Juvenile justice is primarily the domain of state and local authorities. Thus, juvenile courts’ jurisdiction and procedures can vary widely throughout the United States. For instance, depending upon the state and the alleged offense, the juvenile courts’ jurisdiction may end at age 18, 17, 16, or even younger. Referrals of youth to juvenile justice authorities can come from various sources, including police officers, parents, schools, and social service agencies. Police officers account for 41 percent of the referrals, according to 1989 Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) data. Generally, after an alleged status offender is referred to juvenile authorities, screening or intake staff (e.g., a juvenile probation officer) decide whether the case should be handled formally or informally. Juveniles can be temporarily placed in detention centers at some point between referral and case disposition by the court. If the intake decision were to proceed formally, a petition is drafted and filed to provide notice of the offenses that will be pursued. The petition charges the youth with a status-offense violation and identifies the youth and those other persons who should be informed of the proceedings. These proceedings include an adjudication hearing and possibly a disposition hearing. At the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court judge reviews evidence and determines if the youth has committed a status offense. At a concurrent or subsequent disposition hearing, the judge determines an appropriate action or treatment plan for the status offender. The juvenile court judge’s disposition options include dismissal of the case, probation, fine or restitution, community service, and placement. Placement refers to any “out-of-home” disposition, which usually takes place in residential facilities. These facilities provide 24-hour care to juveniles. The following are types of residential facilities: Detention centers: secure, residential facilities. Group homes: nonsecure facilities that are intended to provide a residential environment in which to meet the long-term counseling needs of troubled youth. Shelters: nonsecure facilities that are intended to provide overnight or short-term housing and crisis intervention counseling to troubled youth. Figure 1 shows the number of petitioned juvenile cases processed by the juvenile courts in 1991, according to OJJDP data. Cases handled informally usually do not involve a petition or an adjudication hearing. These informal (nonpetitioned) cases may be dismissed; possible reasons for dismissal include lack of evidence or the youth’s receiving a warning or counseling. Even when cases can be handled informally, juveniles can be given probation or even placed. As shown in figure 1, 2 percent (or 500) of all petitioned nonadjudicated cases in 1991 resulted in juveniles’ being placed. According to OJJDP, in many jurisdictions, most status-offense cases are handled informally. In many communities, county attorneys, family crisis units, or social service agencies—rather than the juvenile courts—have assumed responsibility for screening and diverting alleged status offenders from the juvenile justice system. Even though juvenile justice is primarily the responsibility of state and local authorities, Congress has taken an increased interest in juvenile justice issues during the past two decades. Most significantly, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), established a formula grant program for states to improve their juvenile justice systems. States receive formula grant funds if they comply with certain requirements. One of these requirements was that status offenders should not be held in secure detention facilities, such as jails, police lockups, juvenile detention centers, or training schools. In 1980, Congress amended the law to allow states to detain status offenders under certain conditions and still receive their grant funds. According to OJJDP regulations, these status offenders must be provided certain procedural protections. Some child advocacy groups have raised concerns about the lack of appropriate placement services for females in the juvenile justice system. For example, in September 1992, the National Network for Runaway and Homeless Youth Services advocated the need to review gender bias within the states’ juvenile justice systems. In addition, some studies have indicated that females were more likely to be detained for status offenses than males. To aid us in defining gender bias and in designing models or approaches to address the objectives, we reviewed relevant literature identified in bibliographies provided us by NCJJ and OJJDP. Regarding the first objective, we used NCJJ’s national estimates of status-offender data for calendar years 1986 through 1991 to develop gender-specific probabilities of detentions, adjudications, and placements for status offenders by offense categories. However, these data did not contain sufficient information relevant to judges’ decisions to assess gender bias, e.g., prior offense history and source of referral for the offense. To examine gender bias, we did further analysis using data from several states that had additional variables beyond those used for NCJJ’s national estimates. We developed 6 models to study the outcome of intake decisions in 6 states and 19 models to further study detentions, adjudications, and placements in 7 states. We used a class of models commonly used in criminological research to analyze these types of outcomes. We used NCJJ’s state-specific data files to conduct regression analyses for seven states—Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Utah. Data limitations precluded us from developing models for status offender intake decisions in Nebraska, placements in Arizona, and detentions in Utah. Further, we could not address possible gender bias elsewhere in the juvenile justice system because data did not exist. For example, the data did not include youths who were handled informally—picked up, counseled, and/or released by the police or by county juvenile department intake officials. To compare the availability of facilities and services, we visited a total of 15 facilities located in 9 counties—generally 2 counties (a rural county and an urban county) within each of 4 selected states (Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and Texas). We mailed a survey to a national sample of county probation department officials to obtain (1) opinions on differences in the juvenile justice systems’ processing of status offenders and (2) perspectives on the availability of facilities and services for status offenders. By using a national sample, we were able to project the results to our study population of 1,249 chief juvenile justice probation officers. Appendix I presents more details about our objectives, scope, and methodology, including a discussion of how we selected states for analysis with respect to our second objective. Appendix V contains a copy of the survey and the survey’s results. We did our work from March 1993 through August 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Since no federal agency has responsibility for the issues discussed in this report, we did not obtain official comments on a draft of this report. However, we did discuss our results with NCJJ and OJJDP officials and, where appropriate, incorporated their comments. Our analyses of 6 years of national data indicated that there were only relatively small differences in the percentages of female and male status offenders detained, adjudicated, and placed. With six exceptions, our logistic regression analyses of intake decisions, detentions, adjudications, and placements in seven states generally did not indicate any significant gender-based differences in the processing of female and male status offenders. In addition, our national survey of county probation officers and site visits did not identify any specific gender differences in juvenile justice systems. According to NCJJ national data, a total of 500,620 status-offender cases were petitioned to juvenile courts during calendar years 1986 through 1991. Of the total petitioned status-offender cases, 41.3 percent (206,756 cases) involved females and 58.7 percent (293,864 cases) involved males. In terms of gender distinctions, two specific offense categories had noticeable differences in the numbers: females were involved in 61.9 percent of the running away offenses and males were involved in 74.3 percent of the liquor offenses. Table 1 shows that petitioned female status offenders had about the same probability, or percent chance, as petitioned male status offenders of being detained, adjudicated, or placed out-of-home during 1986 through 1991, for 60 percent of the outcomes. For example, the probabilities for female and male truants who were detained, adjudicated, or placed were within 2 percentage points of each other. The exceptions were in the offense categories of running away and liquor violations. For the offense categories of liquor violation, running away, truancy, and ungovernability, our data analysis showed that the probabilities of either female or male status offenders’ being detained before disposition by the juvenile courts had declined from calendar years 1986 to 1991. For example, the probability of ungovernable female status offenders’ being detained decreased from about 19 percent to 8 percent, and the decrease for males was from 19 percent to 9 percent (see app. II, table II.3). Regarding running away, our analyses showed that males had higher probabilities than females of being detained, adjudicated, or placed. Further, males with liquor offenses had higher probabilities of being adjudicated or placed than females. Appendix II provides more detailed analyses of NCJJ national data. The national estimates did not enable us to determine whether gender bias occurred in the outcomes because these data did not contain variables that are likely to be relevant to judges’ decisions (e.g., prior offense histories). Accordingly, we developed statistical models to measure gender bias using data sets that contained appropriate variables. To analyze gender bias, we developed logistic regression models of the intake decisions for six of the seven states and the detention, adjudication, and placement decisions for seven states. Overall, the 25 models involved applications of the logistic regression procedure. That is, each state’s models contained variables that measured characteristics that may be associated with the juvenile judicial system outcomes and estimated how the characteristics influenced outcomes. These characteristics included the source of referral to the juvenile court, location (e.g., metropolitan or rural area) of the court, age and race of the offender, type of offense, and offender’s prior offense history. We used these models to test for gender bias. For the intake decisions, we analyzed all cases referring to the intake staff; for the detention and adjudication decisions, we analyzed only petitioned cases; for the placement decisions, we analyzed cases of adjudicated status offenders. Table 2 shows the “gender-bias quotients,” which were the resulting estimates of gender bias from the models that we developed. As the gender-bias quotient approaches 1.0, the amount of estimated gender bias decreases. No specific criteria exist as to the extent that the quotient would have to deviate from 1.0 to indicate gender bias. In our judgment, however, a deviation from 1.0 of more than .2 would indicate the presence of gender bias. Our results indicated that (1) in 5 of the 6 intake models, females were about equally as likely as males to be petitioned to juvenile court and (2) in 14 of the other 19 models, no gender bias was demonstrated in the juvenile justice systems’ outcomes for status offenders. In the Florida intake model, females were more likely to be petitioned to juvenile court than males because the juvenile justice system treated females’ characteristics, e.g., type of offense, differently due to their gender. In the other five models, we found some indication of gender bias in Arizona’s, Florida’s, and Nebraska’s detention decisions and Florida’s adjudication and placement decisions. These models indicated that females were less likely to be detained or placed than males because the juvenile justice system treated females’ characteristics, e.g., referrals by the police, differently due to their gender. Our conclusions about gender bias are limited to aspects of the juvenile justice process for which we had data. See appendix III for a detailed explanation of the models and the methodology. In measuring gender bias, we combined the effects of the individual variables to estimate the overall probabilities of intake decisions, detention, adjudication, and placement. By combining these effects to estimate gender bias, some variables may have had offsetting effects, regardless of whether the models showed gender bias. For example, in the Missouri intake results, which did not indicate gender bias, law enforcement and school referrals for females lowered their probability of being petitioned, but urban courts increased the probability of being petitioned. These offsetting situations occurred relatively infrequently. Our analysis showed that certain factors, such as offenders’ prior offense history and source of referral, affected the status offenders’ outcomes. For example, as would be expected, offenders’ prior offense history generally affected their detention outcomes. As the number of prior offenses increased, so did the probability that the status offenders would be detained regardless of whether they were females or males. See appendix III for a discussion of the influence of such characteristics on the intake, detention, adjudication, and placement outcomes. Table 3 shows that the probation officers who responded to our survey did not perceive any differences in the way females and males with similar status-offense histories were processed. More specifically, of the responding probation officers, we estimated that 71.6 percent did not report any differences in the referral/arrest process, 79.1 percent did not report any differences in the intake process, and 70.5 percent did not report any differences in either treatment by the court or the length and type of disposition. Regarding the detention process, 50.1 percent of the chief probation officers did not report any gender differences. However, another 41.8 percent of the chief probation officers reported “no basis” for answering this part of the question, thought the question not applicable, and/or did not answer the question. Generally, both our national survey respondents and the juvenile justice officials and facility representatives we interviewed in four states told us there were not any significant differences in the facilities and services available to female and male status offenders. However, both groups emphasized that they believed that more services were needed for status offenders, irrespective of gender. As table 4 shows, 44.4 percent of the chief probation officers who responded to our survey said that treatment options (facilities and services) were about equally available to detained female and male status offenders. However, more than one-third of the respondents— 37.8 percent—reported “no basis” for answering this question, thought the question inapplicable, or did not answer the question. Therefore, about 70 percent of those officials who responded said that the services and facilities were about equal for detained female and male status offenders. When the respondents reported a difference, the difference was generally related to the perception that there were more facilities available for males than females. Almost 16 percent of the respondents reported that facilities and services were either “somewhat more” or “much more” available for males than for females. In contrast, only 2 percent of the respondents said that facilities and services were either “somewhat more” or “much more” available for females than males. Further, many respondents indicated that the availability of facilities and services for status offenders perhaps would be more accurately described as being equally unavailable for females and males. For example, some respondents said that female and male status offenders had no treatment programs or facilities due to limited funding and resources. In addition, other respondents said that the existing services were inadequate to meet the needs of both genders. Four other respondents to our survey indicated that, even within an overall environment of limited resources for both genders, female status offenders had fewer services than males. As table 5 shows, we visited a total of 15 facilities—10 co-educational facilities and 5 serving only females or only males. Except for some health services not applicable to males (such as prenatal care), we generally did not find gender-based distinctions in the availability of counseling, educational, and medical services for females and males at each of the 10 co-educational facilities we visited. Officials at the other five facilities said that their programs were not gender-based and could be provided to either females or males. OJJDP officials pointed out that providing similar services for both females and males may be equitable but may not result in meeting the specific needs of one gender. At the 10 co-educational facilities (4 secure detention centers and 6 shelters), we did not find gender-based distinctions in counseling services offered for female and male status offenders. Generally, the four secure detention facilities did not routinely provide counseling to females or males. Facility officials told us that youth who requested counseling or who displayed suicidal tendencies were referred to community health-care providers. The officials added that their facilities basically were temporary holding centers for youth awaiting juvenile court processing and were not designed to provide treatment services. According to these officials, while many of the resident youth may need counseling and mental health services, the centers were not the appropriate facilities for providing these services. At the six shelters, the resident female and male youth were provided weekly counseling services (individual, group, or both). Individual counseling, available at all six shelters, ranged from 2 hours to 6 hours per week. Group counseling, available at five of the shelters, ranged from 4 hours to 14 hours per week. The other five facilities (four group homes and one nonresidential program), which served either females or males, also provided individual counseling (ranging from 1 hour to 4 hours per week) and group counseling (1 hour to 5 hours per week). At the 10 co-educational facilities, we did not find gender-based distinctions in the availability of educational services for female and male status offenders. Youth at these 10 facilities attended public schools or on-site schools, with 1 exception. The four group homes, each serving either only females or only males, sent youth to local public schools, an on-site alternative school, or alternative schools operated by the state and the local public school district. The 15th facility (nonresidential program) was an alternative school and, therefore, provided education on-site. According to service providers at all 15 facilities we visited, females and males received needed medical services, either at the respective facility or from local community health-care providers. Generally, we did not find gender-based distinctions in the availability (from either on-site or community sources) of medical care for females and males at the 10 co-educational facilities, except for services, such as gynecological services and prenatal care, which were not applicable to males. Admission physicals were the only gender-based difference we noted. At two of the female-only group homes, health examinations included testing (which could be refused at one of the homes) for sexually transmitted diseases, whereas, at similar male-only facilities operated by the same organizations, such testing was not done unless requested by the males. Only 5 of the 10 co-educational facilities, 4 detention facilities and 1 shelter, had on-site medical personnel. Each of these five facilities had a doctor on-site at least 1 day per week. Also, each of the four detention centers had a nurse on-site at least 5 days per week, and the shelter had a nurse on-site 3 days per week. Some of the on-site service providers told us that their facilities were often overcrowded and in need of additional medical staff. At two detention facilities, for example, officials told us that the on-site nurse could not fully treat all of the females and males on each day’s sick list. According to the officials, the nurse at this facility had to select which patients to treat. The other five co-educational facilities (five shelters) did not have doctors or nurses on site. Residents of these facilities relied on parents, guardians, or, if necessary, facility staff to provide access to community health-care services. The remaining five facilities—three group homes serving only females, one group home for only males, and the nonresidential program for females—generally did not have on-site medical personnel and, thus, relied on community health-care providers. Some officials at the shelters and group homes that did not have on-site medical personnel told us that such resources were needed for medical services. For instance, one official explained that counselors had to use their already limited counseling time to dispense medication and transport youth to doctors’ offices. Juvenile court judges, detention officials, and service providers in the nine counties we visited said that more facilities and services were needed for both female and male status offenders. Some of the juvenile justice representatives and professional staff said that early intervention services were needed for first-time offenders to divert them from further involvement with the juvenile justice system. For example, some judges said that while not all status offenders become delinquent offenders, the majority of the juvenile delinquents appearing in their courts had a previous history of status offenses. Most of the juvenile justice officials and service providers we interviewed told us that status offenders did not need gender-specific treatment or services, except for gynecological services and prenatal care for females. In fact, representatives from the female-only and male-only facilities said that their programs could be replicated to provide the same counseling and mental health services to status offenders of the opposite sex. Other officials added that gender did not play a role in determining a youth’s individual treatment needs because each youth had unique needs. Further, some service providers said that facilities should serve both females and males because the two genders would have to communicate and interact on a daily basis, such as they would in real-life situations. Some service providers pointed out that advantages exist to having single-gender facilities because distractions or anxieties could be created when both genders participate in the same counseling and treatment programs. For example, a service provider at a female-only facility told us that many of the females had experienced some form of abuse by males. Thus, according to this provider, a female-only program was more conducive to helping the females work through their feelings and build self-esteem. Appendix IV provides more details about our visits to the selected facilities in the four case-study states. We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General; the Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-8777. The 1992 reauthorization (P.L. 102-586) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) mandated that we study gender-bias issues in state juvenile justice systems. Specifically, we agreed with the Committees to compare the outcomes of intake decisions and frequency of detentions, adjudications, and out-of-home placements of female and male status offenders and compare the availability of facilities and services for female and male status offenders in selected jurisdictions. In addressing these objectives, we reviewed relevant literature. Regarding the first objective, we analyzed the frequency of detentions, adjudications, and out-of-home placements of petitioned status offenders by gender at the national level, and we made comparisons within selected states.Further, we analyzed intake decisions within selected states. Regarding the second objective, we visited a total of 15 facilities in 4 states. Finally, we obtained additional perspectives on these juvenile justice issues by mailing a survey to a national sample of county juvenile justice probation department officials. To develop an understanding of gender-bias issues associated with state juvenile justice systems, we reviewed relevant literature identified in bibliographies provided us by the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) and the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Our review of the literature aided us in defining gender bias and in designing models to conduct our analyses of intake decisions, detentions, adjudications, and out-of-home placements in selected states. To develop national statistics comparing the frequency that female and male status offenders were detained, adjudicated, and placed, we used juvenile court data collected annually by NCJJ. Each year, NCJJ collects juvenile court case-level data from various states and jurisdictions and assigns weights to the data, which permits projecting the data to produce national estimates of cases disposed by all state juvenile justice systems.OJJDP publishes the weighted data in its annual report entitled Juvenile Court Statistics. Using NCJJ’s data files (the National Juvenile Court Data Archive), we developed statistics for a 6-year period from calendar years 1986 to 1991.More specifically, we developed national estimates of the gender-specific probabilities of detentions, adjudications, and out-of-home placements for petitioned status offenders by offense categories for the 6-year period and annually. Our comparative analyses of NCJJ data have some significant limitations. For example, the NCJJ data did not represent the universe of status offenders. Rather, the data included only those status offenders who were petitioned to or otherwise handled more formally by the juvenile courts. Thus, the data did not include status offenders who were picked up, counseled, and/or released by the police. Nor did the data cover those juveniles who received informal dispositions from county juvenile department officials during intake screening. For example, intake officials may counsel and release the juveniles or divert them to social service agencies. Another significant limitation of our national-level analyses is that any differences in the resulting frequency and probability statistics (comparing female and male status offenders in reference to detentions, adjudications, and placements) cannot be used to draw interpretations or conclusions about either the presence or the absence of gender bias. For the purposes of our review, we defined gender bias as differences in juvenile justice systems’ outcomes (intake decisions, detentions, adjudications, and placements) of female and male status offenders who had similar characteristics, such as age, status offense, and offense history. Thus, because NCJJ’s national data files contained insufficient information on prior offense histories and other variables relevant to judges’ decisions in the cases, we could not use our national-level analyses to draw interpretations or conclusions about gender bias. Despite these limitations, the national-level frequency and probability statistics provide a useful overview regarding petitioned status offenders. While NCJJ’s national data files did not contain sufficient information for directly analyzing gender-bias issues, some of the Center’s state-specific files did have a wider range of variables (including prior offense histories) to permit such analyses. For example, in addition to gender and type of status offense, some of the variables relevant to our analyses were: the age of the youth at the time of referral to the juvenile justice system, the outcome or finding of the adjudicatory hearing, and whether the youth had any previous referrals and/or adjudications. Thus, to conduct more detailed analyses of intake decisions, detentions, adjudications, and placements, we selected the following 7 states from the total of 25 states that provide data to NCJJ: Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Utah. In addition to geographical coverage, we considered the following factors in selecting these seven states. The states’ juvenile justice systems reflected a diverse range of processes for handling youthful offenders. The states’ data files contained a sufficient number of relevant variables to permit construction of models to test the respective state’s juvenile justice system for indications of gender bias in the handling of similarly situated female and male status offenders. For each of the seven states selected, we obtained a copy of NCJJ’s computerized data files for calendar years 1990 and 1991, the most recent years for which consistent data were available. Then, using the 1990 and 1991 data files for all status offenders, we constructed logistic regressionmodels for intake decisions. We used a class of models commonly used in criminological research to analyze these types of outcomes. For petitioned status offenders, we constructed logistic regression models to test for gender-based differences (if any) in three other aspects of juvenile justice processing. These models contained variables to measure offenders’ characteristics. First, we tested how the characteristics affected the probabilities associated with female and male status offenders’ being detained before adjudication. Second, we tested how the characteristics affected the probabilities, by gender, of being formally adjudicated as a status offender. Third, we tested how the characteristics affected the probabilities of females’ and males’ receiving placement as a final disposition. However, we could not address possible gender bias elsewhere in the juvenile justice system because data did not exist. For example, the data did not include youths who were handled informally—that is, picked up, counseled, and/or released by the police or by county juvenile department intake officials. Appendix III presents the results of our regression analyses of intake decisions, detentions, adjudications, and placements. To gain an understanding of the juvenile justice systems in the seven states in our analyses, we interviewed state officials in various jurisdictions within those states, including judges, prosecutors, and juvenile justice specialists. Those interviews covered many topics, including the referral process; the prosecution, adjudication, and disposition of juveniles; the juvenile justice systems in various jurisdictions; workload; and state laws as they related to the processing of juvenile offenders. To develop comparative information about the availability of facilities and services for female and male status offenders, we visited a total of nine counties—generally two counties (a rural county and an urban county) within each of four states (Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and Texas). In judgmentally selecting these states, our primary consideration was that we wanted to visit juvenile justice jurisdictions that reflected various approaches for handling status offenders and/or provided a variety of facilities and services, including some facilities serving only females, some serving only males, and some serving both genders. Thus, in selecting states to visit, we first solicited suggestions from juvenile justice professionals with national or multijurisdiction experience. These professionals included, for example, OJJDP officials, as well as representatives of advocacy groups, such as the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the National Girls’ Caucus. Following are more specifics regarding our reasons for selecting each state. Florida had began a process of privatizing services to status offenders by contracting with the Florida Network of Youth and Family Services, Inc., which operated residential shelters and nonresidential treatment and counseling sites throughout the state. Also, according to OJJDP officials, Florida had a female-specific program (the Practical and Cultural Education Center for Girls) that had received national attention. Kentucky, in 1986, had enacted legislation providing for informal processing of juveniles involved in less-serious offenses. These juveniles may enter into diversion agreements, which impose conditions such as community service, counseling, curfew, and restitution. Maryland tries to divert status offenders from the juvenile justice system into nonresidential counseling programs operated by youth service bureaus, which are private, not-for-profit organizations under contract with the state’s Department of Juvenile Services. Also, according to OJJDP officials, Maryland was one of only a handful of states that began planning for gender-specific services for juvenile offenders before such planning was required by federal legislation. Texas is a populous state with a relatively large number of juveniles. According to 1990 census data, 3 of the 10 most populous U.S. cities are in Texas. We visited Dallas and San Antonio, which we selected on the basis of our available staff. Generally, in deciding which counties to visit in each of the four states, a primary criterion we used was the relative volumes of status offenders referred to and/or detained by the local juvenile justice systems. We obtained referral and detention information by reviewing (1) periodic reports that county juvenile justice officials submit to the respective state’s office of the governor and (2) each of the states’ current 3-year plans submitted in conjunction with applications for formula-grant funding under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Using these data sources and considering suggestions of state juvenile justice specialists, we selected one urban and one rural county to visit in each of the four states, except in Texas, where we selected two urban counties—Dallas County and Bexar County. We selected two urban counties in Texas because we wanted to contrast different approaches for dealing with status offenders. For example, Dallas County had a separate juvenile probation facility (the Letot Center) specifically designated for only status offenders, while Bexar County had no such separately designated facilities. Also, each county had one of the nation’s 10 most populous cities—Dallas and San Antonio. Generally, in each of the selected counties, we interviewed local juvenile justice officials (judges, law-enforcement officers, detention facility officials, and others) to obtain overview perspectives on the availability of facilities and services for status offenders. Also, we visited facilities that the state and local officials identified as having services or being placement options for status offenders. In total, we visited 15 facilities—4 detention facilities, 6 shelters, 4 group homes, and 1 nonresidential program. At the facilities, we obtained information about the capacity, or number of beds available; genders served by offense category; extent of overcrowding, if applicable; and average lengths of stay. Also, we toured the facilities to obtain information on available counseling, educational, and medical services—that is, the services most relevant to the principal needs of status offenders. In addition, we interviewed the service providers (the professional staff responsible for providing counseling, educational, and medical services) at each of the facilities to obtain views on the treatment needs of status offenders, including views on the need for gender-specific services. We did not verify the information facility officials gave to us, nor did we try to evaluate or compare services provided. The results of our visits cannot be projected to other counties and facilities within the respective states, and comparisons should not be made between states. We conducted a mail survey of county probation department officials nationwide to obtain their views on issues concerning gender bias. At our request, NCJJ gave us a list of all juvenile probation departments in the United States. NCJJ identified 1,410 officials whose titles indicated that they were the main officials in juvenile probation departments. Titles on the list included “chief probation officer,” “court services director,” and “court administrator.” We referred to all such individuals as “chief probation officers.” The list of 1,410 officials was developed by eliminating duplicates in counties listing more than one individual as the chief probation officer. NCJJ then selected a random sample of 500 such officials for our sample. Although we sent our survey to the individual listed, some questionnaires were actually completed by other individuals in their offices (see app. V). The survey was designed to (1) identify differences in relationship to gender in the juvenile justice system’s processing of status offenders and (2) obtain perspectives on the availability of facilities and services for status offenders. By using a national sample, we were able to project the results of our study to a population of 1,249 chief probation officers. We designed and pretested the survey in March and April 1994 and mailed it to the 500 randomly selected officials in May 1994. As needed, we made some follow-up inquiries by mail and/or telephone to help ensure an adequate response rate. We determined that 57 questionnaires had been sent to offices that did not handle status offenders; therefore, we eliminated these offices from our sample and adjusted the universe, accordingly. Our resulting study population was 1,249 chief probation officers, and our valid sample consisted of 443 such individuals. We received a total of 349 useable responses out of the 443 surveys mailed, for a response rate of 79 percent. All such samples are subject to sampling error. All percentage estimates noted in this report are within plus or minus 5 percentage points, using a 95-percent confidence interval, with the following exceptions. The following calculations either exceed the 5-percent range or are calculated using a Poisson distribution because of the small number of responses. All sampling errors reported here use the 95-percent confidence interval. Estimate referred to as “About 70 percent” on pages 3 and 15: 71.4 percent, sampling error is 5.8 percent. Estimate of 2.6 percent in table 3: confidence interval for the percentage is from 1.5 percent to 4.2 percent. Estimate of 6.6 percent in table 3: confidence interval for the percentage is from 5.0 percent to 8.6 percent. Estimate of 6.9 percent in table 4: confidence interval for the percentage is from 5.2 percent to 8.9 percent. Estimate of 1.4 percent in table 4: confidence interval for the percentage is from .7 percent to 2.8 percent. Estimate of .6 percent in table 4: confidence interval for the percentage is from .2 percent to 1.8 percent. Estimate of 2 percent on page 16: confidence interval for the percentage is from 1.1 percent to 3.5 percent. In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce nonsampling errors. For example, variations in the wording of questions, the sources of information available to the respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can lead to somewhat different results. We included steps in both the data collection and data analysis stages for the purpose of minimizing such nonsampling errors. For example, we pretested the survey on members of the target population. All returned surveys were manually edited, double-keyed, and verified for accurate data entry, and all computer analyses were checked by a second independent analyst. According to the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) data, 500,620 status-offense cases were petitioned to juvenile courts in the United States during the 6-year period from 1986 to 1991. As mentioned in appendix I, because NCJJ’s national data files contained insufficient information on prior histories and other variables relevant to judges’ decisions in the cases, our national-level analyses cannot be used to draw interpretations or conclusions about either the presence or the absence of gender bias. Of the total petitioned status-offense cases, 206,756 cases (41.3 percent) involved females and 293,864 cases (58.7 percent) involved males. These proportions were fairly consistent across the 6 years. (See tables II.1 and II.2.) In terms of gender distinctions, two specific offense categories with noticeable differences in the frequency (number) of female and male status-offense cases petitioned to juvenile court were running away and liquor offense. Running away appeared to be a predominantly female category. For the 6-year period shown in tables II.1 and II.2, females were involved in 61.9 percent of the total 83,000 petitioned running away cases, and males were involved in the other 38.1 percent. In contrast, liquor offense appeared to be a predominantly male category. Of the total 156,317 petitioned liquor offense cases during 1986 through 1991, males were involved in 74.3 percent of the cases, and females were involved in the other 25.7 percent. During 1986 through 1991, of the total 500,620 status offense cases petitioned to juvenile courts, 10.7 percent (53,748 cases) involved secure detention of the alleged offender before disposition. Of the total detention cases, 43.4 percent (23,326 cases) involved females and 56.6 percent (30,422 cases) involved males. Table II.3 presents the results of our probability analyses regarding the 53,748 cases involving secure detention during 1986 through 1991. Generally, the probabilities, or percent chances, for females and males within each respective offense category were similar. For example, during the 6-year period shown, a female status offender petitioned for a liquor offense had a 4.96-percent chance of being detained, compared with a 6.37-percent chance for a male offender. For most offenses, the probability of being detained decreased for both males and females between 1986 and 1991. For example, the probability of female runaways’ being detained decreased from about 33 percent in 1986 to about 13 percent in 1991; for males, the percentage dropped from 38 percent to 23 percent. During 1986 through 1991, of the total 500,620 status-offense cases petitioned to juvenile courts, 62.0 percent (310,363 cases) were formally adjudicated as status offenders. In these 310,363 cases, the adjudicatory hearings resulted in formal findings or determinations of status-offense conduct. Of the 310,363 adjudicated cases, 40.3 percent (124,923 cases) involved females and 59.7 percent (185,440 cases) involved males. Table II.4 presents the results of our probability analyses regarding the 310,363 adjudicated cases during 1986 through 1991. Generally, the adjudication probabilities for females and males within each respective offense category were comparatively similar. For example, during the 6-year period shown, a female status offender petitioned for a liquor offense had a 57.34-percent chance of being adjudicated, compared with a 59.69-percent chance for a male offender. During 1986 through 1991, of the total 310,363 adjudicated status-offense cases in the United States, 18.3 percent (56,725 cases) resulted in out-of-home placement dispositions for the offenders. Of these 56,725 cases, 42.4 percent (24,077 cases) involved females and 57.6 percent (32,648 cases) involved males. Table II.5 presents the results of our probability analyses regarding the 56,725 out-of-home disposition cases during 1986 through 1991. Here again, the probabilities, or percentage chances, for females and males within each respective offense category were comparatively similar. For example, during the 6-year period shown, a petitioned female status offender adjudicated in the running away category had a 31.25-percent chance of receiving an out-of-home disposition, compared with a 34.68-percent chance for a petitioned male. This appendix describes our research to measure gender bias in the case processing of status offenders in four juvenile justice system outcomes. These outcomes were: (1) the intake decision to petition status offenders to juvenile court versus the decision to handle them informally; (2) the decision to detain petitioned status offenders securely prior to an adjudicatory hearing; (3) the outcome of an adjudicatory hearing; and (4) the decision to place adjudicated status offenders out-of-home in secure or nonsecure placements. We analyzed 1990 and 1991 juvenile court data from up to seven states or counties within selected states for each of the four outcomes. We measured gender bias in these four outcomes as the discrepancy or gap between females’ actual outcomes and the outcomes that they would have received had they been treated as males were treated. More specifically, we used juvenile court case-level data to estimate gender-specific logistic regression equations of the relationships between each of the four outcomes and case characteristics. That is, for female and male status offenders, we estimated separate regressions for whether (1) a case was petitioned at intake, (2) a case petitioned at intake was detained, (3) a petitioned case was adjudicated, and (4) an adjudicated case was placed out-of-home. We included as independent or explanatory variables in our regressions three types of case characteristics. These characteristics were: (1) offense-related characteristics, such as current offense and prior offense history; (2) justice-system variables, such as the source of referral to the juvenile court, the location of the court, and, for the adjudication and placement outcomes, whether the case was detained during its processing; and (3) offender characteristics, such as age and race. The variables in the final models were selected from a broader set of variables using appropriate statistical techniques. The broader set of variables was identified from the literature on gender bias, but it was limited to those variables actually available in a given state’s database. We estimated the separate logistic regressions by gender, to derive gender-specific estimates of the juvenile justice systems’ treatment of females’ and males’ characteristics. We took these estimates of the systems’ treatment of males’ characteristics and applied them to females’ average characteristics to predict females’ outcomes if their characteristics were treated equal to males’. We defined as gender bias the gap between these two sets of outcomes—i.e., those models predicted for females versus those that we estimated would have occurred had females been treated as males. In general, we found that females received outcomes that were similar to the ones they would have received if their average characteristics had been treated like males’ characteristics. In only 6 of the 25 models, across the 4 outcomes in the 7 states that we analyzed, did we find outcomes that we characterize as evidence of gender bias. Across states, but within case-processing outcomes, we found some similarities and some differences in the variables that were associated with the outcomes. For example, prior offense history tended to be strongly and positively associated with each of the four outcomes across the states (that had variables measuring prior offense history). However, the effects of other characteristics on particular outcomes were not consistent across states. For example, whether a case was referred to the courts by law-enforcement agencies was positively associated with the likelihood of detention in Arizona, California, and Nebraska; but it had no effect on the likelihood of detention in Florida, Missouri, and South Carolina. The models alone do not explain why these outcomes may happen. For example, the difference between states may be due to differences in police procedures, police practices, or laws. We found similarities and differences across the states in the characteristics of females and males who were processed by their juvenile justice systems. Across states, males tended to have more prior contacts with the juvenile justice system than females, and males also tended to be slightly more likely to be referred to intake by law-enforcement agencies than females. Also across the states, we found gender differences in the types of offenses for which status offenders were referred to juvenile courts. There tended not to be differences between males and females on the basis of age and race. Finally, within and across states and outcomes, we found some gender differences in the courts’ treatment of individual characteristics. Specifically, we found cases in which variables had opposite effects on the likelihood of an outcome for females than on the likelihood of that same outcome for males. For example, in California, females referred to the court by law-enforcement agencies were less likely to be petitioned to juvenile court than females referred by other sources; however, males referred to the courts by law-enforcement agencies were more likely to be petitioned than males referred by other sources. In general, however, the direction of the effects of variables were consistent between the females’ and males’ equations. That is, the same variables that increased or decreased the likelihood of a particular outcome for females also tended to increase or decrease the likelihood of that particular outcome for males. In addition, we had cases in which a variable influenced an outcome for one gender, but not the other gender. We analyzed calendar year 1990 and 1991 juvenile court case-level data for up to seven states for each of four case processing outcomes. The outcomes were (1) whether a case was petitioned by intake staff, such as juvenile probation officers, to juvenile court for more formal handling or hearing by a judge; (2) whether a case petitioned to juvenile court was detained before its formal hearing; (3) whether petitioned cases were adjudicated as status offenders; and (4) whether adjudicated cases were placed out-of-home. Table III.1 reports the number of cases used in the analysis for each stage. Table III.2 reports the proportion of female cases in each stage. The number of cases referred in table III.1 represents the total sample of cases coming into the juvenile justice systems in each state, that is, cases referred from law-enforcement officers, schools, family, social service agencies, and other sources. From the cases referred, a subset is petitioned at intake to juvenile court (the number petitioned). Of those petitioned, a subset is detained (the number detained), and a subset is adjudicated as status offenders (the number adjudicated). Finally, of those cases adjudicated, a subset is placed out-of-home (the number placed). The data in table III.1 show that the number of cases referred to the respective juvenile justice systems ranged from almost 41,000 in Missouri to about 8,700 in the 5 California counties. The number of cases processed at each of the other stages—detention, adjudication, and placement—also varied across the states. Table III.2 shows the proportion of females at each stage for each state. These proportions varied by outcomes and states. For example, in Utah, about 30 percent of the cases referred to the juvenile courts were females, whereas, in South Carolina, about 49 percent of the cases referred were females. Similar ranges and variability across the states occurred in other stages of processing. In table III.3, we report the gender-specific aggregate probabilities for each of our four decision points by state. The following probabilities were defined: the probability of being petitioned at intake equals the number of cases petitioned to juvenile court divided by the number referred to the intake office, the probability of secure detention equals the number of petitioned cases detained securely divided by the number of petitioned cases, the probability of adjudication equals the number of petitioned cases adjudicated as status offenders divided by the number of petitioned cases, and the probability of placement equals the number of adjudicated cases receiving an out-of-home placement divided by the number of adjudicated cases. As in table III.1, table III.3 shows that there was a wide variability across states in the probabilities at each stage. There were also gender differences within states in the probabilities at particular stages. For example, the probability of being petitioned at intake to juvenile court for females ranged from about 11 percent in Arizona, California, Florida, and Missouri to about 42 percent in South Carolina. Within states, there were gender differences in the probability of being (1) petitioned at intake, in Arizona and Utah; (2) detained, in Arizona and California; (3) adjudicated, in Nebraska; and (4) placed, in Arizona and Nebraska. Alone, differences in these aggregate probabilities did not reveal gender bias. The probabilities did not account for gender-specific differences in the distribution of case characteristics that were associated with each of the outcomes. The presence or absence of gender differences in the probabilities may mask gender differences in case characteristics or gender differences in the manner in which the respective juvenile justice systems treated the characteristics. Gender differences in the treatment of characteristics could lead to gender bias in outcomes. For example, the absence of a large gender difference in the probability that cases were petitioned at intake to the court in Missouri (.1195 for males as compared to .1150 for females) could mask gender bias or gender differences in treatment. If, for example, intake offices in Missouri were more likely to petition male liquor offenders than female liquor offenders, but female liquor-law violators comprised a larger portion of the sample of female cases, then the aggregate probabilities of being petitioned at intake may mask the difference in treatment on similar characteristics. We measured gender bias as the gap or discrepancy between females’ outcomes as determined by their average characteristics and females’ outcomes under the assumption that their average characteristics were treated the same as males. We devised a measure—the gender-bias quotient—to summarize the degree to which these two sets of outcomes differed. The gender-bias quotients were developed from the results of the gender-specific regressions of each of the four outcomes. In general, we estimated separate models for females and males using the case characteristics as predictors or independent variables. Upon estimating the regressions, we produced parameter estimates of the influence on a dependent variable of each of the independent variables. For each outcome, we had two sets of parameter estimates, one for females and one for males. We used the parameter estimates and the case characteristics for females and males to construct the gender-bias quotients. To do so, we calculated two sets of predicted average probabilities for females. The first predicted probability we called the “model probabilities.” These were the predicted average probabilities for females for each outcome, e.g., the probability of being petitioned to juvenile court. The model probabilities were calculated using the mean or average characteristics of females in the sample. To compute the model probabilities, we multiplied the female parameter estimates for each independent variable by the respective means of the independent variables for females. We summed across these products and transformed the result into a probability to produce the model probabilities. The second probability we calculated was the “equal treatment” probability. We followed a similar procedure as above. However, in this case, we multiplied the parameter estimates for males by the average characteristics of females, summed the products, and transformed the result into the “equal treatment” probabilities. The ratio of the equal treatment to the model probabilities yielded the gender-bias quotient. The gender-bias quotient measures the extent to which females’ outcomes diverge from males’ outcomes if case characteristics were treated equally. The gender-bias quotient is an aggregate measure in that it is produced by summing across the effects of different variables. It is possible, therefore, that the aggregate gender-bias quotients may show little or no gender bias, but that there may be gender differences in treatment on particular variables. The results of our regression analysis enabled us to identify situations where there were differences in treatment on particular variables but no aggregate gender bias, as measured by the gender-bias quotients. Further, the method we used to construct the gender-bias quotients takes into account two sets of influences on each of the four case-processing outcomes. The first influence is the differences in the average characteristics of female and male status offenders across all cases. The second influence is the differences in how females’ and males’ characteristics were treated. Discrepancies between the two sets of predicted probabilities that comprise the gender-bias quotients arising from the first set of influences are not indicators of gender bias; those discrepancies arising from the second set are indicators. The distinction between these influences stems from the fact that the outcomes we reviewed—petitioned at intake, detention, adjudication, and placement—may be determined by a number of variables, such as current offense, prior offense history, age, and race. If some variables had larger influences on these outcomes than others and the variables with larger influences were correlated with gender, then there would be gender differences in these outcomes. Such differences would not be characterized as gender bias, however, because they are explained by the gender differences in the distribution of case characteristics. Failure to control for gender differences in case characteristics may lead to the incorrect inference that there is gender bias in the outcomes, when, in fact, what has been observed is gender differences in the distribution of variables associated with outcomes. On the other hand, estimated differences in the way the juvenile justice system evaluates females’ and males’ characteristics, apart from the distribution of these characteristics across cases, would indicate gender bias. That is, differences in the magnitude or direction of the influence of variables between females and males, regardless of the distribution of these variables between females and males, indicate that there is gender bias. For example, suppose, regardless of gender, that the probability of being detained before adjudication increases with the number of prior contacts with the juvenile justice system. Everything else being equal, if a larger proportion of the sample of males had prior contacts, or if males had more prior contacts on the average than did females, then one would expect the probability of detention to be higher for males than females. This type of result would not indicate gender bias. However, if males had as many prior contacts with the juvenile justice system as females, but males with prior contacts were more likely than females with prior contacts to be detained, all else being equal, then gender differences in the probability of detention arising from this situation would indicate gender bias. The methodology we employed enabled us to distinguish between these two sources of influences on the outcomes we analyzed. We were able to (1) evaluate the extent to which the distribution of characteristics differed between females and males and (2) measure whether there were gender differences in the juvenile justice systems’ treatment of these characteristics. To assess gender bias we estimated separate regressions for females and males for each of the four decision outcomes in the seven states. We fit the regressions on a state-by-state basis using variables that measured case characteristics in each state’s data set. We imposed as few restrictions as possible on our representations of each state’s juvenile justice system; in other words, each state’s regressions may have had a different number of variables. The four dependent variables in our analysis—whether a case was petitioned to juvenile court, detained, adjudicated as a status offense, or placed out-of-home—were dichotomous. Our ultimate interest was in the gender-specific probabilities of status offenders’ being petitioned at intake, detained, adjudicated, and placed. This posed two problems. First, the dichotomous dependent variables violated the assumptions underlying the classical, or linear, regression model. Specifically, the errors were heteroskedastic. Second, we wanted to use the regression results to predict aggregate, gender-specific probabilities for our outcomes, rather than simply predict the outcomes in individual cases. The problems posed by the nature of the dependent variables and the need to estimate probabilities were solved by using a logistic specification for the regressions. This specification is commonly chosen by criminologists who analyze data containing dichotomous outcomes, such as whether a case was convicted. Using a logistic specification to estimate the parameters, we took the following three steps to estimate parameters and calculate predicted probabilities. First, by state, we estimated the separate regressions for each of the four dependent variables. We included specific variables in the regressions by assessing the adequacy of the models both in terms of the individual variables and from the point of view of the overall fit of the model to the data. In general, we sought to build the most parsimonious models consistent with the data, but we also attempted to include theoretically relevant variables—such as the type of status offense—where possible. p elogit(p)/(1 elogit(p)) In this formula, “p” is the predicted probability of an outcome, e.g., the probability of petitioned at intake; “e” refers to the operation of exponentiating; and “logit(p)” is the estimated logit of the probability of the particular outcome. The logit was evaluated at the mean levels of the variables in the regression equation. These probabilities, the model probabilities, indicated how females and males, respectively, were treated by the courts on their average characteristics. Third, we used the parameter estimates from the males’ equations to estimate outcomes for females if they were treated in the same way as males. These probabilities were labeled “p(2)” or the “equal treatment probabilities” for females. We computed these probabilities by multiplying the means of the females’ variables by the parameter estimates from the males’ equations. We used these products to predict the equal treatment probabilities for females. Finally, we took the ratio of the two sets of probabilities—“equal treatment” to “predicted,” or p(2) to p(1)—to estimate the gender-bias quotient. As the gender-bias quotients approach 1, the amount of gender bias diminishes. Gender-bias quotients greater than 1 indicate that females were less likely to receive a particular outcome than if their characteristics were treated as males’ characteristics. Gender-bias quotients less than 1 indicates the reverse, that females were more likely to receive an outcome than if their characteristics were treated equally to males’ characteristics. For example, a hypothetical outcome of .7 detentions in a state would suggest that females were more likely to be detained in that state than males with similar characteristics; an outcome of 1.3, on the other hand, would indicate that females were less likely to be detained than males with similar characteristics. The general form of our logistic regressions was as follows. If we denote any one of the dichotomous dependent variables, for example, detention by D, then the probability of detention, conditioned on a vector of case characteristics X and a vector of effects B, is given by P(1)(D 1|XB) [1 exp( BThe case characteristics included in the models included variables that measured offense history, current offense, etc., as described before. The entire set of variables used in building the models is reviewed below. Because we estimated separate models for females and males, the parameters indicate the gender-specific treatments of each gender’s characteristics by the courts. To estimate the separate logistic regressions, we used maximum likelihood techniques and obtained the estimated effects for females and males. From these, and the mean values of the independent variables, we calculated the estimated probabilities. Continuing with the example, we calculated p(1) as the probability of detention for females. We then calculated a second probability of detention, the equal treatment probability, or p(2): p(2) [1 exp( Bm i)] the parameter estimates, odds ratios can be calculated. The odds ratios can be interpreted in a relatively straightforward manner. The odds ratio is an estimate of how much more likely, or unlikely, it is for the outcome of interest to be present among those having a particular characteristic than those not having that characteristic. For example, an odds ratio of 4 for a variable indicating whether a status offender had prior dispositions would be interpreted to indicate that status offenders with prior dispositions are four times as likely as those without prior dispositions to have the outcome (e.g., detention) of interest. Finally, the method we used to estimate gender bias was based on methods developed by economists to measure discrimination in labor markets. Their method, called the “residual difference,” measures discrimination, or bias, in terms of the differences between the two sets of outcomes after the effects of all relevant variables have been accounted for. In the residual difference method, a bias or discrimination is the residual that cannot be explained by the variables in the model. The strength of the method lies in its ability to account for bias in terms of the differences in treatments on characteristics. The major weakness of the method lies in using an incomplete or incorrect set of variables to estimate the regressions. Depending on how they are correlated with the outcome variables, omitted variables or incorrectly included variables could reduce or increase the “residual difference.” Thus, misspecified models could lead to incorrect inferences about bias. We fit state-specific models for each decision, using the relevant variables available in the states’ data sets. We used our knowledge of each state’s system to supplement our model-building. In general, we used five common categories or classes of independent variables to build our models. These categories included (1) variables to measure the current offense, prior offense history, and juvenile justice system contact, such as source of referral for the current offense, detention prior to adjudication, and personal attributes, such as age and race, and (2) variables to measure the location and geographic characteristics of the court. We defined our four dependent variables as follows: Intake decision: A dichotomous variable to indicate whether a status offense case referred to a juvenile court’s intake office was petitioned to the court for formal processing. Detention: A dichotomous variable to indicate whether a petitioned status offender was detained securely before adjudication. Adjudication: A dichotomous variable to indicate the outcome of an adjudicatory hearing, specifically, that a case was adjudicated as a status offender. Placement: A dichotomous variable to indicate whether an adjudicated status offender was given an out-of-home placement. The specific variables that fell within the categories of our independent variables were as follows: Current offense: We used a set of indicator (dichotomous or dummy) variables to indicate whether the current offense, i.e., the referral offense, was for running away, truancy, ungovernability, liquor-law violations, or other status offenses. Prior offense history: We used a number of measures of prior offense history, including the number of prior juvenile court referrals for any offense over the life of the juvenile, the number of prior status-offense dispositions during the 2 years before the current referral, the number of prior delinquency offense dispositions during the 2 years prior to the current referral, and the number of prior delinquency adjudications over the life of the juvenile. Not all measures were available for each state. Source of referral: We used a set of dummy variables to indicate the source of referral. The variables for sources of referral included the law-enforcement agency, school, family, and other sources. We varied the reference category by state. Age at referral: We used the age of the status offender at the time that the case was referred. Race of the offender: We used two dummy variables to indicate whether a status offender (1) was black or (2) belonged to another race or ethnic group. Metropolitan status of the court of venue: Except in California, we measured the metropolitan status of the court by a dummy variable to indicate whether a court was located in a county belonging to a metropolitan statistical area or a primary metropolitan statistical area. We also measured the population density per square mile of the county containing the court. Detention status: For the adjudication and placement decisions, we used a dummy variable to indicate whether a case was detained securely. We fit the models to the data on a state-by-state and outcome-by-outcome basis. We developed models containing a set of independent variables that fit the data better than other combinations of independent variables in a state’s data set. Across states, our models did not necessarily contain the same subset of variables. As a result, we were not able to directly compare the size of the effects of different variables across states; although we did attempt to identify which variables in each state’s models had the biggest effects and to make general comparisons about the effects of variables. For the petitioned at the intake decision, we used the sample of all status-offender cases referred to the intake office in a state. We did not estimate a model of the intake decision for Nebraska because data on cases handled informally were not reported for the state’s two largest counties. For the detention and adjudication outcomes, we used the sample of all cases handled formally or petitioned to the juvenile court. We did not estimate a detention model for Utah because its data set did not contain measures of detention. For the detention and adjudication outcomes, we also measured the current status offense as the referral offense. In estimating the placement outcomes, we restricted our analysis to those status-offense cases adjudicated as status offenses. For the placement outcomes, we measured the offense as the disposed offense. We did not estimate placement models for status offenders in Arizona because there were too few cases. Our findings on gender bias are summarized on table III.4. A discussion of our results pertaining to the analysis of the differences in the effects of individual parameters and of offsetting effects follows the discussion of the gender-bias quotients. Table III.4 shows, by gender for each state, three results for each of the dependent variables: (1) the “models probability” of having been petitioned at intake, detained securely before adjudication, adjudicated as a status offender, and placed out-of-home, or p(1), for females and males; (2) the “equal treatment probability” of the same outcomes for females, or p(2); and (3) the gender-bias quotient, or ratio of probabilities for females if treated like males, to females as predicted by the model—i.e., p(2) to p(1). In analyzing the gender-bias quotients, we were interested in whether the aggregate outcomes for females differed from what they would have been if their characteristics were treated equally to males. If there were differences, as indicated by gender-bias quotients that deviated from 1, then we wanted to determine which variables in the models explained the differences, as previously discussed. Of secondary concern were those cases in which the gender-bias quotients were not different from 1, but there were differences in the treatment of specific characteristics between females and males. In most of the outcomes we analyzed across the seven states, there was little evidence of widespread gender bias. In other words, for most of the outcomes, the gender-bias quotients were near 1. This was the case in five of the six petitioned-at-intake decision models, four of the six detention models, six of the seven adjudication models, and five of the six placement models. In other words, across a diverse set of states, which represented different types of juvenile justice systems, females and males tended to receive similar treatment. The exceptions to this general finding occurred in the following decision points: (1) in petitioning-at-intake decisions, females in Florida were estimated to be more likely to be petitioned to juvenile court than if they were treated equal to males; (2) in detention decisions, females in Arizona, Florida, and Nebraska were estimated to be less likely to be detained than males; (3) in the adjudication decision, females in Florida were estimated to be less likely to be adjudicated than males in that state; and (4) in the placement decisions, females in Florida were estimated to be less likely to be placed than males in Florida. In addition, while only Florida’s placement outcome deviated by more than .2 from a gender-bias quotient of 1, in two other states, Nebraska and South Carolina, the gender-bias quotients for the placement decisions were .80. In addition, in two other states, Missouri and Utah, the gender bias quotients were less than 1 and near .8. Overall, in four of the six states where placement data were available, the gender-bias quotients for the placement decisions were less than 1. While only the result for Florida was consistent with our definition of gender bias, in these other four states, there appeared to be a slightly higher likelihood for placing females out-of-home as compared to similarity situated males, but the magnitude of the effect in any of these four states was not large enough to lead us to conclude that there was significant gender bias. The odds ratios from the parameters of the regression models provided some insight into the reasons for gender bias in the cases identified above. In the petitioning decisions in Florida in which females were more likely to be petitioned to juvenile court than in their equal-treatment outcomes, the gender differences in treatment arose around female runaways and in the location of the juvenile courts. Female runaways were more likely to be petitioned to court than male runaways; however, female runaways were less likely to be petitioned than female truants or liquor-law violators. In addition, female runaways comprised a larger portion of female cases than male runaways did of male cases. Females in metropolitan areas were about a third more likely to be petitioned than their male counterparts. Thus, the higher aggregate likelihood of females to be petitioned to juvenile court appeared to be due largely to differences in treatment of female runaways, who also happened to comprise a larger share of all female status offenders. In the detention decisions in which females were less likely to be detained than if they were treated like males, the gender differences appeared to arise from two different sources: the source of referral and the type of status offense (in the Arizona case), a variety of variables (in the Florida case), and the type of status offenders petitioned to the court (in the Nebraska case). In Arizona, petitioned females who were referred to the court by law-enforcement officers were one-tenth as likely to be detained than their male counterparts. In addition, male status offenders referred by law-enforcement officers comprised a larger proportion of the sample of all male status-offender cases than occurred among all female status-offender cases. Finally, female runaways were more likely to be detained than male runaways. In Florida’s detention outcomes, gender differences in treatment of characteristics occurred in a number of variables. Female runaways and liquor-law violators were less likely to be detained than males referred to juvenile court for these offenses, and females processed in metropolitan areas also were less likely to be detained than males. In Nebraska’s detention outcomes, the gender bias arose because of gender differences in the treatment of particular types of status offenders. In particular, females picked up for truancy, liquor, and other offenses were estimated to be less than half as likely to be detained than male truants. On the basis of their other characteristics, females and males were treated about equally. In Florida’s adjudication decision in which females were less likely to be adjudicated than their equal-treatment outcomes, the type of status offense was related to the gender bias. Specifically, female runaways were about three times less likely to be adjudicated than were male runaways, and females petitioned for liquor offenses were about one-fifth as likely to be adjudicated as males petitioned for liquor offenses. Finally, in Florida’s placement outcome, which had the gender-bias quotient that deviated the farthest from 1, and in which females were less likely to be placed than their equal-treatment outcomes, the type of status offense also seemed to be associated with the gender bias. Specifically, females adjudicated for liquor offenses, truancy, or ungovernability all were less likely to be placed than comparable males with these offenses. In addition, females adjudicated for liquor violations, truancy, and ungovernability were less likely to be placed than females adjudicated for running away. Finally, females’ prior offense histories were not treated as severely as males, that is, females with prior offenses were not as likely to be placed as males with prior offenses. The lower likelihood of placement for females in Florida does not necessarily mean that females were better off or that males were treated more harshly than females. To determine this, it would be necessary to determine the range of treatment options associated with various placements. For example, a concern expressed in our site visits related to the treatment options available or unavailable when status offenders were placed out-of-home. Placements may be used for a variety of purposes, including providing services and protecting females from becoming victims of abuse. This latter concern may be reflected by the fact that in Florida female runaways were more likely to be placed than other types of female status offenders. In addition to using the results of the regressions to explain the occurrences of gender bias, we analyzed the regressions to identify the variables that were associated with each of the outcomes. Although differences in the way variables were measured and in the way states processed status offenders prevented us from making direct comparisons between the states on each set of models, we did assess the magnitude of the effects of the variables to identify similarities and differences. Across the six states where intake data were available, no single variable had consistent effects on the decision to petition status offenders at intake, although prior contact with juvenile court generally increased the likelihood that a case would be detained. In four of the six states, the type of status offense for which females and males were referred to the courts did have a strong association with the likelihood that the cases were petitioned to the juvenile courts. Specifically, in California, Florida, and Utah, liquor-law violators and truants were estimated to be more likely, whether they were female or male, to be petitioned to the courts than other types of status offenders. In Arizona, this was true only for truants; moreover, black males were more likely to be petitioned to court than black females. In California and Missouri, blacks of either gender were more likely to be petitioned than persons of other races. Finally, in Arizona, California, Missouri, and South Carolina, the source of referral influenced the likelihood that a case was estimated to be petitioned at intake. In particular, in South Carolina, cases referred to intake by family members were estimated to be more likely to be petitioned for both females and males than were cases referred to intake by other sources. No variables had consistent effects across all seven states. However, when the measures of prior offense history—whether measured as prior referrals, adjudications, or delinquencies—were available in a states’ data set, the prior offense history tended to be positively associated with the likelihood of detention for both females and males. The only exception occurred in the effect of prior status-offense dispositions on the Arizona detention probabilities. For males in this case, the number of prior status-offense dispositions during the 2 years before the current offense decreased the probability of detention. Other variables that had large positive effects on the probability of detention included the source of referral and the particular types of status offenses. Specifically, cases referred by law-enforcement agencies were estimated to be more likely to be detained for both females and males in Arizona, California, and Nebraska. In Arizona and California, the gender more likely to be detained given that a case was referred by law-enforcement officials differed. In Arizona, males referred by the police were about 14 times more likely to be detained than females referred by the police. In California, females referred by the police were about 9 times more likely to be detained than males referred by the police. In South Carolina, females referred to the court by family members or by schools were estimated to be more likely to be detained than males referred by those sources, and females referred by family members and schools were more likely to be detained than females referred by other sources. Female runaways were estimated to be more likely to be detained than other types of status offenders in Arizona, Florida, and Nebraska. On the other hand, in Florida, male runaways were more likely to be detained than were female runaways. Demographic variables, such as age and race, did not exhibit consistent effects on detention outcomes across states. However, in three states, race was associated with the likelihood of detention, and the effects of race varied with gender. Specifically, in Arizona, black females were more likely to be detained than black males; conversely, in Florida and California, black males were more likely to be detained than black females. In Nebraska, blacks—female or male—were more likely than whites to be detained. Adjudication outcomes for females and males tended to be affected most by three variables: detention, source of referral, and type of status offense. In general, detention before adjudication lowered the estimated probability of adjudication. The estimated direction of the effects of law-enforcement agencies as a source of referral tended to change between the detention and adjudication decisions. Law-enforcement referrals were estimated as more likely to be detained but less likely to result in cases’ being adjudicated as status offenders. Further, this change in the direction of effects between detention and adjudication also occurred for status offenders who were referred for running away. Runaways, in general, were estimated as less likely to be adjudicated than liquor-law violators; this was despite the fact that runaways were estimated to be more likely to be detained than liquor-law violators. These opposing effects between the two stages of the process may indicate that the juvenile courts use detention and adjudication in different ways. It is possible that detention may be viewed as analogous to a disposition for status offenders. The court may view detention as a sufficient treatment, given that a youth was warned or counseled about his behavior, and the court may not view additional sanctions as necessary. The effects of running away may also be explained in this manner. Runaways may be more likely to be detained to give officials time to contact the family and return the juvenile. These cases then may be less likely to be adjudicated because the juveniles would have been returned to their families. Other variables included in the models did not exhibit similar general trends across the states. For example, a prior offense history increased the probability of adjudication in three states, and metropolitan status decreased the probability of adjudication in three states. The effects of age and race were not consistent for females and males. These other variables may not have had a statistically significant effect on the adjudication outcome, or they may have had a statistically significant effect for females or males but not both, or the direction of the effects may have varied across states. In addition, the size of the effects of these variables was small, raising doubts about their overall impact on adjudication outcomes. The variations in the patterns for these variables attest to the differences in the states’ processes. With the exception of a prior offense history and the type of offense, the relationships between the independent variables and the placement outcomes were similarly difficult to characterize between the female and male equations and across the six states’ models. A prior offense history for example, was positively associated with the likelihood of placement for both females and males in four of the six states where placement data were available, while in a fifth state, a prior offense history was positively related to placement for males but not statistically significant for females. Other variables, such as the source of referral and type of status offense, were associated with the likelihood of placement, but the particular source of referral and type of offense that affected placement varied across states. For example, in Missouri, cases referred to the court by the law-enforcement agencies and schools were less likely to be placed regardless of their gender than cases referred by other sources. However, in Nebraska, males referred by family members were less likely to be placed than males referred by other sources, while females referred by family members were more likely to be placed than females referred by other sources. Alternatively, in South Carolina, males whose cases were referred by schools and family members were more likely to be placed, while females whose cases were referred by these sources were less likely to be placed than females referred by other sources. The placement outcomes for runaways were similar to those of the adjudication of runaways. In the states in which the type of status offense was associated with placement, runaways were less likely to be placed than other types of status offenses. Otherwise, the status offenses more or less likely to be associated with placement outcomes varied across the states. Finally, when the case processing outcomes within states were analyzed, there were a few variables that had consistent effects across outcomes within states. For example, in South Carolina, the source of referral influenced each outcome—particularly when the source was school or family. Cases referred by family members, regardless of gender, were more likely to be petitioned to court than cases referred by other sources. At the detention stage, the effects of source of referral varied with gender. Males referred by schools and family were less likely than females referred by these sources to be detained. Conversely, at the placement stage, males referred by schools and family were more likely to be placed than females referred by these sources. Second, in some states, the type of status offense influenced the outcomes, but the effects differed. For example, in California, truants—regardless of gender—were more likely to be petitioned at intake than liquor-law violators or runaways. However, at the adjudication and placement stages, male runaways were less likely to be adjudicated or placed than female runaways; but both female and male truants were about equally less likely to be adjudicated or placed than other types of status offenders. In general, the effects of specific variables differed across states and stages of processing. These differences may be due to differences among the states in the structure or objectives of juvenile courts. Generally, we found no significant gender-based differences in the counseling, educational, and medical services provided to females and males at the 15 facilities we visited, although the extent of such services varied by type of facility. However, a majority of the juvenile justice officials and all of the service providers in the counties we visited said that more facilities and services were needed for status offenders, both females and males. Table IV.1 presents background data about each of the 15 facilities we visited—4 secure detention centers, 6 shelters, 4 group homes, and 1 nonresidential program. We did not make any comparisons or evaluations regarding the quality of services for these facilities. State and county (urban or rural) Duval County (urban) Alachua County (rural) Fayette County (urban) Jefferson County (urban) Group home, residential, nonsecure To provide an alternative to incarceration or institutionalization for troubled girls by offering them academics, independent life skills training, counseling, and goal setting. (The Center also accepted dependent, pregnant, or parenting girls.) To provide for the safety, care, and custody of juveniles from the time they are detained until their cases are processed through the juvenile court. (According to facility officials, under Florida law, status offenders who are the subject of a judicial order requiring detention can be placed in a juvenile detention center.) To provide shelter and counseling to runaway and homeless youth. To provide temporary shelter and counseling to runaways to help them and their families resolve their conflicts. To provide a temporary, out-of-home placement alternative for children when secure detention is not appropriate. (The Coleman House also provided services to dependent, abused, and neglected children.) To provide for the care and custody of youth pending their release by the juvenile court. (According to facility officials, under Kentucky law, status offenders who violate a court order can be placed in a secure juvenile detention or holding facility.) To provide court-ordered residential placement, which includes counseling and educational services, and promote a positive change in the girls’ negative behaviors. (Ungovernable behavior was the most common status offense referral.) To provide court-ordered residential placement, which includes counseling and educational services, and promote a positive change in the boys’ negative behaviors. (Truancy was the most common status offense referral.) (continued) State and county (urban or rural) Johnson County (rural) Prince Georges County (urban) St. Mary’s County (rural) Bexar County (urban) Dallas County (urban) Shelter, residential, nonsecure To provide for the care and custody of youths pending their release by the juvenile court. (According to facility officials, under Kentucky law, status offenders who violate a court order can be placed in a secure juvenile detention or holding facility.) To provide short-term residential shelter, including assessment, counseling, and educational services, for runaway, homeless, or abused youth. To provide a protective, temporary living arrangement and counseling to runaways to help them resolve the problems in their homes. To provide a secure, temporary facility for juveniles waiting to appear in court or until placements can be arranged. To provide specialized clinical services, including individual and group counseling, for females. (The Program also provided services to dependent females.) To provide substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation services to medically indigent youth. To divert status offenders from juvenile detention, reunite them with their families whenever possible, and prevent them from committing more serious offenses and progressing further into the juvenile justice system. The four secure detention centers held females and males for short terms in physically restrictive environments pending juvenile court action. Staff at the four detention facilities told us that the majority of the youth held were males. In addition, the detention officials reported that most females and males detained at the detention facilities were delinquent offenders, not status offenders. Staff at three of the four detention facilities reported having problems with overcrowding caused by too many referrals of female and male youth. For status offenders held over 24 hours, the detention facilities’ staff reported that the average length of stay ranged from 7 days to 30 days. Also in the four secure detention facilities, female and male status offenders could be placed in the same living areas with the more serious offenders. These serious offenders included delinquents who may have committed homicide, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault. Staff told us the youth placed in the facilities were separated primarily by gender because the detention facilities were generally overcrowded or had limited bed space. After gender, one detention facility considered the youths’ physical sizes and ages in making placement decisions within the female-only and the male-only living areas. For example, the younger, smaller males were not placed in the same living area with the older, larger males. Staff at another detention center told us, however, that they had no flexibility beyond gender in placing females because the facility had only one living area for females, whereas there were six living areas for males.Staff said that since most of the referrals received at the facility were delinquent males, only one living area was set aside for females. Of the 11 nonsecure facilities, the 6 shelters provided short-term care to females and males. Staff at the six shelters told us the majority of youth served were status offenders. At five of the six shelters, staff reported serving more females than males. Staff at the remaining shelter reported serving, on average, an equal number of female and male youth. Staff at two shelters also said that the shelters sometimes experienced overcrowding caused by too many female and male referrals, especially during the months that the local schools were in session. According to staff at the six shelters, the reported average lengths of stay for female and male status offenders ranged from 4 days to 45 days. Gender was the primary factor in determining living arrangements at the six co-educational shelters. Female and male status offenders were not commingled with serious juvenile offenders because the shelters served only status offenders, less serious delinquent offenders, and dependents. Of the other five nonsecure facilities, the four group homes provided long-term care with access to community resources and programs. Three of the four group homes served only females, and one served only males. Staff at the two group homes in Texas told us the majority of the females served were status offenders and/or dependents. The staff at the male-only group home and the female-only group home in Kentucky said the facilities served more delinquent offenders than status offenders. The staff at the four group homes also said their facilities were not overcrowded because youth were not accepted unless a bed was available. According to these staff, the average length of stay for female and male status offenders ranged from 182 days (about 6 months) to 274 days (about 9 months). The one nonsecure, nonresidential program for status offenders that we visited was the Practical and Cultural Education Center for Girls, located in Jacksonville, FL. The Center’s program, which has been nationally recognized, was not overcrowded because a female student was accepted only if classroom space was available. A waiting list was maintained to place females as space became available. According to officials of this program, the average length of attendance for females in the program was 243 days (about 8 months). At each of the 15 facilities visited, we obtained gender-specific information about counseling, educational, and medical services, that is, the services most relevant to the principal needs of status offenders. The results of our visits are summarized below and in table IV.2. Female and male status offenders did not routinely receive individual or group counseling at the four secure detention facilities. These facilities, however, could obtain counseling services from community resources if staff or resident youth (including female and male status offenders) requested such services. Juvenile court judges could also order the facilities to provide counseling. For example, professional staff at Florida’s Duval County Juvenile Detention Center told us that juvenile court judges sometimes ordered the detention center to undertake social assessments and provide counseling services to female and male status offenders placed in the facility. The detention center officials said that status offenders were transported to community health-care providers to receive these services. All six shelters, the four group homes, and the nonresidential program provided a variety of on-site counseling services to individuals, groups, or both. Female and male status offenders, however, were provided the same types and amounts of counseling within the co-educational facilities in which they were placed, according to officials at the facilities. Counseling topics could cover physical and sexual abuse, as well as substance abuse issues. Individual counseling ranged from 2 hours to 6 hours per week at the shelters, 1 hour to 4 hours per week at the group homes, and 5 hours per week at the nonresidential program. Group counseling ranged from 4 hours to 14 hours per week at the shelters, 3 hours to 5 hours per week at the group homes, and 1 hour per week at the nonresidential program. All of these facilities had arrangements with community health-care providers to supply additional counseling when needed. Some facility staff told us that female and male status offenders needed family counseling, but such service was difficult to maintain or provide. For example, two of the shelters offer family counseling, but the programs reportedly were poorly attended. Staff from two of the group homes said that they could not offer family counseling because court-ordered placements resulted in youth coming from all areas of the state. These officials explained that family counseling was impractical because the parents would have been unable to attend the sessions since they did not live close to the respective facility. Nineteen of the 34 juvenile justice officials and 6 of the 15 service providers we interviewed emphasized that family counseling is essential because female and male status offenders were running from some form of abuse or neglect at home. According to these officials, family counseling could help correct poor parenting skills, which is a contributor to abuse and neglect. Staff at one of the group homes we visited told us that limited resources were used most effectively only when the whole family was included in the treatment plan. According to the staff, a group-home facility could build a youth’s self-esteem and correct negative behaviors, but frequently the youth may be released from the group home and returned to the environment that caused the negative behaviors. The staff said that in these situations, where the family issues had not been addressed, the youth was likely to revert to negative behaviors. Staff at other facilities told us that parents and guardians did not always give female and male status offenders the support needed to address and solve problems. For example, an official at one shelter said they were unable to return a pregnant runaway to her home because her single-parent mother was using drugs and had just been evicted from their apartment. The 15 facilities we visited provided a variety of educational services. At three of the four secure detention facilities, status offenders generally attend on-site schools staffed by licensed teachers. The other secure facility, Kentucky’s Big Sandy Regional Detention Center, did not have an on-site school. A representative from the detention center told us resident youth are provided educational services when the juvenile court judges order the public schools to transport the youth to their classes. At the six (co-educational) shelters, we found no differences in the educational services provided to female and male status offenders. Status offenders at four of the six shelters either attended the local public schools or received daily or part-time instruction at the respective facility. These youth generally did not attend the local schools if they had dropped out of school, were studying for their general equivalency diploma, or did not reside in the county where the shelter was located. At the fifth shelter, all female and male status offenders attended an on-site school staffed by licensed teachers. At the sixth shelter, all female and male status offenders attended local schools. Female and male status offenders also received similar educational services at the four gender-specific group homes. For example, we visited one male-only group home and one female-only group home in Kentucky that were operated by the same organization. Both of these group homes sent the youth to county alternative schools. The two remaining group homes (each serving females only) sent resident youth to the local public schools. Education was a main component of the services offered status offenders at the nonresidential program we visited in Florida. Licensed teachers provided basic instruction, which enabled the youth to earn high-school credits that would aid them in returning to the public schools or obtaining a general equivalency diploma. Classes were conducted on the campus of the local community college, which gave the youth access to other educational services as well. According to service providers at the 15 facilities we visited, females and males were receiving needed medical services, either provided through arrangements by parents or guardians or from local community health-care providers. For example, pregnant females admitted to some facilities received prenatal care. Facility staff at one shelter told us that a male had been referred to a local dermatologist for severe acne. In addition, staff at several facilities reported that many of the females and males had to be referred to community dentists because the youth had never received dental care before arriving at the facilities. Also, females and males reportedly were given health screenings and/or physical examinations before or after admission. The health screenings included a list of questions to determine each youth’s immediate health needs. The physical examinations typically involved a nurse’ taking each youth’s temperature and blood pressure and checking for any signs of physical distress. All four of the secure detention facilities and one of the six shelters had on-site medical personnel. These personnel ranged from a nurse, who was available from 3 days to 7 days per week, to a doctor, who was available from 1 day to 5 days per week. Although these five facilities had on-site medical personnel to address minor medical problems or dispense prescription medication, some service providers at these facilities told us that their facilities were often overcrowded and needed additional medical staff. For example, at two secure detention facilities, the on-site nurse could not fully treat all of the youth on each day’s sick list and, thus, had to select patients. The remaining five shelters, four group homes, and the nonresidential facility did not have on-site medical services. Four of the 10 officials at these facilities told us that such resources were needed. For instance, one official explained that counselors were having to use their already limited counseling time to dispense medication and transport youth to doctors’ offices. Regular on-site individual and group counseling were not provided. Youth who displayed suicidal tendencies or requested counseling services were referred to community health-care providers. Youth attended an on-site school, which had six classrooms and eight licensed teachers provided by the county. Daily co-educational classes followed a basic curriculum that included language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The center also provided drug education and general equivalency diploma preparation. On-site medical services included a nurse, available 5 days a week, and a doctor, available 2 days a week. Youth were given a physical within 3 days after admittance to the facility. The most common health problems were colds and sore throats. Regular on-site individual and group counseling were not provided. Youth who displayed suicidal tendencies or requested counseling services were referred to community health-care providers. Youth attended the on-site school, which had one classroom and one licensed teacher provided by the county. Daily co-educational classes followed a basic curriculum. The center also provided remedial education. Classes could be canceled when the center was overcrowded. On-site medical services included a nurse, available 5 days a week, and a doctor, available 5 days a week. Youth were given a physical within 3 days after admittance to the facility. The most common health problems were colds and sexually transmitted diseases. Regular on-site individual and group counseling were not provided. Youth who displayed suicidal tendencies or requested counseling services were referred to community health-care providers. The center did not have a school. Some youth attended the local public school when the juvenile court judges ordered the schools to transport the youth to their classes. On-site medical services included a nurse, available 5 days a week, and a doctor, available 1 day a week. Youth were given a physical 7 days after admittance to the facility. The most common health problems were headaches. (continued) Individual and group counseling were not regularly provided unless the youth displayed suicidal tendencies or requested the services. The facility had one counselor on staff to meet these requests. Youth attended the on-site school, which had six classrooms and six teachers provided by the county. Daily classes followed a basic curriculum. The center also provided independent-living skills instruction and remedial education. Classes could be canceled when the center was overcrowded. On-site medical services included a nurse, available 7 days a week, and a doctor, available 3 days a week. Youth were given a physical 7 days after admittance to the facility. The most common health problems involved sexually transmitted diseases. Youth received approximately 3 hours of individual counseling and 4 hours to 5 hours of group counseling each week. Family counseling was provided on a voluntary basis. The counselor-to- resident ratio was 1 to 10. The shelter did not have an on-site school. Youth attended the local public schools or an alternative school operated by the county. The shelter provided independent-living skills instruction and health education. The shelter did not have on-site medical services. Parents or guardians were responsible for providing any needed medical services. The most common health problem was asthma. Youth received approximately 3 hours of individual counseling and 7 hours of group counseling each week. Family counseling was provided on a voluntary basis. The counselor-to- resident ratio was 1 to 8. Youth enrolled in the local public schools continued to attend their regular classes. Youth who were not enrolled in the local schools attended an on-site life skills school that was taught by a retired teacher. The life skills school included remedial instruction, independent-living skills instruction, and health education. The shelter did not have on-site medical services. Parents or guardians were responsible for providing any needed medical services. The most common health problems were colds, sinus infections, and lice. (continued) Youth received approximately 2 hours of individual counseling a week. Group counseling was not provided. The counselor-to- resident ratio was 1 to 7. Youth residing in the county attended local public schools. A teacher conducted on-site remedial instruction 4 hours a week for out-of-town youth or youth who had dropped out of school. The shelter also offered independent-living skills instruction and general equivalency diploma preparation. On-site medical services included a nurse, available 3 days a week, and a doctor, available 1 day a week. Youth were given a physical within 3 days after admittance to the facility. The most common health problems were allergies and colds. Youth received approximately 4 hours of individual counseling and 4 hours of group counseling each week. The counselor-to- resident ratio was 1 to 2. Youth either attended the local public schools or received tutoring at the facility. A licensed teacher provided instruction every-other-day to youth not attending the local public schools. Facility staff provided instruction on the days the tutor was not available. The shelter also provided independent-living skills instruction, health education, and parenting classes. The shelter did not have on-site medical services. Parents or guardians were responsible for providing any needed medical care. The most common health problem for both females and males was hepatitis B. The females commonly needed prenatal care or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. The males commonly needed treatment for colds or dental problems. (continued) Youth received 6 hours of individual counseling and 4 hours of group counseling each week. The counselor-to- resident ratio was 1 to 2. Youth who resided in the county attended the local public schools. A licensed teacher provided instruction 4 hours a day, 3 days a week to youth not enrolled in the local public schools. The shelter also provided independent-living skills instruction, health education, and parenting classes. The shelter did not have on-site medical services. The residents’ health-care needs were met by local health-care providers, including a hospital, women’s clinic, and pharmacy. Females commonly requested gynecological services. Youth received 6 hours of individual counseling and 14 hours of group counseling each week. The counselor-to- resident ratio was 1 to 8. Youth attended the on-site school, which had two classrooms and two licensed teachers. Daily co-educational classes followed a basic curriculum. The shelter also provided independent-living skills instruction, drug and health education, and parenting classes. The shelter did not have on-site medical services. Youth received a physical within 2 days after arriving at the county’s juvenile detention center, which also provided any additional medical care. The most common health problems were asthma, lice, scabies, and sexually transmitted diseases. (continued) Youth received 1 hour of individual counseling and 3 hours of group counseling each week. The counselor-to- resident ratio was 1 to 8. The shelter did not have an on-site school. Youth attended an off-site alternative school operated by the state and the local public school district. Daily co-educational classes followed a basic curriculum, and most of the classes were remedial. The alternative school also provided counseling, health education, and recreational activities. The home did not have on-site medical services. Youth received a physical from community health-care providers within 7 days after admittance to the facility. The most common health problems were severe acne and dental problems. Youth received 4 hours of individual counseling and 3 hours to 5 hours of group counseling each week. The counselor-to- resident ratio was 1 to 4. The group home did not have an on-site school. Youth attended an off-site alternative school operated by the state and local public school district. Daily classes followed a basic curriculum, and most of the classes were remedial. The alternative school also provided counseling, health education, and recreational activities. The home did not have on-site medical services. Physical and general medical care were obtained from community health-care providers. The most common health problems were colds, dental problems, sexually transmitted diseases, and urinary tract infections. (continued) Youth received at least 1 hour of individual counseling and 3 hours of group counseling each week. The counselor-to- resident ratio was 1 to 5. Youth attended the local public schools or an on-site alternative school. The alternative school, which followed a basic curriculum, had one licensed teacher provided by the local school district. The home did not have on-site medical services. Physicals and general medical care were obtained from community health-care providers. The most commonly requested treatment needs were dental and gynecological services. Youth received 2 hours of individual counseling each week. No formal group counseling was provided. The counselor-to- resident ratio was 1 to 4. The group home did not have an on-site school. Youth attended the local public schools 5 days a week. The home did not have on-site medical services. Youth had to receive a physical prior to admission and general medical care from community health-care providers. The most common health problem was sprained ankles. (continued) Each youth was assigned an adviser who spent approximately 5 hours a week discussing personal and academic issues and goals. The adviser-to- student ratio was 1 to 10. In addition, a therapist provided each girl with at least 1 hour of counseling (individual, group, or family) each week. The Center is an alternative school that helps girls obtain high school credits or their general equivalency diplomas. The program had seven teachers and seven classrooms. The daily classes followed a basic curriculum, and some of the classes were remedial. The program also offered independent-living skills instruction, drug and health education, and parenting classes. The home did not have on-site medical services. Parents, guardians, or the students themselves were responsible for obtaining any needed medical services. Prenatal care and gynecological services were obtained from community health-care providers with the permission of the parents or guardians. The most common health problem was asthma. Danny R. Burton, Regional Management Representative Teresa R. Russell, Evaluator-in-Charge Christina M. Nicoloff, Senior Evaluator Donna B. Svoboda, Evaluator Frederick T. Lyles, Jr., Evaluator Virginia B. Dandy, Technical Information Specialist The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed whether gender bias existed in state juvenile justice systems between 1986 and 1991. GAO found that: (1) there was minimal gender bias in state juvenile justice systems during that period; (2) 40 percent of the 500,620 juvenile status-offender cases between 1986 to 1991 involved females and females and males had similar probabilities of being detained, adjudicated, or placed for a status offense; (3) the offenders' prior offense history and age generally affected the judicial outcomes; (4) although there were few gender-based differences in the availability of counseling, educational, and medical services for females and males, the type and extent of such services varied by facility; (5) females were sometimes given admission physicals and additional access to health care services that were not applicable to males; (6) county probation officers believed that there were not any significant differences in the way females and males with similar status-offense histories were treated within their juvenile justice systems; (7) juvenile probation officers reported that treatment options were equally available for detained female and male status offenders and more facilities were needed for both males and females; (8) it could not determine whether there was a disproportionate number of facilities for males; (9) local officials believed that more facilities and early intervention services were needed for status offenders of both sexes; and (10) there were mixed views about whether the needs of status offenders were better met by co-educational or single-gender facilities.