Discussion 3: The separation of the juvenile court from the adult court for hearing juvenile delinquency cases is a major social justice statement. Prior t

Discussion 3: The separation of the juvenile court from the adult court for hearing juvenile delinquency cases is a major social justice statement. Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapters 6 and 7 in your textbook. In addition,

Read Trauma-Informed Juvenile Justice Systems: A Systematic Review of Definitions and Core Components. (Included in attachments)
Read Three Years of Teen Court Offender Outcomes.(Included in attachments)
Read Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public.(Included in attachments)
Watch Juvenile Prison: Interview and Court Hearing. https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753&xtid=150956

The textbook lays out five critical thinking questions at the end of Chapter 6. Select one for your initial post to the discussion:

Do you think the philosophy of the juvenile court system should be rehabilitative or punitive? Defend your position? Defend your position.
Do you think Child Protective Services has “run its course” like some critics suggest? Or should it be revamped? How would you revamp such a service?
Teen courts have become a popular option for diverting youth. What downsides might there be in involving the youth’s peers in the process? Support your case.
Although most states have retained their transfer laws, the rate of transfers to adult court has remained stable. Why do you think this is the case?
Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court in regards to the Roper v. Simmons and Miller v. Alabama cases? Why or why not?

Your initial post should be at least 350 words in length. You must use at least one APA 7th edition in-text citation. Support your claims with examples from the required materials and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references. 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 and Kimberly Eaton Hoagwood
New York University School of Medicine

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 defini-
tions. 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

Childhood exposure to violence and other traumatic events is
increasingly recognized as a major public health challenge because
of its association with a host of deleterious long-term outcomes
(National Prevention Council, 2011). Although 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% to 90% of
youth offenders have experienced one or more types of trauma,
including high rates of physical or sexual abuse, witnessing do-
mestic violence, and exposure to violence in school or the com-
munity (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 dropout, and suicide attempts (Cauffman, Monahan, &
Thomas, 2015; Haynie, Petts, Maimon, & Piquero, 2009; Wasser-
man & 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 revictimization (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 to worse
legal outcomes. Potential sources of trauma in the justice system

This article was published Online First February 6, 2017.
Christopher Edward Branson, Department of Child & Adolescent Psy-

chiatry, New York University School of Medicine; Carly Lyn Baetz,
Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Sarah
McCue Horwitz and Kimberly Eaton Hoagwood, Department of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine.

Carly Lyn Baetz is now at the Department of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine.

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National
Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health under Award
K23MH104697. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and
does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes
of Health. We thank Raquel Rose for her contributions to the systematic
review.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher
Edward Branson, New York University Child Study Center, 1 Park Avenue –
7th Floor, New York, NY 10016. E-mail: christopher.branson@nyumc
.org

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy © 2017 American Psychological Association
2017, Vol. 9, No. 6, 635– 646 1942-9681/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tra0000255

635

mailto:christopher.branson@nyumc.org

mailto:christopher.branson@nyumc.org

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tra0000255

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 or 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
retrospective study of young adults (ages 18-20) that had been
discharged from a juvenile justice facility in the past year found
that exposure to abuse and/or harsh punishments (i.e., seclusion)
while incarcerated was positively associated with post-release
criminal behavior and PTSD symptoms (Dierkhising et al., 2014).
Thus, the justice system may impede the efforts of trauma survi-
vors 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 experi-
enced by crime victims or youth offenders (Chamberlain &
Miller, 2008; Kunst, 2011; Rainville, 2015). A growing litera-
ture 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 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 func-
tioning (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 con-
sumers 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 signifi-
cant shift in thinking and practice.

The concept of trauma-informed service systems was first in-
troduced 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/compe-
tence around trauma, physically and psychologically safe environ-
ment of care, client-centered service planning) and/or recommen-
dations for specific trauma-informed practices or policies (e.g.,
eliminating or restricting harsh or coercive practices, mandatory
trauma training for all staff, universal screening of clients for
trauma exposure and related impairment; Hopper, Bassuk, & Ol-
ivet, 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

Although the basic definition of TIC cuts across service sys-
tems, 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 agen-
cies and stakeholder organizations have established initiatives to
promote the adoption of TIC in the justice system (Federal Part-
ners 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 frontline providers as to what exactly is meant by TIC
(Donisch, Bray, & Gewirtz, 2016). Identifying the specific com-
ponents (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 systematically
review the extant literature on definitions or descriptions of TIC
for the juvenile justice system in order to identify the most com-
monly named core domains and recommended practices or poli-
cies. Additionally, we will identify areas of consensus or disagree-
ment and directions for future research.

Method

Study Protocol and Inclusion Criteria

The first author developed the study protocol based on the
established 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 pub-
lished since 2000 that proposed an original definition of 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 fa-

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

636 BRANSON, BAETZ, HORWITZ, AND HOAGWOOD

cilities). For the present review, we operationalized this as
publications for which a primary focus was identifying core
principles or domains of TIC (i.e., promoting a safe environ-
ment 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/recom-
mendations 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
(i.e., stakeholder agency websites with TIC definitions). We excluded
dissertations, conference abstracts/presentations, webinars or 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 Crim-
inal Justice, ERIC, National Criminal Justice Reference Service,
Ovid PsycINFO, ProQuest Criminal Justice, ProQuest Psychol-
ogy, ProQuest Published International Literature on Traumatic
Stress, ProQuest Social Science, ProQuest Social Services Ab-
stracts, PubMed) using the search terms (“trauma informed” OR
“trauma focused” OR “trauma responsive”) AND (“juvenile jus-
tice” OR probation OR court� OR “law enforcement” OR “diver-
sion 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 (C. E. Branson and C. L. Baetz) independently reviewed
all abstracts to determine if they met our inclusion criteria. For
each abstract that was selected for further review by either re-
viewer, 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 (� � .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 review). 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 records that appeared
to meet inclusion criteria were saved in PDF format and reviewed
by the first and second authors.

Data Extraction and Coding

Two reviewers (C. E. Branson and C. L. 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 ex-
tracted 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 TIC for
juvenile justice and the specific strategies or practices recom-
mended for each domain. This approach was guided by the
“coding consensus, co-occurrence, and comparison” methodol-
ogy 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 (clin-
ical services, agency context, system-level) provided an initial
framework for organizing the data. The coders extracted ver-
batim 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 preliminary domains (e.g., creating a safe envi-
ronment). 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 consen-
sus 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. Re-
cords 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, Wood-
worth, 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 asterisks 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 publi-
cations 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 in which we found multiple pub-
lications from the same author(s) that met our inclusion criteria.
We extracted and coded the data from all of these publications.

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

637TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS

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 Ju-
venile 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 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.

Publication Characteristics

We reviewed 10 publications that defined TIC and/or recom-
mended 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 ju-
venile detention/correctional facilities, diversion programs, and
law enforcement. Publication dates ranged from 2012 to 2016,
with half published in the past 2 years.

TIC Definitions and 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
identified all of the specific trauma-informed practices or pol-
icies that were recommended and how often they were recom-
mended 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 recom-

Figure 1. Summary of the literature search. TIC � trauma-informed care; PTSD � posttraumatic stress
disorder.

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

638 BRANSON, BAETZ, HORWITZ, AND HOAGWOOD

mendations (M � 25.67, SD � 9.50) compared with 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 recom-
mendations (n � 39 or 55%) were included in only one or two
definitions, with the remaining 24 recommendations (34%) in-
cluded in three to five definitions.

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/cor-
rectional facilities (n � 4).

Domain 3: Cultural competence. Six publications recom-
mended policies, procedures, and clinical services/program-
ming 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. Three publications included recommendations for gen-
der-responsive/specific programming to meet the needs of girls
involved in the justice system. Three publications called for
services to be tailored for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
and queer youth.

Agency Context Recommendations

Domain 4: Youth & family engagement/involvement. Seven
publications included recommendations around promoting youth
and family engagement with the justice system. Six publications
recommended that agencies/systems provide access to social sup-
ports for youth and families. Other common recommendations
within this area included prioritizing youth and family preferences

Table 1
Publications Included in Systematic Review

Publication
Focus of TIC

definition Broad domains of TIC identified

American Bar Association (2014) Courts NA
Attorney General’s National Task

Force on Children Exposed to
Violence (2012) Whole system NA

Feierman and Ford (2016) Whole system NA
Griffin, Germain, and Wilkerson

(2012)
Juvenile justice

facilities
NA

International Association of Chiefs of
Police (2014) Law enforcement NA

National Center for Mental Health and
Juvenile Justice & Technical
Assistance Collaborative (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 (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 (2015) Courts/Judges NA

Pilnik and Kendall (2012) Courts/Attorneys NA
Rapp (2016) Whole system Governing/leadership; culture/mission/goals; programming; staff/personnel; system

collaboration; policies; physical environment; monitoring/evaluationa

Note. TIC � trauma-informed care; NA � not applicable.
a These domains were adapted from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014).

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

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

639TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS

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 factors 8 1
• Callous-unemotional traits 2 1
• Commercial sexual exploitation (CSEC) 1 1
• Family …