U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

APril 2010 

Girls 

Study Group 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator 

Access OJJDP 

publications online at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

Causes and Correlates of 

Girls’ Delinquency 

By Margaret A. Zahn, Robert Agnew, Diana Fishbein, Shari Miller, Donna-Marie 

Winn, Gayle Dakoff, Candace Kruttschnitt, Peggy Giordano, Denise C. Gottfredson, 

Allison A. Payne, Barry C. Feld, and Meda Chesney-Lind 

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 

n n n

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. 

Although the literature examining the 

causes and correlates of male delinquency is extensive, the extent to which 

these factors explain and predict delinquency for girls remains unclear. This bulletin summarizes results of an extensive 

review of more than 1,600 articles and 

book chapters from the social science scientific literature on individual-level risk 

factors for delinquency and factors related 

to family, peers, schools, and communities. The review, which focused on girls 

n n n

Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
Girls Study Group
 

ages 11 to 18, also examined whether 

these factors are gender neutral, gender 

specific, or gender sensitive. 

This bulletin defines delinquency as the 

involvement of a child younger than 18 

in behavior that violates the law. Such 

behavior includes violent crime, property crime, burglary, drug and alcohol 

abuse, and status offenses (i.e., behaviors that would not be criminal if committed by an adult) such as running 

away, ungovernability, truancy, and 

possession of alcohol. 

According to arrest statistics from the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 

overall rate of juvenile arrests decreased 

from 1994 to 2004 (Snyder, 2008). More 

specifically, the arrest rate for violent 

crimes over this period decreased 49 

percent. The violent crime arrest rate 

then increased in 2005 by 2 percent, 

with a 4-percent increase in 2006. 

However, these overall rates obscure 

important variations in rates by gender. 

From 1997 to 2006, arrests for aggravated assaults decreased more for boys 

(24 percent) than for girls (10 percent). 

In addition, arrests for simple assault 

declined by 4 percent for boys, whereas 

the rate for girls increased by 19 percent. Arrest data, however, are inadequate in helping to understand the 

factors that lead to girls’ offending and 

arrests. To better understand the causes 

and correlates of girls’ delinquency, 

this bulletin examines evidence from 

research studies that have explored the 

dynamics of girls’ delinquency and risk 

behavior. 

Data Limitations 

Research indicates that risk and protective factors for delinquency may 

be different for boys and girls, but the 

mechanisms behind these differences 

are unclear. Delinquency research has 

several limitations. First, issues of selection bias when studying institutional 

populations have led to an increased 

use of cohort, neighborhood, school, 

and community surveys. Many of these 

studies rely on self-reports of delinquency by youth, who may overstate 

or understate delinquent behavior. On 

the other hand, analyses that rely on 

arrest data or on adult observational 

data typically understate the frequency 

of delinquent behavior. In addition, 

most delinquency studies are based 

on samples of boys, and it is unclear 

whether the same risk and protective 

factors apply equally well to girls. Much 

of the literature on girls’ delinquency 

is based on small, nonrepresentative 

samples with few longitudinal studies 

or comparison groups. While recognizing these limitations, it is important 

to review the research to shed light on 

this issue and identify topics in need of 

further exploration. 

2 

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 

Characteristics of Delinquent 

Behavior by Girls 

On the whole, girls’ delinquent acts 

are typically less chronic and often 

less serious than those of boys (Snyder 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

and Sickmund, 2006). Minor offenses 

predominate among female delinquent 

offenders. 

However, minor offenses may mask 

serious problems that girls are experiencing. Running away from home and 

other status offenses (such as truancy) 

are major components of girls’ delinquency. Studies of girls who are chronic 

runaways document significant levels of 

sexual and physical victimization (Feitel 

et al., 1992; Stiffman, 1989; Welsh et al., 

1995). This suggests that although their 

offense behavior may not appear to be 

very serious, these girls may be fleeing 

from serious problems and victimization, some involving illegal behavior 

by adults, which in turn makes them 

vulnerable to subsequent victimization 

and engaging in other behaviors that 

violate the law such as prostitution, 

survival sex,1 and drug use. Similarly, 

research on aggression in girls and 

assaults committed by girls suggests 

that these behaviors can be best understood in the context of their families, 

peer groups, schools, communities, 

and experiences (Brown, 1998; Caspi et 

al., 1993; Champion and Durant, 2001; 

Johnson, 2002; Leitz, 2003; Lockwood, 

1997; Margolin and Gordis, 2000; 

Molnar et al., 2005; Warr, 1996). 

Biological and 

Individual Factors 

Biological Factors 

Research conducted to date suggests 

that subtle differences in certain biological functions and psychological traits 

may contribute to gender-related variations in responses to certain environmental conditions (Klein and Corwin, 

2002). These basic differences may, 

in effect, partially account for ways in 

which girls’ delinquency is contrasted 

with that of boys. However, the paucity 

of studies specific to girls’ delinquency 

that include biological factors precludes 

any definitive conclusions at this time. 

One theoretical model for understanding individual-level factors in girls’ 

delinquency proposes that although 

similar risk factors may play a role 

in both girls’ and boys’ delinquency, 

gender differences in underlying biological functions, psychological traits, 

and social interpretations can result in 

different types and rates of delinquent 

behaviors for girls and boys (Moffitt et 

al., 2001). Another theory suggests that 

boys and girls are differentially exposed 

to certain risk conditions, placing 

them at variable risk for certain types 

of delinquency. For example, there is 

evidence that girls experience a greater 

number of negative life events during 

adolescence than boys, and they may, 

in turn, be more sensitive to their effects, particularly when they emanate 

from within the home (Ge et al., 1994). 

Further research is critical to determine the extent to which and how biological factors play a role in differences 

between girls’ delinquent behavior and 

that of boys. 

Stressors, Trauma, and 

Mental Health 

Exposure to severe or cumulative 

stressors—and responses to them— 

are strongly associated with risktaking behavior, including delinquency. Stressors are conditions that elicit 

strong negative responses and that are 

perceived as uncontrollable and unpredictable. Such conditions produce 

alterations in the body’s stress responses that disrupt cognitive and emotional 

processes, thereby increasing the likelihood of risky behaviors in vulnerable 

adolescents (McBurnett et al., 2005; 

Sinha, 2001). Although this is true for 

both boys and girls, studies have identified some gender differences in rates 

and types of exposure to stressors. For 

example, although girls in the juvenile 

justice system are more likely to have 

a history of abuse and neglect than 

nonjustice-involved girls (Berlinger 

and Elliot, 2002), there is further evidence that girls more often experience 

certain types of trauma (e.g., sexual 

abuse and rape) than boys (Hennessey 

et al., 2004; Snyder, 2000). Many studies 

of special populations suggest that the 

incidence of sexual abuse is more pervasive among girls who engage in antisocial behavior, particularly those who 

engage in violent behavior, than among 

their male counterparts (Poe-Yamagata 

and Butts, 1996; Smith, Leve, and 

Chamberlain, 2006; Snell, 1994). On 

the other hand, the incidence of physical abuse appears to be more equally 

distributed between boys and girls in 

adjudicated populations (Acoca, 1998; 

Funk, 1999; Henggeler, Edwards, and 

Borduin, 1987; Lederman et al., 2004; 

Lenssen et al., 2000; Mason, Zimmerman, and Evans, 1998; Shelton, 2004; 

Wood et al., 2002), but for both at a 

much higher rate than in the general 

population (Leve and Chamberlain, 

2004), thus constituting a significant 

risk factor overall. In addition to gender differences in exposure to certain 

stressors, girls and boys may also vary 

in their sensitivity to the same stressor. 

For example, there is some suggestion 

Gender Sensitivity to Risk Factors 

Boys and girls experience many of the same risk factors, but they appear to differ 

in sensitivity to and rates of exposure to these factors. For example, sexual assault 

is a risk factor for both boys and girls, but the rate of exposure to this risk factor is 

greater for girls. 

3 
Girls Study Group
 

that girls may be more sensitive to dysfunction and trauma within the home 

(Dornfield and Kruttschnitt, 1992; Robertson, Bankier, and Schwartz, 1987; 

Widom, 1991). 

Gender differences have also been 

noted in mental health risk factors 

for delinquency. For example, boys 

outnumber girls by a ratio of 3:1 in 

the diagnoses of attention-deficit/ 

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and 

conduct disorder, which are known risk 

factors for problem behavior and delinquency in boys (Barbaresi et al., 2002; 

Lahey et al., 1999; Offord, Boyle, and 

Racine, 1989). Although girls exhibit 

lower levels of delinquency associated 

with these disorders (Moffitt et al., 2001; 

Satterfield and Schell, 1997), mental 

health problems linked to life stressors 

and experiences of victimization, such as 

depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic 

stress disorder, are diagnosed at much 

higher rates among girls than boys. 

Although these disorders are also associated with delinquency among boys, 

the relationship appears to be much 

stronger for girls (Teplin et al., 2002). 

Early Onset of Puberty 

Early puberty in girls has been associated with family dysfunction (Ellis and 

Garber, 2000; Moffitt et al., 1992). Also, 

early puberty interacts with mental 

health disorders, ADHD, and cognitive 

and emotional deficits to potentially 

worsen behavioral outcomes (Ge, Conger, and Elder, 1996; Graber et al., 1997; 

Hayward et al., 1997; Kaltiala-Heino 

et al., 2003; Orr and Ingersoll, 1995; 

Rieder and Coupey, 1999). Although 

the timing of puberty is also a potential 

risk factor for boys, early maturation 

creates particular risks for girls because 

of the development of physical signs of 

maturity inconsistent with still largely 

undeveloped cognitive and emotional 

systems (Graber, Brooks-Gunn, and 

Warren, 1999). 

Several studies suggest that earlymaturing girls are more likely to engage 

in delinquency and other risk-taking 

behaviors. A longitudinal study of 

931 males and females (Graber et al., 

2004) found that early onset of puberty 

among girls continued to predict 

increased risk behavior into adulthood. 

Some studies find that compared with 

other girls, early-maturing girls are at 

increased threat of various high-risk 

behaviors such as substance abuse, 

running away, and truancy (Caspi and 

Moffitt, 1991; Flannery, Rowe, and Gulley, 1993; Graber et al., 1997; KaltialaHeino et al., 2003, Lanza and Collins, 

2002; Paikoff and Brooks-Gunn, 1991; 

Stattin and Magnusson, 1989; Stice, 

Presnell, and Bearman, 2001). Early 

maturation in girls also appears to be 

a risk factor in exposure to intimate 

partner violence in adolescence (Foster, 

Hagan, and Brooks-Gunn, 2004). 

Moffitt (1993) contends that adolescents experience a “maturity gap” 

between their level of biological development and their desire to attain adult 

status. For some adolescents, delinquency may be an attempt to achieve 

independence and autonomy from 

parental control and to evidence maturity in the social realm. 

Peer and Parent Relationships 

and Early Puberty 

Early-onset puberty in girls is associated with having an adult boyfriend, 

which, in turn, affects the association 

between early puberty and delinquency 

(Castillo Mezzich et al., 1997). Earlymaturing girls are more likely to date at 

younger ages and to affiliate with older 

males who may be inclined toward 

delinquent activity and involve the girls 

in their antisocial behavior (Stattin and 

Magnusson, 1990; Weichold, Silbereisen, and Schmitt-Rodermund, 2003). 

Among early-maturing girls who 

undergo a difficult transition to adolescence, the presence of preexisting 

behavioral problems appears to accentuate vulnerability to delinquency (Ge, 

Conger, and Elder, 1996). Peer and 

parent relationships are important factors in explaining links between girls’ 

early maturation and delinquency. The 

onset of puberty is traditionally associated with increased conflict between 

parents and teens around issues such 

as dating, selecting friends, and changing behavioral expectations (Paikoff 

and Brooks-Gunn, 1991). Using data 

4 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

on 5,477 females from the National 

Study of Adolescent Health (Add 

Health), Haynie (2003) found that earlier puberty among girls was associated 

with higher levels of delinquency and 

that conflict with parents, exposure 

to peer deviance, and involvement in 

romantic relationships strengthened 

the link between early puberty and 

delinquency. 

Parents’ behaviors also appear to moderate the association between early 

puberty and later outcomes. Studies 

have found that early-maturing children whose parents use harsh and 

inconsistent discipline are more likely 

to develop behavioral problems than 

children of parents with more positive 

parenting styles (Ge et al., 2002). 

In this way, harsh parenting amplifies the association between pubertal 

timing and behavior problems. This 

result highlights how a biological factor, 

such as pubertal timing, can interact 

with parenting processes in predicting 

behavior problems. 

School and Neighborhood 

Contexts and Early Puberty 

Environment has also been shown to 

play a part in the link between early maturation and vulnerability to delinquency. Findings from Caspi et al. (1993) suggest that the impact of early maturation 

can be affected by the gender composition of schools. These authors found that 

early-maturing girls in mixed-gender 

school settings were at greater risk for 

delinquency than early-maturing girls 

in same-gender school settings. Neighborhoods can exert crucial influences 

as well. In a study of a large and diverse 

sample from Chicago neighborhoods, 

Obeidallah et al. (2004) found that girls 

who experience early-onset puberty and 

live in highly disadvantaged neighborhoods—characterized by poverty, high 

unemployment, and a high percentage 

of single-parent households—are at 

significantly greater risk for exhibiting 

violent behaviors than are those who live 

in less disadvantaged neighborhoods. 

In summary, contextual variables such 

as school, parenting, and neighborhood may exacerbate or ameliorate the 

relationships between early puberty 

and problem outcomes. Early puberty, 

especially when coupled with family 

conflict and disadvantaged neighborhoods, is a key gender-sensitive factor 

in girls’ delinquency. 

Family Influences 

Family issues such as inconsistent 

or lax supervision and various forms 

of abuse are some of the most studied links to juvenile delinquency. 

Researchers theorize that girls have 

stronger connections to family than 

boys do throughout life (Gecas and 

Seff, 1990; Gilligan, 1982; Leonard, 

1982) and that this connection often 

serves as a protective factor. The theory 

follows that when this protective bond 

is weakened by instability, violence, 

sexual abuse, and/or lack of parental 

supervision, girls may engage 

in more risk-taking 

behaviors, which in 

turn may lead to 

delinquency. 

Parental Supervision 

and Attachment 

Complex family processes such as 

attachment, parental supervision, and 

maltreatment are important factors 

that help explain the difference in the 

onset of delinquency between girls and 

boys. In their landmark study, Moffitt and colleagues (2001) followed a 

cohort of 1,000 male and female children, taking into account extrafamilial 

factors and individual differences. 

Eight family factors were significantly 

correlated with delinquency for both 

girls and boys.2 Although most of these 

factors had a stronger relationship to 

boys’ delinquency than to girls’, the difference was relatively small. 

Findings on attachment, although 

commonly more associated with girls 

than boys, are inconsistent across studies, in part because the concept is difficult to measure. 

Findings on effects of parental supervision and monitoring are statistically stronger. Consistent parental 

supervision and monitoring seem to 

5 
Girls Study Group
 

protect children and adolescents (girls 

and boys) from involvement in delinquency (Cernkovich and Giordano, 

1987; Hirschi, 1969; Schlossman and 

Cairns, 1993). In a comprehensive 

study of family dynamics (Patterson, 

Crosby, and Vuchinich, 1992), parental 

monitoring was found to protect youth. 

Conversely, ineffective parenting practices such as inconsistent discipline and 

repeated faultfinding frequently followed by explosive outbursts characterized families of delinquent youth more 

than families of nondelinquent youth. 

Chamberlain (2003) also documented 

these types of negative family processes 

in the backgrounds of delinquent girls. 

Family Criminality 

Criminality of parents and other family members has long been considered 

a risk factor for delinquency (Glueck 

and Glueck, 1950; McCord, 1991; 

Rowe and Farrington, 1997), but has 

not been extensively studied in girls. 

Some qualitative studies in the 1980s 

suggested that women involved in 

prostitution and other illegal street-life 

survival strategies were introduced to 

this behavior by cousins, young aunts, 

and other relatives who were themselves heavily involved in street life 

(e.g., Miller, 1986), and that children of 

drug-using parents are at high risk for 

antisocial behavior (Brown and Mills, 

1987). Giordano and Mohler-Rockwell 

(2001) studied the effect of familial 

criminality on the delinquent involvement of girls in a state juvenile justice 

facility. Researchers found that family 

members such as mothers, grandmothers, siblings, and aunts—many of whom 

were criminally involved—encouraged 

girls to shoplift and some even taught 

their daughters to smoke crack. 

Similarly, Gaarder and Belknap (2002) 

studied girls arrested for serious offenses and found that their backgrounds 

commonly included sexual abuse as 

children, victimization by intimate partners, parental deviance, and parental 

drug use. 

Family instability 

Family instability, with consequent disruptions in social ties and continuity of 

education, also appears to be a factor 

in the development of erratic or disruptive behavior among youth. Keller and 

colleagues (2002) focused on parental 

transitions (i.e., residential moves and/ 

or changes in parental caretakers) among 

the children of drug-using parents and 

found that a greater number of transitions 

were significantly associated with drug 

use and delinquency by the child. The 

delinquency effect was the same for boys 

and girls; the drug use effect was found 

for girls only. This finding of different 

effects with regard to gender strengthens 

support for the argument that girls and 

boys have different developmental processes which may operate independent 

of family disruption. 

Maltreatment 

Empirical evidence consistently suggests that family dysfunction and 

child maltreatment increase the risk of 

delinquency and criminal offending in 

girls (and boys). However, very little is 

known about how this process works, 

i.e., the effects of specific types of family 

risk factors, maltreatment characteristics (victim-perpetrator relationship, 

the victim’s age, the duration of maltreatment), the presence of mediating 

factors, and gender. Some evidence 

suggests that the timing and duration 

of maltreatment, as well as intervening life events, can either strengthen or 

weaken the negative effects of maltreatment (Ireland, Smith, and Thornberry, 

2002; Leiter, Myers, and Zingraff, 1994). 

Accordingly, it may be premature to 

conclude that the effect of maltreatment on delinquency development is 

greater for girls than for boys or that 

its effect on girls is greater than that of 

other risk factors. 

Attention to the developmental effects 

of maltreatment, particularly to effects 

of childhood physical and sexual abuse, 

increased dramatically during the 1990s 

with the publication of findings from 

several prospective longitudinal studies. 

These findings indicate that a history of 

abuse and neglect significantly increases 

the chances of having both a juvenile 

and an adult criminal record (Widom, 

1989a, 1991). Empirical evidence also 

indicates that girls who perpetrate violence often have a history of violence 

committed against them (Herrera and 

McCloskey, 2001; Margolin and Gordis, 

2000; Molnar et al., 2005; Song, Singer, 

and Anglin, 1998; Spohn, 2000; Widom, 

1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1991, 1995). 

In her prospective cohort study, Widom 

found that children who had experienced severe child abuse or neglect were 

at significantly higher risk for juvenile 

arrest compared to the matched control 

group (Widom and Ames, 1994; Widom 

and Maxfield, 2001). By young adulthood, those reported as severely abused 

or neglected as children were 59 percent 

more likely to have been arrested for 

any offense as a juvenile and 28 percent 

more likely to have been arrested for 

violent crime. 

Analyzing family effects on delinquency 

in a community sample, Herrera and 

McCloskey (2001) found that girls who 

had experienced severe child abuse 

were more than seven times as likely as 

nonabused girls to commit a violent act 

that was referred to the juvenile justice 

system, even when researchers applied 

statistical controls for co-occurring risk 

factors in violent families. 

Sexual abuse is the most studied type of 

maltreatment of girls. Existing research 

focuses primarily on psychological 

6 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

outcomes and has a number of methodological limitations. For example, 

there is no standardized measure of 

sexual abuse; researchers often leave it 

up to respondents to define abuse; prospective studies are rare and often follow subjects for only 12 to 18 months; 

and control groups are often absent. 

Nevertheless, among studies that have 

addressed these concerns, the findings are intriguing. Siegel and Williams 

(2003) found that, with statistical controls for race and family dysfunction 

in a study of girls, sexual abuse victims 

had an increased likelihood of juvenile 

arrests for violent offenses and adult 

arrests for any offense. Widom (1995), 

however, based on a review of arrest 

records, found that sexual abuse has 

no greater impact on criminality than 

other forms of maltreatment such as 

severe physical abuse and neglect. 

(The research did not examine gender 

differences in these effects.) In Widom’s 

study, the “sexual abuse plus group”— 

a small sample of boys and girls who 

had experienced sexual abuse as well 

as severe neglect or nonsexual physical 

abuse—were more likely than those in 

other maltreatment groups and those in 

the comparison sample to be arrested 

for running away. 

Family Structure 

and Delinquency 

The likelihood of delinquency effects of 

family structure were statistically weak 

and indirect and were further weakened when family processes such as 

parental supervision and maltreatment 

were taken into account (Demuth and 

Brown, 2004). 

Family Structure 

Although early research suggests that 

youth living in two-parent biological families fare better on a range of 

developmental outcomes than those 

in single-parent or alternative structures (Amato and Keith, 1991), this 

research typically finds that effects of 

family structure on developmental 

outcomes such as delinquency are not 

strong (Hetherington and Kelly, 2002). 

More tangible differences in family 

dynamics or circumstances—such 

as supervision practices—are largely 

responsible when study groups have 

different outcomes. An analysis of data 

from the National Longitudinal Study 

of Adolescent Health, using a large 

national probability sample of adolescents (Manning and Lamb, 2003) found 

that youth in two-parent biological 

families had more favorable adolescent 

outcomes than youth with other family structures, including lower levels 

of reported delinquency involvement. 

Youth living in families in which the 

mother was cohabiting with an unmarried partner had worse outcomes than 

those in stepparent families. A genderspecific analysis of the Add Health data 

(Demuth and Brown, 2004) found that 

a mother’s cohabitation had similar 

effects on the likelihood of involvement 

in delinquency for both boys and girls. 

The highest rates of delinquency were 

for youth in father-only households, 

followed by father–stepmother and 

single-mother households. 

The Impact of Peers 

Research has consistently documented 

the importance of friendship and peers 

in adolescent behavior and delinquency 

(Warr, 2002). Empirical studies suggest that unstructured socializing 

among youth—socializing without 

specific activities and without guidance 

or supervision by positive adults— 

increases the likelihood that delinquent 

activities will occur (Coie, Dodge, and 

Kupersmidt, 1990; Mahoney and Stattin, 2000). Studies further document 

that boys and girls who engage in 

highly structured activities associated 

with school and prosocial clubs are 

less likely to become involved in delinquent behavior than peers without this 

involvement (Eccles and Barber, 1999; 

Mahoney and Cairns, 1997; Mahoney, 

Cairns, and Farmer, 2003; Mahoney and 

Stattin, 2000). 

7 
Girls Study Group
 

Empirical studies also have examined 

the effect of social skill deficits—i.e., 

whether young people who are unsuccessful with peers are more likely to 

become antisocial and aggressive. Moffitt and colleagues (2001) found that 

boys and girls who were rejected by 

other children during the grade school 

years were more likely to become delinquent; this effect was stronger for boys. 

Conversely, Cairns and Cairns (1994) 

found that aggressive boys and girls 

were generally solid members of peer 

clusters rather than socially isolated 

and had as many friendships as nonaggressive youth. 

Adolescents’ social connections may 

also provide support for and training 

in delinquent behavior (Morash, 1986; 

Jensen, 2003), amplify risk-taking, and 

foster and reinforce a delinquent view 

of self (Matsueda, 1992). Aggressive 

youth often affiliate with other aggressive youth (Cairns and Cairns, 1994). 

This social context provides an opportunity for modeling aggressive behavior 

and a buffer against the social disapproval of others. Peer influence of this 

sort is a critical factor in understanding 

adolescent involvement in delinquency. 

A study of high-school-age girls found 

that those who had been adjudicated as 

delinquent offenders reported greater levels of perceived peer pressure than other 

girls (Claes and Simard, 1992; Giordano, 

Cernkovich, and Pugh, 1986). 

In an analysis of Add Health data, 

Haynie (2001) found that peers’ delinquency had a significant effect on a 

youth’s own delinquency, as did the 

cohesiveness of the peer network. The 

majority of adolescents in this nationally representative sample reported a mix 

of friendships, including delinquent 

and nondelinquent friends. However, 

youth involved with the highest level 

of delinquency reported that almost all 

their friends were delinquent (Haynie, 

2002). The focus of this research was 

not on gender differences, so no analyses by gender were conducted, however, the findings suggest important 

dynamics for further research. 

Delinquency happens most often in 

group contexts. As noted earlier, girls’ 

association with males is a factor in 

the onset and course of delinquency. 

Stattin and Magnusson (1990) suggest that girls’ early maturation may 

influence their association with older 

males and, in turn, increase their risk 

for delinquent behavior if the older 

male is involved in delinquent activities. Analyses of Add Health data found 

that romantic partners’ delinquency 

did influence respondents’ likelihood 

of delinquency (Haynie et al., 2005)—a 

dynamic that has stronger relevance for 

girls’ delinquency than for boys’. 

Girls may adopt drug and alcohol use 

to cope with partner abuse, to win 

their partner’s approval, or to fit in with 

peers (Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rossol, 2002). Violence related to jealousy 

and other relationship problems may 

also contribute to girls’ delinquency 

(Miller and White, 2003). 

Neighborhood Effects 

The research literature on how neighborhoods affect residents’ behavior is 

extensive, and a growing number of 

studies are examining how exposure to 

violence in neighborhoods or schools 

affects youth (Margolin and Gordis, 

2000). (See Kroneman, Loeber, and 

Hipwell, 2004, for a review of neighborhood context, delinquency, and 

gender.) 

The literature on the effects of neighborhoods reflects a long history of 

sociological and public health research, 

focusing primarily on social disorganization (Sampson, Morenoff, and 

Gannon-Rowley, 2002; Bursik and 

Grasmick, 1993a,b), as well as research 

by developmental psychologists 

(Brooks-Gunn et al., 1993, 2000; Jencks 

and Mayer, 1990) and economists 

(Durlauf, 2004). Literature reviews have 

been conducted in each of these areas 

(Sampson, Morenoff, and GannonRowley, 2002; Leventhal and BrooksGunn, 2000; Durlauf, 2004). 

Neighborhood characteristics examined in these studies include concentrated poverty, household structure, 

social cohesion or disorganization, 

social capital and efficacy, and residential mobility. These studies explored 

how these neighborhood characteristics 

relate to risky behaviors, early school 

attrition, health outcomes, exposure 

to and use of violence, and crime and 

delinquency. 

In general, researchers have found that 

neighborhoods with structural disadvantage or concentrated poverty have 

higher rates of violence (Messner, Raffalovich, and McMillan, 2001; Lauritsen 

and White, 2001), violent victimization 

and exposure to violence (Farrell and 

Bruce, 1997; Molnar et al., 2005), and 

arrests for property and personal crime 

(Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000). The 

impact of neighborhood characteristics 

on girls versus boys has not been extensively researched. Some studies suggest 

that girls are, in general, more closely 

supervised and kept closer to the home 

than are boys; thus, girls are less exposed 

than boys to the street violence found 

in many disadvantaged neighborhoods 

(Farrell and Bruce, 1997; Bottcher, 2001). 

The finding that girls are also less likely 

than boys to be expelled from school for 

misconduct (Clark et al., 2003) suggests 

that they are less exposed to neighborhood environments. Although girls are 

less often exposed to violence in the 

community than boys are, girls who are 

exposed to violence exhibit more violence than nonvictimized girls in similar 

neighborhoods (Molnar et al., 2005). 

8 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Violent Behavior 

Research has shown interactions 

between neighborhood characteristics, 

prior violent victimization, and violent 

behavior. For example, findings from 

a prospective study of violence by girls 

based on a large and diverse sample 

from Chicago neighborhoods found that 

adolescent girls were more likely to act 

violently if they had been victims of violence and if they lived in communities 

with high rates of poverty and/or violent 

crime. Even when researchers took into 

consideration socioeconomic status, 

previous perpetration of violence, deviant peer behavior, illegal substance use, 

and other family and individual characteristics, violent victimization remained 

an important risk factor for subsequent 

violent behavior by girls. Girls between 

ages 9 and 15 were 2.4 times as likely to 

engage in violence if they had a history 

of prior physical or sexual molestation/ 

assault or had been otherwise violently 

victimized at home, at school, or in the 

community. Girls living in economically 

disadvantaged neighborhoods were 1.5 

times as likely to behave violently as 

girls in other neighborhoods. Victimized 

girls in violent, economically disadvantaged neighborhoods were twice as likely to behave violently as nonvictimized 

girls in similar neighborhoods (Molnar 

et al., 2005). 

The impacts of neighborhood disadvantage on violent outcomes are 

echoed in other studies. In a survey of 

African American youth, Farrell and 

Bruce (1997) found that higher levels 

of exposure to violence in disadvantaged neighborhoods led to increased 

violent behavior by both girls and boys. 

Lauritsen and White (2001) also found 

that nonstranger violence was higher for 

both black and white females when they 

lived in disadvantaged neighborhoods. 

Lane, Cunningham, and Ellen (2004) 

studied knife and gun carrying—typically 

measures of more violent behavior— 

among a sample of low-income African 

American girls and boys in San Francisco. Boys and girls did not differ in 

their intent to carry knives, and this 

intent was associated with more delinquent and aggressive behaviors in both 

genders. Boys, as other studies have 

found, were more likely than girls to 

carry guns. 

Positive Effects of Relocation 

Relocation to more affluent neighborhoods lowered the rate of girls’ arrests 

for violent and property offenses. 

relocation 

One study has examined the effects 

of moving away from disadvantaged 

neighborhoods on later delinquency. In 

the Moving to Opportunity study (Kling, 

Ludwig, and Katz, 2005), public housing 

residents in five cities were randomly 

assigned to an experimental group in 

which residents could use a housing 

voucher to relocate to a leased unit 

in a nonpoverty area. A control group 

received no vouchers. Researchers used 

arrest data and survey information to 

analyze delinquency among boys and 

girls in the two groups. 

Both girls and boys in the experimental 

group (the group receiving vouchers) 

experienced fewer arrests for violent 

offenses compared with youth in the 

control group that did not relocate. 

Girls in the experimental group were 

also arrested less often for other crimes. 

However, several years after the move 

occurred, the effects changed for males. 

Property crime arrests became more 

common for boys who had moved to 

more affluent neighborhoods than for 

boys who had not moved, although 

violent crime by the boys who moved 

remained low. Arrests for both violent 

and property crime remained low for 

girls who moved. The move to a better neighborhood also appeared to 

improve girls’ expectations for completing college, increased their participation in sports, and was associated with 

reduced school absences and increased 

associations with peers who engaged in 

school activities. 

Differential Effects of 

Disadvantaged Neighborhoods 

Current studies suggest that disadvantaged neighborhoods are somewhat 

less of a risk factor for delinquency in 

girls than in boys because girls are more 

closely supervised and kept closer to 

home. Nevertheless, neighborhoods 

remain important influences on girls’ 

involvement in both violence and less 

serious forms of delinquency. Additional research is needed to examine 

the nature and extent of that influence 

more closely. 

9 
Girls Study Group
 

Involvement in 

Religious Activities 

The construct of religiosity, in particular, is difficult to measure. Surveys have 

used varied approaches to measuring 

religiosity (e.g., single-item measure 

versus multiple-item measure) and 

this has led to inconsistent findings in 

research (Johnson et al., 2000). 

Some studies suggest that religion 

plays a role in regulating antisocial 

behavior among youth. Involvement in 

religion-focused activities may affect 

socialization and behaviors, especially 

among very cohesive religious groups. 

However, these studies tend to be small, 

use limited measurements, and lack 

controls for external variables (Johnson, 

2002; Smith, 2005). 

Many youth report some involvement 

in religion. A recent article summarizing multiple surveys on teens’ religious 

behavior found that the majority of 

teens claim some sort of religious affiliation (Smith et al., 2003). 

Studies suggest that involvement in 

religious activities can protect against 

minor delinquency (Baier and Wright, 

2001). Consistent with findings about 

peer and other social affiliations, this 

effect is more likely when teens are 

surrounded by others involved with 

religion, including parents, peers, and 

community residents (Pearce and 

Haynie, 2004; Regnerus, 2003; Stark, 

Kent, and Doyle, 1982). Parents’ religiosity also seems to have protective 

effects on delinquency among youth, 

although this appears stronger for boys 

than girls (Regnerus and Elder, 2003). 

Studies further suggest that having religious parents effectively discourages 

delinquency only when the child is also 

religious (Pearce and Haynie, 2004). 

Various theories have been used to 

explain why involvement in religion 

may protect against delinquency. For 

instance, strain theory argues that 

religion may reduce the stressors that 

adolescents face (Agnew, 2001). Some 

studies report that religious adolescents are more likely to get along well 

with their parents or other adults, feel 

more comfortable talking with adults, 

have more adults they can turn to for 

support, and are less likely to associate with delinquent peers (Jang and 

Johnson, 2005; Regnerus, 2003; Sherkat 

and Ellison, 1999; Smith, 2005). Control theory suggests that religious teens 

may be more under their parents’ control, have higher stakes in conformity 

to mainstream social norms, and may 

be more invested in maintaining a positive image (Jang and Johnson, 2001; 

Johnson et al., 2001; Regnerus, 2003; 

Regnerus and Elder, 2003; Sherkat and 

Ellison, 1999; Smith, 2005). 

Schools 

Academic Performance 

Much research has been conducted on 

the general relationship between academic performance and deviant behavior (Gottfredson, 1981, 2001; Junger-Tas, 

Ribeaud, and Cruyff, 2004; Maguin and 

Loeber, 1996; Paulson, Coombs, and 

Richardson, 1990; Rosay et al., 2000). 

The inverse relationship between 

academic performance and deviance 

seems stronger in boys than in girls 

(Junger-Tas, Ribeaud, and Cruyff, 2004; 

Maguin and Loeber, 1996). However, 

gender differences appear to depend on 

the type of deviant behavior studied. 

Some studies have found that 

the inverse relationship between 

academic performance and drug use 

is equal for both genders (Paulson, 

Coombs and Richardson, 1990; 

Rosay et al., 2000). 

Attachment to School 

Attachment to school generally is 

defined as the extent to which students care about school and about 

teachers’ opinion of them. The more 

students feel as though they belong 

to their school, the less likely they 

are to engage in delinquent behavior 

(Cernkovich and Giordano, 1992; Gottfredson, Wilson, and Najaka, 2002; 

Jenkins, 1997; Liska and Reed, 1985; 

Welsh, Greene, and Jenkins, 1999). 

This relationship is well documented 

in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies; although some studies 

found a protective effect for girls only 

(Crosnoe, Erickson, and Dornbusch, 

2002; Sale et al., 2003), most studies 

demonstrate that the protective effect 

of attachment is equal for boys and 

girls (Cernkovich and Giordano, 1992; 

Zweig et al., 2002). An analysis of the 

Add Health data for 12,578 adolescent 

students found that boys and girls with 

low-risk profiles reported more school 

connectedness than those with higher 

risk profiles (Zweig et al., 2002). 

Longitudinal studies, which provide a 

more solid base for examining gender 

differences in the relationship between 

school attachment and delinquency, 

indicate that attachment has a stronger 

influence for girls than boys: Crosnoe, 

Erickson, and Dornbusch (2002) found 

that bonding with teachers protected 

against delinquency, even when girls 

had delinquent friends. 

Commitment to School 

Commitment to school is generally 

defined as the time and energy invested 

by students in the pursuit of their educational goals. Students who spend 

a considerable amount of time and 

effort in school are more likely to be 

concerned about losing their investment if they engage in deviant behavior, whereas students who have little 

10 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

invested and less to lose are more likely 

to engage in deviant behavior. As with 

findings on attachment to school, this 

relationship is well documented in both

cross-sectional and longitudinal studies

(Cernkovich and Giordano, 1992; 

Gottfredson, 2001; Gottfredson, Wilson, 

and Najaka, 2002; Jenkins, 1997; Thornberry, Esbensen, and Van Kammen, 

1993; Thornberry et al., 1991; Welsh, 

Greene, and Jenkins, 1999). 

School-level Factors 

The research suggests that most schoollevel factors affect girls and boys 

equally when it comes to delinquency. 

School-level factors include grade 

level, size of student enrollment, class 

size, racial and ethnic composition, 

and school location. A key factor in the 

development of delinquency in youth 

is students’ perception of whether rules 

are clear and enforced fairly and the 

impact of unusual or punitive responses to misbehavior (Payne and Gottfredson, 2005). Perception of fairness 

protects against delinquent behavior for 

both genders, but more so for boys than 

for girls. 

Empirical literature to date indicates 

that attachment to school has protective effects against delinquency for both 

genders, although several recent studies 

find a stronger effect for girls. Academic 

performance, clarity of rules, and a perception of the rules and their enforcement as fair also are protective for both 

genders but seem to have a stronger 

effect for boys. 

Justice System 

Responses to Girls 

Historically, juvenile courts primarily dealt with boys under delinquency 

jurisdiction and girls under status 

offense jurisdiction (Feld, 2009b). This 

distinction has often led to different 

processing of female status offenders in 

courts and in mental health and juvenile justice institutions. The Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Act of 1974 provided impetus to divert, 

deinstitutionalize, and decriminalize all status offenders. Although the 

Act restricted commitment of status 

offenders to training schools, states 

did not provide adequate communitybased alternatives for girls (American 

Bar Association and National Bar Association, 2001). Female status offenders 

were relabeled as “delinquent” and 

often confined in private-sector mental health and chemical dependency 

treatment facilities, or were placed 

in detention as a protective strategy 

when other placements were not available (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006; 

Weithorn, 1988). 

As noted earlier, girls accounted for 

about a quarter (23 percent) of all juveniles arrested for aggravated assault 

in 2006 and about a third (34 percent) 

of those arrested for other assaults. 

Between 1980 to 2006, while boys’ 

arrest rate for simple assault doubled, 

the arrest rate for simple assault for 

girls quadrupled. Percentage increases 

in assault arrest rates for girls reflect, in 

part, girls’ relatively low rates of assault 

offenses compared to boys’ (ChesneyLind and Shelden, 1998; Steffensmeier 

et al., 2005). The literature suggests no 

major increase in violent behavior among 

adolescent girls, despite a major increase 

in their arrests for simple assault (Steffensmeier et al., 2005). The changes in 

numbers, rates, and gender ratios for 

assault offenses suggest a relabeling of 

status offenses (e.g., incorrigibility) as 

domestic violence assaults. When police 

implemented policies of zero tolerance 

and mandatory arrests for domestic 

assailants in the 1990s, events previously 

recorded as family disputes may have 

come to be reclassified as simple or 

aggravated assault. Police also may have 

begun to treat threats to do harm much 

more seriously. 

Implications for Program 

and Policy Development 

The results of this literature review suggest that risk and protective factors for 

girls’ delinquency are, in many ways, 

similar to risk and protective factors 

for boys’ delinquency. However, key 

gender differences exist, with important 

implications for program and policy 

development. 

Important areas for consideration in 

programming and policy include: 

n Delinquency prevention and intervention programs for girls must 

address physical maltreatment, 

11 
Girls Study Group
 

including sexual abuse and assault. 

Compared to boys, girls experience 

more sexual abuse in the home and 

are at greater risk for sexual assault 

outside the home (Berlinger and 

Elliot, 2002). 

n	 Responses to mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, 

and posttraumatic stress disorder 

should be integral components of 

programming for girls. Depression 

and anxiety are more frequently 

diagnosed in girls than in boys 

and may accompany delinquency. 

Aggression by girls may indicate 

earlier victimization and signify that 

these girls need intervention to deal 

with these experiences. An increase 

in family-centered programming 

may be useful. 

n	 Lack of family supervision and 

monitoring has a causal link to 

delinquency for both boys and 

girls. Ineffective parenting practices, 

including harsh or inconsistent 

discipline, are critical factors in the 

development of girls’ delinquency. 

Parental deviance, family criminality, and parental drug use are 

strongly associated with the development of delinquent and criminal 

behavior in children and adolescents 

of both genders. 

n	 Positive school involvement protects 

against delinquency in both girls and 

boys. School attachment is more significant for girls than for boys, while 

rule fairness and enforcement are 

more significant for boys. 

n	 As evidenced by the results of the 

Moving to Opportunity Study, attention to neighborhood effects and 

programs that facilitate moves to 

affluent neighborhoods may be 

especially helpful to girls. 

n	 Interdisciplinary models that place 

behaviors in social, psychological, and biological context for girls 

are critical in understanding and 

responding to early puberty as a risk 

factor. Helping girls who enter puberty 

early to understand and deal with 

peer and parental response is one way 

of offsetting some of the biological/ 

emotional maturity disconnect. 

n	 The link between girls’ delinquent 

behavior and system responses 

remains an important area for 

policy, programs, and research. 

The American Bar Association and 

National Bar Association report Justice by Gender (2001) notes a critical 

lack of prevention, diversion, and 

treatment alternatives for girls in 

the juvenile justice system. 

Conclusion 

Although additional research is critically needed, it is clear that factors such 

as economic disadvantage, exposure to 

violence, experiences with physical and 

sexual child abuse and maltreatment, 

and lack of positive parental supervision affect the development of delinquency for both girls and boys. Early 

puberty, coupled with stressors such as 

conflict with parents and involvement 

with delinquent (and often older) male 

peers, is a risk factor unique to girls. 

These factors must be addressed in 

efforts to understand and address girls’ 

delinquency. Finally, two aspects of 

the justice system also merit examination: arrest policies that widen the net 

(especially those dealing with conflicts 

between adolescent girls and their 

parents) and detention of girls because 

community-based alternatives are 

lacking. See Feld (2009a) for additional 

discussion. 

Endnotes 

1.	 Survival sex is offered for food, 

shelter, protection, or money; 

prostitution is engaged in strictly 

for money. 

2.	 The eight factors that were significantly correlated with girls’ 

delinquency were as follows: 

(1) negative and critical mothers, 

(2) harsh discipline, (3) inconsistent discipline, (4) family conflict, 

(5) frequent family moves, (6) multiple caregivers, (7) longer periods 

of time with a single parent, and 

(8) growing up in socioeconomically disadvantaged families. 

References 

Acoca, L. 1998. Outside/inside: The violation 

of American girls at home, on the streets, 

and in the juvenile justice system. Crime 

and Delinquency 44:561–589. 

Agnew, R. 2001. Building on the foundation 

of General Strain Theory: Specifying the 

types of strain most likely to lead to crime 

and delinquency. Journal of Research in 

Crime and Delinquency 38:319–361. 

Amato, P.R., and Keith, B. 1991. Parental 

divorce and the well-being of children: 

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 

110:26–46. 

American Bar Association and National 

Bar Association. 2001. Justice by Gender: 

The Lack of Appropriate Prevention, Diversion, and Treatment Alternatives for Girls 

in the Justice System. Washington, DC: 

American Bar Association and National 

Bar Association. 

Baier, C.J., and Wright, B.R.E. 2001. “If you 

love me, keep my commandments”: A metaanalysis of the effect of religion on crime. 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 

38:3–21. 

Barbaresi, W.J., Katusic, S.K., Colligan, R.C., 

Pankratz, V.S., Weaver, A.L., Weber, K.J., 

Mrazek, D.A., and Jacobsen, S.J. 2002. How 

common is attention-deficit/hyperactivity 

disorder?: Incidence in a population-based 

birth cohort in Rochester, Minnesota. 

Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent 

Medicine 156:217–224. 

12 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Berlinger, L., and Elliot, D.M. 2002. Sexual 

abuse of children. In The APSAC Handbook 

on Child Maltreatment. Second Edition. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 

pp. 55–78. 

Bottcher, J. 2001. Social practices of gender: 

How gender relates to delinquency in the 

everyday lives of high-risk youths. Criminology 39(4):893–932. 

Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G.J., Klebanov, 

P.K., and Sealand, N. 1993. Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent 

development? American Journal of Sociology 

99(2):353–395. 

Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G.J., Leventhal, 

T., and Aber, J.L. 2000. Lessons learned 

and future directions for research on the 

neighborhoods in which children live. 

In Neighborhood Poverty, Vol. 1: Context 

and Consequences for Children, edited by 

J. Brooks-Gunn, G.J. Duncan, and J.L. Aber. 

New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 

pp. 279–298. 

Brown, B.S., and Mills, A.R., eds. 1987. Youth 


at High Risk for Substance Abuse. Rockville, 


MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human 


Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
 

Brown, L.M. 1998. Raising Their Voices:
 

The Politics of Girls’ Anger. Cambridge, MA:
 

Harvard University Press.
 

Bursik, R.J., and Grasmick, H.G. 1993a. The 


criminal behavior of neighborhood residents. In Neighborhoods and Crime: The 


Dimensions of Effective Community Control.
 

New York, NY: Lexington Books, pp. 24–59.
 

Bursik, R.J., and Grasmick, H.G. 1993b. 


Neighborhood opportunities for criminal 


behavior. In Neighborhoods and Crime: The 


Dimensions of Effective Community Control.
 

New York, NY: Lexington Books, pp. 60–89.
 

Cairns, R.B., and Cairns, B.D. 1994. Lifelines 

and Risks: Pathways of Youth in Our Time. 

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Caspi, A., and Moffitt, T.E. 1991. Individual 

differences are accentuated during periods 

of social change: The sample case of girls at 

puberty. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology 61:157–168. 

Caspi, A., Lynam, D.R., Moffitt, T.E., and 

Silva, P.A. 1993. Unraveling girls’ delinquency: Biological, dispositional, and contextual 

contributions to adolescent misbehavior. 

Developmental Psychology 29:19–30. 

Castillo Mezzich, A., Tarter, R.E., Giancola, 

P.R., Lu, S., Kirisci, L., and Parks, S. 1997. 

Substance use and risky sexual behavior 

in female adolescents. Drug and Alcohol 

Dependence 44(2–3):157–166. 

Cernkovich, S.A., and Giordano, P.C. 1987. 

Family relationships and delinquency. 

Criminology 25:295–321. 

Cernkovich, S.A., and Giordano, P.C. 1992. 

School bonding, race, and delinquency. 

Criminology 30:261–287. 

Chamberlain, P. 2003. Treating Chronic Juvenile Offenders: Advances Made Through the 

Oregon Multidimensional Treatment Foster 

Care Model. Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association. 

Champion, H.L.O., and Durant, R.H. 2001. 

Exposure to violence and victimization and 

the use of violence by adolescents in the 

United States. Minerva Pediatrica 53:189–197. 

Chesney-Lind, M., and Shelden, R.G. 1998. 

Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. 

Belmont, WA: Wadsworth. 

Claes, M., and Simard R. 1992. Friendship 

characteristics of delinquent adolescents. 

International Journal of Adolescence and 

Youth 3:287–301. 

Clark, M.D., Petras, H., Kellam, S.G., Ialongo, 

N., and Poduska, J.M. 2003. Who’s most at 

risk for school removal and later juvenile 

delinquency? Effects of early risk factors, 

gender, school/community poverty, and their 

impact on more distal outcomes. Women and 

Criminal Justice 14:89–116. 

Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., and Kupersmidt, J.B. 

1990. Peer group behavior and social status. 

In Peer Rejection in Childhood, edited by 

S. Asher and J.D. Coie. New York, NY: 

Cambridge University Press, pp. 17–59. 

Crosnoe, R., Erickson, K.G., and Dornbusch, 

S.M. 2002. Protective functions of family 

relationships and school factors on the deviant behavior of adolescent boys and girls. 

Youth and Society 33(4):515–544. 

Demuth, S., and Brown, S.L. 2004. Family 

structure, family processes, and adolescent 

delinquency: The significance of parental 

absence versus parental gender. Journal 

of Research in Crime and Delinquency 

41:58–81. 

Dornfield, M., and Kruttschnitt, C. 1992. Do 

the stereotypes fit? Mapping gender-specific 

outcomes and risk factors. Criminology 

30(3):397–419. 

Durlauf, S.N. 2004. Neighborhood effects. In 

Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Vol. 4, Cities and Geography, Part I: Cities and urban systems: From theory to facts, 

edited by J.V. Henderson and J.F. Thisse. 

New York, NY: North-Holland/Elsevier, pp. 

2173–2242. 

Eccles, J.S., and Barber, B.L. 1999. Student 

council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular 

involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent 

Research 14:10–43. 

Ellis, B.J., and Garber, J. 2000. Psychosocial 

antecedents of variation in girls' pubertal 

timing: Maternal depression, stepfather 

presence, and marital and family stress. 

Child Development 71:485–501. 

Farrell, A.D., and Bruce, S.E. 1997. Impact of 

exposure to community violence on violent 

behavior and emotional distress among 

urban adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child 

Psychology 26(1):2–14. 

Feitel, B., Margetson, N., Chamas, J., and 

Lipman, C. 1992. Psychosocial background 

and behavioral and emotional disorders of 

homeless and runaway youth. Hospital and 

Community Psychiatry 43:155–159. 

13 
Girls Study Group
 

Feld, B. 2009a. Girls in the juvenile justice 

system. In The Delinquent Girl, edited by 

Margaret A. Zahn. Philadelphia, PA: Temple 

University Press, pp. 225–264. 

Feld, B. 2009b. Violent girls or relabeled 

offender? An alternative interpretation 

of the data. Crime and Delinquency 55(2): 

241–265 [Special Issue: Gender Issues in 

Juvenile and Criminal Justice]. 

Flannery, D.J., Rowe, D.C., and Gulley, B.L. 

1993. Impact of pubertal status, timing, and 

age on adolescent sexual experience and 

delinquency. Journal of Adolescent Research 

8:21–40. 

Foster, H., Hagan, J., and Brooks-Gunn, J. 

2004. Age, puberty, and exposure to intimate 

partner violence in adolescence. Annals of 

the New York Academy of Sciences 1036: 

151–166. 

Funk, S.J. 1999. Risk assessment for juveniles 

on probation: A focus on gender. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior 26:44–68. 

Gaarder, E., and Belknap, J. 2002. Tenuous 

borders: Girls transferred to adult court. 

Criminology 40:481–517. 

Ge, X., Brody, G.H., Conger, R.D., Simons, 

R.L., and Murry, V.M. 2002. Contextual 

amplification of the effects of pubertal 

transition on African-American children’s 

deviant peer affiliation and externalized 

behavioral problems. Developmental 

Psychology 38:42–54. 

Ge, X., Conger, R.D., and Elder, G.H. 1996. 

Coming of age too early: Pubertal influences 

on girls’ vulnerability to psychological distress. Child Development 67:3386–3400. 

Ge, X., Conger, R.D., Lorenz, F.O., and 

Simons, R.L. 1994. Parents’ stressful life 

events and adolescent depressed mood. 

Journal of Health and Social Behavior 

35:28–44. 

Gecas, V., and Seff, M. 1990. Social class 

and self-esteem: Psychological centrality, 

compensation, and the relative effects of 

work and home. Social Psychology Quarterly 

53(2):165–173. 

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 

Press. 

Giordano, P.C., Cernkovich, S.A., and Pugh, 

M.D. 1986. Friendships and delinquency. 

American Journal of Sociology 91:1170–1202. 

Giordano, P.C., Cernkovich, S.A., and Rossol, J. 2002. Emotion, cognition, and crime. 

Paper presented at the annual meeting of 

the American Sociological Association, 

Chicago, IL. 

Giordano, P.C., and Mohler-Rockwell, S. 

2001. Differential association theory and 

female crime. In Of Crime and Criminality: 

The Use of Theory in Everyday Life, edited 

by S. Simpson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine 

Forge Press. 

Glueck, S., and Glueck, E. 1950. Unraveling 

Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University Press. 

Gottfredson, D.C. 2001. Delinquency 

and Schools. New York, NY: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Gottfredson, D.C., Wilson, D.B., and Najaka, 

S.S. 2002. School-based crime prevention. In 

Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, edited by 

L.W. Sherman, D.P. Farrington, B.C. Welsh, 

and D.L. MacKenzie. London, England: 

Routledge. 

Gottfredson, G.D. 1981. Schooling and 

delinquency. In New Directions in the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders, edited by 

S.E. Martin, L.B. Sechrest, and R. Redner. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 

pp. 424–469. 

Graber, J.A., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Warren, 

M.P. 1999. The vulnerable transition: Puberty and the development of eating pathology 

and negative mood. Women’s Health Issues 

9:107–114. 

Graber, J.A., Lewinsohn, P.M., Seeley, J.R., 

and Brooks-Gunn, J. 1997. Is psychopathology associated with the timing of pubertal 

development? Journal of the American 

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 

36(12):1768–1776. 

Graber, J.A., Seeley, J.R., Brooks-Gunn, J., 

and Lewinsohn, P.M. 2004. Is pubertal timing associated with psychopathology in 

young adulthood? Journal of the American 

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 

43(6):718–726. 

Haynie, D.L. 2001. Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology 106:1013–1057. 

Haynie, D.L. 2002. Friendship networks and 

delinquency: The relative nature of peer 

delinquency. Journal of Quantitative 

Criminology 18(2):99–134. 

Haynie, D.L. 2003. Contexts of risk? Explaining the link between girls’ pubertal development and their delinquency involvement. 

Social Forces 82:355–397. 

Haynie, D.L., Giordano, P.C., Manning, 

W., and Longmore, M.A. 2005. Adolescent 

romantic relationships and delinquency 

involvement. Criminology 43(1):177–210. 

Hayward, C., Killen, J.D., Wilson, D.M., 

Hammer, L.D., Litt, I.F., Kraemer, H.C., 

Haydel, F., Varady, A., and Taylor, C.B. 

1997. Psychiatric risk associated with early 

puberty in adolescent girls. Journal of the 

American Academy of Child and Adolescent 

Psychiatry 36(2):255–262. 

Henggeler, S.W., Edwards, J., and Borduin, 

C.M. 1987. The family relations of female 

juvenile delinquents. Journal of Abnormal 

Child Psychology 15:199–209. 

Hennessey, M., Ford, J.D., Mahoney, K., 

Ko, S.J., and Siegfried, C.B. 2004. Trauma 

Among Girls in the Juvenile Justice System. 

Los Angeles, CA: National Child Traumatic 

Stress Network. 

Herrera, V.M., and McCloskey, L.A. 2001. 

Gender differences in the risk for delinquency among youth exposed to family violence. 

Child Abuse and Neglect 25:1037–1052. 

14 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Hetherington, E.M., and Kelly, J. 2002. For 

Better or for Worse: Divorce Reconsidered. 

New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company. 

Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. 

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Ireland, T.O., Smith, C.A., and Thornberry, T.P. 2002. Developmental issues in 

the impact of child maltreatment on later 

delinquency and drug use. Criminology 

40:359–399. 

Jang, S.J., and Johnson, B.R. 2001. Neighborhood disorder, individual religiosity, and 

adolescent use of illicit drugs: A test of multilevel hypotheses. Criminology 39:109–144. 

Jang, S.J., and Johnson, B.R. 2005. Gender, 

religiosity, and reactions to strain among 

African Americans. Sociological Quarterly 

46:323–357. 

Jencks, C., and Mayer, S.E. 1990. The social 

consequences of growing up in a poor 

neighborhood. In Inner-City Poverty in 

the United States, edited by L.E. Lynn and 

M.G.H. McGeary. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press, pp. 111–186. 

Jenkins, P.H. 1997. School delinquency and 

the school social bond. Journal of Research 

in Crime and Delinquency 34(3):337–368. 

Jensen, G.F. 2003. Gender variation in 

delinquency: Self-images, beliefs, and peers 

as mediating mechanisms. In Social Learning Theory and the Explanations of Crime, 

edited by R.L. Akers and G.F. Jensen. New 

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. 

Johnson, B.M. 2002. Friendships among 

delinquent adolescent girls: Why do some 

select males as their closest friends? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of 

California, Los Angeles. 

Johnson, B.R., De Li, S., Larson, D.B., and 

McCullough, M. 2000. A systematic review 

of the religiosity and delinquency literature: 

A research note. Journal of Contemporary 

Criminal Justice 16:32–52. 

Johnson, B.R., Jang, S.J., Larson, D.B., and 

De Li, S. 2001. Does adolescent religious 

commitment matter? A reexamination of 

the effects of religiosity on delinquency. 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38:22–44. 

Junger-Tas, J., Ribeaud, D., and Cruyff, 

M.J.L.F. 2004. Juvenile delinquency and 

gender. European Journal of Criminology 

1(3):333–375. 

Kaltiala-Heino, R., Marttunen, M., Rantanen, 

P., and Rimpela, M. 2003. Early puberty is 

associated with mental health problems in 

middle adolescence. Social Science and 

Medicine 57:1055–1064. 

Keller, T.E., Catalano. R.F., Haggerty, K.P., 

and Fleming, C.B. 2002. Parent figure transitions and delinquency and drug use among 

early adolescent children of substance abusers. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 28:399–427. 

Klein, L.C., and Corwin, E.J. 2002. Seeing the 

unexpected: How sex differences in stress 

responses may provide a new perspective on 

the manifestation of psychiatric disorders. 

Current Psychiatry Reports 4(6):441–448. 

Kling, J.R., Ludwig, J., and Katz, L.F. 2005. 

Neighborhood effects on crime for female 

and male youth: Evidence from a randomized housing voucher experiment. Quarterly 

Journal of Economics 120:87–130. 

Kroneman, L., Loeber, R., and Hipwell, 

A.E. 2004. Is neighborhood context differently related to externalizing problems and 

delinquency for girls compared with boys? 

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 

7(2):109–122.
 

Lahey, B.B., Goodman, S.H., Waldman, 


I.D., Bird, H., Canino, G., Jensen, P., Regier, 


D., Leaf, P.J., Gordon, R., and Applegate, B. 


1999. Relation of age of onset to the type and 


severity of child and adolescent conduct 


problems. Journal of Abnormal Child
 

Psychology 27:247–260.
 

Lane, M.A., Cunningham, S.D., and Ellen, 

J.M. 2004. The intention of adolescents to 

carry a knife or a gun: A study of low-income 

African-American adolescents. Journal of 

Adolescent Health 34(1):72–78. 

Lanza, S.T., and Collins, L.M. 2002. Pubertal 

timing and the onset of substance use in 

females during early adolescence. Prevention Science 3:69–82. 

Lauritsen, J.L., and White, N.A. 2001. Putting violence in its place: The influence of 

race, ethnicity, gender, and place on the risk 

for violence. Criminology and Public Policy 

1(1):37–59. 

Lederman, C.S., Dakof, G.A., Larrea, M.A., 

and Li, H. 2004. Characteristics of adolescent females in juvenile detention. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 

27:321–337. 

Leiter, J., Myers, K.A., and Zingraff, M.T. 

1994. Substantiated and unsubstantiated 

cases of child maltreatment: Do their consequences differ? Social Work Research 

18:67–82. 

Leitz, L. 2003. Girl fights: Exploring females’ 

resistance to educational structures. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 

23(11):15–43. 

Lenssen, S.A., Doreleijers, T.A., Van Dijk, 

M.E., and Hartman, C.A. 2000. Girls in 

detention: What are their characteristics? A 

project to explore and document the character of this target group and the significant 

ways in which it differs from one consisting 

of boys. Journal of Adolescence 23:287–303. 

Leonard, E.B. 1982. Women, Crime and 

Society: A Critique of Theoretical 

Criminology. New York, NY: Longman. 

Leve, L.D., and Chamberlain, P. 2004. Female 

juvenile offenders: Defining an early-onset 

pathway for delinquency. Journal of Child 

and Family Studies 13(4):439–452. 

Leventhal, T., and Brooks-Gunn., J. 2000. 

The neighborhoods they live in: The effects 

15 
Girls Study Group
 

of neighborhood residence on child and 

adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin 

126(2):309–337. 

Liska, A., and Reed, M. 1985. Ties to 

conventional institutions and delinquency: 

Estimating reciprocal effects. American 

Sociological Review 50:547–560. 

Lockwood, D. 1997. Violence Among Middle 

School and High School Students: Analyses 

and Implications for Prevention. Research in 

Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice. 

Maguin, E., and Loeber, R. 1996. Academic 

performance and delinquency. In Crime 

and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 20, 

edited by M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University 

of Chicago Press. 

Mahoney, J.L., and Cairns, R.B. 1997. Do 

extracurricular activities protect against 

early school dropout? Developmental 

Psychology 32:241–253. 

Mahoney, J.L., Cairns, B.D., and Farmer, 

T.W. 2003. Promoting interpersonal competence and educational success through 

extracurricular activity participation. Journal 

of Educational Psychology 95:409–418. 

Mahoney, J.L., and Stattin, H. 2000. Leisure 

time activities and adolescent anti-social 

behavior: The role of structure and social 

context. Journal of Adolescence 23:113–127. 

Manning, W.D., and Lamb, K. 2003. Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married, and 

single-parent families. Journal of Marriage 

and Family 65:876–893. 

Margolin, G., and Gordis, E.B. 2000. The 

effects of family and community violence 

on children. Annual Review of Psychology 

51:445–479. 

Mason, W.A., Zimmerman, L., and Evans, 

W. 1998. Sexual and physical abuse among 

incarcerated youth: Implications for sexual 

behavior, contraceptive use, and teenage 

pregnancy. Child Abuse and Neglect 22: 

987–995. 

Matsueda, R. 1992. Reflected appraisals, 

parental labeling, and delinquency: 

Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. 

American Journal of Sociology 97:1577–1611. 

McBurnett, K., Raine, A., StouthamerLoeber, M., Loeber, R., Kumar, A.M., Kumar, 

M., and Lahey, B.B. 2005. Mood and hormone responses to psychological challenge 

in adolescent males with conduct problems. 

Biological Psychiatry 57:1109–1116. 

McCord, J. 1991. The cycle of crime and 

socialization practices. Journal of Criminal 

Law and Criminology 82:211–228. 

Messner, S.F., Raffalovich, L.E., and 

McMillan, R. 2001. Economic deprivation and changes in homicide arrest rates 

for white and black youths, 1967–1998: A 

national time-series analysis. Criminology 

39(3):591–613. 

Miller, E.M. 1986. Street Women. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 

Miller, J., and White, N.A. 2003. Gender and 

adolescent relationship violence. Criminology 41(4):1207–1248. 

Moffitt, T.E. 1993. Adolescence-limited and 

life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: 

A developmental taxonomy. Psychological 

Review 100:674–701. 

Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Belsky, J., and Silva, 

P.A. 1992. Childhood experience and the 

onset of menarche: A test of a sociobiological model. Child Development 63:47–58. 

Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., and Silva, 

P.A. 2001. Sex Differences in Antisocial 

Behavior: Conduct Disorder, Delinquency, 

and Violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal 

Study. New York, NY: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Molnar, B.E., Browne, A., Cerda, M., and 

Buka, S.L. 2005. Violent behavior by girls 

reporting violent victimization. Archives 

of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 

159:731–739. 

Morash, M. 1986. Gender, peer group experiences and seriousness of delinquency. 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 

23:43–67. 

Obeidallah, D., Brennan, R.T., Brooks-Gunn, 

J., and Earls, F. 2004. Links between pubertal 

timing and neighborhood contexts: Implications for girls’ violent behavior. Journal of the 

American Academy of Child and Adolescent 

Psychiatry 43:1460–1468. 

Offord, D.R., Boyle, M.H., and Racine, Y. 

1989. Ontario Child Health Study: Correlates of Disorder. Journal of the American 

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 

28:856–860. 

Orr, D.P., and Ingersoll, G.M. 1995. The contribution of level of cognitive complexity and 

pubertal timing to behavioral risk in young 

adolescents. Pediatrics 95:528–533. 

Paikoff, R.L., and Brooks-Gunn, J. 1991. Do 

parent-child relationships change during 

puberty? Psychological Bulletin 110:47–66. 

Patterson, G.R., Crosby, L., and Vuchinich, S. 1992. Predicting risk for early police 

arrest. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 

8:335–355. 

Paulson, M.J., Coombs, R.H., and Richardson, 

M.A. 1990. School performance, academic 

aspirations, and drug use among children 

and adolescents. Journal of Drug Education 20(4):289–303. 

Payne, A.A., and Gottfredson, D.C. 2005. 

Gender and race-based outcomes in the 

effect of school-related factors on delinquency 

and victimization. Unpublished manuscript. 

Pearce, L.D., and Haynie, D.L. 2004. 

Intergenerational religious dynamics and 

adolescent delinquency. Social Forces 

82:1153–1172. 

Poe-Yamagata, E., and Butts, J.A. 1996. 

Female Offenders in the Juvenile Justice 

System: Statistics Summary. Summary. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

16 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Regnerus, M.D. 2003. Moral communities 

and adolescent delinquency. Sociological 

Quarterly 44:523–554. 

Regnerus, M.D., and Elder, G.H. 2003. Religion and vulnerability among low-risk adolescents. Social Science Research 32:633–658. 

Rieder, J., and Coupey, S.M. 1999. Update on 

pubertal development. Current Opinion in 

Obstetrics and Gynecology 11:457–462. 

Robertson, R.G., Bankier, R.G., and 

Schwartz, L. 1987. The female offender: 

A Canadian study. Canadian Journal of 

Psychiatry 32:749–755. 

Rosay, A.B., Gottfredson, D.C., Armstrong, 

T.A., and Harmon, M.A. 2000. Invariance of 

measures of prevention program effectiveness: 

A replication. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 16:341–367. 

Rowe, D.C., and Farrington, D.P. 1997. 

The familial transmission of criminal 

convictions. Criminology 35:177–201. 

Sale, E., Sambrano, S., Springer, J.F., and 

Turner, C.W. 2003. Risk, protection, and substance use in adolescents: A multi-site model. 

Journal of Drug Education 33(1): 91–105. 

Sampson, R.J., Morenoff, J.D., and GannonRowley, T. 2002. Assessing neighborhood 

effects: Social processes and new directions 

in research. Annual Review of Sociology 

28:443–478. 

Satterfield, J.H., and Schell, A. 1997. A 

prospective study of hyperactive boys 

with conduct problems and normal boys: 

Adolescent and adult criminality. Journal of 

American Academy of Child and Adolescent 

Psychiatry 36:1726–1735. 

Schlossman, S., and Cairns, R.B. 1993. Problem girls: Observations on past and present. 

In Children in Time and Place: Developmental and Historical Insights, edited by G.H. 

Elder Jr., J. Modell, and R.D. Parke. New 

York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 

110–130. 

Shelton, D. 2004. Experiences of detained 

young offenders in need of mental health care. 

Journal of Nursing Scholarship 36:129–133. 

Sherkat, D.E., and Ellison, C.G. 1999. Recent 

developments and current controversies in 

the sociology of religion. Annual Review of 

Sociology 25:363–394. 

Siegel, J.A., and Williams, L.M. 2003. The 

relationship between child sexual abuse and 

female delinquency and crime: A prospective study. Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency 40:71–94. 

Sinha, R. 2001. How does stress increase risk 

of drug abuse and relapse? Psychopharmacology 158:343–359. 

Smith, C. 2005. Soul Searching: The Religious 

and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. 

New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Smith, C., Faris, R., Denton, M.L., and Regnerus, R. 2003. Mapping American adolescent subjective religiosity and attitudes 

of alienation toward religion: A research 

report. Sociology of Religion 64:111–133. 

Smith, D.K., Leve, L.D., and Chamberlain, P. 

2006. Adolescent girls' offending and healthrisking sexual behavior: The predictive role 

of trauma. Child Maltreatment 11:346–353. 

Snell, T. 1994. Women in Prison: Survey of 

State Prison Inmates, 1991. Special Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics. 

Snyder, H. 2000. Sexual Assault of Young 

Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: 

Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics. 

17 
Girls Study Group
 

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics. 

Snyder, H. 2008. Juvenile Arrests 2006. 

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 2006. Juvenile 

Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Song, L.Y., Singer, M.I., and Anglin, T.M. 

1998. Violence exposure and emotional 

trauma as contributors to adolescents’ 

violent behaviors. Archives of Pediatrics 

and Adolescent Medicine 152(6):531–536. 

Spohn, R.E. 2000. Gender differences in the 

effect of child maltreatment on criminal 

activity over the life course. In Families, 

Crime, and Criminal Justice, Vol. 2, edited 

by G.L. Fox and M.L. Benson. Stamford, CT: 

JAI Press, pp. 207–231. 

Stark, R., Kent, L., and Doyle, D. 1982. Religion and delinquency: The ecology of a lost 

relationship. Journal of Research in Crime 

and Delinquency 19:4–24. 

Stattin, H., and Magnusson, D. 1989. The 

role of early aggressive behavior in the 

frequency, seriousness, and types of later 

crime. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology 57:710–718. 

Stattin, H., and Magnusson, D. 1990. Pubertal Maturation in Female Development, Vol. 

2: Paths through Life. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Steffensmeier, D., and Haynie, D. 2000. 

Gender, structural disadvantage, and urban 

crime: Do macro social variables also 

explain female offending rates? Criminology 

38(2):403–439. 

Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J., Zhong, H., 

and Ackermann, J. 2005. An assessment of 

recent trends in girls’ violence using diverse 

longitudinal sources: Is the gender gap 

closing? Criminology 43(2):355–406. 

Stice, E., Presnell, K., and Bearman, S.K. 2001. 

Relation of early menarche to depression, 

eating disorders, substance abuse, and 

comorbid psychopathology among adolescent girls. Developmental Psychology 

37:608–619. 

Stiffman, A.R. 1989. Physical and sexual 

abuse in runaway youths. Child Abuse and 

Neglect 13:417–426. 

Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M., McClelland, 

G.M., Dulcan, M.K., and Mericle, A.A. 2002. 

Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile 

detention. Archives of General Psychiatry 

59:1133–1143. 

Thornberry, T.P., Esbensen, F.A., and Van 

Kammen, W.B. 1993. Commitment to school 

and delinquency. In Urban Delinquency and 

Substance Abuse, edited by D. Huizinga, R. 

Loeber, and T.P. Thornberry. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, pp. 10/1–10/26. 

Thornberry, T.P., Lizotte, A.J., Krohn, M.D., 

Farnworth, M., and Jang, S.J. 1991. Testing interactional theory: An examination 

of reciprocal causal relationships among 

family, school, and delinquency. Journal of 

Criminal Law and Criminology 82(1):3–35. 

Warr, M. 1996. Organization and instigation 

in delinquent groups. Criminology 24:11–38. 

Warr, M. 2002. Companions in Crime: The 

Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct. New 

York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Weichold, K., Silbereisen, R.K., and SchmittRodermund, E. 2003. Short-term and 

long-term consequences of early versus 

late physical maturation in adolescents. 

In Gender Differences at Puberty, edited 

by C. Hayward. New York, NY: Cambridge 

University Press, pp. 241–276. 

Weithorn, L.A. 1988. Mental hospitalization of troublesome youth: An analysis of 

skyrocketing admission rates. Stanford Law 

Review 40:773–838. 

Welsh, L.A., Archambault, F.X., Janus, M.D., 

and Brown, S.W. 1995. Running for Their 

Lives: Physical and Sexual Abuse of Runaway 

Adolescents. New York, NY: Garland. 

Welsh, W.N., Greene, J.R., and Jenkins, P.H. 

1999. School disorder: The influence of individual, institutional, and community factors. 

Criminology 37(1):73–115. 

Widom, C.S. 1989a. Child abuse, neglect, 

and violent criminal behavior. Criminology 

27:251–272. 

Widom, C.S. 1989b. The cycle of violence. 

Science 244:160–166. 

Widom, C.S. 1989c. The intergenerational 

transmission of violence. In Pathways to 

Criminal Violence, edited by N.A. Weiner 

and M.E. Wolfgang. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 

Publications, pp. 137–201. 

Widom, C.S. 1991. Childhood victimization: 

Risk factor for delinquency. In Adolescent 

Stress: Causes and Consequences, edited 

by M.E. Colten and S. Gore. New York, NY: 

Aldine De Gruyter. 

Widom, C.S. 1995. Victims of Childhood 

Sexual Abuse: Later Criminal Consequences. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, National Institute 

of Justice. 

Widom, C.S., and Ames, M.A. 1994. Criminal 

consequences of childhood sexual victimization. Child Abuse and Neglect 18:303–318. 

Widom, C.S., and Maxfield, M.G. 2001. An 

Update on the Cycle of Violence. Research in 

Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice. 

Wood, J., Foy, D., Goguen, C., Pynoos, R., and 

James, C. 2002. Violence exposure and PTSD 

among delinquent girls. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma 6:109–126. 

Zweig, J.M., Sayer, A., Crockett, L.J., and 

Vicary, J.R. 2002. Adolescent risk factors for 

sexual victimization: A longitudinal analysis of 

rural women. Journal of Adolescent Research 

17(6): 586–603. 

18 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Acknowledgments 

The Girls Study Group is a group of multidisciplinary experts who have been convened to assess current knowledge about the patterns and 


causes of female delinquency and to design appropriate intervention programs based on this information. 


This bulletin was developed by Margaret A. Zahn (Principal Investigator of the Girls Study Group project, 2004–2008) and is based on 


excerpts from manuscripts written for the Girls Study Group by the following authors: 


n Robert Agnew, Professor, Department of Sociology, Emory University.
 

n Diana Fishbein, Director, Transdisciplinary Behavioral Science Program, RTI International.
 

n Shari Miller, Research Psychologist, RTI International.
 

n Donna-Marie Winn, Senior Research Scientist, Center for Social Demography and Ethnography, Duke University.
 

n Gayle Dakoff, Associate Research Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Miami.
 

n Candace Kruttschnitt, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto.
 

n Peggy Giordano, Professor of Sociology, Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University.
 

n Denise C. Gottfredson, Professor, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Maryland.
 

n Allison A. Payne, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Villanova University.
 

n Barry C. Feld, Professor, School of Law, University of Minnesota. 


n Meda Chesney-Lind, Professor, Women’s Studies Program, University of Hawaii—Manoa. 


Full results are available in the book The Delinquent Girl published by Temple University Press, January 2009.
 

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). 

19 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~226358*

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 226358