Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

© 2023 American Psychological Association 2024, Vol. 30, No. 1, 66–79

ISSN: 1076-8971 https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000413

The Critical Case File Approach: A Novel Tool for Critically Analyzing
Mixed-Method Data as Exemplified in a Juvenile Legal Setting
McKenzie N. Berezin1, Shabnam Javdani1, Christina Ducat2, Genevieve Sims1, and Erin Godfrey1
1
Department of Applied Psychology, New York University
2
University of Maryland

Current criminology and corrections research is limited in its ability to fully conceptualize and analyze inequities
in the legal systems’ response to young people, particularly those with multiple marginalized identities. This
article presents a novel methodological framework—the Critical Case File (CCF) approach—to advance meth-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

odological innovations in criminal and juvenile legal system research. Specifically, the CCF approach leverages
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the rich multisystem information available within case file data and analyzes it through a critical lens to examine
(a) the structural factors (e.g., economic and housing precarity) undergirding legal system contact and (b) how
the legal system responds to these structural factors to perpetuate the well-documented disparities that exist
across the legal continuum. In this article, we present the CCF approach, which systematizes best practices
for capturing the breadth of information available within case files. We first propose a six-step methodological
process to describe how information from legal system-impacted people’s case files can be extracted, analyzed,
and disseminated with an equity-oriented lens. We then exemplify how the CCF approach differentiates from
other methods typically used in social science and criminology research. Practice and policy implications are
presented to demonstrate the ways that the CCF approach can leverage case file data to generate novel, mean-
ingful, and data-driven solutions that illuminate structural factors that may drive and exacerbate legal system
contact and delineate the potential of research–practice–policy partnerships to reduce structural disparities.

Keywords: case file, methodology, juvenile justice, critical theory, gender

Disparities in the response of the juvenile legal system (JLS) and its nonconforming (TGNC) youth, who are subject to increased levels of
feeder systems (e.g., education, child welfare, mental health) to young scrutiny at the intersection of their multiply-marginalized identities
people has been a longstanding topic of inquiry in psychological, crim- (Holsinger & Hodge, 2016; Movement Advancement Project and
inological, and sociological scholarship (Mallett, 2018; Zane & Pupo, Center for American Progress, 2016).
2021). It is well established that youth with multiple marginalized iden- Unique from the adult criminal legal system, the juvenile court was
tities, particularly youth of color, girls, and gender-expansive youth, are founded on the doctrine of paerns patriae, which defines the JLS—and
uniquely criminalized and receive disproportionately harsh treatment, courts especially—as a governing parent for youth. This paternalism is
leading to their overrepresentation throughout the JLS (Hockenberry apparent in the courts’ competing goals of youth discipline and rehabil-
& Puzzanchera, 2021; Spinney et al., 2018). For example, research itation in the name of advancing young peoples’ “best interests”
finds that behaviors deemed normative for White children and adoles- (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2013). This foundational mission of the
cents (e.g., hyperactivity, impulsivity) are more frequently problematized JLS has created a governing body through the courts that actively inter-
and criminalized among youth of color (e.g., disorderly, ungovernable; venes in the lives of youth and their families thought to be “at risk”
Mandell et al., 2007; Spinney et al., 2016). Among girls of color, this (Nanda, 2011). The necessity of intervention is subjectively determined
often manifests in the criminalization of behaviors deemed inappropriate based on the extensive discretion afforded to court actors (e.g., judges,
or incongruent with traditional notions of upper-middle-class femininity probation officers, and lawyers) that create and reinforce the well-
(Chesney-Lind & Morash, 2013; Pasko & Chesney-Lind, 2010). These established race- and gender-based disparities we see within the JLS
impacts are redoubled for queer youth, particularly for trans or gender today (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2013; Nanda, 2011; Spinney et al.,

This article was published Online First December 21, 2023. to resources and writing–review and editing, and served in a supporting role
McKenzie N. Berezin https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2957-8853 for writing–original draft. Christina Ducat served in a supporting role for con-
This work was supported by the National Institute of Health under Grant ceptualization, formal analysis, and writing–original draft. Genevieve Sims
L40 MH108089 and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency contributed equally to formal analysis. Erin Godfrey served as lead for fund-
Prevention under award 2016-JF-FX-K005. The authors are grateful for ing acquisition and resources and served in a supporting role for conceptual-
the collaborative support and partnership of the New York State ization and writing–review and editing. McKenzie N. Berezin and Genevieve
Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, the Vera Institute Sims contributed equally to methodology. Shabnam Javdani and Genevieve
of Justice End Girls Incarceration Team, and Hon Kathie E Davidson and Sims contributed equally to conceptualization. McKenzie N. Berezin and
Hon (retired) Katherine Lucero. The authors have no conflicts of interests Shabnam Javdani contributed equally to project administration.
to disclose. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to McKenzie
McKenzie N. Berezin served as lead for conceptualization, formal analy- N. Berezin, Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, 246
sis, investigation, writing–original draft, and writing–review and editing. Greene Street, New York, NY 10003, United States. Email: mnb387@nyu
Shabnam Javdani served as lead for funding acquisition, contributed equally .edu

66
 THE CRITICAL CASE FILE APPROACH 67

2016). The power and discretion afforded to juvenile court actors, processes and patterns of system policies and laws (e.g., discriminatory
paired with the consistent and ongoing disparities captured across policies) that generate the differential outcomes documented across
the JLS from arrest through confinement (Hockenberry & groups.
Puzzanchera, 2021), point to broader inequities embedded within the Second, the quantitative methods typically leveraged to analyze
JLS’s policies, processes, and procedures. Consequently, scholars court data are limited in their ability to examine the multisystemic
across disciplines have identified the need to shift our collective and reciprocal pathways that capture youths’ legal experiences
focus from understanding risky people, to studying and intervening (Miller, 2005). Indeed, such methods typically leverage longitudinal,
on risky systems (Buchanan et al., 2021). However, this requires meth- quantitative analyses (e.g., analysis of variance, regression) to capture
odological approaches that allow us to analyze how the JLS and its predictors of system involvement and key outcomes over time (e.g.,
feeder systems differentially respond to youth across sociodemo- recidivism). While these approaches are effective at identifying factors
graphic groups to confer and maintain persistent disparities (Henson that predict long-term legal involvement for youth (e.g., Basto-Pereira
et al., 2023). et al., 2015; Cho et al., 2019), they do not systematically illuminate the
Despite the increasing focus on how systems of inequity (e.g., sys- complex and reciprocal pathways between the JLS and its feeder sys-
temic racism, sexism, and classism; Davis et al., 2022) drive disparities tems (e.g., child welfare, education, and mental health systems). This
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

across the JLS, empirical research that examines these broader systems is particularly important to understand for youth in the JLS given the
remains relatively rare compared to dominant paradigms that focus on evidence that demonstrates how these feeder systems become drivers
risky people rather than risky systems (for notable exceptions, see of youth’s initial and long-term system contact (Javdani, 2019a;
Baumle, 2018; Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2013; Javdani, 2019a, Sherman & Balck, 2015). For example, disenfranchisement in child-
2019b; Pasko & Chesney-Lind, 2010; Saar et al., 2015; Sherman & serving systems (e.g., child welfare, education, mental health) is a
Balck, 2015). Of the existing scholarship that does investigate the ineq- well-documented pipeline for initial legal involvement for the youth
uitable response patterns of the legal system to youth, the focus contin- of color (e.g., Ryan et al., 2007). Once involved in the legal system,
ues to be on one structural issue at a time (e.g., racism), leaving youth of color are especially vulnerable to increased surveillance
important gaps in understanding how intersecting systems of inequity and heightened punishment from feeder systems, leaving them at
(e.g., racism and sexism) perpetuate disparities for youth with multiple higher risk for subsequent reentry into the legal system (Huang et
marginalized identities (Davis et al., 2022; Richie, 2012). We argue al., 2012; Javdani, 2019a; Sherman & Balck, 2015). The multisystem,
that one of the reasons for these gaps in knowledge is the lack of meth- reciprocal pathways that characterize youth’s legal involvement neces-
odological approaches that can effectively render systemic inequity and sitate methods that extend beyond longitudinal, predictive analyses, to
differential system response patterns visible in the lives and trajectories better capture the interplay and impact of these multiple institutions on
of multiply-marginalized youth in the JLS (Crenshaw, 1991). youth’s court trajectories.
To address this methodological gap, this article introduces a novel Third, while qualitative techniques are increasingly used within cor-
approach, we term the Critical Case File (CCF) approach, and exem- rections and criminology scholarship to examine broader processes
plify how it can be used to (a) understand the structural factors and real- that confer legal system disparities, these approaches continue to rely
ities that describe the system outcomes and experiences that are found primarily on surveying and observing individuals (Becker & Aiello,
to impact girls’ and TGNC youths’ health, wellness, and legal involve- 2013). Indeed, current qualitative techniques typically examine indi-
ment (e.g., poverty, housing insecurity; WHO Commission on Social viduals’ perceptions of the system (Holsinger & Hodge, 2016) or,
Determinants of Health & World Health Organization 2008) and (b) more commonly, indicators of system actors’ own attributions and
examine the system’s response to these structural realities that confer biases (e.g., Anderson et al., 2023; Burson et al., 2019). For instance,
legal system disparities. qualitative studies interviewing court stakeholders find variability in
the attributions that stakeholders make, especially around system-
Why a New Approach Is Needed impacted girls of color (Anderson et al., 2023; Burson et al., 2019;
Pasko & Chesney-Lind, 2010). While this evidence is important for
There are several methodological gaps in current carceral research showing how various stakeholders think differently about the youth
that impact our capacity to effectively understand and mitigate the they work with, it does not systematically examine the broader institu-
ongoing inequity documented across the legal system. First, criminol- tional processes that characterize discriminatory attributions described
ogy and corrections research overly relies on studying risky people by stakeholders. Additionally, even when the goal of these studies is to
rather than studying risky systems (Henson et al., 2023). This approach understand broader systemic structures, they still rely on reports from
locates the source of the problem of juvenile delinquency (and there- individual actors. This is problematic because individuals are often
fore, its solution) in individual and family deficits rather than individ- unreliable narrators of system-level decision-making processes, partic-
uals’ structural realities and system responses to these realities, even ularly when these are related to systemic issues of inequitable or dis-
when race- and gender-based disparities are the focus of scholarship criminatory processing. Additionally, qualitative methods often rely
(Case & Haines, 2021; Kempf-Leonard, 2007). Specifically, the bulk on small, selected samples of data and often do not have the goal of
of existing research on system involvement examines court decision- generalizability to larger systems or structures, which is necessary to
making processes and outcomes. This is primarily captured by court advance policy and practice. This leaves important gaps as to how pro-
documents that describe type and number of allegations (e.g., assault), grams and policies can be most effectively implemented to target
allegation severity (e.g., misdemeanor, felony), and demographic infor- unjust system practices and laws beyond individual-level attributions,
mation (Zane & Pupo, 2021). While effective at identifying and quan- biases, and efforts. Indeed, when delivered without meaningful atten-
tifying disparities, this type of research only captures outcomes that tion to broader systems and structures, individual-focused interven-
reflect final decisions made by court staff (Spinney et al., 2018). tions (e.g., antibias training) demonstrate negligible effectiveness in
Thus, it does not adequately capture broader decision-making reducing disparities within the legal system (Cunneen, 2023).
 68 BEREZIN, JAVDANI, DUCAT, SIMS, AND GODFREY

The CCF Approach and structural precarity characterizing youth’s court involvement
(e.g., housing instability), and how the legal system responds to and
The CCF approach addresses these methodological gaps by intervenes in the life of a young person.
applying a critical interpretive lens to the mixed-method data avail-
able within archival JLS case files to render visible youths’ structural
realities and patterns in systems’ responses to these realities. As we Traditional Research Approaches to Case File Analysis
exemplify below, case files are a particularly rich data source for The use of case files as a source of data to understand disparities in
addressing these gaps, because they are a form of archival system JLS contact is not completely novel. Indicators extracted from case
documentation that details information about youth contexts leading files and other court documents are commonly leveraged as data to
to and resulting from their contact with the JLS. Case files also pro- examine disproportionate minority contact across the legal system,
vide insight into the underlying logic of actors across systems (e.g., by quantitatively analyzing indicators such as demographic data, pri-
probation officers, case workers, mental health counselors) that then mary allegations, and court outcomes (e.g., Spinney et al., 2018).
directly impact and determine the legal sanctions and resources for- More rarely, however, are case files used to address current method-
mally allocated to youth and their families. ological gaps in corrections research.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

For example, case file data have been used to examine attributions of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

What Is a Case File? behavior among JLS stakeholders (Bridges & Steen, 1998); trace path-
ways between concentrated disadvantage, perceptions of risk, and con-
There is immense diversity in the types of documentation housed finement for youth (Pasko & Chesney-Lind, 2010; Pasko & Mayeda,
in case files. Though they vary across local jurisdictions and state 2011; Rodriguez, 2013); and understand inequities within the family
contexts, case files often include intake records that detail youth’s court system to create an alternative girls court (Javdani et al., 2023).
contexts immediately preceding their legal involvement such as These studies highlight the potential of case files to be an analytic
assessments that document youth’s current mental and physical tool that examines structural precarity and systems’ partners’ attribu-
health status, and assessments that document the purported risk tions by elucidating the ways in which poverty is criminalized
level of youth as perceived by system actors (e.g., whether a youth among youth (Pasko & Chesney-Lind, 2010; Rodriguez et al., 2009)
is identified as “low” or “high” risk). Case files also document sys- or to identify a treatment-to-prison pipeline for youth in residential
tem responses across the full legal continuum, including initial treatment centers (Javdani et al., 2023). However, case files have
police reports (e.g., police statements when arresting a young person; even greater potential to interrogate the legal system itself and its feeder
charge at arrest; victim/witness reports), additional incidents that systems to bolster our understanding of how youths’ structural realities
occur while a child is under legal system surveillance (e.g., addi- and subsequent system responses confer disparities. This is especially
tional charges a youth incurs and/or specific violations of their pro- true when case file data are paired with an equity-focused lens (Eila
bation terms), and final adjudication decisions determined by Satka & Skehill, 2012; Skehill et al., 2013). We introduce the CCF
judges. Additionally, demographic information is often readily approach as a novel mixed methodological tool and analytic framework
available within case file data, such as youth’s race and ethnicity, that can systematically examine the influence of structural realities and
gender, immigration status, and other markers of identity and mar- system response patterns in the trajectories of legal-impacted youth.
ginalization. Observations or process notes of staff working with a
child and/or their family can also be included, such as the documen- The CCF Six-Step Approach
tation of weekly meeting notes between a probation officer and a
child (e.g., youth attendance of probation meetings or goals worked The CCF approach leverages the rich data available within case
on over the week). Finally, formal reports documented within other files to examine youth’s structural realities and the systematic ways
systems relevant to the lives of youth in the JLS are often included in the JLS and its feeder systems respond to and intervene in the lives
case files. This can include (but is not limited to) allegations of abuse of youth. Specifically, the CCF method leverages a systematic ana-
as documented by the child welfare system, official school records lytic approach to extract and document structural factors of legal
(e.g., suspensions, expulsions, special education services, tran- contact and the system responses to these drivers from a full set
scripts), and mental health assessments and diagnoses. This means of archives available in a case file. By pairing this systematic
that case file data include reports by system actors across multiple approach with a critical lens, the CCF approach can reveal the
legal system points (e.g., arrests/police officers, probation officers, underlying logic and pattern of the system’s response across the
judges) as well as by informants from different stakeholder groups legal continuum.
or systems (e.g., child welfare, education, mental health). This analysis produces both quantitative and qualitative indicators,
The available information housed within case files is also uniquely allowing for the numerical characterization of large-scale disparities to
suited for mixed-method analysis. Specifically, case files can include be paired with illustrative narratives to exemplify these systemic pat-
information from check-boxes staff complete (e.g., did a child com- terns and pathways. Furthermore, because case files constitute the offi-
plete mandated therapy, yes or no?) or official records and court doc- cial record of youths’ contact with the JLS, they are seen as legitimate
umentation (e.g., arresting charge) that can easily be quantified (e.g., representations of the system’s response to individual youth and can
number of youth mandated to therapy in the sample). Case files also be fully representative of known populations or jurisdictions. Thus,
include open-ended descriptions of a child’s behavior and progress case file data can characterize structural realities driving system con-
that provide nuanced insight into broader processes and pathways of tact and the system’s response to these realities in a more representa-
a youth’s legal trajectory. The diversity of information within case tive way than, for instance, self-report interview-based approaches.
files provides rich insight into the perceptions staff across systems Finally, case files can contain rich data across the full legal trajectory
have about legal-involved youth, broader contextual experiences (e.g., arrest through confinement) and across multiple systems. These
 THE CRITICAL CASE FILE APPROACH 69

data therefore provide unique opportunities to capture the complex, reflexive processes and procedures for accessing, extracting,
reciprocal patterns between the response of the JLS and its feeder sys- and analyzing the rich case file data through a critical interpretive
tems (e.g., education, mental health, child welfare). Together, the CCF lens. These steps reflect the full process of a CCF analytic
approach presents a novel methodology for systematically analyzing approach, including initial access to these data, mechanisms
inequitable systems that would not be possible to capture through tra- for extracting and analyzing data through a critical interpretive
ditional quantitative or qualitative methods alone. lens, and ways to disseminate these findings that can directly
translate to policy and systems change. The CCF approach
Conducting a CCF explicitly includes processes for setting up the work (Step 1)
and disseminating its findings to impact policy and program
Below, we describe a robust six-step process for conducting a change (Step 6) to emphasize the importance of establishing
CCF analysis (see Table 1). These six steps are a blueprint for research partnerships with local entities and ensuring these anal-
applying the CCF approach and exemplify the iterative and yses translate to meaningful change.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Table 1
The Six-Step Processes of the CCF Approach
CCF steps Description Goals
1. Build cross-system This initial stage focuses on cultivating cross-system • Identify specific legal disparities of interest to target with
partnerships and rapport. partnership to generate support for the CCF analysis, a CCF analysis.
shared understanding of goals for the CCF analysis, and
identify local disparities and challenges among • Develop a shared critical interpretive framework across
cross-system stakeholders. This ensures a shared goal and stakeholders.
vision for the CCF is developed among stakeholders to • Identify sample for CCF.
effectively address the localized needs and challenges of the • Determine resources available and timeline for
systems’ response to youth. completing CCF.
• Gain access to case files.
2. Generate critical Next, a set of critical touchstone questions are generated that • Create a list of touchstone questions that reflect the
touchstone questions. ground the CCF in its critical interpretive lens. These critical interpretive lens of interest for extraction and
questions ensure that researchers and system partners are analysis.
able to extract and analyze the available data through a lens
that focuses on broader patterns of systems’ responses to
youth, rather than focusing on individual youth’s behaviors,
only. These questions are informed by the local disparities
most persistent, as identified through the cross-system
partnership.
3. Create a mixed-method Next, a codebook is created that identifies both traditional • Identify traditional and structural indicators reflecting
codebook. (e.g., demographic, court outcome) and structural (e.g., disparities of interest, informed by scholarship and local
school pushout, family incarceration) indicators relevant to challenges identified through cross-system partnership.
the disparities of interest. This codebook is mixed-method • Create a mixed-method codebook for extracting and
and structured to capture prevalence of these indicators documenting indicators within case files, informed by
quantitatively (i.e., school pushout—yes/no) and touchstone questions.
qualitatively, with specific details from individual case files.
This codebook can be adapted throughout the extraction
process as researchers gain access to case files and can see
availability of data within.
4. Extract data through Next, case file data are extracted and captured in the • Extract available case file data into mixed-method
critical interpretive mixed-method codebook. The CCF approach leverages the codebook, anchored to touchstone questions.
frameworks. full breadth of data available within case file documents to • Double code case file to establish interrater reliability.
capture structural realities and patterns of systems responses • Finalize sample size based on data available.
to youth across the JLS and its feeder systems. Based on
richness of data available, the sample size of the CCF can be
further modified.
5. Analyze data through The touchstone questions inform the analysis of the • Identify and quantify structural factors of youth in the
critical interpretive mixed-method data extracted, to identify structural factors sample.
frameworks. and patterns of systems’ responses to youth. This is done at • Individually and, in aggregate, link structural factors to
the individual youth level and in aggregate. These findings system outcomes and contact points to identify and
are synthesized to understand youth’s structural factors and systematize patterns of JLS and feeders systems’
identify distinct patterns in the system response to youth and response to youth.
their structural realities across the full sample.
6. Speak back to system The cross-system partnership required for case file analyses • Cogenerate a list of deliverables from cross-system
partners. allow for the dissemination of findings to extend beyond partnership and with attention to localized need.
traditional academic outlets (e.g., journal articles). Findings • Produce deliverables and share back to system partners to
from the CCF are tailored to the specific experiences of youth identify targeted strategies to reduce systemic inequities.
in a particular JLS jurisdiction and can be used to generate
systemic interventions targeting the disparities of interest.
Note. CCF = Critical Case File; JLS = juvenile legal system.
 70 BEREZIN, JAVDANI, DUCAT, SIMS, AND GODFREY

We illustrate the six-step CCF process by describing how this Step 1: Build Cross-System Partnerships and Rapport
mixed-method approach can be applied to reduce legal contact for
girls and TGNC youth of color across three jurisdictions in the Case file analyses require cross-system collaboration to facilitate
United States. Specifically, the proposed six-step process was first data access, analysis, and dissemination. For this, case file data
created following a case file analysis of a census of all court cases were made accessible to the research team through court orders
filed over an 18-month period (January 2016–June 2017; Javdani from chief judges in the target jurisdictions via a multiyear cross-
et al., 2023) in one jurisdiction. This was then modified and refined system partnership and approved by the university’s institutional
following a case file analysis conducted on two samples of detention review board. The collaborating research team and coauthors of
files across two jurisdictions (one county and one state level). These this article were housed within a large research and academic insti-
jurisdictions varied not only in their size, their regionality, and the tution. This research team was led by tenured faculty members
availability of case file information available, but also in their levels (Shabnam Javdani and Erin Godfrey of the article) and included
of involvement, system buy-in among stakeholders, and their cross- one doctoral candidate (McKenzie N. Berezin), one postdoctoral fel-
system partnerships. Despite this variability, however, the six-step low, and three full-time postbaccalaureate researchers (Christina
process exemplified below was created and applied across all three Ducat and Genevieve Sims of the article). The research team worked
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

jurisdictions. Although one jurisdiction represented the full census collaboratively for approximately 2 years with each of the county’s
of case files over an 18-month period (all initial and supplementary juvenile court system (e.g., judge, attorneys, etc.) and a national non-
petitions filed for girls and boys), two of the three jurisdictions profit organization that focused on promoting gender and racial
focused specifically on court-involved girls, with girls of color spe- equity in the legal system. The targeted goal of this multisystem col-
cifically comprising a disproportionate amount of girls legally laboration was to leverage case file data to understand where girls
involved (ranging from 40% to 97% across jurisdictions). were most consistently entrapped within the legal continuum and
While this CCF process can be used to understand the system’s subsequently identify data-driven approaches for shifting how
response to youth from all backgrounds, we focus our analysis on each jurisdiction responded to girls, and especially girls of color,
understanding inequitable systems’ responses to girls and TGNC to reduce court contact. The case file analysis leveraged for this mul-
youth of color because we believe it can be particularly useful in illu- tisystem and cross-jurisdictional collaboration culminated in the cre-
minating their intersecting racialized and gendered experiences across ation and pilot of the formalized CCF approach presented here.
the legal system. Moreover, girls and TGNC youth of color now com- To build rapport across stakeholders, identify where disparities
prise the fastest-growing segment of the JLS (Ehrmann et al., 2019; existed across the legal continuum, and to develop a shared goal
The Sentencing Project, 2019). They are also more frequently arrested for the case file project across jurisdiction stakeholders, the research
and confined for lower-risk offenses compared to boys (e.g., technical team, nonprofit organization, and each jurisdictional court staff
violations of probation (VOPs), running away/truancy, simple assault; scheduled several meetings to better understand the localized chal-
Ehrmann et al., 2019) and report high experiences of trauma and lenges, goals, and needs from the court’s perspective. This was par-
gender-based violence that is often a direct precursor to their legal ticularly important for cultivating rapport and trust with staff across
involvement (Baumle, 2018; Saar et al., 2015). Current scholarship each county’s court system, given the historical distrust between
also finds that girls of color especially are more likely to be pushed “outside” researchers and community system stakeholders
out of schools (which is a strong predictor of system involvement; (Gollust et al., 2017). Indeed, although critical leaders across partic-
Epstein et al., 2017; White, 2017) and comprise the highest percentage ipating jurisdictions actively sought out opportunities to participate
of youth who are involved in both the child welfare and JLSs (“dually in data-driven approaches to reduce gender and racial disparities,
system involved youth”; Sherman & Balck, 2015). Mixed-method data there was variable support from frontline and intermediary stake-
further demonstrate how family courts historically functioned to con- holders, on the ground. To bridge this, the research team shared
trol and surveil girls’ and TGNC youths’ sexuality and authority- the methodological potential of the CCF approach as a way to better
questioning behaviors through confinement in training schools to understand the structural factors of girls’ court involvement and the
both “reform” and “save” them from dangerous environments multiple systems girls in the county were most impacted by (e.g.,
(Anderson et al., 2017; Pasko & Chesney-Lind, 2010; Vafa & child welfare, school pushout). We also explored stakeholders’ per-
Epstein, 2023). This differs from boys, who are more frequently con- spectives working directly with youth, including the challenges and
fined because they are perceived to be a threat to their community rather strengths of the current cross-system response to girls that led to
than themselves (Gavazzi, 2006). Together, these data suggest that the their entrapment within each of the county’s court systems. For
uptick in legal involvement for girls’ TGNC youth of color is not the example, in one jurisdiction, cross-system staff identified increasing
result of their behaviors but rather the result of differential responses to gentrification and homelessness as particularly prominent issues
their behaviors from the JLS and its feeder systems (Holsinger, 2017). characterizing girls’ legal involvement. This prompted the research
Given the ways that girls of color especially are increasingly crim- team to focus on the ways that homelessness emerged in the case file
inalized across child-serving systems, experience significant struc- analysis across the legal continuum for youth, starting with their ini-
tural disadvantage (e.g., housing and education needs), and report tial arrest (e.g., arrested for survival crimes) to their long-term court
complex health needs that characterize their legal involvement involvement (e.g., justifying confinement because there is “no place
(Sherman & Balck, 2015), it is particularly important to illuminate else to go”). Overall, this process allowed us to better understand,
the inequitable responses of the legal system toward this group. To from staff perspectives, the specific system points through which
better attend to these inequitable system responses, we leverage gender and race disparities may be most prominent within each
the six-step CCF process to analyze the structural factors and pat- jurisdiction, as well as existing resources that impact—both posi-
terns of systems responses to girls and TGNC youth of color across tively and negatively—girls’ court trajectories. It further allowed
three jurisdictions in the United States. us to codify these structural realities within the cross-jurisdiction
 THE CRITICAL CASE FILE APPROACH 71

codebook used for the CCF analyses (as exemplified below) and codebook was first created before any coding sessions. This was
examine disparities for girls and girls of color especially, within informed by an initial CCF codebook used in a case file review to
and across jurisdictions. understand girls’ legal involvement within a single system point
Cultivating rapport, understanding local disparities, and cogener- (court; see Javdani et al., 2023). The final codebook built off of
ating shared goals early in the CCF process allowed for an important this single system point codebook, but was expanded to allow us
shift in shared values across collaborators. Specifically, it facilitated to systematically collect and analyze data informed by multiple sys-
a shift in values across system actors, from focusing on using the tem points. For each jurisdiction, the research team was able to com-
available data to understand “risky systems” rather than “risky plete at least one coding session to refine the preliminary codebook
girls” which is too often the focus of court and case file data. It and understand the full scope of information available for each of the
was also critical for accessing the case files for collection, analyzing three jurisdictions.
it with attention to localized needs, and ensuring findings would be To achieve our goal of understanding systems’ responses to girls
translated and applied by stakeholders, on the ground. These shifts and girls of color specifically, and to leverage the full potential of
were catalyzed by cross-system stakeholders sharing their knowl- information available across jurisdictions, several types of data
edge and experiences working within inequitable systems and by were extracted from the case files. Specifically, the codebook cap-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

sharing current scholarship on the structural factors and systems tured commonly examined court data (e.g., demographic informa-
most impacting girls’ involvement into and through the legal system. tion, system, or court outcomes), focused heavily on extracting the
Together, this allowed stakeholders to link the challenges they expe- structural factors of girls’ court involvement, and documented how
rienced and witnessed for girls and TGNC youth of color in the the court and its feeder systems responded to the structural precarity
county with the broader inequities and structural factors of girls’ girls’ experienced. The codebook therefore included three categories
JLS involvement, as demonstrated within national scholarship of variables that we expand on below: demographic information;
(e.g., Davis et al., 2022; Sherman & Balck, 2015). structural factors characterizing or preceding girls’ legal involve-
ment; and systems responses to girls’ behaviors. An “other” category
Step 2: Generate Critical Touchstone Questions was also created to capture additional information pertinent to under-
standing structural factors and system pathways that may emerge in
Once rapport was built and goals identified, a shared interpretive specific case file data. All data captured in this category were entered
frame was generated among researchers and used throughout the into the codebooks and analyzed during the coding and analysis
extraction and analysis process. Four interrelated questions anchored stages. However, we note that none of the data entered into the
our analysis and served as our touchstones for examining structural “other” category represented a particular pattern that resulted in
realities and systems’ response patterns for girls and TGNC youth of larger changes to the mixed-method codebook described below.
color, specifically, given the cross-system goal of promoting gender- The development of the CCF codebook paralleled an open the-
and racial equity in each jurisdiction. These touchstone questions are matic coding process (Williams & Moser, 2019). Specifically, a
informed by critical theory related to gender and race disparities deductive analytic approach (Young et al., 2020) was first applied
experienced by system-impacted youth (Burgess-Proctor, 2006; to identify key drivers of girls’ incarceration from academic and
Potter, 2013; Sherman & Balck, 2015): national scholarship. This deductive approach informed several of
the indicators we describe below. For example, because abuse is a
• What are the structural realities influencing girls’ experi-
well-known driver of girls’ legal contact nationally (Baumle,
ences, opportunities, and behaviors?
2018; Saar et al., 2015), it was included as an indicator to extract
• What characterizes the systems’ response to girls’ structural
before any coding sessions. Next, an inductive analysis approach
realities?
was used to ensure local processes and pathways relevant to girls’
• What is the function of this response/what are the intended
legal involvement across jurisdictions were also systematically cap-
and unintended consequences of this response?
tured in the codebook (Young et al., 2020). The inductive analytic
• What role might race, gender, and economic marginalization
approach helped to further concretize the specific variables or indi-
play in shaping the systems’ response and consequences to
cators that could be extracted that may have been absent from the
girls?
deductive analytic process and nuance what kind of information
Anchoring ourselves to these questions allowed us to consistently we may be able to extract from indicators identified within the
lift our analysis from the behaviors of girls and their families to sys- national literature. For example, although child welfare involvement
tematically (a) investigate whether there was an inequitable response was first identified from the national literature on girls’ legal involve-
to girl’s broader contexts and (b) understand the short- and long-term ment (e.g., deductive analytic approach) as an indicator to extract
legal consequences of these responses within the case file data. across case files, the specific indicators assessing this (e.g., number
of child welfare referrals, number of substantiated referrals) were
Step 3: Create a Mixed-Method Codebook finalized following the team’s review of the full materials available
in the case file data across jurisdictions. For this inductive analytic
Once the research team created the aforementioned touchstone approach, two researchers read each case file in their entirety to gen-
questions that reflected the critical interpretive lens of interest, a erate themes around the system’s response to youth. Ongoing and
codebook was created to systematically capture the full breadth of additional consultations were conducted with the study’s Principal
multi-informant, multisystem, and mixed-method data available Investigator’s (PI) to ensure consistency and agreement about the
for analysis. This codebook was initially developed in one jurisdic- final set of indicators used for the mixed-method codebook. All
tion and subsequently refined across multiple case file projects in case files were subject to this process and resulted in clarification
two additional jurisdictions. Specifically, a preliminary CCF and addition of specific indicators not consistently identified within
 72 BEREZIN, JAVDANI, DUCAT, SIMS, AND GODFREY

national scholarship on girls’ legal involvement but emerged as school-to-prison pipeline, abuse to pipeline, child welfare involve-
important within the local context. ment, homelessness; Baumle, 2018; Epstein et al., 2017; Javdani
et al., 2023; Sherman & Balck, 2015; Vafa & Epstein, 2023). A
Demographic Information smaller subset of indicators (e.g., family and peer involvement,
immigration status, gang involvement) were included following
The codebook included six variables to understand girls’ demo- our inductive analysis of the full case file data available across
graphic information: race, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, each jurisdiction. These indicators were further corroborated and
translation needs, and zip code. While three indicators were consis- identified by staff across jurisdictions during the planning and
tently captured in check-marked boxes within case file data (e.g., rapport-building phase of the CCF. Together, these 16 indicators
age, zip code, race), others (sexual orientation, gender identity, transla- across nine themes attend to well-known systemic disparities and
tion needs) were not explicitly or consistently included in filings. Since structural factors of girls’ criminalization and localized challenges
these three demographic variables were not included consistently as shared by each court’s staff.
check-marked boxes within the demographic proportions of case file To fully capture structural factors and the extent of girls’ experi-
data, they were identified by the research team within the narrative doc- ences across other child-serving systems (e.g., education, child wel-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

uments of various system stakeholders or court actors. fare), particularly as it relates to their court involvement, the
For example, it is well documented that lesbian, gay, and bisexual codebook first asked whether an indicator was identified within a
girls and TGNC youth experience significant structural precarity (e.g., case file (e.g., housing instability, yes/no); following, a column for
housing instability, school pushout) that leaves them particularly vul- notes was included to describe the indicator endorsed (e.g.,
nerable to criminalization in the JLS (Irvine & Canfield, 2017). This “Minor and her family changed residences 6 times in last 10 years
empirical knowledge was reflected in our data, such that this informa- for financial reasons”). This allowed us to quantify the percentage
tion about girls’ sexual and gender identity was often discussed in the of girls in the sample who experienced each indicator (e.g., housing
case files as part of their initial and ongoing court involvement (e.g., instability) and better understand how their experiences within a sys-
being kicked out of their parents’ house because they did not approve tem (e.g., child welfare) or navigating structural precarity (e.g., hous-
of girls’ sexual or gender identities). We, therefore, identified these ing instability) became a critical driver into their ongoing system
demographic indicators as particularly important to systematically involvement in the county (e.g., “recommended to continue detain-
capture with the mixed-method data available—even if they were ment because continuing in her home is contrary to welfare”). Here,
not self-reported among girls themselves—to fully understand the we could link the ways that systems actively respond to girls’ lives
ways that systems inequitably responded to multiply-marginalized that expand beyond solely investigating girls’ behaviors or immedi-
girls across each jurisdiction’s data. ate contexts.

Indicators of Multisystem Entanglement and Structural Indicators of System Responses to Girls’ Behaviors
Factors of Girls’ Court Involvement
This category included nine indicators to capture the range of sys-
This category included 16 indicators that represented nine larger tem contact experiences, from girls’ initial arrest to longer-term con-
themes generated from national scholarship on the systems and finement. Specific indicators included the number of petitions,
structural factors that entrap girls in the legal system and local chal- number of warrants, whether probation was offered, VOPs, whether
lenges court staff identified as critical for understanding girls’ court community-based supervision was offered,1 whether a judge
involvement in the county. These nine themes included mental delayed sentencing for a youth and offered community supervision,2
health (three indicators: whether a psychiatric evaluation was con- outcome of community supervision, risk score,3 and whether a girl
ducted, outcome and/or diagnoses, indication of self-harm); school was detained (e.g., in short-term placement like juvenile hall and/
pushout (two indicators: documentation of school pushout, docu- or long-term placement).
mented learning disability or individualized education plan); child To capture the system’s response to youth through the critical
abuse (two indicators: whether child abuse was documented, type interpretive lens of the CCF, this information was extracted from
of child abuse documented [e.g., physical, sexual, neglect]); child official court documents and, within court narratives across legal
welfare involvement (two indicators: number of child welfare refer- system actors (e.g., probation officers, judges, police) that described
rals, number of referrals substantiated); housing instability and/or how the system responded to the behaviors of girls. Consequently,
homelessness (one indicator: documentation of housing instability/ the nine indicators included in the codebook encompassed the full
homelessness); gang involvement (one indicator: confirmed or sus- scope of responses of the legal system captured in court data and
pected gang involvement); family and peer system involvement
(three indicators: whether a girl was arrested with other young peo-
1
ple, whether a young person was arrested for conflict with another We also documented the nature of community supervision, specifically
family member or significant other, whether youth family members whether or not electronic monitoring was used.
2
Within this county, there was specific legislation passed which required
were involved in the legal system); trafficking/sexual exploitation judges to offer this delay in sentencing for particular allegations.
(one indicator: confirmed or suspected trafficking/sexual exploita- Successful completion of this type of community supervision allowed for
tion); and immigration (one indicator: child or family immigration the youths’ record to be sealed.
3
history). Within this county, youth with low risk scores (i.e., below a set threshold)
were not recommended for detention, per procedural guidelines. However,
Many of the above indicators were initially generated from the judges often overrode this threshold if they believed that a youth with a
deductive analytic approach completed from existing national schol- low risk score should still be detained based on other mitigating circum-
arship on girls’ legal involvement (e.g., treatment-to-prison pipeline, stances. Thus, data on risk score “overrides” were also extracted.
 THE CRITICAL CASE FILE APPROACH 73

written narratives from legal staff about their interventions with girls researchers to collect the data, the time it required to code all case
in each of the participating jurisdictions. This allowed us to extract files also varied. For example, for two of the three jurisdictions
and analyze more comprehensively how the system actively inter- that were coded on-site within the courthouse, coding was com-
venes in the lives of girls’ and their families, throughout their pleted during a more bounded extraction period, specifically over
court trajectory, including those that are less often a focus of correc- two, 1-week in-person visits. For the third jurisdiction that provided
tions or carceral research. Indeed, examining whether community physical de-identified case files to the research team that were then
supervision is even offered to youth (rather than the outcome of pro- stored in a secure location, coding took place over the course of sev-
bation, alone) is more rare compared to indicators such as court dis- eral weeks. This multisession process allowed us to solidify our final
position or confinement. As we delineate below, capturing these data sample across each jurisdiction, particularly with attention to
allowed us to understand broader patterns of the systems’ response to resources available for in-person coding and the volume of data
girls’ structural realities across the full legal continuum. available within each of the county’s case files. Before the research
teams’ site visits to review and collect data from the case files, sev-
Step 4: Extract Data Through Critical Interpretive eral logistical concerns were also addressed. For example, given the
confidential nature of the case files, access to the physical case files
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Frameworks
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

required us to leverage the connections and relationships built with

Once a preliminary codebook was created, all researchers were local court staff through the cross-system partnership-building
trained on a mixed-method coding approach that was anchored to phase of the CCF approach. This required us to consider multiple
our touchstone questions. For this study, four full-time or doctoral- logistics to ensure access to the full case file available throughout
level researchers were trained on the coding of these case files with the coding period, such as procuring physical case files, securing pri-
the support and oversight of two full-time faculty/PI members of the vate space in the county courthouse to conduct coding sessions, and
team. To shift our focus from investigating “risky systems” rather deidentifying case files.
than “risky girls,” all researchers engaged in a training about the doc- All case files were hand-coded, in person, and systematically
umented structural realities girls in the JLS faced. Following, all entered into a digital database that included the full CCF codebook
researchers were trained on how to identify and document inequita- and subsequently used for qualitative and quantitative analyses.
ble systems responses to girls and structural factors of girls’ incarcer- Each case file was fully reviewed by two team members to ensure
ation within the case file sample. This was especially important interrater agreement. Additionally, during coding sessions, members
because the pathologizing language typically used to describe of our team discussed questions that arose from the definitions of
youth and their families within court and case file data means that these indicators (e.g., does this constitute school pushout). This
broader inequitable system responses to youth can be overlooked. ensured validity in our critical coding structure while maintaining
For example, given the case file’s capacity to analyze inequitable the flexibility of qualitative analysis that allows themes and patterns
systems, school pushout was investigated in this study to define the to emerge organically from the case files. When coding inconsisten-
processes that facilitate the removal of children from school cies emerged among two researchers, the faculty/PIs were consulted
(Goldman & Rodriguez, 2022), despite safe and adequate schooling until a consensus was reached regarding the best way to code the
being a human right (Craissati et al., 2007). Through this critical data. This process parallels a consensual qualitative coding
interpretive lens, the research team specifically documented approach, which strives to incorporate rich descriptions, attitudes,
instances of exclusionary school discipline (e.g., suspension, expul- and multiple viewpoints across members of a research team (Hill
sion) as school pushout, to reflect the systemic processes we know et al., 2005).
push youth—and especially girls of color—out of schools through
punitive disciplinary tactics (Epstein et al., 2017; White, 2017). In
one case file, a court officer documented how a girl began to skip Step 5: Analyze Data Through Critical Interpretive
classes and ultimately transferred schools after she was physically Frameworks
restrained by a teacher on campus, which “traumatized her.” Identifying Structural Factors of Girls’ Court Involvement
Rather than coding this as a young person being “truant” which is
often the behavioral offense and court allegation associated with Once the mixed-method data were systematically documented and
young people not attending school, we indicated this as an example captured within our digital codebook, we then quantified the struc-
of school pushout given the increased policing of students’ of color tural factors girls and their families experienced relating to their sys-
behaviors through the use of physical behavioral management tac- tem involvement. For instance, we found that, in one jurisdiction,
tics, including restraint (Javdani, 2019b). The intentional framework 80% of girls reported housing instability or homelessness before
shift embedded in the coding structure allowed us to specifically and throughout their court involvement, while 84% reported experi-
identify how systems respond to youth who do not have equal access ences of school pushout. This information was easily quantifiable
to a safe and adequate education. This values framework directly given the “yes/no” options captured within the codebook across
challenged the individual and deficit-focused language often used each of the nine themes of interest.
to analyze case file data and scaffolded our empirical investigation The accompanying qualitative narratives captured within the
into the ways that court systems may or may not respond effectively codebook then allowed us to understand the direct implications of
or adequately to legal-involved youth. structural factors on girls’ court involvement in more detail. For
Once trained, coding took place either on-site at a family court example, one case file described how a girl “steals things because
office (for two of the three participating jurisdictions) or in a phys- she wants to support herself” after having to leave home because
ically secure space within the research team’s office (one participat- her mother did not support her sexual orientation. When linking
ing jurisdiction). Given the availability of data and space for the back to our touchstone questions we ask ourselves “what are the
 74 BEREZIN, JAVDANI, DUCAT, SIMS, AND GODFREY

structural realities influencing girls’ experiences, opportunities, and result of her arrests, her family immediately came under court surveil-
behaviors?”, we shift our lens from analyzing the act or behavior of lance, which led to the court filing a child welfare referral while the
this girl’s theft, to the broader structural factors leading her to steal. child was in custody. This referral was made on the grounds of edu-
With this touchstone question central to our analytical process, we cational neglect and drug use, despite the fact that her mother had
are able to extend current scholarship on confinement that only been previously incarcerated and received treatment for her drug
focuses on predictors or correlates of legal involvement, to exem- use. Additionally, the child’s court notice was delivered to her moth-
plify the ways that housing and economic instability, as structural er’s house, where it was found that their residence was boarded up
factors, directly led to her allegations of theft. Additionally, by dem- with an overflowing mailbox; this was subsequently documented in
onstrating how housing and economic needs are the root cause driv- the child’s case file as housing instability in the family. Following
ing her legal involvement (rather than her behavior of theft), we this, the youth identified her preference to be released into the custody
consequently shift our solution to one that is structural (e.g., connec- of her aunt as she did not feel safe at home. Despite being eligible for
tion to housing and employment resources) rather than individual probation (with no prior history of violating terms of community
(e.g., arrest, incarceration). supervision) and identifying a safe family member to be released to,
This deeply contextual analytic framework was particularly useful court ultimately detained her because “continuance in her home is
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

in the development of our own conceptualization of youth experiences contrary to welfare and no relatives were identified to provide care
not consistently captured as structural within corrections or carceral and control.” This example illustrates several instances where the
research. For example, gang involvement among JLS-involved legal system responded to structural precarity with additional system
youth is often documented and analyzed only as an experience of surveillance for her and her family (e.g., additional child welfare refer-
interpersonal or community violence. However, the narrative portions rals). This, in turn, led to long-term confinement to respond to the
of the case files allowed us to better understand the ways that structural child’s perceived housing instability following court’s increased sur-
factors (i.e., poverty, homelessness, school pushout) conferred the veillance, despite her request to remain in the community with her
high rates of gang involvement documented within the case file data aunt.
in one county. For example, in one case, a girl who was suspected to Individual narratives, such as this example, that describe girls’
be involved in a gang also described periods of extensive housing legal pathways, were generated for all individual girls represented
insecurity due to her parents kicking her out of their house. During in each of the county’s case file samples. These narratives were com-
this period, she reportedly relied on her boyfriend, who was gang- pleted for all youth represented in the case file data and were storied
involved, as her only friend and source of social support. With a versions of the experiences faced by girls that intentionally captured
framework that asks us to consider “what are the structural realities the nuances of their structural realities and the systems’ response to
influencing girls’ experiences, opportunities, and behaviors?”, we these realities. Specifically, these narratives illuminated the bidirec-
are able to identify a path of persistent housing insecurity paired tional and complex ways that (a) systems responded to girls’ struc-
with a lack of community support that led to her purported gang tural realities; (b) whether or not the systems response was
involvement. This methodological framework for analyzing the com- adequate given these structural realities and whether they set up suc-
plex data available within case files allowed us to examine the ways cess for girls’ and families; and (c) the legal implications when sys-
that structural factors directly confer health disparities (e.g., mental tems did not adequately respond to or set up girls’ and their families
health needs, abuse) and experiences of interpersonal or community- for success. These narratives allowed us to fully explicate these com-
level violence (e.g., gang involvement) and illustrate the interconnec- plex, multisystem processes among all youth for each jurisdiction.
tedness of these factors in girls’ legal involvement. Once these narratives were generated for each young person repre-
sented in the data, we were then able to examine them in aggregate to
Examining Patterns of Systems Response to Girls Across identify interconnecting patterns of systems responses for girls in each
the Legal Continuum jurisdiction. Though resource intensive, this process was critical for
ensuring that the CCF systematically assessed the complex and bidirec-
Once structural factors of girls’ court involvement were docu- tional patterns of systems response to girls’ structural realities with the
mented, we then used the mixed-method data available to understand available mixed-method data extracted. For example, across individual
(a) what characterized the systems’ response to girls’ structural reali- narratives, we found a pattern in one jurisdiction of courts violating
ties?; (b) what was the function of this response and what are the unin- girls on probation for continuously failing drug tests because of mari-
tended and intended consequences of this response?; and (c) what role juana use. Given the breadth of structural themes documented within
does race, gender, and economic marginalization play in shaping the our codebook, our narratives allowed us to see that the bulk of girls
systems’ response and consequences? For this, we first analyzed the who received violations for “failing” drug tests, also had significant his-
mixed-method data available within each individual case file to under- tories of abuse and child welfare involvement. By asking ourselves: what
stand how systems actively intervened in girls’ lives, starting from characterizes the systems’ response to girls’ structural realities and, what
their initial court contact (e.g., first arrest), through long-term confine- is the function of this response and its unintended or intended questions?,
ment. We then aggregated these individual pathways across the full we identify a path of systemic inequity for girls with histories of violence
sample to understand broader patterns of the JLS responses, to girls. and victimization from the mixed-method data available, instead of a
For example, in the case file of one girl who was detained on two pattern of “noncompliance,” which was a term used frequently in the
charges related to an alleged car theft (both of which were dismissed case files to justify probation following failed drug tests. Anchored to
or unsubstantiated), we see a clear illustration of the ways that the JLS our touchstone questions (e.g., What characterizes the systems’ response
intervenes in the lives of girls experiencing structural precarity. In this to girls’ structural realities? and, What is the function of this response/
case, the girl’s only sustained charge following the documented what are the intended and unintended consequences of this response?),
alleged theft was a misdemeanor for evading arrest. However, as a we further identify a clear pattern of court systems’ criminalizing girls for
 THE CRITICAL CASE FILE APPROACH 75

ongoing mental health and substance-related needs through VOPs. retaining girls’ confidentiality among stakeholders. These narratives
Specifically, through this systems’ response, girls were mandated to further leveraged the critical interpretive lens of the CCF to exem-
the same mental health or substance treatment programs they were pre- plify and name the structural realities girls’ experienced (e.g., nam-
viously mandated to (before their violation), only with stricter surveil- ing school pushout), in lieu of the deficit or pathologizing language
lance on their behaviors by probation staff. This was in lieu of often documented within case files (e.g., expulsion, truancy).
alternative programs that may have better-served girls’ needs. These modified case vignettes were impactful in illustrating the
Consequently, the mixed-method data available paired with our values structural precarity and inequitable systems’ response that character-
framework allowed us to see data beyond “noncompliance” as docu- ized girls’ legal involvement in each of the three jurisdictions, to
mented within the case files, to a broader pattern of system responses both community and court stakeholders. First, these vignettes
that sought to increase surveillance (though not treatment options) for allowed us to describe common realities (e.g., persistent child wel-
girls experiencing significant mental health and trauma-related needs. fare referrals) characterizing a young person’s history and context
outside of a static system point (e.g., experiences or contexts just
Step 6: Speak Back to System Partners before a girl violated probation). This approach further allowed us
to lift our analysis to a systems-level, structural framework, by exem-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

The CCF’s ability to capture the breadth and richness of mixed- plifying common patterns in the systems’ response to girls’ realities
method data within case files—which reflect broader processes that was also applied to our coding and analysis even when generat-
and policies undergirding the legal system—allows for targeted ing findings at the individual level. Overall, these vignettes vividly
feedback that can facilitate systems change. As described below, fol- illustrated inequities in how the system responded to youth and high-
lowing our CCF analysis across each of the three participating juris- lighted specific points where other programs or nonsystem interven-
dictions, the research team generated several reports to disseminate tions may better address the systemic issues identified within each
our findings across sectors. Together, these dissemination materials jurisdiction. Naming the structural factors youth experienced (e.g.,
speak to the multiple strengths of the CCF approach and further school pushout) in lieu of pathologizing language typically used
allowed critical individuals, across systems, to meaningfully gener- in case files (e.g., truancy) further challenged deficit and individual-
ate data-driven solutions to address the inequitable systems ized orientations of practitioners working with girls that allowed for
responses against girls found in our analysis. a meaningful shift in their understanding of the ways that broader
systems of inequity drive girls’ legal involvement.
Quantifying Structural Factors and Patterns of Systems
Responses to Girls: Producing a Technical Report Identifying Places for Change: Facilitating Critical
Conversations
First, we shared the aggregate structural factors of girls’ system
contact and the patterns of system response found through the To ensure the CCF meaningfully achieved the collaboratively
CCF, to local stakeholders. As such, we generated a final technical defined goal of reducing gender and racial inequity in each partici-
report for each jurisdiction, which provided high-level (a) demo- pating county, a high-level presentation was also disseminated to
graphic information about girls included in the full sample; (b) the each team of cross-system stakeholders. This presentation paired
structural factors consistently characterizing girls’ system contact; the high-level systemic patterns and structural factors documented
and (c) key pathways that resulted from the systems’ response to from the case file data with the individual case vignettes to humanize
girls’ structural factors that impacted short- and long-term legal the inequitable system patterns that emerged from the data. Together,
involvement. This allowed us to concisely demonstrate to stakehold- this presentation and the two-pronged approach to dissemination
ers the experiences of court-involved girls in each jurisdiction (e.g., quantified structural factors and high-level pathways; individ-
descriptively (e.g., number of girls who were suspected or confirmed ual narratives) facilitated collaborative discussion across stakehold-
to be involved in commercial sexual exploitation of children ers working in a variety of sectors. This ultimately informed
[CSEC]), and to speak to the higher level systemic pathways and pat- localized policy recommendations across each participating jurisdic-
terns found in each of the case file samples. tion seeking to better meet girls’ complex needs and promote gender
and racial equity across the legal continuum.
Exemplifying Complex Pathways for Girls: Developing For example, our high-level presentation pairing the technical
Case Vignettes report (quantifying disparities) with the vignette data (humanizing
and exemplifying the multisystem pathways for girls) catalyzed
To humanize the individual experiences of girls’ legal trajectories one jurisdiction to implement systems’ changes that focused on
and to exemplify the complexity of multisystem punishment girls reducing harm and instead, enhancing community-based support
experienced in each jurisdiction (e.g., school pushout, gender-based to better respond to girls’ needs. Specifically, this jurisdiction iden-
violence, child welfare involvement) that impacted their court tified and partnered with a community-based organization to imple-
involvement, individualized case vignettes were also generated ment a peer advocacy program for court-involved girls. The goal of
from these analyses for dissemination. Specifically, from the indi- this was to reduce the surveillance of the system on girls’ behaviors
vidual narratives created for the analytic phase, the research team as they participated in court-mandated programming and link girls to
created short, deidentified, and modified vignettes for girls in each advocates that better addressed the needs they had that were impact-
of the three jurisdictions. These individualized, deidentified ing their legal involvement (e.g., housing needs, education needs).
vignettes allowed us to chronologically delineate the broader system In another jurisdiction, the dual approach of disseminating the
trajectories or “key pathways” found in each jurisdiction, including CCF data (vignettes, technical report) motivated a working group
their trajectory into and through the JLS and its feeder systems, while of court stakeholders to create specialized court protocols for girls
 76 BEREZIN, JAVDANI, DUCAT, SIMS, AND GODFREY

that focused on a more holistic and less punitive court response to able to elucidate multisystem patterns that led to long-term system
their behaviors. Based on these experiences, presenting CCF find- involvement that would not be visible from an analysis of individual
ings in an integrative way that exemplifies the quantitative and qual- court dockets. Finally, because the CCF approach relies on a collab-
itative data captured, across various dissemination platforms (e.g., orative partnership between researchers and local county stakehold-
technical report, presenting to stakeholders), allowed for critical con- ers and analyzes data that reflect the active policies, decisions, and
versations to take place that meaningfully translated these findings to responses of the local JLS and its feeder systems, the information
systems’ changes. that is generated is more actively and readily responded to by local
systems. This allowed us to elucidate highly localized disparities
in the JLS and follow up these findings with concrete and actionable
Innovations, Recommendations, and Conclusions efforts to prompt change directly relevant to the specific needs of
Innovations in Methodology and Contributions to youth to promote justice and equity.
Knowledge
Recommendations for Implementation
Traditional methodological approaches within corrections and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The six-step CCF methodology we developed incorporates flexibil-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

criminology scholarship do not adequately consider deep structural

factors of legal involvement and fail to capture the underlying logics ity to account for variability across jurisdictions, within research–prac-
and inequitable processes that route youth through the JLS. The CCF tice–policy partnerships cultivated, and case file information available
is an innovative approach that provides an alternative to the limita- for analysis. However, our pilot applications of the approach revealed
tions of traditional case file analysis. Specifically, the CCF approach several considerations and recommendations that are important for
allows for a holistic assessment of youths’ system involvement as researchers to consider when applying the CCF to additional localities
formally documented by the system itself. It also has the capacity to meaningfully implement data-driven solutions that reduce legal sys-
to trouble dominant individual-level conceptualizations about tem inequity.
youth’s system involvement and shift our perspective upwards to
examine the structural responses of the JLS to youths’ precarious Identifying Partners “Ready” for CCF
contexts. By linking rich case file data with a critical values stance We first acknowledge the collaborative nature required of the CCF
and interpretive framework throughout the analytic process, approach, specifically between researchers and legal system staff.
researchers can illuminate structural precarity and the JLS response Given the resource intensity of this approach that can be impacted
at the individual level (e.g., documenting through individual narra- by collaborative partners (e.g., receiving access to case files), several
tives the structural factors characterizing one girl’s legal involve- considerations became important for understanding county readi-
ment and how the system responded to these challenges, from ness in sharing data. These included critical leaders in power having
arrest to confinement) and, in aggregate, to illustrate patterns of sys- an expressed interest to engage in research with “outsiders”; an
tems responses to youths’ precarity. This elevated level of analysis acknowledgment by leadership of existing disparities in their system
provides insight into the ways that these response patterns reflect and an interest to implement creative solutions to address these dis-
institutionalized marginalization to maintain the persistent dispari- parities; and counties that already have existing partnerships with
ties documented across the legal system. community-based and/or youth-led organizations. We found that
Indeed, applying the CCF approach allowed us to generate novel these county-level characteristics helped to bridge access to the
contributions to knowledge on system-impacted girls and TGNC experiences and perspectives of existing legal system staff beyond
youth of color across the three jurisdictions in which it was devel- those who expressed interest in partnering with the research team,
oped. First, utilizing the CCF approach rendered visible the struc- helped to cultivate rapport and trust as “outsiders” to their county’s
tural factors and realities underpinning young people’s legal system, and reflected a willingness to not only learn about dis-
involvement in the system. In our analyses, we identified clear cycles proportionate minority contact with the JLS but also, translate these
of instability in girls’ lives leading to their initial and long-term sys- findings to identify meaningful and “out of the box” solutions to mit-
tem involvement and exposed the deep influence of broader struc- igate such disparities.
tural factors of health and well-being (e.g., safe and adequate Importantly, even if a county shows relatively more “readiness”
housing) on system involvement. Second, using this approach, we than others, there may still be within-county variability regarding
were able to illustrate common patterns in how the system responds readiness and trust of individual stakeholders or sectors (e.g., distrust
to youth. By tracking the chronology of court responses (e.g., war- among probation officers). Thus, processes to enhance rapport
rants, petitions, VOPs, short- and long-term confinement), we between researchers and stakeholders across levels within the county
were able to see patterns of system response to youth structural pre- should continue to be employed across jurisdictions. Processes
carity that deepens rather than mitigates system involvement. A included in this study and recommended within the broader literature
prime example was the pattern of court systems leveraging VOPs included collaborative knowledge sharing to ensure the CCF supports
as a way to respond to girls’ structural precarity (e.g., housing insta- the goals of the county, reporting back data, and providing several
bility, CSEC/trafficking) and “keep them safe,” which ultimately opportunities for feedback on data analysis and its interpretation
resulted in their long-term confinement. Third, the CCF approach (Fransman et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2016).
revealed the multisystem entanglement of youth. Our analysis
revealed just how inextricably linked court-related responses (war- Resources Intensiveness of CCF
rants, petitions, VOPs, confinement) are with issues arising in and
from other systems, notably educational, child welfare, and mental Second, the CCF approach is a resource-intensive methodology.
health settings (e.g., residential treatment facilities). Thus, we were For example, the CCF approach typically requires in-person coding,
 THE CRITICAL CASE FILE APPROACH 77

given the sensitive nature of case file data and the human resources there is already momentum in and support for these research–prac-
required of fully reviewing a case file. The comprehensiveness of the tice–policy partnerships, it is critical to center youth’s perspectives
CCF approach lends to many of its strengths (e.g., systematic mixed- using participatory frameworks (e.g., Rose et al., 2022). We further
method data collection and analysis to understand structural realities recommend researchers leverage all available case file data to ensure
and response patterns of the system), and is a recommended information related to risky contexts is captured, whether this is doc-
approach for understanding and promoting equity within legal sys- umented in formal check boxes or in case file narratives as was dem-
tems nationally. However, we also acknowledge the resource inten- onstrated here.
siveness of the CCF may be a possible constraint for readily
leveraging this methodology across jurisdictions. Given this, we
emphasize the importance of community research and practice part- Concluding Thoughts
nerships that can support the infrastructure around and resources for As formal system documents that include a wealth of mixed-
engaging in a CCF analysis. For example, interested jurisdictions method and multisystem information available for analysis, case
may consult with research teams or other nonprofit organizations files, particularly when anchored to a critical interpretive lens,
that are spearheading equity-based and data-driven initiatives.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

have the potential to fill critical gaps in corrections research. This

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Future collaborations leveraging this framework may also consider includes its capacity to understand “risky systems” and translate
creating an open-access practice manual to increase the capacity findings about inequitable response patterns to current policy and
for jurisdictions themselves to reproduce a CCF analysis without practice (Nelson et al., 2014; Woodward et al., 2016). This study
the full involvement of a research team. Finally, extramural funding provides a methodological blueprint for the novel CCF approach
may be important for ensuring this work can be conducted compre- through analyzing inequitable patterns of the legal systems’ response
hensively without resource strain on either research teammates and/ through a critical race and gender lens. The findings generated from
or county partners. this CCF analysis further exemplify the multiple strengths of this
approach for understanding and addressing systems of inequity
Case File Variability through change efforts led by individuals across sectors. Future
research can leverage this framework to focus on other disparities
Finally, there is significant variability of information available relevant to particular populations and jurisdictions (e.g., rural; native
within case files across jurisdictions. Although the CCF methodology and indigenous youth) to elucidate inequitable response patterns of
can be applied flexibly across jurisdictions, the robustness of the code- our legal system nationally. Novel methodological approaches
book created and data available for extraction may vary based on the such as the CCF are imperative for providing comprehensive, data-
information available. While we presented in detail the indicators used driven solutions to mitigate the criminalizing institutions undergird-
in our CCF methodology and suggest that a similar breadth of indica- ing systems of mass incarceration.
tors across systems be developed for future CCF analyses, we
acknowledge that additional indicators may need to be included
based on the particular local realities of data available. However, we References
emphasize the importance of systematic extraction of information
Anderson, V. R., England, K., & Davidson, W. S. (2017). Juvenile court
across jurisdictions within this article, particularly because it allowed practitioners’ construction of and response to sex trafficking of justice sys-
for comprehensive analysis about specific data patterns within one tem involved girls. Victims & Offenders, 12(5), 663–681. https://doi.org/
jurisdiction as well as adequate comparisons about girls’ legal path- 10.1080/15564886.2016.1185753
ways across jurisdictions. Moreover, we found it was important to Anderson, V. R., Javdani, S., & Sukhmani, S. (2023). Persistent paternalism:
explicitly document critical indicators missing from certain jurisdic- The instantiation of gendered attributions in the system response to girls.
tions’ case file data and speak back to these sites about what could Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(5), 666–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/
be collected and assessed, moving forward, were they to include it 00938548231152184
in future case file documentation. Basto-Pereira, M., Comecanha, R., Ribeiro, S., & Maia, Â. (2015).
Long-term predictors of crime desistance in juvenile delinquents: A sys-
For example, in one jurisdiction we partnered with, case files did
tematic review of longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
not systematically include both race and gender on all petition types.
25, 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.09.012
In speaking back to systems on the CCF findings, we exemplified Baumle, D. (2018). Creating the trauma-to-prison pipeline: How the U.S. jus-
what can be “missed” when you are not able to conduct a race and tice system criminalizes structural and interpersonal trauma experienced
gender analysis, across the legal continuum and instead, rely on con- by girls of color. Family Court Review, 56(4), 695–708. https://doi.org/
ducting race and gender analyses, separately. Consequently, in one 10.1111/fcre.12384
jurisdiction, court leaders advocated and successfully had their peti- Becker, S., & Aiello, B. (2013). The continuum of complicity: “Studying
tions modified to ensure that race and gender were systematically up”/studying power as a feminist, anti-racist, or social justice venture.
included across all petition types. This example highlights the poten- Women’s studies international forum, 38, 63–74. https://doi.org/10
tial impact that the CCF approach can have when working with juris- .1016/j.wsif.2013.02.004
Bridges, G. S., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments
dictions and points to the criticality of stakeholders across the legal
of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms.
system and its feeder systems (e.g., child welfare) capturing, at least,
American Sociological Review, 63(4), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.2307/
race and gender data across its documents. Relatedly, we recommend 2657267
researchers collaborating with court partners systematically analyze Buchanan, N. T., Perez, M., & Prinstein, M. J. (2021). Upending racism in
race, gender, and other identities of interest together, rather than ana- psychological science: Strategies to change how science is conducted,
lyzing each separately, as this can reveal important disparities reported, reviewed, and disseminated. American Psychologist, 76(7),
masked by examining them in isolation. In communities where 1097–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000905
 78 BEREZIN, JAVDANI, DUCAT, SIMS, AND GODFREY

Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and crime: of counseling psychology, 52(2), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
Future directions for feminist criminology. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 0167.52.2.196
27–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085105282899 Hockenberry, S., & Puzzanchera, C. (2021). Juvenile court statistics 2019.
Burson, E., Godfrey, E. B., & Singh, S. (2019). “This is probably the reason National Center for Juvenile Justice. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/
why she resorted to that kind of action”: A qualitative analysis of juvenile njcda/pdf/jcs2019.pdf
justice workers attributions for girls’ offending. Journal of Prevention & Holsinger, K. (2017). Confinement, girls. In The encyclopedia of juvenile
Intervention in the Community, 47(2), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/ delinquency and justice (pp. 1–3). Wiley.
10852352.2019.1582142 Holsinger, K., & Hodge, J. P. (2016). The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisex-
Case, S., & Haines, K. (2021). Abolishing youth justice systems: Children ual, and transgender girls in juvenile justice systems. Feminist
first, offenders nowhere. Youth Justice, 21(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10 Criminology, 11(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114557071
.1177/1473225419898754 Huang, H., Ryan, J. P., & Herz, D. (2012). The journey of dually-involved
Chesney-Lind, M., & Morash, M. (2013). Transformative feminist criminol- youth: The description and prediction of rereporting and recidivism.
ogy: A critical re-thinking of a discipline. Critical Criminology, 21(3), Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 254–260. https://doi.org/10
287–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-013-9187-2 .1016/j.childyouth.2011.10.021
Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2013). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Irvine, A., & Canfield, A. (2017). Reflections on New National Data on

justice. Wiley.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

LGBQ/GNCT youth in the justice system. LGBTQ Policy Journal, 7,

Cho, M., Haight, W., Choi, W. S., Hong, S., & Piescher, K. (2019). A pro-
27–36.
spective, longitudinal study of risk factors for early onset of delinquency
Javdani, S. (2019a). Critical issues for youth involved in the juvenile justice
among maltreated youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 102,
system: Innovations in prevention, intervention, and policy. Journal of
222–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.05.023
Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 47(2), 67–75. https://
Craissati, D., Banerjee, U. D., King, L., Lansdown, G., & Smith, A. (2007). A
human rights based approach to education for all. UNICEF. doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2019.1575564
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Identity politics, intersectional- Javdani, S. (2019b). Policing education: An empirical review of the chal-
ity, and violence against women. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. lenges and impact of the work of school police officers. American
https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 Journal of Community Psychology, 63(3–4), 253–269. https://doi.org/10
Cunneen, C. (2023). 8: The failure of reform. In Defund the police (pp. 147– .1002/ajcp.12306
167). Policy Press. https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/book/ Javdani, S., Berezin, M. N., & April, K. (2023). A treatment-to-prison-pipeline?
9781447361695/ch008.xml Scoping review and multimethod examination of legal consequences of res-
Davis, A. Y., Dent, G., Meiners, E. R., & Richie, B. E. (2022). Abolition. idential treatment among adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child &
Feminism. Now (Vol. 2). Haymarket Books. Adolescent Psychology, 52(3), 376–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416
Ehrmann, S., Hyland, N., & Puzzanchera, C. (2019). Girls in the juvenile jus- .2023.2178003
tice system. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https:// Kempf-Leonard, K. (2007). Minority youths and juvenile justice:
ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/pubs/251486.pdf Disproportionate minority contact after nearly 20 years of reform efforts.
Eila Satka, M., & Skehill, C. (2012). Michel Foucault and Dorothy Smith in case Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10
file research: Strange bed-fellows or complementary thinkers? Qualitative .1177/1541204006295159
Social Work, 11(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325011400483 Mallett, C. A. (2018). Disproportionate minority contact in juvenile justice:
Epstein, R., Blake, J., & González, T. (2017). Girlhood interrupted: The era- Today’s, and yesterdays, problems. Criminal Justice Studies, 31(3),
sure of black girls’ childhood. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3000695 or https:// 230–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2018.1438276
doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3000695 Mandell, D., Ittenbach, R., Levy, S., & Pinto-Martin, J. (2007). Disparities in
Fransman, J., Hall, B., Hayman, R., Narayanan, P., Newman, K., & Tandon, diagnoses received prior to a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder.
R. (2021). Beyond partnerships: Embracing complexity to understand and Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders, 37(9), 1795–1802. https://
improve research collaboration for global development. Canadian Journal doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0314-8
of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d’études du développement, Miller, J. (2005). The status of qualitative research in criminology. In
42(3), 326–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2021.1872507 M. Lamont & P. White (Eds.), Workshop on interdisciplinary standards
Gavazzi, S. M. (2006). Gender, ethnicity, and the family environment:
for systemic qualitative research (pp. 69–75). National Science Foundation.
Contributions to assessment efforts within the realm of juvenile justice.
Movement Advancement Project and Center for American Progress. (2016).
Family Relations, 55(2), 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006
Unjust: How the broken juvenile and criminal justice systems fail LGBTQ
.00369.x
youth. https://www.lgbtmap.org/policy-and-issue-analysis/criminal-justice-
Goldman, M., & Rodriguez, N. (2022). Juvenile court in the school-prison
youth
nexus: Youth punishment, schooling and structures of inequality.
Nanda, J. (2011). Blind discretion: Girls of color & delinquency in the juve-
Journal of Crime and Justice, 45(3), 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/
nile justice system. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1502.
0735648X.2021.1950562
Nelson, M. S., Wooditch, A., & Gabbidon, S. L. (2014). Is criminology
Gollust, S. E., Seymour, J. W., Pany, M. J., Goss, A., Meisel, Z. F., & Grande,
D. (2017). Mutual distrust: Perspectives from researchers and policy mak- out-of-date? A research note on the use of common types of data.
ers on the research to policy gap in 2013 and recommendations for the Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10
future. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, .1080/10511253.2013.798005
and Financing, 54, Article 0046958017705465. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Pasko, L., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2010). Under lock and key: Trauma, margin-
0046958017705465 alization, and girls’ juvenile justice involvement. Justice Research and
Henson, A., Nguyen, T. T., & Olaghere, A. (2023). Revising the critical gaze: Policy, 12(2), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.12.2.2010.25
An inversion of criminological theories to center race, racism, and resis- Pasko, L., & Mayeda, D. T. (2011). Pathways and predictors of juvenile jus-
tance. Critical Criminology, 31(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/ tice involvement for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander youths: A focus
s10612-022-09665-6 on gender. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work:
Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Innovation in Theory, Research & Practice, 20(2), 114–130. https://
Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2011.570120
 THE CRITICAL CASE FILE APPROACH 79

Potter, H. (2013). Intersectional criminology: Interrogating identity and literature. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39(1), 153–173. https://doi.org/
power in criminological research and theory. Critical Criminology, 10.1080/0735648X.2015.1133492
21(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-013-9203-6 The Sentencing Project. (2019). Fact sheet: Incarcerated women and girls.
Richie, B. E. (2012). Arrested justice: Black women, violence, and America’s https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/incarcerated-women-and-
prison nation. New York University Press. girls/
Rodriguez, N. (2013). Concentrated disadvantage and the incarceration of Vafa, Y., & Epstein, R. (2023). Criminalized survivors: Today’s abuse to pri-
youth: Examining how context affects juvenile justice. Journal of son pipeline for girls. Center on Gender Justice and Opportunity.
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 189–215. https://doi.org/10 Georgetown Law. https://genderjusticeandopportunity.georgetown.edu
.1177/0022427811425538 White, B. A. (2017). The invisible victims of the school-to-prison pipeline:
Rodriguez, N., Smith, H., & Zatz, M. S. (2009). “Youth is enmeshed in a Understanding black girls, school push-out, and the impact of the every
highly dysfunctional family system”: Exploring the relationship among student succeeds act. William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law,
dysfunctional families, parental incarceration, and juvenile court decision 24(3), 641–663.
making. Criminology, 47(1), 177–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745- Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration
9125.2009.00142.x in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45–55.
Rose, R. E., Singh, S., Berezin, M. N., & Javdani, S. (2022). “Roses have WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health, & World Health
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

thorns for a reason”: The promises and perils of critical youth participatory Organization. (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: health equity
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

research with system-impacted girls of color. American Journal of through action on the social determinants of health: Commission on
Community Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12651 Social Determinants of Health final report. World Health Organization.
Ryan, J. P., Herz, D., Hernandez, P. M., & Marshall, J. M. (2007). Woodward, V. H., Webb, M. E., Griffin, O. H., & Copes, H. (2016). The cur-
Maltreatment and delinquency: Investigating child welfare bias in juvenile rent state of criminological research in the United States: An examination
justice processing. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(8), 1035– of research methodologies in criminology and criminal justice journals.
1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.04.002 Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 27(3), 340–361. https://doi.org/
Saar, M. S., Epstein, R., Rosenthal, L., & Vafa, Y. (2015). The sexual abuse 10.1080/10511253.2015.1131312
to prison pipeline: The girls’ story. Center for Poverty and Inequality, Young, M., Varpio, L., Uijtdehaage, S., & Paradis, E. (2020). The spectrum
Georgetown University Law Center. of inductive and deductive research approaches using quantitative and
Sherman, F., & Balck, A. (2015). Gender injustice: System-level juvenile jus- qualitative data. Academic Medicine, 95(7), 1122. https://doi.org/10
tice reforms for girls. The National Crittenton Foundation. .1097/ACM.0000000000003101
Skehill, C., Satka, M., & Hoikkala, S. (2013). Exploring innovative method- Yuan, N. P., Gaines, T. L., Jones, L. M., Rodriguez, L. M., Hamilton, N., &
ologies in time and place to analyse child protection documents as ele- Kinnish, K. (2016). Bridging the gap between research and practice by
ments of practice. Qualitative Social Work, 12(1), 57–72. https://doi.org/ strengthening academic-community partnerships for violence research.
10.1177/1473325011416878 Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000026
Spinney, E., Cohen, M., Feyerherm, W., Stephenson, R., Yeide, M., & Zane, S. N., & Pupo, J. A. (2021). Disproportionate minority contact in the
Shreve, T. (2018). Disproportionate minority contact in the U.S. juvenile juvenile justice system: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice
justice system: A review of the DMC literature, 2001–2014, Part I. Quarterly, 38(7), 1293–1318. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2021
Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(5), 573–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/ .1915364
0735648X.2018.1516155
Spinney, E., Yeide, M., Feyerherm, W., Cohen, M., Stephenson, R., & Received April 15, 2023
Thomas, C. (2016). Racial disparities in referrals to mental health and sub- Revision received October 9, 2023
stance abuse services from the juvenile justice system: A review of the Accepted October 11, 2023 ▪