Juvenile Justice Sentencing: Do Gender and Child Welfare Involvement Matter?

Purpose: Over the last two decades, female cases referred to juvenile court increased 86% while male cases increased 17%. The majority of young women in the juvenile justice system have child welfare involvement, and youth with child welfare histories are likely to receive harsher sentences. Because of recent enforcement policies focusing on young women’s more minor offenses, first time female juvenile offenders—particularly those with child welfare histories—may be at risk for overly restrictive sentences. However, little is known about gender differences in sentencing upon initial contact with the juvenile justice system. Using a large administrative sample of first time offenders, this study posed the following questions: (1) Are there gender disparities in first time juvenile justice sentencing for similar crimes? (2) Are dual system-involved females given more restrictive sentences compared to females without child welfare histories when both groups are charged for similar crimes?

Method: We used administrative data from the Los Angeles County Probation Department and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to examine a cohort of young people ages 12 to 17 with first time arrests who were sentenced in juvenile court (N = 11,356). Over 17% (n = 2,004) were female and 12.72% (n = 1,444) had child welfare histories. A series of logistic regression models were estimated to predict gender differences in case dismissal. Next, we used multinomial logistic regression to examine relationships between key predictor variables and three sentencing types (from least to most restrictive): home-on-probation, group home placement, and correctional placement to address whether dual-system females were given a more restrictive sentence compared to other females.

Results: Females were approximately 25% less likely than males to have their cases dismissed. In separate analyses for each charge category, this finding maintained only with the “other” charge (e.g., status offenses). Predicted probabilities for the multinomial model showed that about 11% of young women with child welfare histories were sentenced to correctional placement compared to 7.7% of their non-child welfare counterparts. Additionally, 81.6% of non-child welfare girls were sentenced to probation compared to 69.2% of child welfare girls. In estimates for each charge category, child welfare youth of both genders were given more restrictive sentences for property crimes compared to non-child welfare youth.

Conclusions: Findings suggest the presence of gender biases in formal dismissals and more restrictive sentencing of young men and women based on dual-system involvement despite their charges. Given the increased presence of girls in the juvenile justice system, it is important to further investigate the reasons behind this gender bias and bias based on child welfare involvement in juvenile justice sentencing. Sentencing practices should be reevaluated in the courts and steps taken to ensure that youth are not charged differentially based on child welfare status. Practitioners should consider that, compared to other groups, dual system-involved young women released from correctional facilities in particular may be more vulnerable to recidivism and need more services in the transition to their communities.