Persistent Paternalism: The Instantiation of Gendered Attributions in the System Response to Girls

Abstract

Prior research suggests that the juvenile legal system does too little to address the sources and underlying reasons for girls’ court referrals. Drawing on attribution theories, the current study examined perspectives that characterize the response of the system to girls’ behaviors. Data from this study were derived from a multimethod, qualitative study on system-involved girls. We find that court actors hold gendered attributions of girls’ delinquency, in turn informing their decision-making about how to treat and sanction girls. Paternalism remains a persistent feature in how the system locates, defines, and responds to girls through varying gendered attributions. The findings lend further support to attribution perspectives that suggest implicit gender-biases influence court actor decision-making, exacerbating the challenges girls face in and out of the juvenile legal system. By extension, this study offers concrete policy and practice implications for systems change and improving its response to girls.

Keywords

gender girls youth adolescence juvenile justice attributions system actors

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

N. E.

Javdani

Lehrner

A. L.

Walden

A. L.

(2012). “Changing the text”: Modeling council capacity to produce institutionalized change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9460-z

Anderson

K. L.

(2005). Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research. Sex Roles, 52, 853–865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4204-x

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bridges

G. S.

Steen

(1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657267

Brown

S. L.

Wanamaker

K. A.

Greiner

Scott

Skilling

T. A.

(2021). Complex trauma and criminogenic needs: Two paths to the youth justice system—A gender-informed latent profile analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820964513

Burson

Godfrey

E. B.

Singh

(2019). “This is probably the reason why she resorted to that kind of action”: A qualitative analysis of juvenile justice workers attributions for girls’ offending. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 47(2), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2019.1582142

Caplan

Nelson

S. D.

(1973). On being useful: The nature and consequences of psychological research on social problems. American Psychologist, 28(3), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034433

Chesney-Lind

Morash

Stevens

(2008). Girls troubles, girls’ delinquency, and gender responsive programming: A review. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41, 162–189. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.41.1.162

Cobbina

J. E.

Miller

Brunson

R. K.

(2008). Gender, neighborhood danger, and risk-avoidance strategies among urban African-American youths. Criminology, 46(3), 673–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00122.x

10.

Delavega

Kindle

P. A.

Peterson

Schwartz

(2017). The blame index: Exploring the change in social work students’ perceptions of poverty. Journal of Social Work Education, 53(4), 664–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2017.1287028

11.

Epstein

Blake

Gonzalez

(2017). Girlhood interrupted: The erasure of Black girls’ childhood. Center on Poverty and Inequality, Georgetown Law. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-inequality-center/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2017/08/girlhood-interrupted.pdf

12.

Gaarder

Rodriguez

Zatz

(2004). Criers, liars, manipulators: Probation officers’ views of girls. Justice Quarterly, 21, 547–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820400095901

13.

Granski

Javdani

Anderson

V. R.

Caires

(2020). A meta-analysis of program characteristics for youth with disruptive behavior problems: The moderating role of program format and youth gender. American Journal of Community Psychology, 65(1–2), 201–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12377

14.

Hill

C. E.

(2012). Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena. American Psychological Association.

15.

Irvine-Baker

Jones

Canfield

(2019). Taking the “girl” out of gender-responsive programming in the juvenile justice system. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-091922

16.

Javdani

(2013). Gender matters: Using an ecological lens to understand female crime and disruptive behavior. In Russell

B. L.

(Ed.), Perceptions of female offenders (pp. 9–24). Springer.

17.

Javdani

(2019). Critical issues for youth involved in the juvenile justice system: Innovations in prevention, intervention, and policy. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 47(2), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2019.1575564

18.

Javdani

(2021). Reducing crime for girls in the juvenile justice system through research-practitioner partnerships. Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Services, https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/255997.pdf

19.

Javdani

Sadeh

Verona

(2011). Gendered social forces: An examination of the impact of the justice systems’ response on women and girls’ criminal trajectories. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 161–211. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0021957

20.

Mallicoat

S. L.

(2007). Gendered justice: Attributional differences between males and females in the juvenile courts. Feminist Criminology, 2(1), 4–30. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/1557085106296349

21.

McIntosh

Girvan

E. J.

Horner

Smolkowski

(2014). Education not incarceration: A conceptual model for reducing racial and ethnic disproportionality in school discipline. The Journal of Applied Research on Children, 5, 1–22. https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol5/iss2/4

22.

Moore

L. D.

Padavic

(2010). Racial and ethnic disparities in girls’ sentencing in the juvenile justice system. Feminist Criminology, 5(3), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085110380583

23.

Nanda

(2011). Blind discretion: Girls of color & delinquency in the juvenile justice system. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1502–1539. https://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Girls_of_Color_and_Delinquency_in_JJ_System_2012.pdf

24.

NeMoyer

Goldstein

N. E.

McKitten

R. L.

Prelic

Ebbecke

Foster

Burkard

(2014). Predictors of juveniles’ noncompliance with probation requirements. Law and Human Behavior, 38(6), 580–591. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/lhb0000083

25.

Puzzanchera

Ehrmann

(2018). Spotlight on girls in the juvenile justice system. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/snapshots/DataSnapshot_GIRLS2015.pdf

26.

Schaffner

(2006). Girls in trouble with the law. Rutgers University Press.

27.

Sonderman

Kuiper

van der Helm

van de Mheen

(2022). With connection, less correction: Gender-specific needs of girls’ residential group climate—A mixed method non-randomized case-study. Child & Youth Care Forum, 51, 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-021-09628-y

28.

Spivak

A. L.

Wagner

B. M.

Whitmer

J. M.

Charish

C. L.

(2014). Gender and status offending: Judicial paternalism in juvenile justice processing. Feminist Criminology, 9(3), 224–248. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/1557085114531318

29.

Strom

K. J.

Warner

T. D.

Tichavsky

Zahn

M. A.

(2014). Policing juveniles: Domestic violence arrest policies, gender, and police response to child–parent violence. Crime & Delinquency, 60(3), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128710376293

30.

Visher

C. A.

(1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry. Criminology, 21(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1983.tb00248.x

31.

Zahn

Day

J. C.

Mihalic

S. F.

Tichavsky

(2009). Determining what works for girls in the juvenile justice system: A summary of evaluation evidence. Crime & Delinquency, 55(2), 266–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708330649