Trauma-informed care for juveniles, not punishment, prevents recidivism

A review of studies points to real-world proof that a punitive response is worse for young people in the criminal legal system. “We are essentially punishing and incarcerating juveniles because we didn't give them the help they needed.”

By Sarah Steimer

Using trauma-informed care as an intervention for juveniles interacting with the criminal legal system minimizes retraumatization and prevents recidivism, according to research by UChicago Professor Micere Keels published in the Annual Review of Criminology. Keels’s review points to studies that detail how exposure to potentially traumatic events can create primary, secondary, and tertiary effects that are relevant to how the criminal legal system engages with young people coping with trauma. The examples she cites also underscore how racialized exposure to systemic trauma across generations is often the basis for racialized disparities in persistent criminal offending.

Keels, who works in the Department of Comparative Human Development, initially went to graduate school to become a child clinical psychologist before focusing her efforts on research and policy to understand the ways that developmental supports can be integrated into systems-level interventions. She’s combined these influences to explore the underlying causes of complex behaviors such as criminal offending and how to reduce the extent to which the juvenile criminal legal system reinforces racially disproportionate harms. Editors at the Annual Review of Criminology approached her to write an article that focuses on not just what the problems are, but also about the insights that psychological and developmental science can provide about more appropriate and trauma-informed responses. The largest part of her research, she says, was examining what is known about secondary and tertiary trauma.

“Whatever we leave unhealed at the primary level, which are the initial physiological and psychological reactions to experiencing traumatic events, only gets worse and worse,” Keels explains. “We see a high level of trauma among kids in the criminal legal system because there is little to no support that helps children and youth process issues. It’s the behavioral manifestations of their inability to cope that create those criminal legal system outcomes. We are essentially punishing and incarcerating juveniles because we didn't give them the help they needed.”

The intervention framework that Keels lays out uses research from the U.S. and elsewhere to detail interventions with demonstrated effectiveness, which can then inform how those involved in the criminal legal system can think and react differently.

“It's not just research in the lab,” Keels says. “We have evidence from implementation studies in our criminal legal system that show that when they utilize trauma-informed policies and practices, outcomes are improved. There is less actual violence in the system itself that kids are experiencing and there is less recidivism.”

The studies she highlights in her article support the notion that when the system invests in trauma-informed practices early on for younger and first-time offenders, the likelihood of desistance goes up. For example, Keels cites research from Philadelphia that compared young people who were not arrested for an infraction, but otherwise held accountable, with those who were arrested for that infraction. There was a lower likelihood of ever coming in contact with the criminal system again among those who experienced something other than arrest to hold them accountable for their behavior.

Her research also underscores the racial inequities within the system, showing how every step along the pathway is racialized, including the extent to which kids who are arrested receive mental health care for their trauma, versus detention without care. “There are huge racial disparities in both exposure to trauma and then the support resources they get to cope with it — versus being punished for it,” Keels says.

Keels is hoping her article finds an audience among anyone involved in changing the system: Legislators who have a hand in writing criminal legal policies, those who implement the policies, and state-level actors and community activists who can push for these changes.

“The severity of the punishment does not equal accountability,” Keels says. “And if the severity of the punishment includes juvenile detention, we are making things worse for society as a whole. We need to think beyond the immediate moment and beyond what makes us feel that we've accomplished something by punitively punishing our youth.”