Introduction

Child maltreatment remains an ongoing social problem impacting boys and girls, especially in early childhood. In 2005, of the estimated 899,000 youth that received substantiated reports of child maltreatment, the majority (62.8%) of these reports were for neglect, followed by physical abuse (16.6%), sexual abuse (9.3%), psychological maltreatment (7.1%), and medical neglect (2.0%) (USDHHS 2007). Young children (i.e., ages 1–11) compared to older children (i.e., ages 12–18) were more likely to come to the attention of child welfare services for abuse and neglect. While approximately equal numbers of girls (51.7%) and boys (48.3%) receive substantiated reports of child maltreatment, girls were more likely to have been victims of sexual abuse while boys were more likely to be victims of physical abuse (USDHHS 2007).

In response to maltreatment, girls and boys may experience short and long term psychological, emotional, social and/or behavioral consequences (Gerwitz and Edelson 2007; Malinosky-Rummell and Hansen 1993; Wall and Barth 2005; Watts-English et al. 2006). Externalizing behaviors pose the most serious of consequences for both genders because some of these behaviors (e.g., rule breaking behavior and aggression) resemble delinquent acts. Thus, if these maladaptive behaviors are left unchecked and effectively treated, these behaviors may place male and female youth at risk for juvenile or criminal justice involvement.

While youth may experience similar adverse effects to trauma, the literature suggests critical distinctions between boys and girls, particularly around gender specific coping responses (Eschenbeck et al. 2007). The stress literature has generally shown that males react to stress differently than females (Baron and Campbell 1993; Berton and Stabb 1996; Mazerolle 1998; Mazza and Reynolds 1999). Adolescent males often cope with stress by externalizing their behavior compared to females who tend to internalize their behavior (Hoffman and Su 1997; Ireland and Widom 1994; Stiles et al. 2000). Thus, when confronted with stressful situations or coping with unresolved traumatic experiences, boys may have a higher tendency to express anger and act out aggressively. In contrast, girls are more likely than boys to cope by internalizing their response and may exhibit maladaptive psychological or emotional behaviors (Eschenbeck et al. 2007; Hoffman and Su 1997; Leadbeater et al. 1995).

In fact, Broidy and Agnew (1997) argued that the salience of male delinquency compared to female delinquency could be explained by gender differences in emotional reactions to stressful life experiences, such as child maltreatment. According to Broidy and Agnew (1997):

Although both males and females may experience anger, the anger of females is more likely to be accompanied by feelings of guilt, depression, and anxiety. These additional emotions are said to reduce the likelihood of other-directed crime, thereby helping us explain gender differences in such crime. (p. 322)

The pathway between maltreatment and adverse behaviors, especially delinquency, appears wider for males than for females. Studies have shown that males with substantiated cases of child maltreatment are more likely to engage in delinquency or adult criminality compared to their female counterparts (Kilpatrick et al. 2003; Smith and Thornberry 1995; Widom 1989). Males compared to females, in both official and self-report data, have higher rates of delinquency, especially for serious crimes (Hindelang 1971, 1981; Smith and Davidson 1986; Snyder and Sickmund 2006).

Official arrest data also show gender specific patterns. According to national crime estimates, adolescent males were involved in 63% of the estimated 2.2 million juvenile arrests (Snyder and Sickmund 2006). The gender gap grows even larger for juvenile violent crimes, property crimes, and drug abuse violations. For example, in 2006, juvenile males were responsible for 88% of the violent crime index offenses of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault; 68% property crime index offenses, which include burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson; and 84% of all drug abuse violations (Snyder and Sickmund 2006).

In contrast, juvenile girls comprised the majority of arrests for less serious crimes, such as running away from home (59%) and prostitution and commercialized vice (69%). However, trends in official arrest data from 1980 to 2002 show a steady increase of aggravated assault, drug abuse violations, disorderly conduct, and liquor law violations among female juveniles. This data underscores the need to track the gender specific pathways that lead to male and female youth to illegal behavior (Snyder and Sickmund 2006).

The majority of the research exploring a causal link between traumatic experiences and adverse youth behavior has investigated the impact of child maltreatment before age 12 and its impact on maladaptive behavior, mostly among adolescent males (e.g., Lemmon 1999; Maschi 2006; Maschi et al. 2008; Smith and Thornberry 1995). Other research studies that investigate the individual and social environmental risk factors for child maltreatment also have recognized that there may be a constellation of adverse consequences in the psychological, emotional, social, and behavioral domains among maltreated children that continue to impact them from adolescence into adulthood (e.g., Greenwald 2002; Jonson-Reid 1998; Margolin 1998; Wodarski et al. 1990). However, these studies generally do not establish a mediating role for the impact of thoughts and feelings on youth’s behavior or how gender might moderate this relationship.

The criminology and psychology research literature has been more active in exploring risk and protective factors that influence between adverse life experience and maladaptive behavior. This body of literature has yielded some interesting findings that may be relevant towards guiding social work practice and research (e.g., Agnew 1985, 2001; Aseltine et al. 2000; Benda and Corwyn 2002; Ireland et al. 2002; Piquero and Sealock 2000; Widom 1989). For example, studies testing general strain theory have found moderate support for a mediating role of maladaptive emotions (i.e., negative affect) among adolescents that have experienced adverse life experience (e.g., being a victim of violence) and then engage in juvenile delinquency (e.g., Aseltine et al. 2000; Agnew and White 1992; Benda and Corwyn 2002; Brezina 1996, 1998).

Despite these findings, there is a lack of understanding of the impact of gender differences in the short term (or proximal) emotional/psychological experience of maltreated youth and its impact on negative behaviors during childhood. Additional studies on how gender influences the relationships between psychological and emotional well-being (i.e., internalizing behavior) and negative behavior (i.e., externalizing behavior) among maltreated youth can help illuminate the role of gender specific pathways that may begin as early as childhood (English 2003).

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to build upon the extant literature that documents a link between negative affect and adolescent delinquency, particularly among adolescents with histories of maltreatment. The current study explores the conditional or moderating influence of gender on internalizing symptoms (e.g., affective and somatic problems) and externalizing behavior (e.g. rule breaking behavior and aggressive behavior) among maltreated children (i.e., victims of physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment, and neglect) during childhood (ages 7–12). Using a longitudinal comparison group design (Waves 1–4) consisting of a sample of 168 maltreated and 132 non-maltreated children and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach 1991), the following hypothesis was tested: H1: Gender will moderate the relationship between internalizing behavior on externalizing behavior among maltreated youth.

Research investigating the causal mechanism between child maltreatment and maladaptive youth behavior, especially among children, has important practice and policy implications for social work. Identifying how gender influences the causal pathways that link child maltreatment to adverse child behavior or juvenile delinquency, can help to identify characteristics of youth that are most at risk. These findings can also help social workers to develop gender specific theoretical explanations that can be used to design or modify assessment and intervention strategies. These explanations can reinforce a ‘gendered justice’ approach that is consistent with social work’s mission to enhance health and well-being and achieve social justice outcomes for at-risk boys and girls and their families and communities. The methods used to explore the influence of gender on the link between child maltreatment and adverse psychological/emotional and behavioral effects are reviewed in the following section.

Methods

Research Design

A secondary data analysis of the Longitudinal Pathways to Resilience among Maltreated Youth was conducted in order to explore the study hypothesis. A longitudinal comparison group research design (Waves 1–4) allowed for the examination of the impact of child maltreatment on internalizing and externalizing behavior among male and female youth over the course of a 4 year time span. The experimental group consisted of 168 youth (56%) referred by the New York Department of Social Services (DSS) for substantiated reports of child maltreatment. In contrast, the comparison group (44%, n = 132) of non-maltreated youth was identified through their families’ involvement in local welfare services. The research team carefully screened these youth to ensure that they did not have histories of reported or unreported child maltreatment. The experimental and comparison groups were matched on socioeconomic status and urban residential location (i.e., inner city neighborhoods with high levels of violent crime and poverty) in order to isolate the impact of child maltreatment and control for potential confounding factors. The research team recruited the sample of youth prior to the first year (Wave 1) of data collection and then followed them for four consecutive years (Waves 1–4). For each of the four waves (1997–2000), the youth attended a 1 week summer camp in upstate New York that was part of a research sponsored activity (NDCAN and Manly 2003).

Sample Description

The total sample consisted of 300 youth (56% maltreated) from low income families who resided in New York State urban locations (see Table 1). At Wave 1 (1997), these youth were between the ages of 5 and 11 and their mean age was 7.5 (sd = 1.5). Most of the sample was male (63%; n = 189) and of African-American descent (59%; n = 177). As shown in Table 2, the majority of the sample had substantiated reports of maltreatment that occurred in early childhood, particularly preschool age (78.6%; n = 132). A slightly higher percentage of girls compared to boys had experienced abuse in infancy (26.3%, n = 28; 19.6%, n = 33). About 40% (n = 69) experienced child maltreatment at 2 or more developmental periods.

Table 1 Sociodemographic statistics for the study sample
Full size table
Table 2 Developmental period that maltreatment occurred among a sample children with substantiated reports of child maltreatment (N = 168)
Full size table

Data Collection Procedures

Information on child maltreatment, children’s adaptive functioning, and psychiatric symptomatology was gathered from multiple data sources that included the child participants, parents, camp counselors, children’s peers in camp, and case record reviews of centralized child protective services records. Children were recruited into the sample to attend a free week long session of summer camp, 30 h per week held for each of the four waves of the study between 1997 and 2000. The camp setting provided an opportunity for camp counselors and members of the research team to observe and assess the children’s level of interpersonal and self-functioning.

For the purposes of the research study, the children were placed into groups of eight consisting of children of the same sex and same age. About half of the children in each camp group were documented as having a history of maltreatment, while the other half were carefully screened by the researchers to confirm no prior history of child maltreatment. During the camp, each group of children was supervised by three trained counselors who completed a battery of behavior and personality ratings on each child at the end of the week. This battery of tests included the Child Behavior Checklist-Teacher Report Form (CBCL-TRF).

In addition to the camp counselor’s feedback, the children’s primary caregivers were interviewed in their homes within one month of the child’s camp attendance. Parents provided information on the socio-demographic characteristics of their children, family, and community (NDCAN and Manly 2003).

Variables and Measures

The variables of central interest for this investigation were: child maltreatment status, (i.e., predictor), gender (i.e., moderating variable), internalizing behavior (i.e., mediating variable), and externalizing behaviors (i.e., outcome variable). The variables and their corresponding measurement are reviewed in that order, respectively.

Child Maltreatment Status

Child maltreatment status was conceptualized as the predictor variable that influences internalizing and externalizing behavior. Information to determine child maltreatment status among these children was gathered from case record reviews of DSS records. Child maltreatment was defined using the Maltreatment Classification and Rating System (Barnett et al. 1993). Children were identified as experiencing child maltreatment if their records documented any of the following types of abuse and/or neglect: physical abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect-failure to provide (FTP), physical neglect-lack of supervision (LOS), emotional maltreatment, and moral-legal/educational maltreatment. It was defined as either maltreated or not maltreated and was coded as a binary variable (nonmaltreated = 0, maltreated = 1).

Child’s Gender

Child’s gender was tested as the moderating variable that was conceptualized to influence how boys versus girls would express internalizing and externalizing behavior. It was defined as either female or male and was coded as a binary variable (female = 0, male = 1).

Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors

Internalizing behavior was conceptualized as mediating variable between the predictor variable, child maltreatment status (maltreated versus non-maltreated), and the outcome variable, externalizing behavior. Internalizing and externalizing behaviors were measured using the corresponding subscales of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach 1991). Camp counselors completed the CBCL Teacher Report Form (TRF) on each youth for each year of the week long summer camp. The CBCL-TRF version is a 118-item checklist that covers a broad range of problems relevant to children’s mental health that are identifiable by adults, such as being ‘hyperactive or restless’, ‘involved in many fights’, ‘edgy, anxious’, and ‘can’t sit still’. Each of the behavior problem items is scored on a 3-point scale with 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 = very true or often true of the child and then added to provide a total score. Counselors observed the children’s behavior for a week and based their survey answers on their observed behavior of the children. Reliability and validity of the CBCL-TRF has been established on ethnically diverse samples (Achenbach and Rescorla 2001, 2007).

Data Analysis

The study used a two step data analysis approach to test the study’s moderating hypothesis. As illustrated in the conceptual model (please see Fig. 1), Step 1 involved examining how internalizing behavior mediated the relationship between being a victim of child maltreatment and externalizing behavior among children. In Step 2, gender was added to the model in order for us to discern how gender would influence the relationship between internalizing behavior on externalizing behavior among maltreated youth.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual model for the impact of gender with longitudinal effects from initial mediation of internalizing on externalizing behavior among youth with and without histories of child maltreatment

Full size image

To conduct this two step analysis, SPSS 15.0 and AMOS 6.0 (SPSS 2001a, b) and structural equation modeling (SEM) was used (Byrne 2001). At this stage of the analysis, only cases that included data for all four time points were included in the analysis. This strategy was used in order to increase confidence that the patterns identified existed in the raw data. This created a sample size of 190 participants that had complete data across all four time points (Waves 1–4). Latent growth curve modeling (LCGM) was conducted to determine if there was a change over time in internalizing and externalizing behavior between maltreated and nonmaltreated groups (Duncan et al. 1999). Finally, in an effort to incorporate the mediation model and the longitudinal nature of the data, a cross-lagged/auto regressive model was used. We next conducted a moderation analysis (Step 2) to see if gender exerted a conditioning influence on the above mentioned mediation model (Step 1). We ran the same mediation model described above separately for boys and girls. The next section presents the results of the two step analysis.

Findings

We used structural equation modeling to explore the change of internalizing and externalizing behavior across four waves of data (see Fig. 1, Step 1) and the moderating effect of gender (Step 2). Results of this structural equation model (Step 1) revealed an initial mediating effect of internalizing behavior on the link between child maltreatment and externalizing behavior. In particular, Sobel analysis found a significant (p < .05) mediation model where maltreatment history directly affects Time 1 Internalizing Behavior and Time 1 Externalizing Behavior while also having an indirect effect on Time 1 through Time 4 Externalizing Behavior through Time 1 Internalizing Behavior (Please see Fig. 1 and Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3 Fit indices for the level and linear models for internalizing behavior
Full size table
Table 4 Fit indices for the level and linear models for externalizing behavior
Full size table

That is, we found that the mediation model had residual effects on the latter measurements of Time 2, 3, and 4 Externalizing Behavior. Therefore, we integrated the mediation model with an autoregressive model of Time 1–4 Externalizing Behavior. The model produced excellent fit (χ2 = 5.14, p = .16, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06) with all regressions (beta weights) positive and highly significant (p < .001). In the end, the model accounted for between 23.5 and 37.1% of the variance for measures of Externalizing Behavior at time points 1 through 4. Of note is that the model only accounted for 3.8% of the variance for Time 1 Internalizing Behavior (Tables 3 and 4).

We next conducted a moderation model to see if gender moderates the influence of the above mentioned model (see Fig. 1, Step 2). We ran the same model separately for males and females. Although both the male (χ2 = 3.68, p = .30, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .04) and female models (χ2 = 1.41, p = .70, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .00) provided an excellent model fit, the female model appeared a better overall fit for the following two reasons. First, all the regression (beta weights) in the female model were significant (p < .01). This is dissimilar to the male model where the beta weight between abused status and Time 1 Internalizing Behavior (TSI1) was not significant (p = .14), indicating that abuse status did not significantly influence TSI1 score. As this link represents a key piece of the original model this gender difference appears quite significant. Second, the female model stands out as the better model when comparing the AIC scores. The female AIC (49.41) was lower than the male AIC (51.68). Consequently, the original model appears only relevant to the female data.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of gender on internalizing and externalizing behaviors among maltreated youth. Support was found for the study hypothesis. That is, the central findings from the moderation analysis revealed that gender had a conditioning influence on the link between internalizing and externalizing behavior among maltreated youth. Only girls’ internalizing symptoms mediated the link between child maltreatment and externalizing behavior. In contrast, there was direct relationship between child maltreatment and externalizing behavior among boys.

These findings build upon the literature that investigated a mediating role for maltreated children’s internal state on their external behavior. Prior studies have identified correlations between internalizing and externalizing behavior but not necessarily a causal link in when using samples of children (e.g., Hecht and Hansen 2001; Kim and Cicchetti 2003; Higgins and McCabe 2003; Maughan and Cicchetti 2002). For example, Hecht and Hansen found that youth who have experienced maltreatment also experienced internalizing behaviors (e.g., depression and anxiety) and externalizing behaviors (e.g. aggressive and acting out behaviors). The current study moves beyond establishing relationship to providing evidence for a causal link that is tempered by gender. Prior research also has found mixed evidence for a mediating function of adverse emotional responses on delinquency using mostly samples of male adolescents (e.g., Agnew and White 1992; Brezina 1996, 1998). What is particularly interesting with the current study findings is the role that proximal or short term psychological and emotional effects have on externalizing behavior among young children (ages 7–12) across time.

Even more importantly, these findings show evidence that gender exerts a significant influence in how children process the experience of childhood victimization. In particular, the findings from the moderation analyses found support for a conditioning influence of gender, that is, a gender specific pathway between child maltreatment and internal and external behavior among youth that begins in early childhood persists across time. This finding of the role of gender and direct victimization are similar to the Dulmus and Hilarski (2006) study in which they found male children who witnessed parental victimization were found to exhibit higher levels of externalizing behavior compared to their female counterparts who exhibited more internalizing behavior.

Existing theoretical frameworks may shed light on why these gender differences in internalizing and externalizing symptoms occur among maltreated children. For example, Chodorow’s (1978) theory addresses gender differences in the socialization process and coping styles can be applied as a possible explanation for gender differences in coping. According to Chodorow (1989), boys go through a process of individuation and autonomy while girls go through a process of merging and relationship. Based on this theory, male youth may more easily adopt an externalizing/aggressive coping style in response to trauma that is consistent with the process of individuation and a ‘go it alone’ approach. In contrast, females may initially adopt an internalizing coping strategy where their anger and aggression is directed inwardly in an attempt to preserve closeness with others and relationships. However, the unprocessed emotional/psychological intensity of unresolved trauma among girls may inadvertently give rise to adverse behaviors that intensifies over time.

Feminist theory may also provide insight into the differences in behavior based on gender, even in early childhood. White and Kowalski’s (1998) integrated contextual developmental model suggests that in patriarchal societies men are valued more than women and are expected to be dominate in all spheres. It is further assumed in this model that the power dynamics of all relationships are impacted by patriarchy. Based upon these assumptions, cultural norms would become enacted that would dictate aggression as a tool of the more powerful, which would be the male. This biological and/or environmentally shaped pattern may even be evidenced in young children, especially among maltreated male children that may react behaviorally rather than emotionally to the feelings of powerlessness invoked by abuse.

These findings also have important implications for social work practice and policy. Acknowledging gender differences in how youth express reactions to child maltreatment has important implications for early identification and intervention. This is especially true for general population settings, such as schools and/or specialized settings, such as juvenile justice residential or secure care settings. For example, schools provide an ideal setting for identification of children exhibiting high risk behaviors as school age children often spend seven or more hours with highly trained, child centered staff. The resiliency literature (Rutter 1981; Garmezy 1983; Al-Naser and Sandman 2000) suggests that the presence of at least one caring adult (e.g., a teacher, mentor, or a significant other) can make a positive impact on a child’s life. Schools can provide the setting in which a child can find that caring adult figure. The provision of training to school staff on the findings on gender differences can assist in understanding behavior and connecting students to appropriate services. Similar strategies can be used in foster care, residential treatment, and/or secure care settings where youth are significantly in need for support, especially since their maladaptive mental health or behavioral status more than likely resulted in their out of home placement.

While self esteem and trust are concerns for both genders, it seems to be particularly important for girls being that the findings indicate that internalizing behavior among females has long term effects on externalizing behavior. The evidence that child maltreatment is highly associated to emotional and behavioral problems supports the need for self-esteem and social competence interventions (Kim and Cicchetti 2004). Increasing the awareness among professionals that some of the PTSD effects of child maltreatment, such as the physiological, emotional, and personal development effects may place youth at risk of ‘looking up to the wrong person’ is essential to addressing psychological and behavioral adjustment.

Child welfare is a critical intervention setting because it addresses the alleged and/or substantiated reports of abuse and neglect of children. We recommend several strategies to address the needs of youth. In child protection settings, child protective workers can train children’s guardians (who may still be the parent) by providing psycho-educational groups that address gender differences and school based mentoring groups that enhance gender specific relationship skills and positive social networks. Other child welfare supportive services could include support groups run by social workers within child welfare services that concentrate on relationship development with peers and adults that address the unique needs of male and female youth. Additionally, community-based programs, such as the Girls/Boys Club, public service organizations, particularly those that work with minority and inner city youth, such as sororities and fraternities, can continue to play an integral role by organizing mentoring programs for male and female youth.

Gender sensitive clinical social work strategies that target the emotional, psychological, social, and behavioral consequences are warranted. There are even short term therapeutic practices that can be adopted in school, community, or secure care settings for use with maltreated youth. These interventions include the Sanctuary Model, Trauma-Focused Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) and Skills Training in Affective and Interpersonal Regulation (STAIRS) (Bloom 1997; Cloitre et al. 2002; Deblinger and Heflin 1996; Deblinger et al. 1999). Other therapeutic strategies that can assist with increasing positive outcomes for maltreated youth include the use of nonverbal therapeutic techniques, such as play therapy, and art, music. These expressive techniques offer assessment and intervention strategies, which have been shown to be effective (e.g., Boyd-Webb 1999, 2003; Malchiodi 1997; Schaffer 1993). However, the kinds of activities that are effective may vary by gender. For example, effective relationship building with boys tends to more activity based, such as playing sports or other action-based activities (Delgado 2002). In contrast, for girls, intervention strategies may center on the use of the arts for emotional processing and relationship building with self and others (Boyd-Webb 1999, 2003; Malchiodi 1997).

These findings also have important implications for social work policy, especially in child welfare. According to the USDHHS (2007), in 2005, 60% of youth with substantiated reports of child maltreatment received some type of post investigation services. Currently, only about three-quarters of States have policies requiring workers to provide short-term services or require workers to assist with the planning of ongoing services (USDHHS 2007). However, there is not standardization in service provision across states and it is not widely known if these services address gender specific needs. Advocating for gender specific services with service provision can help address this gap. Adopting gender specific strategies may help reduce the risk of psychological, emotional, social and behavioral outcomes among youth.

Before addressing future directions for research, this study has some methodological limitations that need to be discussed. For example, confidence in these causal findings is limited. The temporal sequencing in which Time 1 Internalizing Behavior preceded Time 1 Externalizing Behavior is inconclusive because the data was collected at the same time. The study also did not control for all potential rival explanations. Therefore, alternative hypotheses that can explain the results cannot be ruled out. Additionally, this study used a relatively small sample size that was drawn from an urban environment located in the Northeastern United States. At best, these findings are only generalizable and representative of youth from low income families that reside in urban locations characterized by poverty and community violence. Another limitation is the definition of child maltreatment used. The experimental group only included youth with substantiated reports of child maltreatment and does not represent maltreated youth that did not come to the attention of child protection authorities. It also combined several different types of child maltreatment, such as physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and neglect, into one common category. Additionally, the accuracy of camp counselors’ CBCL-TRF reports is questionable. The counselors’ contact with the sample of youth was only 1 week per year, suggesting that they were not the most reliable reporters to assess these youths’ overall behavior, especially with non-camp related activities, such as behavior at home or school. Yet, despite these limitations, these findings point to important future directions for research that attempts to unravel the link between trauma and youth’s adverse behavior.

Future research should distinguish between the different subtypes of trauma, such as physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and neglect and how these subtypes may influence male and female youth differently. New avenues of research should also investigate the influence of individual and social/environmental factors, which may link trauma to adverse behavior, across the lifespan from childhood to adolescence and adulthood. Individual characteristics, such as gender, race/ethnicity, mental health status, family structure, socioeconomic status, should be investigated. Additionally, social/environmental factors, such as family and peer relationships and school and neighborhood characteristics, would greatly enhance our understanding of the protective impact of social relationships and community settings that facilitate male and female youth’s socioemotional well-being.

Future research would also yield beneficial results by using mixed methods research designs. Studies that include multiple informants, such as teachers, counselors, parents, and children can gain a more rounded view of the impact of maltreatment on male and female youth across multiple settings, such as home, school, and community. Using mixed methods research that includes youth’s subjective and objective viewpoints also may help uncover elements of gender specific resilience that has been yet untapped. At minimum, findings in this area may help us further unearth ‘gendered justice’ strategies for use in assessment and prevention and intervention planning with at-risk youth and their families. Generating ‘gendered justice’ results, by giving equal weight to needs and rights of male and female children, is consistent with social work’s mission which strives to enhance human well being and ensure social justice outcomes. However, in this case, gender is guaranteed a rightful seat on the jury.