Gender-Responsive Programs and Services for Girls in Residential Centers: Meeting Different Profiles of Rehabilitation Needs

Abstract

Although research has established the need to provide adolescent girls in care with programs and services that are gender-sensitive, further research is needed to better understand their rehabilitation needs. The goals of this study were to more clearly define the nature and extent of gender differences in the rehabilitation needs of adolescent girls and boys placed in residential centers, and to identify the differing profiles of needs among girls in particular. The sample was drawn from 219 adolescents (92 boys and 127 girls) who had been placed in care and their 131 designated educators. Both groups completed questionnaires about their perceptions of the adolescents’ rehabilitation needs. Findings give added weight to the new generation of studies that clearly demonstrate the importance of going beyond overall comparisons between the genders to instead recognize the heterogeneity of the experiences, characteristics, and needs of adolescent girls placed in residential care.

Comparing Gender Differences and Similarities in How Risks and Strengths Cluster to Form Profiles of Justice-Involved Youth: A Latent Profile Analysis

“…Scholars from both gender responsive and gender neutral perspectives have begun to use a different methodological approach to explore diversity amongst justice-involved individuals (Brennan et al, 2012;Lanctôt, 2018;Schwalbe et al, 2008). In addition, only one known study has disaggregated gender in order to identify gender differences and similarities in how variables cluster together (Brown, Wanamaker et al, in press).…”

“…The other six studies used a sample of both female and male youth. Collectively, these studies have found on average three profiles/classes (see Brown, Wanamaker et al, in press, Campbell et al, 2019, Charak et al, 2019, Ford et al, 2013, Lanctôt, 2018, and Schwalbe et al, 2008. Schwalbe and colleagues' LCA (2008) was the only study to find five distinct classes which were categorized as (1) a low-need class, (2) a serious school problems class, (3) a hostility-inattention class, (4) a risk and family-history class, and (5) a substance abuse and peer delinquency class.…”

“…Across studies, different methodological approaches (i.e., variable-and person-centered) have been used to examine heterogeneity amongst justice-involved individuals (Lanctôt, 2018;Schwalbe et al, 2008). Variable-centered approaches typically focus on examining relations among variables, stemming from the gender neutral perspective.…”

“…Hypothesis 1: It was hypothesized that several unique profiles of justice-involved youth will emerge for males and females, with more profiles emerging for males than females due to the difference in sample size. Based on previous studies that examined both male and female youth (i.e., Brown, Wanamaker et al, in press, Campbell et al, 2019, Charak et al, 2019, Ford et al, 2013, Lanctôt, 2018, and Schwalbe et al, 2008, it was hypothesized that there would be between three to five separate profiles for males and females. It was expected that one of the groups of each gender consisting of youth who are high needs, and low strengths, another group consisting of youth who are low needs, high strengths, and a third group consisting of higher levels of mental health concerns and adversity.…”

The value and rationale of gender‐specific intervention with at‐risk adolescent girls

“…Consequently, the documented abuse and harassment of girls by other girls and female staff (Fitzroy, 2001;Snyder & Sickmund, 2006) may go unnoticed. In addition, some GSI seems to consist mainly on female segregation, with little attention to gender-responsive intervention contents and processes (e.g., Hodge, Holsinger, & Maziarka, 2015;Lanctôt, 2018). In addition, some GSI seems to consist mainly on female segregation, with little attention to gender-responsive intervention contents and processes (e.g., Hodge, Holsinger, & Maziarka, 2015;Lanctôt, 2018).…”