TY - JOUR
T1 - Disparity based on sex
T2 - Is gender-specifÏc treatment warranted?
AU - Kempf-Leonard, Kimberly
AU - Sample, Lisa L.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank the Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Group, the Department of Public Safety, and the University of Missouri Research Board for funding of the original research, Elicka Peterson for her assistance on the original project, and anonymous reviewers whose comments helped us to make this paper better. The views expressed herein are only those of the authors.
Funding Information:
Beginning in 1974 with passage of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act, Congress initiated several beneficial reforms for youths. Congress reauthorized the JJDP Act in 1992 and added a new requirement that states assess the adequacy of their services, particularly for girls, as a condition of receiving federal funds (Section 223 \[a\\][ 8\]o f the JJDP Act, as modified in 1992). In conjunction with this action, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention initiated a new opportunity for funding improvements specifically for girls as part of its challenge grant program (Bownes and Albert 1996). The challenge grant program calls for state-level legislation to provide gender equity in resource allocation, criticizes "the practice of redefining programs developed for boys as 'girls' programs,'" and notes that "the underlying philosophy, focus, and substance of gender-specific programs must be targeted to girls" (Bownes and Albert 1996:1). The impetus for the federal initiative is concern that juvenile justice processing is not, but should be, responsive to developmental differences between girls and boys. The financial incentives that accompany these reform efforts --although perhaps less lucrative than past federal initiatives such as removal of youths from jails and deinstitutionalization of status offenders --already have assured the popularity of this new "gender-specific" policy direction (Community Research Associates 1997a; Girls Inc. 1996:26). Like any new policy initiative, this one deserves careful attention. We must proceed cautiously as we focus new attention on females, particularly those served by juvenile corrections. The federal initiatives do not specify how case processing should proceed nor what female-specific treatment should entail. Fortunately, however, lessons can be learned from past reform efforts. The most helpful lessons are available from the somewhat parallel reform that began when Congress mandated states to examine and seek a remedy for the disproportionate representation of minority youths in confinement (the DMC mandate: Section 223 \[a\\][ 23\o] f the JJDP Act, as modified in 1988). Initial assessments of the race situation have taken nearly 10 years for most states to complete and have incorporated a wide array of research methodologies. Therefore the first lesson from the DMC initiative for the initial phase of the gender-specific initiative is that triangulation of research strategies provides a basis for comparing results across varying data sources and presents a more convincing claim about the reliability of findings. As a result of efforts to understand the race situation, no fewer than 48 states have identified specific problems for minority youths (Community Research Associates 1997b). Although concern about institutionalization led to the mandate, an important outgrowth of the research findings has been a greater understanding of the need for attention to race-specific issues throughout case processing. Indeed, many of the factors that lead to confinement involve disparities that occur much earlier in the process (e.g., Austin 1995; Bridges et al. 1995; Feld 1995; Frazier and Bishop 1995; Kempf 1992; Kempf-Leonard and Sontheimer 1995; Lockhart et al. 1991; Wordes, Bynum, and Corley 1994). Thus, as a result of information gathered during the first 10 years, the DMC initiative now supports new research examining how indirect effects of early experiences may amplify disparities or may cumulatively disadvantage minority youths (Feyerherm 1995). Therefore, the second lesson is that attention must focus not only on females who are confined, but also on gender issues throughout case processing. Unfortunately, most of the DMC investigations of race failed to examine girls' experiences (Community Research Associates 1997b). This omission provides a third lesson: The new inquiries aimed at gender must not overlook other relevant demographic concerns.
PY - 2000/3/1
Y1 - 2000/3/1
N2 - This paper addresses gender-specific treatment in juvenile justice Processing, an important topic in view of new funding opportunities to develop female-specific programs. This topic is controversial and includes many unresolved issues. To provide context, we relate this study to lessons from the initiative to address disproportionate minority confinement: that it is impossible to understand confinement without understanding the process by which youths are confined, that structural and demographic traits facilitate the process, and that benevolent interventions can have unintended negative consequences. We present empirical findings that juvenile justice cases are “gendered,” but that court treatment of those cases shows more gender similarities than differences. In contrast, interviews with officials suggest large gender gaps in opportunities for services, and indicate some gender biases. Bias and disparity also are themes among delinquent and “at-risk” girls who participated in focus groups; in addition, girls expressed preferences for treatment comparable to that given to boys. Finally, we evaluate what has been advocated as female-specific programming and recommend how best to proceed.
AB - This paper addresses gender-specific treatment in juvenile justice Processing, an important topic in view of new funding opportunities to develop female-specific programs. This topic is controversial and includes many unresolved issues. To provide context, we relate this study to lessons from the initiative to address disproportionate minority confinement: that it is impossible to understand confinement without understanding the process by which youths are confined, that structural and demographic traits facilitate the process, and that benevolent interventions can have unintended negative consequences. We present empirical findings that juvenile justice cases are “gendered,” but that court treatment of those cases shows more gender similarities than differences. In contrast, interviews with officials suggest large gender gaps in opportunities for services, and indicate some gender biases. Bias and disparity also are themes among delinquent and “at-risk” girls who participated in focus groups; in addition, girls expressed preferences for treatment comparable to that given to boys. Finally, we evaluate what has been advocated as female-specific programming and recommend how best to proceed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0010274627&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0010274627&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/07418820000094491
DO - 10.1080/07418820000094491
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0010274627
SN - 0741-8825
VL - 17
SP - 89
EP - 128
JO - Justice Quarterly
JF - Justice Quarterly
IS - 1
ER -