Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Young women who have had contact with the criminal justice system (justice-involved young women) have an increased risk of being a victim of violence. However, no reviews have synthesized the evidence on interventions to prevent or respond to violence against justice-involved young women. We conducted a scoping review to identify interventions designed to prevent or respond to violence against justice-involved young women. We searched Medline, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed and gray literature published in English from January 1, 2000 until March 23, 2021. Consistent with the public health approach to violence, we included primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions. Excluding duplicates, our search returned 5,603 records, 14 of which met our inclusion criteria. We narratively synthesized the included studies, all of which were conducted in the United States. Most included studies examined a tertiary intervention (n = 10), and few examined a primary (n = 2) or secondary (n = 2) intervention. Across the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools, the percentage of items met ranged from 0% to 78%. There was some limited evidence that tertiary interventions that included cognitive behavioral therapy reduced the mental health impacts of violence victimization among justice-involved young women. There was little evidence on primary and secondary interventions. Effective and evidence-based interventions to prevent violence victimization and revictimization against justice-involved young women remains a critical gap in knowledge.

Keywords

intervention/treatment domestic violence mental health and violence violence exposure

Critical Findings

There is a dearth of interventions that have been designed to prevent violence victimization or revictimization among justice-involved young women. Of the interventions that have been developed, very few have been rigorously evaluated.

Research in this area has focused on addressing the impacts of violence victimization (i.e., tertiary prevention).

There is some evidence that interventions that include cognitive behavioral therapy may reduce the mental health impacts of violence exposure (e.g., post-traumatic symptoms) among justice-involved young women.

Effective, evidence-based primary and secondary violence prevention strategies are urgently needed for justice-involved young women to reduce violence victimization and revictimization.

We identified critical geographical gaps in the literature. All of the published research on interventions to prevent violence against justice-involved young women has been conducted in the United States, which may have limited generalizability to other countries.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

There is a need for all types of violence prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention) across different settings (e.g., detention and community settings) to effectively prevent and respond to violence victimization and revictimization among justice-involved young women.

Cognitive behavioral therapy may be a promising option to reduce the mental health impacts of violence victimization among justice-involved young women.

Future research should incorporate the views, experiences, and perspectives of justice-involved young women in designing programs and interventions to prevent and respond to violence. This may assist understanding what works, for whom, and under what circumstances.

Multisectoral data linkage and participatory methods are rigorous and complementary approaches that may assist in evaluating interventions that aim to prevent and respond to violence against justice-involved young women.

Research on interventions to prevent and respond to violence against justice-involved young women is urgently needed from countries other than the United States.

Introduction

In high-income countries, young people (aged <25 years; Sawyer et al., 2018) are more likely than other age groups to be involved in the criminal justice system (i.e., criminalized through contact with police, courts, community corrections, youth detention, or imprisonment—hereafter “justice-involved”) (Richards, 2011). Globally, young people have a higher rate of dying from violence in 1 year compared to adults (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2019). Many of the correlates of violence victimization—including mental illness, substance use issues, and homelessness—are highly prevalent among justice-involved young people (Borschmann et al., 2020; Hughes et al., 2020), particularly young women (Chesney-Lind et al., 2008; Mullis et al., 2004). Justice-involved young women comprise approximately 6% of all incarcerated young people aged under 18 years (United Nations, 2019), but generally experience worse health outcomes and more disadvantage than both their male counterparts (Borschmann et al., 2020) and young women in the general population (Kerig, 2018).

Although the vast majority of young women who are victim-survivors of violence do not have contact with the criminal justice system, many young women who have contact with the criminal justice system have experienced violence. In the United States, it is estimated that between 70% and 96% of justice-involved young women have been a victim of violence at some stage in their life (Kerig & Ford, 2014). Compared to young men, these young women disproportionately experience family violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual violence perpetrated by peers, family members, or trusted adults, and often experience multiple co-occurring forms of violence (Kerig, 2018). For many young women, their criminal justice system involvement stems directly or indirectly from the trauma they have experienced because of violence (Prison Reform Trust, 2017; Saxena et al., 2014a; Stathopoulos et al., 2012). For example, young women may use substances as a coping mechanism after experiencing violence, which may lead to substance-related charges being brought against them (Saxena et al., 2014b). Alternatively, young women may be misidentified, and subsequently arrested, by police as the predominant aggressor of violence in an intimate partner violence incident (Nancarrow et al., 2020; No to Violence, 2019).

The number of young and adult women who are being incarcerated in the criminal justice system is increasing globally at approximately twice the rate of males (Walmsley, 2017). This highlights the need to build knowledge about effective violence prevention initiatives that respond to the needs of justice-involved young women. Eliminating violence against women and girls is a key target for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (target 5.2) (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015). Although justice-involved young women are particularly at risk of violence, no reviews have synthesized the evidence on interventions to prevent or respond to violence against this group. As such, there is currently little understanding of what interventions are available that may be effective in addressing these young women’s risk of violence victimization. Scoping reviews are a useful method for providing an overview of the available evidence in an area (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). To this end, we conducted a scoping review to examine (a) what is known from the existing peer-reviewed and gray literature on interventions to prevent or respond to violence against young women who have had, or are at risk of having, contact with the criminal justice system, and (b) whether any of these interventions have been found to be effective in preventing violence victimization, revictimization, or the impacts of violence.

Method

Overview

Our scoping review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (Tricco et al., 2018) and is consistent with the scoping review framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005). The protocol for this scoping review is registered on Open Science Framework (Willoughby et al., 2021a) on October 14, 2021, after the database searches had been completed.

Theoretical Framework

Consistent with international approaches (Krug et al., 2002), this review is informed by the public health approach to violence (Lee, 2017). This approach recognizes the impact of violence on health and views violence as a preventable condition that can be addressed by targeting socio-ecological factors that influence the risk of violence (Lee, 2017). The public health approach to violence classifies interventions into three categories: primary, secondary, and tertiary (Lee, 2017). Primary interventions aim to prevent violence before it occurs by focusing on the conditions, behaviors, and attitudes that drive violence (e.g., programs aiming to improve understanding of healthy relationships; Lee, 2017). Secondary interventions refer to responses to violence that aim to prevent reoccurrence of violence and mitigate short-term effects of violence (e.g., hospital-based assault revictimization prevention programs; Lee, 2017). Tertiary interventions include programs that seek to address the ongoing and long-term health consequences of violence (e.g., treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]; Lee, 2017). A comprehensive violence prevention strategy requires all three types of interventions (Lee, 2017).

Search Strategy

We searched three key health: criminology, and social science databases: Medline, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and Web of Science, using terms related to young women, violence prevention, and criminal justice involvement. The searches were limited to articles published from January 1, 2000 to March 23, 2021 to ensure that the review considered contemporary evidence. The search strategy was developed in consultation with a librarian at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Melbourne, Australia (Supplemental Appendix A). We also conducted a keyword search in Google Scholar to identify additional relevant gray literature (Supplemental Appendix B). Reference lists of included studies were screened to identify additional relevant literature not identified in the database search.

Selection Criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated or described a primary, secondary, or tertiary intervention (described above) that aimed to prevent or respond to violence against young women (aged <25 years, as recommended by Sawyer et al. (2018)) who have had, or are at risk of having, contact with the criminal justice system. We used the United Nations’ definition of violence against women: any act that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women (United Nations, 1993). To ensure that our review was comprehensive in capturing the available evidence in this area, our inclusion criteria were intentionally board. We included any measures of violence victimization (e.g., rates of assault, experiences of victim-survivors), factors that may influence violence victimization (e.g., sexual self-efficacy and knowledge of healthy relationships), and long-term mental health impacts of violence (e.g., symptoms of PTSD and depression).

Studies that included women aged 25 years and over were included if the mean or median age of the participants was under 25, or if the results were stratified by age. Criminal justice system contact included: contact with a criminal court or the police, being on bail or parole, serving a community-based order, being held on remand or in police custody, or current or previous incarceration in a youth detention facility or prison. Studies of young women described as “at risk” of criminal justice system contact were also included, as many young women experience violence before they have contact with the criminal justice system (Malvaso et al., 2016; Wilson et al., 2009), and to be consistent with previous research (Goodkind et al., 2006). For the purposes of the review, young women were determined to be “at risk” of criminal justice system contact if they described as such in the original study. Literature reviews, letters, commentaries, editorials, conference abstracts, and studies published in languages other than English were excluded. Reference lists of previous reviews were screened for additional eligible studies.

Study Selection

Citations from the database search were imported into EndNote X8.2 reference management software (Clarivate Analytics, 2018), then uploaded into Covidence for screening and de-duplication (Covidence, n.d.). MW, CGW, and SKw independently screened potentially eligible studies by title and abstract. Eligibility criteria were piloted to ensure that they were relevant to the identified studies. Pilot screening involved MW, CGW, and SKw independently reviewing the same 30 titles and abstracts to see if any changes or clarifications needed to be made to the eligibility criteria. No changes to the eligibility criteria were made during piloting. After title and abstract screening, the full texts of the remaining studies were screened in duplicate by two of the same three researchers (MW, SKw, or CGW). The Google Scholar searches were conducted by TC and Alex Andrawis. Any uncertainties regarding eligibility were resolved through group discussion and consensus.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Data extraction was conducted independently by MW and EJ using a prespecified Microsoft Excel form. EJ and SKw checked the data extraction and amended any errors. A summary of the information extracted from the included studies is presented in Supplemental Appendix C. Although a quality assessment is not always required in a scoping review (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005), we conducted a critical appraisal of individual studies to assess the quality of evidence supporting potentially effective interventions to prevent or respond to violence. The quality of included studies was assessed independently by CGW, EJ, and MW using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools (Johanna Briggs Institute, n.d.). Only peer-reviewed studies and gray literature that measured an effect change in an outcome of interest were quality assessed.

Data Synthesis

We provide a descriptive overview of the characteristics of the included studies. We narratively synthesized the included studies by intervention type (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary) and whether the studies evaluated the intervention.

Ethics

The scoping review is exempt from ethics approval as it is based on findings of published studies. This review followed best practice recommendations for conducting and reporting scoping reviews (outlined above).

Results

Our search retrieved 6,937 records (Figure 1). After duplicates were removed, 5,603 records were screened by title and abstract. Of these, 81 were screened by full text. Fourteen studies (12 peer-reviewed articles and 2 gray literature reports) met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart.

Study Characteristics

All 14 included studies were conducted in the United States (see Table 1). Most studies described or evaluated a tertiary intervention (n = 10), and few studies examined primary (n = 2), or secondary (n = 2) interventions (see Table 2). Half of the studies examined young women who were incarcerated, including in youth detention (n = 6) (Arnold et al., 2002; Emerson & Shelton, 2001; Middleton et al., 2019; Palidofsky & Stolbach, 2012; Roe-Sepowitz et al., 2009; Shekar et al., 2020) and in an adult county jail (n = 1) (Pomeroy et al., 2001). Two studies examined community-based samples, including young women who were released from detention (n = 1) (Harris & Malone, 2014) or on probation (n = 1) (Davidson et al., 2011). An additional three studies examined combined samples of young women in detention and in the community (e.g., on probation and contact with a diversion program or a court) (Burke et al., 2003; Gaarder & Hesselton, 2012; Kelly et al., 2007). Two studies included combined samples of young women who were considered “at risk” of criminal justice system contact and young women who had contact with the criminal justice system (e.g., arrested, on probation, and contact with a juvenile justice program). “At risk” of criminal justice system contact was defined in these studies as self-reported delinquency using the Self-Report Delinquency Behavior Scale (Ford et al., 2012), and as having risk factors for criminal justice system contact (e.g., having friends who have a criminal record) (Millenky et al., 2019). Among studies that reported mean age (n = 9 studies), the mean age of the participants at baseline ranged from 15 to 16 years (see Table 1). The youngest participant at baseline in the included studies was aged 11 years, and the oldest was aged 20 years. Ten studies reported on the race and/or ethnicity of the sample. There was little consistency in the way that race/ethnicity was reported across the studies. The most frequently reported racial and ethnic groups were White/Caucasian (n = 10 studies; range 4%–46%), Black/African American (n = 8 studies; range 5%–73%), and Latina/Hispanic (n = 7 studies; range 16%–75%; see Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Included Studies.

First Author (Year)	Study Design	Country	Population		Number of Participants			Age of Participants at Baseline	Ethnic/Racial Groups^a (%)	Intervention Examined	Intervention Length	Relevant Outcomes	Outcome Measures	Timing of Outcome Measurement/Data Collection
First Author (Year)	Study Design	Country	Population	Description of Control Group	Total	Intervention	Control	Age of Participants at Baseline	Ethnic/Racial Groups^a (%)	Intervention Examined	Intervention Length	Relevant Outcomes	Outcome Measures	Timing of Outcome Measurement/Data Collection
Arnold, 2002	Quantitative, quasi-experimental study	United States (unspecified southern state)	Young women in detention who had experienced sexual abuse.	N/A	40	40	N/A	Range = 12–17	White (46), Non-White (54)	Gender-specific, cognitive behavioral therapy	Mean = 26 weeks	Psychosocial functioning	Multidimensional Adolescent Assessment	Before the intervention (at the time of admission) and after the intervention (at the time of discharge from the facility)
Burke, 2003	Quantitative impact evaluation with randomization component (gray literature)	San Diego, California, United States	Young women who had contact with a court, probation, diversionary program or been sentenced to detention. At baseline, 24% of the sample had experienced sexual abuse and 24% had experienced other types of abuse (not specified).	Participants were randomly assigned to the control group from the same population and received “treatment as usual,” meaning regular diversion or probation.	798	399	399	Range = 12–17.5 Mean = 15.4 (Sample 1, both groups) and 15.2 (Sample 2, both groups)	WINGS 1 (intervention): Black (20), Asian/other (14), White (31), Hispanic (35) WINGS 1 (comparison): Black (24), Asian/other (13), White (30), Hispanic (33) WINGS 2 (intervention): Black (23), Asian/other (8), White (29), Hispanic (40) WINGS 2 (comparison): Black (26), Asian/other (9), White (29), Hispanic (37)	WINGS—a non-residential no-cost service provision and case management intervention.	Minimum = 6 months	Relationship with a prosocial adult	Not specified. Outcome could have been ascertained through the following measures: General Intake/Exit Form, San Diego Regional Resiliency Checkup, Cook County Strengths/Needs Assessment, Pathways Questionnaire	Beginning and during the intervention, 6, 7–12, and 13–18 months after the intervention
Davidson, 2011	Mixed methods, matched cohort study	Hawaii, United States	Young women who were on probation or “protective supervision” due to status offenses. At baseline, 56% had experienced sexual or physical abuse.	The matched control group participants were young women who were referred to a family court and adjudicated in the same years as the participants in the Girls Court group.	140^b	70	70	Mean = 15.8	Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian (44), Filipina (15), Caucasian (6), Pacific Islander (4), Other or mixed (not Hawaiian) (31)	Honolulu Girls Court—a court program that includes case management, education, group activities, and both group and individual therapy aiming to address trauma and other factors.	Total = 12 months (attending hearings every 5 weeks)	Communication with their parents, knowledge about boundaries of healthy vs. unhealthy relationships, self-worth, and development of healthy relationships with romantic partners	Focus groups and individual interviews	Before, during, and after the intervention (ranging from 1 to 4.5 years while the participant is still within the criminal justice system)
Emerson, 2001	Description of program only (no primary data)	Maryland, United States	The intervention is designed for young women in detention who have experienced domestic violence.^c	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Psychoeducational program that incorporates creative arts	Total = 18 sessions	Psychological responses (low self-esteem, guilt/shame, and anger), behavioral responses (substance abuse/dependence, offending), biologic responses (depression, post-traumatic stress disorders [PTSD], hyper-arousal, dissociative symptoms), and interpersonal responses (problems with intimacy and revictimization) to exposure to domestic violence^c	N/A	N/A
Ford, 2012	Quantitative randomized study	Connecticut, United States	Young women who self-reported delinquency (some recruited from juvenile justice community programs; 38% were arrested for violent crimes) and met the criteria for partial or full PTSD. At baseline, 88% had experienced physical assault or abuse; 78% had experienced traumatic family violence; 44% had experienced sexual assault or abuse; and 41% had experienced traumatic emotional abuse.	Control group participants are from the same population and received a relational therapy called “Enhanced Treatment as Usual.”	46	26	20	Range = 13–17 Mean = 14.7 SD = 1.2	Black (African/Caribbean American) (16), Latina or Mixed Race (59), White (European American) (25)	Trauma Affect Regulation: Guide for Education and Therapy (TARGET)—a type of cognitive behavioral therapy delivered in individual sessions.	Total = 4 months (22 participants received 35 therapy sessions and 11 participants received £5 therapy sessions)	PTSD; affect regulation; self-reported post-traumatic beliefs; anxiety, depression, and anger; and hope	Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for Children/Adolescents (CAPS-CA); generalized expectancies mood regulation; post-traumatic cognitions inventory; Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children; Hope scale	Before the intervention and 4 months after the intervention
Gaarder, 2012	Qualitative study	Minnesota, United States	Young women who were in detention, on probation or in residential treatment facilities. Not reported how many had experienced violence at baseline.	N/A	12	12	N/A	NR	African American (5), White (4), Asian-American (2), Native American (1), Bi-Racial (African-American and White) (1)	The Radius Program—a program aimed to deliver holistic services (including trauma groups), modeled on scholarly research on gender responsive programing and restorative justice.	Total (Probation/Detention Group) = 15 weeks (2 hr per week) Total (Residential Group) = 4 weeks (1.5–2 hr per week)	Family and relationships, empowerment, behavioral outcomes	Participant observation and interviews	A few weeks after and during the intervention
Harris, 2014	Qualitative study	California, United States	Young women released from detention who participated in the Art of Yoga Project (a program for trauma survivors) during detention. At baseline, 25% (n = 2) had experienced childhood sexual abuse.	N/A	8	8	N/A	Range = 15–20 Mean = 17.6 SD = 1.8	Latina (50), Caucasian (38), African American (13)	Art of Yoga Project’s (AYP) Mentor Aftercare Program—a yoga and mentorship program	Total = 12 months (min. 1 hr per week)	Improvements in participants’ relationships with family members and peers	Mentors logged their interactions with the young women. Logs were qualitatively assessed.	Weekly during the intervention
Kelly, 2007	Quantitative quasi-experimental study	Texas, United States	Young women in detention, on probation or in a diversion program. At baseline, 6% had experienced sexual abuse.	Control group participants received educational content through videos and lectures. Participants also received community resources for sexual and reproductive health services.	539	319	220	Range = 11–18 Mean = 14.9 SD = 1.2	African American (10), Caucasian (12), Latina (71), Other (6)	The Girl Talk-2 intervention—a peer-facilitated intervention that addressed sexual and dating violence risk behaviors	Total = 2 × 3-hr sessions delivered over two consecutive days	Attitudes about intimate partner violence, self-efficacy about protective behaviors, self-efficacy about condom use, and communication skills	11-item questionnaire measuring acceptance of intimate partner violence	Before the intervention and 6 months after the intervention
Middleton, 2019	Mixed-methods quasi-experimental study	California, United States	Young women in detention. The program is designed for young women who have experienced violence/trauma. It is not reported how many had experienced violence at baseline.	N/A	101 (16 completed post-intervention interview)	101 (16 completed post-intervention interview)	N/A	Range = 14–18 Mean = 16.1 SD = 2.1	Latina (75), African American (13), White (13)	The AYP Yoga and Creative Arts Curriculum—a “gender-responsive” program including trauma-sensitive yoga, creative expression through art, and journaling.	Total = 12–18 months	Trauma, “Attitudinal improvement” (more openness to physical touch, self-confidence/esteem, kindness toward self, and avoiding self-harm), positive emotions (includes managing anxiety and improved relationships/communication with family and others)	Interviews with participants and staff	During the intervention and at the end of the intervention.
Millenky, 2019	Mixed-methods impact evaluation with randomization component and cost–benefit analysis (gray literature)	Florida, United States	Young women who had contact with the criminal justice system (28% charged; 13% on probation) or are at risk of criminal justice contact. At baseline, 38% had experienced abuse or neglect.	Participants were randomly assigned to the control group from the same population and received referrals to other services within the community.	1,125	673	452	Range = 11–17 Mean = 14.6	Black, non-Hispanic (45); White, non-Hispanic (38); Hispanic (16); Other (1)	PACE Center for Girls program—a year-long program providing holistic support through addressing academic and social needs.	Total = 3 × 2-hr teaching sessions over the course of three consecutive days	Social support and interpersonal relationships	Semi-structured phone interviews	12 to 18 months after the intervention
Palidofsky, 2012	Qualitative study	United States (state unreported)	Young women in detention. The program is designed for young women who have experienced violence/trauma. It is not reported how many had experienced violence at baseline.	N/A	NR	NR	N/A	NR	NR	Fabulous Females: A Musical Theatre Program for Incarcerated Girls—a theatre intervention	Average = 6 months	Bonding, trust, and sharing of stories between young women impacted by violence Improved understanding of early caregiver relationships Creating opportunities to open up about ongoing violence risk and to end contact with perpetrators of violence	Observation of intervention	During the intervention
Pomeroy, 2001	Mixed-methods, quasi-experimental pilot study	California, United States	Young women in who were charged and incarcerated as adults. At baseline, 100% has experienced child abuse.	N/A	15	15	N/A	Range = 13–17 Mean = 15.9	African-American (73), Hispanic, Caucasian (20), Caucasian (7)	A psychoeducational group intervention	Total = 18 × 1.5-h long sessions over 9 weeks	Social support to work through trauma, including depression and anxiety	NR	During the intervention
Roe-Sepowitz, 2009	Description of program only (no primary data)	United States (state unreported)	The intervention is designed for young women in detention who have experienced child abuse.^c	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Esuba Girls Helping Girls Turn Abuse Around—psycho-educational group intervention	Total = 12 weeks (2 hr weekly)	Attitudes toward violence/abusec	N/A	N/A
Shekar, 2020	Quantitative cohort study	Cleveland, Ohio, United States	Young women and men in detention Not reported how many had experienced violence at baseline.	N/A	253 (30 female)	253 (30 female)	N/A	Range = 12–19 (for overall sample) Mean = 15.6	NR	An interprofessional student-led sexual education program on self-efficacy and attitudes about sexual violence	Total = 3 × 2-hr teaching sessions over the three consecutive days.	Sexual self-efficacy and view of the importance of consent	“Say No” Subscale of the Sexual Self-Efficacy Scale	Before, during, and after the intervention (no time frame reported)

Note. N/A = not applicable; NR = not reported.

Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding error.

The study reports a total of 140 participants, including young women, parents, and staff.

For descriptive studies (i.e., those that described the program only, but included no primary data) the intended population and outcomes of intervention are recorded. These outcomes have not been evaluated by the study.

Table 2.

Overview of Interventions Included in the Review.

Intervention	Description of Intervention	Key Findings	Quality Assessment
Primary prevention	Peer educators whose ethnic, racial, and economic backgrounds were similar to those of participants delivered group interventions to them. These included “interactive skill-building activities to improve knowledge, attitudes and sexual health behaviors of participants.” This included discussions about “alternatives in relationships,” “preventing dating violence,” and “local resources.”	Quantitative: The intervention group had a significantly greater improvement in its attitudes about intimate partner violence than did the comparison group (p < .001), but the effect size was small (η² = .033) There was not a significant difference between the intervention and control group in the other examined outcomes: self-efficacy about protective behaviors, self-efficacy about condom use, and communication skills. Qualitative: N/A
Girl-Talk 2 (Kelly 2007)			4/9
An Interprofessional Student-Led Sexual Education Program on Self-Efficacy and Attitudes About Sexual Violence (Shekar 2020)	Three 2-h teaching sessions over three consecutive days, run by two to three graduate students from medicine, nursing, physician assistant, and social work programs. Topics covered included sexual anatomy, puberty, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), contraception, pregnancy, consent culture, and safe relationships. Participants engaged in interactive games and role playing.	Quantitative:Participants had significant improvement in sexual self-efficacy scores at follow-up vs. baseline (81.2% at baseline vs. 89.8% at follow-up, p = .045).Qualitative: N/A	7/9
Secondary prevention
WINGS (Burke 2003)	The intervention included center-based services, linkage and coordination to community-based services, and home-based visiting services.Participants were assigned a Home Visitor within 3 days of a referral from probation. The Visitor provided case management services.Intervention components included “mother-daughter mediation, transportation, and a variety of gender-specific programs that addressed such issues as academics, alcohol and other drug use, anger management, and vocational/career support.”	Quantitative:At baseline 53% of participants in the intervention group reported having a relationship with a prosocial adult, compared to 71% of intervention group participants at follow-up. No statistical group differences were tested.Qualitative: N/A	6/9
PACE Center for Girls (formally known as the Practical Academic Cultural Education center) (Millenky 2019)	The program temporarily replaced schooling for some girls. The PACE model includes:• Academic instruction and advising, in small groups.• Individual assessment and care planning (case management to existing services).• Individual and group counseling.• “Life skills curriculum,” covering “physical, emotional, intellectual, relational, sexual, and spiritual” domains.• Staff engagement with parents through home visits, progress reports, office sessions, and phone contact.• Volunteer opportunities and “career exploration.”• Transition and follow-up services as participants transition from PACE and back to their home schools or other appropriate placements.• Staff members “check in” with girls at regular intervals for 1 year after they leave the program to provide services or referrals, if needed.	Quantitative:At 1-year follow-up, no difference between the intervention and control groups on the following outcomes of interest: having been in a violent or abuse relationship, having a supportive adult in their life, having healthy friendships.Qualitative:Girls across both groups “appeared to have positive relationships and found a level of support in the home and beyond.” No differences in experiences reported across intervention and control groups.	6/9
Tertiary prevention
A gender-specific cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) treatment^a (Arnold 2002)	Individual therapy provided at least once weekly by a counsellor, for participants who self-identified as having experienced sexual abuse. Some participants received group treatment (where appropriate).The program was based on CBT, and included:• A focus on building a “therapeutic alliance” with the counsellor.• Using a “structured personal journal” to write about recovery-related issues, including “self-esteem, spirituality, healing after victimization, family and peer relations, creating personal safety, and substance abuse.”• Writing assignments, poetry, and artwork.• Focus on “empowerment” that included exercises on “issues of self-identity, identifying and realizing their own strengths, and affirming positive attributes.”• Prevention of revictimization via role-playing, boundary setting, and other therapeutic techniques.	Quantitative:At post-test, participants in the intervention group experienced significant (i.e., p < .05) decreases in pretest mean scores on 14 of the 16 Multidimensional Adolescent Assessment (MAAS) subscales.MAAS subscales on which there was a significant decrease included: depression, self-esteem, problems with father, personal stress, problems with friends, aggression, family relationship problems, suicidal thoughts, feelings of guilt, confused thinking, disturbing thoughts, disturbing thoughts, memory loss, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse.Among the subscales that had a significant decrease, the mean difference ranged from a decrease of 7.28 (self-esteem) to 22.30 (disturbing thoughts).Post-test scores were measured “on discharge” from detention, it was not reported how long after the intervention the post-test occurred.Qualitative: N/A	6/9
Honolulu Girls Court (Davidson 2011)	The intervention involves court-based monthly “hearings” where young women are given “praise” for accomplishments (i.e., applause from onlookers, personal congratulations from judges) and “consequences” for their behavior (i.e., written assignments, apologies, enhanced curfews, extended protective supervision/probation, out-of-home placements, etc.). At least one parent or guardian must be involved for the young woman to be eligible. The program is described to have “a heavy and specialized case management piece.”The young women also attend activities not limited to STI education, community service programs, family events, and “life skills” training. They attend individual and group therapy with the Girl’s court therapist, who “specializes in girl-sensitive approaches.” They engage in role playing, drama, journaling, poetry, dance, drawing, collage, and other activities. Young women who have histories of sexual abuse also receive group and individual therapy that address trauma issues.	Quantitative: N/AQualitative:The authors stated that there was improvement in communication with parents, knowledge about the boundaries of healthy vs. unhealthy relationships, and self-worth. However, limited evidence was provided to support these claims.	3/9
Psycho-educational intervention including creative arts^a (Emerson 2001)	The intervention aims to address impacts of exposure to domestic violence, including (but not limited to) low self-esteem, substance dependence, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), problems with intimacy and revictimization.The intervention is based on a model for promoting “prosocial behavior,” and uses “creative arts, exploration of expanded roles, and education to increase coping skills while maintaining a clear external structure for emotional safety.”It involves group sessions that are comprised of personal writing, relaxation/coping methods, “therapeutic interventions,” debriefing/summary sessions, and closure/relaxation sessions.Participants engage in “homeplay,” which refers to the implementation of skills learned in the program outside of the program. Participation and “homeplay” is rewarded with points to “purchase admission to a party designed to strengthen social skills.”	Quantitative: N/AQualitative: N/A	No findings (description of an intervention only).
Trauma Affect Regulation: Guide for Education and Therapy (TARGET) (Ford 2012)	A trauma-focused CBT adaptation focused on addressing PTSD. This manualized intervention focuses on trauma processing and emotion regulation to manage symptoms of PTSD and complex traumatic stress disorders^b. It was delivered in 12 sessions (50 min in length) by therapists who are trained in clinical psychology, social work, counseling or marriage, and family therapy.The intervention also includes a “a creative arts activity designed to enhance positive and negative emotion recognition skills by having participants create personalized ‘lifelines’ via collage, drawing, poetry, and writing.”	Quantitative:PTSD:Compared to enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU), who received a type of relational therapy, TARGET was found to have medium effect on reducing PTSD Criterion B (intrusive re-experiencing; mean change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale [CAPS] score = 4.1; Cohen’s d = 0.64), and C symptoms (avoidance and emotional numbing; mean change in CAPS score = 3.5; Cohen’s d = 0.42).ETAU performed better than the intervention on improving dispositional hope (i.e., self-efficacy and optimism).Within group analyses found that both the intervention and the ETAU showed improvement on PTSD Criteria B, C, D, and total symptoms at post-test compared to baseline.Qualitative: N/A	8/13
The Radius Program (Gaarder 2012)	The intervention differed by site.Site 1 (residential program)Intervention components included:• Schooling, education about substance use and outpatient treatment, “life skills,” behavioral group therapy, a gardening and animal husbandry program, and aftercare/transition services.• Grief and trauma support groups based on “gender-responsive models,” specifically: ○ “Circles of Support,” which involved “family circles, community re-entry circles, and emergency circles to deal with immediate crises.” ○ “Victim-Offender Circles,” where the participant “sits in a circle with her victim(s) and support people to talk about the offense and repairing the harm.”Site 2 (probation or “detention in the county”)Components included:• A 15-week, psychoeducational girls’ group that aimed to address trauma and victimization, coping with emotional pain, managing anger, self-empowerment, developing positive relationships, and healthy sexuality.• Individual counseling with a licensed therapist (voluntary for some and court-ordered for others).	Quantitative: N/AQualitative:Limited analysis and findings. The authors report that Site 1 participants said that the program assisted them in “strengthening communication and boundaries with family members, healing from trauma, identifying their values, developing empathy, and making amends.”The authors report that Site 2 participants said that the program assisted them in “learning how to deal with their anger, talking about their feelings, getting along with other girls, and discussing elements of healthy and unhealthy relationships with family members and dating partners.”However, little evidence was provided to support these claims.	3/10
Art of Yoga Project (AYP) Mentor Aftercare Program (Harris 2014)	Participants were paired with a yoga mentor, who they met weekly. Mentors participated in yoga instruction and “various activities intended to enhance [participants’] rehabilitation and ease their transition back into their community.”Includes yoga, mindfulness training, meditation, and creative arts.Also includes “aftercare” classes (i.e., after release from incarceration), that aim to address financial education, substance abuse prevention, and well-being.	Quantitative: N/AQualitative:Limited qualitative evidence indicated that communication between participants and their families improved.	4/10
The AYP Yoga and Creative Arts Curriculum (Middleton 2019)	This intervention is described as combining “gender-responsive best practices” with “trauma-sensitive” yoga creative expression through art, and journaling.	Quantitative: N/AQualitative:The authors describe improvements in self-esteem and positive emotions (including improved relationships/communication with family and others). However, limited evidence was provided to support these claims. Further, they describe that yoga practice may exacerbate trauma symptoms in some young women.	1/9
Fabulous Females: A Musical Theatre Program for Incarcerated Girls (Palidofsky 2012)	An existing musical theatre program was adapted with the aim of meeting the needs of incarcerated young women.Participants were involved in writing, performing, and producing original musicals inspired by personal stories. The intervention appears to include group discussions among the incarcerated young women.	Quantitative: N/AQualitative:Limited analysis and findings. The authors report the following outcomes: bonding, trust, and sharing of stories between young women impacted by violence; improved understanding of early caregiver relationships; and opportunities to open up about ongoing violence risk and to end contact with perpetrators of violence. However, most findings appear to be based the author’s observation and there is little evidence provided to support the claims.	0/10
A Psychoeducational Group Intervention (Pomeroy 2001)	Participants engage in psychoeducational group sessions, which consist of “an educational, didactic component and a supportive component.”The educational component in each session consists of a presentation or discussion on self-awareness, empowerment, and coping skills.The “supportive component” focuses on “supportive group processes,” using cognitive behavioral and relational techniques. Topics in this component include coping with depression and anxiety, reducing stress, the importance of social support, self-esteem and empowerment issues, anger management, grief over multiple losses, and coping skills.	Quantitative:Trauma symptoms When comparing baseline and follow-up scores (p < .05), the intervention was found to have a small-moderate effect on trauma symptoms (i.e., effect size of 0.21)Depression When comparing baseline and follow-up scores (p = .008), the intervention was found to have a moderate-large effect on depression (i.e., effect size of 0.53).Anxiety There was no significant difference in baseline and follow-up anxiety scores.Qualitative:Limited analysis and findings. The authors report social support to work through trauma as an outcome. However, the findings appear to be based on the author’s observation, and there is little other evidence provided to support this claim.	5/9
Esuba Girls Helping Girls Turn Abuse Around (Roe-Sepowitz 2009)	Two-h group sessions run by facilitators over 12 weeks. The sessions were psychoeducational “mutual aid” groups. Content covered included types of violence and abuse (including domestic violence and abuse by intimate partners), self-harm, coping and acceptance, and building self-worth.	Quantitative: N/AQualitative: N/A	No findings (description of an intervention only).

Note. Quality assessment was based on the number of items met on the relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools; only studies that reported primary data were evaluated. Findings were not applicable where the type of data (i.e., qualitative or quantitative) was either not reported at all, or only reported for findings that were not of interest (i.e., not related to violence). N/A = Not applicable.

As there was no name provided for the intervention/program, we have provided a brief description.

For more information see Ford (2020)

Twelve studies evaluated an intervention and two studies (Emerson & Shelton, 2001; Roe-Sepowitz et al., 2009) provided descriptions of an intervention with no primary outcome data reported. Of the 12 studies that evaluated interventions, most used quasi-experimental designs (n = 8; see Table 1). There was only one randomized controlled trial (RCT), which examined an individual therapy intervention (Ford et al., 2012). Five studies that evaluated an intervention reported quantitative data only, three reported qualitative data only, and four used mixed methods (see Table 2). In terms of quality, no studies met all of the items on the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools (Johanna Briggs Institute, n.d.). Across the Critical Appraisal Tools, the percentage of items met ranged from 0% to 78% (see Table 2). Limitations in quality that were common in quantitative studies included lack of control groups or control groups that did not allow for meaningful comparisons, short follow-up periods, lack of reported follow-up fractions, and inappropriate or unclear statistical analysis. Limitations that were common across qualitative studies included poorly described qualitative methodology and synthesis. Across both quantitative and qualitative studies, limitations in quality included insufficient or no explanation of participant characteristics and settings, and lack of explicit ethics approvals.

Primary Interventions

We found two studies that evaluated primary interventions (Kelly et al., 2007; Shekar et al., 2020) (see Table 2). The interventions examined by these studies included: (a) a sexual health and violence education group intervention delivered by peer educators from similar ethnic, racial, and economic backgrounds to participants (Kelly et al., 2007) and (b) a graduate student-led sexual education program (Shekar et al., 2020). There was some, albeit limited, evidence to support the effectiveness of these interventions across the studies. One study, which examined a peer educator program (Girl-Talk 2), reported that at 6-month follow-up, participants in the intervention group had a significantly greater improvement in attitudes about intimate partner violence than the comparison group (p < .001) (Kelly et al., 2007). In this study, attitudes about intimate partner violence were measured using an 11-item questionnaire on attitudes indicating acceptance of intimate partner violence among 539 justice-involved young women (mean age = 15 years). However, the effect size of this difference was small (η² = .033). There was no significant difference at 6-month follow-up between the intervention and control group in the other examined outcomes: self-efficacy about protective behaviors, self-efficacy about condom use, and communication skills. The second study, which examined a graduate-student-led sexual education program, reported that participants had a significant improvement in sexual self-efficacy scores at follow-up (i.e., 81.2% at baseline vs. 89.8% at follow-up, p = .045) (Shekar et al., 2020). In this study, sexual self-efficacy was measured using the “Say No” Subscale of the Sexual Self-Efficacy Scale among 30 young women in detention (mean age = 16 years). However, this study did not use a control group, and the scores for sexual self-efficacy were already high at baseline.

Secondary Interventions

We found two studies that evaluated a secondary intervention (Burke et al., 2003; Millenky et al., 2019). A proportion (24%–38%) of the young women included in these studies had previously been victims of violence or abuse at baseline (see Table 1). Neither study found substantial evidence to support the effectiveness of these interventions. One study found no evidence that a year-long program (the PACE center) that provided academic support, case management, parental engagement, and post-service transitional support had any effect on violence-related outcomes (i.e., having been in a violent or abusive relationship, having a supportive adult in their life, having healthy friendships) (Millenky et al., 2019). In this study, violence-related outcomes were measured in 1,125 young women (mean age = 15 years) 12 to 18 months after the intervention concluded. The second study examined a program that involved direct service provision to young women, linkage with community services, and home-based visiting services (the WINGS program) among 798 justice-involved young women (mean age = 15 years). This study had inconclusive findings that the program increased the number of justice-involved young women who had a relationship with a prosocial adult (Burke et al., 2003).

Tertiary Interventions

Most of the included studies examined tertiary interventions (n = 10; see Table 2). Of these studies, eight evaluated an intervention and the remaining two described an intervention with no primary data reported (Emerson & Shelton, 2001; Roe-Sepowitz et al., 2009). Most studies that evaluated a tertiary intervention (n = 5/8) reported on samples of young women who were in or had experienced detention (Arnold et al., 2002; Harris & Malone, 2014; Middleton et al., 2019; Palidofsky & Stolbach, 2012; Pomeroy et al., 2001). Where reported, between 25% and 100% of the young women in the samples had previously been a victim of violence or abuse at baseline (see Table 1).

The most common intervention format used across the eight studies that reported primary data were group sessions (n = 5) (Gaarder & Hesselton, 2012; Harris & Malone, 2014; Middleton et al., 2019; Palidofsky & Stolbach, 2012; Pomeroy et al., 2001). These included psychoeducational group sessions, “trauma-informed” yoga and mentorship programs, and musical theatre interventions. Findings for the effectiveness of these interventions were weak (see Table 2). One study (Middleton et al., 2019) reported that a “trauma-informed” yoga program exacerbated trauma symptoms for some of the participants 16 young women (mean age = 16 years) in detention who completed the post-intervention interviews as they felt vulnerable in some yoga poses during the program.

The other interventions examined involved individual psychotherapy or counseling (n = 3) (Arnold et al., 2002; Davidson et al., 2011; Ford et al., 2012). Two of these studies used adaptations of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (Arnold et al., 2002; Ford et al., 2012). The first CBT intervention was evaluated using a pre- and post-test design and reported that participants showed decreases in personal and social problems, as measured by the Multidimensional Adolescent Assessment scale (Arnold et al., 2002).

The second CBT intervention was a trauma-focused intervention (called Trauma Affect Regulation: Guide for Education and Therapy [TARGET]) (Ford et al., 2012), which was evaluated using an RCT. This intervention was delivered to 46 young women (mean age = 15 years) who had a history of PTSD by trained therapists in a maximum of 12 sessions over 4 months. Each session was 50 min in length and included a creative arts component. Young women in the control group (n = 26) received enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). At 4 months follow-up, the intervention was found to have a medium effect on reducing some PTSD symptoms, including intrusive re-experiencing, avoidance, and emotional numbing (see Table 2). However, ETAU performed better than the intervention on improving dispositional hope (i.e., self-efficacy and optimism).

Discussion

We conducted a scoping review to examine interventions to prevent violence victimization or revictimization, or respond to the impacts of violence against justice-involved young women. Fourteen studies, all of which were conducted in the United States, were included in our review. The majority (n = 10) of these studies evaluated or described a tertiary intervention, with few studies examining a primary or secondary intervention (n = 4). We identified critical methodological and geographical limitations of the literature, which limits our ability to draw robust conclusions.

We found that tertiary interventions that include psychological modalities (e.g., CBT and a trauma-focused CBT adaptation) are a promising option to reduce the mental health impacts of violence exposure (e.g., post-traumatic symptoms) among justice-involved young women (Arnold et al., 2002; Ford et al., 2012). A previous systematic review and meta-analysis that examined the outcomes of psychological therapies among incarcerated women and men with mental health problems found limited evidence for the effectiveness of psychological therapies (including trauma-focused therapies) in reducing trauma symptomatology (Yoon et al., 2017). Although this systematic review did not exclusively focus on trauma symptomatology among young women, taken together with our review, these findings highlight the urgent need for more research on effective responses to trauma in incarceration settings, especially for young women. Additionally, more research is needed on the design and delivery of tertiary interventions to address the impacts of violence exposure among justice-involved young women in the community, including those who have and have not experienced detention. Irrespective of the setting, future research should be consistent with the available best-practice and evidence-based guidelines on managing trauma (National Institute for Health Care Excellence, 2018). This evidence should always incorporate and align with service users’ lived experience as a key element of best practice (Glasby & Beresford, 2006).

The majority of research in this area has focused on interventions to address the mental health impacts of violence victimization among justice-involved young women. This is consistent with the findings of a previous review on violence prevention among adult and young women in the general population, which found that evaluations were skewed toward “response rather than prevention” (Ellsberg et al., 2015). Given that many young women in youth detention have histories violence and abuse victimization (Kerig & Ford, 2014), it is unsurprising that most of the tertiary interventions included in our review examined young women in detention. Supporting justice-involved young women who have experienced violence is critically important to for their health and well-being, and evidence-based interventions to address trauma should be available for young women in detention. However, detention is not an optimal environment to address trauma, and it may even be a retraumatizing experience for some young women who have experienced violence due to the lack of autonomy and practices such as body searches in detention (Anderson et al., 2020).

There is a clear lack of evidence-based approaches to preventing, as opposed to responding to, violence victimization or revictimization among justice-involved young women. This information is crucial for reducing the risk of violence before such victimization occurs. Previous reviews of interventions for reducing gender-based violence among young people in the general population have also found that interventions for those who are at an elevated risk of experiencing violence (such as justice-involved young women) have been largely overlooked (Crooks et al., 2019). Primary and secondary interventions that target justice-involved young women may be more difficult to design, implement, and evaluate than tertiary interventions. For example, rigorously evaluating primary or secondary interventions, such as through an RCT, may present feasibility and ethical challenges in terms of (a) randomizing participants to the intervention or control arm, (b) requiring large sample sizes to detect meaningful differences, and (c) accurately measuring participants’ experiences of violence (as opposed to measuring trauma symptoms) (Crooks et al., 2019). Multisectoral data linkage (i.e., linking administrative records from multiple sectors, such as criminal justice, health, housing, and welfare) (Harron et al., 2020) is a rigorous method for following large samples of people over time and can be used in conjunction with randomized and quasi-experimental studies (Kinner et al., 2013). Additionally, participatory methods (e.g., involving people with lived experience in the design and development of interventions or data linkage studies) may also be an appropriate avenue for developing interventions for groups of people who experience an increased risk of violence (Crooks et al., 2019).

Interventions that address one or more risk factors for violence victimization or revictimization among justice-involved young women may reduce violence exposure. An Australian study found that violent deaths among justice-involved young women most frequently occurred in the context of intimate partner violence (Willoughby et al., 2021b). However, risk factors for intimate partner violence among justice-involved young women are not well established. Historically, young women have been largely overlooked within family violence discourses (Johnston et al., 2022), with relatively little youth-specific inquiry into their experiences of intimate partner violence (Daff et al., 2021). Risk factors for intimate partner violence victimization among young women in the general population include mental health issues, substance use, social and relational pressures regarding perceived gender roles (Chung, 2007; Vezina & Hebert, 2007), and youth homelessness (Watson, 2017). The risk of young women experiencing intimate partner violence can also be influenced by the perceived seriousness and duration of the relationship (Giordano et al., 2010), the positioning of the relationship among peers, and the acceptance and endorsement of relational aggression, gender inequality, and violence in the young person’s social group (Foshee et al., 2013). Mental health and substance use issues have been found to increase the risk of injuries from violence among adult women and men released from prison (Willoughby et al., 2022). Future studies examining interventions that aim to improve health and reduce disadvantage among justice-involved young women should consider whether these interventions also impact the risk of violence victimization and revictimization in this group. Given that many of these factors are also associated with criminal justice contact (Kerig, 2018), addressing these risk factors may reduce both violence victimization and further criminal justice contact.

Our review focused on interventions that targeted justice-involved young women. It is possible that population-level approaches to prevent violence (i.e., universal interventions) that do not specifically focus on justice-involved young women may have some benefit in preventing violence against this group. However, to our knowledge, the impact of universal interventions on justice-involved young women has not been empirically assessed. Although effective at reducing overall rates of violence (Krug et al., 2002), universal strategies may not be sufficient to address inequities in violence victimization, meaning that certain groups may still experience an increased risk of violence (Cerdá et al., 2014; Frolich & Potvin, 2008). The stigma of criminalization experienced by justice-involved young people may hinder their engagement with or access to universal programs, for instance. Given the elevated rates of violence victimization among justice-involved young women, it is likely that universal interventions will need to be paired with interventions that have been specifically designed to meet the needs of justice-involved young women for violence victimization to be meaningfully reduced in this group (Frolich & Potvin, 2008). For interventions to be appropriate and acceptable by participants, they should also consider the unique needs of different groups of justice-involved young women, such as First Nations young women.

The methodological limitations of most included studies (e.g., the absence of control groups, small sample sizes, and short follow-up periods), along with few rigorous evaluations, and the diversity of the interventions themselves, meant that drawing definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions was difficult. The dearth of evaluative studies clearly highlights a need for high-quality research examining all types of violence prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary) across different settings (e.g., detention and community settings) to both prevent and respond to violence victimization, and revictimization, among justice-involved young women. We acknowledge that high-quality research needs to incorporate the views, experiences, and perspectives of justice-involved young women themselves to present a well-rounded picture of violence prevention initiatives and their effectiveness (Glasby & Beresford, 2006). Middleton et al.’s (2019) finding about approaches that have been designed to be trauma-informed potentially exacerbating trauma symptoms for some participants highlights the importance of ensuring that lived experience insights are embedded in research, and the importance of rigorously evaluating interventions, particularly those that have the potential to cause unintended harm.

All of the studies included in our review were conducted in the United States, which may limit the generalizability of our findings to other countries. The rate of violence, particularly firearm violence, in the United States is higher than in other high-income countries (Grinshteyn & Hemenway, 2016). Among young women and men released from youth detention in the United States, violence, predominantly firearm violence, is the most common cause of death (Teplin et al., 2014). However, in other countries, such as Australia (Coffey et al., 2004) and Finland (Sailas et al., 2006), the most common cause is often suicide or drug-related, with deaths from violence being considerably less prevalent.

Our review was limited to English-language studies, which may have introduced some bias. However, there is evidence that excluding studies in other languages may not meaningfully change the findings of reviews (Morrison et al., 2012; Nussbaumer-Streit et al., 2020). Despite the overrepresentation of ethnic and racial minorities in the criminal justice system, no studies considered the how the effectiveness of interventions differed by race and/or ethnicity. As additional searches for gray literature were only conducted in Google Scholar, some gray literature may have been missed. To our knowledge, this is the first review to examine violence prevention and response efforts targeted at young women who have had, or are at risk of having, contact with the criminal justice system. We specified our methods a priori (Willoughby et al., 2021a) and used a comprehensive search and broad inclusion criteria (including gray literature along with peer-reviewed literature), allowing us to search widely from the existing literature.

Conclusions

Effective interventions to keep young women safe from violence are contingent on the production and dissemination of high-quality evidence. Although we identified some tertiary interventions to address the impact of violence victimization, the paucity of effective and rigorously evaluated primary and secondary interventions to prevent violence (re)victimization against young women who have had, or are at risk of having, contact with the criminal justice system remains a critical gap in the literature. A comprehensive approach to reducing violence victimization requires intervention at all levels of violence prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary) (Lee, 2017). In the absence of effective and evidence-based violence prevention initiatives that are specifically designed to meet the needs of justice-involved young women, the high rates of violence victimization among these young women will persist.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380231171183 – Supplemental material for Interventions to Prevent and Respond to Violence Against Justice-Involved Young Women: A Scoping Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380231171183 for Interventions to Prevent and Respond to Violence Against Justice-Involved Young Women: A Scoping Review by Melissa Willoughby, Emilia Janca, Sohee Kwon, Bianca Johnston, Tamlynn Collins, Stuart A. Kinner, Diana Johns, David Gallant, Clare Glover-Wright and Rohan Borschmann in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Alex Andrawis for assisting with the gray literature searching. MW, RB, and SK are researchers in the NHMRC-funded Centre of Research Excellence in Driving Global Investment in Adolescent Health (GNT1171981). RB is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Emerging Leadership-2 Investigator Grant (GNT2008073).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Bianca Johnston and Tamlynn Collins are employed by the Youth Support and Advocacy Service (YSAS), who is also a funder.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project is funded by the Melbourne Social Equity Institute at the University of Melbourne and received funding support from the Youth Support and Advocacy Service (YSAS) Industry Partnership Program.

ORCID iD

Melissa Willoughby

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Melissa Willoughby is a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne and a Research Assistant at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. Her research interests include health equity, criminal justice involvement, gender, and violence prevention. Her PhD thesis examines violence-related death and morbidity among young people and adults who had contact with the criminal justice system.

Emilia Janca, MPH, is Research Associate at Curtin University and an Honorary Fellow at the University of Melbourne. Emilia has a particular interest in generating high-quality evidence to improve the health outcomes of women involved in the criminal justice system.

Sohee Kwon is a Bachelor of Arts (Honors) student at the University of Melbourne and a Research Assistant at the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health’s Justice Health Unit. Her research focuses on intersectionality, decoloniality, and social movements.

Bianca Johnston, MSW, is a Senior Trainer and Practice Consultant and Family Violence Specialist at the Youth Support and Advocacy Service (YSAS). Both as a qualified Social Worker and Criminologist, she currently undertakes a PhD at Monash University into young women’s experiences of intimate partner violence.

Tamlynn Collins, Dip, is a Youth Advocate—Community at YSAS and Youth Advocate Research Assistant at Melbourne University. She has lived experience of mental illness and substance use concerns. She utilizes her lived experience to help tackle barriers around stigma and discrimination that young people receive. She is currently undertaking a Master of Social Work at La Trobe University.

Stuart A. Kinner, PhD, is a Professor of Health Equity at Curtin University, Head of the Justice Health Unit at the University of Melbourne and Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, and an Adjunct Professor at the Griffith Criminology Institute. His research focuses on the health and health service trajectories of marginalized and justice-involved people.

Diana Johns, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Melbourne, is a qualitative, community-engaged researcher. Her work is particularly focused on young people and explores the effects of criminalization, the impacts of imprisonment, and the possibilities of restorative, relational, and reintegrative justice practices.

David Gallant, PhD, is a Lecturer in the Department of Social Work at the University of Melbourne. His research is focused on improving the physical, social, emotional, and cultural outcomes for people in our communities. He is involved in a range of research areas including family violence, Indigenous populations, custodial environments, sport, and recreation.

Clare Glover-Wright, PhD, is an early career researcher and also completing a Master of Public Health at the University of Melbourne. She has a particular interest in vulnerable populations. She gained both her undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications from the University of Leicester before moving into Regulatory and Scientific Affairs positions within local and international pharmaceutical companies and consultancies.

Rohan Borschmann, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Justice Health Unit at the University of Melbourne. He is a registered psychologist and holds academic appointments at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and the University of Oxford. His research focuses on the mental health of justice-involved and marginalized people, with particular expertise in self-harm.

References

Anderson

J. D.

Pitner

R. O.

Wooten

N. R.

(2020). A gender-specific model of trauma and victimization in incarcerated women. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 30(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2019.1673272

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.

Arnold

E. M.

Kirk

R. S.

Roberts

A. C.

Griffith

D. P.

Meadows

Julian

(2002). Treatment of incarcerated, sexually-abused adolescent females: An outcome study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12(1), 123–139.

Borschmann

Janca

Carter

Willoughby

Hughes

Snow

Stockings

Hill

Hocking

Love

Patton

Sawyer

Fazel

Puljević

Robinson

Kinner

(2020). The health of adolescents in detention: A global scoping review. The Lancet Public Health, 5(2), E114–E126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30217-8

Burke

Keaton

Pennell

(2003). Addressing the gender-specific needs of girls: An evaluation of San Diego’s WINGS Program—Final report. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).

Cerdá

Tracy

Ahern

Galea

(2014). Addressing population health and health inequalities: The role of fundamental causes. American Journal of Public Health, 104(S4), S609–S619. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302055

Chesney-Lind

Morash

Stevens

(2008). Girls troubles, girls’ delinquency, and gender responsive programming: A review. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 162–189.

Chung

(2007). Making meaning of relationships: Young women’s experiences and understandings of dating violence. Violence Against Women, 13(12), 1274–1295.

Clarivate Analytics. (2018). EndNote X8. https://endnote.com/

10.

Coffey

Wolfe

Lovett

A. W.

Moran

Cini

Patton

G. C.

(2004). Predicting death in young offenders: A retrospective cohort study. Medical Journal of Australia, 181(9), 473. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb06402.x

11.

Covidence. (n.d.). Covidence. https://www.covidence.org/

12.

Crooks

C. V.

Jaffe

Dunlop

Kerry

Exner-Cortens

(2019). Preventing gender-based violence among adolescents and young adults: Lessons from 25 years of program development and evaluation. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 29–55.

13.

Daff

E. S.

McEwan

T. E.

Luebbers

(2021). Australian adolescents’ experiences of aggression and abuse by intimate partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9–10), NP5586–NP5609.

14.

Davidson

J. T.

Pasko

Chesney-Lind

(2011). “She’s way too good to lose”: An evaluation of Honolulu’s girls court. Women & Criminal Justice, 21(4), 308–327.

15.

Ellsberg

Arango

D. J.

Morton

Gennari

Kiplesund

Contreras

Watts

(2015). Prevention of violence against women and girls: What does the evidence say? The Lancet, 385(9977), 1555–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61703-7

16.

Emerson

Shelton

(2001). Using creative arts to build coping skills to reduce domestic violence in the lives of female juvenile offenders. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 22(2), 181–195.

17.

Ford

J. D.

(2020). Trauma Affect Regulation: Guide for Education and Therapy (TARGET) for complex traumatic stress disorders. In Ford

J. D.

Courtois

C. A.

(Eds.), Treating complex traumatic stress disorders in adults (pp. 390–414). Guilford Publications.

18.

Ford

J. D.

Steinberg

K. L.

Hawke

Levine

Zhang

(2012). Randomized trial comparison of emotion regulation and relational psychotherapies for PTSD with girls involved in delinquency. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 41(1), 27–37.

19.

Foshee

V. A.

Benefield

T. S.

Reyes

H. L. M.

Ennett

S. T.

Faris

Chang

L.-Y.

Hussong

Suchindran

C. M.

(2013). The peer context and the development of the perpetration of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 471–486.

20.

Frolich

Potvin

(2008). The inequality paradox: The population approach and vulnerable populations. American Journal of Public Health, 98(2), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.114777

21.

Gaarder

Hesselton

(2012). Connecting restorative justice with gender-responsive programming. Contemporary Justice Review, 15(3), 239–264.

22.

Giordano

P. C.

Soto

D. A.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2010). The characteristics of romantic relationships associated with teen dating violence. Social Science Research, 39(6), 863–874.

23.

Glasby

Beresford

(2006). Who knows best? Evidence-based practice and the service user contribution, commentary and issues. Critical Social Policy, 26(1), 268–284.

24.

Goodkind

Sarri

R. C.

(2006). The impact of sexual abuse in the lives of young women involved or at risk of involvement with the juvenile justice system. Violence Against Women, 12(5), 456–477.

25.

Grinshteyn

Hemenway

(2016). Violent death rates: The US compared with other high-income OECD countries, 2010. The American Journal of Medicine, 129(3), 266–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.10.025

26.

Harris

D. A.

Malone

(2014). A process evaluation of the art of yoga project mentor program for incarcerated teenage girls. International Journal of Yoga Therapy, 24(1), 97–108.

27.

Harron

Doidge

J. C.

Goldstein

(2020). Assessing data linkage quality in cohort studies. Annals of Human Biology, 47(2), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2020.1742379

28.

Hughes

Ungar

Fagan

Murray

Atilola

Nichols

Garcia

Kinner

(2020). Health determinants of adolescent criminalisation. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(19)30347-5

29.

Johanna Briggs Institute. (n.d.). Critical appraisal tools. https://joannabriggs.org/critical-appraisal-tools

30.

Johnston

Flynn

Gordon

(2022). Australia – A land for young women? Exploring young women’s positioning in contemporary Australian family violence discourses. Affilia. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08861099221108381.

31.

Kelly

P. J.

Owen

S. V.

Peralez-Dieckmann

Martinez

(2007). Health interventions with girls in the juvenile justice system. Women’s Health Issues, 17(4), 227–236.

32.

Kerig

P. K.

(2018). Polyvictimization and girls’ involvement in the juvenile justice system: Investigating gender-differentiated patterns of risk, recidivism, and resilience. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(5), 789–809.

33.

Kerig

P. K.

Ford

J. D.

(2014). Trauma among girls in the juvenile justice system. https://www.nctsn.org/resources/trauma-among-girls-juvenile-justice-system

34.

Kinner

S. A.

Lennox

Williams

G. M.

Carroll

Quinn

Boyle

F. M.

Alati

(2013). Randomised controlled trial of a service brokerage intervention for ex-prisoners in Australia. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 36(1), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2013.07.001

35.

Krug

E. G.

Mercy

J. A.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Zwi

A. B.

(2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11133-0

36.

Lee

B. X.

(2017). Causes and cures XII: Public health approaches. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.010

37.

Malvaso

C. G.

Delfabbro

P. H.

Day

(2016). Risk factors that influence the maltreatment-offending association: A systematic review of prospective and longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.06.006

38.

Middleton

Harris

D. A.

Ackerman

A. R.

(2019). A mixed-methods process evaluation of the art of yoga project for girls in custody. The Prison Journal, 99(4_suppl), 38S–60S.

39.

Millenky

Treskon

Freedman

Mage

(2019). Focusing on girls’ futures: Results from the evaluation of PACE Center for girls. MDRC.

40.

Morrison

Polisena

Husereau

Moulton

Clark

Fiander

Mierzwinski-Urban

Clifford

Hutton

Rabb

(2012). The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: A systematic review of empirical studies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 28(2), 138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462312000086

41.

Mullis

R. L.

Cornille

T. A.

Mullis

A. K.

Huber

(2004). Female juvenile offending: A review of characteristics and contexts. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(2), 205–218.

42.

Nancarrow

Thomas

Ringland

Modini

(2020). Accurately identifying the “person most in need of protection” in domestic and family violence law. https://20ian81kynqg38bl3l3eh8bf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Nancarrow-PMINOP-RR.3.pdf

43.

National Institute for Health Care Excellence. (2018). Post-traumatic stress disorder. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng116

44.

No to violence. (2019). Predominant aggressor identification and victim misidentification. https://ntv.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/20191121-NTV-Discussion-Paper-Predominant-Aggressor-FINAL.pdf

45.

Nussbaumer-Streit

Klerings

Dobrescu

Persad

Stevens

Garritty

Kamel

Affengruber

King

Gartlehner

(2020). Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: A meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 118, 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.011

46.

Palidofsky

Stolbach

B. C.

(2012). Dramatic healing: The evolution of a trauma-informed musical theatre program for incarcerated girls. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 5(3), 239–256.

47.

Pomeroy

E. C.

Green

D. L.

Kiam

(2001). Female juvenile offenders incarcerated as adults: A psychoeducational group intervention. Journal of Social Work, 1(1), 101–115.

48.

Prison Reform Trust. (2017). “There’s a reason we’re in trouble”: Domestic abuse as a driver to women’s offending. http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Domestic_abuse_report_final_lo.pdf

49.

Richards

(2011). What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders? Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 409. Australian Institute of Criminology.

50.

Roe-Sepowitz

Pate

K. N.

Bedard

L. E.

Greenwald

(2009). A trauma-based group intervention for incarcerated girls. Social Work with groups, 32(4), 330–341.

51.

Sailas

E. S.

Feodoroff

Lindberg

N. C.

Virkkunen

M. E.

Sund

Wahlbeck

(2006). The mortality of young offenders sentenced to prison and its association with psychiatric disorders: A register study. The European Journal of Public Health, 16(2), 193–197. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cki169

52.

Sawyer

S. M.

Azzopardi

P. S.

Wickremarathne

Patton

G. C.

(2018). The age of adolescence. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2(3), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(18)30022-1

53.

Saxena

Messina

N. P.

Grella

C. E.

(2014a). Who benefits from gender-responsive treatment? Accounting for abuse history on longitudinal outcomes for women in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813514405

54.

Saxena

Messina

N. P.

Grella

C. E.

(2014b). Who benefits from gender-responsive treatment? Accounting for abuse history on longitudinal outcomes for women in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813514405

55.

Shekar

Gross

Luebbers

Honsky

(2020). Effects of an interprofessional student-led sexual education program on self-efficacy and attitudes about sexual violence in youths in juvenile detention. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 33(3), 302–306.

56.

Stathopoulos

Quadara

Fileborn

Clark

(2012). Addressing women’s victimisation histories in custodial settings. https://aifs.gov.au/publications/addressing-womens-victimisation-histories-custodial-settings

57.

Teplin

Jakubowski

Abram

Olson

Stokes

Welty

(2014). Firearm homicide and other causes of death in delinquents: A 16-year prospective study. Pediatrics, 134(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-3966

58.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

M. D.

Horsley

Weeks

(2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473.

59.

United Nations. (1993). Declaration on the elimination of violence against women. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/violenceagainstwomen.aspx

60.

United Nations. (2019). Global study on children deprived of liberty. https://childrendeprivedofliberty.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Full-Global-Study_Revised-Version.pdf

61.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2015). Sustainable development goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals

62.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2019). Global study on homicide. Homicide trends, patterns and criminal justice response. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/Booklet2.pdf

63.

Vezina

Hebert

(2007). Risk factors for victimization in romantic relationships of young women: A review of empirical studies and implications for prevention. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(1), 33–66.

64.

Walmsley

(2017). World female imprisonment list. https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_female_prison_4th_edn_v4_web.pdf

65.

Watson

(2017). Youth homelessness and survival sex: Intimate relationships and gendered subjectivities. Routledge.

66.

Willoughby

Glover-Wright

Kwon

Janca

Collins

Johnston

Johns

Gallant

Kinner

S. A.

Sundbery

Bruun

Borschmann

(2021a). Interventions to prevent violence against young women who have had contact with the criminal justice system: Protocol for a scoping review. Open Science Framework.

67.

Willoughby

Keen

Young

J. T.

Spittal

M. J.

Borschmann

Janca

Kinner

S. A.

(2022). Violence-related morbidity among people released from prison in Australia: A data linkage study. Drug and Alcohol Review, 41(2), 457–466.

68.

Willoughby

Young

J. T.

Hail-Jares

Spittal

M. J.

Borschmann

Patton

Sawyer

S. M.

Janca

Teplin

Heffernan

(2021b). Circumstances and toxicology of violence-related deaths among young people who have had contact with the youth justice system: A data linkage study. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–9.

69.

Wilson

H. W.

Stover

C. S.

Berkowitz

S. J.

(2009). Research review: The relationship between childhood violence exposure and juvenile antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(7), 769–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01974.x

70.

Yoon

I. A.

Slade

Fazel

(2017). Outcomes of psychological therapies for prisoners with mental health problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(8), 783.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB