Featured Article
Article Title
Implementation of practices deemed trauma-informed in juvenile court
Authors
Eva McKinsey - Independent Research Consultant, Honoulu, HI, USA
Raza Lamb - Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, USA
Amelia Thorn - Bolch Judicial Institute, Duke Law School, Durham, NC, USA
Grace F. Davis - Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Lauren A. Allen - Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Ana E. Herndon - Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Sidharth Ravi - Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Jade E. Terry - Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Tess Bierly - Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Abstract
High rates of trauma among court-involved youth have led to efforts to incorporate trauma-informed practices (TIPs) in courts. Despite these efforts, little is known about the degree to which TIPs have been adopted. We observed 201 juvenile court hearings overseen by 16 judges in a Southeastern state in the United States, examining the presence of over 60 TIPs related to the environment, policies/activities, and judge behaviour. Descriptive analyses revealed vast gaps in the implementation of certain TIPs, such as those related to decision-making and acknowledgment of contextual factors contributing to youths’ court involvement. We additionally conducted multilevel modelling to examine whether judges’ engagement with TIPs depended on case-, judge-, and youth-related factors. We found judges generally implemented TIPs equitably across examined factors but between-judge variability in three practice categories suggests youths’ court experiences may depend on the judge to whom they are assigned.
Keywords
equitable treatment, equity, implementation, judge behaviour, juvenile court, trauma-informed approach, trauma-informed practices
Summary of Research
“...People involved in the system (as juveniles, victims, or witnesses) have high rates of trauma exposure and involvement in the system itself can cause immense stress and perpetuate trauma symptoms… A trauma-informed approach (TIA) to court is one that recognises this reality by attempting to address past trauma and reduce future traumatisation through implementation of a wide range of practices (called trauma-informed practices; TIPs) related to all aspects of court, from the environment to policies to behaviour of criminal legal personnel…
In this study, we sought to better understand the landscape of a TIA in juvenile delinquency court, with a particular focus on judge behaviour, by observing just over 200 court hearings. We first assessed the extent to which over 60 TIPs were implemented in court and then examined whether judges’ engagement with different categories of TIP depended on various case-, judge-, and youth-related factors” (p. 1).
“This relationship between trauma and criminal legal system involvement can be traced, in part, to the physiological impacts of trauma on the brain and body. Childhood trauma disrupts the development of certain cognitive, psychological, and emotional skills, and is associated with challenges that can increase the odds of engagement in violent, reactive, and criminalised behaviours… Furthermore, involvement in court itself can cause immense stress, thereby perpetuating a cycle of trauma. Given these connections, a TIA is necessary to help break the cycle of trauma experienced by many court-involved young people… Central to a TIA is the recognition that the impacts of trauma do not have to be permanent– the brain is malleable and can heal, and people can demonstrate resilience, and even growth, following traumatic events …
Trauma-focused literature and education offer a vast range of practices, often called trauma-informed practices (TIPs), that court systems can adopt to better promote the goals and values of a TIA. TIPs in this context generally fall into three main categories:
(a) courthouse/room environment (e.g. multilingual signs, accessible parking, minimising psychological triggers like loud noises and unpleasant odors);
(b) policies and procedures (e.g. eliminating unnecessarily restrictive practices; utilising trauma screenings and assessments, scheduling the docket in intentional ways); and (c) judge behaviour and decision-making (e.g. avoiding demeaning language, providing positive feedback, giving court-involved individuals a space to speak, prioritising less restrictive sentences; collaborating with community-based organisations)” (p. 2- 3).
“When considering a TIA in court, we are primarily talking about process... Part of taking a TIA in court means recognising that, because nearly all court-involved persons have experienced some form of trauma, it is safest to assume trauma and implement a TIA at all times (referred to as a ‘universal precautions approach’). This approach also recognizes that TIPs can benefit all individuals, even court personnel and court-involved persons who have not endured significant trauma…
We aimed to:
(a) better understand the ways in which courts and judges are cur-rently implementing TIPs
and (b) assess the equitable nature of engagement with TIPs by investigating whether judges’ engagement in different categories of TIPs depended on various case-, judge-, and youth- related factors” (p. 4).
“We narrowed to only urban counties in a single state to generally control for access to services, resources, and programming and to counties with high caseloads to increase the odds of observing a substantial number of hearings… We also narrowed to counties whose chief juvenile court counsellors [were] willing to provide us with court schedules in advance…. We collected data on 36 court sessions that included 201 juvenile delinquency court hearings overseen by 16 different judges… Our sample reveals severe overrepresentation of Black/African American youth and underrepresentation of White youth [in the study] state’s juvenile court system, mirroring national-level racial disparities at various stages of criminal legal system processing” (p. 5-14).
“As such, children’s exposure to a TIA may essentially depend on the judge to whom they are assigned. These findings substantiate prior research finding significant differences in practices between different judges as well as anecdotal reports from members of our observation team who frequently discussed the vast range in judge behaviour that they witnessed…
It must be recognised that a court system is far from trauma-informed as long as court-involved people are at risk of ending up in a courtroom with a judge who does not fully appreciate the power they hold to either interrupt a cycle of trauma or to perpetuate it” (p. 18- 19).
In this study, we sought to better understand the landscape of a TIA in juvenile delinquency court, with a particular focus on judge behaviour, by observing just over 200 court hearings. We first assessed the extent to which over 60 TIPs were implemented in court and then examined whether judges’ engagement with different categories of TIP depended on various case-, judge-, and youth-related factors” (p. 1).
“This relationship between trauma and criminal legal system involvement can be traced, in part, to the physiological impacts of trauma on the brain and body. Childhood trauma disrupts the development of certain cognitive, psychological, and emotional skills, and is associated with challenges that can increase the odds of engagement in violent, reactive, and criminalised behaviours… Furthermore, involvement in court itself can cause immense stress, thereby perpetuating a cycle of trauma. Given these connections, a TIA is necessary to help break the cycle of trauma experienced by many court-involved young people… Central to a TIA is the recognition that the impacts of trauma do not have to be permanent– the brain is malleable and can heal, and people can demonstrate resilience, and even growth, following traumatic events …
Trauma-focused literature and education offer a vast range of practices, often called trauma-informed practices (TIPs), that court systems can adopt to better promote the goals and values of a TIA. TIPs in this context generally fall into three main categories:
(a) courthouse/room environment (e.g. multilingual signs, accessible parking, minimising psychological triggers like loud noises and unpleasant odors);
(b) policies and procedures (e.g. eliminating unnecessarily restrictive practices; utilising trauma screenings and assessments, scheduling the docket in intentional ways); and (c) judge behaviour and decision-making (e.g. avoiding demeaning language, providing positive feedback, giving court-involved individuals a space to speak, prioritising less restrictive sentences; collaborating with community-based organisations)” (p. 2- 3).
“When considering a TIA in court, we are primarily talking about process... Part of taking a TIA in court means recognising that, because nearly all court-involved persons have experienced some form of trauma, it is safest to assume trauma and implement a TIA at all times (referred to as a ‘universal precautions approach’). This approach also recognizes that TIPs can benefit all individuals, even court personnel and court-involved persons who have not endured significant trauma…
We aimed to:
(a) better understand the ways in which courts and judges are cur-rently implementing TIPs
and (b) assess the equitable nature of engagement with TIPs by investigating whether judges’ engagement in different categories of TIPs depended on various case-, judge-, and youth- related factors” (p. 4).
“We narrowed to only urban counties in a single state to generally control for access to services, resources, and programming and to counties with high caseloads to increase the odds of observing a substantial number of hearings… We also narrowed to counties whose chief juvenile court counsellors [were] willing to provide us with court schedules in advance…. We collected data on 36 court sessions that included 201 juvenile delinquency court hearings overseen by 16 different judges… Our sample reveals severe overrepresentation of Black/African American youth and underrepresentation of White youth [in the study] state’s juvenile court system, mirroring national-level racial disparities at various stages of criminal legal system processing” (p. 5-14).
“As such, children’s exposure to a TIA may essentially depend on the judge to whom they are assigned. These findings substantiate prior research finding significant differences in practices between different judges as well as anecdotal reports from members of our observation team who frequently discussed the vast range in judge behaviour that they witnessed…
It must be recognised that a court system is far from trauma-informed as long as court-involved people are at risk of ending up in a courtroom with a judge who does not fully appreciate the power they hold to either interrupt a cycle of trauma or to perpetuate it” (p. 18- 19).
Translating Research into Practice
“...Efforts should be made to reduce the frequency of these hearings (e.g., improving docket management and communication between court actors, so that families can be informed ahead of time if their case will be continued) or to conduct such hearings remotely, which many court systems have begun to do. If unable to avoid these hearings altogether, judges can use these times to set a trauma-informed tone and establish a psychologically safe environment from the start (e.g., by taking time to explain the court process, learn about the youth, etc.), rather than simply rushing through them” (p. 15).
“This finding may indicate that judges are failing to fully appreciate the varied ways in which outside circumstances and experiences are relevant to a person’s court involvement as well as their path forward, or to understand that their role can and should encompass discussion of these realities.
Alternatively, or additionally, judges may not feel confident in how to broach these topics appropriately in an open courtroom. For instance, as McLachlan (2022) pointed out, judges may worry that commenting on factors related to someone’s cultural identity may be perceived as biased or racist, thereby resulting in a general avoidance of these topics, even if such factors were considered in decision-making. As such, future trauma education programming should attend to how judges can engage in discussion of bigger picture factors in appropriate, considerate, and trauma-informed ways…
Positive interactions with family may lead to better understanding of family and youth needs, which is crucial to effective intervention and rehabilitation efforts” (p. 17).
“TIPs are severely underutilized – and inconsistently utilized –such that children’s court experiences may rely heavily on the particular judge to whom they are assigned. Future education, policy, and reform efforts aimed at creating more trauma-informed courts must attend to these gaps” (p. 20).
“This finding may indicate that judges are failing to fully appreciate the varied ways in which outside circumstances and experiences are relevant to a person’s court involvement as well as their path forward, or to understand that their role can and should encompass discussion of these realities.
Alternatively, or additionally, judges may not feel confident in how to broach these topics appropriately in an open courtroom. For instance, as McLachlan (2022) pointed out, judges may worry that commenting on factors related to someone’s cultural identity may be perceived as biased or racist, thereby resulting in a general avoidance of these topics, even if such factors were considered in decision-making. As such, future trauma education programming should attend to how judges can engage in discussion of bigger picture factors in appropriate, considerate, and trauma-informed ways…
Positive interactions with family may lead to better understanding of family and youth needs, which is crucial to effective intervention and rehabilitation efforts” (p. 17).
“TIPs are severely underutilized – and inconsistently utilized –such that children’s court experiences may rely heavily on the particular judge to whom they are assigned. Future education, policy, and reform efforts aimed at creating more trauma-informed courts must attend to these gaps” (p. 20).
Other Interesting Tidbits for Researchers and Clinicians
“Use of restraints can trigger trauma symptoms, exacerbate feelings of isolation, hopelessness, and shame, and perpetuate stigma among young people, making elimination of this practice whenever possible a highly recommended TIP. Some juvenile justice organizations argue that the harm of shackling far outweighs the oft-proffered justification of courtroom security, advocating, instead, for the use of shackles as an absolute last resort at times when other courtroom attendees are in active danger and when other de-escalation efforts have failed. Our results demonstrate that there is likely still work to be done to reduce reliance on this practice that remains somewhat common in juvenile courtrooms in the United States” (p. 16).
Additional Resources/Programs
As always, please join the discussion below if you have thoughts or comments to add!
.png)
.png)
.png)
