained for technical violations, and 43 percent of those were detained for status offenses. 

Many young women, many of which are runaways, are often running away from an abusive home life. Some judges want to protect 

the runaway child from a chaotic household or from the streets, 
3 

and, if they feel they have no other options, they will put her in 

detention. 

I believe we need to look closely at eliminating the VCO exception in the juvenile justice system. As we move forward with reauthorization, it is clear we do not want to be sweeping children into 

the juvenile system for minor, noncriminal offenses. 

Confinement should be the last resort, reserved for those who 

pose such a serious threat no other solution would be there to protect the public safety. In all other cases, young people can be wellserved and the public kept safe by community support. For those 

who do not need to be placed in a facility, the system should treat 

and rehabilitate them, not hurt and harden them. 

Unfortunately, the DOJ report from this January indicates that 

confinement conditions in juvenile facilities can be horrible. Among 

other things, the DOJ report found an estimated 12 percent of 

youth in State juvenile facilities and large non-State facilities reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization. 

Most of these youth have been sexually abused before making it 

into the system. 

I am glad the DOJ collected this data and brought this outrageous situation to our knowledge. I think that we need to do a 

much better job of collecting data in the JJ system, and that is especially true in mental health, sex, race, and ethnicity. Without 

timely, accurate data, we cannot make the appropriate policy decisions here. For both young women and young men, confinement 

conditions are often of quite poor quality. 

Young ladies have particular health needs associated with pregnancy, childbirth, personal hygiene, mental health issues such as 

depression, trauma from previous sexual abuse, which are not 

being addressed and, in some cases, being exploited. We need to explore how to better screen young ladies who enter the system for 

mental health issues and how to treat young ladies once they are 

confined. 

The problems with the juvenile justice system are many. We 

have our work cut out for us. I believe this hearing will help us 

understand the key issues that we will need to address during reauthorization, and I am eager to hear from our panel. 

I want to thank all of you for being here, and I look forward to 

your testimony. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7, any Members may submit an 

opening statement, in writing or at this point, which will be made 

part of the permanent record. 

[The statement of Mrs. McCarthy follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

First, I’d like to thank all the witnesses for being here today. 

We have assembled a panel of folks who are incredibly knowledgeable in juvenile 

justice issues that affect girls specifically. 

They bring their personal experiences and a wealth of information from research 

and work in the field. 

Although we are focusing on the need for gender specific juvenile justice reform, 

the issues we will cover, such as status offenses and valid court order rules, confinement conditions, and mental health issues, have an impact on both boys and girls 

in the system. 
4 

We have decided to focus on girls today because unfortunately the number of girls 

in the system is on the rise, and the juvenile justice system was developed around 

boys in terms of policies, practices and staff training. 

We have not held any hearings on gender specific challenges and there can be significant differences in how girls and boys wind up in the system and how they are 

handled once they are in the system. 

I believe these issues are important to explore as we move toward reauthorization 

of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act, or ‘‘J-J-D-P-A’’. 

But I want to emphasize that each of the areas we will cover affect both boys and 

girls. 

Across the country, in the 1980s and 1990s, states largely abandoned the focus 

on juvenile justice rehabilitation and treatment in favor of an approach that responded to delinquent behavior with punitive sanctions and institutional placement. 

Now, nearly THREE decades later, most practitioners, academics, policymakers 

and the public believe this approach has failed. 

The current system does little to protect public safety or help youth become productive, law abiding citizens. 

And in many cases, the youth we are funneling into the juvenile system are the 

victims of trauma, have mental health issues, and have been accused of status offenses such as truancy, or running away from home. 

Under the ‘‘valid court order exception,’’ of the JJDPA—or ‘‘VCO exception’’—runaway youth and other status offenders may be incarcerated. 

Specifically, the ‘‘VCO exception’’ allows status offenders to be locked up for their 

second and subsequent status offenses, for violating the court’s order not to commit 

another status offense. 

We know that once they are part of the juvenile system, their long term outcomes 

become very bleak. 

To put a juvenile in detention for a status, non violent, non-criminal offense, is, 

in my opinion, criminal. 

Data shows that in 2001, girls made up 19 percent of detained youth, but 24 percent of those were detained for technical violations and 43 percent of those were detained for status offenses. 

For girls, many of which are runaways, they are often running away from an abusive home life. 

Some judges want to protect the runaway girl from a chaotic household or from 

the streets, and if they feel they have no other options, they will put her in detention. 

I believe we need to look closely at eliminating the ‘‘V-C-O exception’’ in 

JJDPA as we move forward in reauthorization as we do not want to be sweeping 

children into the juvenile system for minor, non-criminal status offenses. 

Confinement should be a last resort reserved for those who pose such a serious 

threat that no other solution would protect public safety. 

In all other cases, young people can be well served and the public kept safe by 

community supports. 

For those who do need to be placed in a facility, the system should treat and rehabilitate them, not hurt and harden them. 

Unfortunately, a DOJ report from this January indicated that confinement conditions in juvenile facilities can be horrible. 

Among other things, the DOJ report found an estimated 12 percent of youth in 

state juvenile facilities and large non-state facilities reported experiencing one of 

more incidents of sexual victimization. 

Most of these youth have been sexually abused before making it into the system. 

I am glad the DOJ collected this data and brought this outrageous situation to 

light. 

I think that we need to do a much better job of collecting data in the juvenile 

justice system that is specific to mental health, sex, race and ethnicity. 

Without timely, accurate data we cannot make the appropriate policy decisions. 

For both girls and boys, confinement conditions are often quite poor. 

Girls have particular health needs associated with pregnancy and child birth, personal hygiene and mental health issues such as depression and trauma from previous sexual abuse which are not being addressed and in some cases are being exploited. 

We need to explore how to better screen girls who enter the system for mental 

health issues and how to treat girls once they are confined. 

The problems with the juvenile justice system are many. 

We have our work cut out for us. 
5 

I believe this hearing will help us understand the key issues that we will need 

to address during reauthorization, and I am eager to hear from our extremely 

knowledgeable witnesses. 

Thank you all for being here and I look forward to your testimony. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. When Mr. Platts, the ranking member 

on the Republican side, gets here, he will have his opening statement. 

Without objection, all Members will have 14 days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing record. 

I would like to briefly introduce our very distinguished panel of 

witnesses here with us this morning. The complete bios of the witnesses will be inserted into the record. 

Today we will hear from six witnesses, each of whom will focus 

on challenges to the young ladies in the juvenile justice system. 

Again, I thank you all for being here. 

In the interest of time, given the large number of witnesses 

today, I will keep my formal introductions short. 

Our first witness is Professor Francine Sherman. 

Welcome. 

Professor Sherman is a professor at Boston College Law School, 

where she has been teaching juvenile justice for the last 20 years. 

She founded and directs the Juvenile Rights Advocacy Project, a 

law clinic helping juvenile clients. She is an ongoing consultant 

with the Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative on strategies to reduce girls in detention nationwide. She authored a Casey Foundation report called ‘‘Detention 

Reform and Girls.’’ 

Welcome, Professor. 

Our next witness is Rachel Carrio ́n. Ms. Carrio ́n is currently a 

board member of Community Connections for Youth, whose expertise on juvenile justice issues is shaped by the fact that she, herself, was in the JJ system. She first entered the juvenile justice 

system at the age of 15 when she was arrested for fighting with 

another girl. That began her experience in a system had failed to 

treat her underlying trauma and her substance abuse problems. 

Ms. Carrio ́n currently serves as a board member at CCFY, which 

is a New York-based, youth-serving, nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting and developing alternatives to incarceration for 

youth. 

Welcome. And we appreciate you being here to tell your story. 

Our next witness is Judge Brian Huff. Judge Huff is a presiding 

juvenile judge for Jefferson County, Birmingham, AL. He was appointed to the bench in 2005 and, running as a Republican candidate, was elected in 2006. Judge Huff oversees Reclaiming Our 

Youth, a multiple-facet collaboration juvenile justice reform effort. 

Through his work, the juvenile incarceration rate in Jefferson 

County has been reduced by more than 70 percent—congratulations to you for that—while bringing millions of dollars back into 

the community through State grants. He brings his experience on 

the front lines of the juvenile justice system to the panel. 

Welcome, Judge. 

Our next witness is Professor Linda Teplin, professor of psychiatry and director of the Psycho-Legal Studies Program, North-
6 

western University Medical School. Professor Teplin is currently 

conducting the Northwestern Juvenile Project, the first large-scale, 

longitudinal study of the health needs and outcomes of juvenile detainees. In this study, her team tracks and re-interviews almost 

2,000 youth who were initially arrested in detained in the 1990s. 

Her published papers have addressed a variety of topics: psychiatric disorder, health services, death rates, child maltreatment, 

trauma, suicide, functional impairment, and HIV-AIDS risk behaviors. 

Welcome, Professor. We are glad to have you here. 

My colleague Mr. Platts was going to be introducing our next two 

witnesses, so if—I am going to take the privilege of introducing 

both of you. 

Gary Ivory currently serves as the Southwest president of the 

Youth Advocate Programs, Incorporated, ‘‘YAP,’’ as well as national 

director of program development. In this capacity, he maintains 

oversight of several programs that provide a range of communitybased services for children, youth, and families throughout the 

Southwest region. He has done pioneering work with juvenile 

street gangs in Fort Worth, Texas. This work was featured in several national publications, including Catalyst, a national newsletter 

of the National Crime Prevention Council, and a PBS series, ‘‘In 

Search of Law and Order.’’ 

Welcome. 

Ms. Romer is a graduate of Indiana University in Bloomington, 

Indiana. She majored in criminal justice and history. Prior to being 

employed as a juvenile justice probation officer, she was employed 

as a case manager for 2 years in a residential program for female 

adolescents, both dependent and delinquent. She is currently employed with the York County, PA, Juvenile Probation Department 

as an intensive aftercare officer. Her caseload includes female juvenile offenders that are in need of intense supervision and treatment. The service is designed to provide support for the family and 

child throughout placement and 6 months following their release 

from a residential facility. 

Welcome. 

Let me explain the lighting system in front of you. When you 

start speaking, a green light will go on. When the yellow light goes 

on, you have basically a minute. And we would kindly ask you if 

you could wrap up during that particular time. When the red light 

goes on, I will gently tap my gavel to tell you that it is time to cut 

off. 

Professor Sherman, please. 

STATEMENT OF FRANCINE SHERMAN, J.D., CLINICAL PROFESSOR; DIRECTOR, JUVENILE RIGHTS ADVOCACY 

PROJECT, BOSTON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL 

Ms. SHERMAN. Good morning, Chairwoman McCarthy and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on the 

ways the justice system can respond to challenges faced by girls. 

My testimony draws on 15 years as director of the Juvenile 

Rights Advocacy Project at Boston College Law School, as well as 

10 years providing research and technical assistance to Annie E. 

Casey Foundation Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative juris-
7 

dictions around the country on ways to reduce the inappropriate 

detention of girls and increase their success in communities. 

Over the last 2 decades, girls remain a numerical minority in the 

juvenile justice system, but their proportion has steadily increased. 

Girls are 30 percent of juvenile arrests, 18 percent of detentions, 

and 13 percent of commitments. 

Girls’ presence in the justice system is closely linked to developmental and social factors unique to girls in either kind or degree. 

And increasing evidence shows that unintended consequences of juvenile justice system policies and practices are pulling girls into the 

system and keeping them there when another system or community-based agency would better serve them. 

The impact of family chaos and trauma for girls in the juvenile 

justice system cannot be overstated. While boys and girls in the 

justice system likely come from distressed families, girls are more 

likely to have families characterized by chaos such as violence, incarceration of a parent, and residential instability. Research shows 

that girls are being criminalized for living in these chaotic households by being arrested for family-based assaults in situations that 

would have triggered family services intervention in a prior decade 

and by being detained for violating curfew and orders to follow 

rules of the house in status offenses cases. 

JDAI, now in over 100 jurisdictions nationwide, is a 15-year effort to reduce the inappropriate detention of youth and shore up 

communities to help youth live successfully in their homes. 

Through JDAI, I see a constant link between family chaos and 

girls’ detention. 

For example, in 2006 Nevada law required that anyone arrested 

for domestic battery be securely detained for a minimum of 12 

hours, making no distinction for the age of the offender. Under this 

law, police called about fights between a mother and daughter were 

much more likely to arrest the teenage daughter, leaving the mother to care for other children in the home, and triggering mandatory 

detention of the girl, which typically stretched beyond 12 hours. As 

a result, detention data from Washoe and Clark Counties showed 

that girls, who are up 25 percent of detentions overall, were an average of 42 percent of detentions for domestic battery. 

Recently, Nevada amended its law to prohibit detention for domestic battery alone and put family crisis services in place as an 

alternative, so the girls are now provided with family services rather than being detained as victims of family chaos. Similar laws and 

policies exist around the country and have a disproportionate impact on girls who experience family violence at high rates. 

Research shows that up to 73 percent of girls in the justice system have experienced sexual or physical victimization. Girls are 

more likely than boys to have experienced sexual assault, rape, or 

sexual harassment. And abuse histories in girls may be linked to 

mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety disorders. 

Girls who have experienced sexual abuse are likely to engage in 

risky sexual behaviors themselves, risking their health and often 

triggering involvement in the juvenile justice system. Girls with 

histories of sexual victimization are more likely to become commercially sexually exploited, leading to arrest and detention for pros-
8 

titution-related offenses and to lives marked by more abuse and 

trauma. 

Victimization and trauma lead girls to run away from home, 

which is a frequent cause of their arrest. Girls’ profound histories 

of victimization become pathways into the juvenile justice system 

in these numerous ways. But using detention and incarceration 

punishes and re-victimizes these girls and fails to provide States 

and localities with incentives to properly address girls’ victimization in the public health, child and family services, and victim services systems. 

As a January 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Justice 

made clear, sexual victimization is occurring at alarmingly high 

levels in juvenile facilities across country. 

Because girls offending is often tied to chaotic families, victimization and mental health needs, girls in the juvenile justice system 

are typically involved with multiple systems. Girls I represent have 

contact with the child welfare system as a status offender or 

abused child; the juvenile justice system; the education system, 

often as a special education student; the public health system; and 

the mental health system. In these cases, wraparound services are 

critical, and States should be encouraged to find ways to work 

across traditional agency boundaries. 

Although there are clear national patterns among girls in the juvenile justice system, the precise nature and mix of practices and 

programs needed to address challenges posed by girls will vary locally. Without data which is disaggregated by gender and cross-referenced by race and ethnicity, we cannot fully understand the challenges facing girls and which policies will be effective. In every jurisdiction I have worked with, detailed data collection and analysis 

disaggregated by gender and cross-referenced by race and ethnicity 

has been the key to understanding and designing effective solutions 

for girls. 

Let me make four recommendations. To better understand and 

respond to the challenges posed by girls in the juvenile justice system, I recommend: requiring jurisdictions to collect and analyze juvenile justice system data disaggregated by gender and cross-referenced by race and ethnicity; eliminating the valid court order exception to the deinstitutionalization of status offender mandate to 

prevent criminalization as well as provide incentives for jurisdictions to develop appropriate programming and services; encouraging the use of community-based wrap-around services coordinated across agencies for girls with high social service and mental 

health needs rather than using detention; and additional research 

on girls and the system practices affecting them, particularly on 

the prevalence and needs of pregnant and parenting girls in the juvenile justice system and alternatives to juvenile justice involvement for commercially sexually exploited girls. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Sherman follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Francine T. Sherman, Clinical Professor and 

Director, Juvenile Rights Advocacy Project, Boston College Law School 

Good Morning Chairwoman McCarthy and members of the Committee, and thank 

you for inviting me to testify today on the challenges faced by girls in the juvenile 

justice system and the ways our justice systems can best respond. In my testimony 
9 

I draw on my 15 years teaching juvenile justice, representing girls in the justice system and developing programming for them as Director of the Juvenile Rights Advocacy Project at Boston College Law School as well as 10 years providing research 

and technical assistance to Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) jurisdictions around the country on ways to reduce the inappropriate detention of girls and increase their success in their communities. 

Over the last two decades, while girls remain a numerical minority in the juvenile 

justice system, their proportion has steadily increased; from 1999 to 2008 arrests 

of girls decreased less than their male counterparts in almost every offense category 

and for some crimes (such as assault) arrests of girls increased while those of boys 

decreased (Puzzanchera, 2009). In 2008 girls were 30% of juvenile arrests, and in 

2006 they were 18% of detentions and 13% of commitments (Sickmund, Sladky, 

Kang & Puzzanchera, 2008). • Who are these girls? • What forces are moving them into the delinquency system? • And is the delinquency system the right place for them? 

Girls’ presence in the justice system is closely linked to developmental and social 

factors unique to girls in either kind or degree and there is increasing evidence that 

unintended consequences of juvenile justice system policies and practices are pulling 

girls into the juvenile justice system and keeping them there when it is clear that 

another system or community-based agency would better serve them. 

In 2008, girls comprised the majority of arrests for prostitution and running away; 

44% of arrests for theft, and between 30-40% of arrests for non-index offenses such 

as liquor law violations, disorderly conduct, and curfew and loitering. With the exception of assaults, girls continue to comprise under 10% of arrests for violent crime 

(Puzzanchera, 2009). These trends in girls’ arrests have been consistent over the 

past two decades. 

Family Chaos and Trauma 

For girls in the juvenile justice system you cannot overstate the impact of family 

chaos and trauma. While boys and girls in the justice system are likely to come from 

distressed families, data shows that female delinquents are more likely to come 

from families characterized by chaos such as violence, incarceration of a parent, 

death of a parent or sibling, poor family communication, and residential instability 

(Lederman, Dakof, Larrea, & Li, 2004; Bloom, Owen, Deschenes, & Rosenbaum, 

2002, Acoca, 1999, Timmons-Mitchell, Brown, Schulz, Webster, Underwood, & 

Semple, 1997). 

Moreover, there is strong evidence that girls are being criminalized for living in 

these chaotic households by being arrested for family based assaults in situations 

that would have triggered family services intervention in a prior decade (Zahn, et 

al, 2008), and by being detained for violating curfew and orders to obey ‘‘house 

rules’’ in status offense cases. 

Recent research by the Girls Study Group concluded that the increase in assault 

arrests for girls is due in part to their arrests for home-based violence, as an unintended consequence of law enforcement practices that require arrest or detention in 

domestic disputes. They note that while the most common victim of boys’ and girls’ 

violence is a same sex peer, the second most common victim of girls’ violence is a 

family member, reinforcing what we have always known, that girls’ crime is closely 

linked to their relationships (Zahn, et al., 2008). 

The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative 

(JDAI) is a 15-year effort to reduce the inappropriate detention of youth and shore 

up communities to help youth live successfully in their homes. JDAI is now in over 

100 jurisdictions nationwide (Mendel, 2009). In my work with JDAI jurisdictions, we 

look closely at local data, always disaggregated by gender, race and ethnicity, to pinpoint ways that girls are disproportionately, unintentionally, or inappropriately detained when they would be served better and more successfully in their homes and 

communities. In that work the link between family chaos and girls’ detention is a 

constant finding and was recently illustrated across JDAI sites in Nevada. 

2006 detention data from Washoe and Clark Counties, Nevada (Reno and Las 

Vegas) showed that while girls comprised an average of 25% of detentions overall, 

they comprised an average of 42% of detentions for domestic battery. At that time 

Nevada law required that anyone arrested for domestic battery be securely detained 

for a minimum of 12 hours, making no distinction for the age of the offender. Similar laws and policies exist around the country. Girls, who experience family violence 

at high rates, were bearing the disproportionate impact of this well-intended law. 

When police were called about fights between a mother and daughter, they were 

much more likely to arrest the teenage daughter because the mother had responsibility for other children in the home. This would trigger mandatory detention, which 
10 

in most cases stretched beyond the 12 hours. In Nevada a coalition of rural and 

urban jurisdictions including juvenile justice systems, law enforcement and the domestic violence community worked with the state legislature, amending the statute 

to prohibit detention for domestic battery alone and put family crisis services in 

place as an alternative. Data from Washoe County now shows that girls arrested 

for domestic battery are provided family services, not detained, and not swept into 

the delinquency system for being victims of family chaos (Sherman, 2009). 

Like detention for domestic violence, detention for violations of valid court orders 

in status offense cases, often criminalizes girls who are the victims of chaotic families. In 2006, technical probation violations and status offenses accounted for 25% 

of boys’ detentions and 41% of girls’ detentions (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang & 

Puzzanchera, 2008). A technical violation of probation is a violation for curfew, failing to meet ‘‘house rules’’, failing to meet with a probation officer, failing to attend 

school or some other condition of probation which is not criminal in and of itself, 

but is in the nature of a status offense once a youth is on probation. The original 

probation may be for a status or delinquency offense, depending on the jurisdiction. 

Allowing detention to be used in these cases, which are at their core about girls’ 

distressed families, criminalizes the victim, contributes to the instability in these 

girls’ lives, and provides no incentive to jurisdictions to put community-based family 

supports in place. 

Victimization 

The research is unequivocal that a history of abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder affects a significant number of girls in the juvenile justice system and is often 

a catalyst for their entry into the delinquency system. 

Although empirical findings as to the incidence of victimization vary, research 

shows that up to 73% of girls in the justice system have experienced sexual or physical victimization (Hayes, 2009). One study found that while males are more likely 

to have witnessed violence, females are more likely to have been the target of violence (Cauffman, 2008). Girls are more likely than boys to have experienced sexual 

assault, rape or sexual harassment (Zahn et al., 2008), and a history of abuse is 

probably a more powerful predictor of delinquent behavior for girls than for boys 

(Cauffman, 2008). Abuse histories in girls may be linked to mental health issues 

such as depression and anxiety disorders (Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003; Sherman, 2005; Goodkind, Ng, & Sarri, 2006), or may manifest in girls as externalizing 

disorders such as aggressive behavior (Sherman, 2005). 

Girls who have experienced sexual abuse are likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors themselves (Hayes, 2009; Goodkind et al., 2006; Bloom et al., 2002; Kelly, 

Owen, Peralez-Dieckmann, & Martinez, 2007), risking their health and often triggering involvement in the juvenile justice system. Girls with histories of sexual victimization are more likely to become commercially sexually exploited teens, leading 

to arrests and detention for prostitution related offenses and to lives marked by 

more abuse and trauma (Farley & Kelly, 2000; Spangenberg, 2001). Abusive experiences in the past may also affect girls’ emotional adjustment and their ability to 

trust others, and may be a factor in substance abuse, which can lead to arrest as 

well (Bloom et al., 2002). Victimization and trauma is also a major catalyst leading 

girls to run away from home, which, as discussed previously, is a frequent cause 

of their arrest (Chesney-Lind & Okamoto, 2001; Bloom & Covington, 2001). 

Girls’ profound histories of victimization become a pathway into the juvenile justice system in these numerous ways, but using detention and incarceration punishes 

and re-victimizes the victim and fails to provide states and localities with incentive 

to properly address girls’ victimization in the public health, child and family services, and victim services systems. As a January 2010 report by the U.S. Department 

of Justice made clear, sexual victimization is occurring at alarmingly high levels in 

juvenile facilities across the country (Beck, Harrison & Guerino, 2010). 

Mental and Physical Health 

Generally speaking research shows that girls in the juvenile justice system are 

more likely than boys to have a mental health disorder and specifically to be diagnosed with internalizing disorders such as anxiety and depression (Teplin et. al., 

2002; Shufelt et al., 2006; Wasserman et al., 2005). Moreover, there are clear connections between the well-documented mental and behavioral health needs of girls 

in the juvenile justice system and their histories of trauma and victimization. Detention and the juvenile justice system are not designed to treat girls with mental 

health issues, who could be treated effectively in their homes using community mental health resources. When systems detain and incarcerate girls whose behavior is 

driven by significant mental health needs, they are punishing the victim, and relieving the mental and public health systems of their responsibility for these youth. 
11 

While the mental health of girls in the juvenile justice system has received considerable attention, girls’ significant and increasing physical health needs warrant 

more attention. Rates of STDs among girls in the juvenile justice system are higher 

than for girls in the general population or boys in the juvenile justice system (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007). Moreover, their risky sexual behaviors and drug use puts them at risk for Hepatitis B and C and HIV (Elkington et. 

al., 2008; Teplin, Mericle, McClelland, & Abram, 2003). Although further study of 

this issue is needed, pregnancy rates among girls in the juvenile justice system are 

higher than among girls in the general population (Gallagher, Dobrin, & Douds, 

2007). These pregnancies are complicated by substance use, post-traumatic stress 

disorder, youth and complex family and personal circumstances (Braverman & Morris, in press). Given their many health challenges, continuous and seamless access 

to health care is critical for girls in the juvenile justice system and the next generation of children. 

Collaboration Across Systems and with Girls 

Because girls’ offending is often tied to families, trauma histories, and mental 

health needs, girls in the juvenile justice system commonly have histories in the 

child welfare system or are simultaneously in the juvenile justice and other systems. 

The following catalogue of systems and services is typical among girls I represent: 

contact with the child welfare system as a status offender or abused child, the juvenile justice system including probation and/or a commitment agency, the education 

system often as a special education student, the public health system often for reproductive health issues such as sexually transmitted illness, and the mental health 

system. These multiple system involvements bring with them multiple case and social workers, courts and lawyers. 

For girls, to whom development of strong consistent relationships is critical to a 

sense of security and identity, the lack of continuity of care and placement that results from so many different agency involvements is particularly frightening and 

traumatic. In all youth cases, but particularly in girls’ cases typified by multiple system involvement, community-based, wrap-around services are critical and states 

should be encouraged to find ways to work across traditional agency boundaries to 

provide for the needs of the whole girl. 

Data by Gender, Race and Ethnicity 

Although there are clear national patterns among girls in the juvenile justice system and there are principles to be drawn from evidence-based practices that can be 

applied for girls across jurisdictions nationally, the precise nature and mix of practices and programs needed to address the challenges posed by girls in individual juvenile justice systems will vary locally. Systems are state created, agencies are state 

or county run, and girls’ behavior is closely linked to their families and local communities. Without data that is disaggregated by gender and cross-referenced by race 

and ethnicity, we cannot fully understand the challenges facing girls and which policies will be effective. 

JDAI jurisdictions are illustrative here as well. Local JDAI jurisdictions (juvenile 

justice systems) pinpoint ways in which girls are inappropriately detained by generating hypotheses based on national data and then always fully examining the operation of their system through data disaggregated by gender, race and ethnicity. The 

data is discussed and analyzed by a stakeholder group that represents the juvenile 

justice and other systems as well as community programs and constituencies relevant to girls’ issues, to gather a full understanding of the issue and design revised 

practices and programs to better serve the girls (Sherman & Irvine, in press). 

Without that detailed data Nevada jurisdictions would not have seen that girls 

were being disproportionately detained for domestic violence, and Missouri jurisdictions would not have seen that African American girls were disproportionately entering detention for failed foster care placements. In every jurisdiction I have 

worked with, detailed data collection and analysis, disaggregated by gender and 

cross-referenced by race and ethnicity has been the key to understanding girls’ 

issues and designing effective solutions. 

‘‘Grace’s’’ Story 

Recently I have been working on a case study of a young woman, I’ll call her 

‘‘Grace’’, who is now 24 years-old and spent much of her childhood first in the foster 

care system in Massachusetts as an abused child and then in the delinquency system as a runaway girl. She was committed to the delinquency system for ‘‘disturbing 

a school assembly’’ when she was 15 years old, living in a foster home 2 hours away 

from her sisters and grandmother and suffering from depression. She has never 

been charged with another crime since. But she did run away from foster care frequently, cut herself and behaved in other ways that were dangerous to herself and 
12 

rightly caused concern on the part of the systems charged with her care. The systems however reacted by locking her in detention each time she failed in a placement or ran away. Like most juvenile justice systems, ours did not work well with 

child and family services and the mental health agency and, when confronted with 

the complex behavioral health issues presented by a girl with a childhood filled with 

loss and trauma, defaulted by placing her in detention over and over again. 

During the two years from age 15 to 17, in the care of the delinquency and children’s services agencies Grace was placed 44 times, in and out of emergency shelters, secure detention, foster care, kinship care and back to detention. She spent a 

total of 426 days in secure detention over 18 different detention placements, the 

longest of which was 65 days. For minor crime and running away, this girl with 

significant behavioral health issues, spent 54% of those two critical years of her life 

in locked detention, which is designed to hold kids, not to treat them. 

A very bright young woman, Grace turned 18 without hope of a high school diploma, and with little education about how to negotiate an adult world and deal 

with her distressed family. An extremely resilient young woman, Grace now attends 

school and is raising her two children. She struggles everyday to cope with poverty, 

mental health issues, and a family that is both a support to her and a drain on her 

limited resources. She describes the fear, isolation and instability she felt as she 

moved in an out of detention and foster homes during her teen years in the systems 

this way: 

You really do lose yourself through all the chaos, I say chaos because you’re jumping from one place to another, one bed to another bed. Then you have you know, 

one [agency] to another [agency], one judge to another judge, one court system to 

another court system, and then you’re locked up. You get dizzy. Have you ever been 

in a fight, and you don’t even know who you’re fighting, it’s like a dizzy moment 

and it happened so quick, that’s how it felt, my life. My life went so fast, and it 

could have went a little slower, if someone had stopped and slowed me down a little 

bit. (Sherman & Greenstone, in press) 

Gender-Specific Approaches 

Gender-specific or gender-responsive are terms used interchangeably in the literature and essentially describe services and systems that strive to satisfy girls’ 

unique developmental needs, personal characteristics, and life circumstances including understanding girls’ pathways into the justice system, the multiple risk factors 

associated with girls’ system involvement, and how these factors interact with one 

another. Although there are a number of overlapping recommendations for how 

services and systems can be gender-specific, three broad principles are consistent. 

Gender-specific systems and services are: 

• Emotionally and physically safe; 

• Attentive to girls’ relationships; and 

• Collaborative, sharing power across systems and with girls in systems. (Sherman & Greenstone, in press). 

Recommendations 

Under current policies, girls’ involvement in the juvenile justice system is closely 

linked to their histories of family chaos, trauma, victimization, and mental and 

physical health needs. These high need girls find that services in the juvenile justice 

system are poorly suited to their situations and that juvenile justice policies can 

play an active role in labeling them as delinquent youth, preventing them from getting the help they need. To better understand and respond to the challenges posed 

by these girls I recommend: 

• Requiring jurisdictions to collect and analyze juvenile justice system data 

disaggregated by gender, and cross-referenced by race and ethnicity. 

• Eliminating the Valid Court Order exception to the deinstitutionalization of status offender mandate to prevent criminalization as well as provide incentives for jurisdictions to develop appropriate programming and community services. 

• Encouraging the use of community-based, wrap-around services coordinated 

across agencies for girls with high social service and mental health needs rather 

than use detention; 

• Additional research on girls and the system practices affecting them, particularly on the prevalence and needs of pregnant and parenting girls in the juvenile 

justice system and alternatives to juvenile justice involvement for commercially sexually exploited girls, two areas of high need for girls, about which we have an incomplete understanding. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer 

any questions you have as you move forward on re-authorization of the Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and consider its many implications for girls. 
13 

REFERENCES

Acoca, L. (1999). Investing in girls: A 21st century strategy. Juvenile Justice, 6(1), 

3-31. 

Beck, A. J., Harrison, P.M., & Guerino, P. (2010). Sexual Victimization in Juvenile 

Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-2009. Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Bloom, B. & Covington, S. (2001, November). Effective gender-responsive interventions in juvenile justice: Addressing the lives of delinquent girls. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, 

GA. 

Bloom, B., Owen, B., Deschenes, E.P., & Rosenbaum, J. (2002). Moving toward justice for female juvenile offenders in the new millennium: Modeling gender-specific polices and programs. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18(1), 37- 

56. 

Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, D.C.: 

National Institute of Corrections. Available from: http://www.nicic.org/pubs/ 

2003/018017.pdf 

Braverman, P. & Morris, R. (forthcoming 2011). The health of youth in the juvenile 

justice system. In F.T. Sherman & F. Jacobs (Eds.), Health and Well being in 

Juvenile Justice. Hoboken:NJ, John Wiley & Sons. 

Cauffman, E. (2008). Understanding the female offender. Juvenile Justice, 18(2), 

119-142. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008) CDC HIV/AIDS Fact Sheet. 

HIV/AIDS among youth. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/hiv. 

Chesney-Lind, M., & Okamoto, S.K. (2001). Gender matters: Patterns in girls’ delinquency and gender responsive programming. Journal of Forensic Psychology 

Practice, 1(3), 1-28. 

Elkington K.S., Teplin L.A., Mericle A.A., Welty L.J., Romero E.G., Abram K.M. 

(2008). HIV/ sexually transmitted infection risk behaviors in delinquent youth 

with psychiatric disorders: A longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47: 901-911. 

Farley, M. & Kelly, V. (2000). Prostitution: A critical review of the medical and social sciences literature. Women & Criminal Justice. 11(4), 29-64. 

Gallagher, C.A., Dobrin, A., Douds, A.S. (2007b). A national overview of reproductive 

health care services for girls in juvenile justice residential facilties. Women’s 

Health Issues,17, 217-226. 

Goodkind, S., Ng, I., & Sarri, R.C. (2006). The impact of sexual abuse in the lives 

of young women involved or at risk of involvement with the juvenile justice system. Violence Against Women, 12(5), 456-477. 

Hayes, L.M. Juvenile Suicide in Confinement: A National Survey. (2009). OJJDP. 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Accessed 8/3/09 at www. 

ojjdp.ncjrs.org 

Kelly, P.J., Owen, S.V., Peralez-Dieckmann, E., & Martinez, E. (2007). Health interventions with girls in the juvenile justice system. Women’s Health Issues, 17, 

227-236. 

Lederman, C.S., Dakof, G.A., Larrea, M.A., & Li, H. (2004). Characteristics of adolescent females in juvenile detention. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 321-337. 

Mendel, R. A. (2009). Two decades of JDAI: From demonstration project to national 

standard. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

Puzzanchera, C. (2009). Juvenile Arrests 2008. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Sherman, F.T. (2005). Detention reform and girls: Challenges and solutions (13). 

Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

Sherman, F.T. (2009). Reframing the Response: Girls in the Juvenile Justice System 

and Domestic Violence. Juvenile and Family Justice Today 18: no.1 (Winter 

2009): 16-20. 

Sherman, F.T. & Greenstone, J. (forthcoming 2011). The role of gender in youth systems: Grace’s story. In F.T. Sherman & F. Jacobs (Eds.), Health and Well being 

in Juvenile Justice. Hoboken:NJ, John Wiley & Sons. 

Sherman, F.T. & Irvine, A. (forthcoming 2010). Using JDAI Strategies to reduce the 

Detention of Girls: A practice Guide to Juvenile Detention Reform (5). Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

Shufelt JL, Cocozza JJ. Youth with Mental Health Disorders in the Juvenile Justice 

System: Results from the Multi-State Prevalence Study. June 2006. Research 
14 

and Program Brief, National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. 

Accesssed 8/2/09 at www.ncmhjj.com 

Sickmund, M. Sladky, T.J., Kang W.& Puzzanchera, C. (2008). ‘‘Easy Access to the 

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.’’ Available: http:// 

ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/ 

Spangenberg, M. (2001). Prostituted youth in New York City: An overview. New 

York City: ECPAT-USA. 

Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M., McClelland, G.M., Dulcan, M.K., Mericle, A.A. (2002). 

Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 1133-1143. 

Teplin L.A., Mericle A.A., McClelland G.M., Abram K.M. (2003) HIV and AIDS risk 

behaviors in juvenile detainees : Implications for public health policy. American 

Journal of Public Health, 93, 906-912. 

Timmons-Mitchell, J., Brown, C., Schulz, S.C., Webster, S.E., Underwood, L.A., & 

Semple, W.E. (1997). Comparing the mental health needs of female and male 

incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 195- 

202. 

Wasserman, G.A., McReynolds, L.S., Ko, S.J., Katz, L.M., Carpenter, J.R. (2005). 

Gender differences in psychiatric disorders at juvenile probation intake. American Journal of Public Health, 95,131-137. 

Zahn, M.A., et al. (2008). The Girls Study Group: Violence by Teenage Girls: Trends 

and Context. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice 

Programs: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Ms. Carrio ́n? 

STATEMENT OF RACHEL CARRIO ́ N, FORMER DETAINED 

YOUTH, BOARD MEMBER, COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS FOR 

YOUTH 

Ms. CARRIO ́ N. Good morning. My name is Rachel Carrio ́n, and I 

am here today to talk to you about my experience with the New 

York juvenile justice system. Thank you for this chance to tell my 

story. 

When I was 15 years old, my mother passed away from breast 

cancer, and I began smoking marijuana to cope with the loss. I was 

also very angry, and as a result of my anger I got into a fight with 

a young woman and I was arrested. I was arrested and then sent 

to an ATD program, which is an alternative-to-detention program. 

At the ATD program, I could not keep a negative toxicology report, 

so they remanded me. And they remanded me to an out-of-city, upstate program center. 

When I arrived on the campus, I walked into just violence—violence amongst the residents and peers, violence amongst the staff 

members and the residents. You know, it was really bad. I witnessed girls beating up each other and being sent to ICU, staff 

members physically fighting—like, not restraining, but fighting the 

youth to, I guess, try to keep them in control. Other incidents 

where I would try to leave the facility that I was in, I would try 

to go outside, and staff members would grab me by my hair and 

slam me to the floor. I am sure that wasn’t protocol. 

Another thing is, after a few months of being on the campus, I 

got into a sexual relationship with a male staff member, and I was 

about 15 years old and he was 30. Because of the relationship that 

I had with him, you know, he would bring me in drugs, he would 

bring me in cigarettes. Any kind of contraband I wanted I had, because I was sleeping with this man. He would also—after hours, 

I would go AWOL from the cottage I was in, and he would sneak 
15 

me off the campus and take me to local motels and drop me off 

right back on the campus while he went home. The staff member 

was fired but not because of our relationship. He was fired because 

the program did random drug screens on their employees and his 

came back positive. 

So my stay in this program was very bad. 

When I returned home, because my addiction to marijuana was 

never treated, you know, my behavior and my drug use just continued to worsen, and I began to solicit my body to support my drug 

habit. I ran away from home, I left home, and I was prostituting 

on the streets for drugs. 

I wound up getting pregnant. And when I gave birth to my 

daughter, that is when I finally got in contact with my family. That 

was about a 6-month period of me being a runaway on the streets. 

When my family got to me, they put me into a treatment facility 

located on Long Island. It was called Teen Challenge. It was a 

faith-based program. And this is where the staff members actually 

tried to treat my addiction. 

Because of child visitation, because of the courts, I could not stay 

on Long Island because my daughter was in Manhattan. So I was 

moved to a Bronx treatment center called Odyssey House. While I 

was in Odyssey House, I got one-on-one treatment with counselors. 

I stayed in group settings with other peers who went through the 

same or were going through the same that I was going through. 

Basically, these staff members really tried to help me instead of, 

you know, put me down. They gave me a lot of positive feedback. 

You know, they encouraged the girls, ‘‘You can do this. We can help 

you. Follow these 12 steps. You can stay clean. You don’t have to 

use. There are other ways of coping with whatever trauma or whatever you have gone through.’’ 

So while I was in the Odyssey House, I obtained my GED. I got 

training as a home health aide. I am also a peer educator. I go out 

and I speak to young women about safe sex, you know, and how 

important it is because there are so many diseases out there. 

I got full custody of my daughter. She is 3 years old, and she is 

a blessing. I am now an active board member of Community Connections and an advocate. And I plan on being a substance abuse 

counselor, so I am also enrolled in college. 

This committee is responsible for working on the Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention Act. Unfortunately, the current 

JJDPA law does not have anything that protects youth in juvenile 

justice facilities from the conditions that I faced. I recommend that 

the committee include language in the JJDPA to make facilities 

safer for youth. I have attached recommendations on this issue 

from national juvenile justice organizations to my testimony. 

In closing, I would like to thank you guys for listening to my 

story. I would like to encourage the committee to make sure that 

no other girls have to go through what I went through and to get 

the treatment and help that they need. 

Thank you again for having me here today. 

[The statement of Ms. Carrio ́n follows:] 
16 

Prepared Statement of Rachel Carrio ́n, Former Detained Youth, 

Board Member, Community Connections for Youth, New York, NY 

Good afternoon. My name is Rachel Carrio ́n and I am here today to talk about 

my experience with New York’s juvenile justice system. Thank you for this chance 

to tell my story. 

My experience with the system started when I was 15 years old. I was arrested 

for the first time when I got into a fight with another girl and was charged with 

assault. When I was arrested, I was having a rough time in my life—my mother 

had just passed away and I was very depressed. In order to deal with my depression 

and loss, I began smoking marijuana to ease the pain I was feeling. 

After my arrest, I was first sent to an alternative-to-detention (ATD) program run 

by Probation. In this program, I had to report every day to a center, which I did. 

However, I could not stop using drugs and the drug screenings the center did every 

week kept coming back positive. I needed help addressing my addiction, but instead 

of providing treatment, the ATD program sent me back to Family Court for violating the conditions of my release. The judge remanded me to a secure juvenile detention center in New York City where I was detained for six months while my 

court case proceeded. Eventually I was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent and sentenced to 12 months in a placement center in upstate New York, where I was supposed to get help in dealing with my substance abuse issues. 

When I first arrived at the center, I was greeted not by treatment opportunities, 

but by a culture of violence among my peers and staff members. During my stay, 

I—like many other young girls in the juvenile justice system—had some horrible experiences, which have left me scarred for life. I saw fights between girls in the facilities, including girls in the facility jumping other girls and fistfights. Some of the 

fights were so bad that staff had to take girls to the Intensive Care Unit at the local 

hospital. Staff did nothing to prevent these fights or to help girls feel safe. Staff also 

regularly used excessive force to keep control in the center. Once, when I wanted 

to go outside, a staff person grabbed me by the hair and yanked me to the ground 

for trying to leave without permission. 

Other staff would become too friendly with the girls and would even bring in cigarettes, drugs, and other contraband to give or sell to girl in the facility. Some male 

staff members took advantage of girls as well. After a few months on campus, a 

male staff member on campus who was in his 30s initiated a sexual relationship 

with me in exchange for bringing me drugs. In order to meet up, the staff member 

would arrange for me to leave the campus and pick me up in his car down the road 

from the facility. He would then transport me off campus to a local hotel. These activities were never documented and or questioned and although the staff member 

who I had the relationship with was eventually fired, it was only because he 

screened positive for drugs—not because he was sexually exploiting me. 

Because of these experiences in the center, I continued to have a lot of behavioral 

problems that affected my rehabilitation. Although my family cared a great deal 

about me, the distance from my home in New York City and the upstate placement 

center kept them from visiting me, or being meaningfully involved in my reintegration plan. My addiction had never been treated and on my return home, my behavior began to spiral out of control. I started using heavier drugs and then began soliciting my body to support my growing drug habit. It got so bad that I left home and 

lived on the street, being sexually exploited by adult men in exchange for money 

or drugs. Eventually I became pregnant with my daughter and I was arrested for 

prostitution. 

Two days after giving birth to my daughter, with my family’s help and support, 

I began my road to recovery by entering two private residential treatment programs: 

Teen Challenge and Odyssey House. Teen Challenge is a faith-based residential 

treatment program in Long Island that finally helped me to address my substance 

abuse issues. It was in Teen Challenge that I found my faith in God and the courage 

to start over in life. After beginning my treatment at Teen Challenge, I went to Odyssey House in the Bronx where I completed my treatment, obtained my GED, and 

received training to become a peer educator and a Home Health Aide. Being in a 

program close to my family let them visit me frequently, and they were very involved in my treatment. My brother and his wife took custody of my daughter and 

the Family Court allowed weekly supervised visits with my child with the goal of 

returning full custody to me if I completed my treatment. In this therapeutic community, I attended constant meetings and support groups, spoke to counselors and 

to my peers, and received positive feedback. This feedback helped me to learn to 

retrain my thinking so I know that I struggle with something that may never go 

away, but that can be maintained as long as I have support and am honest about 

how I’m feeling and continue to strive to complete my goals I have set for my self. 
17 

My experiences at the juvenile justice facility in and the treatment centers could 

not be more different. Not only did the juvenile justice system not address my underlying substance abuse issue and take me away from my family support system, 

but the experiences I had at the center actually made things much worse. It was 

when I came back to my community—close to my family and friends—that I had 

the support to make a positive change for myself. 

By the grace of God, my hard work, and my family’s dedication, I am now back 

on the right track. After completing the program, I got my daughter back and I am 

now raising her with the help and support of my brother and his wife. I am interested in pursuing a career as a substance abuse counselor to help those who struggle with addiction, and have been accepted as a student at Bronx Community College, where I hope to begin classes in the fall. I am actively involved in the Promised Land Church in the South Bronx where I encourage and support other young 

women who have been through similar experiences. I also joined Community Connections for Youth, a grassroots non-profit organization that promotes and develops 

community-based alternatives to incarceration for youth. I serve as a member of the 

organization’s Board of Directors, speaking out on issues faced by youth in the juvenile justice system and making sure the organization’s programs meet the needs of 

the youth it serves. 

This Committee is responsible for working on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). Unfortunately, the current JJDPA law does not 

have anything that protects youth in juvenile justice facilities from the conditions 

that I faced. I recommend that the Committee include language in the JJDPA to 

make facilities safer for youth. I have attached recommendations on this issue from 

national juvenile justice organizations to my testimony. 

In closing, I would like to encourage the Committee to make sure that no other 

girl has to go through what I did to get the treatment and help that they need. 

Thank you again for having me here today. 

ACT 4 JUVENILE JUSTICE

A Campaign of the Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Coalition 

www.act4jj.org 

What are the current JJDPA provisions regarding protection of youth in juvenile 

detention and correctional facilities? 

The JJDPA currently does not address abusive conditions and practices in juvenile facilities. Traditionally, states have been responsible for institutional conditions 

and practices. 

How should the JJDPA be strengthened to protect youth in detention and correctional facilities? 

New provisions should be added to the JJDPA that: 

• Require states to stop dangerous practices such as hog-tying and pepper spray 

that create an unreasonable risk of physical injury, pain, or psychological harm, and 

require states to assure that JJDPA funds are not used for dangerous practices; 

• Establish incentive grants for States to reduce or eliminate state-supported use 

of dangerous practices, unnecessary use of isolation and room time, and unreasonable use of restraints; 

• Establish incentive grants for States to provide evidence-based mental health, 

substance abuse and rehabilitative services to youth in custody; 

• Provide financial support for States to conduct necessary training for facility 

staff and to adopt best practices in programming, behavior management, and security; 

• Establish community advisory groups to monitor all juvenile detention and correctional facilities and, where appropriate, seek to improve conditions in those facilities; 

• Require the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to 

collect data from the states and report to the public on uses of dangerous practices, 

isolation and room time in the nation’s juvenile detention, correctional and residential treatment facilities; and 

• Make best practices available nationwide through research, training and technical assistance to improve dangerous conditions of confinement and reduce unnecessary use of isolation and room time. 

Why are these changes needed? 

Reports of widespread abuses in institutions across the country demonstrate the 

importance of updating the Act to ensure the safety of children in custody. 
18 

i Rothfeld, Michael, ‘‘Juvenile Prison System Needs Reform Lawyers Say,’’ Los Angeles Times, 

Feb. 18, 2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-youth18feb18,0,5845357.story; Boyd, 

Ralph, Investigative Findings Letter, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, April 

9, 2003, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/la—county—juvenile—findlet.pdf. iiKim, Wan, Investigative Findings Letter, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 

Aug. 6, 2007, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/marion—juve—ind—findlet—8-6- 

07.pdf; ‘‘Justice Department Reaches Settlement Regarding Conditions at Two Indiana Juvenile 

Justice Facilities,’’ U.S. Fed. News Service, Feb. 8, 2006, http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/ 

February/06—crt—066.html; Schlozman, Bradley, Investigative Findings Letter, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Sept. 9, 2005, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/split—indiana—plainfield—juv—findlet—9-9-05.pdf. iii Nossiter, Adam, ‘‘Lawsuit Filed Over Treatment of Girls at State Reform School in Mississippi,’’ New York Times, July 12, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/us/ 

12prison.html; Associated Press, ‘‘Mississippi Center Accused of Abuse,’’ July 12, 2007, http:// 

www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-12-mississippi—N.htm; Mohr, Holbrook, ‘‘Youth Prisons Get Scrutiny,’’ Associated Press, Mar. 3, 2008, http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci— 

8435681. iv Associated Press, ‘‘Ohio Settles Suit Over Juvenile Jails,’’ April 4, 2008, http:// 

www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/04/ohio.youth.prisons.ap; Investigative Findings Letter, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, May 9, 2007, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/scioto—findlet—5-9-07.pdf. vSwanson, Doug, ‘‘Officials Indicted in Abuse at TYC’’, The Dallas Morning News, April 10, 

2007, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/ 

041107dntextyc.be59c6b.html; Ramshaw, Emily, ‘‘Complaints Pour In to TYC Abuse Inquiry,’’ 

Dallas Morning News, March 13, 2007, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/ 

texassouthwest/stories/DN-tyc—13tex.ART.State.Edition1.44911b8.html; Becka, Holly, et al., 

‘‘Young Inmates Endured ’Deplorable Conditions,’’’ Dallas Morning News, Oct. 3, 2007, http:// 

www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/100307dntextyc.35bdf47.html. viGarland, Greg and Linskey, Annie, Restraint Called Common at School Youths Describe 

Practices at Facility Where Boy Died, Baltimore Sun, Feb. 2, 2007; Amons, Nancy, Youth Center 

on CDS’ Radar Before Deaths, June 27, 2007, http://www.wsmv.com/news/13583136/detail.html. 

• In California, authorities failed to provide adequate medical and mental health 

treatment, and facility staff regularly used pepper spray on youth.i

• In Indiana, staff sexually assaulted youth in one facility, and failed to protect 

youth from violence in several juvenile facilities.ii

• In Mississippi, staff in state facilities hog-tied youth, put them in shackles, and 

stripped youth and put them in dark rooms for 12 hours a day.iii

• In Ohio, girls in a state facility were sexually assaulted by male staff.iv

• In Texas, youth filed hundreds of complaints over physical and sexual abuse 

and repeated use of pepper spray by staff in juvenile facilities.v

• In Maryland and Tennessee, youth were restrained on the ground by staff using 

dangerous methods; three youth died at two facilities in such restraints.vi

Youth should be safe when taken into custody; they should not leave the juvenile 

justice system worse off than when they entered. National experts agree that the 

best way to keep youth safe in custody is through a combination of adequate staffing; engaging programming; effective behavior management focused on positive 

youth development; and a clear system for responding to crises that incorporates effective de-escalation techniques and uses safe methods of physical restraint only as 

a last resort. 

The federal government, through OJJDP, has an opportunity to improve the safety of incarcerated youth by requiring states to examine their staffing, programming 

and crisis response strategies in juvenile justice facilities and eliminate dangerous 

practices. States need more technical assistance and training in order to replace 

dangerous practices with safer approaches, and national data collection will support 

these efforts. Incentive grants can encourage innovation and develop more models 

of effective, safe care for youth in custody. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Ms. Carrio ́n, for sharing 

that story with us. I am sure it is very difficult. We have an awful 

lot of young people here in this audience, and for them to hear your 

story, it took great courage on your part. We appreciate it. 

Judge Huff? 
19 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. J. BRIAN HUFF, JUDGE, 

JEFFERSON COUNTY 

Judge HUFF. Thank you, Chairwoman McCarthy, and thank you, 

members of the committee, for inviting me to come and speak and 

for having an interest in this topic. 

I am the presiding judge, like you said, of the Jefferson County 

Family Court in Birmingham, Alabama. And I am going to draw 

my testimony from my 15 years of experience as a lawyer and as 

a judge handling delinquency and dependency child abuse and neglect cases. 

I am here to ask you specifically to reauthorize the JJDPA with 

an elimination of the VCO exception, because I believe it is morally 

wrong and I believe it is fiscally, with an ‘‘F,’’ wrong. 

A status offense, like you said, is an offense committed by a child 

which if committed by an adult would not be an offense. It is not 

a criminal offense. It is running away. It is truancy. It is things 

that children shouldn’t do, but it is not a criminal offense. 

Federal law already prohibits the incarceration of children for 

committing status offenses. However, there is a provision, there is 

an exception called the violation of the valid court order exception. 

I would typically take that type of a child, as a judge, and I would 

place that child on probation. 

And, Chairwoman McCarthy, I might incarcerate that child for 

any violation of a court order, not just the commission of a new offense. I would oftentimes order a child to properly conduct themselves, whatever that means, and a violation of that order could result in incarceration. I know I am not the only judge out there who 

has done it. I know that it is rampant throughout the State of Alabama and throughout the country. 

I would put those children in jail. Professor Sherman mentioned 

detention. And, Chairwoman, you mentioned detention. I think a 

better word is ‘‘jail.’’ I have attached a couple of photographs to my 

written testimony, and I think that sums up what these children 

throughout the country face. They are sitting in a cell with 

cinderblock walls, with bars, with a stainless steel toilet with no 

lid, with a bed with a mattress that may be two or three inches 

thick. And that is a jail; that is not a detention center. 

I want to mention one child in particular that I placed in a detention center, in a jail, and her name was Katie. Katie first came 

to me when she was about 11 years old. Her mother filed a beyond 

control petition, an ungovernable petition, because Katie had been 

drinking, Katie had been smoking, Katie had been doing some 

things that 11-year-olds shouldn’t do. Well, in all of my infinite 

wisdom, I placed this child on probation and ordered her, among 

other things, to properly conduct herself. Well, Katie didn’t properly conduct herself and subsequently spent 1 of the next 4 years, 

spent an entire year in a juvenile prison, in a juvenile correctional 

institution. 

That didn’t solve Katie’s problems. What we found out after the 

fact was that when Katie’s mother filed that petition, Katie was 

being sexually abused by her brother, stepbrother, who lived in the 

home with Katie and was currently abusing her. Katie’s parents 

didn’t do anything to stop the sexual abuse. My incarceration of 
20 

Katie didn’t solve Katie’s problems. I shouldn’t have had that option, and it is that simple. 

Katie doesn’t just live in Alabama. Katie lives in New York, and 

she lives in New Hampshire, and she lives in Tennessee, and she 

lives in Texas, she lives in Pennsylvania and Illinois and Virginia 

and in every one of the 50 States. And in many of those 50 States, 

the judges have the authority to incarcerate those children under 

the valid court order exception. 

What I am asking this committee and Congress to do is do what 

New York State has done, Chairwoman, and that is: Take that option off the table for us judges. Take away the easy way out. Don’t 

let us incarcerate those children. 

It costs approximately $150 per day to incarcerate a child in a 

detention center in the State of Alabama. It costs closer to $200 as 

a national average. It costs much less to use one of the alternative 

programs that the professors have talked about and will talk about, 

and you have better results. 

Finally, I want to add that what I am discussing is 99 percent 

philosophy. We didn’t make these changes because we were ordered 

to in Birmingham. We came to realize that what we were doing 

was wrong. Like I said, it was expensive, it was morally wrong, 

and it took a change in court philosophy. We realized that when 

we locked up those kids they met criminals when they were in that 

detention centers, and we realized that we reinforced the belief 

that they were worthless. We wanted to stop being part of the 

problem and start being part of the solution. 

I would ask this committee to vote in favor of reauthorization 

with the elimination of the VCO. I would ask the committee to support improvement in the conditions of confinement for those kids 

who do have to be incarcerated. And I would ask the committee to 

support the collection and analyzation of data, because if we don’t 

know what we are talking about, then we don’t know what we need 

to do, and that can only be done with data. 

Chairwoman, thank you for letting me run over. 

[The statement of Judge Huff follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. J. Brian Huff, Presiding Judge, 

Jefferson County Family Court, North Birmingham, AL 

Good morning. Chairwoman McCarthy and Members of the Committee, it is my 

distinct honor to speak with you today regarding needs and challenges faced by girls 

who come before the juvenile court. I am Brian Huff, the Presiding Judge of the 

Jefferson County Family Court in Birmingham, Alabama, where I hear, among 

other things, juvenile delinquency, ‘‘children in need of services,’’ as well as child 

neglect and abuse cases. I was appointed to the bench in 2005 and elected in 2006. 

I have helped to create and oversee Reclaiming Our Youth—a multi-faceted, collaborative, juvenile justice reform effort. The goal of the initiative is to improve the 

local juvenile justice system from intake to disposition by working with school officials, law enforcement, service providers and families to promote positive youth development, restorative justice and family involvement within their communities. 

The effort has reduced the juvenile incarceration rate in Jefferson County by more 

than 70% while returning millions of dollars back to the community through state 

grants. I have also led the Birmingham City Schools’ Collaborative, which developed 

Birmingham’s School Offense Protocol. The protocol established alternatives to incarceration for children who commit minor delinquent offenses within the school 

system. As a result, arrests of minors from the Birmingham City School System 

have fallen by more than half in the two years. 

I am active in the Alabama Juvenile Judges’ Association, and sit on the boards 

of directors for the Alabama Department of Youth Services and the Children’s First 
21 

Foundation. I am also past chair of the Family Law Section of the Alabama State 

Bar and the Birmingham Bar Associations, an ongoing member of the National 

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the National Association of Drug 

Court Professionals, and an active participant in the Act-4Juvenile Justice Campaign to inform a strong reauthorization of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). 

Girls Charged with Status Offenses 

My comments today are primarily drawn from my experience hearing dependency 

and delinquency cases involving children, youth and families. I will focus on girls 

that come before the court and, more specifically, girls who come before the court 

for status offenses. 

Status offenses are those offenses considered by the delinquency court only because of the minor status of the child involved—in fact, these ‘‘offenses’’ would not 

be criminal matters at the age of adulthood. Such matters include truancy, violating 

curfew, running away from home, and behavior that may cause a parent or guardian to deem a child ungovernable. 

I want to begin with a true story about a girl I will refer to as ‘‘Katie.’’ Katie is 

now 15-years-old. She first came to the attention of my court when she was 11. Her 

mother filed a complaint against her for being ‘‘ungovernable,’’ which is a status offense in most states. Her mother complained that Katie was smoking cigarettes, 

drinking alcohol and talking back. Years later, we learned that Katie’s troubles 

began when she was raped by her stepbrother—at age 11. Despite a doctor’s finding 

that Katie had contracted syphilis as a result of the rape, Katie’s parent did not 

take steps to protect her, and her stepbrother remained in the house for years. 

When Katie’s mother first came to us, we didn’t ask the right questions. Instead, 

we simply accepted the complaint, and Katie was placed under a court order that 

essentially commanded her to behave in a manner that is fairly standard in these 

cases. It said, ‘‘the child shall properly conduct herself at all times.’’ Not surprisingly, Katie’s behavior did not change as a result of the court order. The only difference was that her misbehavior was now treated as a legal matter. 

And so at age 11, Katie began her history with the juvenile justice system. Three 

years later, she has spent more than a year behind bars for failing to ‘‘properly conduct herself’’ and she is pregnant. 

Today, our court’s approach to cases like Katie’s is fundamentally different. Rather than pushing the case through the normal process, we would instead talk with 

Katie and her mother and refer her to agencies and organizations that could figure 

out what was really happening. We now recognize that youth like Katie can and 

should be steered clear of further court involvement. My credo as a judge is much 

like the Hippocratic Oath, to ‘‘do no harm’’ in such cases. This is particularly critical 

with respect to girls, like Katie. 

Many girls brought before the court for status offenses have been traumatized by 

abuse—sexual abuse, and neglect,i and judges are indeed in a position to guard 

against any further trauma. In fact, the National Institutes for Justice Study of 

girls in the juvenile justice system in South Carolina demonstrated that the vast 

majority of girls in the system had experienced multiple forms of victimization related to violence and sexual assault. In fact, fully 98% of the girls in this representative study reported victimization—nearly 70% were victimized by their caregivers 

prior to system involvement.ii

Placing girls who have committed status offenders in lock-ups is stigmatizing and 

counters all goals of rehabilitation. Detention and incarceration interrupt educational progress, pro-social relationships with peers, family and caring adults, and 

often also undercut job training and employment. Feelings of social isolation and 

hopelessness are exacerbated, not reduced—making it more likely that a young person will feel alienated. 

Girls are disproportionately affected by exceptions to the Deinstitutionalization of 

Status Offenders core requirement. Girls are reported to account for 14% of youth 

in juvenile facilities for delinquency, but 41% of those in facilities for status offenses.iii Common sense and research tells us that imprisonment is not a positive 

approach to status offending behavior. Detention in general, and particularly for 

status offenders and other low-risk youth, has been widely shown to be destructive 

rather than productive, independent of poor conditions of confinement. Obviously, 

the damage and trauma inflicted by incarceration in a clean and safe facility are 

magnified when youth are held in overcrowded and abusive facilities, which are far 

too common. Yet, nearly 70% of detained youth are held in facilities operating above 

capacity, nationwide. Under such conditions, discipline can become unduly harsh; 

education and medical and mental health treatment are often meager. Among youth 

in crowded detention facilities, there is a high number of reports of suicidal behav-
22 

ior, as well as stress-related and psychiatric illness. Sadly, too, youth of color—including girls of color—are more often detained than their white counterparts.iv

To be clear, as a juvenile judge, I am in a position to make life-changing decisions 

involving the lives of children. Alabama is one of 31 v of the 56 U.S. states, territories and District of Columbia that allows secure detention as a sanction for status 

offenders who violate a valid court order. I, however, understand the risks and 

choose not to exert my authority in this way. 

Some judges may find a young person to be difficult and frustrating when she 

challenges authority or violates a court order, and may believe it is justified to lock 

her up due to contempt of court or violation of an order. Yet, it is our job as judges 

to exercise our authority carefully and to serve the best interests of the child, family 

and community safety. All are better achieved through alternatives to detention or 

incarceration, in such cases. 

Family and Community Connected Alternatives to Detention 

I would like to take moment to share a photo, taken by Richard Ross, of a young 

girl in a detention facility in Harrison County, Mississippi—depicting a detention 

cell much like many in southern states. [Photo 1 of 2]. Until the recent settlement 

of a 2009 class action lawsuit by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of confined children in this facility, it operated at more than double its lawful capacity; 

70% of the youth there were nonviolent; and most of the girls at the Harrison County detention center were locked-up for non-delinquent acts and status offenses.vi

Attorney advocates for the children confined in this facility cite the case of a 12 

year-old girl locked up at the Harrison facility for 60 days after her foster mother 

reported the child to the court for failing to take her medications. Because this 

young girl had come before the court previously for running away from her foster 
23 

placement, her failure to obey her foster mother’s rules may have been deemed a 

‘‘violation of a valid court order,’’ permitting the judge to detain her. 

Other facilities, including those in my home county, may be up to code and safe, 

as seen in this second photo by Ross, of a facility in Racine, Wisconsin, where cells 

are at least clean [Photo 2 of 2]. Whether in dingy and dangerous conditions or 

something better, I urge you to question the choice to spend hundreds of public dollars each day to lock-away non-delinquent, needy and troubled girls in cinderblock 

cells, rather than using more cost-efficient, proven methods of assisting them to 

achieve safety and stability at home, at school and in the community. In Jefferson 

County, we do not lock-up girls who are status offenders. We do not do so because 

it is plainly ineffective and further traumatizes youth who are already in distress. 

There is good reason to hesitate to jail parents or place children in foster care 

for truancy, staying out after curfew or running away. Removing the presence of a 

parent or for that matter the child from the school is typically counterproductive as 

a means of supporting school attendance and engagement. Where evidence exists, 

the threat of such sanctions—and the sanctions themselves—have not been shown 

to reduce or deter truancy.vii

I have worked hard and collaboratively to reform the system and to create homeand community based alternatives for children in need of protective custody and 

services—not lock-ups—in my home state of Alabama. For instance, in Alabama we 

are working statewide to institute the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative 

(JDAI) of the Annie E. Casey Foundation.viii
24 

Recommendations 

Remove the VCO Exception to the Core Requirement to Deinstitutionalize Status Offenders 

Right now, this Subcommittee and the whole of the House Education and Labor 

Committee are charged with reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). In place since 1974, the JJDPA provides important 

safeguards and resources to assist troubled, vulnerable and court-involved girls. 

A change to the JJDPA that I believe is most critical to protect vulnerable and 

exploited girls has already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee this 

past December, in the form of an amendment to the JJDPA’s core requirement on 

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders. The amendment, which received bipartisan approval as part of S 678 in the committee, calls upon states to eliminate the 

‘‘valid court order (or VCO) exception’’—a loophole that allows judges to place status 

offenders in locked detention. 

If passed into law, the court orders issued for Katie or the Mississippi 12-yearold that I described would no longer be allowable. Judges would no longer be able 

to lock-up non-delinquent girls out of frustration or a misguided sense of protectiveness. Furthermore, eliminating the VCO comports with law or practice in approximately two dozen states and territories already. 

Testimony given at the time of the passage of the JJDPA cited that status offenders should be ‘‘channeled away’’ from lock-ups and toward human service agencies 

and professionals to avoid creating greater social, emotional, family and/or peergroup upheaval among this highly vulnerable population. Yet, the JJDPA law has 

not adequately addressed alternatives along a continuum of home and communityconnected services that would more appropriately and effectively address the needs 

of status offenders and their families. In the 1980s, the VCO exception to the core 

protection to Deinstitutionalize Status Offenders (DSO) was included in the JJDPA, 

but it left states to sort out the sanctioned judicial use of locked detention for status 

offenders. Researchers, legal scholars, as well as juvenile court professionals and advocates are seeking remedies to the problem of over-use of the valid court order 

(VCO) exception, as well as to problems that arise when federal and state law contradict. 

Overall, as a result of the DSO core requirement, since 1974, there has been an 

overall decline in the use of secure detention for status offenders. Yet, each year 

nearly 40,000 status offense cases still involve locked detention.ix Of these, more 

than 30% or approximately 12,000 nationwide would be prohibited if the VCO exception is removed from law.x Troubled youth, children in need of protective services, runaways and many youth with behavioral health concerns wind up in detention, not because of worries about public safety, but because of a severe lack of community alternatives, a lack of system collaboration and a lack of knowledge among 

judges about what resources and effective approaches are available.xi

Although status offenders are not dangerous, any juvenile judge will tell you that 

they are among the most frustrating youth that come before us. And when a status 

offender comes under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court, the easiest and most common response is to place the child under a court order to try to control their behavior. When they do not change their behavior—and they often do not—the same misbehavior that has frustrated the child’s parents is now an affront to the court’s authority. Many courts take that affront personally. As a result, the VCO exception 

often becomes the exception that swallows the rule. 

That has certainly been the case in Alabama. Until recently, my state incarcerated status offenders at a rate that far exceeded the national average. But in 2008, 

the Alabama Legislature voted unanimously to in the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act 

to take long-term confinement of status offenders off the table entirely. The Alabama Act also capped detention stays at 72 hours. This reform was championed by 

state and local leaders from both sides of the aisle and from every branch of government—including our Republican Governor and our Democrat Chief Justice. 

In your state, Madame Chair, the Vera Institute’s Center on Youth Justice has 

also made inroads in addressing status offenses by increasing objective decisionmaking in status offense processes. In 2002, New York State contracted with Vera 

to improve systems and services for status offenders and their families in 23 counties. As a result several counties took steps to refine their intake processes to incorporate more immediate crisis intervention, develop programmatic alternatives to 

non-secure detention and foster care placement, and provide more supportive services to status offenders and their families—especially truants—in lieu of court intervention. Momentum generated from these local reforms prompted the state to pass 

amendments to New York’s Family Court Act in 2005 to enhance diversion require-
25 

ments for status offenders and narrow the circumstances under which status offenders may lawfully be detained.xii

Scholars from the Vera Institute and the American Bar Association suggest that 

through the JJDPA reauthorization Congress do the following to assist girls and 

other status youth: • promote increased use of social service agencies as first responders to status offense referrals, to assist with and promote pre-court diversion. • remove the Valid Court Order exception so as to clear up the contradictory nature of the JJDPA requirement to deinstitutionalize with institutionalization pursuant to a VCO. 

There are many alternatives to institutionalization/detention of status offenders— 

shown to create positive outcomes for youth and families—including reduction in 

court referrals, such as Functional Family Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Also effective are intensive case management, non-secure shelter care and temporary crisis care, and family interventions and support—all of which may be supported by the Formula Funds (Title II) program of the JJDPA. 

Generate Greater and Better Resources for Effective Implementation of Federal 

Juvenile Justice Policy 

Regarding use of federal funds under the JJDPA, Congress should strongly consider prohibiting the use of federal funds for ineffective and damaging approaches 

such as highly punitive models shown to increase, rather than decrease re-arrest 

and re-offense, including boot camps, excessive use of physical restraint, force and 

punishment, and the building of large residential institutions.xiii

When crafting State Three-Year Plans for delinquency prevention, the State Advisory Groups on Juvenile Justice, chartered and supported under the JJDPA, are in 

an ideal position to recommend the use of JJDPA funds for programs and practices 

that emphasize practices and policies that will benefit girls, such as ensuring gender-specific and competent prevention and community based services for girls, ensuring due process, effective assistance of counsel and case management, and providing alternatives to detention and incarceration—particularly for status youth. 

Congress should consider ways for the JJDPA funding streams to emphasize and 

elevate compliance with the core requirements of the JJDPA and initiatives that 

strive to limit a young person’s court involvement, out-of-home placement or any 

sort of confinement while ensuring community safety. 

I also urge the Congress to consider ways to provide resources for field-based and 

field-strengthening research and evaluation that will refine and expand the array 

of best and evidence-based practices in delinquency prevention, intervention and 

treatment. Issues that states are hungry to address include the following, among 

others: 

• effective approaches for girls, as well as for diverse cultural and linguistic 

groups; 

• innovations to guard against bias and racial/ethnic disparities; 

• proactive approaches to truancy prevention; 

• ways to reduce school referrals to law enforcement; 

• effective approaches for positive family engagement. 

In addition, Congress should look to strengthen the implementation the JJDPA 

which addresses research, demonstration and evaluation and authorizes the federal 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administrator to 

‘‘conduct, encourage, and coordinate research and evaluation into any aspect of juvenile delinquency, particularly with regard to new programs and methods which seek 

to strengthen and preserve families or which show promise of making a contribution 

toward the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency.’’ 

Consider simple language changes in the JJDPA to state that the OJJDP administrator shall rather than may provide support for research, replication and high fidelity adaptation of evidenced-based practice models, across a wide range of racial, 

ethnic, geographic and societal circumstances—urban and rural, both in and outside 

of institutional settings for applications with many populations, girls, Native American youth, youth in the U.S. territories, Latino youth, African American youth, and 

others. Insist that the research and findings be made widely available to the public 

and backed-up with training and technical assistance to the parties principally 

charged with JJDPA implementation—state advisory group members and state juvenile justice specialists. 

Since 2002, juvenile justice appropriations to the states that support important 

priorities under the JJDPA such as continuums of care; alternatives to detention; 

gender-sensitive and gender-specific services and effective prevention initiatives 

have fallen by more than 50%. Here, again, you have the opportunity to restore the 

research, evaluation, and funding resources, as well as training and technical assist-
26 

ance resources needed to meet critical needs for girls and other children involved 

with the court. 

You will find that these recommendations are in keeping with best practice and 

with the recommendations of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice—an association of 

the JJDPA State Advisory Groups—as well as the broad-based Act-4-Juvenile Justice Campaign that includes more than 350 organizations in juvenile justice, law enforcement, youth and family service, child welfare, mental health and substance 

abuse treatment and representing the faith community, among others.xiv

In closing, I wish to avail myself to you should you have any further questions. 

Many thanks for the opportunity to speak before you today. 

ENDNOTES

iPhysicians for Human Rights, Health and Justice for Youth Campaign, ‘‘Unique Needs of 

Girls in the Juvenile Justice System,’’ 2006. iiDeHart, D.D., ‘‘Poly-victimization of Among Girls in the Juvenile Justice System: Manifestations and Associations with Delinquency, University of South Carolina, October 2009. iiiSickmund, Melissa, Sladky, T.J., and Kang, Wei. (2008) ‘‘Census of Juveniles in Residential 

Placement Databook.’’ Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/cjrp/ iv Coalition for Juvenile Justice, ‘‘Unlocking the Future: Detention Reform in the Juvenile Justice System,’’ January 2004. v Unpublished JJDPA compliance monitoring data from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency (OJJDP), pertaining to 2007. viPer correspondence with the Southern Poverty Law Center, 2010. vii National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention 

(NCMHPYVP), Prevention Brief, 2006. viiiSee: www.JDAIHelpDesk.org. ix National Center for Juvenile Justice: www.ncjj.org. x Unpublished JJDPA compliance monitoring data from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency (OJJDP), pertaining to 2007. xiSchwartz, I., Barton, W., ‘‘Reforming Juvenile Detention: No More Hidden Closets,’’ 1997 xiiSee: see www.verainstitute.org. xiiiMendel, Richard A. and American Youth Policy Forum, ‘‘Less Hype, More Help: Reducing 

Juvenile Crime, What Works—and What Doesn’t,’’ 2000 and ‘‘Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding 

Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice,’’ 2001. xivSee: www.juvjustice.org and www.act4jj.org. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Judge. And I have to say 

that I am hearing from and I have spoken to judges around the 

country that understand that the system that is in place is not 

working. And, hopefully, when we reauthorize down the road, hopefully this year, we could make some good changes. 

Professor Teplin? 

STATEMENT OF LINDA TEPLIN, PH.D., PROFESSOR; DIRECTOR, 

PSYCHO–LEGAL PROGRAM, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 

Ms. TEPLIN. Thank you, Chairwoman, for inviting me to speak 

today. 

I very much appreciated your comments, Judge Huff, on the need 

for data, because my purpose here today is to share findings from 

the Northwestern Juvenile Project, a very large-scale study of delinquent kids. We have been following them since 1995. And the 

findings of our study will provide the scientific basis for recommendations on how we can address problems in the juvenile justice system. 

On an average day, 14,000 girls are in detention. Many of these 

girls get into trouble because they have mental disorders. For example, they may have depression, they may self-medicate with 

drugs, they may then get into trouble with the law. 

We found in our study that three-quarters of girls in detention, 

a typical detention center in Cook County, in Chicago, had one or 

more psychiatric disorders. And their disorders are very different, 

their patterns are so different than boys, because girls have higher 

rates of depression, higher rates of anxiety disorders, higher rates 
27 

of some substance abuse disorders, especially use of hard drugs 

such as cocaine and amphetamines. And when I am speaking of 

disorder with drugs, I am speaking of disorder, not just use—addiction. 

I also want to highlight that 55 percent of the girls that we interviewed had more than one disorder. We call that comorbidity in the 

field. And that is critical, because treating kids with comorbid disorders is so much more difficult than treating kids who only have 

one disorder. 

I also want to highlight that adverse life events are a fact of life 

for these girls. We found that 85 percent of our girls had one or 

more traumatic life event, such as having been attacked physically 

or beaten badly; 15 percent had full-blown post-traumatic stress 

disorder; nearly 30 percent of the girls had ever committed suicide; 

nearly one-third of girls reported sexual victimization with force. 

And the dire situation here is that very few of these kids receive 

services. We found that only about 40 percent of girls with major 

mental disorders, meaning major depressive episodes, manic episodes, psychosis, only about 40 percent received treatment in the 

detention center, and even fewer, 12 percent, received any treatment after they left detention. 

How do these kids fair when they leave detention? In a word, 

very poorly or not at all. We found in our study of nearly 2,000 kids 

that the likelihood of premature, violent death is extremely high. 

To date, as of today, of the 660 girls in our study, 22 of them died, 

all violently. 

So what can we do to address this dire, dire situation? Our research provides the scientific basis for some of my recommendations. Let’s talk about each of these points. 

Before detention, we have to increase diversion, because so many 

of these kids with mental health problems don’t need to be in detention. At intake, we need to screen systematically for disorders, 

improve the technology for screening, and make sure that every kid 

gets screened so that they can be referred for treatment. 

During detention, we need gender-specific services, because, as I 

mentioned, girls have different mental health needs than boys. 

Girls have greater comorbid disorders, a higher rate of comorbid 

disorders, more than one disorder, than boys. 

We need gender-specific treatment during detention. We also 

need gender-based treatments because we know that girls, as said 

by the other witnesses, they have worse family situations than 

boys. They are more likely to have been abused and exploited. 

These are all key risks for continuing psychiatric disorders. Now, 

recognizing this, the specific needs, Federal agencies have established programs designed for girls, and these must be continued 

and expanded. 

We also have to address release from detention and what happens then, because we need to make sure that treatments that 

begin in detention continue when those girls go back into the community. So, at the Federal level, OJJDP can use its authority to 

conduct research, to provide training and technical assistance to 

improve the circumstances of detained youth with mental disorders. 
28 

Now, we need to make these investments. It will not be inexpensive. But without making these investments, this group—which, by 

the way, is disproportionately poor, disproportionately minority— 

faces dire outcomes: school failure, long-term unemployment, reliance on public assistance during their life, continued trouble with 

the legal system, which also has its attendant costs, and premature, violent death. 

Making these investments also is necessary to promote community safety and to increase the likelihood that these young people, 

these young women will be successful in school, avoid recidivating, 

and contribute economically to the society. 

I want to add one vignette here. I mentioned this is a longitudinal study. We interviewed the kids initially when they were ages 

10 to 17. The first follow-up interview was when they were ages 

13 to 20. Many of these girls were interviewed in their homes. Almost invariably, these girls, ages 13 to 20, were pregnant, holding 

an infant, and had a couple of toddlers also running around. So we 

need to make these investments not just for this generation, but to 

prevent the cycle of disorder. 

Thank you so much. 

[The statement of Ms. Teplin follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Linda A. Teplin, Ph.D., Professor; 

Director, Psycho–Legal Program, Northwestern University 

My name is Linda A. Teplin. I am the Owen L. Coon Professor of Psychiatry and 

Behavioral Sciences at the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University. 

I am also Director of the Psycho-Legal Studies Program, a research group that studies people who ‘‘fall between the cracks’’ of the mental health system into the criminal justice net. 

Since 1983, my research group has studied detained populations—adults and juveniles. We are currently conducting the Northwestern Juvenile Project, the first 

large-scale longitudinal study of mental health needs and outcomes of juvenile detainees. We are studying 1829 youth (657 girls and 1172 boys) randomly sampled 

as they entered Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center in Chicago, from 

1995 to 1998. We chose to study youth in Cook County because Chicago is a typical 

big city, with typical big-city problems. Since they were enrolled, we continue to 

track and re-interview our participants. To date, findings have been published in 

journals that are widely read and broadly distributed: Pediatrics, Archives of General Psychiatry, American Journal of Public Health, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, and Psychiatric Services.1 16

I am here to present key findings from the Northwestern Juvenile Project, all of 

which illustrate the dire mental health needs and poor outcomes of juvenile detainees overall, as well as the unique problems of girls. Based on our empirical findings, 

I will also recommend how the juvenile justice system can address their mental 

health needs. 

I am here to speak about some of the nation’s most vulnerable and troubled 

youth. Without significant investments, this group faces serious risks of school failure, long-term unemployment and reliance on public assistance, continued trouble 

with the legal system, and premature death. Moreover, making such investments 

is necessary to promote community safety and to increase the likelihood that these 

young people will be successful in school, avoid recidivating, and contribute economically. 

How common are psychiatric disorders in girls and boys in detention? Our study 

shows that youth with psychiatric disorders pose a challenge for the juvenile justice 

system and, after their release, for the larger mental health system. At intake, nearly three-quarters of girls and two-thirds of boys have 1 or more psychiatric disorders, rates 3 to 4 times that of the general population younger than age 18. Girls 

have significantly higher odds than boys of having any disorder.1 Substance use disorders are the most common type of disorder, affecting about half of girls and boys 

(see Figure 1). 
29 

How are the mental health needs of girls different from those of boys? The mental 

health needs of girls are substantially different than those of boys. For example, 

girls have significantly higher odds than boys of having affective disorders (such as 

major depression), any anxiety disorder, and some substance use disorders (using 

‘‘hard drugs’’ such as cocaine and amphetamines). Note that these prevalence rates 

refer to fully developed disorders, not merely symptoms of anxiety or use of substances. 

What proportion of detained youth has more than 1 disorder? Many juvenile detainees have more than 1 disorder, referred to as comorbid disorders. Significantly 

more girls (56.5%) than boys (45.9%) have comorbid disorders. Significantly more 

girls (22.5%) than boys (17.2%) also have 3 or more types of disorders. In addition, 

more than one-fifth of girls have 2 or more substance use disorders—most often alcohol and marijuana use disorders. Among girls with an alcohol use disorder, 4 out 

of 5 also have 1 or more drug use disorder.6

I highlight these facts because youth with comorbid disorders are far more difficult to treat and have much poorer outcomes than youth with only 1 disorder. In 

short, girls are not only more likely than boys to have psychiatric disorders but also 

more likely to have more complex and intractable problems. 

Adverse life events are a fact of life for delinquent girls. Nearly 85% of girls report 

1 or more traumatic life event, such as having been attacked physically or beaten 

badly; 15% meet criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the past 

year.10 Significantly more girls (27.1%) than boys (9.8%) have ever attempted suicide. Nearly one-third of girls report sexual victimization with force, compared with 

less than 5% of boys.10 Such traumatic events in childhood are risk factors for poor 

psychological and social outcomes. 

Do youth who need services receive them? Despite their obvious need for mental 

health services, few receive them. Among youth with a major mental disorder, fewer 

than 40% of girls receive any evaluation or treatment in the detention center. Ironically, fewer girls are treated in the community (12.4%) than in the detention center. 

From the youth’s point of view, there are substantial barriers to receiving services. 

For example, more than 40% of girls report they are unsure about how to access 

help. 

How do youth fare when they leave detention? Three years after detention, approximately 1 of every 5 youth have markedly impaired functioning, indicating a 
30 

’’need for interventions that are more intensive than standard outpatient care would 

provide.’’ 17 These youth struggle to occupy age-appropriate social, occupational, and/ 

or interpersonal roles. Among youth with marked global impairment, nearly twothirds are severely impaired in 3 or more areas of functioning. For example, these 

youth may have been expelled from school, engaged in serious violations of the law, 

and had drug addictions. These findings underscore the ongoing costs to youth and 

society of the failure to provide effective rehabilitation services during detention and 

after release. 

Impairment at follow-up varies by sociodemographic characteristics. Consistent 

with patterns of mental health needs among detained youth and youth in the general population, females are more likely than males to be impaired in moods and 

emotion, self-harm, and substance use. 

One of our articles, published in Pediatrics, analyzed death rates of the 65 (3.8%) 

youth who died as of March 2004;4 95.5% of these youth died from homicide or legal 

intervention (e.g., killed by police). Among homicides, 93.0% were from gunshot 

wounds. Mortality among girls is nearly 8 times that of general population rates; 

in contrast, mortality among boys is about 4 times general population rates.4

Since that article was published, 35 more youth have died. As of today, March 

11, 2010, 100 of our original 1829 participants have died: 22 girls and 78 boys. 

Implications for Juvenile Justice Policy: The US Department of Justice estimates 

that more than 14,000 girls are held in detention centers on an average day.18 Extrapolating from our findings, we estimate that as many as 10,000 girls in detention 

have 1 or more psychiatric disorders. 

By law, youth with serious mental disorders should receive mental health treatment while incarcerated.19 21 Federal courts have affirmed that detainees with 

serious mental disorders have a right to receive needed treatment as part of the 

state’s obligation to provide needed medical care under the U.S. Constitution’s 

Eighth Amendment (barring cruel and unusual punishment) and Fourteenth 

Amendment (right to substantive due process for youth in the juvenile justice system) (e.g., Estelle v Gamble, 1976;22 Ruiz v Estelle, 1980;23 Madrid v Gomez, 

1995;24 Bowring v Godwin, 197725). Despite the legal mandate, recent reports 

issued by the Surgeon General26 and the President’s New Freedom Commission on 

Mental Health 19,27 suggest that juvenile detainees are a profoundly underserved 

population. 

Advocacy groups, researchers, and public policy experts are concerned that the juvenile justice system has become the only alternative for treatment for many poor 

and minority youth with psychiatric disorder. Reports from the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform demonstrate that a portion of those in juvenile detention are not facing any delinquency 

charges and remain in these settings only as they await community mental health 

services.28,29

Most delinquent youth experience substantial barriers to services. Youth in the 

juvenile justice system are disproportionately minority, poor, poorly educated, and 

have few social networks—all characteristics known to limit the type and scope of 

mental health services that are provided.30,31 Girls who are pregnant or are already 

mothers face additional barriers due to childcare needs. The Surgeon General reports that, compared with non-Hispanic whites, racial and ethnic minorities have 

less access to mental health services, are less likely to receive needed care, and are 

more likely to receive poor-quality care.32 Moreover, poor minority youth rarely have 

private insurance.33,34,35,36,37,38 Many are ineligible for Medicaid.34,36

Youth with comorbid disorders—common among detained youth—are particularly 

underserved. A recent report to Congress39 and the Surgeon General’s Report26 on 

children’s mental health highlighted the paucity of mental health services available 

to youth with comorbidity. Because the fragmented public mental health system has 

little to offer,40 youth with comorbidity may ‘‘fall between the cracks’’ into the juvenile justice net. 

Despite the fact that youth with mental and behavioral health needs are overrepresented in juvenile justice, these agencies never were intended to serve as the 

main point of access for mental health or substance abuse services. Moreover, they 

are hamstrung by shortages in administrative capacity, funding, and staffing and 

they also lack sufficient staff training. In many, if not most, cases, other child-serving agencies are better suited to address a youth’s mental and behavioral health 

needs. 

The President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health19 and the Surgeon 

General26 stress the need to improve mental health treatment for youth in the juvenile justice system. Yet, without continued leadership from the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), services are not likely to improve. 

Based on our findings, we recommend that the juvenile justice system provide for 
31 

the mental health needs of detained youth—and for the specific needs of girls—at 

each point in the juvenile justice system and hope that Congress will give strong 

consideration to these issues in the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 

1. Before detention: 

Increase diversion. Whenever possible, youth with major mental health problems 

should be diverted to treatment programs or facilities instead of being detained. 

Most detained youth are charged with nonviolent offenses41 and could be placed in 

community-based programs. Effective diversion services require a mental health 

evaluation following arrest or during judicial review. With collaboration from mental 

health professionals, juvenile courts can detect and refer many youth, avoiding unnecessary detention. 

2. At intake: 

Improve screening for psychiatric disorders. The most recent national survey of 

juvenile justice facilities found that more than 70% provided screening for mental 

health problems,42 a substantial improvement over the 24% found in 1983.43 Although there are promising screening tools,44,45 additional studies are needed to 

document their validity. Moreover, we need to improve how we detect comorbid disorders, which are more common among girls than boys. Comorbid mental and substance use disorders are particularly difficult to detect because intoxication and 

withdrawal can mask or exacerbate psychiatric symptoms (and vice versa).46,47,48

Yet, failure to accurately diagnose complex conditions will lead to ineffective care 

and clinical deterioration. 

We must focus especially on detecting conditions common among girls, such as 

trauma and PTSD. The Surgeon General’s report on children’s mental health suggests that emergency medical providers must address the mental health needs of 

youth who have experienced trauma.26 Post-traumatic stress disorder is frequently 

overlooked even in the best psychiatric settings.49,50 Because PTSD frequently cooccurs with other psychiatric disorders,51,52 it can be difficult to detect without systematic screening. 

3. During detention: 

Avoid retraumatizing youth. The conditions of confinement often exacerbate symptoms of mental disorder.53 Youth with significant mental and emotional disorders 

can be vulnerable to abuse and exploitation by others while incarcerated and are 

more prone to experience adverse consequences of confinement.53 This may help explain the disturbing information that came from a January 2010 Department of Justice report on sexual victimization in juvenile facilities. They reported that an estimated 12% of youth in state juvenile facilities and large non-state facilities reported 

experiencing 1 or more incidents of sexual victimization by another youth or staff.54

Detention centers must also reduce the likelihood that youth will be retraumatized during routine processing. For example, symptoms of PTSD may be exacerbated by such common practices as handcuffs and searches.55,56 In detention centers, psychiatric crises are often handled by isolating and restraining symptomatic 

detainees. These practices can trigger or escalate symptoms of PTSD (e.g., severe 

anxiety, aggression, numbing of emotions).55,56 Well-trained mental health professionals can help to develop strategies to manage emergencies more humanely, and 

ultimately more cost-effectively. 

Provide gender-specific services. There is a growing awareness that girls need 

services designed to address their special needs. Our study shows that girls have 

greater and different mental health problems than boys. In addition, compared with 

delinquent boys, girls have worse family situations57 59 and are more likely to 

have been abused or exploited.60,61,62,63 These are key risk factors for psychiatric 

disorders. Recognizing delinquent girls’ special needs, federal agencies have established programs designed for them.64,65 69 These must be continued and expanded. 

4. After release from detention: 

Ensure linkage to community treatment after release. Most juveniles do not remain in detention for long. The responsibility for their care typically falls to the 

public mental health system on their release. Treatment in detention will not be 

successful unless detainees are linked to services in the community. So-called ‘‘linkage’’ services are relatively inexpensive because they can often be managed by paraprofessionals, and the service has tremendous potential to interrupt the criminalization of mentally ill girls and boys. Simply ensuring that a first appointment is made 

and kept maximizes the chance of successful linkage to services.70
32 

Improve services for victims of trauma. Exposure to trauma is a serious public 

health problem among high-risk youth. Yet, services are insufficient.71 Timely interventions may avert subsequent and often chronic social problems common among 

traumatized youth.72,52,73 To the extent that PTSD is correlated with subsequent 

violent perpetration, effective treatment is also a matter of public safety.74,75,76 I 

greatly appreciate the intent of the OJJDP to focus more on this area of critical 

need. 

Two final notes: First, providing effective screening, evaluation, planning, diversion, and treatment for detained youth in need will not be easy. OJJDP could enhance state and local efforts by providing more extensive training and technical assistance to the many stakeholders. Second, we strongly encourage OJJDP to continue supporting research studies that provide the empirical basis for changes in juvenile justice policy. 

Conclusion 

The Surgeon General reports that, despite their need for mental health treatment, 

insufficient services are available for delinquent youth in detention centers and 

after they return to their communities.26 To reduce delinquency, improve community safety, and, indeed, the nation’s public health, we must redress this omission. 

For example, treating youth who have behavioral or substance use disorders may 

reduce their risk of victimization by curtailing the high-risk lifestyles associated 

with these disorders.77 Treating youth who have substance use or mood disorders 

may decrease suicidal risk.78 Improving mental health services can reduce recidivism.79 These investments will benefit individuals and communities and provide 

substantial returns on public expenditures. 

Girls have unique mental health needs. They arrive in detention particularly vulnerable, with histories of abuse and exploitation, school failure, multiple home transitions, and childcare needs. Although studies document the high rates of PTSD and 

depression among girls in detention, mental health screening and treatment are 

often unavailable or of poor quality; overcrowding worsens an already bad situation. 

Yet, because girls are underrepresented in the justice system, they often have no 

access to services that address their special needs. 

The challenge to the public health system is to provide accessible, innovative, and 

effective treatments to a population that is often beyond the reach of traditional 

services. The challenge to the federal government is to continue supporting efforts 

and innovation in more and meaningful ways at the state and local levels that provide the right incentives, guidance, and technical assistance. The challenge to us all 

is in protecting the needs and safety of our young people and our communities. 

Thank you for your time today. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss and 

work with the Committee on these critically important issues. 

REFERENCES

1. Teplin LA, Abram KM, McClelland GM, Dulcan MK, Mericle AA. Psychiatric disorders in 

youth in juvenile detention. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002;59:1133-1143. 

2. Teplin LA, Abram KM, McClelland GM, Washburn JJ, Pikus AK. Detecting mental disorder 

in juvenile detainees: who receives services. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:1773-1780. 

3. Teplin LA, Elkington KS, McClelland GM, Mericle AA, Washburn JJ. Major mental disorders, substance use disorders, comorbidity, and HIV-AIDS risk behaviors in juvenile detainees. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56:823-828. 

4. Teplin LA, McClelland GM, Abram KM, Mileusnic D. Early violent death among delinquent 

youth: a prospective longitudinal study. Pediatrics. 2005;115:1586-1593. 

5. Teplin LA, Mericle AA, Abram KM, McClelland GM. HIV and AIDS risk behaviors in juvenile detainees: implications for public health policy. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:906-912. 

6. McClelland GM, Elkington KS, Teplin LA, Abram KM. Multiple substance use disorders 

in juvenile detainees. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004;43:1215-1224. 

7. Washburn JJ, Romero EG, Welty LJ, et al. Development of antisocial personality disorder 

in detained youth: the predictive value of mental disorders. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007;75:221- 

231. 

8. Abram KM, Choe JY, Washburn JJ, Teplin LA, King DC, Dulcan MK. Suicidal ideation 

and behaviors among youths in juvenile detention. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 

2008;47:291-300. 

9. Abram KM, Paskar LD, Washburn JJ, Teplin LA. Perceived barriers to mental health services among youths in detention. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47:301-308. 

10. Abram KM, Teplin LA, Charles DR, Longworth SL, McClelland GM, Dulcan MK. 

Posttraumatic stress disorder and trauma in youth in juvenile detention. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 

2004;661:403-410. 

11. Abram KM, Teplin LA, McClelland GM, Dulcan MK. Comorbid psychiatric disorders in 

youth in juvenile detention. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60:1097-1108. 

12. Abram KM, Washburn JJ, Teplin LA, Emanuel KM, Romero EG, McClelland GM. 

Posttraumatic stress disorder and psychiatric comorbidity among detained youths. Psychiatr 

Serv. 2007:1311-1316. 
33 

13. Romero EG, Teplin LA, McClelland GM, Abram KM, Welty LJ, Washburn JJ. A longitudinal study of the prevalence, development, and persistence of HIV/sexually transmitted infection risk behaviors in delinquent youth: implications for health care in the community. Pediatrics. 2007;119:e1126-e1141. 

14. Elkington KS, Teplin LA, Mericle AA, Welty LJ, Romero EG, Abram KM. HIV/sexually 

transmitted infection risk behaviors in delinquent youth with psychiatric disorders: A longitudinal study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47:901-911. 

15. Swahn MH, Whitaker DJ, Pippen CB, et al. Concordance Between Self-Reported Maltreatment and Court Records of Abuse or Neglect Among High-Risk Youths. Am J Public Health. 

2006;96:1849-1853. 

16. Washburn JJ, Teplin LA, Voss LS, Simon CD, Abram KM, McClelland GM. Psychiatric 

disorders among detained youths: a comparison of youths processed in juvenile court and adult 

criminal court. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59:965-973. 

17. Abram KM, Choe JY, Washburn JJ, Romero EG, Teplin LA. Functional impairment in 

youth three years after detention. J Adolesc Health. 2009;44:528-535. 

18. Sickmund M, Sladky TJ, Kang W. Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook. 

Available at: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/. Accessed February 16, 2009. 

19. The President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Subcommittee on Criminal 

Justice: Background Paper. Available at: http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/ 

FinalReport/downloads/FinalReport.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2005. 

20. American Association of Correctional Psychology. Standards for psychology services in 

jails, prisons, correctional facilities, and agencies. Crim Justice Behav. 2000;27:433-494. 

21. Soler M. Health issues for adolescents in the justice system. J Adolesc Health. 

2002;31:321-333. 

22. Estelle v Gamble, 429 US 97 (1976); 1976. 

23. Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (SD Tex. 1980); 1980. 

24. Madrid v Gomez. 889 F. Supp. 1146, 9617277v2. US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (ND 

CA 1995); 1995. 

25. Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Circuit 1977); 1977. 

26. US Department of Health and Human Services. Report of the Surgeon General’s Conference on Children’s Mental Health: A National Action Agenda. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2000. 

27. Hogan MF. New Freedom Commission Report: The President’s New Freedom Commission: 

Recommendations to Transform Mental Health Care in America. Psychiatr Serv. 2003;54:1467- 

1474. 

28. Government Accountability Office. Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies 

Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed Solely to 

Obtain Mental Health Services. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03397.pdf. 

Accessed March 9, 2010, 2010. 

29. United States Congress. Incarceration of Youth Who are Waiting for Community Mental 

Health Services in the United States. Available at: http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/ 

index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore—id=bdb90292-b3d5-47d4-9ffc-52dcd6e480da. 

30. McKay MM, McCadam K, Gonzales JJ. Addressing the barriers to mental health services 

for inner city children and their caretakers. Community Ment Health J. 1996;32:353-361. 

31. Kataoka SH, Zhang L, Wells KB. Unmet need for mental health care among U.S. children: 

variation by ethnicity and insurance status. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:1548-1555. 

32. US Department of Health and Human Services. Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity—A Supplement to Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: US 

Government Printing Office; 2001. 

33. Moffitt RA, Slade EP. Health care coverage for children who are on and off welfare. The 

Future of Children. 1997;7:87-98. 

34. Newacheck PW, Hughes DC, Cisternas M. Children and health insurance: an overview of 

recent trends. Health Aff (Millwood). 1995;Spring:245-254. 

35. Fronstin P. Children without health insurance: an analysis of the increase of uninsured 

children between 1992 and 1993. Inquiry. 1995;32:353-359. 

36. Lieu TA, Newacheck PW, McManus MA. Race, ethnicity, and access to ambulatory care 

among US adolescents. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:960-965. 

37. Holl JL, Szilagyi PG, Rodewald LE, Byrd RS, Weitzman ML. Profile of uninsured children 

in the United States. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995;149:398-406. 

38. Flores G, Fuentes-Afflick E, Barbot O, et al. The health of Latino children: Urgent priorities, unanswered questions, and a research agenda. JAMA. 2002;288:82-90. 

39. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Report to Congress on the 

Prevention and Treatment of Co-occurring Substance Abuse Disorders and Mental Disorders. 

Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2002. 

40. Cohen R, Parmelee DX, Irwin L, et al. Characteristics of children and adolescents in a 

psychiatric hospital and a corrections facility. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1990;29:909- 

913. 

41. Sickmund M, Wan Y. Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook. Washington,DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; 2001 2001. 

42. Goldstrom I, Jaiquan F, Henderson M, Male A, Manderscheid RW. The availability of 

mental health services to young people in juvenile justice facilities: a national study. In: 

Manderscheid RW, Henderson MJ, eds. Mental Health, United States, 2000. Rockville: 

USDHHS, Center for Mental Health Services; 2001:248-268. 

43. Anno BJ. The availability of health services for juvenile offenders: Preliminary results of 

a national survey. Journal of Prison & Jail Health. 1984;4:76-90. 

44. Wasserman GA, Jensen PS, Ko SJ, et al. Mental health assessments in juvenile justice: 

report on the Consensus Conference. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003;42:751-761. 
34 

45. Grisso T. Juvenile offenders and mental illness. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. 

1999;6:143-151. 

46. King CA, Ghaziuddin N, McGovern L, Brand E, Hill E, Naylor M. Predictors of comorbid 

alcohol and substance abuse in depressed adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 

1996;35:743-751. 

47. Stowell RJA, Estroff TW. Psychiatric disorders in substance-abusing adolescent inpatients: 

a pilot study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1992;31:1036-1040. 

48. Greenbaum PE, Foster-Johnson L, Petrila A. Co-occurring addictive and mental disorders 

among adolescents: prevalence research and future directions. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 

1996;66:52-60. 

49. Cascardi M, Mueser KT, DeGiralomo J, Murrin M. Physical aggression against psychiatric 

inpatients by family members and partners. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;47:531-533. 

50. Mueser KT, Goodman LB, Trumbetta SL, et al. Trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder 

in severe mental illness. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66:493-499. 

51. Kessler RC, Sonnega A, Bromet J, Hughes M, Nelson CB. Posttraumatic stress disorder 

in the National Comorbidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1995;52:1048-1060. 

52. Giaconia RM, Reinherz HZ, Silverman AB, Pakiz B, Frost AK, Cohen E. Traumas and 

posttraumatic stress disorder in a community population of older adolescents. J Am Acad Child 

Adolesc Psychiatry. 1995;34:1369-1380. 

53. Coalition for Juvenile Justice. Handle with Care: Serving the Mental Health Needs of 

Young Offenders. Washington, DC; 2001. 

54. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by 

Youth, 2008-09. Available at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf. 

55. Prescott L. Improving policy and practice for adolescent girls with co-occurring disorders 

in the juvenile justice system. Delmar, NY: The GAINS Center; 1998 1998. 

56. Veysey BM. Specific needs of women diagnosed with mental illnesses in U.S. jails. In: 

Levin BL, Blanch AK, Jennings A, eds. Women’s mental health services: A public health perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1998:368-389. 

57. Chesney-Lind M, Shelden RG. Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. Pacific Grove, CA: 

Brooks/Cole; 1992. 

58. Henggeler SW, Edwards J, Borduin CM. The family relations of female juvenile 

delinquents. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1987;15:199-209. 

59. Silverthorn P, Frick PJ. Developmental pathways to antisocial behavior: the delayed-onset 

pathway in girls. Dev Psychopathol. 1999;11:101-112. 

60. Lewis DO, Yeager CA, Cobham-Portorreal CS, Klein N, et al. A follow-up of female 

delinquents: maternal contributions to the perpetuation of deviance. J Am Acad Child Adolesc 

Psychiatry. 1991;30:197-201. 

61. Chamberlain P, Reid JB. Differences in risk factors and adjustment for male and female 

delinquents in Treatment Foster Care. J Child Fam Stud. 1994;3:23-36. 

62. Dembo R, Williams L, Schmeidler J. Gender differences in mental health service needs 

among youths entering a juvenile detention center. J Prison Jail Health. 1993;12:73-101. 

63. Viale-Val G, Sylvester C. Female delinquency. In: Sugar M, ed. Female adolescent development (2nd ed ). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel, Inc; 1993:169-191. 

64. Ravoira L. National Girls’ Caucus. Juvenile Justice Journal. 1999;6:21-28. 

65. Daniel MD. The Female Intervention Team. Juvenile Justice Journal. 1999;6:14-20. 

66. Acoca L. Investing in Girls: A 21st Century Strategy. Juvenile Justice Journal. 1999;6:3- 

13. 

67. Budnick KJ, Shields-Fletcher E. What About Girls? Washington: Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention; 1998 1998. FS 9884. 

68. Greene Peters and Associates. Guiding principles for promising female programming: An 

inventory of best practices. Available at: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/principles/contents.html. Accessed March, 22, 2005. 

69. Community Research Associates. Juvenile Female Offenders: A Status of the States Report. Available at: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gender/contents.html. Accessed March, 22, 2005. 

70. Koroloff NM, Elliott DJ, Koren PE, Friesen BJ. Linking low-income families to children’s 

mental health services: an outcome study. J Emot Behav Disord. 1996;4:2-11. 

71. Costello EJ, Erkanli A, Fairbank JA, Angold A. The prevalence of potentially traumatic 

events in childhood and adolescence. J Trauma Stress. 2002;15:99-112. 

72. Davidson JRT, Hughes D, Blazer DG, George LK. Post-traumatic stress disorder in the 

community: an epidemiological study. Psychol Med. 1991;21:713-721. 

73. Bell CC, Jenkins EJ. Traumatic stress and children. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 

1991;2:175-185. 

74. Cauffman E, Feldman S, Waterman J, Steiner H. Posttraumatic stress disorder among 

female juvenile offenders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998;37:1209-1216. 

75. Fehon DC, Grilo CM, Lipschitz DS. Correlates of community violence exposure in hospitalized adolescents. Compr Psychiatry. 2001;42:283-290. 

76. Wekerle C, Wolfe DA, Hawkins DL, Pittman AL, Glickman A, Lovald BE. Childhood maltreatment, posttraumatic stress symptomatology, and adolescent dating violence: considering the 

value of adolescent perceptions of abuse and a trauma mediational model. Dev Psychopathol. 

2001;13:847-871. 

77. Loeber R, Burke J, Mutchka J, Lahey BB. Gun Carrying and Conduct Disorder: A Highly 

Combustible Combination? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158:138-145. 

78. Shaffer D, Gould MS, Fisher P, et al. Psychiatric diagnosis in child and adolescent suicide. 

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996;53:339-348. 

79. Foster EM, Qaseem A, Connor T. Can better mental health services reduce the risk of 

juvenile justice system involvement? Am J Public Health. 2004;94:859-865. 
35 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Ivory? 

STATEMENT OF GARY IVORY, SOUTHWEST PRESIDENT AND 

NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, YOUTH 

ADVOCATE PROGRAMS 

Mr. IVORY. Good morning, Chairwoman McCarthy, Ranking 

Member Platts, and members of the Subcommittee on Healthy 

Families and Communities. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. 

I am the national director of program development for Youth Advocate Programs, Inc., which is a nonprofit organization founded in 

1975 by Tom Jeffers. 

YAP began by helping to return youthful felony offenders from 

a place called Camp Hill Prison near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 

back to their communities and homes of origin. The program provided then and it provides now intensive supervision, 24/7 support, 

up to 30 hours per week face-to-face contact for each youth who is 

referred to our program. For those youth who have received services, approximately 78 percent did not recidivate and experienced 

positive gains in education and employment. 

The core of the model is very simple: Hiring paid advocates from 

communities, from the neighborhoods where kids live, to be positive adult role models. Advocates are familiar with neighborhood 

conditions, they speak the language of the young people, and they 

are familiar with the culture and the background of the young people that we serve. 

The mission of Youth Advocate Programs—or I will refer to it as 

‘‘YAP’’ for short—is to develop community-based alternatives to incarceration or institutionalization, whether that is jails, detention 

centers, psychiatric treatment centers, group homes, et cetera. YAP 

provides a safe, cost-effective alternative for many jurisdictions nationally. Nationally, we serve 10,000 youth and families on any 

given day and also operate about 120 individual programs. 

Today briefly I will describe what we are doing in our Clark 

County, Las Vegas, Nevada, program. This program is serving a 

large number of female offenders who have been adjudicated delinquent. YAP is under contract with the Department of Juvenile Justice Services and the juvenile court to keep these young women 

from re-offending. 

YAP started the program in Las Vegas almost 5 years ago. We 

were charged with helping to reduce the number of female offenders that were housed at the Clark County Department of Juvenile 

Justice Services detention facilities and to develop alternatives to 

out-of-home placement. YAP helped to demonstrate that delinquent 

youth can improve their educational and vocational outcomes in the 

community without jeopardizing public safety. 

Since 2006, each of these goals have been accomplished. To date, 

we have achieved an 80 percent or higher success rate, and we are 

also helping to reduce recidivism rates, preventing out-of-home removal whenever possible, and in helping young women to successfully complete the terms and conditions of their probation. 

We find the following characteristics or at least the following 

components or elements of programs are very important in working 
36 

with female offenders: an individualized approach to working with 

females based on their needs, including recruiting female staff who 

have sometimes been through the juvenile justice system as role 

models. We have found that a family-centered approach rather 

than just focusing on the needs of the young women is important; 

that unconditional caring and support and a never-give-up attitude, 

that a holistic approach, a wraparound approach that addresses 

multiple life domain areas and that they are addressed simultaneously is important; that 24/7 availability in the community; that 

a wraparound approach where services are across different systems, because many of the young women are involved in multiple 

systems, as some of the other presenters have mentioned; that a 

form of what we call supported work or subsidized employment is 

important, especially when it is an area of their interest; flexible 

funds used to address emergency needs such as clothing, housing, 

fees for programs, et cetera; and a never-give-up approach. 

A key ingredient of our success in Las Vegas has been our supported work program. The model is a form of subsidized employment where we pay the wages of young women to work at places 

of employment within their community. And YAP actually pays 

their salaries while they are working from 10 to 20 hours per week. 

In January this past year, I was visiting our program and met 

a young woman who worked in our supported work program. She 

had been arrested and put on probation due to prostitution. She 

had been gang-raped. She had a young daughter. And, as a result, 

after she had been in our program for a while, we connected her 

with our supported work program. I visited her while she was 

working and asked her what made a difference in her life, and she 

had mentioned having another woman who had a similar experience, the fact that she was able to get a job in an area of her interest, and the fact that she had someone who was there to listen to 

her and support her was vital to her overcoming these obstacles in 

her life. 

Lastly, I would like to mention the cost savings of this model and 

similar models and the outcomes associated with those cost-benefits. 

On a national basis, programs like YAP cost about $60 per day, 

sometimes a little bit less and sometimes a little bit more. The cost 

of secure detention ranges from $150 per day, as the judge mentioned, and oftentimes much higher. The cost savings for YAP and 

similar programs to secure detention, correctional and residential 

placement are substantial. 

In addition, the outcomes are far better. For example, the recidivism rate for youth returning from correctional placement is often 

50 percent or higher. YAP has demonstrated through 10 external 

evaluations that the outcomes are 80 percent or higher working 

with adjudicated delinquent young people. 

I hope my testimony today has shed some light on the YAP 

model as well as on other similar models and challenges faced in 

working with female offenders. Thank you again for inviting me to 

participate. 

[The statement of Mr. Ivory follows:] 
37 

Prepared Statement of Gary Ivory, National Director, 

Program Development, Youth Advocate Programs, Inc. 

Chairwoman McCarthy, Ranking Member Platts and Members of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Gary Ivory. I am the National Director of Program Development for Youth Advocate Programs, Inc. (YAP). YAP is a national non-profit organization founded in 1975 by Tom Jeffers. YAP began by helping to return felony 

youthful offenders in Camp Hill Prison (near Harrisburg PA) back to their homes 

and communities of origin. The program provided intensive supervision and 24/7 

support, up to 30 hours per week, for each youth and his/her family. For those youth 

that received services, approximately 78% did not recidivate and experienced positive gains in education and employment. The core of the model then, and now, is 

the recruitment of paid ‘‘advocates’’ as positive adult role models. Advocates are recruited from the neighborhoods in which the youth whom they serve reside. Advocates are familiar with neighborhood conditions and resources. Advocates also are 

able to relate to the culture and language of the youth and family that they serve. 

The mission of YAP is to develop home and community-based alternatives for 

youth and adults who are at high-risk of being institutionalized (jails, detention centers, group homes, psychiatric hospitals, etc.). YAP provides a safe, cost-effective alternative for many jurisdictions nationally. Currently, YAP operates over 120 programs in seventeen states, including Washington, DC. YAP serves over 10, 000 

youth and families annually. We have over 2, 300 full and part time staff. 

Today, I will present on some of the great work that YAP is doing in Clark County (Las Vegas) Nevada. This program is serving a large number of female offenders 

who have been adjudicated delinquent. YAP is under contract with the Department 

of Juvenile Justice Services and the Juvenile Court to keep from re-offending. 

YAP started the program in Las Vegas almost five years ago. YAP was charged 

with helping to reduce the number of female offenders that were housed at the 

Clark County Department of Juvenile Justice Services detention facilities and to develop alternatives to out-of-home placement. YAP helped to demonstrate that delinquent youth can improve their educational and vocational circumstances in the community without jeopardizing public safety. Since 2006, each of these goals has been 

accomplished. To date, the program has achieved an 80% or higher success rate. We 

define success by measuring the following: reducing youth recidivism rates; preventing out-of-home removal and helping youth successfully complete the terms and 

conditions of their probation. 

Over many years, we have observed some specialized needs of female offenders 

that are very different from their male counterparts: 

• Most have been sexually abused at some point in their lives 

• Their needs and support systems are very different and often go unmet in programs that are geared towards working with males 

• Many programs are geared to working with males, not females (staffing patterns often reflect this) 

• Females who are involved in ‘‘sexual trafficking’’ often have significant safety 

issues and fear of reprisal/safety is paramount 

• Placements out of the home (detention, correctional placements, foster care) 

tend to be less tailored to meet their needs and they are often abused in these settings 

Some key program components of YAP that we find work well with female offenders include the following: 

• Individualized approach to working with females based on their needs, including recruiting female staff who have sometimes been through the juvenile justice 

system as role models 

• Family-centered approach, rather than just focusing on the needs of the youth 

• Unconditional caring/support; a never give up attitude 

• Holistic approach: multiple needs are addressed simultaneously 

• 24/7 availability 

• Wraparound approach where services and supports are literally wrapped 

around the youth and her family 

• Supported Work (subsidized employment) in an area of interest 

• Flexible funds to address emergency needs (clothing, housing, fees for programs 

• Never give up approach! 

A key ingredient to our success in Las Vegas has been our Supported Work Program. Supported work is a form of subsidized employment. Based on a youth’s interest, YAP finds a local employer who will employ the youth 10-20 hours per week. 

The employer agrees to provide a safe work environment for the youth and provide 

direction and support. The youth is paid at minimum wage, although some employ-
38 

ers add to their salary to increase their hourly wage. Employers often hire youth 

once their 3-4 month Supported Work Program ends. In Las Vegas, we currently 

have 15 youth working through our Supported Work Program. In addition to helping with a legal source of income, it helps young women with a career track, marketable job skills and as an alternative to the underground economy, especially 

gangs and prostitution. This also helps them to pay fees and restitution that might 

be owed to the Court. 

In January of this year, I was in Las Vegas visiting our program. One of the 

young women in our Supported Work Program was referred to YAP because of teenage prostitution. She had been gang raped. After assigning her an advocate to work 

with her, we helped her with a job through our Supported Work Program. I visited 

her while she was working at a job site. She has a young child and the job is helping her pay the bills and help in developing a career track. She is now working in 

a restaurant and is finishing her high school diploma and will be attending community college. YAP will be assisting her with a $1, 000 scholarship through our YAP 

Endowment Fund. She is doing very well because of the unconditional support and 

care that we have provided her. She has had no contact with the juvenile justice 

system for over a year. 

Lastly, I would like to mention the cost savings of YAP and our outcomes. The 

cost of operating YAP averages $60 per day nationally. The cost of secure detention 

ranges from $150 per day, or often much higher. The cost savings for a YAP program versus secure detention, correctional and residential placement are substantial. In addition, YAP outcomes are far better. For example: the recidivism rates for 

youth returning from correctional placements is often 50% or higher. YAP has over 

ten (10) external evaluations on our programs. Those outcome studies demonstrate 

YAP’s impact on the youth we serve. Again, our outcomes indicate that 80% of youth 

are positively discharged from our programs and YAP also has shown positive outcomes working with female offenders. 

I hope my testimony has shed some light on the YAP model and some challenges 

faced working with female offenders. Thank you again for inviting me to participate 

in the hearing today, I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Officer Romer? 

STATEMENT OF CAMERON ROMER, PROBATION OFFICER 

Ms. ROMER. Good morning, Chairwoman McCarthy and committee members. I would like to thank you for having me testify 

today. 

I am employed as a York County juvenile probation officer in 

Pennsylvania. Through my experience, I have been afforded the opportunity to supervise female juvenile offender populations that are 

court-ordered to residential treatment facilities. 

York County currently has eight females in out-of-home placements that are considered long-term placements. There are currently 125 juvenile male juvenile offenders in placement. All of our 

female juvenile offenders have been placed as a result of an adjudication of delinquency, ranging from misdemeanor offenses to felony offenses. 

The primary concerns of each of the female clients are typically 

the mental health issues and substance abuse issues that emerge 

as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder. Each client that I currently have in placement that is a female has been assigned the 

diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as other diagnoses. 

My experience finds that each female has a history of sexual 

abuse and/or is a victim of physical abuse. They have never been 

afforded treatment as a result of that abuse, which has resulted in 

the juvenile being placed in the delinquency system. The offender 

has not learned healthier, positive coping skills to deal with the 
39 

trauma. The female has then resorted to using substances and has 

difficulty controlling her behaviors in a community setting. Additionally, family issues emerge as a result of the female’s acting out 

in a negative way. 

A major obstacle to effectively treating the female offenders in 

York County is the lack of services that are offered. The residential 

facilities that offer quality treatment are not as prevalent for females as they are for males. For example, there is not one facility 

in the State of Pennsylvania that is designed specifically to treat 

a female adolescent that has been found to have committed a sexual offense. 

To date, York County has two or three providers that have proven to be somewhat effective in treating the post-traumatic stress 

disorder and substance abuse issues in adolescent females. Programs do offer rigorous treatment components for the above-mentioned issues; however, it is a slow healing process for any child 

that is dealing with trauma. This results in a length of stay being 

anywhere from 6 months to over a year. 

My program has been implemented throughout York County as 

an intensive program that offers a family worker and a case worker 

for each one of my children that go into placement. The idea is that 

the services begin at disposition and the family work begins at disposition throughout the treatment process for this child, and there 

is more support put in place for both the offender as well as the 

family. 

Additionally, juvenile female offenders who are in placement usually have significant mental health issues. These need to be stabilized prior to even addressing the substance abuse issues, the 

family relationship problems, and the history of abuse. 

It has been my experience that female clients entering residential placements also struggle in the educational setting. They typically are behind in their education. This is largely attributed to 

truancy issues; however, juvenile probation in York does not place 

a female offender due to truancy. It has also been determined that 

female offenders have not been able to focus in the educational setting as a result of mental health disorders and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. The school districts often overlook this 

and do not want to deal with these children. 

The transition for any female from placement back into the community has become a significant factor in preventing recidivism. 

The focus needs to be that the aftercare for a child begins at disposition and that all parties need to be involved in the treatment 

and planning of each child throughout placement. This includes the 

juvenile probation department, the residential facility, the family, 

the school districts, and any other agency involved with the child. 

It needs to become a team approach in order to allow for a smooth 

transition back into the juvenile community. 

The emphasis has been on the continuity of care rather than discharging a female offender without any services already in place. 

This includes a solid educational plan, counseling services, medication management, designated support system, and employment opportunities for the child prior to release from placement. It is significant also to monitor the female offender on a regular basis in 

order to ensure compliance with probation conditions, as well as to 
40 

determine that the female is not displaying any signs of returning 

to negative behaviors. That way, they can be caught before it is too 

late or before the child runs away. 

It is in my opinion that prior to discharging the female from 

placement family counseling should be facilitated. This will address 

the issues that resulted in the child being removed from the home 

and will also provide the primary caretaker the opportunity to 

learn the different and more effective ways of managing the child’s 

issues. The child will also be able to see the effect that her behavior has had on a family as a result of the counseling session. It is 

helpful to have a relapse prevention plan in place as well as a defined set of rules for each of these children. 

I would offer that intensive programs can be implemented on a 

county level. Numbers are on the rise for female youth who are 

being adjudicated delinquent. However, it is hopeful to see that 

there is more work being done on gender-specific issues. 

Once again, thank you for allowing me to testify today. 

[The statement of Ms. Romer follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Cameron Romer, Probation Officer, 

York County, PA 

My duties as a York County Juvenile Probation Officer have afforded me the opportunity to supervise the female juvenile offender population that are Court ordered to a residential facility. York County currently has eight females in out of 

home placements that are considered long term placements. There are 125 male juvenile offenders in placement. All female juvenile offenders have been placed as a 

result of an adjudication of delinquency ranging from Misdemeanor Offenses to Felony Offenses. The primary concerns for each female client are the mental health 

issues and substance abuse issues. Each of the 8 females currently in placement 

have been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. My experience finds that 

each female has a history of sexual abuse (victim) and has never been offered treatment as a result of that abuse. The juvenile offender have not learned healthy or 

positive coping skills to deal with the trauma. As a result, the female has resorted 

to substance abuse and has severe difficulty controlling her behaviors. Additionally, 

family issues emerge as a result of the female acting out in a negative manner. 

A major obstacle to effectively treating female offenders in York County is the 

lack of services for females. The residential facilities that offer quality treatment are 

not as prevalent as they are for males. For example, there is no facility in Pennsylvania designed to treat a female adolescent that has been found to committed a sexual offense. To date, York County has two to three providers that have proven to 

be effective in treating PTSD and substance abuse issues in adolescent females. The 

programs offer rigorous treatment for the above-mentioned issues; however, it is a 

slow healing process for any child dealing with trauma. This results in a length of 

stay being anywhere from 6 months to over a year. Additionally, female juvenile offenders who are in placement usually have significant mental health issues that 

need to be stabilized prior to addressing the substance abuse issues and family relationship problems. It has been my experience that female clients entering residential placements also struggle to succeed in an educational setting. Females are typically behind in their education. This is largely attributed to truancy issues. It has 

also been determined that the female offenders have not been able to focus in an 

educational setting as a result of mental health disorders and symptoms of PTSD. 

This often is overlooked by school districts. 

The transition for any female from placement back in to the community is a significant factor in preventing recidivism. The focus needs to be that aftercare begins 

at disposition and all parties need to be involved in the treatment planning of each 

child. This includes Juvenile Probation, Residential Facility, Family, School Districts, and any other agency involved. It needs to be a ‘‘team approach’’ in order to 

allow for a smooth transition back in to the community. The emphasis has been on 

continuity of care rather than discharging a female offender without any services 

already in place. This includes a solid educational plan, counseling services, medication management, designated support system, and employment opportunity. It is 

significant to monitor the female offender on a regular basis in order to ensure com-
41 

pliance with probation conditions as well as to determine that the female is not displaying any signs of returning to negative behaviors. 

It is my opinion that prior to discharging a female from residential placement, it 

is imperative that family counseling is facilitated. This will address the issues that 

resulted in the child being removed from the home and will also provide the primary 

caretaker the opportunity to learn different and/or more effective ways of managing 

the child’s issues. The child will also be able to see the effect that her behavior has 

had on the family as a result of the counseling sessions. It is also helpful to have 

a relapse prevention plan in place as well a defined set of rules for each child. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, everyone, for the testimony. 

We have your full testimony, you know, which goes into the 

record. As you heard the bells, we actually have six votes, which 

means it would be over an hour being out on the House Floor. 

I am going to ask my colleague, Mr. Murphy, if he would like to 

ask a question. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank 

you for allowing me to sit on this panel. This is an issue I care 

very, very deeply about. 

And I will ask my one question on the valid court order exception. Really pleased to hear strong testimony for the removal of 

that exception in the reauthorization of the act. We did it in Connecticut, and despite a lot of protests from prosecutors and judges 

that it was going to result in catastrophe and, you know, dangerous 

kids wandering the street, that did not happen. And it put pressure 

on Connecticut to very quickly ramp really up our communitybased placement models. 

So I might just ask that question—I will direct it to Professor 

Sherman and Judge Huff—as to what your experiences have been 

in States that have removed the valid court order exception and 

the kind of things that judges need in order to find alternatives. 

Ms. SHERMAN. Yes, thank you for the question. I am actually 

from Massachusetts, and we are another State that does not have 

the valid court order exception as a matter of State law. 

I think what has happened, and Judge Huff testified to it, is that 

judges and—it has basically caused child and family services agencies to step up and provide alternative placements and services in 

the community and not criminalize this behavior. 

And it has also caused the system to look behind the behavior. 

Very often, in my experience, girls who run away are running away 

from something; there is another situation. There are family issues. 

There is sexual victimization. And it has really caused people not 

to default for an easy option, which is to put the girl into detention, 

and really look at the family situation and provide services directed 

at that. 

Judge HUFF. Thank you for the question. 

I think there is a mistake that judges need something. Oftentimes, the best thing a judge can do is to stay out of it. Because 

we get involved, we—I will speak for myself—I believe that I am 

all powerful, and I believe that I can solve the family’s problems. 

And when they don’t do exactly what I want them to do, I get mad 

and I put them in jail. 

What the court needs are people who handle these intakes who 

recognize that, when judges actually do get the cases, the most 
42 

beneficial thing that these families and these children can receive 

is some sort of counseling. 

What we do in Birmingham, before we ever take an ungovernable complaint, we require that these families attend counseling, 

and we give them recommendations of counselors who may see 

them on a sliding scale. That keeps me from getting involved and 

being hot-headed and putting these people in jail. 

The communities can stand to have programs such as YAP, like 

Mr. Ivory spoke about, like the Strong Girls program that we have 

in Birmingham, that works with the child and works with the family from a holistic approach that involves not only counseling but 

also involves activities in the arts, some self-discovery. But those 

are programs that I think are best used outside of the court system. 

I tell people oftentimes that the court system is a horrible service 

delivery system, and it really is, especially when it comes to youth. 

We deal with teenagers, and we all know—I know how a teenager 

can be. I was a teenager once, and I didn’t do everything that my 

parents wanted me to do. I could become, you know, a little unruly 

at times. I stayed out when I wasn’t supposed to be out. I probably 

did some things I shouldn’t have done. 

And I wasn’t being sexually abused at home. I didn’t have a parent or both parents who were addicted to alcohol or some other 

substance. I didn’t have a father who was incarcerated, or living in 

a foster home. 

What we have to do is recognize that kids are kids and that adolescent brain development shows that the adolescent brain doesn’t 

complete its development until about age 25. And when you pour 

the other issues that—what I call ‘‘our kids’’ on top of it, that that 

makes matters worse. 

That is a roundabout way of saying sometimes, Congressman, 

the best thing that judges can do is recognize they need to stay out. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

As I said, we are in a vote. It is a little frustrating to me, sitting 

here, because I have an awful lot of questions. 

But, Ms. Carrio ́n, I actually want you to speak a little bit. Whenever we have these kind of panels, and certainly a number of the 

issues that come in front of my committee, I always try to have a 

young person that was impacted one way or the other so that—we 

have the data, we have the judges, we have the correctional officers, we have those that want to help you, but it is still your voice 

that needs to be heard on some of the things that happened to you, 

especially the sexual abuse, and how you got back to being who you 

want to be today and who you are not going back to. 

So if you could just say, what do you think could help young 

women and young boys the best way? 

Ms. CARRIO ́ N. Well, you know, I think that—because I was in two 

different kind of programs. I was a nonsecure detention center. 

That is when I got remanded. And then, because of my addiction, 

you know, I went into a therapeutic community. 

When I went into the therapeutic community, I was already 18 

years old, and the girls in there were 14 and 15 years old. And I 

can remember telling them, you know, if I had this program, if 
43 

they would have sent me to this program when I first got arrested 

and couldn’t stop smoking weed, you know, I think I would have 

had a better chance, a better fighting chance. You know what I am 

saying? 

Because the way that they had the program organized and how 

they just had one-on-one, direct care with these people, with these 

young girls, you know—like, they actually had a psychiatrist and 

all that on site. And I just believe that counseling really helps 

them. When they have an outlet—‘‘Listen, I am mad at my mother, 

and I am mad at my father, and this is what they did to me. And 

my mother is a dope fiend.’’ And if they don’t have that outlet, all 

they have is, you know, okay, you have me in a place with a whole 

bunch of people who are angry, because all these teenagers are 

angry or depressed or something. You know? And the ones who are 

not angry, they are so highly medicated that they don’t even know 

what is going on in the world. All they have is violence. That is 

all they have. 

And then, on top of that, I don’t want to be here, so I am going 

to do whatever I can to get out of here. And if they didn’t get anything treated while they are there, they leave there, and they are 

all just really messed up in the head and they feel lost. You know? 

So I think that counseling can play a big role. And keeping the 

youth, you know, whatever family they do have, to keep them attached to their families. Taking them totally out of the community 

is very hard on them. I didn’t see my family—I saw my family 

twice while I was upstate. I saw them twice. And when I was in 

Odyssey House, I saw them every other weekend, and that gave me 

hope, like, ‘‘Okay, I can do this. I can do this. My family got my 

back.’’ You know? There is still some type of relationship there and 

I am not breaking all ties. 

So I think family support and keeping whatever programs that 

they do have—because there needs to be alternative programs. You 

can’t just keep sticking kids in a box and expect them to rehabilitate. I don’t believe that that is the way to go. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Well, you know, I came to Congress 

without any kind of a political background. Nassau County, where 

I live, we have a very large facility for juveniles, and all I ever 

heard for the last 13 years were from the correction officers: ‘‘These 

kids shouldn’t be here.’’ And that is coming from a corrections officer. 

But, again, you know, for so many years, it was told to all of us 

throughout this Nation that we have to be tough on crime, you 

have to be tough on the offenders. Which, I think we all agree, for 

those that should have those kind of punishments, they should be 

punished. 

But with all the data and all the work that all of you have been 

doing, you know, people are starting to become enlightened. They 

are nowhere near where they should be. And we will work as hard 

as we can on this committee to have the choices for judges, to have 

the money for the programs that need to be out there. 

My background was a nurse. I still feel I am a nurse. I am a 

nurse. And I also know what preventative care means. And, as you 

said, Judge, we all did stupid things when we were 13, 14, and 15 

years old. And a lot of people don’t realize that we probably were 
44 

lucky that nothing happened to us. We didn’t get into the wrong 

groups. Some kids aren’t as lucky as we were. 

But we need to have the services, so young women like you—and 

you have pulled your life together, and we are all so proud of you. 

But we want to give that chance to a lot of young people, because 

the young people here in the audience—and many times I feel very 

frustrated that we do not look out for the future leaders of this Nation. 

And as we look forward in the competition worldwide, every 

young child, every young adult could be a future leader. And we 

have to do whatever we can to give that child, to reach the full potential of what they need to be. We can do a better job. We must 

do a better job. 

And it is a whole—believe me, I work—there is a big battle going 

on right now about earmarks, you know, that we as Members of 

Congress get earmarks. Let me tell you where my earmarks go. 

They go to nonprofit organizations back in my district. They go 

to organizations that are helping kids get out of gangs. They are 

helping my local police have more of a relationship with the community. They go into programs that are helping young men and 

women fight drugs and addiction. Those are my earmarks. And the 

majority of Members in this Congress, that is what they are doing 

in their community. 

So, whatever happens with that—and we will have a vote sometime this week—I will be voting against it, because I believe I 

know my community and where the money needs to go for the most 

help. 

So, with that, I am unfortunately going to have to end this. I 

think I have already missed one vote. This is better than having 

a vote at this particular time. 

So what I will say to you is—I am going to skip my concluding 

remarks. I think I have said what I needed to say. But I want to 

say thank you to each and every one of you. You have done a great 

job. We will try and get you the support that you need to continue 

the job. 

Data is extremely important. This is Kim. Kim and I love data. 

We love data. It might be boring to some people, but there are a 

lot of answers in that. 

As previously ordered, Members will have 14 days to submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any Member who wishes 

to submit follow-up questions in writing to the witness should coordinate with the majority staff within the requested time. 

Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you again. 

[The statement of Mr. Platts follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Russell Platts, Senior Republican 

Member, Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

Good morning. I would like to welcome you all to our hearing today. 

As we explore our existing juvenile justice system, it is ever important that we 

also examine the unique experiences faced by girls who enter the system. Today we 

will hear from a well-regarded group of witnesses who will be able to provide insight 

to the challenges and characteristics of female offenders. 

Although recent studies have provided us with more information regarding the involvement of females in the juvenile justice system, there is still much we have yet 

to learn. According to the Girls Study Group—a group of scholars and practitioners 

convened by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency—by 2004, girls ac-
45 

counted for 30 percent of all juvenile justice arrests. Despite the fact that this figure 

is higher than previous decades, the group found that girls have not necessarily become more violent, but that changes in the enforcement of domestic dispute laws 

and zero-tolerance school policies may attribute to an increasing percentage of female delinquency rates. 

As we deal with the changing environment of the juvenile justice system, we must 

ensure that these girls are treated in a way that is both safe and constructive to 

their rehabilitation. As such, it is critically important that we meet today to hear 

from individuals who have front-line experience. I want to especially note the attendance of Cameron Romer, an Intensive Aftercare Officer, from York County, 

Pennsylvania in my home district. I am particularly grateful for Ms. Romer sharing 

her knowledge of working with females who require intensive supervision and treatment. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of all of our witnesses today, and am confident that will be able to address the unique needs of girls in our juvenile justice 

system. Thank you, Chairwoman McCarthy. 

[Additional submissions of Mrs. McCarthy follow:] 

Prepared Statement of Dory Magasis Escobar, Director of Healthy 

Communities, St. Joseph Health System—Sonoma County, CA 

Madam Chairwoman Carolyn McCarthy, Ranking Member Todd Platts and members of the Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Healthy Families: 

Female involvement in Sonoma County’s juvenile justice system in the 1990’s was 

on a steady course upward—as juvenile male involvement in delinquency proportionately declined; with data on female juvenile delinquency putting Sonoma County, CA well above the state average for juvenile arrests, offenses/misdemeanors, substance abuse, sexual activity, suicide, and involvement in gang activity, including 

the recruitment of girls into existing and emerging gangs. Traditionally, youth 

criminal behavior has been addressed by the juvenile justice system and academic 

sociologists and not as a community health concern. 

What we now know implores us to address these issues in a healthy community 

context. In response to this critical information regarding how badly girls were 

doing in Sonoma County, St. Joseph Health System—Sonoma County (SJHS-SC), a 

ministry of St. Joseph Health System, facilitated community focus groups and assessments to inform key stakeholders and garner their feedback on potential action. 

As a result of that work, Project E.S.C.A.P.E., better known as Circle of Sisters 

(COS), was developed in 2000 to provide a forum, training, and model for schools 

and communities to address societal and familial issues that tend to impact girls 

negatively, by focusing on strengths and individual, family and community assets, 

by providing positive peer and adult support, and by offering girls information that 

expands their decision making abilities. 

COS is one of several Healthy Communities initiative of St. Joseph Health System—Sonoma County (SJHS-SC), comprised of Santa Rosa Memorial and Petaluma 

Valley Hospitals, as well as other local facilities. COS provides gender-responsive 

and developmentally appropriate community-based programming for girls in grades 

4 through 8 (ages 9—14 years). Research shows that the majority of juvenile crime 

and victimization occurs between the hours of 3and 6 p.m., indicating the importance of after-school programs. The COS after-school program uses prevention-oriented, risk-reduction strategies, which are designed to prevent and reduce female 

juvenile delinquency, crime, and victimization; and was founded on the principles 

of the Search Institute’s ‘‘40 Developmental Assets for Youth.’’ 

As shown in the 1999 studied sponsored by SJHS-SC and authored by Constance 

U. Battle, M.D, Developmental Pediatrician from Washington, D.C., ‘‘A Summary of 

Growth in Adolescent Girls: A Reference and Resource Guide—The Developmental 

Stages of Body, Mind and Spirit in End of Middle Childhood Ages and Early Adolescence Ages,’’ developmentally girls experience many different life transitions during 

middle childhood and early adolescence. The goal of COS is to help girls navigate 

these developmental stages successfully, by providing prevention and risk reduction 

programming and opportunities to maximize their positive developmental assets and 

develop resiliency. This summary of gender specific research has been at the core 

of the Circle of Sisters program and curriculum development. The program’s curriculum includes specific strategies that reflect this research and instructs program 

facilitators on how to best meet the girl’s developmental needs, providing girls ages 

9-14 with developmentally appropriate and gender specific information about the 

physical and emotional changes they are experiencing. 
46 

Circle of Sisters provides participants with the opportunity to develop internal 

and external assets through specific program activities. The program is structured 

to develop the essential life skills, values, experiences, resources and support that 

will enable girls to make positive present and future life choices. COS Program components include: Journaling, Circle Time, and Life Learning Tracks (fun experiential 

activities tied into the daily theme/topic). Sample topics include: Self-esteem, tolerance and understanding, health and nutrition, peer pressure, and conflict resolution. 

The program emphasizes the identification and enhancement of individual 

strengths, or ‘‘assets’’ through positive feedback, leadership opportunities, and role 

modeling. COS has eight target participant outcomes focused on participants being 

able to demonstrate: 1) An ability to resolve conflicts; 2) An ability to communicate 

appropriately and effectively; 3) An ability to resist negative external influences and 

victimization; 4) Age appropriate health practices; 5) An ability to solve problems 

and make healthy decisions; 6) An ability to develop healthy relationships; &) Appropriate expression of personal values, talents, and skills; 8) Meaningful interaction with their community. 

Circle of Sisters programs targets young girls living in affordable housing complexes and/or attending schools that have a high representation of Latino and/or a 

high number of children who qualify for federally funded free and reduced lunch 

programs. The housing complexes are located in high crime areas where families 

struggle with issues of persistent poverty, lack of community support, limited literacy and English skills, prevalence of gang participation and substance abuse 

among youth. Current research documents that: 1) Latinas report lower self-esteem, 

higher levels of depression and highest level of suicide than other adolescents; 2) 

Adolescent Latinas experience significantly more negative life events than young 

Latinos and report a higher incidence of abuse and violence than their white counterparts; 3) For young Latino and African American girls, low economic status correlates with high stress and depression, domestic violence, physical and sexual 

abuse and low self-esteem. COS is free to all participants and provides on-site programming in order to address the transportation issues that are inherent in an 

after-school program for youth. 

During its critical formative stage, Circle of Sisters (Project E.S.C.A.P.E.) received 

over 3 years of funding from the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention 

in order to expand number of girls served, develop lesson plans aligned with the 

Search Institute’s 40 Developmental Assets for Youth and evaluate the programs 

impact. These objectives were successfully met, with a increase in program participants from 20 girls enrolled at 1 site in 2000, to 269 girls enrolled in 2010 with 

12 different sites and 15 different groups. 

Over the past 10 years, 1256 girls have participated in Circle of Sisters at 28 different sites with a total of 102 groups, and COS has employed 37 different group 

facilitators, 230 community volunteers, 7 full-time AmeriCorps Promise Fellow volunteers, 4 Masters of Social Work interns and collaborated with over 60 community 

partners. A COS program curriculum was also developed; including the creation, 

testing and revision of 80 age-appropriate skill and asset building lesson plans. 

Program participants and family members have stated the following about the 

Circle of Sisters program: ‘‘Brianna’s respect level has risen a lot since joining Circle 

of Sisters. I am very happy with the personal growth. Thank you all very much.’’— 

Parent, ‘‘I have boosted my personality, self-confidence and have made more friends. 

I feel that COS helps me open my feelings and I am able to express myself much 

more’’—13 year old girl, COS helps me by talking about my problems that I have 

and how to fix them. They also help me by be there for me when I’m sad’’—10 year 

old girl. 

Girls develop through relationships. During the latency/early adolescent stage in 

life peers become more important and girls are more likely to be prey to peer pressure and the awkwardness of developmental body changes. All people want to fit 

in, they want a place to belong, people to trust and care for them, power to have 

control over some aspects of their lives and a sense of purpose or meaning in their 

lives. St. Joseph Health System—Sonoma County’s Circle of Sisters program is a 

model program for female violence prevention where the need for positive relationships and the core COS principle of having ‘‘Place, People, Power, Purpose’’ is met. 

Prepared Statement of Just Detention International (JDI) 

Just Detention International thanks the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and 

Communities for holding this important hearing on challenges faced by girls in the 

juvenile justice system. As a recent report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics makes 

clear, detained girls are at grave risk for sexual abuse, both by perpetrating staff 
47 

and by other detainees. The rising number of girls in the juvenile justice system 

makes even more apparent the urgency with which the issue must be addressed. 

Just Detention International (JDI) is the only U.S. organization exclusively dedicated to ending sexual violence in detention. JDI works to ensure government accountability for prisoner rape; to transform illinformed public attitudes about sexual 

violence in detention; and to promote access to resources for those who have survived this form of abuse. JDI’s efforts are guided by the expertise of men, women, 

and children who have endured sexual violence behind bars and who courageously 

have shared their experiences with us. 

JDI led a diverse coalition of advocates who worked closely with politicians on 

both sides of the aisle to help secure the passage of the U.S. Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2003. PREA calls for the development of national standards 

addressing prisoner rape, the gathering of nationwide statistics about the problem, 

the provision of hearings with the best and the worst performing corrections facilities. As a result of PREA, corrections officials can no longer deny that sexual violence is a problem in their facilities, and leading agencies are developing best practices to improve inmate safety. Sadly, however, most juvenile facilities are dangerously lagging behind in efforts to address sexual abuse in their facilities—and 

the minimal actions taken so far have largely focused on male detainees. 

I. Sexual Violence Against Girls in Detention 

In January, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released a report on its 

firstever national survey of youth in juvenile detention. Based on this survey, the 

BJS found that a shocking 12.1 percent—almost one in eight—of youth reported 

being abused at their current facility in the past year alone.1 In the worst facilities, 

the rate was well over 30 percent.2

More than nine percent of girls who participated in the survey reported forced 

sexual activity with other youth, a rate that was more than four times that reported 

by surveyed boys. An estimated 4.7 percent of girls reported sexual activity with 

staff.3

The BJS survey confirmed that certain types of youth are disproportionately targeted for abuse. In particular, juvenile detainees with a history of abuse were more 

than twice as likely to be sexually abused while incarcerated as their peers.4 This 

risk than 90 percent of girls in the juvenile justice system experienced physical, sexual or emotional abuse prior to their detention.5

Like in adult prisons and jails, youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

transgender or questioning (LGBTQ) are also exceptionally vulnerable.6 In particular, transgender girls are often tormented by constant sexual harassment, as 

they tend to be placed in boys’ facilities, in accordance with their birth gender. 

Cyryna Pasion, a transgender girl who was repeatedly sexually assaulted and harassed by other wards while in the boys’ unit of a Hawaii youth facility described 

her ordeal as ‘‘the most damaging and emotionally devastating treatment of [her] 

life.’’ 7 Dr. Robert Bidwell, a pediatrician at the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility, 

testified that he believed that an institutional antiLGBTQ sentiment was among the 

most critical factors in creating such a dangerous environment and that national 

standards addressing the treatment of LGBTQ youth was urgently needed.8

Perpetrating staff in girls’ facilities often target youth known to have a history 

of prostitution.9 The policy of allowing officers of the opposite sex to work in all 

areas of a staff sexual misconduct.10

Survivors of sexual violence in detention who wish to file a formal complaint face 

multiple serious barriers, including fear of stigma and further assaults. Young survivors face additional obstacles, such as a relative lack of experience in corrections 

settings and a common fear of adult authority figures. All too often, detained youth 

are abused by staff members whose job it is to keep them safe.11 Such blatant abuse 

of power further discourages reporting, and underscores the difficulty detained 

youth face when seeking to identify safe ways to report abuse. 

Moreover, detainees in juvenile facilities are often afforded less access to legal resources than inmates in adult facilities.12 While they generally do not complain 

about abuse and are especially unlikely to file lawsuits, detained youth are still subject to the harsh requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which creates 

special pleading requirements and other procedural hurdles for incarcerated individuals who seek to have civil rights violations addressed in court. 

II. Increasing Safety for Incarcerated Youth through the PREA Standards 

The BJS study confirms what JDI has long known: young detainees constitute an 

especially vulnerable population that needs special protections, and the unique dynamics in girls’ facilities require urgent attention. In its final report, the National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission (Commission) noted that the increasing num-
48 

ber of girls in facilities, which were traditionally designed to meet the needs of boys 

* * *’’ 13

In accordance with its mandate under PREA, the bipartisan Commission developed national standards to prevent, detect, respond to, and monitor sexual violence 

in detention. Recognizing the particular dynamics of different types of facilities, the 

Commission developed separate sets of standards for adult prisons and jails, juvenile facilities, lockups, and community corrections as well as supplemental standards for facilities housing immigration detainees. These standards were the product 

of five years of hearings, deliberation, and review. They address core detention management issues that directly affect the levels of sexual abuse in a facility, such as 

staff training, inmate education, housing, and investigations in the aftermath of an 

assault. 

If enacted, specific provisions in the Commission’s standards would substantially 

improve safety for detained girls. For example, the BJS survey found that 

youthonyouth abuse is particularly common in girls’ facilities; the Commission’s 

standards mandate that information about risk factors be obtained from youth and 

be taken into account when making housing and programmatic decisions, so that 

vulnerable youth are effectively separated from likely perpetrators without being 

subject to additional punishment. Additionally, basic privacy measures regarding 

crossgender supervision are especially important for youth, who are still developing 

physically and emotionally; the standards limit the extent to which staff may search 

youth of the opposite sex or observe youth of the opposite sex while they are in 

states of undress. 

The standards are now with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who by law has 

until June 23, 2010 to codify final standards based on the Commission’s year to certify their compliance, or they will lose a portion of their federal correctionsrelated 

funding. 

III. Recommended Congressional Action 

Swift ratification of the Commission’s standards has the potential to save thousands of girls from the devastation of rape. Nonetheless, it is already clear that Attorney General Holder will not meet his deadline. The Department of Justice has 

convened an internal PREA Working Group to review the standards. The Working 

Group coordinators have projected that its work may not be completed until 2011. 

This delay is due, in large part, to a problematic cost projection study based on corrections administrators’ own estimations of how much implementing each standard 

may cost. This study does not take into consideration the tremendous benefits of implementing the standards, nor does it encourage participating administrators to 

think creatively about low or nocost options for implementation.14

Congress should urge Attorney General Holder and the PREA Working Group to 

ratify strong standards without undue delay by deferring to the expertise that informed the Commission’s standards. 

Congress should also encourage the Attorney General to establish a mechanism 

for effective oversight of standards compliance, which goes beyond the certifications 

of detention administrators and the auditors with whom they contract. The compliance (OJJDP) provides a useful framework. OJJDP has a compliance monitor in 

every state to visit facilities and ask questions, ensuring that every system meets 

the four core requirements of the Juvenile Justice and delinquency Prevention Act 

(JJDPA). This external oversight has been a key component of JJDPA efforts to hold 

noncompliant administrators accountable, to identify problems that even an outstanding official within a system may overlook, and to provide information about 

best practices from other jurisdictions. Implementation of the standards under 

PREA will need strong, external oversight that takes into account information from 

detainees, parents of youth in detention, advocates, and other stakeholders, along 

with the assessment of corrections insiders. 

In addition to demanding full implementation of PREA and the standards, Congress should take other measures to improve the safety of detained girls. Specifically, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) should be amended. The Prison 

Abuse Remedies Act, H.R. 4335, introduced by Rep. Bobby Scott addresses the various problems with the PLRA while retaining its effective provisions. One of that 

bill’s key provisions is to exempt juveniles from the PLRA. While not the primary 

focus of the law, young inmates have been drastically affected by the PLRA. 

Finally, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) must be 

reauthorized and strengthened. A 2005 BJS study of sexual abuse reported in adult 

prisons and jails found that young inmates were at heightened risk for abuse in 

these facilities as well.15 With these alarming data in mind, it is clear that use of 

the adult criminal justice system to prosecute juveniles should be minimized and, 

even when convicted in the adult system, youth should only be detained with other 

juveniles. 
49 

III. Conclusion 

The widespread sexual abuse of girls in detention is not inevitable; it is the result 

of poor corrections management, bad policies, and dangerous practices. In 2003, 

Congress took the pivotal step of unanimously passing the Prison Rape Elimination 

Act. To ensure that the full intent of that pivotal law is realized, JDI urges Congress to demand that the Attorney General ratify strong standards, without undue 

delay, and to provide additional legislative protections through the reauthorization 

of the JJDPA and reform of the PLRA. 

ENDNOTES

1 ALLEN BECK, PAIGE HARRISON & PAUL GUERINO, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION IN JUVENILE FACILITIES REPORTER BY YOUTH 2008- 

2009 1 (2010). 2 Id. at 1. The three facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization were: Pendleton 

Juvenile Correctional Facility, a boys’ facility in Indiana (36.2%); Samarkand Youth Development Center, a girls’ facility in North Carolina (33.3%); and Corsicana Residential Treatment 

Center, a co-ed facility in Texas (32.4%). 3 Id. Among boys who participated in the survey, two percent reported sexual activity with 

another youth; 10.8 percent reported sexual activity with staff. Id. 4 BECK, HARRISON & GUERINO, supra note 1, at 11. 

5Physicians for Human Rights, Unique Needs of Girls in the Juvenile Justice System, available on-line at http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/juvenile-justice/factsheets/girls.pdf (last 

visited March 9, 2010). 6 Id. at 1. For more information about the severe danger of sexual abuse facing LGBTQ detainees, see JDI Fact Sheet, LGBTQ Detainees Chief Targets for Sexual Abuse in Detention (October 2007). 7Ms. Pasion’s testimony is available on-line at http://www.cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/ 

nprec/20090820160300/; http://nprec.us/docs/boston—survivortes timony—pasion.pdf 8Dr. Bidwell’s testimony is available on-line at http://www.cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/ 

nprec/20090820160337/; http://nprec.us/docs/boston—natureofpro blem—bidwell.pdf 9 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH & THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU), CUSTODY AND CONTROL: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT IN NEW YORK’S JUVENILES 

PRISONS FOR GIRLS 63-64 (2005). 10 Id. at 6371. 11 BECK, HARRISON & GUERINO, supra note 3, at 1. 12See, e.g., Alexander s. v. Boyd, 876 F. Supp. 773, 790 (D.S.C. 1995) (holding that juvenile 

detainees had no constitutional right to a law library). 13 National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, Final Report at147-48. 14 Just Detention International is working with three jurisdictions—the California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Oregon Department of Corrections, and the Macomb 

County (Michigan) Sheriff’s Office—to bring their facilities into compliance with the Commission’s standards before they are required to do so. Recognizing the fiscal limitations of these 

agencies and their counterparts around the country, this work has focused on low and no-cost 

measures, such as amending existing training curricula and consolidating staff responsibilities. 15 ALLEN J. BECK & PAIGE M. HARRISON, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, SEXUAL 

VIOLENCE REPORTED BY CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, 2005 (2006). 

Prepared Statement of Malika Saada Saar, Executive Director; Kathleen 

Shakira Washington, Policy Director, Rebecca Project for Human Rights 

The Rebecca Project for Human Rights is honored by the opportunity to submit 

written testimony for the ‘‘Meeting the Challenges Faced by Girls in the Juvenile 

Justice System ‘‘ hearing held by the House Education and Labor Committee Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities. The Rebecca Project for Human 

Rights is a national legal and policy organization that advocates for public policy 

reform, justice and dignity for vulnerable families. The Rebecca Project strives to 

reform child welfare, criminal justice, and substance abuse policies that impact the 

lives of vulnerable families. We frame the pervasiveness of violence against women 

and girls, the draconian conditions that too often characterize maternal incarceration, and the dearth of access to health and healing for mothers and their children, 

as fundamental human rights violations. 

The Rebecca Project applauds Chairwoman McCarthy and the subcommittee’s 

leadership in addressing the challenges faced by girls who are involved in juvenile 

justice system. We are especially concerned about the unique pathways of girls into 

the legal system, the impact of traditional models of detainment, and the profound 

dearth of gender specific, trauma informed and strength-based alternative programming for girls. 

Current status of girls in the juvenile justice system 

The past two decades has witnessed a decline in the number of youth involved 

in the juvenile justice system. Data has shown that between 1994 and 2003, overall 
50 

juvenile arrest rates declined by 18%.1 However, the proportion of female juvenile 

offenders has steadily increased with an unprecedented number of girls entering the 

juvenile justice system. In 2007, female offenders accounted for 29% of the 2.18 million juvenile arrests2—a dramatic increase from 2001 when girls accounted for 19% 

of arrested youth.3 Further, when comparing girls’ involvement in the criminal justice system to that of boys, between 1985 and 2002, the overall delinquency caseload 

for females increased by 92% compared to only 29% for males.4

Most often juvenile female offenders are arrested for status offenses. Status offenses are ‘‘noncriminal offenses’’ or offenses that are illegal for underage persons, 

but not for adults.5 Such offenses include curfew violations, incorrigible or ungovernable behavior, running away, truancy, and underage drinking.6 While current 

legislation prohibits the detainment of youth arrested for status offenses, far too 

often the practice of ‘‘bootstrapping’’ or violations of court orders based on the original status offense, and lack of alternatives to detention faced by most courts often 

result in detainment of female juvenile offenders. For example, in 2005 only 15% 

of all arrest of female juveniles involved physical violence (e.g., violent crimes—3% 

and simple assault—12%) with status offenses (e.g., running away, liquor laws, curfew violations, and loitering) and property crimes accounting for the remaining 85% 

of arrest.7 Further, girls disproportionately represented 58% of all runaway arrest 

even though they only accounted for 29% of all detained youth.8 Last, recent investigations into the causes of increasing rates of female juvenile arrest have found 

that rates of crime among female juvenile populations are not increasing, but girls 

are being arrested more often due to stricter, no-tolerance policies and practices of 

schools, the police, social welfare agencies, and the juvenile justice system.9

Pathways of female adolescents to detention 

There are a variety of characteristics associated with youth who are involved in 

the juvenile justice system including school failure and family stress and chaos.10

However, one characteristic or factor that is distinct and most salient for girls is 

that of sexual and physical abuse. While it is estimated that approximately 73% of 

all girls involved in the juvenile justice system report histories of extreme sexual 

and physical abuse, various studies have reported findings as high as, if not higher, 

than 90%.11 For example, a California based study found that 92% of the girls interviewed had suffered some form of abuse. Of this group, 81% of the girls had been 

physically abused and 56% reported one or more forms of sexual abuse.12 Further, 

a study conducted by the Oregon Social Learning Center on chronically delinquent 

girls found that the average age of first sexual encounter among girls was approximately 7 years of age and that 78% of girls had documented histories of physical 

abuse as compare to 3% of boys.13

When considering policies and programs that address youth involved in the juvenile justice system, it is imperative that such decisions take into account the high 

rates of trauma due to physical and sexual abuse among adolescent female offenders. There is a wealth of information suggesting that exposure to traumatic events 

may be linked to delinquent behavior and that delinquent acts may be a direct or 

indirect reflection of past victimization.14 For example, a longitudinal study found 

that girls and women with histories of childhood abuse or neglect were 73% more 

likely than females without abuse histories to be arrested for property, alcohol, 

drug, and misdemeanor offenses such as disorderly conduct, curfew violations, or loitering.15 Studies have found that youth who were victims of sexual abuse coupled 

with physical abuse and neglect were more likely to run away from home than children who experienced other forms of maltreatment16—with estimates of that between 33—75% of girls who are in runaway homes or in the juvenile justice system 

were victims of sexual violence.17 Further, girls hurt by sexual violence are 3 times 

more likely to develop psychiatric disorders or alcohol/drug abusing behaviors in 

adulthood, compared to girls who are not sexually abused.18 Studies have found that 

75% of girls involved with the juvenile justice system report being regular users of 

alcohol and/or drugs, with another 34% being diagnosed with a substance abuse disorder.19

Once detained, many girls suffer further victimization. The 2006 National Report 

of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reported that there 

were 2,821 allegations of youth-on-youth (59%) and staff-on-youth (41%) acts of sexual violence in juvenile facilities in 2004. Within the youth-on-youth incidents, 2 of 

every 3 were nonconsensual sexual acts and within the staff-on-youth incidents, 3 

of every 4 were staff sexual misconducts.20 Of these allegations, girls made up only 

11% of the state-operated facilities population, but accounted for 34% of the victims 

of sexual violence in these facilities21 and in local or privately owned facilities, girls 

made up only 17% of the total population, but accounted for 37% of the victims of 

sexual violence.22
51 

While these numbers are daunting, it is important to remember that sexual and 

physical abuse often goes unreported or underreported.23 Given this fact, one can 

only assume that current statistics regarding the extent of physical and sexual 

abuse of girls involved in the juvenile justice system are more than likely an underestimation of the actual rates among this vulnerable population. 

Mental health and victimization of girls in the juvenile justice system 

It has been estimated that one in five adolescents involved in the juvenile justice 

system has a serious mental health problem.24 For females involved in the juvenile 

justice system, the estimated prevalence of mental health disorders has been reported as high as 84%—a rate similar to that of physical and sexual abuse among 

detained female juveniles.25 In one study of detained youth in Cook County from 

1995 to 1998, study outcomes found that girls had higher rates of psychiatric disorders and rates of depression and anxiety, with anxiety disorders being particularly 

high among girls participating in the study.26 Further, the Oregon Social Learning 

Center found that over three-quarters of adolescent female study participants met 

the criteria for three or more DSM IV Axis 1 diagnoses.27

This data is significant in that numerous studies have found that exposure to 

trauma effects girls differently than boys. Studies have found that among those who 

are exposed to trauma, females are more likely than males to develop mental health 

problems as a result of this exposure.28 In particular, female juvenile delinquents 

are six times more likely than male juvenile delinquents to suffer from 

posttraumatic stress disorder at the point of detention and at some time in their 

lives than the general population.29

Left untreated mental health disorders, such as depression and posttraumatic 

stress are expressed through a variety of behaviors that include suicidal tendencies, 

phobic/avoidant behaviors, affective numbing, nightmares, and repetitive/inappropriate sexual behaviors.30 Trauma has also been associated with a variety of other 

anti-social behaviors that place victims at increased risk for detention. Data has 

suggested that youth exposed to trauma are more ‘‘emotionally overactive’’ and more 

likely to engage in coercive and noncompliant behaviors and will display a variety 

of emotions that are associated with problem behavior including lack of empathy, 

impulsivity, anger, acting-out, resistance to treatment, and high risk sexual behavior.31

An example of the impact of trauma on the lives of girls is exemplified in a study 

that examined the relationship between gender, trauma, delinquency and mental 

health in a cohort of delinquent offenders. Of the 96 participating females in the 

study, 74% of the girls reported being ‘‘badly hurt or in danger of being hurt’’, 76% 

reported ‘‘witnessing someone severely injured or killed’’ and 60% reported ‘‘being 

raped or in danger of being raped.’’ This study also found that boys were more likely 

to be traumatized as observers of violence as compared to girls who were more likely 

to be traumatized as direct victims, and participating girls were 50% more likely 

to exhibit current symptoms of posttraumatic stress as compared to boys participating in the study.32

While detention is often viewed as a protective measure for troubled youth, most 

often conditions of detainment exacerbate untreated mental health issues. There 

have been numerous reports as well as lawsuits that have shed a glaring light on 

the deplorable conditions under which detained youth are required to reside. The 

most comprehensive national study on the conditions of juvenile detention facilities 

titled Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities 

(1994) noted the existing deficiencies in the system that included inadequate living 

space due to overcrowding, lack of appropriate security, the lack of basic personal 

hygiene supplies, the use of restraints and isolation, as well as emotional, physical 

and sexual abuses by staff and detainees.33 Lawsuits have also focused specifically 

on the failure to provide ‘‘adequate medical and mental healthcare, including screening, emergency services, and ongoing services, as well as allegations of insufficient 

staffing, poor staff qualifications and lack of training, and inadequate protection for 

youth at risk of suicide.’’ 34

Since the 1990s, a number of actions have been taken to address the dearth of 

mental health services provided through the juvenile justice system. For example, 

the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) published standards of care for juvenile facilities, the Office on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP) conducted a survey of juvenile justice facilities to assess the extent to which facilities were meeting treatment standards, and standardized screening instruments and protocols have been developed. However, as noted in a recent 

report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 

‘‘Though research identifies extensive mental health needs among detained and 

incarcerated girls, few girls’ detention units address girls’ mental health comprehen-
52 

sively and appropriately. Adequate mental health screening is not common, nor is 

mental health treatment, and temporary detention is disruptive to community mental health treatment and to treatment through medication.’’ 35

Alternatives to detention for female adolescents 

In a recent report published by the Justice Policy Institute, it was estimated that states spend approximately $5.7 billion each year to detain and imprison youth.36

Further, this report noted that several states such as California, Illinois, Ohio, New 

York and Pennsylvania are turning to more effective yet less expensive alternatives 

to detention as a solution to escalating cost associated with youth delinquency and 

to address the growing body of evidence regarding the detrimental long-term effects 

of detainment and incarceration of youth. For example, in Ohio, outcome measures 

of the ‘‘RECLAIM Ohio’’ program has found a 42% decline in the number of youth 

committed to secure state care and ‘‘for every dollar spent on the RECLAIM program, the state save(d) $11 to $45 in commitment and processing cost, depending 

on the risk level of the youth.’’ 37

Given that the majority of girls enter the juvenile justice system for non-violent, 

status offenses, that between 70-90% of girls have a history of extreme victimization, and that upwards to 80% suffer from mental health disorders, alternatives to 

detainment would be a safe and cost effective alternative to the detainment of girls 

involved in the juvenile justice system. As a minimum, these programs should incorporate the following elements to be considered gender-responsive: 38

• Comprehensive—weaving family, community and systems together for girls; • Safe—promoting healing from trauma caused by physical and psychological 

abuse; • Empowering—addressing needs while encouraging leadership and the development of girls’ strengths; • Community and Family Focused—based in the community, fostering health 

family relationships and sustainable community connections; and • Relational—supporting continuous, positive relationships for girls with older 

women, family, and peers. 

Examples of programs that are gender-responsive, trauma-informed and strengthbased include the following: • Juvenile Justice Fund (GA) • PACE Center for Girls (FL) • Center for Young Women’s Development (CA) • National Crittenton Foundation (National) • Girls Mentoring and Education Services (NY) • Wings for Life (TX) • Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (OR) • Hawaii Girls Court (HI) 

Unfortunately, these strength-based, gender-specific, trauma-responsive programs 

are severely limited in capacity, relegating girls to the juvenile justice system as a 

default approach. The phenomenon of girls in detention by default, especially girls 

with histories of physical and sexual abuse, because of the absence of alternative 

strength-based, gender-specific, and trauma-responsive programs is unacceptable. 

The Rebecca Project for Human Rights therefore urges for the scaling up of these 

programs and systems as a needed and effective alternative to the senseless detention of vulnerable girls. 

Recommendations 

• Eliminate the use of ‘‘violation of court orders (VCOs)’’ as a means of detaining 

status offenders 

• Develop gender-specific assessment tools and protocols that address sexual/ 

physical victimization and mental health status of girls 

• Develop community-based referral systems that address the unique needs and 

circumstances of girls that are trauma informed yet build on the strengths of girls 

• Increase the number of available gender responsive, trauma informed and 

strength-based programs that are available as alternatives to detention for girls 

ENDNOTES

1Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa. (2006) Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 

National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2OJJDP. Statistical Briefing Book. 2007 (Accessed 9/4/09. http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/crime/ 

qa05101.asp?qaDate=2007.) 3Sherman FT. 13 Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform: Detention Reform and Girls—challenges and solutions. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD. 2005. 4OJJDP, 2007. 
53 

5Legal Dictionary. Accessed 9/09. http://miscellaneous.legaldictionaries.org/SBB-Glossary/ 

Status—offense. 6Legal Dictionary, 2009. 

7Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports for the United States: 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2005. 8Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2005 

9Goodkind S, Ng I, Sarri RC. The impact of sexual abuse in the lives of young women involved or at risk of involvement with the juvenile justice system. Violence Against Women, 2009. 

12(5):456-477. 10Sherman FT, 2005. 11Sherman FT, 2005. 12 Acoca L, Dedel K. No Place to hide: Understanding and Meeting the Needs of Girls in the 

California Juvenile Justice System. National Council on Crime and Delinquency, San Francisco, 

CA, 1998. 13 Chamberlain P. The Miltideminsional Treatment Foster Care Model: Research and Community-Based Services. Presented at the 2nd National Training Conference on Juvenile Detention 

Reform. Portland, Oregon: Annie E. Casey Foundation, Jan. 24-26, 2002. 14 Caufman E, Feldman SS, Waterman J, Steiner H. Posttramatic Stress Disoder Among Female Juvenile Offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry. 

1998. 37(11):1209-1216. 15Sherman FT, 2005. 16Widom CS. Victims of childhood sexual abuse—later criminal consequences. NIJ Research 

in Brief. Mar. 1995:1-8. 17Shelden RG. Female delinquency and the juvenile justice system: Part I—Delinquency 

among girls. University of Nevada—Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV. 2004; 1-28. 18Day A, Thurlow K, Woolliscroft J. Working with childhood sexual abuse: A survey of mental 

health professions. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2003. 27: 191-198. 19 Riehman KS. Adolescent girls in the juvenile justice system issues for treatment. <Web access: www.womenandchildren.treatment.org/media/presentations/d-4/Riehman.ppt.> 20Snyder HN, Sickmund M. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DC. 2006: 1-242. 21Snyder HN, Sickmund M, 2006. 22Snyder HN, Sickmund M, 2006. 23 Biden Jr. JR. What about the girls? The role of the federal government in addressing the 

rise in female juvenile offenders. Stanford Law and Policy Review. 2003. 29. 24 Cocozza JJ, Skowyra K. Youth with mental health disorders: Issues and emerging responses. Juvenile Justice. 2000. 8(1):3-13. 25Wrath C, Ybarra M, Holden EW, Manteuffel B, Santiago R, Leaf P. Female offenders referred for community-based mental health service as compared to other service-referred youth: 

correlates of conviction. J. of Adolescence. 2003. 26:45-61. 26Sherman FT, 2005. 27 Cauffman E, 1998. 28 Cauffman E, 1998. 29 Cauffman E, 1998. 30Deblinger E, McLeer SV, Atkins AS, Ralphe D, Foa E. Post-traumatic Stress in Sexually 

Abused, Physically abused and Nonabused Children. Child Abuse & Neglect. 1999. 13:403-408. 31Smith DK, Leve LD, Chamberlain P. Adolescent girls’ offending and health-risking sexual 

behavior: The predictive role of trauma. Child Maltreatment. 2006 Nov. 11(4):346-353. 32 Cauffman E, 1998. 33 Burrell S. Chapter 6: Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform—Improving conditions of confinement in secure juvenile detention centers. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Baltimore, MD. 2005. 34 Burrell S. 2005. 35Sherman FT. 2005. 36 Justice Policy Institute. The cost of confinement: Why good juvenile justice policies make 

good fiscal sense. May 2009. Washington, DC. www.justicepolicy.org 37 Justice Policy Institute, 2009. 38Sherman FT, 2005. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ