U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

n n n

Access OJJDP 

publications online at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

n n n

Girls 

Study Group 

Juvenile justice policymakers have focused 

growing attention on girls in recent years, 

in part because of an increase in female 

arrests and as a result of federal requirements in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Although the overall total of juvenile arrests in the United 

States dropped about 22 percent between 

1996 and 2005, arrests of males decreased 

29 percent, whereas arrests of females 

decreased only 14 percent. Furthermore, 

male arrests for violent crimes decreased 

more substantially (28 percent) than did 

female arrests (10 percent) (Zahn et al., 

APRIL 2010 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator 

Suitability of Assessment Instruments 

for Delinquent Girls 

By Susan Brumbaugh, Jennifer L. Hardison Walters, and Laura A. Winterfield 

According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from 1991 to 2000, 

arrests of girls increased more (or decreased less) than arrests of boys for most types 

of offenses. By 2004, girls accounted for 30 percent of all juvenile arrests. However, 

questions remain about whether these trends reflect an actual increase in girls’ 

delinquency or changes in societal responses to girls’ behavior. To find answers to 

these questions, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention convened the 

Girls Study Group to establish a theoretical and empirical foundation to guide the development, testing, and dissemination of strategies to reduce or prevent girls’ involvement 

in delinquency and violence. 

The Girls Study Group Series, of which this bulletin is a part, presents the Group’s findings. The series examines issues such as patterns of offending among adolescents and 

how they differ for girls and boys; risk and protective factors associated with delinquency, 

including gender differences; and the causes and correlates of girls’ delinquency. 

Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Girls Study Group 

2008). Although their involvement in 

the justice system has been increasing, girls received scant attention until 

OJJDP required states to “develop and 

adopt policies to prohibit gender bias in 

placement and treatment” (Bownes and 

Albert, 1996).1 Meeting this mandate 

requires that practitioners and policymakers understand gender differences 

that may lead to system biases. 

Standardized instruments are tools 

juvenile justice practitioners use to 

identify individuals who pose some sort 

of risk (e.g., recidivism) or to identify 

problem areas (e.g., substance abuse, 

mental health). These instruments can 

facilitate the collection of preliminary 

information critical to security and 

treatment decisions. 

Within the justice system, instruments 

can be used for various purposes and 

at many points in time. For example, 

instruments can be used— 

n	 Prior to sentencing—to inform 

placement decisions or identify 

youth who may be appropriate 

candidates for diversion programs. 

n	 In correctional facilities and probation 

departments—to inform appropriate 

Authors’ Note 

The purpose of this review is to determine the extent to which assessment 

instruments used with at-risk and 

justice-involved youth are equally 

appropriate and effective in assessing 

girls and boys. The authors reviewed 

hundreds of instruments across a 

wide variety of assessment areas to 

examine considerations of gender in 

the development of each instrument 

as well as subsequent research that 

involves analyses by gender. 

security classifications or treatment 

and aid in release planning. 

n	 In treatment facilities—to guide case 

managers in planning services and 

assessing treatment progress. 

In each of these instances, practitioners 

can use standardized instruments once 

for initial screening purposes or at regular intervals to gauge changes over time 

and guide modifications to security levels or treatment services. 

To make appropriate processing decisions (filing, adjudication, detention), 

juvenile justice practitioners—including 

judges, attorneys, case managers, and 

corrections and probation staff—may 

rely in part on standardized instruments to determine the risks and 

treatment needs of youth entering and 

involved in the justice system. Using 

such tools helps systematize decisionmaking criteria across the juvenile 

justice system. 

Recently, because of the increase in the 

numbers of girls in the juvenile justice 

system and heightened public awareness about issues concerning girls and 

gender,2 practitioners and policymakers 

have begun to question whether the 

instruments currently in use are appropriate for girls. Literature has indicated 

that gender is an important variable in 

understanding delinquent behavior and 

must be addressed when developing 

assessment tools. 

Background and Methods 

No research has systematically examined the extent to which existing adolescent instruments used in the juvenile 

justice system are equally effective 

for girls and boys. OJJDP’s Girls Study 

Group (GSG) conducted such a study 

and has summarized the findings in this 

bulletin.3 

Dr. Stephanie r. Hawkins, Principal 

Investigator, Girls Study Group (April 2008– 

Present) Research Clinical Psychologist, 

RTI International 

Dr. Margaret A. Zahn, Principal Investigator, 

Girls Study Group (2004–March 2008) 

Senior Research Scientist, RTI International; 

Professor, North Carolina State University 

Dr. robert Agnew, Professor, Department of 

Sociology, Emory University 

Dr. Meda Chesney-Lind, Professor, Women’s 

Studies Program, University of Hawaii–Manoa 

Dr. Gayle Dakof, Associate Research Professor, 

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, 

University of Miami 

Dr. Del Elliott, Director, Center for the Study and 

Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado 

Dr. Barry Feld, Professor, School of Law, 

University of Minnesota 

Dr. Diana Fishbein, Director, Transdisciplinary 

Behavioral Science Program, RTI International 

Dr. Peggy Giordano, Professor of Sociology, 

Center for Family and Demographic Research, 

Bowling Green State University 

Dr. Candace Kruttschnitt, Professor, 

Department of Sociology, University of Toronto 

Dr. Jody Miller, Associate Professor, 

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 

University of Missouri–St. Louis 

Dr. Merry Morash, Professor, School of 

Criminal Justice, Michigan State University 

Dr. Darrell Steffensmeier, Professor, Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University 

Ms. Giovanna Taormina, Executive Director, 

Girls Circle Association 

Dr. Donna-Marie Winn, Senior Research 

Scientist, Center for Social Demography and 

Ethnography, Duke University 

Girls 

Study Group Members 

2 
Un

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Examining Two Categories 

of Instruments 

Two broad types of instruments were 

relevant to the GSG examination: risk 

assessment instruments used to assess 

the risk of outcomes (e.g., recidivism) 

and treatment-focused instruments 

used to assist in the screening and diagnosis of conditions (e.g., mental health 

disorders). 

Risk assessment instruments are used 

to predict or assess the potential risk of 

various outcomes. These instruments 

are usually developed by analyzing historical cases to determine the factors 

that best predict the subsequent behavior of interest. For example, a traditional 

risk assessment tool developed for use 

in correctional facilities might be based 

on a historical sample of juveniles in the 

justice system that is used to determine 

the characteristics that best predicted 

subsequent offending. These characteristics might include “static” factors, such 

as offense type or prior justice system 

involvement, and “dynamic” factors, 

such as education level or mental health 

status. These instruments are usually 

tested on the “typical” juvenile justice 

population, composed largely of boys, 

without an oversampling of girls. 

Treatment-focused instruments identify conditions without predicting subsequent behavior. These instruments 

typically identify the presence of mental 

health conditions and substance abuse 

problems, but they may also measure 

positive and negative behaviors. Some 

instruments perform a global needs 

assessment to determine possible areas 

for treatment and services. Because the 

risk and protective factors, conditions, 

and disorders that these instruments 

identify can differ by gender, examining 

the effectiveness of instruments with 

regard to gender is essential. For example, using a mental health screening 

instrument that does not appropriately 

consider gender may result in a missed 

opportunity for service or placement 

of a child in an inappropriate treatment 

program. 

Considerations When 

Examining Gender 

Two main factors should be considered 

when examining gender-based performance of instruments: 

n	 Whether the instrument has genderbased development (e.g., genderspecific norming or validation,4 

gender-specific instruments or 

items, or gender-specific scoring 

systems). 

n	 The results of gender-based analyses that have been performed (e.g., 

gender differences in scores or psychometrics, that is, tests to determine the reliability or validity of the 

instrument). 

Some background on each of these 

factors is described here. 

Gender-based development. The primary type of gender-based instrument 

development is the process of norming 

or validating an instrument separately by 

gender. The terms “norming” and “validation” should be distinguished because 

they are applied differently for the two 

types of instruments described above. 

Treatment-focused instruments are 

generally described as being normed, 

whereas risk assessment instruments 

that predict risk are generally described 

as being validated. 

A normed instrument allows the user 

to compare a numerical score of a 

particular individual to the average 

scores of the norming population representative of the person being tested. 

Ideally, these average scores (also 

called norms) are based on a nationally 

representative sample or a representative sample of persons who exhibit the 

condition of interest (e.g., mental health 

condition). Some instruments also provide scores separately by gender. 

Many commercial instruments indicate 

norming information and subgroup 

norms on their Web sites and in their 

manuals. Many instruments offer separate norms by gender, but gender norms 

are not always necessary—analysis 

sometimes indicates no need for them. 

Past research and instrument reviews 

also often provide helpful information 

about gender norming for a specific 

instrument. 

Researchers who develop risk assessment instruments do not usually use 

the term norming but instead reference 

instrument validation. In this context, 

validation describes how well the 

items or total scores predict risk.5 For 

risk assessment instruments, validation usually involves determining item 

3 
 

 

 

 

Girls Study Group
 

How Gender Can Affect Classification and Diagnosis 

When instruments that were developed and tested with general delinquent populations are applied to girls, the instrument's performance may be negatively affected, 

even if the study samples on which the test was conducted included girls. General 

delinquent populations typically include a large number of boys. When instruments 

developed in these populations are used with girls, several concerns arise: 

n An instrument may not accurately identify negative behaviors (e.g., offending) if 

the instrument does not account for the small number of girls who might exhibit 

the behavior. 

n An instrument may misclassify problematic behaviors (e.g., if girls are clustered 

into one category, such as low risk, an instrument may not adequately identify 

high-risk girls because they appear to be at low risk compared with boys). 

n An instrument may not distinguish subgroups (e.g., it may not distinguish girls at 

high and low risk). 

n An instrument may not identify or may misidentify the needs and strengths of girls 

because it does not contain items that are particularly relevant to girls (e.g., girls 

may be strengthened by family or social support networks). 

weights and total scores in a “construction sample.” These weights and scores 

are later confirmed in a second “validation sample.” An instrument has been 

validated by gender when research 

shows that it can predict risk equally for 

boys and girls. 

Gender-based development can also 

involve the creation of gender-specific 

scoring systems under which the specific items or questions on the instrument 

are scored differently for girls and boys 

(as opposed to gender-based norms, 

which involve different interpretations 

of the total score). Another aspect of 

gender-based development involves the 

creation of gender-specific items or, 

in some cases, completely separate 

versions of the instrument for girls 

and boys. 

Gender-based analysis. As with genderbased development, gender-based analyses conducted in subsequent research 

can provide helpful indications of how 

well an instrument works for girls. Indicators of gender-based performance 

include studies of instrument psychometrics, such as validity (i.e., whether 

the instrument measures what it is supposed to measure) and reliability (i.e., 

whether the instrument is stable over 

time or across different raters). Factors 

such as validity and reliability should 

be consistent across gender. Additionally, if subsequent research reveals that 

an instrument shows expected gender 

differences (e.g., gender differences 

the instrument reveals are consistent 

with existing literature), it can be used 

to confirm the appropriateness of an 

instrument for girls. 

In the absence of research that indicates how well instruments perform 

by gender, practitioners cannot know 

whether such instruments accurately assess risks and needs for girls. 

Practitioners concerned about such 

issues need a resource that examines 

gender-based performance across a 

wide variety of instruments so that they 

can make better informed decisions 

about which instruments to use with 

their populations. This bulletin summarizes a preliminary examination of 

the gender-based performance of risk 

assessment and treatment instruments 

for delinquent girls. 

Instrument review Process 

To assess whether risk assessment and 

treatment-focused instruments that 

are gender responsive exist for delinquent girls, the authors conducted a 

comprehensive examination of relevant 

instruments. The examination had two 

primary phases: a preliminary search 

for instruments and an intensive examination of instruments that met the 

inclusion criteria. 

The authors conducted the initial literature searches between May 2006 and 

February 2007. To ensure consistency 

of information across instruments and 

verify previously collected information, 

the authors conducted a comprehensive quality check and Web search for 

all instruments in January and February 2008. The findings presented here 

reflect the information the authors 

located on each instrument during the 

given timeframes. 

The authors primarily examined instruments explicitly intended for use with 

youth involved in the justice system as 

well as instruments that address issues 

that these youth frequently face (e.g., 

suicide risk) regardless of whether the 

instruments were specifically developed 

for this population. Thus, instruments 

developed with community-based 

samples, but not necessarily intended 

for youth in the juvenile justice system, 

were also included.6 

The authors limited their review to instruments in the following four categories 

4 
Un

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

(the last three of which are treatmentfocused instruments): 

n	 Risk and risk/needs assessment 

instruments. 

n	 Global needs assessment 

instruments. 

n	 Substance abuse instruments. 

n	 Mental health instruments. 

The authors identified instruments 

through literature and Web searches 

and reference books. Books the authors 

consulted included Assessing the Youthful Offender: Issues and Techniques 

(Hoge and Andrews, 1996) and Mental 

Health Screening and Assessment in 

Juvenile Justice (Grisso, Vincent, and 

Seagrave, 2005). 

The authors also solicited practitioner 

input through three sources. First, 

the authors capitalized on knowledge 

generated from a related GSG project— 

a review of programs for girls—and 

included instruments that program 

directors of female-targeted programs 

identified. Second, the authors included 

assessment instruments reported by 

local program directors serving juveniles under the Federal Serious and 

Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. 

Finally, the authors included submissions received from practitioners 

through the GSG Web site. 

The preliminary search yielded an 

initial set of 327 instruments. Before 

conducting the intensive examination, 

184 instruments were removed from the 

initial set, for a final total of 143 instruments. Reasons for exclusion included 

the following: 

n	 Outdated or duplicate instruments 

(n = 14). This set included instruments replaced by later versions, 

subscales of existing instruments, 

and those that measured against 

outdated criteria (e.g., the Diagnostic 

and Statistical Manual of Mental 

Disorders, Third Edition [DSM–III] 

instead of the DSM–IV). 

n	 Inappropriate instruments ( n = 33). 

This set included instruments intended for use with boys or adults, those 

exclusively used and tested on nonU.S. populations, and those used 

solely for research or prevalence 

studies (e.g., surveys). 

n	 Instruments outside the project’s 

scope (n = 92). This set included 

instruments too broadly focused for 

common use with justice-involved 

youth (i.e., they did not fall into one 

of the four major categories: risk 

assessment, global needs assessment, substance use, or mental 

health). 

n	 Instruments that could not be 

verified (n = 45). This set included 

instruments for which the authors 

could not locate sufficient detail to 

either confirm the instrument’s existence or conduct the examination.7 

The authors cataloged information 

about each instrument in a spreadsheet. 

Sources of information included Web 

sites and documentation from instrument developers, existing instrument 

reviews (e.g., the Mental Measurements 

Yearbook and the National Institute on 

Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s Guide 

to Assessing Alcohol Problems), and 

literature searches (including article 

abstracts and full-text articles). 

The authors considered an instrument 

to have favorable gender-based performance if it met at least one of the following criteria: 

n	 Gender-based development. The 

instrument offers gender-specific 

norms or scoring, has gender-specific 

versions, or includes gender-specific 

items. 

n	 Favorable gender-based analysis. 

Analysis indicated that the instrument’s validity or reliability did not 

differ by gender, that its scores were 

not correlated with gender, or that 

gender differences the instrument 

revealed were consistent with the 

literature (e.g., girls scored higher 

on mental health issues and boys 

on physical aggression). 

5 
 

 

 

 

Girls Study Group
 

An Online Search Tool 

OJJDP is supporting an online 

instrument search tool that will allow 

researchers and practitioners to find 

detailed and up-to-date information 

about the instruments included in this 

review. Go to: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ 

programs/girlsdelinquency.html. 

For each instrument, the authors 

developed the following categories 

for findings: 

n	 Favorable—The instrument had 

positive gender-based performance 

information. 

n	 Unclear—The instrument had mixed 

or inconsistent gender-based performance information. 

n	 Unfavorable—The instrument had 

negative gender-based performance 

information. 

n	 Unknown—The instrument lacked 

gender information. 

Results 

The authors examined 143 instruments, 

with the following results: 

n	 Favorable—73 instruments. 

n Unclear—7 instruments. 

n Unfavorable—8 instruments. 

n Unknown—55 instruments. 

Table 1 summarizes the overall findings as well as findings within the four 

categories, each of which is defined and 

presented in more detail below. 

risk and risk/needs 

Assessment Instruments 

Justice system practitioners use risk 

assessment instruments to assess the 

probability of some future outcome 

of concern. Such instruments usually 

assess the likelihood of recidivism but 

can also examine the likelihood of probation revocation or institutional misbehavior. By estimating such probabilities, 

these instruments help practitioners 

make decisions about placement, security classification levels, and the timing 

of release. This category also includes 

combination “risk/needs assessment” 

instruments, which examine risk factors 

and treatment needs to determine a person’s risk level. The higher score—from 

either the risk assessment portion or 

the needs assessment portion of the 

instrument—determines the level 

of risk.8 

This category includes instruments 

designed exclusively for assessing 

justice-involved or at-risk youth. It 

includes general instruments developed for use across various jurisdictions 

and instruments created for a specific 

jurisdiction. 

The authors reviewed a total of 35 risk 

assessment instruments and found 11 

with favorable gender-based performance. Three instruments had an unfavorable gender-based analysis and 21 

instruments had unknown gender-based 

performance information. 

Six assessments with favorable genderbased performance were developed 

for use in a specific jurisdiction. The 

single-jurisdiction instruments may 

serve as promising models for other 

communities but must be locally validated to ensure that they appropriately 

assess risk, taking local policies and 

characteristics into consideration (see 

“Recommendations for Practitioners”). 

Global needs Assessment 

Instruments 

Needs assessment instruments provide 

a broad-based assessment of youths' 

problem areas requiring further followup. Many states and jurisdictions 

use a separate needs assessment instrument as a companion to their risk 

assessment instruments. Some commercially available global needs assessment instruments also exist. 

Table 1: Summary of Gender-Based Findings Across All Instrument Types 

Instrument Category 

Number of 

Instruments 

Gender-Based Performance 

Favorable Unclear Unfavorable Unknown 

All Instruments 143 73 7 8 55 

Risk Assessment Instruments 35 11 0 3 21 

Needs Assessment Instruments 6 2 0 0 4 

Substance Abuse Instruments 22 7 4 1 10 

Mental Health Instruments 80 53 3 4 20 

6 
Un

 

 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

The authors reviewed six instruments 

in this category, and two met the criteria for determining favorable gender 

performance. For the remaining four 

instruments, the authors could not 

locate gender information. 

Substance Abuse Instruments 

This category of instruments includes 

tools intended to detect alcohol or 

substance use, including the presence 

or severity of abuse, dependence, and 

problems associated with abuse. Some 

instruments include mental health indicators and can also be used to detect 

co-occurring substance abuse and 

mental health disorders. 

Substance abuse instruments are 

appropriate for use with both at-risk 

and justice-involved youth. They can be 

administered at multiple points in time, 

including during initial intake and when 

needed to determine treatment progress 

for abusers. 

The authors reviewed 22 instruments 

in this category; they found 7 that had 

favorable gender performance. Four 

substance abuse instruments had 

unclear or mixed gender analysis results 

and one showed unfavorable gender 

results. For the remaining 10 instruments, results were unknown or the 

authors could not locate sufficient 

information to determine gender 

performance. 

Mental Health Instruments 

The final category of instruments covers 

a broad scope of topics within the mental health area, from disorders to positive 

functioning and adaptive behaviors. The 

authors reviewed a wide range of mental 

health instruments in the following subcategories: antisocial behavior, abuse 

and trauma, depression and suicide risk, 

behavior ratings, self-concept and selfesteem, social-emotional competence 

and functioning, and general instruments that measure multiple disorders 

or clusters of symptoms. 

Within this category, the authors 

reviewed 80 instruments, of which 53 

were favorable with regard to gender 

performance. The authors identified 

three instruments with unclear gender 

performance and four instruments 

with unfavorable gender performance. 

Insufficient information was available 

to determine gender performance for 

the remaining 20 instruments. 

Discussion of Findings 

Across all instrument types, findings 

regarding gender performance are 

encouraging. More than half (73) of the 

143 instruments reviewed showed favorable gender-based analysis or provided 

gender-based development—the authors 

found favorable gender-based analysis 

for 25 instruments; 28 had gender-based 

development but no additional genderbased analysis; and 20 instruments met 

both criteria. 

Of the four categories of instruments 

reviewed, the mental health instruments 

are most sensitive to gender concerns. 

Results for the risk assessment instruments were the least encouraging. Out 

of the 35 instruments reviewed, only 5 

gender-appropriate instruments were 

developed for multiple jurisdictions. 

Although several jurisdiction-specific 

instruments showed favorable gender 

performance, the work and resources 

required to validate these instruments 

for use in other jurisdictions could be 

significant. 

The other jurisdiction-specific risk assessment instruments are problematic either 

because their developers have not analyzed validity (i.e., the extent to which 

the instrument accurately predicts the 

intended outcome) separately by gender 

or because researchers have found that 

the instrument is less valid when used 

for girls. These findings are especially 

worrisome because the consequences 

of misclassification for girls can be 

serious—both for the girls themselves 

(if their risk is overestimated) and potentially for public safety (if their risk is 

underestimated). 

Recommendations for 

Practitioners 

Practitioners who want to assess girls’ 

risks and treatment needs accurately face 

considerable barriers and unknowns. The 

online search tool provides information 

about many instruments and whether 

they evaluate girls appropriately. Many 

instruments are available, however, and 

literature on the subject is expansive 

and ever-growing. Local juvenile justice 

systems and community prevention 

programs should consider the following 

issues when selecting and administering 

instruments: 

The instrument’s purpose. When selecting instruments, practitioners must 

ensure that the instrument’s purpose 

and their own reason for using it match. 

For example, they should not use a 

diagnostic-focused instrument to determine risk because these instruments 

were not developed to determine risk 

behaviors. Conversely, using a predictive risk assessment tool may not be 

sufficient to determine appropriate 

treatment for offending youth. Before 

making specific decisions about which 

instruments to select, practitioners may 

want to organize a planning session 

with staff who work with juveniles to 

discuss screening and assessment needs 

and solicit input on what is working and 

what is not. 

Gender performance. Practitioners 

should check current instruments 

against the information contained 

7 
Girls Study Group
 

Selecting Appropriate Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments 

When selecting an instrument, ask the following questions: 

n What do we want to accomplish? What are the decisions we want to make? Do 

we want to do an initial screening or an assessment? Are we trying to find an 

instrument to do an initial screening to decide who might need further assessment, or are we doing an assessment to determine who needs treatment or 

followup care? 

n Are we interested in assessing a single factor or a host of factors? Are we interested in screening for either substance abuse or suicide risk or for multiple mental health risks, such as psychosocial functioning across a variety of contexts? 

n Who do we want to assess—every child referred or a certain subgroup? Are we 

going to administer this instrument to every referred child or just those who meet 

certain criteria or are flagged by a screening tool? 

n What will be the source of the information—information in the case file or a personal interview? If an interview, with whom? How accessible are the parties being 

interviewed, particularly if we are not interviewing the youth who is central to the 

case? 

n Will it be easy to fold the interview protocol into the ongoing system processing? 

How hard will it be to actually integrate the instrument into ongoing policies and 

procedures? 

n Who will administer the instrument? Will administration involve many staff within 

the system? Will it involve general intake staff, case supervision staff, or specialists? What kinds of special training will these staff need? Will administration be 

contracted outside to a special vendor? 

n Has the instrument we are considering actually been used in a juvenile justice 

population? Has it been used on girls? 

n How well does the instrument work for various racial and ethnic populations? Is 

the instrument culturally appropriate for the types of clients we serve? 

n Has the instrument been normed or validated? If so, on what population? Was 

the sample representative? 

n Has the instrument been shown to be reliable and valid? In other places that have 

used the instrument, has there been agreement on scoring between staff administering the instrument? Does the instrument provide consistent results when 

administered multiple times? How difficult is it to determine what the instrument 

is asking? Does it measure what it is supposed to measure? 

n What are the costs of purchasing or using the instrument? Is it in the public 

domain, or must it be purchased? What are the startup or per-use costs? What 

are the costs associated with training existing staff or hiring trained staff? 

in the online search tool and consider 

selecting those with favorable genderbased performance over instruments 

with unfavorable, mixed, or unknown 

gender-based performance. 

Strength-based instruments. Juvenile 

justice practitioners and policymakers are showing increasing interest 

in “strength-based” instruments that 

emerged from the drug-prevention 

movement of the 1960s and were supported by the positive psychology 

movement in the 1990s. These instruments measure both negative and positive influences on a youth’s behavior by 

including protective factors to assess 

the level of risk for delinquent behavior. 

This approach represents a paradigm 

shift from a medical model focusing on 

problem assessment and remediation 

to a model stressing the development of 

assets. Strength-based instruments can 

create a well-balanced assessment by 

expanding, strengthening, and improving the juvenile justice system’s capacity to include the positive factors that 

affect a youth and the youth’s family, 

peers, and community—in addition to 

accounting for risk factors. 

Local validation. A jurisdiction should 

not use an instrument developed in 

a different jurisdiction without subsequent validation in its own population. Practitioners must locally validate 

instruments because the statistics used 

to develop an instrument will fit the 

given distribution of a sample. Additionally, the specific scores assigned to 

individual items or questions and the 

total score will better reflect jurisdictionspecific policies and characteristics if 

the instrument has been validated in the 

local population. 

Nonetheless, adopting extant instruments is a feasible and practical 

approach if— 

n	 The instrument was developed 

through an adequate research 

8 
Un

 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

process that used appropriate 

validation techniques when 

tested in its original jurisdiction. 

n	 The new jurisdiction begins to collect 

data so that the instrument can be 

validated with its own population. 

Cost. Despite the obvious expenses 

associated with commercially available 

instruments, they should not be automatically dismissed, especially considering that many of the gender-appropriate 

instruments identified as favorable in 

this review have been published commercially. These instruments come with 

certain benefits, including that they— 

n	 Typically have extensive research 

behind them. 

n	 Frequently offer custom norming 

or the development of jurisdictionand population-specific scores. 

n	 Often allow for computerization of 

individual scoring. 

n	 May provide for staff training. 

Practitioners must weigh the benefits 

of using commercially available instruments against the sometimes considerable costs. Expenses can include the 

original purchase, administration costs 

for each individual assessed, and the 

cost of training staff or contracting with 

trained professionals to administer the 

instrument. 

Using an instrument in the public 

domain (i.e., a “free” instrument) 

may also come with some costs. Costs 

may be associated with local validation should a jurisdiction choose to 

implement an instrument in the public 

domain for which gender performance 

is unknown. When deciding whether to 

invest in a commercial instrument or 

use a free instrument, practitioners will 

need to assess a wide variety of cost considerations and weigh these expenses 

against the consequences of not considering gender performance at all. 

Conclusion 

The information contained in this bulletin is meant to be a useful addition 

to the resources already available to 

practitioners, which include online and 

published instrument reviews. Examining gender issues across a wide variety 

of instruments has been an initial step 

in documenting what is known about 

gender and highlighting what remains 

unknown. Although the primary audience of this bulletin is juvenile justice 

practitioners, researchers and instrument developers interested in effective 

measurement may also find it useful. 

Researchers and instrument developers 

may want to ensure that gender-based 

information is clearly presented in their 

research publications, as well as in 

instrument manuals and Web sites. This 

will make it easier for practitioners to 

determine which instruments work best 

for girls. 

Endnotes 

1.	 The impetus for this increased 

focus was the 1992 reauthorization 

of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, 

which required states to provide 

details regarding their plans for 

addressing gender bias. This Act, 

which governs OJJDP’s operations, 

was reauthorized most recently in 

2002. The 2002 Act specifies that 

state plans addressing the use of 

Title II Formula and Block Grants 

should include “a plan for providing needed gender-specific services 

for the prevention and treatment 

of juvenile delinquency” [42 U.S.C. 

5633(a)(7)(B)(ii)]. 

2.	 In general, the distinction between 

“sex” and “gender” is that sex is 

biologically determined as either 

male or female, whereas gender 

refers to the psychological, social, 

and cultural aspects of being male 

or female. In this bulletin, we follow the convention of using “girls” 

when speaking of the specific group 

of concern, but also use “gender” to 

refer to the more general concept of 

male/female identity. 

3.	 OJJDP asked the Girls Study Group 

to examine risk and needs assessment tools used for delinquency 

prevention, intervention, or treatment purposes and to determine 

their applicability for girls in light 

of the Group’s findings. This review 

focuses on instrument performance 

as it relates to gender only. A full 

instrument review could cover a 

wide variety of topics to determine 

the potential usefulness of an 

instrument, including its purpose, 

whether it is a static or change measure, the constructs measured, the 

demographic and geographic representativeness of the sample used 

to develop the instrument, psychometrics (how reliable and valid the 

instrument is), and degree of specificity and sensitivity. A full review 

would also address more practical 

information such as reading level, 

available languages, number of 

items, time to administer, cost/ 

availability, required training, original and revised publication dates, 

and version history. Although some 

of this information will be available on the companion Web site, a 

review of this depth was beyond the 

scope intended by OJJDP for GSG. 

4.	 The treatment-focused instruments 

tend to be normed, whereas the risk 

assessment instruments tend to be 

validated. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Girls Study Group
 

5.	 The term “validation” is also used have been developed for or tested 

when describing treatment-focused in juvenile justice populations. 

instruments, but serves a different In such instances, the benefits of 

purpose in this case. In general, using a standardized instrument 

validation refers to the process of developed for another population 

determining whether an instru- may outweigh the risks of using an 

ment measures what it is supposed instrument that was not specifito measure. For treatment-focused cally intended for use with juvenile 

instruments, validation determines delinquents. This is especially true 

how well the instrument identi- if the standardized instrument is 

fies the needs or conditions it was gender appropriate. 

developed to identify or diagnose. 

7. These tended to be instruments For risk assessment instruments, 

identified by practitioners and validation determines how well the 

instruments mentioned only by instrument predicts risk. 

acronym in article abstracts. 

6. Assessing delinquent youth with 

8. Although these combination instru­ instruments that were originally ments can screen for treatment intended for general populations 

may not always be appropriate, needs, they primarily determine 

risk, which is what separates them and the consequences of doing so from the “pure” needs assessment are unknown. However, there may instruments described in the next be instances in which an instrument of a specific type is needed, 
 section. 

but no instruments of that type 


Acknowledgments 

The Girls Study Group is a group of multidisciplinary experts OJJDP has convened to 

assess current knowledge about the patterns and causes of female delinquency and 

design appropriate intervention programs based on this information. 

This bulletin was written by Susan Brumbaugh (RTI International), Jennifer L. Hardison 

Walters (RTI International), and the late Laura A. Winterfield (The Urban Institute). The 

authors wish to thank Nahama Broner, Jacob Day, Nicole Horstmann, Erin Kennedy, 

Kelly McCue, Kara Riehman, Andrew Ritchey, Jennifer Schoden, Monica Sheppard, Tara 

Warner, and Siobhan Young of RTI International and Mary Poulin of the Justice Research 

and Statistics Association for assistance in preparing this bulletin. The lead authors would 

especially like to recognize the efforts of Laura Winterfield, who was an integral part of the 

research team and continued to be involved in revisions throughout her 18-month-long 

treatment for cancer, until her untimely death in December 2008. 

This bulletin supersedes the earlier version released in 2009. 

References 

Bownes, D., and Albert, R.L. 1996. State 

Challenge Activities. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Grisso, T., Vincent, G., and Seagrave, 

D. 2005. Mental Health Screening and 

Assessment in Juvenile Justice. New York, 

NY: Guilford Press. 

Hoge, R.D., and Andrews, D.A. 1996. 

Assessing the Youthful Offender: Issues 

and Techniques. New York, NY: Plenum 

Press. 

Zahn, M.A., Brumbaugh, S., Steffensmeier, D., Feld, B.C., Morash, M., 

Chesney-Lind, M., Miller, J., Payne, A.A., 

Gottfredson, D.C., and Kruttschnitt, C. 

2008. Violence by Teenage Girls: Trends 

and Context. Bulletin. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention. 

This bulletin was prepared under cooperative agreement number 2004–JF–FX–K001 from the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document 

are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics; the Community Capacity Development 

Office; the National Institute of Justice; the 

Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex 

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking (SMART). 

10 
 

 

 

Sign Up for OJJDP’s Online Subscriptions 

Find out fast what you need to know by subscribing to one or both of 

OJJDP’s free electronic services. 

➤ Do you want it now? 

JuvJust emails information two to three times per week from OJJDP 

and the field about new publications, funding opportunities, and 

upcoming conferences. 

➤ Do you want it soon, and in a little more detail? 

The OJJDP News @ a Glance bimonthly electronic newsletter covers many 

of the same topics as JuvJusT—plus recent OJJDP activities—but in more 

depth. 

It’s easy: go to OJJDP’s home page (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp) and click on the 

“subscribe” links to JuvJusT and/or OJJDP News @ a Glance. 

Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention 

Office of Justice Programs ♦ U.S. Department of Justice 

submit questions to http://askjj.ncjrs.gov. 

Why Wait for the News? 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~226531*

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

PRESORTED STANDARD
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

DOJ/OJJDP
 

PERmIT NO. G–91
 

Girls Study Group NCJ 226531