Critical Criminology (2007) 15:19–40 DOI 10.1007/s10612-006-9017-x

Ó Springer 2006

‘I WASN’T REALLY BONDED WITH MY FAMILY’: ATTACHMENT, LOSS AND VIOLENCE AMONG ADOLESCENT FEMALE OFFENDERS JUDITH A. RYDER Sociology & Anthropology Department, St. John’s University, 444K St. John’s Hall, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Queens, NY, 11439, USA E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. This study analyzes the role of trauma and disrupted attachments in the development of adolescent girls’ violent behavior. A grounded theory approach was applied to the narratives of 24 young women (age 13–16 years old) who were adjudicated and remanded to custody for an assault or robbery. Three types of loss were inductively derived from the data (death of a loved one, physical absence, and psychological unavailability) as were two categories of violence (in the home and in the community). Findings suggest that extensive losses and violent experiences disrupted the young women’s attachment to their caregivers, and these experiences were disregarded or inadequately addressed. Detachment and the absence of supportive others left the young women poised to engage in a variety of maladaptive behaviors including violence. Theoretical and programmatic implications are discussed.

Introduction An increasing number of adolescent girls are entering America’s juvenile justice system for violence-related offenses. Driven primarily by arrests for aggravated assault, girls’ violent crime rates have increased annually since 1980 and continue to comprise a growing percentage of all juvenile arrests. Indeed, FBI data indicate that juvenile female arrests for aggravated assault almost doubled that of males (62% versus 33%) between 1989 and 1993. Between 1994 and 2003 aggravated assault rates declined, but only 2% among females as compared to 31% among males (Poe-Yamagata and Butts 1996; Snyder 2005). Not to overstate the case, and acknowledging what other research has shown, most reported female delinquency does not include physical violence and the number of girls engaging in violent crime remains much smaller than the number of boys (Chesney-Lind and Belknap 2004; Baum 2005). Violence remains a concern, however, because answers to questions

20

JUDITH A. RYDER

about how girls become involved are still very much in a formative stage. Critical analysis must be brought to bear on the contexts of girls’ lives, taking into account histories of loss, victimization and other traumatic events. Without an understanding of the processes that move girls toward violent behavior we are ill-equipped to develop appropriate theories or effective interventions. Most criminological studies focus on adult or adolescent males, disregarding the experiences of both children and females. While developmental criminology has sought to bring ‘‘the formative period of childhood back into the picture’’ (Sampson and Laub 1993: 24), much of this research continues to take males as the primary subjects. Furthermore, analyses of juvenile violence rarely integrate the trauma literature that documents the detrimental and frequently long-lasting effects of childhood maltreatment. Feminist criminology has found that childhood victimizations are often a ‘‘pathway’’ to female adolescent delinquency, including violent offending (Gilfus 1992; Gaarder and Belknap 2002). The pathway perspective ties the effects of victimization to violence, yet the underlying mechanisms by which these effects may contribute to violent offending are not well understood (Cauffman et al. 1998). Bowlby’s developmental theory of attachment highlights the human need for emotional bonds with others (1969, 1973, 1980) and may help to explicate the processes that draw some girls into violence. In this article I investigate the role of trauma and disrupted attachments in adolescent girls’ violent behavior. After briefly reviewing the relevant literature, I use a grounded theory approach to analyze the narratives of 24 juvenile females adjudicated and remanded to custody for a violent offense.1 Based on the young women’s perspectives, experiences with loss and violence and perceptions of attachment to caregivers are explored. Findings suggest that extensive losses and violent experiences disrupted the young women’s attachment to their caregivers, and these experiences were punished, disregarded or otherwise inadequately addressed. Detachment and the absence of supportive others left the young women poised to engage in a variety of maladaptive behaviors including violence.

Victimization and Loss in the Context of Developmental Theory Four bodies of research are important to the discussion of early childhood trauma and adolescent violence among young women. Developmental criminology and the feminist pathway perspective

I WASN’T REALLY BONDED

21

are briefly reviewed, followed by attachment theory and the trauma literature. Developmental Criminology Unlike most other crime theories, developmental criminology and life-course perspectives consider the continuity from childhood to adulthood (Farrington 1991). An important contribution of these theories is acknowledgement of the critical role of age and significant life experiences (Laub and Sampson 1993). They suggest, for example, that children who have been abused or otherwise exposed to violence are more likely to engage in delinquent and serious violent behavior during adolescence (Smith and Thornberry 1995; Widom and Ames 1994). Developmental criminology theories, however, also assume that children must be disciplined in order to internalize social norms, with little attention to the children’s need for support and loving attachment. Attachment is conceptualized as an acquired state – the result of childrearing that emphasizes monitoring and sanctioning of behaviors to control innate destructive impulses (Hirschi 1969; Wright and Cullen 2001; Hayslett-McCall and Bernard 2002). This perspective does not address how childhood trauma, particularly the loss of a primary caregiver or violence at the hands of the caregiver, might disrupt and otherwise adversely shape early social (attachment) bonds and contribute to violent offending. Furthermore, there have been few attempts to determine how these theories may pertain to girls. The nearly exclusive use of male samples (Thornberry 2004) is likely to miss behaviors and experiences that may be gendered. Feminist Research Until quite recently nearly all empirical studies and theoretical explanations of adolescent violence were based on arrest rates and life histories of males. As a result, most delinquency research was oblivious to or discounted dangers particular to females, including victimizations within the home perpetrated by parents, family members, or other trusted adults. Countering traditional delinquency studies is a rapidly growing body of feminist research that centers on young women and physical violence (e.g., Campbell 1990; Miller 1998; Batacharya 2004). A number of qualitative studies have detailed the ‘‘commonplace’’ violence young women experience in the community and also examine strategies they use to negotiate violence (Artz 1998; Jones 2004; Ness

22

JUDITH A. RYDER

2004). Feminist research has also brought victimization to the forefront of criminological studies. Investigations of gendered ‘‘pathways to crime’’ indicate that childhood victimization places girls at risk of delinquency and suggest that it is an important factor leading to violence and criminal justice involvement (Chesney-Lind 1989; Arnold 1995; Siegel and Williams 2003). The pattern of ‘‘victims to survivors to offenders’’ (Gilfus 1992) may not fit all females but because victimization figures so prominently in females’ lives such experiences are likely to contribute to ‘‘blurred’’ boundaries between victims and offenders (Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor 1995; Garnefski and Diekstra 1997; Dembo et al. 1993). Exposure to violence is widespread among adolescents in the United States (Baum 2005) but it is particularly acute for girls in juvenile custody. Interviews with 193 female juvenile offenders in California revealed that 81% had experienced physical abuse and 56% reported sexual abuse; 45% had been beaten or burned; and 25% had been shot or stabbed (Acoca and Dedel 1998). One Canadian study of incarcerated youth found that 70% of the females reported physical abuse (Corrado et al. 2000), and a review of seven studies of female offenders in Canada indicated that 45–75% of incarcerated girls had been sexually abused (Corrado et al. 2002). Similarly, Gaarder and Belknap report persistent themes of ‘‘sexual and physical abuse, neglect and disorder in the family’’ among 22 juvenile girls bound over and sentenced to an adult prison (2002: 509). Although such studies suggest links between victimization and delinquency, they do not address how the effects of childhood victimization may influence an adolescent to adopt violent behaviors herself. To better understand these connections, Bowlby’s attachment theory is helpful. Attachment Theory Attachment theory originated with Bowlby’s study of the effects of maternal deprivation on personality development and asserts the primacy of early childhood as a determinate of later life behavior. It is also consistent with feminist research that links victimization with delinquency. Conceptualizing attachment in a manner that differs sharply from that used in criminology, Bowlby considered attachment the natural affectional bonds between infants and significant others. This innate need to maintain emotional bonds with others is essential to survival and is theorized to be influential throughout the lifespan (Lopez and Gover 1993).

I WASN’T REALLY BONDED

23

A critical element of attachment theory is the development in childhood of an internal representation or ‘‘working model’’ of close attachment relationships. Children internalize interactions with caregivers and develop expectations about their own roles and those of others in relationships (Shapiro and Levendorsky 1999). Whether children ‘‘develop in a socially cooperative way’’ depends primarily on how they are treated (Bowlby 1988: 9). When the attachment figure responds to the infant in ways that promote a supportive internal working model (demonstrating affection, nurturance, and support) the child experiences the attachment figure as available and responsive. If she is maltreated or unwanted, however, she will feel not only that the attachment figure believes her to be bad, but that she is essentially bad: unloved and unwanted by anyone (Bowlby 1973: 238). In such environments the early attachment bond is disrupted and the child’s working model of the world impaired. Eventually, neglect, abandonment or abuse – the ‘‘traumatic failure of the environment (i.e., the attachment figure) to meet the child’s attachment needs’’ – may culminate in an acquired state of social ‘‘detachment’’ (Hayslett-McCall and Bernard 2002: 12). The frustration of not having one’s attachment needs met (disruption or detachment) within relationships can be traumatic. Thus, social detachment may initiate a developmental pathway that increases the likelihood of later antisocial behaviors, including violence (Crimmins 1995; Sroufe et al. 1999; Greenberg et al. 1997). This pathway, however, can be interrupted by the involvement of others who are able to provide instrumental and expressive support (See Margolin and John 1997). Trauma Theory Traumatic events are deeply upsetting and substantially change how one thinks and feels about the world (Herman 1997). While many life events may be upsetting, how and whether an event is perceived and processed as traumatic is influenced by personal characteristics as well as context, including duration and severity and the availability and effectiveness of social supports (Luthar and Zigler 1991). Exposure to violence, for example, is a general risk for a variety of childhood problems but specific family characteristics (e.g. parents’ emotional unavailability) may leave some children more susceptible to its effects. The American Psychiatric Association (1994) defines a traumatic event as containing both objective characteristics (i.e., ‘‘actual or threatened death, or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity

24

JUDITH A. RYDER

of self or others’’) and the subjective response of the exposed person (i.e., ‘‘fear, helplessness or horror’’). The criteria for posttraumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) draw heavily on aspects of terror, yet it is now recognized that ‘‘few traumatic events that cause long-lasting harm involve solely or even mostly terror’’ (Becker-Blease and Freyd 2005: 405). For example, sexual abuse in which a child is groomed to view the behavior as acceptable may involve virtually no immediate fear for life, but the sense of betrayal and isolation may be as predictive of negative symptoms as the amount of terror (Herman 1997). In addition to fear and betrayal, loss is also often perceived as traumatic. Abused children, for example, may suffer traumatic grief at the loss of relationship when the abuser is removed. Trauma theory acknowledges that the personal loss and threat associated with exposure to violence creates a highly stressful environment that may lead to symptoms of posttraumatic stress (Eth and Pynoos 1985). Furthermore, trauma may be particularly detrimental to a child’s development if she is without an emotionally attuned caregiver to help integrate the traumatic event into her life. The effects of trauma may cause her to perceive a lack of meaning, control, or connection, and that there is no safe place. These perceptions are heightened without a dependable individual with whom to confide and feel a sense of safety (Herman 1997). Thus, when a parent becomes ‘‘unavailable’’ perhaps because of incarceration or divorce, a child may be left without an appropriate source of support to help her master the effects of the loss and to attend to her attachment needs. The child’s identification with the absent parent, feelings of survivor guilt, and forced silence about the event may increase her vulnerability to traumatic effects (Johnston 1995). The array of potentially harmful outcomes includes inhibited development of ‘‘mature forms of emotional expression and control’’ (Greenberg et al. 1997: 200) and an increased likelihood to abuse alcohol and drugs, attempt suicide, and become violent with intimates and others (Dembo et al. 1989; Smith and Thornberry 1995).

A Study of Adolescent Female Offenders Participants This secondary analysis is based on interviews with 24 female teens adjudicated for either assault (n = 19, 79%) or robbery (n = 5, 21%) and remanded to custody in a New York State Office of Children and

I WASN’T REALLY BONDED

25

Family Services (OCFS) facility.2 Respondents were young and primarily women of color. The median age at the time of the interview was 15, with a range of 13–16 years old.3 The majority (58%) of those interviewed were Black, 17% were Hispanic or Latina, 17% were Biracial/Multiracial, and 8% were White.4 Education was measured by the last grade completed; the median level was eighth grade (ranging from 6th to 10th grade). Three of the respondents had a child. Interview Procedures Each young woman completed a semi-structured questionnaire that focused on the respondent’s life prior to custody, including exposure to traumatic events and family functioning.5 These voluntary, one-on-one interviews were conducted with a trained interviewer January through August of 1996 in four OCFS residential facilities. With the teen’s permission the interview was tape-recorded. Respondents had the option to halt the interview at any time but none of the young women chose to do so.6 Interviews lasted an average of one hour and 45 min; respondents received a certificate of participation and a copy was placed in institutional files. Analyses The semi-structured interviews were transcribed completely and responses to close-ended questions were coded and entered in SPSS. All original wording in the narrative data was carefully maintained in the transcriptions and then imported into N5, a qualitative research software program that assists in theoretical understanding of text.7 Constantly comparing and contrasting data, I coded the transcripts and organized distilled descriptions into themes and concepts as they emerged within and across cases. By using this grounded theory approach and ‘‘listening to girls as authorities about girls’ experiences’’ (Gilligan et al. 1991: 1) I was able to discern patterns in the respondents’ narratives about violence and thereby learned also of their experiences with loss. These two broad categories were further refined by the emergence of subthemes of loss (death, physical absence, and psychological unavailability) and violence (in the home and in the community). I then began to formulate a theoretical framework for understanding how the young women’s childhood experiences may have influenced their own violent actions. I focus here on the role of early childhood trauma.

26

JUDITH A. RYDER

Loss, Violence and Disrupted Attachments To provide background for the narrative data on experiences of childhood loss and violence and perceptions of attachment, this section first presents responses to close-ended questions about possibly traumatic events. The interview protocol attempted to exhaust the range of potentially traumatic events in the life of urban youths. It included 23 events and allowed for respondents’ additions. Traumatic Events The young women were asked their age when they first experienced each event and the frequency of occurrence (see Table 1).8 Each reported an average of 10 events, nearly half of which occurred prior to their 11th birthday. No single event or even several necessarily indicates trauma, but it is clear that the young women experienced significant and multiple episodes of loss and violence. The most prevalent events were divorce, death, and illness. Eighty-eight percent of the girls’ parents had separated or divorced or reportedly ‘‘were never together’’ and 83% had experienced the death of at least one loved one. Three-fourths said they had been kicked, bit, hit, burned or scalded by a family member (Physical Abuse), and 62% reported such abuse by a stranger or acquaintance. When asked if anyone in their family ‘‘bothered you sexually or forced you to have sex against your will?’’ 29% answered affirmatively; 13% had witnessed sexual abuse by a family member. Over a fourth (29%) had been bothered sexually or forced to have sex against their will by a stranger or acquaintance. Compared to other events, sexual abuse was reported by a small number, however, the median ages were among the youngest (6–10 years old) and the median frequency of family sexual abuse was among the highest (four). Nearly three-fourths of the young women had witnessed a stabbing or shooting outside of the home and 26% had witnessed such violence in their home. Over two-thirds had been awakened by gunfire, 65% had witnessed a killing, and 42% had experienced a fire or an explosion. Many had been injured or sick: 42% reported an accident requiring hospital treatment, 29% had been stabbed or shot, 17% had been mugged and 17% had been seriously ill. Nearly one-fourth of the young women had lost their home.9

27

I WASN’T REALLY BONDED

Table 1. Potentially traumatic events (N = 24) Ever occurred n Parents separated/divorced Loved one died Loved one seriously ill/injured Family physical abuse (kicked, bit, burned, scalded) Witnessed shooting/stabbing (outside the home) Awakened by gunfire Witnessed killing Stranger physical abuse (kicked, bit, burned, scalded) Witnessed family physical abuse (kicked, bit, burned, scalded) Accident requiring hospital treatment Fire/explosion Family sexual abuse Stranger sexual abuse Stabbed or shot Witnessed stabbing/shooting (in home) Lost home Serious physical illness Mugged Witnessed family sexual abuse

Median earliest age

Median frequency

%

21 20 19 18

88 83 79 75

3 8 10 8

1 3 2 5

17

74a

12

3

16 15 15

68 65a 62

11 12 10

7 2 7

13

54

11

3

10 10 7 7 7 6 5 4 4 3

42 42 29 29 29 26a 21 17 17 13

12 8 8 10 14 13 7 7 13 6

1 2 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 2

a

N = 23.

Childhood Losses Initially, the number and types of losses that the young women reported may not appear particularly unusual or consequential. Divorce and the death of a loved one, for example, are quite common in the United States. The narrative data, however, reveal multiple losses at very young ages and several different types, many of which occurred in violent or socially stigmatized contexts (i.e., homicide, AIDS, drug overdose).

28

JUDITH A. RYDER

Three types of loss were inductively derived from the data: death of a loved one; physical absence; and psychological unavailability.10 Death of a Loved One Death can be terrifying for a young child, particularly when there is no one to help integrate the loss into her life. Most of the young women experienced the death of at least one person with whom they were emotionally close and more than half said the death was the most upsetting event in their lives. Regardless of who had died or the cause of death, respondents expressed confusion, anxiety, and rage. The death of one girl’s father was emblematic of her entire family’s demise: ‘‘My family was really slipping away, oh god. It was just breaking off in pieces...we just all go our separate ways.’’ The family had multiple and long standing problems but the father’s death signified the end of any family cohesiveness and social support. Her mother’s emotional withdrawal (‘‘she don’t like speaking to nobody. So she just keeps her problems in’’) intensified the girl’s sense of loss and detachment. For many the loss was sudden and thus, perhaps, more difficult: ‘‘I didn’t get a chance to say ‘goodbye, I love you.’ No hug or nothing.’’ Not only did a loved one’s illness and subsequent death cause immediate distress, but the experience generated fears about the health and possible loss of others. Lauren (pseudonyms are used throughout) was talking about her two grandparents’ deaths when she alluded to her mother’s health status and then referred to all three in the past tense: ‘‘My mother...she got HIV. One of these days she can go, you never know. She can pass away. She was somebody that was really, really close to me and the other one was my grandparents.’’ Many also expressed both helplessness and responsibility for their loved one’s death. Joanne described a telephone call she received when she was 10 years old: ‘‘He was screaming in the background ‘I want to see my granddaughter before I die’ and I was like 12 hours away and didn’t know what to do. If he wouldn’t have gotten so upset about that he probably would have lived longer.’’ Similarly, Christine chastised herself when her uncle died of a drug overdose: ‘‘I just feel like maybe if we would have called the ambulance right away when we seen him, he probably would still be alive today.’’ Helplessness is particularly evident in the narratives of the 17 teens who endured the loss and violence of a homicide. One young woman described her terror and inability to prevent the death of her best friend:

I WASN’T REALLY BONDED

29

‘‘We were sitting on the corner and she got shot in the back of the neck. I didn’t move, I didn’t know what to do. I just stood there. And I didn’t realize she got shot until she fell and she was bleeding on me, and I had blood all over me.’’ The young women rarely spoke of adult comfort or support when describing these incidents. Most were on their own to manage their emotions in the aftermath of a loved one’s death. Physical Absence The young women also suffered the loss of loved ones who, though alive, were physically absent. Most prevalent among multiple and often overlapping reasons were divorce and incarceration, which frequently meant that at least one parent permanently dropped out of the girls’ lives.11 A newborn when her parents divorced, Royale recalled ‘‘when I was younger my father used to take me to his house and we’d stay like a weekend over there.’’ Unfortunately, ‘‘after awhile that stopped.’’ Now she only sees him ‘‘walking down the street sometimes.’’ Despite her father’s physical proximity in the neighborhood, his absence from Royale’s life was nearly complete. Divorce, for many, also meant losing both parents. For example, Paula was less than a year old when her parents separated. After her mother left, she lived with an aunt because ‘‘my father don’t know how to take care of a child by himself.’’ Incarceration was a significant cause of parents’ physical absence. Jennifer stated that her mother ‘‘she wasn’t never really ever there ‘cuz she was either locked up or I was locked up.’’ Similarly, Christine explained that her father had been in jail ‘‘off and on’’ – so often that from her birth to age 11, ‘‘I’ll say he lived with us for a good one year straight.’’ She remained hopeful that ‘‘when he come home they gonna be back together.’’ Imprisonment placed a tremendous strain on already overextended families as parents sought to find a home for their children. From the perspective of the respondents, however, there was a keen sense of loss and abandonment. Jackie explained: ‘‘My mom went to jail so they didn’t have nowhere to put me and I had to go to court and they gave me to my aunt ‘cuz my moms said she didn’t want me, that I should live with somebody else. At that time, my father wasn’t available... I don’t really know why he couldn’t get me, but they gave me to my aunt.’’ The physical loss of her parents was exacerbated by the fact that at age 13 (when she was interviewed), no evidence was offered to dispel

30

JUDITH A. RYDER

Jackie’s belief that her mother ‘‘didn’t want me,’’ nor were reasons provided as to why her father ‘‘couldn’t get me.’’ Several young women also indicated at least a temporary physical loss because a parent was hospitalized for psychological or medical care or to participate in drug treatment. Clearly, numerous parental figures had entered and then left during the girls’ young lives and too often, the young women were physically left on their own. Psychological Unavailability The respondents also described circumstances wherein adults, though physically present, were incapable or unwilling to nurture or to address basic emotional needs. This psychological unavailability was because of substance use or addiction, serious illness or disability, or the distractions of attending to family, work or personal problems. As one 16-year-old observed about her parent’s daily use of alcohol and cocaine, ‘‘I thought my father depended more on that and cared more about that than he did about me.’’ Another found it frustrating to call home to her substance-using mother because ‘‘sometimes, I don’t even know where my mother’s at sometimes. Like sometimes she be home [but] she just don’t answer the phone, she just sleeping.’’ Parents may have provided basic necessities (‘‘I ate regularly, lived in a regular house, like my mother would cook us dinner’’) but relationships were limited (‘‘we never, we didn’t hardly talk’’) often because ‘‘my mother was on drugs.’’ In several cases a parent’s physical absence was compounded by the psychological unavailability of other adult caregivers. ‘‘I would want to go outside and do something that like a mother would do with you, but my grandmother wouldn’t want to go outside or play cards with me. Or, you wanna go to the mall, but my grandma don’t drive. [My aunt] worked at night so she sleeps in the daytime. So, sometimes she was tired. My grandmother watched soap operas and my aunt slept and I be outside, running the streets.’’ Thus despite caregivers’ who perhaps offered physical necessities, many of the young women lacked supportive adults who could also be psychologically and emotionally available. Violence and Victimization The young women’s experiences with violence are roughly dichotomized between occurring in the home and in the larger community, yet it is a somewhat artificial division. The young women frequently fended off

I WASN’T REALLY BONDED

31

abusive strangers in their homes, and witnessed family members being attacked (as well as attacking others) in the community. Violence appeared to be a persistent and pervasive force in all aspects of life. Violence in the Home Violence in the home frequently was associated with ongoing parental dissension; the young women described arguments between adult caregivers that quickly escalated into physical and vicious encounters. Paula stated that her parents ‘‘try to kill each other. Literally tried to kill each other.’’ Her mother ‘‘put glass and roaches and bottle tops in his food and he [father] tried to strangle her.’’ While fighting by both parents was common, the preponderance of violence was inflicted upon mothers by male partners who also jeopardized the girls’ safety. Gayle stated that when her stepfather ‘‘get drunk, he like threatens me and my mother with a gun tellin’ us to get out of his house....My stepfather used to abuse my mother and me.’’ Likewise, 16-year-old Natalie described seeing her father beat her mother up from the time she was a toddler, and then after the mother left and remarried, witnessing her stepfather do the same. In such circumstances, the young women were frequently forced to defend or protect their mothers. When she was only 11 years old, Marcella was awakened by her mother’s pleas for help: ‘‘...she’s screaming, ‘get away from me, get off me.’ My instinct was to beat him off – that’s what I did. She was calling me and I came and I fought the guy off with a broomstick.’’ In addition to witnessing violence perpetrated between and against parental figures, the young women spoke of witnessing adults physically and sexually abusing other children in the home, as well as being victimized themselves. Attributing the violence to substance use, one young woman described how when her mother was high ‘‘she used to like take the hangers and beat me with it and I remember one time she broke a glass on my leg and she, um, took a baseball bat and hit my leg.’’ Sexual assaults were rarely talked about in the household. Although Kathy told her mother that she was raped by ‘‘one of the boys in the neighborhood’’ she did not reveal that her uncle had been sexually assaulting her for over three years. As was the case for many abused by family members, she did not speak ‘‘cuz it was her sister’s husband and I didn’t want to have her think that I’m lying or have her not believe me.’’ Relationships were often already tenuous and the young women feared ‘‘causing’’ additional disruptions. Michelle’s attempts to disclose her father’s assaults were difficult: ‘‘I was trying to get along with her [mother], but every time I tried to talk about it, she be like, ‘nah, I don’t

32

JUDITH A. RYDER

believe you’.’’ Others were physically attacked for speaking up. In a horrific story of witnessing her stepfather’s nightly abuse of her older sister, Joanne revealed the predicament of a child who finds safety in neither parent. When she finally told her mother about the abuse, Joanne learned that ‘‘my mother knew, but she didn’t know what to do.’’ Instead, her mother beat her with a switch and demanded that she too remain silent. Witnessing violence in the home robbed the young women of their parents’ attention and support. Furthermore, much of the violence was inflicted upon the respondents themselves by those responsible for their care and whom they should have been able to trust. When the teens spoke out they were generally ignored, betrayed, or punished, further disrupting the natural attachment between child and primary caregiver. Violence in the Community Most of the young women described their neighborhoods as violent and depicted fights, shootings, and killings as the constant background of daily living. Adele’s description is typical: ‘‘They be shooting in the park, shooting off the roof. Shooting in the staircases, shooting in the elevator. Fighting in the park and in the staircases, men beating their girlfriends up.’’ Another claimed the violence was ‘‘all over’’ so that even if people were not directly involved they could not help but ‘‘see the after-effects.’’ Against this backdrop of community violence, the young women described personal experiences. Threats and attacks were sometimes in the context of fights with other girls but more frequently the violence involved young men and weapons. A boy she ‘‘used to mess around’’ held a gun on Alona after he saw her talking to other boys. Valerie confided that while with a neighborhood boy she ‘‘didn’t get raped; he was just tryin’ to force me.’’ Another met a boy through friends: ‘‘he did... one of them guy things ‘let’s go into the room so we can talk’.’’ The young man put a gun to her head and threatened to shoot if she did not have sex with him: ‘‘First I told him go ahead and shoot me, do what he gotta do. Then I just gave in.’’ The young women also witnessed violent acts against neighbors, friends and family members. Maria described how when she was 10 she saw a ‘‘big boy probably like 15, playing with a M80, put it in the little boy’s pocket, and the little boy just blew up. He started bleeding, an ambulance came, he was like on fire.’’ In another’s story, a friend was ‘‘shot in his face because he was there, just because he was watching’’ during a drug transaction. In describing homes and communities that

I WASN’T REALLY BONDED

33

conjure up images of war zones, these adolescents often expressed both anger and resignation at their own vulnerability and the lack of protection and support from the adults in their life. Parental Attachment Parental attachment may be especially important during adolescence when young women experience ‘‘acute conflict over connection, control, and power’’ and are exposed to increased sexism and violence (Debold et al. 1999: 189). Thus, it is important to hear how adolescents assess attachment to and relationships with parents and other adults. Two specific questions addressed these concerns. Speaking with Others The young women were asked ‘‘when something was bothering you did you ever tell any of the people you lived with?’’ Of the seven who said they did speak with someone, it was their mother they turned to first. However, 17 (70.8%) said they never spoke to anyone in their home about the things that were troubling them. Their reasons reveal minimal experience with or models for talking about feelings, and concerns with privacy and trust. Asked why she never told anyone when something was bothering her, Elana indicated that family communication was impeded ‘‘because everybody was just so busy and tired and didn’t wanna do anything.’’ There had been numerous family losses and victimizations and the 14-year-old seemed emotionally detached, perhaps blocking the need and even desire for loving attachments. ‘‘I wasn’t really bonded with my family cuz I like to isolate myself from people. I don’t like to be around a whole group of people. That’s the thing ...I didn’t know how to like, just sit there and really start a conversation with somebody in my family.’’ Others also claimed that they did not know how to discuss their emotional life. Gayle ‘‘wasn’t brought up like, to talk’’ and Sherry stated: ‘‘I just don’t, really, talk about my feelings.’’ Several indicated that they didn’t share their feelings with family members because they ‘‘felt it wasn’t none of their business,’’ a stance borne of earlier betrayals of confidences. Adele chose ‘‘to keep it to myself instead of telling her [mother] and then her telling, you know, my grandmother and my grandmother telling my aunt, and so on from there.’’ Jill, as did others, feared that by revealing troubles she would be seen in a lesser light. ‘‘A lot of things have happened to me that my mom doesn’t know about me

34

JUDITH A. RYDER

and I don’t want her to think bad things about me, so I just, I didn’t bother with it.’’ Most assumed they should be able to care for themselves: ‘‘I thought I could handle it or things would work out. I just had the feeling that I could do things myself.’’ Feeling Safe and Secure When the young women were asked ‘‘of everyone in the household where you mostly lived, who did you feel the safest and most secure with,’’ an equal number (seven each) indicated either their mother or ‘‘no one.’’ One said she ‘‘never really got along or anything’’ with her mother but she trusted her baby daughter with her because ‘‘I know nothing will happen to her.’’ Another young woman similarly suggested mixed feelings about safety and closeness with her mother and sister: ‘‘when we fight its like we hate each other then but when it comes down to it, if something were ever to happen to me they’d go nuts and they’d really be there, they always be there.’’ Another young mother found security with her year-old-daughter because ‘‘she was there with me and I can talk to her.’’ Others said that asking them to think about who made them feel safe and secure was a ‘‘hard question,’’ especially because many had been living in a series of foster and group homes. Gayle claimed there was nobody upon whom she could depend ‘‘because I used to always run around and I had no time to get to know people.’’ Another girl acknowledged that although her mother ‘‘is there to protect me and stuff,’’ she ‘‘never felt safe with her. Maybe because we didn’t have a good relationship.’’

Discussion and Recommendations As others have noted, the voices of young people are rarely heard (Leadbeater and Way 1996), and ‘‘girls, in particular, are a socially silenced group’’ (Burman et al. 2001: 455). Access to girls’ perspectives on loss and interpersonal violence are especially rare. Thus, this study is an important contribution to the growing body of research that focuses on adolescent female offenders (Acoca and Dedel 1998; Robinson 1991). The respondents are situated at the ‘‘deep end’’ of the juvenile justice system, (a group that by definition may be the most seriously involved in violent behavior) and previous research has not investigated their experiences with loss, victimization and other traumatic events. Indeed, traditionally girls’ violence has been either ignored or sensationalized with little effort to understand the underlying processes

I WASN’T REALLY BONDED

35

that may contribute to such behavior. Although the data are limited, consisting of cross-sectional narratives of 24 young women, findings suggest a number of theoretical and programmatic implications and associated recommendations. Significantly, when asked about violent experiences, the young women presented extensive histories of loss, suggesting that both must be considered when seeking to understand girl’s use of violence. Early in life expectations of nurturance and support, innate in the human child, were thwarted by caregivers who were unwilling or unable to attend to the girls’ needs. Thus, the emotional bond became a source of pain, rather than serving as a form of a ‘‘relational’’ or indirect control mechanism (Hirschi 1969). A developmental perspective suggests that rejection, or the threat thereof, severed primary attachment bonds; emotional detachment left the young women vulnerable to the stresses of violence and loss and the effects of trauma. Without the intervention of other loving caretakers, the young women may have engaged in violence to diffuse the emotional pain of their disrupted attachments. Future research on girls’ use of violence would benefit from an interdisciplinary approach that includes an investigation of attachment theory and its implications. As with control theories, attachment theory considers the early bond between parents and children to be crucial in determining the course of human development. The emphasis, however, is on nurturing and supporting an innate need as opposed to controlling destructive impulses. The long-term consequences of a disruption in secure attachments may be similar to the characteristics of a person with low self control (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990; Hayslett-McCall and Bernard 2002: 17), a possibility indicative of some affiliation between two distinct bodies of literature. Although the basic assumptions of human nature in each perspective are very different as are the implications that flow from those assumptions, closely examining early childhood traumatic experiences may reveal a foundation for merging developmental psychology and trauma literature with established criminological theories. Such theoretical integration may help in understanding the experiences and behaviors of young offenders and offer additional clarification of developmental pathways. Furthermore, while control theories postulate that the construct of low self control remains fairly stable over a lifetime, attachment theory maintains that, depending on life circumstances and opportunities, ‘‘reattachment’’ is always possible – individuals tend to move toward the natural state of satisfying attachment relationships (Waters et al. 2000). This ability to alter relationships provides a hopeful note for intervening programming.

36

JUDITH A. RYDER

This research focused on the loss and victimization experiences of individual girls and their perceptions of attachments to primary caregivers, yet it is important to recognize the broader context of these young women’s lives. Parental failings and abuses are substantial but so too are those of the larger community. The many structural impediments to healthy development include extensive and pervasive violence and poverty, and minimal social, educational or health services and supports. Policies of mass incarceration have fallen disproportionately upon African American and other minority groups with detrimental consequences that are both gendered and racialized. In addition, mandatory arrest practices in domestic violence incidents and zero tolerance policies in schools have increasingly brought young women of color into the justice system, despite evidence that the behaviors in question may be more accurately characterized as acts of self defense. Finally, cultural mores and gender inequalities that sexualize and ‘‘objectify’’ girls and young women contribute to sexual abuse and interfere with the development of safe communities in which to grow into womanhood. The assumptions of attachment theory do not address the objective hostility and danger of violent communities. Nevertheless, they do expose the harm in ignoring young women’s developmental health and the role of childhood trauma. The lack of effective parenting and the resultant detachment may leave young women more vulnerable to the dangers surrounding them and more likely to react violently. This research makes a strong case for incorporating young women’s perspectives into risk-based prevention and early intervention programs. Recognizing the extensive amount of trauma that may be experienced by young people living in poor and dangerous neighborhoods, efforts to reduce community violence must be supported. In addition, however, it is critical that programming in schools, community centers, and correctional facilities recognize the detrimental effects of trauma and begin to provide age-appropriate, trauma-related information for community members and training in PTSD symptomology for service providers. Violence prevention and intervention programs must address gender and culture; young women need programs that speak directly to their concerns and lived experience and that translate general antiviolence messages into practical skills. Programming must find ways to include supportive adults and key community stakeholders. There is also a need to provide young women with a safe place to share their traumatic experiences and to receive appropriate clinical care. Most of the young women indicated they rarely went to a family member or someone else in the community when something was

I WASN’T REALLY BONDED

37

bothering them, oftentimes because the very people who should have provided nurturance and protection from harm had instead maltreated or neglected them. Clearly, young women require supervision and controls, but they also need consistent support, services and connections with caring adults if we seek to address the underlying mechanisms that contribute to violent behavior.

Notes 1. 2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

The data are from a larger study of youth violence and drug involvement. See Crimmins et al. (1998). Formerly the New York State Division for Youth. All 51 girls contacted completed an interview. Of the 64 not contacted, 58 were released, four transferred to adult corrections, one was AWOL, and one was considered by OCFS staff too unstable to participate. During the study young women age 18 and over residing in OCFS facilities were moved to the adult Department of Correctional Services. Respondents were asked to specify race or ethnic background. Ten categories were offered as probes and responses were recoded Black, Hispanic/Latina, White, and Biracial/Multiracial. The interview included detailed questions about family and community characteristics; coping strategies such as substance use, running away, and self harm; and prior involvement in illegal activities including the violent event for which the respondent was remanded. Reporting on these responses, however, is beyond the scope of this article. Potential respondents were told that some of the questions might cause them to recall stressful or painful events in their lives and that counseling services were available should they desire them as a result of the interview. Tapes and paper interviews were stored at NDRI headquarters in the World Trade Center. As a result of the September 11, 2001, attack narrative data are available for only 24 of 51 cases. Analyses of demographic characteristics indicate that the surviving group of 24 is similar to the sub-sample from which it came. The Table indicates only 19 events because Physical Abuse categories (Family, Stranger, Witnessed) include both ‘‘kicked, bit, hit’’ and ‘‘burned, scalded.’’ No one reported being kidnapped. The interview schedule did not define losing a home but responses refer to evictions, destruction (i.e., fire), and placements in mental health and correctional facilities. A fourth category, Loss of Home, is detailed in Ryder 2003. Most of the young women (n = 15, 63%) said that the adult they mostly lived with prior to residence in OCFS was their mother.

38

JUDITH A. RYDER

References Acoca, L. and Dedel, K. (1998). No Place to Hide. Understanding and Meeting the Needs of Girls in the California Juvenile Justice System. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Arnold, R. (1995). Processes of victimization and criminalization of Black women. In B. Price and N. Sokoloff (eds.), The Criminal Justice System and Women: Offenders, Victims and Workers. New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 136–146. Artz, S. (1998). Sex, Power and the Violent School Girl. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Trifolium Books, Inc. Batacharya, S. (2004). Racism, ‘‘girl violence,’’ and the murder of Reena Virk. In C. Adler and A. Worrall (eds.), Girls’ Violence. Myths and Realities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 61–80. Baum, K. (2005). Juvenile Victimization and Offending, 1993–2003. Special Report. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C. Becker-Blease, K. and Freyd, J. (2005). Beyond PTSD. An evolving relationship between trauma theory and family violence research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(4), 403–411. Boney-McCoy, S. and Finkelhor, D. (1995). Psychosocial sequelae of violent victimization in a national youth sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(5), 726–736. Bowlby, J. (1969–1980). Attachment and Loss (Vols. 1–3). New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Parent Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. New York: Basic Books. Burman, M., Batchelor, S. and Brown, J. (2001). Researching girls and violence: Facing the dilemmas of fieldwork. The British Journal of Criminology, 41(3), 443–459. Campbell, A. (1990). Female participation in gangs. In R. Huff (ed.) Gangs in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 163–182. Cauffman, E., Feldman, S. Waterman, J. and Steiner, H. (1998). Posttraumatic stress disorder among female juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37(11), 1209–1216. Chesney-Lind, M. (1989). Girls’ crime and woman’s place: Toward a feminist model of female delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 35(1), 5–29. Chesney-Lind, M. and Belknap, J. (2004). Trends in delinquent girls’ aggression and violent behavior: A review of the evidence. In M. Putallaz and K. Bierman (eds.), Aggression, Antisocial Behavior, and Violence among Girls: A Developmental Perspective. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 203–220. Corrado, R. Odgers, C. and Cohen, I. (2000). The incarceration of young female offenders: Protection for whom?. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 189–207. Corrado, R., Roesch, R., Hart, S. and Gierowski, J. (2002). Multi-Problem Violent Youth. A Foundation for Comparative Research on Needs, Interventions and Outcomes. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Crimmins, S. (1995). Early childhood loss as a predisposing factor in female perpetrated homicides. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York. Crimmins, S., Brownstein, H., Spunt, B., Ryder, J. and Warley, R. (1998). Learning about violence and drugs among adolescents. Final report to the National Institute

I WASN’T REALLY BONDED

39

on Drug Abuse. Grant No. R01 DA08679. National Institutes of Health, Washington, DC. Debold, E., Brown, L., Weseen, S. and Brookins, G. (1999). Cultivating hardiness zones for adolescent girls: A reconceptualization of resilience in relationships with caring adults. In N. Johnson, M. Roberts and J. Worell (eds.), Beyond Appearance: A New Look at Adolescent Girls. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 181–204. Dembo, R. Williams, L. Lavoie, L. and Berry, E. (1989). Physical abuse, sexual victimization, and illicit drug use. Violence and Victims, 4(2), 121–138. Dembo, R. Williams, L. and Schmeidler, J. (1993). Gender differences in mental health service needs. Journal of Prison and Jail Health, 12(2), 73–101. Eth, S. and Pynoos, R. (1985). Developmental perspectives on psychic trauma in childhood. In C.R. Figley (ed.) Trauma and its Wake. New York: Bruner-Mazel, pp. 36–52. Gaarder, E. and Belknap, J. (2002). Tenuous borders: Girls transferred to adult court. Criminology, 40(3), 481–517. Garnefski, N. and Diekstra, R. (1997). Child sexual abuse and emotional and behavioral problems in adolescence: Gender differences. Journal of the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(3), 323–329. Gilfus, M. (1992). From victims to survivors to offenders: Women’s routes of entry and immersion in street crime. Women and Criminal Justice, 4(1), 63–89. Gilligan, C. Rogers, A. and Tolman, D. (1991). Women, Girls and Psychotherapy. Reframing Resistance. New York: Harrington Park Press. Gottfredson, M. and Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Greenberg, M., DeKlyen, M., Speltz, M. and Endriga, M. (1997). The role of attachment processes in externalizing psychopathology in young children. In L. Atkinson and K. Zucker (eds.), Attachment and Psychopathology. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 196–222. Hayslett-McCall, K. and Bernard, T. (2002). Attachment, masculinity, and self-control: A theory of male crime rates. Theoretical Criminology, 6(1), 5–33. Herman, J. (1997). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Johnston, D. (1995). Effects of parental incarceration. In K. Gabel and D. Johnston (eds.), Children of Incarcerated Parents. New York: Lexington Books, pp. 59–88. Jones, N. (2004). ‘‘It’s not where you live, it’s how you live’’: How young women negotiate conflict and violence in the inner city. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 595, 49–62. Laub, J. and Sampson, R. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31(3), 301–325. Leadbeater, B. and Way, N. (Eds.). (1996). Urban Girls: Resisting Stereotypes, Creating Identities. New York: New York University Press. Lopez, F.G. and Gover, M.R. (1993). Self-report measures of parent-adolescent attachment and separation – individuation: A selective review. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 560–569. Luthar, S. and Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of research on resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(1), 6–22.

40

JUDITH A. RYDER

Margolin, G. and John, R. (1997). Children’s exposure to marital aggression. In G. Kantor and J. Jasinski (eds.), Out of the Darkness: Contemporary Research Perspectives on Family Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 90–104. Miller, J. (1998). Up it up. Gender and accomplishment of street robbery. Criminology, 36(1), 37–66. Ness, C. (2004). Why girls fight: Female youth violence in the inner city. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 595, 32–48. Poe-Yamagata, E. and Butts, J. (1996). Female Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System. Statistics Summary. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Robinson, R. (1991). Violations of girlhood: A qualitative study of female delinquents and children in need of services in Massachusetts. Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University. UMI No. 9123704. Ryder, J. (2003). Antecedents of violent behavior. Early childhood trauma in the lives of adolescent female offenders. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York. UMI No. 3074679. Sampson, R. and Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shapiro, D. and Levendosky, A. (1999). Adolescent survivors of childhood sexual abuse: The mediating role of attachment style and coping in psychological and interpersonal functioning. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(11), 1175–1191. Siegel, J. and Williams, L. (2003). The relationship between child sexual abuse and female delinquency and crime: A prospective study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(1), 71–94. Smith, C. and Thornberry, T. (1995). The relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology, 33(4), 451–477. Snyder, H. (2005). Juvenile Arrests 2003. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Sroufe, L. Carlson, E. Levy, A. and Egeland, B. (1999). Implications of attachment theory for developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 11(1), 1–13. Thornberry, T. (Ed.). (2004). Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 7. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Waters, E. Merrick, S. Treboux, D. Crowell, J. and Aldersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71(3), 684–689. Widom, C. and Ames, M. (1994). Criminal consequences of childhood sexual victimization. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18(4), 303–318. Wright, J. and Cullen, F. (2001). Parental efficacy and delinquent behaviors: Do control and support matter?. Criminology, 38(3), 677–707.