The Experiences of Female Juvenile Offenders in Four Types of Gender Responsive Placements

Introduction

Gender responsive programming represents the best mechanism for treatment and rehabilitation of female juvenile offenders because these programs account for the specific characteristics of girls who are typically a non-violent, low-risk offenders with significant service needs related to trauma, violence, and neglect among others. In practice, there is substantial variation in the way in which gender responsive has been defined and operationalized. The study presents the narratives of female juvenile offenders as they detail their experiences with the four types of gendered programming.

 Methods

The data from the semi-structured interviews was collected in 2002-2003 from a sample of 30 female juvenile offenders ranging in age from 14 to 19 from varied racial/ethnic backgrounds. The data comes from questions in four topic areas related to their experience in DJJS placements:  placement history, typical daily schedule at placements, likes/dislikes of placements, and the perceived likelihood for a successful transition.

 Results

This study identified four types of gendered programming: traditional, girls only, gender-informed, and gender-specific. Traditional juvenile justice programs are based on male-models of delinquency and are not gender-responsive for girls.  “Girls only” programming is most often traditional programming conducted with a group consisting of only girls.  “Gender-informed” programming typically takes into account relevant aspects of girls’ development providing information or content to reflect how gender may be an influence. “Gender-specific” programming incorporates specific aspects of girls’ development and girls’ patterns of offending into the programming to reflect the characteristics and needs of female juvenile offenders. Participants identified effective and detrimental features of each type of programming. Examples of effective program elements include the development of work related skills and getting therapeutic help. Conversely, however, participants also identified detrimental elements of each of the programs such as their trauma histories being ignored or placing low criminogenic girls at risk due to grouping them with high-level offenders.

Conclusions

Through the analysis of personal narratives, this study provides a starting place for definitional clarity of gender-responsive juvenile justice programming. The narratives further serve to guide our understanding of how each of these types of gendered programming is experienced by girls. This timely topic is relevant for understanding how gender responsive programming may better address the inequities that exist for girls who are placed in juvenile justice systems designed for males.