No Child is Disposable: a Child Welfare & Juvenile Justice System Policy Brief
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LGBTQ+ youth are currently being relegated to the Child Welfare System (CWS) and/or Juvenile Justice System (JJS) as ‘throwaway’ youth who most frequently become system-involved due to familial rejection and conflict and school harassment. LGBTQ+ youth face many of the same barriers to a productive, full life but they also face societal, familial, and interpersonal discrimination and stigma about their sexuality, gender identity and expression (SOGIE). The disparate experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in the CWS and/or JJS can also be traced to a lack of affirming, safe CWS placement options as well as an assumption of disposability, not just for the youth but also for their families. Initiatives to mitigate these factors and improve outcomes for LGBTQ+ youth have emerged to re-prioritize family (re)unification where and whenever possible as well as ensure that there are safe, affirming CWS placements for LGBTQ+ youth who can’t be with their families of origin.
LGBTQ+ OVERREPRESENTATION IN CWS AND JJS
When we say that LGBTQ+ youth are overrepresented in the CWS and JJS, we mean that the proportion of the population in either or both of these systems that is LGBTQ+ is greater than the proportion of the general population that’s LGBTQ+. It can be difficult to grasp an exact estimate of this population as it requires self-disclosure, something that is not always safe, especially for those LGBTQ+ youth who are already the most vulnerable – LGBTQ+ youth of color. Despite this, the disparity is undeniable – about 7-10% of the general youth population are LGBT+; about 20% of those in the JJS are LGBTQ+. When broken down further, we see that LGBTQ+ girls are especially overrepresented, comprising about 40% of LGBTQ+ identified youth in the JJS, compared to the total percentage of LGBTQ+ identified boys – 14% (Wilber, 2015; Canfield and Irvine 2017).
PATHWAYS INTO JJS AND CWS
The pathways into the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems converge in powerful ways to condemn LGBTQ+ youth and “Over the past fifteen years, researchers have uncovered important trends that highlight the links between a family's rejection of a LGBQ/GNCT youth and the subsequent child welfare involvement, homelessness, survival crimes, and juvenile justice involvement.” (Canfield and Irvine 2016).
FAMILY REJECTION AND CONFLICT
Abuse and fighting with parents is the most common reason LGBTQ+ youth become involved in the CWS (Canfield and Irvine 2016); this then relates to subsequent JJS involvement. This abuse and conflict is often initiated when a youth comes out (or is outed) and familial rejection culminates in violence and conflict about 30% of the time and this is often the basis for removal and/or arrest (usually on status offenses) of the LGBTQ+ youth (Himmelstein and Bruckner, 2011; Majd, Marksamer, and Reyes 2009). In a study by the Family Acceptance Project, a 16 year old gay boy who was in foster care shared: “‘I ran away a lot because my parents didn’t like that I was gay. One time I had a physical fight with my dad and ended up in juvenile hall. Finally, I was kicked out for good and put into foster care’.” (Wilber, Ryan, and Marksamer 2006). LGBTQ+ youth are coming out younger than ever before, usually while still reliant (economically, emotionally, and legally) on their parents or families of origin, making the likelihood of being kicked out or rejected higher than ever before too (Morris, 2014).
SCHOOL HARASSMENT
In school, as well as in the family, a youth’s SOGIE acts as a structural characteristic and an experience rather than an individual choice for LGBTQ+ youth, and often leads them to system involvement. School has a strong link to delinquency (and victimization) in many ways, including by way of school-related outcomes (school failure, dropping out, etc) and experiences while in school (Bates and Swan 2021). LGBTQ+ youth frequently come into contact with the CWS and/or JJS due to chronic truancy and fighting at school; these acts are most often a response to harassment, bullying, and assault experienced at school at the hands of both peers and faculty/administrators (OJJDP 2014). LGBTQ+ youth may engage in behaviors that subject them to criminalization in an attempt to protect themselves or even just feel a sense of safety at school, including drug use and high-risk sexual behavior and carrying weapons at school due to the adverse school environment (Himmelstein and Bruckner 2011). This environment, in conjunction with zero-tolerance policies reinforces the school-to-prison pipeline for LGBTQ+ youth as they have resulted in a dramatic increase in harsh school sanctions for minor offenses (Majd, Marksamer, and Reyes 2009). In addition to harassment and bullying, LGBTQ+ youth have been found to face “disproportionate educational and criminal justice punishments that are not explained by greater engagement in illegal or transgressive behaviors'' (Himmelstein and Bruckner 2011). This sets LGBTQ+ youth up on an asymmetrical pathway into CWS and/or JJS as opposed to their cisgender and heterosexual peers.
HOMELESSNESS AND SURVIVAL CRIMES
When LGBTQ+ youth are not supported, affirmed, and accepted in their homes, schools, and communities, many of them end up on the streets as “Countless LGBTQ youths are kicked out or “thrown away” by their family, and many decide to run away from home because of familial rejection. This can in turn lead to increased odds that a youth will be placed in a group home or foster care, or experience homelessness (Irvine 2010). Homelessness among LGBTQ+ youth is what Morris (2014) calls the “hidden epidemic.” About 5 percent of the general population is LGBTQ+ but research estimates that 40% of homeless youth are LGBTQ+ (Morris, 2014). When family rejection/conflict occurs, these youth are more likely to run away, become homeless, be criminally victimized, and be arrested, including for status offenses (ie running away, ungovernability) and survival crimes (ie prostitution, drug dealing). This is a cyclical relationship between ostracism and criminalization as youth often run away from families of origin and/or are then placed in child welfare placements; then, many of these placements continue the harassment and abuse the youth originally ran away from and thus they end up running away again.
Image is an illustration of three youths in orange clothing in a police line up.
Often, LGBTQ+ youth find the streets to be more desirable and safe than their families of orign or CWS placements, including foster and group homes. Over half (56%) of LGBTQ+ youth in out-of-home placements have, at some point, forgone stable housing because the streets felt safer than the group/foster homes (youth.gov). Once these youth are on the street and on their own, they are faced with a lack of resources that often forces them into survival crimes. “We know we have 24 to 48 hours to get to them before they do anything illegal – whether it's selling drugs, stealing or prostitution,” says Rick Westbrook, co-founder of the Lost-n-Found Youth Shelter in Atlanta (Morris, 2014). LGBTQ+ homeless youth are 3x as likely to exchange sex for money, shelter, food, or drugs as non-LGBTQ+ homeless youth (Family and Youth Services Bureau, 2017)
WHY IT MATTERS
Crossover and dually involved LGBTQ+ youth, especially those most marginalized, are often forgotten about by both systems, despite the fact that “The needs of these crossover youth... are particularly complex, requiring even greater coordination across systems. Research indicates that crossover youth are more likely to experience harsher sentences in the delinquency court, and have more negative long-term outcomes.” (Rabinovitz, Desai, Schneir,& Clark, L. 2010). This calls into question our current approach to LGBTQ+ youth and their experiences in the CWS and JJS systems and potential alternatives. If we look at the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth through the lens of Robert Agnew’s strain theory, which states that delinquent behavior and the propensity towards delinquency stem from either the introduction of a new, negative stimuli (ie family rejection after coming out) or the removal of a positive stimuli (ie being kicked out) (Bates and Swan 2021). The current approach to LGBTQ+ youth has not focused enough emphasis on protective factors that limit introduction of negative stimuli and reinforce positive ones.
CURRENT APPROACH
A study by the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative “confirmed that the child welfare system largely fails in its mission to ensure the safety, permanency and well-being of LGBT youth. LGBT youth have a higher number of foster care placements and are more likely to be living in a group home. More than twice as many LGBT youth reported being treated poorly by the foster care system compared to non-LGBT youth” (Wilber, 2015). Placements rarely take into account the youth or the foster family’s SOGIE, meaning that youth may be taken from one unaccepting home to another, and as we’ve seen, often end up on the street eventually due to this pattern. The JJS has historically been a sort of dumping ground for these youth who don’t have anywhere else to go, “However, detention facilities and detention alternatives are often ill-equipped to address the underlying causes [discussed above] of status offenses or delinquent behavior for LGBTQ youth” (Martin, Down, & Erney, 2016). Laura C. Hughes, Executive Director of the Ruth Ellis Center highlights that the emphasis of both CWS and JJS systems has been on removing a child from the home, rather than investing in family preservation and/or reunification (Kicked Out, 2011). Further, there is a lack of LGBTQ+-specific and family-centered research and data making it difficult to fully understand the problem and thus conceptualize solutions.
POLICY ALTERNATIVES
UNICORN HOMES
Given that the most common pathway into the CWS and JJS for LGBTQ+ youth is familial rejection or conflict due to their identity, initiatives have emerged to ensure that youth who are removed are placed in accepting homes. There has also been greater awareness of the hostility (including ongoing discrimination, harassment, or violence, including sexual assault) and lack of resources for this population in the CWS and JJS. There is a severe lack of placement options that are affirming, accepting, and protective for those youth who do need to be removed; most often, group homes are the only option for these youth, which research has shown to be significantly less effective in achieving permanence than other placements (Wilber, Ryan, Marksamer 2006). One program, local to North San Diego County that works to directly address this issue, as an alternative to traditional group home settings, is the North County LGBTQ Resource Center’s Unicorn Homes program: “Unicorn Homes is a program within the North County LGBTQ Resource Center that aims to provide crisis and transitional housing to LGBTQ youth (14-22) who are homeless or at risk for homelessness. A safe place to reside for a period of 14 days or more (youth that are minors will be hosted by a certified foster care family, youth 18yrs + and regular families that are LGBTQ supportive).The function is to provide housing stability with the ultimate goal of reuniting families and rectifying problems whenever possible. Unicorn Homes also provides paths to mental health resources, job readiness, life coaching, and independent living skills.” (Unicorn Homes: North county LGBTQ resource center). Unicorn Homes, and other programs similar to it, address the fact that sometimes youth cannot stay in their homes of origin and it can be a struggle finding placements that are qualified and welcoming to LGBTQ+ youth by making more LGBTQ+ friendly homes available and raising awareness of the necessity for such homes. The program supports a network of both families and individuals who are able and willing to offer a home to LGBTQ+ youth (short or long term) while still emphasizing family reunification when/wherever possible. By protecting their immediate needs (emotional, logistical, and physical), placements in these homes help mitigate the disproportionate likelihood of system involvement for LGBTQ+ youth, which can be extremely determinative over their life course, even after their detention and/or placement. This not only helps the population of LGBTQ+ homeless youth but also LGBTQ+ parents or parents-to-be who want to adopt or foster but are similarly ostracized due to their SOGIE.
FAMILY (RE)UNIFICATION
We have to shift the way we think about the impact of family rejection or acceptance and re-prioritize fostering acceptance given that “Actual or anticipated family acceptance or rejection of LGBT youth is important in understanding the youth’s experience of minority stress, how the youth is likely to cope with the stress, and consequently, the impact of minority stress on the youth’s health” (Katz-Wise, Rosario, Tsappis, 2016) The Family Acceptance Project “is a research, intervention, education and policy initiative to prevent health and mental health risks and to promote well being for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer-identified (LGBTQ) children and youth, including suicide, homelessness, drug use and HIV — in the context of their families, cultures and faith communities” (Welcome to The Family Acceptance Project). The Family Acceptance Project has invested time and resources into supporting LGBTQ+ youth, both after they’re out of the house and before they’re kicked out and/or removed; led by Dr. Caitlin Ryan of SFSU, the Family Acceptance Project has documented success in changing attitudes and overcoming differences among youth and families in CA (Gordon & Krehely, 2022). Their work focuses on developing culturally appropriate, evidence-based education, training, and assessments for a number of agents in the lives of LGBTQ+ youth that help diverse families and communities accept and support their LGBTQ+ youth. As part of this initiative, the Family Acceptance Project researchers identified more than 100 specific ways that parents and caregivers express acceptance or rejection of their LGBT children; after these traits were identified, the Family Acceptance Project has continued to create educational materials about how to create a loving, safe, affirming household – how to emphasize the acceptance traits and unlearn the rejection-related traits (Gordon & Krehely, 2022). The Family Acceptance Project “has documented the critical role that parents and caregivers play in promoting or undermining their LGBT children’s future health and well-being.” (Wilber, 2015). The emphasis on family (re)unification is especially critical for future system involvement given that leaving a home due to familial rejection is ”is the single greatest predictor of involvement with the juvenile-justice system for LGBT youth” and 25% of homeless youth in one study were found to be involved in both the CWS and JJS (Morris, 2014; Rabinovitz, Desai, Schneir, & Clark 2010). Additionally, many LGBTQ+ youth are kicked out of their homes of origin and subsequent CWS placements due to their SOGIE. For example, a study of LGBTQ+ homeless youth in San Diego found that 39% reported being thrown out of their families of origin or CWS placements because of their SOGIE (Berberet, 2004).
MAKING THE CASE FOR REUNIFICATION
Programs like Unicorn Homes don’t necessarily address the root issue of throwaway youth though. Prioritizing reunification is a protective factor in many ways, as data shows that those LGBTQ+ youth who face high levels of family rejection were 8.4x and 5.9x as likely to have attempted suicide and experience significant depression, respectively; they were also found to be 3.4x as likely to use illegal drugs and engage in high-risk sexual behavior (Wilber, 2015). For too many, the option (or not) to stay in their homes becomes life or death: “It's a survival thing. In America, we lose six queer kids a day to the street. That's every four hours a queer kid dies, whether it be from freezing to death or getting the shit beat out of them or a drug overdose. This is our next real plague” (the forsaken, morris) While reunification is not possible in some situations, it is an overlooked and valuable resource to LGBTQ+ youth. There is often an implicit or explicit assumption about those families that do reject, abuse, and kick out their LGBTQ+ youth – that they will always reject, abuse, and kick out their LGBTQ+ youth. There is an assumption of inevitability and irredeemability that is counterintuitive to the aims of either system and the well-being of youth. To operate on this assumption is to operate on the basis that some communities, some individuals, are disposable and that is the detriment currently facing our LGBTQ+ youth, but “there are no communities we should give up on, in terms of working with them to increase understanding and support” (Kicked Out, 2011). By making these assumptions, we are neglecting a potential support network for these youth. When we say that no child is disposable, we must also mean that their community and families are not disposable either.
Most families want what’s best but are unsure of how to react when their child comes out (often due to cultural or religious practices). Very rarely, even if they do kick their child out initially, do these families actually want their child out of the home forever or to face any harm. There is commonly a level of shock when a youth comes out, despite progress and increased visibility over the recent years, that manifests itself as rejection and disapproval. This initial reaction is not always the permanent one though as the Family Acceptance Project has found that on average, families become more accepting, letting go of their rejection, of their child’s SOGIE within about 2 years of becoming aware of it. Additionally, because we cannot wait 2 years for every family to come around, “the research also demonstrates that intervention by knowledgeable providers who are trained to assess family dynamics, provide counseling and accurate information, and educate families about the effect of their words, actions, and behaviors on their child’s well-being can make a substantial difference in helping families adjust more rapidly.” (Wilber, 2015). This is a big reason that the Family Acceptance Project also focuses their efforts on prevention and early intervention strategies as well as reunification afte the fact. One way they do this is through the development of evidence-based educational materials for families and other caregivers to understand and accept their child’s SOGIE. This helps to directly address the issue of throwaway youth being relegated to the CWS and/or JJS as if that's their only option since “Access to information and support may prevent or minimize family conflict or crisis by helping youth and families understand and anticipate the coming-out process and the family’s adjustment to it. Findings from the Family Acceptance Project indicate that early intervention to help families and caregivers understand the effect of their reactions to their child’s LGBT identity can help maintain many LGBT youth in their homes.
These services may also prevent the need for more formal or intensive interventions” (Wilber, Ryan, Marksamer 2006). So, by prioritizing family reunification, we can prevent these youth from ever coming into contact with some of the risk factors for system involvement. Especially given that youth are coming out earlier and earlier, we must shift our approach towards LGBTQ+ youth and their families and invest resources into stopping the rejection, criminalization, and ostracization of LGBTQ+ youth where it begins: in families and communities. The best way to help homeless and runaway LGBTQ+ youth is to prevent them from ever becoming runaway or homeless youth; instead of cleaning up the consequences of being thrown away, we can ensure they never are.
CONSULTED AND RECOMMENDED SOURCES:
Bates, K. A., & Swan, R. S. (2021). 4: Micro-Level Theories. In Juvenile delinquency in a diverse society (pp. 78–107),
SAGE Publications.
Bates, K. A., & Swan, R. S. (2021). 8: Schools and Families. , SAGE Publications.
Berberet, H. (2004, July). Living in the shadows: An assessment of housing needs among San Diego’s LGBTQ youth in
living outside the home.
Development Services Group, Inc. 2014. “LGBTQ Youths in the Juvenile Justice System.” Literature review. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/LGBTQYouthsintheJuvenileJusticeSystem.pdf
Family and Youth Services Bureau . (2017,March 24). A Story of Survival: Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention for Runaway
and Homeless Youth. Retrieved From:
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fysb/a_story_of_survival.pdf
Garnette, L., Irvine, A., Reyes, C. and Wilber, S. (2011). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Youth and the
Juvenile Justice System. In Juvenile Justice (eds F.T. Sherman and F.H. Jacobs).
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118093375.ch8
Gordon, N., & Krehely, J. (2022, June 1). Combating LGBT Youth homelessness. Center for American Progress. Retrieved
from https://www.americanprogress.org/article/combating-lgbt-youth-homelessness/
Himmelstein, Kathryn E. W., and Hannah Brückner. 2011. “Criminal-Justice and School Sanctions Against
Nonheterosexual Youth: A National Longitudinal Study.” Pediatrics 127(1):49–57. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-2306.
Irvine, A.. 2010. “'We've Had Three of Them': Addressing the Invisibility of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Gender
Nonconforming Youths in the Juvenile Justice System.” Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 19(3):675–701.
Irvine, A., & Canfield, A. (2016). The overrepresentation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning, gender nonconforming
and transgender youth within the child welfare to juvenile justice crossover population. American University Journal
of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 24(2), 243-262.
Irvine, A., and Canfield, A. 2017. “Reflections on New National Data on LGBT/GNCT Youth in the Justice System.”
LGBTQ Policy Journal of the Havard Kennedy School VII, 2016–17.
itlmedia. (2011). Kicked Out: Lgbtq Youth Experience Homelessness. YouTube. Retreived from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUhqodigP
Katz-Wise SL, Rosario M, Tsappis M. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth and Family Acceptance. Pediatr
Clin North Am. 2016 Dec; 63(6):1011-1025. doi: 10.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.005.
Majd, Katayoon, Jody Marksamer, and Carolyn Reyes. 2009. Hidden Injustice Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Youth in Juvenile Courts. Legal Services for Children, National Juvenile Defender Center, and the National Center
for Lesbian Rights.
Martin, M., Down, L., & Erney, R. (2016). Out of the Shadows: Supporting LGBTQ youth in child welfare through cross-
system collaboration. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy. Retrieved from:
Rabinovitz, S., Desai, M., Schneir, A., & Clark, L. (2010). No Way Home: Understanding the Needs and Experiences of
Homeless Youth in Hollywood. Hollywood Homeless Youth Partnership. Retrieved from:
http://www.hhyp.org/downloads/HHYP_TCE_Report_11-17-10.pdf
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2015). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in the Juvenile Justice System.
Baltimore, MD: Shannon Wilber. Retrieved from https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-
lesbiangaybisexualandtransgenderyouthinjj-2015.pdf
The Child Welfare League of America. (2006). Best practice guidelines : serving LGBT youth inout-of-home care.
Shannan Wilber, Caitlin Ryan, and Jody Marksamer. Washington, DC. Retrieved
from https://familyproject.sfsu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/bestpracticeslgbtyouth.pdf
Unicorn Homes: North county LGBTQ resource center. NCLGBTQ - LIVE SITE. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.ncresourcecenter.org/unicorn-home
Welcome to the Family Acceptance Project® |Family Acceptance Project ®. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://familyproject.sfsu.edu/
Youth.gov. (n.d.). Child welfare. Child Welfare | Youth.gov. Retrieved from
https://youth.gov/youth-topics/lgbtq-youth/child-welfare#_ftn