Before We Call It Behaviour
Children of colour, mixed-heritage identity, childhood trauma and those whose nervous-system state gets misunderstood
A child raises their voice. Another avoids eye contact. One becomes very still; another walks out of the room.
We may describe these moments as rude, defiant, aggressive, attention-seeking or disengaged. Yet behaviour is what we can see—not the whole of what is happening.
The meaning adults give to a child’s behaviour is shaped by far more than the child. It may also be influenced by the adult’s own nervous-system state, expectations, cultural norms, past experiences and unconscious bias. Race, colourism, disability, gender, class and family context can all affect who is seen as frightened, who is seen as threatening and who is offered care.
This article is the third in my series about the What’s My State?® tools. It explores how visual and somatic state mapping can help us look beyond the surface of behaviour—without turning racism, inequality or genuine danger into an individual child’s “regulation problem”.
In this article
- Why this conversation belongs in nervous-system work
- Before we call it behaviour
- Who is allowed to look frightened?
- Adultification and children of colour
- When neurodivergence and racialised interpretation meet
- Mixed-heritage children and belonging
- Blended and intercultural families
- When the threat is real
- Using What’s My State?® with cultural curiosity
- Using the R.U.D Process® to examine adult interpretation
- Questions to ask before interpreting behaviour
- Continue exploring
Why This Conversation Belongs in Nervous-System Work
On 22–24 September 2026, I will be presenting two research posters at the Polyvagal Institute International Gathering in Sitges, Barcelona: one about the R.U.D Process® and one about What’s My State?®.
I created both resources because many neurodivergent people can feel something intensely without being able to name it, explain it or communicate it in the moment. This has been part of my own experience since childhood. Words alone are not always available when a nervous system is protecting us.
What’s My State?® uses a visual board, state cards, movement and meaningful objects to help children, teenagers and adults explore what may be happening within them. The R.U.D Process® helps us recognise a micro-moment, unravel and understand its layers, and diffuse and develop another way forward.
Yet nervous-system work does not happen outside society. A child’s sense of safety is affected by relationships, identity, community and systems. The same is true of the adult observing them. If we discuss states without discussing race and power, we may unintentionally locate the entire problem inside the child.
A nervous-system-informed approach should widen the context – not remove racism, power or inequality from it.
Before We Call It Behaviour
Behaviour matters, particularly when somebody may be at risk. But a description of behaviour is not the same as an explanation of it.
Consider a child who refuses an instruction. That refusal might be connected to:
- sensory overwhelm;
- fear or uncertainty;
- difficulty processing spoken language;
- a demand that feels impossible in that moment;
- an attempt to protect dignity or maintain a boundary;
- a previous experience of humiliation;
- a rule that is unfamiliar or understood differently between homes;
- anger about unfair or discriminatory treatment; or
- several of these at once.
The purpose of looking beneath behaviour is not to excuse harm or remove boundaries. It is to respond to what is actually happening rather than to the quickest story available to us.
A child who feels understood can still be held accountable. A boundary can still be clear. Safeguarding action can still be taken. Curiosity and accountability are not opposites.
Who Is Allowed to Look Frightened?
Adults do not interpret every child in the same way.
One child’s raised voice may be recognised as distress. Another child’s may be read as aggression. One child’s silence may bring concern and comfort. Another child’s silence may be treated as compliance, guilt or attitude. A child protecting themselves may be described as confrontational rather than frightened.
This is not simply about finding a better label. It asks a deeper question:
Which children are permitted to be vulnerable—and which children are expected to prove that they deserve protection?
Race is not the only factor influencing these judgements, and children of colour are not a single group with a single experience. Gender, age, disability, skin tone, communication style, religion and class may intersect. Nevertheless, we cannot practise cultural curiosity while remaining silent about racism or racial bias.
Adultification and Children of Colour
Adultification bias occurs when a child is perceived and treated as more adult, less innocent or more responsible than other children. In the UK, official safeguarding and youth-justice work has drawn particular attention to the adultification of Black and mixed-heritage children.
The 2022 Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review concerning Child Q concluded that adultification bias was a feature of the case. Child Q was a Black girl of secondary-school age who was strip-searched at school without an appropriate adult present and without her mother being contacted beforehand.
In 2025, the Youth Justice Board described adultification bias as the harmful practice of perceiving and treating certain children as adults, particularly Black and mixed-heritage children. It warned that children may be viewed as older, less innocent and more responsible for their actions, contributing to harsher treatment.
Adultification can alter the story attached to a nervous-system response. Fear may be read as hostility. Protection may be called defiance. A child in distress may be expected to show adult-level composure before an adult offers them care.
This matters because interpretation shapes intervention. If adults see threat where there is vulnerability, they may escalate the very state they are trying to manage.
When Neurodivergence and Racialised Interpretation Meet
Neurodivergent communication and regulation may not look the way an adult expects. An autistic child may avoid eye contact, use few words under pressure, repeat language, leave a noisy environment or become very still. A child with ADHD may move, interrupt, act quickly or struggle to shift attention.
These differences can already be misunderstood. When racialised assumptions are added, a child’s actions may be interpreted as deliberately disrespectful, threatening or badly parented rather than as communication, overload or a need for support.
A nervous-system lens cannot diagnose a child, and it should not be used to explain every action. It can, however, interrupt certainty. It invites us to pause between what we observe and the meaning we assign to it.
Instead of asking only, “How do I stop this behaviour?”, we might also ask:
- What may this child be communicating?
- What sensory, relational or environmental demands are present?
- What support have we offered before expecting a different response?
- Would I describe the same behaviour in the same way if another child did it?
Mixed-Heritage Children and Belonging
Mixed- and multi-heritage children are not one homogeneous group. Heritage can be a source of connection, joy, language, culture and belonging. We should not assume that mixed heritage itself causes confusion or difficulty.
At the same time, some children move between settings in which different parts of them are recognised, questioned or made more visible. They may be asked, “What are you?” They may experience racism that family members do not notice or understand. They may feel pressure to choose a side, explain their identity or become “enough” for somebody else’s idea of belonging.
A child may also learn to change their language, body, hair, expression or communication style according to the environment. This adaptation may be mistaken for inconsistency when it is an intelligent response to differing expectations and levels of safety.
A child should not have to divide themselves to belong in every part of their family.
State mapping can make room for complexity. A child might feel relaxed in one part of a family gathering and mobilised in another. They may feel connected to a person and still vigilant in the setting. More than one experience can be true.
Blended and Intercultural Families
Blended and intercultural families may bring together different expectations about eye contact, privacy, affection, independence, hierarchy, discipline, emotional expression and what counts as respect.
Difference is not automatically dysfunction. The difficulty often begins when one person’s norm is treated as neutral and everybody else’s as a problem.
A child moving between households may be navigating different rules, languages, routines and relationships. They may be expected to translate between adults—sometimes literally, sometimes emotionally. If adults are in conflict, the child may also feel watched for loyalty.
In these families, it can help to replace “Which way is right?” with more specific questions:
- What does respect look like to each person?
- Which expectations have been spoken, and which have been assumed?
- What changes between homes or family settings?
- Does the child have permission to love and belong to more than one part of their family?
- Who is carrying the work of adapting?
The aim is not to remove every difference. It is to make the unspoken visible enough that the child is no longer made responsible for holding the whole system together.
When the Threat Is Real
Sometimes a nervous system is not “mistaken”. The threat is genuinely present.
A child may be responding to racism, bullying, domestic abuse, family conflict, exclusion, unsafe discipline or another form of harm. Helping them become steadier cannot mean teaching them to tolerate danger more quietly.
The 2025 Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel report, “It’s Silent”: Race, Racism and Safeguarding Children, examined reviews concerning 53 Black, Asian and mixed-heritage children who had died or been seriously harmed. It found limited attention to race, ethnicity and culture and a wider silence about racism in safeguarding practice and reviews.
That is an essential warning. A state-based conversation must never replace safeguarding, professional assessment or action. Cultural curiosity does not mean hesitating when a child may be at risk. Nor does it mean accepting an adult’s explanation simply because it is described as cultural.
We can ask what is happening inside the child and examine what is happening around them. We can support regulation and challenge the conditions producing fear.
Using What’s My State?® With Cultural Curiosity
What’s My State?® is designed to help make nervous-system experiences visible and interactive. The board and cards are starting points for exploration – not a test, diagnosis or way for an adult to tell a child what they feel.
A culturally curious use of the tools might include:
- letting the child choose their own words, images, figures or objects;
- welcoming more than one language and non-speaking communication;
- asking what colours, symbols and positions mean to that individual child;
- mapping where and with whom different states appear;
- exploring culturally meaningful sources of connection and steadiness;
- not assuming that eye contact, stillness or quick verbal answers equal safety;
- allowing the child to disagree with the adult’s interpretation; and
- inviting adults to map their own states as part of the relationship.
A child might place a figure in the mobilised area of the board when discussing school and move it towards relaxed when speaking about a grandparent, sibling, faith community, music, food or familiar routine. Another child may map the same person in two states because love and vigilance coexist.
The adult’s task is not to correct the map. It is to become interested in the child’s meaning.
Using the R.U.D Process® to Examine Adult Interpretation
When a child’s behaviour activates us, the R.U.D Process® can help create a small space between reaction and response.
R — Recognise
Begin with the Four S’s:
- Situation: What did I actually observe? What happened before and after?
- State: What nervous-system state might I be in?
- Story: What meaning am I giving the child’s behaviour?
- Sensation: What am I noticing in my body?
This separates observable information from interpretation. “The child looked away and did not answer” is an observation. “The child was being disrespectful” is a story about it.
U — Unravel and Understand
Use the three core prompts:
- What got me here?
- What is keeping me here?
- What might help me move from here?
Then add questions about context and power:
- What do I know, what have I been told and what have I inferred?
- Would I interpret this differently in another child?
- Whose standards of respect or “good behaviour” am I using?
- Could race, colourism, disability, gender or class be shaping my story?
- Am I seeking evidence that confirms my first impression?
D — Diffuse and Develop
The next step is not always to make the child change. It might be to lower the demand, offer another way to communicate, reduce sensory input, seek more information, repair a rupture, challenge discriminatory treatment or change the environment.
Small pauses can become micro-moments of self-awareness. Repeated over time, they can become a catalyst for change in the adult, the relationship and the wider system.
Questions to Ask Before Interpreting Behaviour
Before deciding what a child’s behaviour means, we can ask:
- What have I observed without adding motive?
- What happened immediately before this?
- What might the child’s body be trying to manage or communicate?
- Does the child have an accessible way to tell me?
- Is a sensory, relational, cultural or environmental factor present?
- Is the child facing a real threat, unfairness or discrimination?
- How might my own state be narrowing my interpretation?
- Am I expecting this child to be more mature or composed than their peers?
- Would I use the same words if the child had a different race, gender, accent or diagnosis?
- What support, protection, boundary or repair is needed now?
These questions do not guarantee that we will interpret every moment correctly. They help us become less certain of the stories that cause harm.
Continue Exploring
Before we ask, “What is wrong with this child?”, we can ask what state they may be in, what has happened around them, whose interpretation is being prioritised and what their wider world may be asking them to carry.
Before we call it behaviour, we must ask whose nervous system we are observing, whose interpretation is being prioritised and what the child’s wider world may be asking them to carry.
This is not about replacing boundaries, accountability or safeguarding. It is about making our response more accurate, more humane and more aware of the systems surrounding the child.
You can continue this series by reading:
- Beyond “How Do You Feel?” – why some children need more than language-heavy emotional literacy.
- When Nervous Systems Collide at Home – using state mapping to make family patterns visible without making one person the problem.
- The Person Who Says Less May Not Feel Less — understanding the gap between an internal experience and what can be communicated externally.
Explore the What’s My State?® Toolbag
Download the free R.U.D Process® resource
Follow my updates from the Polyvagal Institute International Gathering
Join the mailing list below if you don’t want to miss future articles
A note on scope: This article offers psychoeducation and prompts for reflection. It is not a diagnostic tool and does not replace individual medical, psychological, educational or safeguarding advice. If a child may be at risk, follow the appropriate safeguarding procedures and seek qualified support.
Sources and Further Reading
- Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel (2025), “It’s Silent”: Race, Racism and Safeguarding Children.
- City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership (2022), Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review: Child Q.
- Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (2025), Resources Launch to Tackle Racism in the Youth Justice System.
- Goff, P. A., Jackson, M. C., Di Leone, B. A. L., Culotta, C. M. & DiTomasso, N. A. (2014), The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children.
Children of colour, mixed-heritage identity and whose nervous-system state gets misunderstood
A child raises their voice. Another avoids eye contact. One becomes very still; another walks out of the room.
We may describe these moments as rude, defiant, aggressive, attention-seeking or disengaged. Yet behaviour is what we can see—not the whole of what is happening.
The meaning adults give to a child’s behaviour is shaped by far more than the child. It may also be influenced by the adult’s own nervous-system state, expectations, cultural norms, past experiences and unconscious bias. Race, colourism, disability, gender, class and family context can all affect who is seen as frightened, who is seen as threatening and who is offered care.
This article is the third in my series about the What’s My State?® tools. It explores how visual and somatic state mapping can help us look beyond the surface of behaviour—without turning racism, inequality or genuine danger into an individual child’s “regulation problem”.
In this article
- Why this conversation belongs in nervous-system work
- Before we call it behaviour
- Who is allowed to look frightened?
- Adultification and children of colour
- When neurodivergence and racialised interpretation meet
- Mixed-heritage children and belonging
- Blended and intercultural families
- When the threat is real
- Using What’s My State?® with cultural curiosity
- Using the R.U.D Process® to examine adult interpretation
- Questions to ask before interpreting behaviour
- Continue exploring
Why This Conversation Belongs in Nervous-System Work
On 22–24 September 2026, I will be presenting two research posters at the Polyvagal Institute International Gathering in Sitges, Barcelona: one about the R.U.D Process® and one about What’s My State?®.
I created both resources because many neurodivergent people can feel something intensely without being able to name it, explain it or communicate it in the moment. This has been part of my own experience since childhood. Words alone are not always available when a nervous system is protecting us.
What’s My State?® uses a visual board, state cards, movement and meaningful objects to help children, teenagers and adults explore what may be happening within them. The R.U.D Process® helps us recognise a micro-moment, unravel and understand its layers, and diffuse and develop another way forward.
Yet nervous-system work does not happen outside society. A child’s sense of safety is affected by relationships, identity, community and systems. The same is true of the adult observing them. If we discuss states without discussing race and power, we may unintentionally locate the entire problem inside the child.
A nervous-system-informed approach should widen the context—not remove racism, power or inequality from it.
Before We Call It Behaviour
Behaviour matters, particularly when somebody may be at risk. But a description of behaviour is not the same as an explanation of it.
Consider a child who refuses an instruction. That refusal might be connected to:
- sensory overwhelm;
- fear or uncertainty;
- difficulty processing spoken language;
- a demand that feels impossible in that moment;
- an attempt to protect dignity or maintain a boundary;
- a previous experience of humiliation;
- a rule that is unfamiliar or understood differently between homes;
- anger about unfair or discriminatory treatment; or
- several of these at once.
The purpose of looking beneath behaviour is not to excuse harm or remove boundaries. It is to respond to what is actually happening rather than to the quickest story available to us.
A child who feels understood can still be held accountable. A boundary can still be clear. Safeguarding action can still be taken. Curiosity and accountability are not opposites.
Who Is Allowed to Look Frightened?
Adults do not interpret every child in the same way.
One child’s raised voice may be recognised as distress. Another child’s may be read as aggression. One child’s silence may bring concern and comfort. Another child’s silence may be treated as compliance, guilt or attitude. A child protecting themselves may be described as confrontational rather than frightened.
This is not simply about finding a better label. It asks a deeper question:
Which children are permitted to be vulnerable—and which children are expected to prove that they deserve protection?
Race is not the only factor influencing these judgements, and children of colour are not a single group with a single experience. Gender, age, disability, skin tone, communication style, religion and class may intersect. Nevertheless, we cannot practise cultural curiosity while remaining silent about racism or racial bias.
Adultification and Children of Colour
Adultification bias occurs when a child is perceived and treated as more adult, less innocent or more responsible than other children. In the UK, official safeguarding and youth-justice work has drawn particular attention to the adultification of Black and mixed-heritage children.
The 2022 Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review concerning Child Q concluded that adultification bias was a feature of the case. Child Q was a Black girl of secondary-school age who was strip-searched at school without an appropriate adult present and without her mother being contacted beforehand.
In 2025, the Youth Justice Board described adultification bias as the harmful practice of perceiving and treating certain children as adults, particularly Black and mixed-heritage children. It warned that children may be viewed as older, less innocent and more responsible for their actions, contributing to harsher treatment.
Adultification can alter the story attached to a nervous-system response. Fear may be read as hostility. Protection may be called defiance. A child in distress may be expected to show adult-level composure before an adult offers them care.
This matters because interpretation shapes intervention. If adults see threat where there is vulnerability, they may escalate the very state they are trying to manage.
When Neurodivergence and Racialised Interpretation Meet
Neurodivergent communication and regulation may not look the way an adult expects. An autistic child may avoid eye contact, use few words under pressure, repeat language, leave a noisy environment or become very still. A child with ADHD may move, interrupt, act quickly or struggle to shift attention.
These differences can already be misunderstood. When racialised assumptions are added, a child’s actions may be interpreted as deliberately disrespectful, threatening or badly parented rather than as communication, overload or a need for support.
A nervous-system lens cannot diagnose a child, and it should not be used to explain every action. It can, however, interrupt certainty. It invites us to pause between what we observe and the meaning we assign to it.
Instead of asking only, “How do I stop this behaviour?”, we might also ask:
- What may this child be communicating?
- What sensory, relational or environmental demands are present?
- What support have we offered before expecting a different response?
- Would I describe the same behaviour in the same way if another child did it?
Mixed-Heritage Children and Belonging
Mixed- and multi-heritage children are not one homogeneous group. Heritage can be a source of connection, joy, language, culture and belonging. We should not assume that mixed heritage itself causes confusion or difficulty.
At the same time, some children move between settings in which different parts of them are recognised, questioned or made more visible. They may be asked, “What are you?” They may experience racism that family members do not notice or understand. They may feel pressure to choose a side, explain their identity or become “enough” for somebody else’s idea of belonging.
A child may also learn to change their language, body, hair, expression or communication style according to the environment. This adaptation may be mistaken for inconsistency when it is an intelligent response to differing expectations and levels of safety.
A child should not have to divide themselves to belong in every part of their family.
State mapping can make room for complexity. A child might feel relaxed in one part of a family gathering and mobilised in another. They may feel connected to a person and still vigilant in the setting. More than one experience can be true.
Blended and Intercultural Families
Blended and intercultural families may bring together different expectations about eye contact, privacy, affection, independence, hierarchy, discipline, emotional expression and what counts as respect.
Difference is not automatically dysfunction. The difficulty often begins when one person’s norm is treated as neutral and everybody else’s as a problem.
A child moving between households may be navigating different rules, languages, routines and relationships. They may be expected to translate between adults—sometimes literally, sometimes emotionally. If adults are in conflict, the child may also feel watched for loyalty.
In these families, it can help to replace “Which way is right?” with more specific questions:
- What does respect look like to each person?
- Which expectations have been spoken, and which have been assumed?
- What changes between homes or family settings?
- Does the child have permission to love and belong to more than one part of their family?
- Who is carrying the work of adapting?
The aim is not to remove every difference. It is to make the unspoken visible enough that the child is no longer made responsible for holding the whole system together.
When the Threat Is Real
Sometimes a nervous system is not “mistaken”. The threat is genuinely present.
A child may be responding to racism, bullying, domestic abuse, family conflict, exclusion, unsafe discipline or another form of harm. Helping them become steadier cannot mean teaching them to tolerate danger more quietly.
The 2025 Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel report, “It’s Silent”: Race, Racism and Safeguarding Children, examined reviews concerning 53 Black, Asian and mixed-heritage children who had died or been seriously harmed. It found limited attention to race, ethnicity and culture and a wider silence about racism in safeguarding practice and reviews.
That is an essential warning. A state-based conversation must never replace safeguarding, professional assessment or action. Cultural curiosity does not mean hesitating when a child may be at risk. Nor does it mean accepting an adult’s explanation simply because it is described as cultural.
We can ask what is happening inside the child and examine what is happening around them. We can support regulation and challenge the conditions producing fear.
Using What’s My State?® With Cultural Curiosity
What’s My State?® is designed to help make nervous-system experiences visible and interactive. The board and cards are starting points for exploration—not a test, diagnosis or way for an adult to tell a child what they feel.
A culturally curious use of the tools might include:
- letting the child choose their own words, images, figures or objects;
- welcoming more than one language and non-speaking communication;
- asking what colours, symbols and positions mean to that individual child;
- mapping where and with whom different states appear;
- exploring culturally meaningful sources of connection and steadiness;
- not assuming that eye contact, stillness or quick verbal answers equal safety;
- allowing the child to disagree with the adult’s interpretation; and
- inviting adults to map their own states as part of the relationship.
A child might place a figure in the mobilised area of the board when discussing school and move it towards relaxed when speaking about a grandparent, sibling, faith community, music, food or familiar routine. Another child may map the same person in two states because love and vigilance coexist.
The adult’s task is not to correct the map. It is to become interested in the child’s meaning.
Using the R.U.D Process® to Examine Adult Interpretation
When a child’s behaviour activates us, the R.U.D Process® can help create a small space between reaction and response.
R — Recognise
Begin with the Four S’s:
- Situation: What did I actually observe? What happened before and after?
- State: What nervous-system state might I be in?
- Story: What meaning am I giving the child’s behaviour?
- Sensation: What am I noticing in my body?
This separates observable information from interpretation. “The child looked away and did not answer” is an observation. “The child was being disrespectful” is a story about it.
U — Unravel and Understand
Use the three core prompts:
- What got me here?
- What is keeping me here?
- What might help me move from here?
Then add questions about context and power:
- What do I know, what have I been told and what have I inferred?
- Would I interpret this differently in another child?
- Whose standards of respect or “good behaviour” am I using?
- Could race, colourism, disability, gender or class be shaping my story?
- Am I seeking evidence that confirms my first impression?
D — Diffuse and Develop
The next step is not always to make the child change. It might be to lower the demand, offer another way to communicate, reduce sensory input, seek more information, repair a rupture, challenge discriminatory treatment or change the environment.
Small pauses can become micro-moments of self-awareness. Repeated over time, they can become a catalyst for change in the adult, the relationship and the wider system.
Questions to Ask Before Interpreting Behaviour
Before deciding what a child’s behaviour means, we can ask:
- What have I observed without adding motive?
- What happened immediately before this?
- What might the child’s body be trying to manage or communicate?
- Does the child have an accessible way to tell me?
- Is a sensory, relational, cultural or environmental factor present?
- Is the child facing a real threat, unfairness or discrimination?
- How might my own state be narrowing my interpretation?
- Am I expecting this child to be more mature or composed than their peers?
- Would I use the same words if the child had a different race, gender, accent or diagnosis?
- What support, protection, boundary or repair is needed now?
These questions do not guarantee that we will interpret every moment correctly. They help us become less certain of the stories that cause harm.
Continue Exploring
Before we ask, “What is wrong with this child?”, we can ask what state they may be in, what has happened around them, whose interpretation is being prioritised and what their wider world may be asking them to carry.
Before we call it behaviour, we must ask whose nervous system we are observing, whose interpretation is being prioritised and what the child’s wider world may be asking them to carry.
This is not about replacing boundaries, accountability or safeguarding. It is about making our response more accurate, more humane and more aware of the systems surrounding the child.
You can continue this series by reading:
- Beyond “How Do You Feel?” — why some children need more than language-heavy emotional literacy.
- When Nervous Systems Collide at Home — using state mapping to make family patterns visible without making one person the problem.
- The Person Who Says Less May Not Feel Less — understanding the gap between an internal experience and what can be communicated externally.
Explore the What’s My State?® Toolbag
Download the free R.U.D Process® resource
Follow my updates from the Polyvagal Institute International Gathering
Join the mailing list if you don’t want to miss future articles
A note on scope: This article offers psychoeducation and prompts for reflection. It is not a diagnostic tool and does not replace individual medical, psychological, educational or safeguarding advice. If a child may be at risk, follow the appropriate safeguarding procedures and seek qualified support.
Sources and Further Reading
- Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel (2025), “It’s Silent”: Race, Racism and Safeguarding Children.
- City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership (2022), Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review: Child Q.
- Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (2025), Resources Launch to Tackle Racism in the Youth Justice System.
- Goff, P. A., Jackson, M. C., Di Leone, B. A. L., Culotta, C. M. & DiTomasso, N. A. (2014), The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children.
