Minimal Gender Bias in Juvenile Justice Systems’ Handling of Status Offenders

Our analyses of 6 years of national data indicated that there were only relatively small differences in the percentages of female and male status offenders detained, adjudicated, and placed. For example, as would be expected, offenders’ prior offense history generally affected their detention outcomes. Survey Responses of Probation Officers Revealed No Differences in Processing

Table 3 shows that the probation officers who responded to our survey did not perceive any differences in the way females and males with similar status-offense histories were processed. Comparative Availability of Facilities and Services for Status Offenders Believed Similar

Generally, both our national survey respondents and the juvenile justice officials and facility representatives we interviewed in four states told us there were not any significant differences in the facilities and services available to female and male status offenders. However, both groups emphasized that they believed that more services were needed for status offenders, irrespective of gender. Some of the juvenile justice representatives and professional staff said that early intervention services were needed for first-time offenders to divert them from further involvement with the juvenile justice system. 93-415) mandated that we study gender-bias issues in state juvenile justice systems. For most offenses, the probability of being detained decreased for both males and females between 1986 and 1991. Overview of Services for Female and Male Status Offenders in Selected Facilities

Generally, we found no significant gender-based differences in the counseling, educational, and medical services provided to females and males at the 15 facilities we visited, although the extent of such services varied by type of facility. Also, females and males reportedly were given health screenings and/or physical examinations before or after admission.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed whether gender bias existed in state juvenile justice systems between 1986 and 1991.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) there was minimal gender bias in state juvenile justice systems during that period; (2) 40 percent of the 500,620 juvenile status-offender cases between 1986 to 1991 involved females and females and males had similar probabilities of being detained, adjudicated, or placed for a status offense; (3) the offenders' prior offense history and age generally affected the judicial outcomes; (4) although there were few gender-based differences in the availability of counseling, educational, and medical services for females and males, the type and extent of such services varied by facility; (5) females were sometimes given admission physicals and additional access to health care services that were not applicable to males; (6) county probation officers believed that there were not any significant differences in the way females and males with similar status-offense histories were treated within their juvenile justice systems; (7) juvenile probation officers reported that treatment options were equally available for detained female and male status offenders and more facilities were needed for both males and females; (8) it could not determine whether there was a disproportionate number of facilities for males; (9) local officials believed that more facilities and early intervention services were needed for status offenders of both sexes; and (10) there were mixed views about whether the needs of status offenders were better met by co-educational or single-gender facilities.