Trauma-Informed Juvenile Justice Systems: A Systematic Review of Definitions and Core Components

Abstract

Objective:
The U.S. Department of Justice has called for the creation of trauma-informed juvenile justice systems in order to combat the negative impact of trauma on youth offenders and frontline staff. Definitions of trauma-informed care have been proposed for various service systems, yet there is not currently a widely accepted definition for juvenile justice. The current systematic review examined published definitions of a trauma-informed juvenile justice system in an effort to identify the most commonly named core elements and specific interventions or policies.

Method:
A systematic literature search was conducted in 10 databases to identify publications that defined trauma-informed care or recommended specific practices or policies for the juvenile justice system.

Results:
We reviewed 950 unique records, of which 10 met criteria for inclusion. The 10 publications included 71 different recommended interventions or policies that reflected 10 core domains of trauma-informed practice. We found 8 specific practice or policy recommendations with relative consensus, including staff training on trauma and trauma-specific treatment, while most recommendations were included in 2 or less definitions.

Conclusion:
The extant literature offers relative consensus around the core domains of a trauma-informed juvenile justice system, but much less agreement on the specific practices and policies. A logical next step is a review of the empirical research to determine which practices or policies produce positive impacts on outcomes for youth, staff, and the broader agency environment, which will help refine the core definitional elements that comprise a unified theory of trauma-informed practice for juvenile justice. (PsycINFO Database Record

Full text

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 1
CITATION
Branson, C. E., Baetz, C. L., Horwitz, S. M., & Hoagwood, K. E. (2017, February 6). Trauma-
Informed Juvenile Justice Systems: A Systematic Review of Definitions and Core Components.
Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tra0000255
Author’s pre-print version (12/1/16): This article may not exactly replicate the final version
published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 2
Trauma-informed juvenile justice systems: A systematic review of definitions and core
components
Christopher Edward Branson
New York University School of Medicine
Carly Lyn Baetz
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Sarah McCue Horwitz & Kimberly Eaton Hoagwood
New York University School of Medicine
Authors note:
Christopher Edward Branson, Sarah McCue Horwitz, Kimberly Eaton Hoagwood,
Department of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine; Carly
Lyn Baetz, Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Acknowledgments. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National
Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number
K23MH104697. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily
represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors wish to thank Ms.
Raquel Rose for her contributions to the systematic review as well as two anonymous reviewers
for their feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher Branson, New
York University Child Study Center, 1 Park Avenue-7th Floor, New York, NY 10016.
Email: Christopher.Branson@nyumc.org

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 3
Abstract
Objective: The US Department of Justice has called for the creation of trauma-informed juvenile
justice systems in order to combat the negative impact of trauma on youth offenders and front-
line staff. Definitions of trauma-informed care have been proposed for various service systems
yet there is not currently a widely accepted definition for juvenile justice. The current systematic
review examined published definitions of a trauma-informed juvenile justice system in an effort
to identify the most commonly named core elements and specific interventions or policies.
Method: A systematic literature search was conducted in 10 databases to identify publications
that defined trauma-informed care or recommended specific practices or policies for the juvenile
justice system. Results: We reviewed 950 unique records, of which 10 met criteria for inclusion.
The 10 publications included 71 different recommended interventions or policies that reflected
10 core domains of trauma-informed practice. We found eight specific practice or policy
recommendations with relative consensus, including staff training on trauma and trauma-specific
treatment, while most recommendations were included in two or less definitions. Conclusion:
The extant literature offers relative consensus around the core domains of a trauma-informed
juvenile justice system but much less agreement on the specific practices and policies. A logical
next step is a review of the empirical research to determine which practices or policies produce
positive impacts on outcomes for youth, staff, and the broader agency environment, which will
help refine the core definitional elements that comprise a unified theory of trauma-informed
practice for juvenile justice.
Keywords: juvenile justice; adolescents; trauma-informed; trauma responsive; traumatic stress

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 4
Trauma-informed juvenile justice systems: A systematic review of definitions and core
components
Childhood exposure to violence and other traumatic events is increasingly recognized as
a major public health challenge due to its association with a host of deleterious long-term
outcomes (National Prevention Council, 2011). While the majority of Americans will experience
at least one traumatic event before the age of 18 (McLaughlin et al., 2012), trauma
disproportionately affects youth involved with the juvenile justice system (Miller, Green, Fettes,
& Aarons, 2011). An estimated 70-90% of youth offenders have experienced one or more types
of trauma, including high rates of physical or sexual abuse, witnessing domestic violence, and
exposure to violence in school or the community (Abram et al., 2004; Ford, Hartman, Hawke, &
Chapman, 2008). Accumulating evidence suggests that childhood trauma exposure is likely a key
risk factor for subsequent juvenile justice involvement (Kerig & Becker, 2010). Juvenile
offenders are a particularly vulnerable population but those with histories of trauma exposure
and/or symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have higher rates of recidivism, co-
occurring disorders, school drop-out, and suicide attempts (Cauffman, Monahan, & Thomas,
2015; Haynie, Petts, Maimon, & Piquero, 2009; Wasserman & McReynolds, 2011; Wolff,
Baglivio, & Piquero, 2015). Multiple investigators have argued persuasively that youth may cope
with traumatic stress in ways that increase their risk of arrest, including using drugs to avoid
distressing memories, running away from an abusive home, and carrying a weapon or joining a
gang to prevent re-victimization (DeHart & Moran, 2015; Ford, Chapman, Mack, & Pearson,
2006; Kerig & Becker, 2010).
Involvement in the justice system itself places youth at risk for exposure to additional
trauma as well as harsh practices that may exacerbate their psychological distress and contribute

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 5
to worse legal outcomes. Potential sources of trauma in the justice system include discriminatory
law enforcement practices like “Stop and Frisk,” abusive behavior by correctional staff, and the
high rates of physical and sexual victimization in juvenile justice facilities, all of which are
associated with an increased risk of PTSD symptoms (Dierkhising, Lane, & Natsuaki, 2014;
Geller, Fagan, Tyler, & Link, 2014). Youth with prior trauma exposure may be “triggered” and
suffer psychological distress in response to several invasive or coercive practices commonly used
in the justice system, including strip searches/pat downs, placement in secure facilities with
limited access to loved ones, and use of punitive seclusion or physical restraint in detention or
correctional settings. A small study of formerly incarcerated young adults found a significant,
positive association between exposure to abuse and/or harsh punishments (i.e., seclusion) while
incarcerated and continued criminal behavior post-release (Dierkhising et al., 2014). Thus, the
justice system may impede the efforts of trauma survivors to rehabilitate and desist from crime.
The negative impact of trauma within juvenile justice goes beyond youth offenders. It is
increasingly recognized that front-line justice system professionals are frequently exposed to
traumatic stressors in the line of duty, including witnessing or experiencing violence and hearing
details of trauma experienced by crime victims or youth offenders (Chamberlain & Miller, 2008;
Kunst, 2011; Rainville, 2015). A growing literature reveals high rates of moderate to severe
traumatic stress symptoms in samples of correctional staff, probation officers, law enforcement,
and attorneys (Denhof & Spinaris, 2013; Levin et al., 2011; Skogstad et al., 2013). Traumatic
stress is associated with impaired job performance among justice system professionals (Denhof
& Spinaris, 2013). Taken together, these findings suggest that trauma contributes to worse
outcomes for all involved with the juvenile justice system.

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 6
Trauma-Informed Care
Increased public awareness of trauma’s pernicious effects and its prevalence among
society’s most vulnerable populations has led to calls from a number of key stakeholders for the
creation of trauma-informed public service systems (National Association of State Mental Health
Program Directors, 2005; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014).
Trauma-informed care (TIC) is an approach to organizing services that integrates an
understanding of the impact and consequences of trauma into all interventions and aspects of
organizational functioning (American Association of Children’s Residential Centers, 2014).
Implementing TIC goes beyond offering mental health interventions designed to treat symptoms
of PTSD and requires organizations and service systems to examine how their practices, policies,
and environments foster a sense of safety among consumers with histories of trauma exposure
(Kusmaul, Wilson, & Nochajski, 2015). According to Elliott, Bjelajac, Fallot, Markoff, and Reed
(2005), in a trauma-informed organization, “all staff ... from the receptionist to the direct care
workers to the board of directors, must understand how violence impacts the lives of people
being served, so that every interaction is consistent with the recovery process and reduces the
possibility of re-traumatization” (p. 462). For many agencies and service systems, TIC represents
a significant shift in thinking and practice.
The concept of trauma-informed service systems was first introduced into the literature
over 15 years ago by Harris and Fallot (2001). Since then, several researchers and stakeholder
groups have attempted to define a TIC approach. These definitions include broad principles or
domains of TIC (e.g., staff education/competence around trauma, physically and psychologically
safe environment of care, client-centered service planning) and/or recommendations for specific
trauma-informed practices or policies (e.g., eliminating or restricting harsh or coercive practices,

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 7
mandatory trauma training for all staff, universal screening of clients for trauma exposure and
related impairment) (Hopper, Bassuk, & Olivet, 2010; Raja, Hasnain, Hoersch, Gove-Yin, &
Rajagopalan, 2015; Wall, Higgins, & Hunter, 2016). Although there is general agreement in the
literature that TIC refers to the integration of trauma awareness and understanding throughout an
organization or service system, there is currently no consensus-based definition on the particular
practices or policies that comprise this approach for any service system (Hopper et al., 2010).
Multiple authors have identified the lack of consensus on the definition of TIC as a primary
barrier to creating trauma-informed systems (Hanson & Lang, 2016; Hopper et al., 2010; Wall et
al., 2016).
The Current Study
While the basic definition of TIC cuts across service systems, the particular practices or
policies that are implemented should be tailored to fit the unique mission and challenges of each
system. There is currently no TIC definition for juvenile justice that has been widely accepted
even though several federal agencies and stakeholder organizations have established initiatives to
promote the adoption of TIC in the justice system (Federal Partners Committee on Women and
Trauma, 2013; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, n.d.). This lack of
consensus has contributed to confusion among juvenile justice system leaders and front-line
providers as to what exactly is meant by TIC (Donisch, Bray, & Gewirtz, 2016). Identifying the
specific components (practices, policies) of a trauma-informed juvenile justice system is a
prerequisite for developing and evaluating TIC service models. The primary aim of the current
study is to review systematically the extant literature on definitions or descriptions of TIC for the
juvenile justice system in order to identify the most commonly named core domains and

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 8
recommended practices or policies. Additionally, we will identify areas of consensus or
disagreement and directions for future research.
Method
Study Protocol and Inclusion Criteria
The first author developed the study protocol based on the PRISMA-P guidelines for
systematic literature reviews (Shamseer et al., 2015). A copy of the full protocol is available
upon request. Our review focused on identifying English-language records published since 2000
that proposed an original definition of trauma-informed care (TIC) specific to the juvenile justice
system (whole system or any of the following settings: law enforcement, juvenile courts,
diversion programs, probation departments, detention or correctional facilities). For the present
review, we operationalized this as publications where a primary focus was identifying core
principles or domains of TIC (i.e., promoting a safe environment of care) and/or recommending
specific trauma-informed practices, policies, or procedures for the juvenile justice system (i.e.,
staff training on working with trauma-affected youth, trauma-specific mental health services).
We excluded publications that called for TIC in juvenile justice without defining it,
simply cited an existing definition without adding new recommendations, or defined TIC for the
adult criminal justice system or for multiple service systems without offering juvenile justice
specific definition/recommendations. Because TIC is a system-wide approach, we excluded
publications whose definition/recommendations were limited to trauma-informed clinical
services (i.e., screening/assessment, treatment). Additionally we limited our search to journal
manuscripts, books, white papers, government/stakeholder agency reports or policy statements,
articles in trade magazines/newsletters (e.g., American Jails magazine), and web-based resources

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 9
(i.e., stakeholder agency websites with TIC definitions). We excluded dissertations, conference
abstracts/presentations, webinars/online presentations, blog posts, and popular press articles.
Literature Search Strategy
We used a four step process to identify eligible studies. First, literature searches were
conducted in 10 databases (EBSCO Criminal Justice, ERIC, National Criminal Justice Reference
Service, Ovid PsycINFO, ProQuest Criminal Justice, ProQuest Psychology, ProQuest Published
International Literature on Traumatic Stress, ProQuest Social Science, ProQuest Social Services
Abstracts, PubMed) using the search terms ("trauma informed" OR “trauma focused” OR
“trauma responsive”) AND ("juvenile justice" OR probation OR court* OR “law enforcement"
OR “diversion program” OR “juvenile detention”). In May 2016, the first author conducted the
literature searches and compiled a list of the complete reference and abstract for every record
identified. Two reviewers (Branson & Baetz) independently reviewed all abstracts to determine
if they met our inclusion criteria. For each abstract that was selected for further review by either
reviewer, we then retrieved the full-text document. Two reviewers independently reviewed the
full-text articles to determine if they met inclusion criteria. In cases of disagreement, the two
authors discussed the publication until a consensus was reached. The overall level of interrater
agreement was adequate (κ = .62).
In the second step, the first author reviewed the reference lists of all publications selected
for inclusion to identify other potentially eligible records. Next, we conducted a “cited by”
search in Google Scholar of all selected publications. For all new publications identified through
these steps, we repeated the two-step process (independent review of abstracts then full-text).
The final step consisted of a Google internet search for web-based resources. We made the a
priori decision to limit our review to the first 20 pages of hits (i.e., 200 websites). Web-based

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 10
records that appeared to meet inclusion criteria were saved in PDF format and reviewed by the
first and second author.
Data Extraction and Coding
Two reviewers (Branson & Baetz) independently extracted and coded data from all
articles selected for inclusion using a data collection form and codebook designed for the current
study (available upon request). The following variables were extracted and coded: publication
year, publication type (i.e., journal article, agency report), focus of TIC definition (i.e., entire
juvenile justice system or particular setting such as probation departments), core elements of TIC
(i.e., broad principles or categories of TIC for juvenile justice system), and specific trauma-
informed practices/policies/interventions that were recommended.
Data Analysis and Synthesis
We used content analysis to identify and code recurring themes regarding the core
principles or domains of trauma-informed care for juvenile justice and the specific strategies or
practices recommended for each domain. This approach was guided by the “coding consensus,
co-occurrence, and comparison” methodology described by Willms et al. (1990), in which both a
priori and emergent themes (i.e., core domains or specific practices) are coded to construct a
conceptual framework (Palinkas, 2014). First, a primary coder (first author) extracted and coded
data from all the records. A second coder (second author) repeated this for 50% of the records
and examined the first coder's work on the other half. Three a priori categories (clinical services,
agency context, system-level) provided an initial framework for organizing the data. The coders
extracted verbatim anything that appeared to be a recommendation (e.g., agencies/systems
should train staff on trauma) or explicitly identified core domains or principles of a trauma-
informed juvenile justice system. After reading through all the data, the coders drafted

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 11
preliminary domains (e.g., creating a safe environment). Next, the coders organized similar
recommendations together in a word processing document and assigned them to a domain.
Through discussion the two coders came to a consensus on names of the broad domains and the
wording and categorization of specific practice or policy recommendations.
Results
Literature Search Results
Our literature search identified a total of 950 unique records, of which 898 were excluded
during the initial screening. Records excluded at this stage included numerous studies on the
prevalence/impact of trauma exposure (e.g., Wolff et al., 2015) and trauma-specific mental
health services (e.g., Black, Woodworth, Tremblay, & Carpenter, 2012) for youth offenders and
other populations. Fifty-two full-text records were reviewed, of which 42 were excluded, leaving
a total of 10 publications selected for inclusion (denoted by an asterisk in the References). The
42 excluded full-text records included 15 publications that called for TIC in juvenile justice but
did not provide a definition or detailed recommendations (e.g., Ko et al., 2008), six publications
that discussed trauma screening/treatment only (e.g., Igelman, Ryan, Gilbert, Bashant, & North,
2008), and five publications that cited someone else’s definition of TIC (e.g., Crosby, 2016).
There were five instances where we found multiple publications from the same author(s)
that met our inclusion criteria. We extracted and coded the data from all of these publications. In
four cases, we excluded a second publication that included identical or less complete
recommendations (Feierman & Fine, 2014; Ford, 2012; National Center for Mental Health and
Juvenile Justice, n.d.; Sickmund, 2016) than another eligible publication from the same author(s)
(Feierman & Ford, 2016; National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice & Technical
Assistance Collaborative, 2015; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2015). In

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 12
the remaining case, we excluded a series of policy briefs from the National Child Traumatic
Stress Network (Burrell, 2013; Dierkhising, Ko, & Goldman, 2013; Kerig, 2013; Lacey, 2013;
Rozzell, 2013; Stewart, 2013) in favor of a more recent publication (National Child Traumatic
Stress Network, 2016) as the former explicitly stated that it was a preliminary attempt to start
defining the core elements of TIC for juvenile justice. A complete list of the excluded records is
available upon request. Figure 1 provides a detailed summary of our search.
Figure 1. Summary of the literature search
1,105 records identified through
initial searches
950 non-duplicate records
screened for eligibility
898 records excluded with reasons:
 Rates/impact of trauma in youth offenders/other groups (n=241)
 Discussed screening/interventions for trauma (n=209)
 Juvenile/criminal justice services & reform (n=83)
 Ineligible publication type (n=76)
 Irrelevant/trauma not primary focus (n=70)
 Discussed but didn’t define TIC for juvenile justice (n=62)
 TIC in other service systems (n=58)
 Trauma exposure/services for crime victims (n=32)
 Trauma screening/treatment not TIC for justice system (n=21)
 Staff secondary trauma (n=13)
 Reducing seclusion/restraint in juvenile justice/inpatient units
(n=12)
 Other PTSD studies (case law, research methods) (n=11)
 Systems change/staff training unrelated to TIC (n=10)
52 full-text publications
assessed for eligibility
42 full-text records excluded with reasons:
 Discussed but did not define TIC (n=15)
 Included newer definition from same author(s) (n=10)
 Recommendations limited to trauma screening/treatment (n=6)
 Cited someone else’s definition (n=5)
 Description of TIC model/initiative that did not include
definition (n=3)
 Discussed TIC for adult justice system (n=2)
 Discussed safety in juvenile justice facilities (n=1)
10 publications selected for
inclusion
17 records identified through other
sources

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 13
Publication Characteristics
We reviewed 10 publications that defined TIC and/or recommended specific trauma-
informed practices or policies for the juvenile justice system (see Table 1). Four publications
gave definitions or recommendations for the entire system and three defined TIC for juvenile or
family courts. The remaining three definitions/recommendations included one apiece for juvenile
detention/correctional facilities, diversion programs, and law enforcement. Publication dates
ranged from 2012 to 2016, with half published in the past two years.
Table 1
Publications Included in Systematic Review
Publication
Focus of TIC definition
Broad domains of TIC identified
American Bar Association (ABA; 2014)
Courts
NA
Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children
Exposed to Violence (2012)
Whole system
NA
Feierman & Ford (2016)
Whole system
NA
Griffin et al. (2012)
Juvenile justice facilities
NA
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP;
2014)
Law enforcement
NA
National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice
& Technical Assistance Collaborative (NCMHJJ;
2015)
Probation/Diversion
programs
Leadership; Policy & procedures; Environment;
Engagement & involvement; Cross sector collaboration;
Intervention continuum; Funding strategies; Workforce
development; Quality assurance & evaluation
National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN;
2016)
Whole system
Policies & procedures; Screening; Clinical
assessment/Intervention; Programming & staff
education; Prevention & management of secondary
traumatic stress; Partnering with youth & families; Cross
system collaboration; Addressing disparities & diversity
National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges
(NCJFCJ; 2015)
Courts/Judges
NA
Pilnik & Kendall (2012)
Courts/Attorneys
NA
Rapp (2016)
Whole system
Governing/Leadership; Culture/Mission/Goals;
Programming; Staff/Personnel; System collaboration;
Policies; Physical environment; Monitoring/Evaluationa
aThese domains were adapted from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014)
TIC Definitions & Recommendations
The 10 publications included a total of 71 different practice or policy recommendations
representing 10 major principles or domains of trauma-informed practice for juvenile justice. We
further organized these 10 domains into three categories based on their level of focus: clinical
services, agency context, and system-level (see Table 2). For each of these domains, we

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 14
identified all of the specific trauma-informed practices or policies that were recommended and
how often they were recommended across the 10 definitions (see Table 3). The number of
recommendations included in these definitions ranged from four to 37 (M: 19.20, SD: 11.24). On
average, publications that defined TIC for the entire system included more recommendations (M:
25.67, SD: 9.50) compared to definitions of TIC intended for particular justice settings like
courts or law enforcement (M: 16.43, SD: 11.39).
Only eight of the 71 recommendations (11%) were included in the majority of definitions
(i.e., n > 6). These recommendations were: universal screening/assessment of youth for trauma-
related impairment; providing evidence-based, trauma-specific treatment; practices/policies that
address the needs of diverse groups of youth; access to social supports for youth and families;
prioritizing youth and family preferences for services; staff training; policies/procedures to
promote a safe environment; and eliminating or reducing harsh/coercive practices. More than
half of the recommendations (n = 39 or 55%) were included in only one or two definitions with
the remaining 24 recommendations (34%) included in three to five definitions.
Table 2
Core Domains of Trauma-Informed Care for Juvenile Justice
Area of Focus
Domains within this area
Clinical Services
1. Screening & assessment
2. Services & interventions
3. Cultural competence
Agency Context
4. Youth & family engagement/involvement
5. Workforce development & support
6. Promoting a safe agency environment
7. Agency policies, procedures, & leadership
System-level
8. Cross-system collaboration
9. System-level policies & procedures
10. Quality assurance & evaluation

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 15
Table 3
Recommended Trauma-Informed Practices and Policies for the Juvenile Justice System
Domain/Recommendations
Publications with this
recommendationa
nb
Domain 1: Screening/Assessment
1. Universal screening for trauma-related impairment (trauma exposure, PTSD) and comprehensive,
trauma-informed mental health assessments by a qualified clinician for youth who screen positive
1-4, 6-10
9
2. Use screening/assessment measures that are validated with diverse populations
1, 3, 8
3
3. Utilize screening/assessment measures that are validated with justice-involved youth
1, 6, 8
3
4. Use interviews over self-report measures to improve accurate identification of symptoms
7
1
5. Assessment should be used to monitor progress and evaluate client outcomes
7
1
6. Assessment must be completed without asking youth to repeat trauma stories in multiple interviews
10
1
Recommended areas to screen/assess:
 Trauma exposure
2, 4, 7, 8, 10
5
 PTSD symptoms
4, 7, 8
3
 Relationship between PTSD symptoms and criminogenic risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) factors
8
1
 Callous-unemotional traits
2
1
 Commercial sexual exploitation (CSEC)
1
1
 Family members’ information and history
10
1
 Co-occurring mental health/SUD problems
8
1
 Attachment failures
10
1
Domain 2: Services & Interventions
7. Evidence-based trauma-specific treatment should be widely available/accessible to youth & families
1-4, 6-10
9
8. Offer treatment in community-based settings as well as juvenile detention/correctional facilities
3, 7, 8, 10
4
9. Provide a continuum of trauma-informed interventions (brief interventions to intensive treatment)
7, 8, 10
3
10. Services that teach youth self-regulation skills
3, 4, 8
3
11. Strengths-based framework
1, 4, 8
3
12. Develop trauma-informed safety plans (triggers, warning signs, coping strategies) with all youth affected
by trauma
7, 8
2
13. Integrate TIC principles into all services (mental health, substance use, medical)
3, 8
2
Domain 3: Cultural Competence
14. Practices and policies should address the needs of diverse groups of youth and avoid/reduce disparities
related to race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, developmental level, and SES
1-3, 8-10
6
15. Provide gender-specific/responsive interventions and programs
2, 3, 8
3
16. Tailor services for LGBTQ youth
2, 3, 8
3
17. Tailor services to the age/developmental level of youth
7, 8
2
18. Trauma-informed services for commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC)
1, 2
2
19. Create small, family style group living facilities for pregnant and parenting girls
2
1
Domain 4: Youth & Family Engagement/Involvement
20. Prioritize youth and family preferences for services
3, 6-10
6
21. Provide youth and families with access to positive social support from people of similar backgrounds
(e.g., mentors, peer advocates)
2, 3, 6-8, 10
6
22. Provide education/service referrals to address parent/caregiver trauma and its impact on the family
system
1, 3, 7, 8
4
23. Involve youth & families in agency planning (advisory boards, routinely collecting feedback on
services)
6-8, 10
4
24. Provide tangible resources to reduce barriers to engagement and partnering (bus pass, child care, etc.)
8
1
Domain 5: Workforce Development & Support
25. Training for all staff to increase their understanding of trauma
1-10
10
26. Ongoing supervision to ensure that staff implement new approaches with fidelity
3, 7
2
27. Training for new hires and refresher trainings
8
1
Recommended topics for training:
 Trauma-informed care principles/practices
1, 4, 7-10
6
 Impact of trauma on youth development & behavior
1, 5-8
5
 Skills for working with trauma-affected youth (i.e., identifying & responding to youth trauma
reactions)
3, 5, 7, 8, 10
5
 Recognize the signs and triggers for traumatic stress reactions
6-9
4
 Family engagement/empowerment strategies
3, 5, 7, 10
4
 Ways that juvenile justice involvement can be triggering or re-traumatizing for youth
4, 5, 7
3
 Trauma-informed treatments/services available in the local community/justice system
5, 6, 9
3
 Trauma screening
6, 9
2
 Making appropriate referrals to services
3, 5
2
 Impact of trauma on youth delinquency
7, 8
2
 Adolescent development
5, 10
2
 Specialized Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training for law enforcement
5
1
 Family dynamics
10
1
 Culturally competent care with special populations
2
1
 Parenting skills
10
1

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 16
Domain/Recommendations
Publications with this
recommendationa
nb
28. Address traumatic stress reactions among front-line staff (PTSD, secondary/vicarious trauma)
1, 6-8, 10
5
29. Education/training to increase staff awareness of the symptoms and causes of staff traumatic stress
1, 6-8, 10
5
30. Discuss staff traumatic stress/wellness in supervision and/or team meetings
1, 7, 8, 10
4
31. Employee Assistance Programs or referral to outside therapist for counseling to address traumatic stress
7, 8, 10
3
32. Teach staff strategies for preventing traumatic stress (self-care, emotion regulation skills)
8, 10
2
33. Develop procedure for de-briefing with staff following work-related events that are potentially traumatic
(e.g., youth killed, youth or staff assaulted)
7, 8
2
34. Consult with outside expert on addressing staff traumatic stress within the organization
1
1
35. Create co-worker support opportunities (e.g., peer support groups onsite in agency)
1
1
36. Employee recognition (i.e., reinforce staff success)
7
1
37. Create agency climate that says seeking help is a sign of strength, not weakness
7
1
38. Routinely collect feedback from staff/involve them in agency decision-making
10
1
39. Increase staff salaries to increase staff retention (i.e., to provide stability/consistency for youth)
10
1
Domain 6: Promoting a Safe Agency Environment
40. Policies/procedures promote a physically and psychologically safe environment for youth/families and
staff
3, 4, 6-8, 10
6
41. Restrict/eliminate harsh or coercive practices (e.g., seclusion, physical restraint, shackling, strip
searches)
1-3, 8-10
6
42. Promote respectful youth-staff interactions
3, 4, 6, 7
4
43. Minimize youth exposure to violence or threats from other youth or staff
3, 7, 8
3
44. Physical environment is calming, welcoming, and therapeutic
6, 7, 10
3
45. Transparent communication with youth/families about agency rules, their rights, and grievance process
2, 7, 10
3
46. Structure and predictability (consistent schedule, youth informed in advance of changes)
4
1
47. Ensure adequate security in the agency (lighting, cameras, security staff)
7
1
48. Use trauma-informed/positive behavior management strategies or systems
4
1
49. Create specialized crisis interventions teams
5
1
50. Facilities need private rooms for youth who do not feel safe or comfortable sharing a room at night
10
1
51. Eliminate uniforms
10
1
Domain 7: Agency Policies, Procedures, & Leadership
52. Incorporate trauma-informed principles into all aspects of agency operations (mission statement, written
policies, protocols, procedures)
7, 8, 10
3
53. System/agency leadership must embrace a trauma-informed approach and build it into the organizational
value system and operational environment
6, 7
2
54. Create a task force to lead trauma-informed care initiative with staff from different departments and
roles
7
1
Domain 8: Cross-System Collaboration
55. Collaborate with other systems/providers to coordinate care for youth with multi-system involvement
1, 5, 7, 8, 10
5
56. Work with community stakeholders to ensure that trauma-informed services are available in all child
service systems to address the impact of trauma before youth come into contact with justice system
3, 5, 7, 8
4
57. Establish information sharing agreements with other systems or providers that serve justice-involved
youth
7, 8
2
Domain 9: Systems-level Policies & Procedures
58. Policies/procedures to minimize justice involvement whenever possible (divert youth to community,
keep youth in least restrictive environment, and/or limit transfer to adult court)
2, 3, 5, 8, 9
5
59. Policies to require that a youths’ trauma history is used to connect them to services or limit juvenile
justice involvement and cannot be used against a youth in court (i.e., as aggravating factor, protection
against self-incrimination during court-mandated assessments)
3, 7-9
4
60. Policy/Legislation to promote the adoption of TIC by juvenile justice agencies/systems
3, 7, 9
3
61. Guarantee legal representation for all trauma-exposed youth accused of a crime
2, 8
2
62. Policies to prevent youth from entering status offense or juvenile justice system because of abuse or
neglect (e.g., ran away from abusive home, assaulted an abusive parent in self-defense)
3, 9
2
63. Appoint independent monitors to ensure that youth in facilities are safe and receiving appropriate
services
2, 3
2
64. Legislation to ensure that commercially sexually exploited children are treated as victims, not criminals
1, 2
1
65. School discipline policies to keep kids in school rather than driving them to justice system
2
1
66. Revise mission of juvenile justice to focus on rehabilitation/safety rather than a corrections mission
10
1
Domain 10: Quality Assurance & Evaluation
67. Conduct evaluations and focus on quality improvement
3, 7, 10
3
68. Assess effectiveness of trauma-informed services/youth outcomes
3, 7
2
69. Monitor for racial disparities/cultural disparities in access to and benefit from trauma-informed services
3, 7
2
70. Assess fidelity to evidence-based/trauma-informed practices
7
1
71. Assess whether juvenile justice services are being used for youth and families who could benefit from
voluntary or preventive services and may not need system involvement at all
3
1
a1-ABA, 2-Attorney General’s Task Force, 3-Feierman & Ford, 4-Griffin et al., 5-IACP, 6-NCJFCJ, 7-NCMHJJ, 8-NCTSN, 9-Pilnik & Kendall,
10-Rapp.

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 17
bTotal number of publications that included this recommendation
Clinical Services Recommendations
Domain 1: Screening & assessment. All but one of the publications called for universal
screening of youth offenders for trauma-related impairment followed by a comprehensive mental
health assessment for youth who screen positive. A smaller number of publications included
recommendations about what to screen or assess for (e.g., trauma exposure and/or PTSD
symptoms). Only three publications called for the use of assessment tools that have been
validated with youth in the juvenile justice system.
Domain 2: Services & interventions. All but one of the publications called for justice
systems to make evidence-based, trauma-specific mental health interventions widely available to
youth and families involved with the system. Seven different recommendations were given
regarding specific services, most commonly offering trauma-specific services to youth in both
community-based juvenile justice agencies and detention/correctional facilities (n = 4).
Domain 3: Cultural competence. Seven publications recommended policies, procedures,
and clinical services/programming that address the needs of diverse groups of youth and avoid or
reduce disparities related to race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, developmental level, and
socioeconomic status. Over half (n = 6) of the publications included recommendations for
gender-responsive/specific programming to meet the needs of girls involved in the justice
system. Three publications called for services to be tailored for LGBTQ youth.
Agency Context Recommendations
Domain 4: Youth & family engagement/involvement. Six publications included
recommendations around promoting youth and family engagement with the justice system.
Seven publications recommended that agencies/systems provide access to social supports for

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 18
youth and families. Other common recommendations within this area included: prioritizing youth
and family preferences during service planning (n = 6), involving youth/family members in
systems evaluation or planning efforts (n = 4), and providing education and/or service referrals to
address caregiver trauma and its impact on the family system (n = 4).
Domain 5: Workforce development & support. Staff training on trauma was identified as a
core element of TIC in all 10 publications, making it the only unanimous recommendation. A
total of 15 different training topics were recommended across the 10 publications. The most
frequently recommended topics for training were: trauma-informed care principles or practices
(n = 6), specific skills for working with trauma survivors (n = 5), and the impact of trauma on
youth development/behavior (n = 5). Five publications recommended agency or system-wide
efforts to address work-related traumatic stress reactions among front-line staff. Nine different
strategies were identified, most commonly staff education on the signs and causes of work-
related PTSD (n = 5) and discussion of work stressors in supervision or team meetings (n = 4).
Domain 6: Promoting a safe agency environment. Six of the publications identified
policies and procedures to promote a sense of physical and psychological safety among youth,
families, and staff as a core component of TIC. The most common recommendations for creating
a safe environment were: restricting/eliminating the use of harsh or coercive practices that may
trigger or re-traumatize youth (n = 6) and promoting respectful youth-staff interactions (n = 4).
Domain 7: Agency policies, procedures, & leadership. Three publications recommended
that juvenile justice agencies or systems institutionalize their commitment to TIC by embedding
principles of trauma-informed care into their written policies and procedures. Additionally, two
publications recommended that agency leadership embrace a trauma-informed approach and
build into the organizational value system.

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 19
System-Level Recommendations
Domain 8: Cross-system collaboration. Five publications called for cross-system
collaboration in order to coordinate care with other service systems or providers that work with
youth offenders. Four of these definitions recommended working with other community
stakeholders to ensure that trauma-informed services/care is available throughout all local child
service systems. Additionally, two publications recommended that juvenile justice establish
information-sharing agreements with other service systems/providers to facilitate coordination of
care for youth involved with multiple systems.
Domain 9: System-level policies & procedures. Five publications recommended system-
level policies to minimize youth contact with juvenile justice and/or keep them in the least
restrictive environment. Four publications recommended policies to ensure that information
about a youth’s trauma history is used to connect them with services and is never used against
them in court. Three publications called for policies to promote the adoption of TIC within
juvenile justice.
Domain 10: Quality assurance & evaluation. Three publications called for ongoing data
collection to evaluate the process and impact of implementing TIC. Recommended areas of focus
for such efforts included youth outcomes (n = 2) and monitoring for racial/ethnic disparities in
access to TIC and outcomes (n = 2). Notably, only one publication called for ongoing monitoring
of staff fidelity to trauma-informed interventions/practices.
Discussion
The current study, to our knowledge, represents the first systematic review of the literature
on existing definitions of the core components and practices or policies that comprise trauma-

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 20
informed care (TIC) for the juvenile justice system. Findings reveal that the bulk of the extant
literature consists of studies examining trauma’s impact on youth offenders and theoretical
papers outlining the rationale for trauma-informed juvenile justice systems with a far smaller
number of publications (10 of the 950 records reviewed or 1%) that actually define the core
components of TIC. The 10 publications included definitions/recommendations for the whole
system as well as for all major settings/professions within juvenile justice (law enforcement,
courts, probation/diversion, correctional/detention facilities). The overarching theme of our
review is that the literature offers relative consensus around the core domains but less agreement
on the key practices or policies that comprise a trauma-informed approach for juvenile justice.
One clear theme is that further refinement of the definition is necessary.
The 10 publications included in the current review yielded a total of 71 different
recommendations. While this is a large number that includes a diverse range of practices and
policies, we were able to identify 10 broad domains of TIC (e.g., promoting a safe agency
environment, workforce development/support) that encompass all of the recommendations.
Furthermore, these domains are largely consistent with those found in definitions of TIC for
other service systems (Hopper et al., 2010; Raja et al., 2015). This suggests a reasonable level of
conceptual coherence around the core domains of a trauma-informed juvenile justice system.
However, we found much less agreement around the specific interventions or policies that were
identified as essential components of TIC for juvenile justice. Only 8 of the 71 recommended
practices or policies (11%) were included in the majority of publications, while most
recommendations (n = 39 or 55%) were included in only one or two publications. This suggests
that more work is needed to translate the broader domains of TIC into particular interventions or

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 21
policies, which is also the case for efforts to define TIC in other child service systems (e.g., Wall
et al., 2016).
Another key gap in the extant literature is the limited discussion of how to implement
particular practices or policies and the potential barriers at the agency or systems-level. For
example, while there is unanimous agreement that all staff should undergo training on trauma,
there was much less consensus around the specific areas that training should cover. Fifteen
different content areas for training were proposed, ranging from understanding the impact of
trauma on youth development to family engagement strategies. Surprisingly, just over half of the
publications (6 of 10) recommended training in specific skills for working effectively with
traumatized youth. Teaching front-line staff to recognize when youth are experiencing a trauma
reaction will have little impact on youth-staff interactions unless it is supplemented with training
in specific skills for responding to such situations (e.g., trauma-informed de-escalation or
engagement strategies). Additionally, only one of the publications discussed the need for
ongoing supervision to assist staff in mastering and applying newly learned knowledge or skills
to their work, an important omission given that training alone has been shown ineffective in
helping staff achieve fidelity to evidence-based practices (Beidas & Kendall, 2010). The 10
publications that we reviewed represent the most detailed, published recommendations for TIC
in juvenile justice, yet they rarely addressed such nuances. One exception is the National Center
for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice’s (2015) report on creating trauma-informed juvenile
diversion programs, which identified implementation issues in several areas (e.g., interventions,
funding, quality assurance) and illustrated with real-world case examples.
Notably, only five publications recommended agency-level efforts to prevent work-related
traumatic stress among front-line staff, which is consistently identified as a core component of

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 22
TIC in definitions for other service systems (Hopper et al., 2010). This is a troubling omission
given that work-related traumatic stress symptoms are prevalent and associated with impaired
job performance among front-line staff (e.g., attorneys, probation/ correctional officers, law
enforcement) in the justice system (Denhof & Spinaris, 2013; Levin et al., 2011; Skogstad et al.,
2013). Additionally, several groups of justice system professionals have expressed their desire
for greater organizational support around these matters (Donisch et al., 2016; Knowlton, 2015;
Severson & Pettus-Davis, 2013).
Future Directions for Research
The final aim of the current review was to propose directions for future research in order to
develop a consensus-based definition of TIC for juvenile justice. We identified just 10
publications from a small number of stakeholders and it is unclear whether their views on the
core components of TIC are representative of the larger field of juvenile justice professionals.
Accordingly, we recommend surveys with nationally-representative samples of front-line staff
and system administrators to explore their perceptions of the core components of TIC. It would
also be useful to assess how widely each of these practices has been adopted in juvenile justice
systems across the country. Hanson and Lang (2016) recently published the findings of a similar
survey of providers from multiple service systems, including juvenile justice, and noted the
dearth of published research focused on defining or validating the core concepts of TIC.
A key question emanating from this review is which, if any, of these various
recommendations will contribute to positive outcomes for the juvenile justice system. The
answer requires a careful examination of published empirical studies to determine which
practices or policies, currently in use, produce meaningful improvement in outcomes for youth,
their families, staff, and the broader agency environment. Additionally, prospective studies are

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 23
needed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different trauma-informed practices or
policies. For example, Borckardt et al. (2011) examined the effectiveness of four TIC
components (staff training, policy changes, modifications to physical environment, client-
centered treatment planning) for reducing the use of seclusion and physical restraint in inpatient
psychiatric hospital settings by randomly assigning five inpatient units to implement these
components in different order. Such research can help refine the core definitional elements that
should comprise a unified theory of TIC for juvenile justice.
Limitations
The primary limitation of the current study was our approach to coding, categorizing, and
describing the definitions/recommendations for TIC. Although we followed established
guidelines for systematic reviews (Shamseer et al., 2015), there are different approaches we
could have taken to our narrative synthesis of the findings. For example, we did not analyze, in
detail, the recommendations for particular TIC models, training curriculums, or interventions.
Additionally, our decisions around assigning recommendations to one of the 10 broader domains,
and even the number and names of these domains, were admittedly subjective. However, this is a
minor limitation as we were more interested in identifying specific recommended practices or
policies than broader domains or principles of a trauma-informed approach for juvenile justice.
Conclusions
The growth in recognition of the importance of trauma-informed care represents an
unprecedented opportunity to improve our nation’s juvenile justice system and dramatically
reduce the number of young lives damaged each year through harsh and ineffective responses to
youth crime. However, to maximize this opportunity it is necessary to first develop a consensus-
based understanding of what constitutes a trauma-informed approach within juvenile justice.

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 24
This process should be informed by all key stakeholders, as well as empirical evidence on the
impact of implementing particular practices and policies within the justice system.

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 25
References
Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., Charles, D. R., Longworth, S. L., McClelland, G. M., & Dulcan,
M. K. (2004). Posttraumatic stress disorder and trauma in youth in juvenile detention.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 403-410. Doi:10.1001/archpsyc.61.4.403
American Association of Children’s Residential Centers. (2014). Trauma-informed care in
residential treatment. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 31, 97–104.
doi:10.1080/0886571X.2014.918429
*American Bar Association. (2014). ABA policy on trauma-informed advocacy for children and
youth. Chicago: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/child_law/ABA Policy on
Trauma-Informed Advocacy.authcheckdam.pdf
*Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. (2012). Defending
childhood: Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to
Violence. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved from
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full.pdf
Beidas, R. S., & Kendall, P. C. (2010). Training therapists in evidence-based practice: A critical
review of studies from a systems-contextual perspective. Clinical Psychology: Science and
Practice, 17, 1–30. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01187.x
Black, P. J., Woodworth, M., Tremblay, M., & Carpenter, T. (2012). A review of trauma-
informed treatment for adolescents. Canadian Psychology, 53, 192-203.
doi:10.1037/a0028441
Borckardt, J. J., Madan, A., Grubaugh, A. L., Danielson, C. K., Pelic, C. G., Hardesty, S. J., …
Frueh, B. C. (2011). Systematic investigation of initiatives to reduce seclusion and restraint
in a state psychiatric hospital. Psychiatric Services, 62, 477–483.
doi:10.1176/appi.ps.62.5.477
Burrell, S. (2013). Trauma and the environment of care in juvenile institutions. Los Angeles, CA
and Durham, NC: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress. Retrieved from
http://www.nctsn.org/resources/topics/juvenile-justice-system
Cauffman, E., Monahan, K. C., & Thomas, A. G. (2015). Pathways to persistence: Female
offending from 14 to 25. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 1, 236–
268. doi:10.1007/s40865-015-0016-z
Chamberlain, J., & Miller, M. K. (2008). Stress in the courtroom: Call for research. Psychiatry,
Psychology and Law, 15, 237–250. doi:10.1080/13218710802014485
Crosby, S. D. (2016). Trauma-informed approaches to juvenile justice: A critical race
perspective. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 67, 5–18. doi:10.1111/jfcj.12052
DeHart, D. D., & Moran, R. (2015). Poly-victimization among girls in the justice system:
Trajectories of risk and associations to juvenile offending. Violence Against Women, 21,
291–312. doi:10.1177/1077801214568355

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 26
Denhof, M. D., & Spinaris, C. G. (2013). Depression, PTSD, and comorbidity in United States
corrections professionals: Prevalence and impact on health. Florence, CO: Desert Waters
Correctional Outreach. Retrieved from http://desertwaters.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/Comorbidity_Study_6-18-13.pdf
Dierkhising, C. B., Ko, S., & Goldman, J. H. (2013). Trauma-informed juvenile justice
roundtable: Current issues and new directions in creating trauma-informed juvenile justice
systems. Los Angeles, CA and Durham, NC: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress.
Retrieved from http://www.nctsn.org/resources/topics/juvenile-justice-system
Dierkhising, C. B., Lane, A., & Natsuaki, M. N. (2014). Victims behind bars: A preliminary
study of abuse during juvenile incarceration and post-release social and emotional
functioning. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 181–190. doi:10.1037/law0000002
Donisch, K., Bray, C., & Gewirtz, A. (2016). Child welfare, juvenile justice, mental health, and
education providers’ conceptualizations of trauma-informed practice. Child Maltreatment,
21, 125-134. doi:10.1177/1077559516633304
Elliott, D. E., Bjelajac, P., Fallot, R. D., Markoff, L. S., & Reed, B. G. (2005). Trauma-informed
or trauma-denied: Principles and implementation of trauma-informed services for women.
Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 461–477. doi:10.1002/jcop.20063
Federal Partners Committee on Women and Trauma. (2013). Trauma-informed approaches:
Federal activities and initiatives. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://static.nicic.gov/Library/027657.pdf
Feierman, J., & Fine, L. (2014). Trauma and resilience: A new look at legal advocacy for youth
in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law Center.
Retrieved from http://www.jlc.org/resources/publications/trauma-and-resilience
*Feierman, J., & Ford, J. D. (2016). Trauma-informed juvenile justice systems and approaches.
In K. Heilbrun (Ed.), APA handbook of psychology and juvenile justice. (pp. 545–573).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14643-025
Ford, J. D. (2012). Posttraumatic stress disorder among youth involved in juvenile justice. In E.
L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Handbook of juvenile forensic psychology and psychiatry (pp. 485–
501). Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0905-2_31
Ford, J. D., Chapman, J., Mack, J. M., & Pearson, G. (2006). Pathways from traumatic child
victimization to delinquency: Implications for juvenile and permanency court proceedings
and decisions. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 57, 13–26. doi:10.1111/j.1755-
6988.2006.tb00111
Ford, J. D., Hartman, K., Hawke, J., & Chapman, J. F. (2008). Traumatic victimization,
posttraumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse risk among juvenile
justice-involved youth. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 1, 75-92.
doi:10.1080/19361520801934456

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 27
Geller, A., Fagan, J., Tyler, T., & Link, B. G. (2014). Aggressive policing and the mental health
of young urban men. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 2321–2327.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302046
*Griffin, G., Germain, E. J., & Wilkerson, R. G. (2012). Using a trauma-informed approach in
juvenile justice institutions. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 5, 271–283.
doi:10.1080/19361521.2012.697100
Hanson, R. F., & Lang, J. (2016). A critical look at trauma-informed care among agencies and
systems serving maltreated youth and their families. Child Maltreatment, 21, 95–100.
doi:10.1177/1077559516635274
Harris, M., & Fallot, R. D. (2001). Envisioning a trauma-informed service system: A vital
paradigm shift. New Directions for Mental Health Services, 2001, 3–22.
doi:10.1002/yd.23320018903
Haynie, D. L., Petts, R. J., Maimon, D., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). Exposure to violence in
adolescence and precocious role exits. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 269–286.
doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9343-2
Hopper, E. K., Bassuk, E. L., & Olivet, J. (2010). Shelter from the storm: Trauma-informed care
in homelessness services settings. The Open Health Services and Policy Journal, 3, 80–100.
doi:10.2174/1874924001003020080
Igelman, R. S., Ryan, B. E., Gilbert, A. M., Bashant, J. C., & North, K. (2008). Best practices for
serving traumatized children and families. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 59, 35–48.
doi:10.1111/j.1755-6988.2008.00020.x
*International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2014). Law enforcement’s leadership role in
juvenile justice reform: Actionable recommendations for practice & policy. Alexandria,
VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.theiacp.org/jjsummitreport
Kerig, P. K. (2013). Trauma-informed assessment and intervention. Los Angeles, CA and
Durham, NC: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress. Retrieved from
http://www.nctsn.org/resources/topics/juvenile-justice-system
Kerig, P. K., & Becker, S. P. (2010). From internalizing to externalizing: Theoretical models of
the processes linking PTSD to juvenile delinquency. In S. J. Egan (Ed.), Posttraumatic
stress disorder (PTSD): Causes, symptoms and treatment (pp. 33–78). Hauppauge, NY:
Nova Science Publishers.
Knowlton, N. A. (2015). The modern family court judge: Knowledge, qualities, and skills for
success. Family Court Review, 53, 203–216. doi:10.1111/fcre.12144
Ko, S. J., Ford, J. D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S. J., Wilson, C., Wong, M., … Layne, C.
M. (2008). Creating trauma-informed systems: Child welfare, education, first responders,
health care, juvenile justice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 396–404.
doi:10.1037/0735-7028.39.4.396

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 28
Kunst, M. J. J. (2011). Working in prisons: A critical review of stress in the occupation of
correctional officers. In J. Langan-Fox & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of stress in the
occupations (pp. 241–283). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Lacey, C. (2013). Racial disparities and the juvenile justice system: A legacy of trauma. Los
Angeles, CA and Durham, NC: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress. Retrieved from
http://www.nctsn.org/resources/topics/juvenile-justice-system
Levin, A. P., Albert, L., Besser, A., Smith, D., Zelenski, A., Rosenkranz, S., & Neria, Y. (2011).
Secondary traumatic stress in attorneys and their administrative support staff working with
trauma-exposed clients. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199, 946-955.
doi:10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182392c26
McLaughlin, K. A., Green, J. G., Gruber, M. J., Sampson, N. A., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Kessler,
R. C. (2012). Childhood adversities and first onset of psychiatric disorders in a national
sample of US adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 69, 1151–1160.
doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.2277
Miller, E. A., Green, A. E., Fettes, D. L., & Aarons, G. A. (2011). Prevalence of maltreatment
among youths in public sectors of care. Child Maltreatment, 16, 196–204.
doi:10.1177/1077559511415091
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. (2005). NASMHPD position
statement on services and supports to trauma survivors. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files/NASMHPD TRAUMA Positon
statementFinal.pdf
National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. (n.d.). What constitutes trauma-informed
services within juvenile justice systems? Retrieved from
http://cfc.ncmhjj.com/resources/trauma- among-youth-in-the-juvenile-justice-system/what-
constitutes-trauma-informed-services-within-juvenile-justice-systems/
*National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, & Technical Assistance Collaborative.
(2015). Strengthening our future: Key elements to developing a trauma-informed juvenile
justice diversion program for youth with behavioral health conditions. Delmar, NY: Policy
Research Associates, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.ncmhjj.com/strengthening-our-future/
*National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (2016). Essential elements of a trauma-informed
juvenile justice system. Los Angeles, CA and Durham, NC: National Center for Child
Traumatic Stress. Retrieved from
http://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/assets/pdfs/jj_ee_final.pdf
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (n.d.). Trauma informed system of care.
Retrieved from http://www.ncjfcj.org/our-work/trauma-informed-system-care
*National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2015). Trauma-informed juvenile and
family courts. NCJFCJ Resolution. Reno, NV: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/Resolution Trauma Informed Courts_July2015.pdf

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 29
National Prevention Council. (2011). National prevention strategy. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General. Retrieved from
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/priorities/prevention/strategy/report.pdf
Palinkas, L. A. (2014). Qualitative and mixed methods in mental health services and
implementation research. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 43, 851–861.
doi:10.1080/15374416.2014.910791
*Pilnik, L., & Kendall, J. R. (2012). Victimization and trauma experienced by children and
youth: Implications for legal advocates (Issue Brief No. 7). North Bethesda, MD: U.S.
Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/safestart/IB7_
VictimizationTrauma_LegalAdvocates.pdf
Rainville, C. (2015). Understanding secondary trauma: A guide for lawyers working with child
victims. ABA Child Law Practice, 34, 133–136. Retrieved from www.childlawpractice.org
Raja, S., Hasnain, M., Hoersch, M., Gove-Yin, S., & Rajagopalan, C. (2015). Trauma informed
care in medicine: Current knowledge and future research directions. Family & Community
Health, 38, 216–226. doi:10.1097/FCH.0000000000000071
*Rapp, L. (2016). Delinquent-victim youth—Adapting a trauma-informed approach for the
juvenile justice system. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1080/23761407.2016.1166844
Rozzell, L. (2013). The role of family engagement in creating trauma-informed juvenile justice
systems. Los Angeles, CA and Durham, NC: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress.
Retrieved from http://www.nctsn.org/resources/topics/juvenile-justice-system
Severson, M., & Pettus-Davis, C. (2013). Parole officers’ experiences of the symptoms of
secondary trauma in the supervision of sex offenders. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 5–24. doi:10.1177/0306624X11422696
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., … the PRISMA-P
Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. British Medical Journal, 350, g7647.
doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647
Sickmund, M. (2016). NCJFCJ resolution regarding trauma-informed juvenile and family courts.
Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 67, 49–52. doi:10.1111/jfcj.12054
Skogstad, M., Skorstad, M., Lie, A., Conradi, H. S., Heir, T., & Weisæth, L. (2013). Work-
related post-traumatic stress disorder. Occupational Medicine, 63, 175–182.
doi:10.1093/occmed/kqt003
Stewart, M. (2013). Cross-system collaboration. Los Angeles, CA and Durham, NC: National
Center for Child Traumatic Stress. Retrieved from
http://www.nctsn.org/resources/topics/juvenile-justice-system
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of
trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-

TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS 30
4884. Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA14-
4884/SMA14-4884.pdf
Wall, L., Higgins, D., & Hunter, C. (2016). Trauma-informed care in child/family welfare
services. Melbourne, VIC Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/trauma-informed-care-child-family-welfare-services
Wasserman, G. A., & McReynolds, L. S. (2011). Contributors to traumatic exposure and
posttraumatic stress disorder in juvenile justice youths. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24,
422–429. doi:10.1002/jts.20664
Willms, D. G., Best, J. A., Taylor, D. W., Gilbert, J. R., Wilson, M. C., Lindsay, E. A., & Singer,
J. (1990). A systematic approach for using qualitative methods in primary prevention
research. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 4, 391–409.
Wolff, K. T., Baglivio, M. T., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). The relationship between adverse
childhood experiences and recidivism in a sample of juvenile offenders in community-based
treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 1–
33. doi:10.1177/0306624X15613992