Justice for All: Trauma and the Need for Safety and Fairness Within Juvenile Justice Facilities

Abstract

Many adolescents in the juvenile justice system have been exposed to trauma, which has been linked with negative outcomes that may lead to ineffective adjustment while incarcerated. Trauma may decrease a youth’s feelings of fairness and safety, which may increase misconduct. The present study examined the relationship between post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, perceptions of fairness and safety, and rates of institutional misconduct in a subsample of youth (n = 386) who participated in the Pathways to Desistance study. A serial multiple mediation model found that PTSD symptoms were not significantly associated with perceptions of fairness, safety, or institutional misconduct. Relationships were found between perceptions of fairness and safety, and between perceptions of safety and institutional misconduct. Results also indicated differences in perceptions of fairness and safety based on gender, age, and ethnicity. Perceptions of fairness and safety may be an avenue for intervention to improve adjustment within the juvenile justice system.

Keywords

trauma juvenile misconduct adolescence aggression PTSD perceptions juvenile offenders delinquency juvenile justice

Traumatic experiences occurring in childhood and adolescence are an unfortunate and common reality, particularly among justice-involved youth. In a nationally representative U.S. sample, 70% of minors had experienced at least one type of victimization in the past year; almost two thirds experienced more than one (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007). Rates of exposure to potentially traumatic events may be as high as 92.5% in youth in the juvenile justice system (Abram et al., 2004), with one study finding that two thirds of detained youth had experienced two or more potentially traumatic events (Ford, Elhai, Connor, & Frueh, 2010). Research that prospectively follows maltreated children indicates a link between trauma and delinquency (e.g., Ryan & Testa, 2005).

Despite the high rates of trauma-related symptoms in juvenile justice populations and the known developmental consequences of traumatic experiences, these symptoms are often overlooked as a cause of behavioral problems in incarcerated youth. There is initial evidence that youth with high levels of trauma engage in more institutional misconduct (DeLisi et al., 2010), which may be related to their unique perceptions and behavioral tendencies (e.g., Ford, Chapman, Connor, & Cruise, 2012). Among the various sequelae of trauma, perceptions of fairness and safety are two specific cognitions that may affect behavior in institutional settings and thus may present a possible point of intervention. The current study examined the relationships between post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, perceived safety and fairness, and misconduct in a sample of youth in institutional settings.

Impact of Trauma

Youth with a trauma history are at risk for a wide variety of intersecting emotional, biological, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes. A history of trauma has been found to increase the likelihood that a child or adolescent will have deficits in the ability to accurately recognize emotions (e.g., Luke & Banerjee, 2013). Traumatized children may be particularly attuned to angry facial cues and more likely to perceive ambiguous facial expressions as angry (e.g., Pollak & Tolley-Schell, 2003). These differences in emotional perception increase the risk of acting out due to misperceived threat. Brain regions related to fight or flight respond rapidly in individuals who have been conditioned to be in a constant state of arousal due to trauma (e.g., van der Kolk, 2003), which is often paired with a hyporesponsive prefrontal cortex. As a result, individuals exposed to trauma may have reduced ability to quickly and effectively downregulate emotional responses and integrate contextual factors other than threat (e.g., Lanius, Bluhm, & Frewen, 2011). This increases the likelihood that a traumatized individual will act impulsively in an attempt to protect themselves from the perceived threat (Ford et al., 2012; Lanius et al., 2011).

Youth exposed to violence commonly demonstrate preoccupation with danger and perceive neutral stimuli as threatening (e.g., Bradshaw, Rodgers, Ghandour, & Garbarino, 2009) and increased hyperarousal and hypervigilance (e.g., Bradshaw & Garbarino, 2004), which may increase the risk of aggressive or antisocial acts. Violent victimization is particularly associated with greater hostile attribution bias and approval of the use of aggression to respond to threat (Shahinfar, Kupersmidt, & Matza, 2001). Trauma also increases the likelihood of maladaptive thinking patterns, which may be related to mistrust and lowered perceptions of safety (McCann, Sakheim, & Abrahamson, 1988; Owens, Chard, & Cox, 2008). Taken together, perceptions of fairness and safety are two cognitions that may be particularly relevant among those with PTSD.

Perceptions of Fairness

In Shattered Assumptions Theory, Janoff-Bulman (1992) theorized that with nurturance and attunement by caregivers, individuals form core assumptions about the world and themselves, which shape how they perceive and remember events. After a trauma, these core assumptions may be disrupted such that an individual is more likely to negatively interpret new information and react accordingly (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). Adult offenders with a trauma history have been shown to have a decreased sense of fairness and safety (e.g., Maschi & Gibson, 2012). As core assumptions are being developed in childhood, early trauma may be particularly harmful, as children have limited alternate experiences to contrast the trauma and to help them rebuild these shattered assumptions (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that early interpersonal trauma may have a greater impact on core assumptions than other traumatic events (e.g., Lilly, Valdez, & Graham-Bermann, 2011).

Perceptions of Fairness and Antisocial Behavior

Perceptions of fairness at different phases of juvenile justice involvement may have different effects on behavior. Research on the impact of adolescents’ perceptions of fairness and procedural justice during adjudication has found either no impact on self-reported offending in the community (Fagan & Piquero, 2007) or time-limited effects (Penner, Viljoen, Douglas, & Roesch, 2014). Kaasa, Malloy, and Cauffman (2008) found that young males in the juvenile justice system who perceived their treatment by court officials as less fair had more institutional sanctions 2 weeks later; this is the only study available addressing the connection between perceptions of fairness and institutional misconduct. There is reason to expect a stronger effect of perceptions of fairness in the institutional setting than fairness during adjudication, as youth’s interactions with court officials are relatively limited and brief. In contrast, the impact of repeated interactions with institutional staff may have long-time effects. Negative interactions with institutional staff, as well as lower levels of institutional order, were significantly related to self-reported antisocial acts 1 year after release in the sample utilized by the current study, the Pathways to Desistance study (Mulvey, 2012; Schubert, Mulvey, Loughran, & Losoya, 2012). Although limited, findings to date point to the potentially unique impact of the institutional setting on adjustment and perceptions of fairness.

Perceptions of Safety

Perceived injustice may be related to later perceptions of safety. In one sample of female youth who offend, perceptions of injustice at adjudication were associated with greater anger and lower perceived safety in the institution as well as higher self-reported institutional sanctions, although effects differed across the incarceration period (Tatar, Kaasa, & Cauffman, 2012). In an adult male sample, those who perceived the institutional environment as more hostile and had been victimized while incarcerated were more likely than their counterparts to re-offend after release (Listwan, Sullivan, Agnew, Cullen, & Colvin, 2011). Blackburn and Trulson (2010) suggested that institutional misconduct may be a form of self-protection as a result of victimization or perceived threat; however, the study lacked information necessary to address this hypothesis.

Summary

Trauma’s impact on perceptions of fairness and safety may be particularly salient considerations for identifying appropriate treatment and management strategies for adolescents within institutional settings. Trauma-exposed youth selectively attend to aggressive cues and often overlook other situational factors (e.g., Bradshaw et al., 2009), and a traumatized adolescent may be more likely to reactively aggress in an attempt to protect against perceived threat (e.g., Ford et al., 2012). In addition, research suggests that trauma decreases perceptions of safety and fairness and that these perceptions increase the likelihood of antisocial behavior. Initial investigation suggests that perceptions of fairness may influence perceptions of safety (Tatar et al., 2012). It remains unclear to what extent these constructs interact with one another, particularly in juvenile institutional settings.

Current Study

A better understanding of the mechanisms that lead to institutional misconduct may allow interventions to be tailored to decrease thoughts and behaviors that place adolescents at risk for institutional misconduct, mental health symptoms, and recidivism upon release. This study explored the impact of trauma and perceptions of fairness and safety on institutional misconduct using data from the Pathways to Desistance study, a large longitudinal study of adolescents with serious charges. The current study tested the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Youth who are incarcerated and evidence trauma-related symptoms will report more institutional misconduct.

Hypothesis 2: Trauma-related symptoms will be associated with lower perceptions of fairness and safety within juvenile detention facilities.

Hypothesis 3: Lower levels of perceived fairness will be associated with lower perceptions of safety.

Hypothesis 4: Trauma-related symptoms will indirectly influence institutional misconduct through perceptions of fairness and perceptions of safety, sequentially.

Method

Participants

The current study used public and restricted archival data from the Pathways to Desistance study (Mulvey, 2012), a longitudinal study of serious adolescent offenders in Maricopa County, Arizona (n = 654), and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (n = 700). Access to the restricted data was granted after securing approval for the current study from Palo Alto University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Youth were eligible for the original study if they had been adjudicated or convicted of a serious offense, including all felony charges and specified misdemeanors (Schubert et al., 2004). For additional details regarding the full Pathways to Desistance sample and methods, please refer to Mulvey (2012) and Schubert et al. (2004).

The current investigation focused on participants placed in an institution within 1 year of the baseline interview (n = 410). The length of stay for these participants averaged 303.77 days (SD = 220.11), with a range from 6 days to over 6 years. By including only those subjects who were incarcerated within 1 year of the baseline interview, PTSD symptom assessment was relatively current with the incarceration period. The racial and ethnic composition of this subsample was 16.5% White, 29.4% African American, and 34.1% Hispanic. Participants who identified as Native American (2.2%, n = 9) or “other” (2%, n = 8) were excluded from the current analyses due to the small sample size. Of the remaining subset of youth who were incarcerated in the first year after baseline (n = 393), seven had not completed the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and thus were not included in the current analyses, resulting in a total sample of 386. No other inclusion or exclusion criteria were applied. This subset was primarily in Philadelphia (59%, n = 232) and was predominantly male (91.1%, n = 358). At the time of the release interview (described below), the participants were 14 to 19 years old (M = 16.01 years, SD = 1.18). Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured using the Index of Social Position (ISP). Possible scores on this measure range from 11 to 77, with higher scores indicating lower income and education of parents. In the absence of information regarding one of the parents, the ISP was computed based on the available parent (Mulvey, 2012). Scores in the current subsample ranged from 16.50 to 77.00 (M = 51.57, SD = 12.54).

Procedure

Recruitment for the original study began in 2000 and 8 years of follow-up data were available. In addition to the regularly scheduled time-point follow-up interviews, participants were asked to complete a “release interview” close to the time of release from any detention or residential facility (Schubert et al., 2004). The release interviews included questions regarding services the participant had access to or received and their perceptions of the institution. These interviews were completed within 30 days before or after release (Schubert et al., 2004). For more information on the data collection procedure, please refer to Schubert et al. (2004).

Materials

Demographics

For the current study, baseline data were used to identify participant ethnicity, race, gender, and parent SES. Information regarding age was collected from both baseline and release interviews. Dummy coding was used to examine potential differences in perceptions of safety and fairness across racial/ethnic groups. Dummy variables were created for “Caucasian” or “Hispanic” identification with African American youth as the reference category, as those identified as African American were the largest racial/ethnic group in the sample.

PTSD Symptoms

The CIDI (World Health Organization, 1990) was used to assess PTSD symptoms. The CIDI is a computerized structured clinical interview designed to assess current and lifetime presence of mental disorders based on International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994)¹ criteria (Kessler & Ustun, 2004). The current study used a continuous variable representing the count of PTSD symptoms ever present. Participants only answered questions about PTSD symptoms if they endorsed experiencing a potentially traumatic event as defined in the diagnostic criteria for PTSD in DSM-IV: experiencing, witnessing, or learning about actual or threatened death, serious injury, or threat to physical integrity that was responded to with intense fear, helplessness, or horror (APA, 2000). Among this subsample, symptom count ranged from 0 to 17 (M = 1.56, SD = 4.03).

Fairness and Safety

The constructs of fairness and safety were operationalized based on questions from the release interview (Mulvey, 2012). The questions were developed for the Pathways study rather than being derived from an existing, validated measure. More information about these items can be found in Mulvey, Schubert, and Odgers (2010).

The items that contribute to each scale used in the current analyses are rated based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The variable reflecting safety within the facility comprised the mean of six items (e.g., “I felt safe when a staff member was present,” “I was afraid to come here”), with two reverse-coded items. A higher score on this scale indicates greater feelings of safety (Mulvey, 2012). The Cronbach’s alpha for this variable has not been published by the Pathways investigators. Fairness (α = .52) comprises the mean of three items (e.g., “Most of the staff was pretty fair,” “The rules here were fair”), with a higher score indicating greater perceived fairness (Mulvey, 2012). Perceptions of safety and fairness within the institution each had a possible range from 1.00 to 5.00.

Institutional Misconduct

Institutional misconduct was measured by self-reported sanctions received while in the institution (e.g., “Number of times beaten up by staff,”² “Number of times lost privileges,” “Number of times had time added to your sentence”). Sanctions received were queried regarding four types of serious misconduct (stealing, fighting, disrespecting staff, trying to escape). The number of sanctions received endorsed by the participant was used as the measure of institutional misconduct and ranged from 0 to 8.

Data Analysis Plan

Descriptive statistics are provided for all variables of interest. Due to potential differences in perceptions of fairness and safety based on race, ethnicity, age, gender, and socioeconomic status, multiple linear regression was used to determine the relationship between these potential confounds and perceptions of fairness and safety. This analysis was used to identify variables that needed to be controlled for in later analyses.

To address the hypotheses, conditional process analysis using a serial multiple meditational model (see Figure 1) was conducted to determine whether perceptions of safety and/or fairness mediated the relationship between symptoms of PTSD and institutional sanctions. A regression analysis using the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) for SPSS was used to test the direct and indirect effects of the predictors. The PROCESS macro uses nonparametric bootstrapping to produce an unbiased 95% confidence interval of the indirect effect; repeated resampling with replacement was utilized with 1,000 random samples drawn to generate the confidence interval. This type of modeling does not assume a normal distribution, which increases the reliability of the results and decreases the likelihood of Type I error. Demographic variables that were associated with perceptions of fairness and safety (i.e., Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, gender, and age) were controlled for to explore the unique contribution of trauma-related symptoms on perceptions of fairness, safety, and rates of institutional sanctions.

Figure 1:

Serial Multiple Mediation Model Predicting Number of Institutional Sanctions

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 1. As expected, perceptions of fairness and safety are significantly positively correlated with each other and negatively correlated with institutional sanctions. Subject age, parental social position, gender, and ethnicity were significantly correlated with perceptions, although effect sizes were small.

Table 1:

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Perceptions of Safety, Perceptions of Fairness, Trauma-Related Symptoms, Institutional Sanctions and Demographic Variables

Variable	M (N)	SD (%)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Perceptions of safety	3.86	0.67	—
2. Perceptions of fairness	3.21	0.84	.40***	—
3. Trauma-related symptoms	1.60	4.03	−.13*	−.09	—		.
4. Institutional sanctions	3.18	1.87	−.22***	−.15**	.04	—
5. Parent index of social position	51.57	12.45	−.10*	−.08	.09	.10*	—
6. Subject age at baseline	16.01	1.18	−.10*	−.16**	−.09	−.09	−.09*	—
7. Gender: male	358	91.1	−.08	−.07	.07	−.06	−.13**	−.03	—
8. Ethnicity: Caucasian	65	16.5	.08	.04	−.01	.09	−.17***	−.09*	.08	—
9. Ethnicity: Hispanic	134	34.10	−.19***	−.09*	.08	.12*	−.35***	.03	−.06	−.32***	—

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Effects of Demographic Variables on Perceptions of Fairness and Safety

Perceptions of Safety

The regression model predicting perceptions of safety (Table 2) was significant, F(5, 385) = 4.62, p < .001, adjusted R² = .04. The proportion of variance accounted for was small (4%). Gender and ethnicity were significantly related to perceptions of safety. Specifically, females and those who identified as Hispanic or Latino endorsed lower perceived safety. Parent index of social position and age were not significant predictors.

Table 2:

Perceptions of Safety Regressed on Demographic Variables

Variable	B	SE (B)	β	t	p	95% CI
Parent index of social position	−.004	.003	−.08	−1.48	.139	[−0.01, 0.01]
Subject age at baseline	−.05	.03	−.09	−1.78	.074	[−0.11, 0.01]
Subject gender	−.26	.12	−.11	−2.19	.029	[−0.48, −0.03]
Ethnicity: Caucasian	.03	.09	.02	.28	.781	[−0.16, 0.21]
Ethnicity: Hispanic	−.22	.08	−.16	−2.85	.005	[−0.37, −0.07]

Note. Adjusted R² = .04 (n = 391, p < .001). CI = confidence interval.

Perceptions of Fairness

The model predicting perceptions of fairness was also significant (see Table 3). Again, the proportion of variance accounted for was small (4%). Age and gender were significantly related to perceptions of fairness. Specifically, younger age and female gender were significantly associated with lower perceived fairness. Parent index of social position and ethnicity were not significantly related to perceptions of fairness.

Table 3:

Perceptions of Fairness Regressed on Demographic Variables

Variable	B	SE (B)	β	t	p	95% CI
Parent ISP	−.005	.004	−.08	−1.45	.148	[−0.1, 0.01]
Age at baseline	−.13	.04	−.17	−3.46	.001	[−0.19, −0.05]
Gender	−.33	.15	−.11	−2.23	.026	[−0.62, −0.04]
Ethnicity: Caucasian	−.001	.12	−.001	−.01	.991	[−0.24, 0.23]
Ethnicity: Hispanic	−.12	.09	−.06	−1.17	.241	[−0.31, 0.08]

Note. Adjusted R² = .04 (n = 319, p = .001). CI = confidence interval; ISP = Index of Social Position.

Effect of Trauma-Related Symptoms on Fairness, Safety, and Institutional Misconduct

Because ethnicity, gender, and age were significantly related to perceptions of fairness and safety, they were included as control variables (see Table 4). The full model was significant, apparently driven by the inclusion of age (b = −.19, SE (B) = .08, p = .021) and ethnicity, specifically being of Hispanic or Latino descent (b = .52, SE (B) = .34, p = .009). Hypothesis 1 was not supported, as neither the direct effect path nor the total effect path between trauma-related symptoms and institutional misconduct was significant. Trauma-related symptoms did not significantly predict rates of institutional misconduct directly or indirectly (see Figure 2).

Table 4:

Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Model Summary Information for the Influence of Trauma-Related Symptoms Serial Multiple Mediator Model

Variable	Fairness				Safety				Misconduct
Variable	b	SE	p	95% CI	b	SE	p	95% CI	b	SE	p	95% CI
PTSD Symptoms	−.01	0.01	.189	[−0.03, 0.01]	−0.01	0.01	.366	[−0.02, 0.01]	0.02	0.02	.479	[−0.03, 0.06]
Fairness	—	—	—	—	0.29	0.04	<.001	[0.22, 0.37]	−0.19	0.12	.105	[−0.43, 0.04]
Safety	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	−0.56	0.15	<.001	[−0.87, −0.27]
Age	−.12	0.04	.001	[−0.19, −0.05]	−0.01	0.03	.867	[−0.06, 0.05]	−0.23	0.08	.004	[−0.39, −0.08]
Gender	−.28	0.15	.067	[−0.58, 0.02]	−0.10	0.11	.360	[−0.32, 0.12]	−0.52	0.33	.118	[−1.18, 0.13]
Ethnicity: Hispanic	−.16	0.09	.083	[−0.33, 0.02]	−0.21	0.07	.001	[−0.34, −0.08]	0.35	0.19	.084	[−0.05, 0.74]
Constant	5.47	0.61	<.001	[4.26, 6.68]	3.81	0.49	<.001	[2.21, 4.15]	10.16	1.55	<.001	[7.11, 13.21]
	F(4, 381) = 4.88, p < .001, R² = .05				F(5, 380) = 17.38, p < .001, R² = .18				F(6, 379) = 6.56, p < .001, R² = .09

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Figure 2:

Results of Serial Multiple Mediation Model Predicting Number of Institutional Sanctions

Hypothesis 2 was not supported (see Table 4) as trauma-related symptoms were not significantly related to either perceptions of fairness (b = −.01, SE (B) = .01, p = .189) or perceptions of safety (b = −.01, SE (B) = .01, p = .367). Only age was significantly associated with perceptions of fairness (b = −.12, SE (B) = .04, p = .001). The model explained 5% of the variance in perceived fairness (Table 4).

Hypothesis 3 was supported, as the path between perceptions of fairness and safety was significant (b = 0.29, SE = 0.04, p < .001). Being of Hispanic or Latino descent was associated with lower levels of perceived safety (b = −.21, SE (B) = .07, p =.001). The model explained 19% of the variance in perceived safety (see Table 4).

Hypothesis 4 was partially supported, as the path between perceptions of safety and institutional misconduct was significant (b = −.57, SE (B) = .14, p < .001). The path between age and institutional misconduct was also significant (b = −.23, SE (B) = 0.08, p =.004). The model explained 9% of the variance in the institutional sanctions (see Table 4).

Discussion

The goal of this study was to examine the direct effects of trauma-related symptoms on institutional misconduct and their indirect effects through perceptions of fairness and safety. The full model predicting institutional sanctions was significant, although when controlling for age, gender, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, trauma-related symptoms did not have a direct or indirect effect on institutional misconduct. There was also no direct effect of trauma-related symptoms on either perceptions of fairness or perceptions of safety in the institution. However, perceptions of fairness were associated positively with perceptions of safety, and perceptions of safety were significantly negatively related to institutional sanctions. In addition, being of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity and female were associated with lower perceptions of safety; younger age and female gender each predicted lower rates of perceptions of fairness.

Before addressing each relationship in turn, there is one explanation that may be relevant for each of the nonsignificant effects of PTSD symptoms. The average number of endorsed PTSD symptoms in this sample was low (M = 1.56, SD = 4.03) and it is possible that the hypotheses would be supported in a more symptomatic sample. The low rate of PTSD symptoms was surprising, as previous research has demonstrated high rates of trauma exposure (e.g., Abram et al., 2004) and PTSD symptoms (e.g., Becker & Kerig, 2011) in samples of youth involved in the juvenile justice system.

One possible explanation for the low rate of PTSD symptom endorsement is the use of the CIDI. The CIDI may have high rates of false negatives for distress, impairment, and avoidance symptoms, based on research on individuals referred from a PTSD specialty outpatient clinic and community members who reported at least one traumatic event (Quintana, Mari, Ribeiro, Jorge, & Andreoli, 2012). In addition, there is evidence of lower accuracy in diagnosing PTSD in Latino adults, possibly related to the lack of culture-specific interpretations of events and symptoms (Alegria et al., 2009). This may have significant implications for the current study given that about one third of the subsample identified as Hispanic or Latino and this subgroup also reported more institutional sanctions than Caucasian or African American participants. There is also evidence that adolescents report fewer PTSD symptoms when an adult is present during the computer-assisted CIDI (Herrera, Benjet, Méndez, Casanova, & Medina-Mora, 2017); it is unclear how many interviews were completed with an adult present in the Pathways study, but this is another potential contributor to reduced endorsement.

It is possible that the structure of the CIDI may lead to underidentification of youth affected by trauma. Youth with a range of early adverse experiences and/or who were raised in chaotic and violent environments may not view their experiences as traumatic. For example, the CIDI includes the following question: “As a child, were you ever badly beaten up by your parents or the people who raised you?” Youth whose parents utilized aggression to punish may not view this as abuse or assault, but rather as a normative means to exert control, leading to a “no” response to this question. If a participant did not endorse any traumatic events, they did not complete follow-up questions about PTSD symptoms and would appear to have zero symptoms.

Studies that have found higher rates of PTSD symptoms (e.g., Abram et al., 2004; Becker & Kerig, 2011) have utilized measures specifically designed for assessing children and adolescents, such as the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC; Shaffer, Fisher, Lucas, Dulcan, & Schwab-Stone, 2000), the Traumatic Experiences Screening Instrument for Children (TESI-C; Ippen et al., 2002), and the UCLA Child/Adolescent PTSD Reaction Index (PTSD-RI; Steinberg, Brymer, Decker, & Pynoos, 2004). Given developmental differences in the expression of trauma-related symptoms (Schwarz & Perry, 1994), it may be that these measures are more effectively capturing developmentally specific PTSD. Future research in this area would likely benefit from use of assessments designed specifically for children and adolescents. Additional research on the validity of PTSD assessment tools, with a focus on developmental and cultural effects on PTSD symptom presentation and response style, is needed.

Trauma and Institutional Sanctions

The lack of relationship between trauma and institutional sanctions is inconsistent with prior findings that a trauma history increases aggressive behaviors (e.g., Shahinfar et al., 2001) and antisocial attitudes (e.g., Ryan & Testa, 2005). However, there has been limited research on the impact of PTSD symptoms within the correctional setting, which is a unique environment. The higher base rate of aggressive behaviors in detained populations, compared with community samples, may result in difficulty detecting differences in aggressiveness across diagnoses. Thus, although trauma and trauma-related symptoms are elevated among justice-involved youth (e.g., Ryan & Testa, 2005), it is possible that trauma-related symptoms are not predictive of negative behavior in the institutional setting. Furthermore, despite elevated rates of mental health problems in youth who offend, including trauma-related symptoms, such problems are not a particularly strong risk factor for offending (e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Trauma-related symptoms, thus, may be more appropriately considered as a noncriminogenic need that has an indirect effect upon misconduct through its association with proximal risk factors (e.g., substance use; Adams et al., 2013) or as a responsivity factor (Holloway, Cruise, Morin, Kaufman, & Steele, 2018). The lack of association between trauma and misconduct may also be related to other differences between community and institutional environments. Characteristics of the institutional environment may limit the amount of trauma-related reactive behavior; the behavioral controls and physical containment in institutional settings may limit the degree of acting out based on perceived threat.

Nonetheless, some research has found that exposure to trauma is correlated with institutional misconduct. DeLisi et al. (2010) found a relationship between exposure to traumatic events, rather than PTSD symptoms, and institutional behavior, a potentially important difference from the current methodology. Research focused on antisocial behavior in the community also suggests that the number of traumatic events experienced may be particularly relevant (e.g., Ford et al., 2010). Researchers have conceptualized the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional consequences of trauma in a developmental framework (van der Kolk, 2005), indicating that trauma affects development whether or not a child meets criteria for PTSD. The impact of repeated early trauma on behavior, emotions, and thoughts may be pervasive and engrained, even in the absence of PTSD symptoms. Thus, different indicators of trauma may be more predictive of institutional sanctions.

Trauma and Perceptions of Fairness and Safety

The current findings on perceptions of fairness and safety were consistent with prior research on the impact of trauma on worldviews, which has consistently shown that traumatic experiences increase feelings of powerlessness and mistrust (e.g., Owens et al., 2008). Although the overall model predicting perceptions of fairness was significant, age and gender were the only significant predictors. As noted above, low rates of PTSD symptoms may have affected the ability to detect a relationship.

Previous research has identified that positive relationships with caring adults or staff may increase perceptions of fairness and safety, as well as adjustment to the facility (e.g., Schubert et al., 2012). Perhaps a youth’s ability to make meaningful and positive relationships with institutional staff is a better predictor of perceived fairness and safety than PTSD symptoms. In addition, detention facilities are highly structured, which may have a positive impact on adjustment and perceptions of safety. Being in a locked room may decrease fear of being victimized, which may actually increase feelings of safety and decrease hyperarousal in youth exhibiting PTSD symptoms. Many detained youth have a history of maltreatment and unpredictable treatment in the home (e.g., Abram et al., 2004; van der Kolk, 2005); thus, being removed from their home environment may have the unexpected effect of increasing feelings of security. Having a strict routine within the institution and clear expectations for behavior may have a positive impact on perceptions of fairness and safety for youth with a history of trauma.

Impact of Perceptions of Fairness on Perceptions of Safety and Institutional Sanctions

Consistent with previous research, perceived fairness directly affected perceptions of safety. Unexpectedly, perceptions of fairness were not directly related to institutional misconduct. This is inconsistent with prior findings that decreased perceptions of fairness are related to increases in institutional sanctions (Kaasa et al., 2008) due to increased resentment toward institutional staff and rules (e.g., Bouffard & Piquero, 2010). The operationalization of institutional misconduct as the youth’s self-reported number of sanctions may have affected the ability to detect an effect. The types of behaviors (e.g., fighting, trying to escape) and the sanction options (e.g., beaten up by staff, have new charges brought, physically restrained) queried were fairly serious and may not be common (Blackburn & Trulson, 2010). It is possible that perceptions of fairness would be more strongly related to overall misconduct including less serious acts. Finally, misconduct was operationalized as sanctions received rather the actual rule violations; therefore, undetected rule violations are not included, limiting the ability to detect a connection between perceptions of fairness and institutional misconduct.

Relationship Between Safety and Rates of Institutional Sanctions

Those who perceived the institutional environment as less safe had higher rates of institutional sanctions in the current sample. Consistent with previous research indicating that higher rates of fear within the institutional setting predicted increases in recidivism (Listwan et al., 2011), the current analyses suggest that negative perceptions of the correctional environment may have adverse effects on institutional behavior. Directionality cannot be determined in the current study as perceptions of safety and sanctions were measured at the same time point; it is possible that youth who received more sanctions began to feel less safe. The findings on perceptions of fairness, safety, and institutional misconduct indicate that perceptions of safety may be the mechanism by which fairness affects misconduct.

Alternatively, antisocial tendencies may be a confound influencing multiple variables in this analysis, including perceptions of fairness, safety, and institutional misconduct. Individuals higher in antisocial traits may be more likely to view staff and their actions negatively, misperceive facial expressions (e.g., Pollak & Tolley-Schell, 2003), and act out aggressively. Thus, antisocial personality may directly affect all of the variables of interest here, leading to a spurious relationship between perceptions of safety and institutional misconduct.

Influence of Demographic Variables

The relationship between demographic variables and perceptions of fairness, safety, and rates of institutional misconduct was explored to account for potential confounds. Identifying as Hispanic or Latino was associated with lower perceptions of safety only. Although the reason for this is unclear, relations between the Hispanic and Latino population and law enforcement in Arizona could be relevant. In 2013, Maricopa County, one of the jurisdictions included in this study, was found guilty of violating constitutional rights of Hispanic and Latino individuals (“Border Injustice,” 2013), based on years of violations by the county sheriff. It is likely that youth in the study were aware of this negative treatment. In addition, it is possible that the increasing focus on controlling immigration between 2002 and 2012 (“Border Injustice,” 2013) led to increased negative contact between these youth and police, which could have affected perceptions of safety within the institution as staff are also viewed as enforcers.

Interestingly, there were no other differences found between racial groups on perceptions of fairness in the institution. This was surprising, as previous research has shown that minorities in the United States perceive and/or receive less fair treatment by those in law enforcement, security, and legal positions (e.g., Lee, Steinberg, & Piquero, 2010; Woolard, Harvell, & Graham, 2008). However, the majority of this research has examined differences in perceptions prior to being incarcerated. It is possible that differences in perceived fairness are more salient in interactions with police officers and court players than in interactions with staff in institutions.

Younger adolescents endorsed lower perceptions of fairness, which is inconsistent with previous research regarding perceptions of procedural justice (e.g., Penner, Shaffer, & Viljoen, 2017). However, previous research has mainly focused on perceptions of fairness during the court process. There is limited investigation into adolescents’ perceptions of fairness within detention facilities (e.g., Schubert et al., 2012), and even less on differences based on age, which makes explanations for this inconsistency unclear. Previous research has found that younger adolescents have greater difficulty with perspective-taking (Choudhury, Blakemore, & Charman, 2006), which may affect their ability to see the fairness of appropriate sanctions. Young adolescents also may have difficulty taking responsibility for their actions and likely have spent less time in detention facilities; thus, they may be less accustomed than their older peers to the rules regularly seen in institutions. Results of the current study indicate that there are relevant and important perceptual differences based on age that could affect adjustment to a facility.

There was no relationship between age and perceptions of safety in the current study. The lack of relationship between age and safety was somewhat unexpected, as previous research has found that younger age is related to increased anxiety in youth who offend (e.g., Becker, Kerig, Lim, & Ezechukwu, 2012). It is not unreasonable to assume that younger juveniles might experience more fear in the institution if they are surrounded by older, more criminally sophisticated youth. The responses to specific questions used to determine perceptions of safety were unavailable for the current study; it is possible that the questions asked tapped into perceived safety at the hands of institutional staff rather than a youth’s peers, which would help to explain the lack of significant differences. In addition, the structural makeup of the institutional settings was not investigated in the current study; if youth are housed by age groups, this may decrease the likelihood of victimization of younger adolescents by older peers.

Female adolescents reported lower perceptions of safety and fairness than males. Lower levels of perceived safety among female youth in the institutional setting are not surprising, as a significant portion of females in the juvenile justice system have encountered complex interpersonal traumas (e.g., Baglivio & Epps, 2016) and exhibit higher rates of traumatic stress reactions (e.g., Drapalski, Youman, Stuewig, & Tangney, 2009). These life experiences and symptoms increase the likelihood that they would perceive their environment as less safe, particularly in institutions where many staff members are men of greater size and strength.

Limitations

There are several limitations to note in addition to those enumerated above. The decision to use the lifetime count of PTSD symptoms may have affected the ability to detect the impact of trauma on perceptions and behavior. First, symptoms might have resolved, thus having no current impact on perceptions and behavior. Second, some participants were placed several months after the baseline interview, during which time symptom count may have changed. It is also possible that symptoms may have increased or decreased over the span of incarceration. Research on current symptoms may be more likely to find significant effects.

Additional factors related to the measurement of trauma may have affected the ability to detect effects. First, prior research has found that certain symptoms (e.g., hyperarousal) may be more strongly associated with reactive behavior (Taft et al., 2007); therefore, type of symptoms may be more important in predicting perceptions and behavior than overall symptom count. Unfortunately, specific symptoms endorsed were unavailable in the data set. Second, it is possible that type of trauma, over and above trauma-related symptoms, may affect perceptions and behavior. Early interpersonal trauma may be more strongly related to aggressive behavior in general (e.g., Lilly et al., 2011) as well as rates of institutional misconduct (DeLisi et al., 2010). Experiences of early interpersonal trauma may be particularly relevant to interactions between youth and staff, as such experiences may increase the likelihood that one will view interactions as threatening (e.g., Lilly et al., 2011), thus increasing the likelihood of reactive behavior. Unfortunately, information regarding type of trauma was not available for the current study.

Implications and Future Research

Research Implications

The results of the current study indicate that there is a relationship between fairness, safety, and misconduct, yet the impact of trauma on these variables remains unclear. Given the various limitations in the operationalization of trauma identified above, further investigation is needed to clarify the impact of trauma in this setting. Research including youth exhibiting greater symptomatology, using developmentally and culturally sensitive assessment tools, and considering the role of specific categories of symptoms and types of traumatic experience is needed.

Although trauma-related symptoms were not found to be associated with misconduct, perceptions of safety were related to institutional misconduct. Concrete conclusions regarding directionality of this relationship cannot be made. Future research should assess perceptions of fairness and safety soon after arrival in the institution and repeatedly over the course of incarceration, and track number of sanctions received throughout the youth’s stay. A cross-lagged design would allow for exploration of how perceptions of fairness and safety at an earlier time point influence rates of institutional misconduct at a later time point, controlling for misconduct at earlier points. This would help clarify whether perceptions are predicting later misconduct or whether sanctions received are driving perceptions.

Further investigation into environmental variables (e.g., relationships with staff, time spent in a locked room) would be helpful in identifying institutional-level factors that may increase perceptions of fairness and safety. Research designed to clarify these environmental aspects would provide further guidance on how to modify the institutional setting appropriately to maintain safety in the facility for both youth and staff. In addition, previous research indicates that incarcerated women who had been paired with court employees of the same racial and ethnic identity may perceive less injustice during the court process (Baker et al., 2015). Future research should investigate whether institutions with staff whose racial and ethnic composition parallels that of the residents have better juvenile adjustment.

Clinical Implications

Results of the current investigation indicate that perceived fairness and safety are related, directly or indirectly, to misconduct. Implementing strategies aimed at reducing perceived (and actual) inequity and increasing sense of security may help decrease institutional misconduct. Prior results indicate that harshness by staff and lack of institutional order are related to increases in antisocial acts (e.g., Schubert et al., 2012). Youth who have a history of trauma may be particularly at risk, as reactive aggression may occur due to appraisals of ambiguous situations as dangerous. Institutions should have clearly defined rules and regulations by which negative behavior is sanctioned appropriately and consistently (e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2010) and staff must be held accountable. Such practices may increase juveniles’ sense of fairness and safety.

Trauma symptoms were not associated with institutional misconduct in the current analyses. Despite this, trauma symptoms and experiences may have indirect effects through their influence on dynamic risk factors for antisocial behavior (e.g., Adams et al., 2013). Addressing trauma symptoms and experiences may be essential to facilitating effective engagement in treatment. Research is needed to determine whether providing trauma-informed care removes “a roadblock to providing services targeted at more criminogenic needs . . . allowing for effective interventions to be delivered to reduce future delinquency” (Baglivio & Epps, 2016, p. 192).

Conclusion

This study sought to identify the impact of trauma on perceptions of fairness, safety, and institutional misconduct. Although trauma-related symptoms did not predict perceptions or institutional misconduct, results indicate that increasing perceptions of fairness and safety are important factors that may be useful to increase positive adjustment within juvenile facilities. Future research to further identify mechanisms that increase fairness and safety is warranted so that facilities may be more successful at rehabilitation of youth who offend.

Footnotes

The Pathways to Desistance project was supported by funds from the following organizations: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, National Institute of Justice, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, William T. Grant Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, William Penn Foundation, Center for Disease Control, National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA019697), Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, and the Arizona Governor’s Justice Commission. The content of this article, however, is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of these agencies. The current use of the data was not funded. The authors would also like to thank Christopher Weaver, PhD, and Sita Patel, PhD, for their support of the original dissertation manuscript. Maya J. W. M. Lujan is now at Travis County Juvenile Probation Department.

Notes

Maya J. W. M. Lujan, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at Travis County Juvenile Probation Department at the Intermediate Sanctions Center working with locally committed violent youthful offenders and adolescents with inappropriate sexual behaviors. Her research has focused on the effects of early exposure to violent pornography as well as trauma in the juvenile justice system.

Amanda M. Fanniff, PhD, is a clinical psychologist and an associate professor at Palo Alto University. Her research focuses on developmentally informed policy and practice in the justice system, including the role of trauma in the etiology and treatment of antisocial behavior. Her work focuses on two special populations: juveniles who may be incompetent to proceed to adjudication and juveniles who have committed sexually abusive behaviors.

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

Adams

Z. W.

McCart

M. R.

Zajac

Danielson

C. K.

Sawyer

G. K.

Saunders

B. E.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

(2013). Psychiatric problems and trauma exposure in nondetained delinquent and nondelinquent adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42, 323-331. doi:10.1080/15374416.2012.749786

Alegria

Shrout

P. E.

Torres

Lewis-Fernandez

Abelson

Powell

. . . Canino

(2009). Lessons learned from the clinical reappraisal study of the composite international diagnostic interview with Latinos. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 18, 84-95. doi:10.1002/mpr.280

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis.

Baglivio

M. T.

Epps

(2016). The interrelatedness of adverse childhood experiences among high-risk juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 14, 179-198. doi:10.1177/1541204014566286

Baker

Pickett

J. T.

Amin

D. M.

Golden

Dhungana

Gertz

Bedard

(2015). Shared race/ethnicity, court procedural justice, and self-regulating beliefs: A study of female offenders. Law & Society Review, 49, 433-466. doi:10.1111/lasr.12137

10.

Becker

S. P.

Kerig

P. K.

(2011). Posttraumatic stress symptoms are associated with the frequency and severity of delinquency among detained boys. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40, 765-771. doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.597091

11.

Becker

S. P.

Kerig

P. K.

Lim

Ezechukwu

R. N.

(2012). Predictors of recidivism among delinquent youth: Interrelations among ethnicity, gender, age, mental health problems, and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 5, 145-160. doi:10.1080/19361521.2012.671798

12.

Blackburn

A. G.

Trulson

C. R.

(2010). Sugar and spice and everything nice? Exploring institutional misconduct among serious and violent female delinquents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1132-1140. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.09.001

13.

Border Injustice. (2013, May 28). The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/opinion/immigration-and-border-injustice.html

14.

Bouffard

L. A.

Piquero

N. L.

(2010). Defiance theory and life course explanations of persistent offending. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 227-252. doi:10.1177/0011128707311642

15.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Garbarino

(2004). Social cognition as a mediator of the influence of family and community violence on adolescent development: Implications for intervention. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1036, 85-105. doi:10.1196/annals.1330.005

16.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Rodgers

C. R. R.

Ghandour

L. A.

Garbarino

(2009). Social–cognitive mediators of the association between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 199-210. doi:10.1037/a0017362

17.

Choudhury

Blakemore

Charman

(2006). Social cognitive development during adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 165-174. doi:10.1093/scan/nsl024

18.

DeLisi

Drury

A. J.

Kosloski

A. E.

Caudill

J. W.

Conis

P. J.

Anderson

C. A.

. . . Beaver

K. M.

(2010). The cycle of violence behind bars: Traumatization and institutional misconduct among juvenile delinquents in confinement. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8, 107-121. doi:10.1177/1541204009349399

19.

Drapalski

A. L.

Youman

Stuewig

Tangney

(2009). Gender differences in jail inmates’ symptoms of mental illness, treatment history and treatment seeking. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 19, 193-206. doi:10.1002/cbm.733

20.

Fagan

Piquero

A. R.

(2007). Rational choice and developmental influences on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 715-748. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00105.x

21.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

R. K.

Turner

H. A.

(2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 7-26. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.06.008

22.

Ford

J. D.

Chapman

Connor

D. F.

Cruise

K. R.

(2012). Complex trauma and aggression in secure juvenile justice settings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 694-726. doi:10.1177/0093854812436957

23.

Ford

J. D.

Elhai

J. D.

Connor

D. F.

Frueh

B. C.

(2010). Poly-victimization and risk of posttraumatic, depressive, and substance use disorders and involvement in delinquency in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 545-552. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.11.212

24.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

25.

Herrera

A. V.

Benjet

Méndez

Casanova

Medina-Mora

M. E.

(2017). How mental health interviews conducted alone, in the presence of an adult, a child or both affects adolescents’ reporting of psychological symptoms and risky behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 417-428. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0418-1

26.

Holloway

E. D.

Cruise

K. R.

Morin

S. L.

Kaufman

Steele

R. D.

(2018). Juvenile probation officers’ evaluation of traumatic event exposures and traumatic stress symptoms as responsivity factors in risk assessment and case planning. Law and Human Behavior, 42, 369-384. doi:10.1037/lhb0000283

27.

Ippen

C. G.

Ford

Racusin

Acker

Bousquet

Rogers

. . . Edwards

(2002). Traumatic Events Screening Inventory—Parent report revised. San Francisco, CA: The Child and Trauma Research Project of the Early Trauma Network and The National Center for PTSD Dartmouth Child Trauma Research Group.

28.

Janoff-Bulman

(1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York, NY: Free Press.

29.

Kaasa

S. O.

Malloy

L. C.

Cauffman

(2008, March). Procedural justice and the adolescent offender. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Jacksonville, FL.

30.

Kessler

R. C.

Ustun

T. B.

(2004). The World Mental Health (WMH) Survey initiative version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, 93-121. doi:10.1002/mpr.168

31.

Lanius

R. A.

Bluhm

R. L.

Frewen

P. A.

(2011). How understanding the neurobiology of complex post-traumatic stress disorder can inform clinical practice: A social cognitive and affective neuroscience approach. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 124, 331-348. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2011.01755.x

32.

Lee

J. M.

Steinberg

Piquero

A. R.

(2010). Ethnic identity and attitudes toward the police among African American juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 781-789. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.05.005

33.

Lilly

M. M.

Valdez

C. E.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

(2011). The mediating effect of world assumptions on the relationship between trauma exposure and depression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2499-2516. doi:10.1177/0886260510383033

34.

Listwan

S. J.

Sullivan

C. J.

Agnew

Cullen

F. T.

Colvin

(2011). The pains of imprisonment revisited: The impact of strain on inmate recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 30, 144-168. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.597772

35.

Luke

Banerjee

(2013). Differentiated associations between childhood maltreatment experiences and social understanding: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Developmental Review, 33, 1-28. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.10.001

36.

Maschi

Gibson

(2012). Schema behind bars: Trauma, age, ethnicity, and offenders’ world assumptions. Traumatology, 18, 8-19. doi:10.1177/1534765610395626

37.

McCann

I. L.

Sakheim

D. K.

Abrahamson

D. J.

(1988). Trauma and victimization: A model of psychological adaptation. The Counseling Psychologist, 16, 531-594. doi:10.1177/0011000088164002

38.

Mulvey

E. P.

(2012). Research on pathways to desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject Measures, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 29961-v1). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2012-0820. doi:10.3886/ICPSR29961.v1

39.

Mulvey

E. P.

Schubert

C. A.

Odgers

C. A.

(2010). Method for measuring organizational functioning in juvenile justice facilities using resident ratings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1255-1277. doi:10.1177/0093854810380186

40.

Owens

G. P.

Chard

K. M.

Cox

T. A.

(2008). The relationship between maladaptive cognitions, anger expression, and posttraumatic stress disorder among veterans in residential treatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17, 439-452. doi:10.1080/10926770802473908

41.

Penner

E. K.

Shaffer

C. S.

Viljoen

J. L.

(2017). Questioning fairness: The relationship of mental health and psychopathic characteristics with young offenders’ perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 37, 354-370. doi:10.1002/cbm.2004

42.

Penner

E. K.

Viljoen

J. L.

Douglas

K. S.

Roesch

(2014). Procedural justice versus risk factors for offending: Predicting recidivism in youth. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 225-237. doi:10.1037/lhb0000055

43.

Pollak

S. D.

Tolley-Schell

(2003). Selective attention to facial emotion in physically abused children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 323-338. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.3.323

44.

Quintana

M. I.

Mari

J. D. J.

Ribeiro

W. S.

Jorge

M. R.

Andreoli

S. B.

(2012). Accuracy of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI 2.1) for diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder according to DSM-IV criteria. Cadernos de Saude Publica, 28, 1312-1318. doi:10.1590/S0102-311X2012000700009

45.

Ryan

J. P.

Testa

M. F.

(2005). Child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency: Investigating the role of placement and placement instability. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 227-249. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.05.007

46.

Schubert

C. A.

Mulvey

E. P.

Loughran

T. A.

Losoya

S. H.

(2012). Perceptions of institutional experience and community outcomes for serious adolescent offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 71-93. doi:10.1177/0093854811426710

47.

Schubert

C. A.

Mulvey

E. P.

Steinberg

Cauffman

Losoya

S. H.

Hecker

. . . Knight

G. P.

(2004). Operational lessons from the pathways to desistance project. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2, 237-255. doi:10.1177/1541204004265875

48.

Schwarz

Perry

B. D.

(1994). The post-traumatic response in children and adolescents. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 17, 311-326.

49.

Shaffer

Fisher

Lucas

Dulcan

Schwab-Stone

(2000). NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (NIMH DISC-IV): Description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 28-38. doi:10.1097/00004583-200001000-00014

50.

Shahinfar

Kupersmidt

J. B.

Matza

L. S.

(2001). The relation between exposure to violence and social information processing among incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 136-141. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.136

51.

Steinberg

A. M.

Brymer

Decker

Pynoos

R. S.

(2004). The University of California at Los Angeles post-traumatic stress disorder reaction index. Current Psychiatry Reports, 6, 96-100. doi:10.1007/s11920-004-0048-2

52.

Taft

C. T.

Kaloupek

D. G.

Schumm

J. A.

Marshall

A. D.

Panuzio

King

D. W.

Keane

T. M.

(2007). Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, physiological reactivity, alcohol problems, and aggression among military veterans. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 498-507. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.116.3.498

53.

Tatar

J. R.

Kaasa

S. O.

Cauffman

(2012). Perceptions of procedural justice among female offenders: Time does not heal all wounds. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18, 268-296. doi:10.1037/a0025118

54.

van der Kolk

. (2003). The neurobiology of childhood trauma and abuse. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 293-317. doi:10.1016/S1056-4993(03)00003-8

55.

van der Kolk

. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder: Toward a rational diagnosis for children with complex trauma histories. Psychiatric Annals, 35, 401-408. doi:10.3928/00485713-20050501-06

56.

Woolard

J. L.

Harvell

Graham

(2008). Anticipatory injustice among adolescents: Age and race/ethnic differences in perceived unfairness of the justice system. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26, 207-226. doi:10.1002/bsl.805

57.

World Health Organization. (1990). Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.