U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

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

■ ■ ■

Access OJJDP 

publications online at 

www.ojjdp.gov

■ ■ ■

Robert L. Listenbee, Administrator

Girls

Study Group

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency

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.

Developmental Sequences of 

Girls’ Delinquent Behavior 

By David Huizinga, Shari Miller, and the Conduct Problems Prevention 

Research Group1

Introduction

In 2004, the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) convened the Girls Study Group (GSG) to 

examine the delinquent behavior of girls. 

At the request of GSG,2

 to uncover the 

paths that girls who engage in delinquent 

behavior take, researchers from two longterm longitudinal studies of delinquency—

the Denver Youth Survey and the Fast 

Track Project—collaborated to establish 

common delinquency measures, conduct 

analyses, and integrate findings on 

DECEMBER 2013
Girls Study Group

2

Girls

Study GroupMembers

developmental patterns of girls’ offending 

from childhood through adolescence.3

This bulletin describes some of the 

major results of that study. The first 

section briefly delineates developmental patterns of girls’ delinquency, 

as described in current literature. The 

authors then describe the methodology 

used in the study and provide results 

on the prevalence and frequency of 

delinquent behaviors and the temporal patterns of girls’ delinquency. A 

description of the methods by which 

the authors analyzed girls’ developmental patterns of delinquency and 

what they learned about the developmental pathways that occur through 

girls’ childhood and adolescence follows. The final section of the bulletin 

provides general conclusions and discusses implications of the findings. 

Findings From the 

Current Literature 

Existing research in four areas outlines 

patterns of girls’ delinquency. These 

four research areas include examining running away as a pathway into 

delinquency; creating developmental 

life-stage models that examine the 

initiation and cessation of girls’ delinquency at different ages; performing 

“stage-state” analyses, which identify 

groups of girls with different delinquency patterns at specific ages and across 

age periods; and performing “growth 

curve” analyses that identify groups of 

girls that share the same developmental progression in a single measure of 

delinquency.

Running Away and Delinquency 

The high rate of abuse among courtinvolved girls has led some researchers 

to hypothesize that running away is a 

gendered pathway into delinquency. 

This postulation suggests that girls may 

run away to escape abuse (particularly 

sexual abuse) and subsequently be 

arrested and charged with a status 

offense for running away (Belknap, 

Holsinger, and Dunn, 1997; ChesneyLind and Pasko, 2004). Running away 

may also increase girls’ risk for further 

delinquent behavior because of the survival and coping strategies girls resort 

to while on the run (e.g., panhandling, 

shoplifting for food or clothing, or 

exchanging sex for money) (Hagan and 

McCarthy, 1997; Chesney-Lind and 

Shelden, 1998).

Research examining abuse and running 

away as pathways into female juvenile 

delinquency offers some insights into 

this connection. Studies of justiceinvolved females show high rates of different types of trauma, including 

physical and sexual abuse and emotional neglect (Owen and Bloom, 1997). 

However, it is difficult to compare rates 

because studies use different definitions of abuse and trauma, and the 

youth studied may be involved at different points in the justice system (e.g., 

probation, detention, out-of-home 

placement, incarceration). For example, 

the National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency reported that 56 percent 

of female juvenile offenders in four California counties reported sexual abuse, 

81 percent reported physical abuse, and 

88 percent reported emotional abuse 

(Acoca and Dedel, 1998). On the other 

hand, results from Cook County, IL, 

indicate lower rates of sexual abuse 

(29.6 percent) among girls being held in 

detention (Abram et al., 2004). 

Although higher rates of sexual abuse 

are found among court-involved 

females than court-involved males, 

rates of other types of abuse and trauma may not vary by gender. In the Cook 

County study noted above, rates of 

traumatic experiences (which included 

exposure to community violence), 

although high in both genders, were 

Dr. Stephanie Hawkins Anderson, 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), 

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
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency

3

higher for boys (92 percent) than girls 

(84 percent). Another study suggests 

that rates of physical abuse are equivalent for both genders (35 percent) 

(Molnar et al., 1998). 

Another line of study shows links between histories of physical and sexual 

abuse and subsequent delinquent and 

criminal activity (see reviews by Trickett and Gordis, 2004; Tyler, 2002). 

Widom and colleagues found that children of both genders who had been 

abused or neglected were more likely to 

have juvenile arrest histories than the 

nonabused controls. However, experiencing sexual abuse was no more likely 

than experiencing physical abuse or 

neglect to lead to an arrest (Widom, 

1992, 1995). Another study using the 

same sample (which included boys and 

girls) looked at links between abuse, 

running away, and arrest (Kaufman and 

Widom, 1999). Abuse increased the 

likelihood that a youth would run away, 

and both abuse and running away 

increased the likelihood that a youth 

would be arrested. However, abuse was 

not the only factor leading to running 

away or to arrest, and simply running 

away (whether by an abused or nonabused youth) increased the risk of 

arrest. 

Developmental Life-Stage Models 

Another line of research, which commonly relies on community-based 

samples (as opposed to justice-involved 

youth), employs life-stage models 

based on the age when youth begin and 

when they desist from delinquency. Initial research (Moffitt, 1993; Patterson, 

DeBaryshe, and Ramsey, 1989) theorized two subtypes of youth: 

■ Early starters. Early starters exhibit 

behavioral difficulties early in 

development, with their antisocial 

behavior peaking in adolescence 

and persisting into young adulthood. 

Risk factors for this group include 

inconsistent or harsh parenting and 

underlying neurological problems, 

such as attention difficulties (Loeber 

and Farrington, 2001). 

■ Late starters. Late starters do not 

exhibit behavioral difficulties until 

adolescence, and these problems 

may cease by young adulthood. 

Risk factors include affiliation with 

problem-prone peers and shifting 

social norms that ascribe status to 

risk-taking activity. 

Early work in this line of research 

categorized youth based on the age 

at which they were first arrested or 

engaged in delinquency. These initial 

formulations were based on samples of 

boys (e.g., the Chicago Youth Development Study (Tolan, Gorman-Smith, and 

Henry, 2003) and the Oregon Youth 

Study (Capaldi and Patterson, 1991)). 

Studies indicate that early starters 

engaged in more delinquency (including more serious delinquency) that persisted over time, as compared to other 

youth. Data from the Dunedin sample 

(Moffitt et al., 2001) included both genders and identified late starting girls; 

however, there were too few early starting girls for analysis. 

Stage-State Typologies Based 

on Personal Characteristics 

Another body of research uses personoriented stage-state typologies. These 

typologies use personal characteristics to place individuals into one of 

several types or states (in this case, 

youth engaged in similar delinquent 

behaviors) at different ages and then 

identify groups of individuals that have 

the same sequence of states over time. 

Using this approach, researchers can 

determine different life sequences or 

pathways from an initial state at a given 

age to an outcome state at a later age 

(Runyon, 1980). 

For example, Huizinga (1995) categorized youth according to their pattern 

of delinquency involvement at each of 

several age groups. The types identified 

included nondelinquent/exploratory 

offender,4

 status offender only, theft/

property offender, aggressive offender, 

and a type that involved both theft/

property and aggressive offending. 

Examining sequences of these types/

states yielded several findings. First, a 

greater proportion of youth of both genders became delinquent as they grew 

older, increasing delinquent activity 

most between ages 13 and 14. Second, 

membership in any one of the types 

was relatively unstable, with 50 percent 

or less of a type retaining their classification in the next time period. However, youth involved in multiple forms 

of delinquency often remained involved 

in multiple forms of delinquency over 

longer periods of time. At all ages, youth 

most frequently transitioned from a nondelinquent state to a status/public disorder state and frequently transitioned from 

this state to a higher level of involvement 

in various kinds of delinquency. 

Developmental Trajectory 

Approaches 

More recent work identifies different 

developmental trajectories using statistical methods. These techniques typically 

focus on a single behavior (Nagin and 

Tremblay, 1999; Muthén and Muthén, 

1998–2006). Although this body of work 

began with all-male samples, a small 

number of studies have examined allfemale or mixed-gender samples. On the 

whole, these studies suggest that girls 

follow similar trajectories to those of boys. 

To illustrate, Broidy and colleagues 

(2003) analyzed data from six sites 

to examine the relationship between 

developmental trajectories of childhood 

aggression and disruptive behavior and 

subsequent delinquency. Of the four 

sites that included both genders, three 
Girls Study Group

4

identified a group of girls with physical aggression in childhood. However, 

aggressive behavior in childhood did 

not consistently lead to adolescent 

delinquency. Another study (Cote et 

al., 2001) followed a large sample of 

girls from age 6 to age 12. Researchers 

identified four trajectories of disruptive 

behavior—consistently low, consistently medium, medium to high, and 

consistently high—and placed most 

girls in the consistently low disruptive 

group. Girls whose disruptive behavior 

began in early childhood went on to 

have higher rates of conduct disorders 

in adolescence. 

A third study examined female and 

male trajectories of antisocial behavior and outcomes through age 32 

(Odgers et al., 2008). Girls and boys 

had identical trajectory groups—lifecourse-persistent, childhood-limited, 

adolescent-onset, and a low-trajectory 

group. The life-course-persistent and 

adolescent-onset groups had similar 

risk factors and poor adult outcomes for 

both genders. Finally, a recent study 

looked at trajectories of delinquency 

in adolescence and subsequent late 

adolescent outcomes (risky sexual 

behavior, partner violence, reported 

pregnancy, depression) (Miller et al., 

2010). Four developmental trajectories 

of delinquency emerged: increasing, 

desisting, chronic, and nonproblem. 

Although the proportion of boys and 

girls varied (e.g., fewer girls were part 

of the desisting and increasing trajectories), each trajectory included both 

genders. In addition, both boys and 

girls with chronic or increasing trajectories had poor outcomes at age 19. 

Overall, developmental patterns and 

outcomes for girls mimicked those 

previously found for boys. 

Methods 

To assess girls’ developmental patterns 

of delinquency, this study combines 

information from the Fast Track Project 

and the Denver Youth Survey, both of 

which use similar measures of delinquency and measurement strategies. 

The Fast Track Project. The Fast Track 

Project is a multisite, longitudinal investigation of the development of children’s 

antisocial behavior and how this behavior can be prevented (Conduct Problems 

Prevention Research Group, 1992, 2000, 

2007). The project includes three successive cohorts of children who were at 

moderate to high risk for antisocial 

behavior when they entered first grade. 

The project took place at four sites—

Durham, NC; Nashville, TN; Seattle, 

WA; and rural central Pennsylvania. At 

each site, the researchers matched sets 

of schools on the basis of ethnic composition, size, and percentage of students receiving free/reduced-price 

school lunches and then randomly 

assigned schools to intervention and 

control conditions. In each of the 

schools, moderate to high-risk children 

were selected on the basis of a screening process that included teacher and 

parent ratings. Children with moderate 

to high-risk scores were in the top 40 

percent on the screening measure (see 

Conduct Problems Prevention Research 

Group, 2007, for further information). 

Using this method, researchers chose 

three successive cohorts of 891 highrisk children, half of whom they 

assigned to an intervention group and 

half to a control group (based on 

whether their initial school was in the 

intervention or the control group). The 

intervention students received a multiyear preventive intervention (Conduct 

Problems Prevention Research Group, 

2007); however, their data are not 

included in this report. In addition, 

researchers selected a normative sample of students in the control schools 

who would be representative of each 

school. Researchers conducted annual 

interviews to collect self-report data 

from parents and children.

The current study relies on Fast Track 

data from the 151 girls in the control 

group and the 166 girls in the normative sample of students from the control 

schools. This bulletin examines the girls’ 

data from grade 4 (when the delinquency 

measure was first available) to grade 11 

(approximately ages 9–16).5

Denver Youth Survey. The Denver 

Youth Survey is a longitudinal study of 

problem and prosocial behavior6 from 

childhood to early adulthood. It focuses 

on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health (Huizinga, 

Esbensen, and Weiher, 1991). Survey 

participants include 1,528 children and 

youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years 

old in 1987, along with 1 of their parents. Researchers selected these participants using a large probability sample 

of households in high-risk neighborhoods of Denver, CO. 

The sample is almost equally divided by 

gender (46.7 percent are female) and is 

ethnically diverse.7

 The research team 

interviewed survey respondents annually from 1988 to 1992, and annually 

from 1995 to 1999. The team conducted 

additional interviews with selected 

subsamples in 2003 and 2005. Because 

the research reported here is concerned 

with child and adolescent delinquency 

among girls, most of the Denver Youth 

Survey data used in this report were 

provided by girls between the ages of 7 

and 17 (n = 807). 

As described above, the Fast Track 

Project sample used in this study combines girls of higher risk with girls from 

a normative sample, and the Denver 

Youth Survey sample used in the study 

includes high-risk girls only. Thus, 

readers should note that the findings 

and conclusions of this report are representative of higher risk girls and not 

of the general population of girls. 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency

5

Description of Measures 

and Analysis Groups 

The study described in this bulletin had 

the advantage of using data from two 

previous studies. Each of these studies obtained nearly identical measures 

from samples of girls who were similar 

ages. The authors use this similarity in 

measurement to examine the extent 

to which findings are replicated in 

both samples.

The delinquency measures used in this 

report come from annual interviews 

with girls about their self-reported 

involvement in delinquent behavior 

over the preceding year. After a detailed 

review of the delinquency measures 

in each study, the authors grouped the 

items into summary measures of 11 

kinds of delinquency. These include:8

■ Running away.

■ Other status offenses (e.g., truancy, 

curfew violations).

■ Public disorder offenses. 

■ Minor property offenses.

■ Serious property offenses.

■ Minor assault.

■ Serious assault.

■ Drug sales.

■ Alcohol use.

■ Marijuana use. 

■ Other drug use.

Prevalence and Frequency 

of Offending 

This section presents findings about the 

prevalence of offending and the average 

frequency of offending among juvenile 

offenders. 

Ever-Prevalence

Ever-prevalence refers to the proportion of girls who engaged in a particular 

delinquent behavior at some time during the period covered. Figure 1 shows 

the ever-prevalence of different types 

of delinquency across the child and 

adolescent age periods in both the Fast 

Track Project and the Denver Youth 

Survey. Data from the Fast Track Project cover academic grades 4 to 11. Data 

from the Denver Youth Survey cover a 

roughly comparable age period (7 to 

17). Although there is some variation 

between the studies, the rates of everprevalence are generally quite similar. 

More than half of the girls reported 

that they engaged in truancy, minor 

property crimes, and alcohol use—the 

offenses most commonly reported in 

both studies. Females reported involvement in other offenses less frequently 

(see figure 1 for details). 

These estimates of ever-prevalence 

indicate that a large proportion of the 

girls in these two studies were involved 

in delinquent behavior at some time 

during childhood or adolescence. For 

example, in the Denver Youth Survey, 

91 percent were involved in at least one 

of the offenses considered; 88 percent 

were involved in an offense other than 

alcohol, marijuana, or drug use; and 87 

percent were involved in offenses other 

than status offenses and alcohol, marijuana, and drug use. Across both studies, and excluding alcohol use, truancy 

had the highest prevalence, followed 

by minor property and public disorder 

offenses, serious property and runaway 

offenses, and lastly by serious assault 

and drug sales. 

Prevalence by Age and/or Grade 

Given the high rates of ever-prevalence, 

one should consider the ages at which 

girls commit these offenses. For this 

purpose, the authors determined the 

prevalence of these offenses by academic grade (grades 4 to 11) for the Fast 

Track sample and by age (7 to 17) for 

the Denver sample. During childhood 

(grades 4 and 5, ages 7 to 10),9

 generally 

10 to 19 percent of the girls participated 

Figure 1. Ever-Prevalence of Types of Delinquency

Notes: This figure displays the proportion of girls who engaged in a particular delinquent behavior at some 

time during the period covered. Fast Track Project data include girls in grades 4 through 11. Denver Youth 

Survey data include girls between ages 7 and 17. The Fast Track Project measures of marijuana and other 

drugs are based on 30-day use and are not comparable to the annual delinquency measures. Therefore, 

they are not used in this report. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percentage

Running

away

Fast Track Project Denver Youth Survey

Truancy Public

disorder

Minor

property

Serious

property

Minor

assault

Serious

assault Drug

sales

Alcohol

use Marijuana use Hard

drug use
Girls Study Group

6

in minor property offenses at each 

grade and/or age, and 5 to 10 percent 

participated in alcohol use, minor 

assault, and public disorder offenses. 

The study found lower rates of participation for other offenses.

Excluding alcohol and marijuana use, 

truancy commonly has the highest 

prevalence at each age/grade during 

the adolescent period (grades 6–11, 

ages 11–16). In addition, truancy 

increases with age—from 10 percent at 

grade 6 to 33 percent by grade 11 (Fast 

Track) or from 4 percent at age 11 to 

45 percent by age 16 (Denver Youth 

Survey). The prevalence of public disorder offending during adolescence 

decreased from 20 to 14 percent in 

Fast Track but increased from 13 to 25 

percent in Denver. The prevalence of 

minor property offending varied across 

girls’ adolescence (from 16 to 21 percent). The prevalence of minor assault 

and running away typically ranged from 

5 to 12 percent, and the prevalence of 

serious property offending and serious 

assault typically ranged from 2 to 9 percent, depending on the sample and age 

of the girls. 

In the Fast Track Project, alcohol use 

rose from 4 to 38 percent between 

grades 4 and 11, compared with a rise 

from 10 to 53 percent between ages 9 

and 17 in the Denver Youth Survey. In 

the Denver Youth Survey, marijuana 

use rose from 2 to 26 percent and 

other drug use rose from 2 to 7 percent 

between ages 11 and 17.

Excluding alcohol and drug use, the 

authors observed an overall increasing trend in the prevalence of general 

delinquency as the girls grew older. In 

both studies, about 25 percent of girls 

engaged in delinquency at each age 

between 7 and 10 (Denver) and grades 

4 and 5 (Fast Track). This rate increased 

to approximately 27 to 32 percent during ages 11 and 12 (grades 6 and 7). 

After that, general delinquency levels 

increased substantially through age 15 

(grade 10) to 39 percent of girls in the 

Fast Track Project and to 57 percent 

in the Denver Youth Survey. Rates 

remained at this level of delinquent 

behavior at age 16 (grade 11) and age 

17. This evidence indicates that girls are 

substantially involved in some kind of 

delinquent behavior at each age and/

or grade.

Frequency of Offending 

Behavior Among Girls 

Reporting Delinquency 

Also, the authors determined the 

average number of offenses that 

active offenders (those who reported 

delinquent involvement in a given 

year) committed. Generally, with the 

exception of alcohol and drug-related 

offenses, delinquent girls committed an 

average of fewer than 10 offenses of any 

specific kind in a year. For some kinds 

of offenses (such as running away, 

serious property offenses, and minor 

assault), they committed five or fewer 

offenses. The frequency of engaging in 

either minor or serious kinds of offenses was relatively small. Even reports of 

alcohol and marijuana use suggest that 

use was only once every other week or 

less. 

These observations also hold true for 

the average number of offenses that 

girls committed across all offending 

behaviors (excluding alcohol and drug 

use). Female offenders committed 5 or 

fewer offenses a year through age 11, 

and this number slowly increases to 21 

to 23 offenses a year by ages 15 to 17. 

Thus, involvement in non-drug-related 

delinquency occurred less than once 

every 2 weeks between ages 15 and 17, 

and less than once a month for ages 11 

and younger.

Initiation and 

Desistance Patterns 

Next, the study determined the periods 

when girls first committed offenses (initiation) and the periods during which 

they ceased offending (desistance). This 

section examines how girls’ offense 

patterns initiate, persist, and desist 

between ages 7 and 17 or grades 4 

through 11. 

Girls’ First Offenses 

Using data from the Denver Youth Survey, figure 2 displays the percentages of 

girls whose delinquency began with a 

particular kind of offense. Because a girl 

can initiate multiple offenses during the 

same delinquent event or time period, 

the values shown represent the percentage of girls who reported that a specific 

offense was the first or among the first 

set of offenses they committed. 

The figure shows that most girls began 

offending with less serious offenses—

alcohol use, status offenses, and minor 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency

7

thefts. Other behaviors, such as running 

away and more severe offenses such as 

serious property crimes or assault, were 

far less common as a first offense. Girls 

began offending with a variety of different offenses, and no single kind stood 

out as the most common first offense. 

Age of First Offense

One may also wish to consider whether 

the very first kind of offense a girl commits depends on the age at which she 

began offending. Estimates that used 

data from the Denver Youth Survey suggest that girls did not start offending at a 

specific age or become involved in delinquency by committing any one offense. 

Girls’ first reported offending varied 

across all offense types and was committed at different ages. Girls who sold 

drugs are an exception; most did not 

begin offending until their late teens. 

The study also examined the age of 

girls’ first offending for different kinds 

of delinquency. Although some girls 

began offending at each age period and 

with different offenses, the largest proportion of girls whose first offense was 

a status offense (other than running 

away) began their offending between 

the ages of 13 and 14. The largest proportion of girls whose first offense was 

minor theft, minor assault, public disorder, property damage, or use of alcohol 

began these offenses during childhood 

(ages 7 to 10). In fact, almost half of the 

girls began to engage in some form of 

delinquency in childhood. Although 

this does not imply that their involvement is serious or long lasting, it does 

indicate that a large percentage of girls 

began their delinquent behavior at an 

early age.

Temporal Patterns of Delinquency

This study also examined girls’ patterns 

of delinquent behavior over the course 

of their childhood and adolescence 

using information about girls’ delinquent behaviors (excluding drug use) 

in grades 4 to 11 in the Fast Track Project and ages 7 to 17 in the Denver Youth 

Survey. Four patterns of delinquent 

behavior emerged:

■ Persisters. These girls were continually involved in delinquent behavior 

over several years.

■ Desisters. These girls stopped 

offending after a period of delinquent behavior.

■ Intermittent. These girls were sporadically involved in delinquent 

behavior over several years. 

■ Late bloomers. These girls did not 

engage in delinquent behavior until 

late adolescence. 

The largest proportion of delinquent 

girls in the Fast Track Project (46 percent) showed persistent patterns of 

delinquency. However, within this 

“persister” group, the age of onset 

varied—girls reported their first delinquent activity anywhere from middle 

childhood through adolescence. The 

next largest group of delinquent girls 

(23 percent) was the intermittent type. 

For these girls, their delinquent activity 

was sporadic and started and stopped 

at different ages. Late bloomers (19 

percent) did not engage in delinquent 

behavior until late in high school. This 

study did not measure whether these 

girls desisted from delinquency or persisted into late adolescence and young 

adulthood. Twelve percent of delinquent girls were desisters. Within this 

type, some girls were delinquent for a 

shorter period of time (1–2 years) and 

then desisted, whereas other girls were 

delinquent over a longer period (4–6 

years) and then desisted.

The Denver Youth Survey found that 

the persistent type accounted for 58 

percent of the delinquent girls. The next 

most common type was late bloomers 

(18 percent), followed by intermittent 

offenders (12 percent) and desisters (12 

percent). As in the Fast Track Project, 

the age of onset varied across age periods, with girls reporting their first delinquent activity anywhere from middle 

childhood through adolescence.

Figure 2. Girls' First Offenses

Notes: This figure shows which offenses girls committed first. Findings are from the Denver Youth Survey. 

Because girls can initiate multiple offenses in the same delinquent event or year, the percentages may add 

up to more than 100 percent. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Percentage

Running

away

Other

status

Public

disorder Property

damage

Minor

theft

Serious

property

Minor

assault

Serious

assault

Alcohol

use Marijuana use Hard

drug use
Girls Study Group

8

Across both samples, roughly onehalf of the delinquent girls were the 

persistent offender type. In addition, 

a minority of the delinquent girls (22 

percent in the Fast Track Project and 

17 percent in the Denver Youth Survey) 

were active offenders across the entire 

age/grade period examined. A small 

proportion of delinquent girls were 

intermittent offenders (23 percent in 

the Fast Track Project and 12 percent in 

the Denver Youth Survey). About onefifth were late bloomers (19 percent in 

the Fast Track Project and 18 percent 

in the Denver Youth Survey). Findings 

from both samples also indicate that 12 

percent of the delinquent girls desisted 

from delinquency by ages 16 and 17 or 

grades 10 and 11 (although given the 

finding about intermittent offenders, 

the possibility of offending later in life 

cannot be ruled out). 

Developmental Pathways 

in Girls’ Delinquency

Using data from the Fast Track and 

Denver studies, the authors identified 

developmental sequences or pathways in girls’ delinquency—changes 

in the kinds of delinquent behavior in 

which girls were involved over a period 

of years. As Loeber and colleagues 

(1993) noted, only a few studies have 

examined these kinds of developmental sequences of delinquency, and 

even fewer prospective studies have 

examined this issue. Furthermore, 

studies that focus on girls are sparse. 

As a result, little is known about the 

pathways that girls take in becoming 

involved in various kinds or patterns 

of delinquency.

This bulletin focuses on how girls 

engaged in certain delinquent behaviors at one age period become involved 

in other combinations of delinquent 

behaviors at older age periods. In this 

sense, a delinquent pathway represents a 

particular sequence of behaviors that one 

group of girls traversed that can be distinguished from the sequences of behaviors 

that other groups of girls followed. 

For the purposes of this study, the 

authors used cluster analytic methods10

to identify “clusters” or groups of girls 

involved in the same delinquent behaviors in a given age period. The authors 

then identified developmental sequences 

of delinquent behavior by grouping 

girls who shared the same sequence of 

age clusters over time. For these analyses, data were placed into 2-year grade/

age groups and broader categories of 

delinquent behavior were used. Girls 

who were not delinquent at any of the 

age periods were not included in the 

Fast Track cluster analyses. Because 

the findings from the Fast Track Project 

and the Denver Youth Survey are different, the authors first describe them 

separately. A review of the similarities 

and differences across the two samples 

follows this description. 

Developmental Sequences 

in the Fast Track Sample

To simplify the complexity of the overtime sequences, the authors defined 

four types of delinquency—status and 

public disorder offenses, property 

offenses and theft, assault and violent 

offenses, and alcohol use. In addition, 

the study used four adjacent time periods: grades 4 and 5, 6 and 7, 8 and 9, 

and 10 and 11.

Delinquency patterns by grade. The 

authors conducted separate cluster 

analyses at each of four time periods 

for girls who reported delinquency in 

at least one of the four time periods 

examined. Overall, each cluster of girls 

became increasingly differentiated over 

time. In addition, the proportion of 

girls who reported some delinquency 

increased over time (i.e., by grade), as 

did their overall level of delinquency. 

At the same time, in each of the time 

periods, the largest cluster consisted of 

girls who reported no offending or low 

levels of delinquency. This group, however, did decrease in its relative proportion over time. Nonetheless, because 

these analyses did not include girls who 

reported never engaging in delinquency, this finding suggests that some girls 

move in and out of delinquent activity 

over time. 

During the late elementary school 

years, or grades 4 and 5, delinquent 

behavior among girls was fairly undifferentiated and no distinct clusters 

were identified. By grades 6 and 7, three 

clusters of delinquent girls emerged—

a low/nonproblem group, a status and/

or public disorder offense and alcohol 

use group, and a highly versatile group. 

Most girls (85 percent) were in the low/

nonproblem group. Within this group, 

about 60 percent were nondelinquent. 

The remainder primarily reported 

truancy or minor property offenses. 

The next largest group (12 percent) 

was involved in status offending and/

or public disorder and alcohol use. 

All of the girls in this group reported 

some alcohol use, and about 75 percent 

engaged in status or public disorder 

offenses, primarily truancy. The third 

group of girls (3 percent) reported 

involvement in a range of offending 

behaviors. Virtually all reported truancy 

as well as minor property offending (87 

percent for both offense types). Half 

of this group also reported serious 

property offending and alcohol use, 

and some (25 percent) reported serious 

assault behaviors.

In grades 8 and 9, three clusters 

emerged that were similar to those 

observed in grades 6 and 7. However, 

the proportion of girls in the low/

nonproblem group decreased to 78 

percent. About half of the girls in this 

group reported some low-level delinquent activity, commonly truancy or 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency

9

alcohol use. The second cluster of girls 

in grades 8 and 9 (12 percent) reported 

a range of delinquent behaviors that 

was more diverse than in the earlier 

grades. Most prominent were truancy 

and minor property offenses. Less common but still prevalent in this group 

were running away and serious property offending. The third cluster of girls 

in these grades (10 percent) could be 

characterized by alcohol use and some 

status and/or public disorder offenses.

In grades 10 and 11, the authors 

observed a more differentiated set of 

four clusters. Most girls (43 percent) 

were classified in the low/nonproblem 

group. Only 33 percent of these girls 

did not offend. The others reported low 

levels of truancy, with a small number 

reporting minor property or public 

disorder offenses. The next largest 

group (34 percent) included girls who 

reported primarily status and/or public 

disorder offending and alcohol use. 

Sixty-three percent of the girls in this 

group reported status offenses, most 

commonly truancy, occasionally running away, and some reported public 

disorder. In addition, all of these girls 

drank alcohol. 

A third group in these grades (14 percent) included girls who reported 

involvement in multiple offenses, 

including status offenses (primarily 

truancy), public disorder, both minor 

and serious property offending, and 

alcohol use. A final group of girls (9 

percent) reported high rates of status 

offenses, especially truant behavior, 

with some reports of running away. 

Girls in this group also reported public 

disorder offenses, minor property 

offenses, and alcohol use.

Fast Track: Transitions between 

delinquency patterns over time. Figure 3 portrays the over-time transitions 

between the clusters or groups of girls 

described above and the proportion 

of girls in each cluster at a given time 

period. The dark red arrows indicate a 

transition where at least 50 percent of 

the girls in a particular cluster in one 

time period moved to another cluster in 

the next time period. Remaining arrows 

indicate transitions of less than 50 percent per arrow.

The figure illustrates a number of points 

about developmental pathways of girls’ 

delinquency. First, it shows that girls 

make a number of transitions as they 

age—although the number of girls on 

each pathway varies considerably, girls’ 

delinquency followed more than 20 distinct pathways. Most girls trend toward 

less serious delinquency. Even when 

girls do engage in more serious activity, this delinquency is relatively shortlived. For example, almost 60 percent of 

the girls in the “status, public disorder, 

and alcohol use” cluster in grades 6 

and 7 moved to the “low/nonproblem” 

group in the next time period (grades 

8 and 9). Approximately 70 percent of 

the versatile offenders in grades 8 and 

9 moved to less serious offender types 

in grades 10 and 11. Also, alcohol use 

plays a strong role in girls’ delinquent 

behavior. With the exception of girls in 

grades 4 and 5, most girls took part in 

status and/or public disorder offending 

Figure 3. Fast Track Project: Transitions Between Delinquency Patterns Over Time

Notes: Percentages in boxes show the proportion of girls in each grade group who were placed in each 

offense category. The arrows portray how many girls from one group moved to another.  

Low/Nonproblem: Girls committed minor offenses or did not offend.

Status: Girls committed only status offenses.

Status, Public Disorder, and Alcohol: Girls committed status offenses, engaged in public disorder offenses, 

and used alcohol.

Versatile: Girls became involved in a variety of more serious delinquent behaviors, including status and 

public disorder offenses, minor and serious property offenses, and alcohol use.

>50% moved 35–50% moved 25–34% moved <25% moved

Grades 4–5 Grades 6–7 UndifferentiatedGrades 8–9 Grades 10–11

Versatile

3%

Status

9%

Status,

Public Disorder,

and Alcohol

12%

Low/

Nonproblem

43%

Status,

Public Disorder,

and Alcohol

34%

Versatile

12%

Status,

Public Disorder,

and Alcohol

10%

Versatile

14%

Low/

Nonproblem

85%

Low/

Nonproblem

78%
Girls Study Group

10

and alcohol use. Finally, although the 

proportion is small, one group of girls 

was involved in more versatile, serious delinquent behavior in each grade 

period, and girls moved into and out of 

this group over time. 

Developmental Sequences 

in the Denver Youth Survey 

The findings about developmental 

sequences in the Denver Youth Survey 

are more complex than in the Fast Track 

Project in part because of the larger sample of girls, the extended age range in the 

Denver Youth Survey, and the inclusion 

of a measure of drug use. To reduce the 

complexity of the sequences, the authors 

created five age groups: ages 8–9, 10–11, 

12–13, 14–15, and 16–17. Also, for simplification, the authors used five summary measures of delinquency: status 

and public disorder offenses, property 

and theft offenses, assault and violent 

offenses, alcohol use, and marijuana and 

hard drug use. In addition, youth with 

infrequent involvement in delinquency—

one status offense, public disorder 

offense, incident of alcohol use, or minor 

offense over a 2-year period—were given 

a nondelinquent status, and property/

theft and assault/violent offenses were 

coded to distinguish between minor and 

serious offending. 

Delinquency patterns at different 

ages. Cluster analyses conducted in 

each of the age periods indicated that 

a single typology (a set of clusters 

or types) could be used to describe 

the girls in each of the age periods. 

Although not all of the clusters existed 

in any one age period, the clusters that 

did exist in each age period were included in the typology. The clusters include:

■ Nondelinquent or low-level minor 

offenders. Most of these girls 

reported no delinquent behavior at 

any age. However, some of these girls 

reported up to one status, one public 

disorder, one alcohol use, and/or one 

minor offense in the 2-year period.

■ Status and/or public disorder 

offenders. These girls were involved 

in status or public disorder offenses. 

This group also included girls who 

reported alcohol use.

■ Property and/or theft offenders. 

These girls were involved in property 

or theft offenses. Many were also 

involved in status or public disorder 

offenses, and some reported using 

alcohol. 

■ Minor assault offenders. These girls 

were primarily involved in minor 

assault offenses. 

■ Versatile nonviolent offenders.

These girls were involved in a variety 

of delinquent behaviors, including 

serious property and/or theft offenses, status and/or public disorder 

offenses, alcohol use, and other drug 

use. However, they did not commit 

violent offenses. 

■ Versatile violent offenders. Girls in 

this group reported serious violent 

offenses, serious property and/or 

serious theft offenses, status and/or 

public disorder offenses, alcohol use, 

and other drug use.

Although some of these delinquent 

types existed in all age periods, others existed only at specific ages. The 

nondelinquent and/or low-level type 

and the status and/or public disorder 

type occurred throughout the 7- to 

17-year-old age period. However, the 

minor assault type occurred only in 

childhood, at ages 8–9 and 10–11. The 

property and/or theft offender types 

were present at all ages except for 14- to 

15-year-olds. The versatile nonviolent 

and versatile violent types existed 

throughout the adolescent age range 

(12- to 17-year-olds). 

Denver Youth Survey: Transitions 

between delinquency patterns over 

time. Figure 4 shows how girls move 

from one delinquent type to another 

as they grow older. For simplicity, the 

figure only shows paths that involve 

10 percent or more of a delinquent 

type. As in figure 3, the paths are diagrammed using colored arrows to 

portray the proportion of girls who 

moved to a new offense group as they 

grew older. The dark red arrows indicate that at least 50 percent of a cluster 

made the transition to a new offense 

group. The minor assault cluster was 

not included because it was only found 

at younger ages. In addition, figure 4 

only displays findings for girls ages 10 

to 17.

Figure 4 shows that different groups 

of girls followed a large number of different sequences. No one sequence is 

descriptive of most or even a majority 

of girls. The largest group with a common sequence over time consists of 

those girls who were nondelinquent 

or low-level minor offenders, and this 

group included 22 percent of the girls. 

On the other hand, a portion of girls 

become involved in a greater diversity 

of offenses at each age period, including serious offenses. Also, girls in any 

delinquent group in one age period 

did not share a common offense history. Thus, no single pathway leads 

to involvement in specific patterns of 

delinquent behavior, whether the pattern of behavior is minor or serious.

Importantly, beginning with the 12- to 

13-year-old age period, many of the 

girls involved in more serious offending discontinued this type of offending 

and returned to a status and/or public disorder type or a nondelinquent 

type in the next age period. “Careers” 

in serious offending were relatively 

short lived, and the majority of serious 

offenders returned to a “home base” of 

status/public disorder offending or a 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency

11

nondelinquent state, often within a year 

or two. At the same time, some girls 

who were involved in only status/public 

disorder or minor offending became 

more serious offenders, so that a sizable 

number of girls were involved in more 

serious offending patterns (generally 10 

to 20 percent) at all adolescent ages.

Conclusion 

Findings from this study show substantial consistency across epidemiological, 

temporal, and developmental sequence 

analyses and across the Fast Track and 

Denver samples. These similarities 

impart greater confidence in the results. 

Overall, the study findings offer important information about girls’ delinquent 

behaviors and the sequences of girls’ 

offenses over time. Several central findings are outlined below regarding the 

types and extent of delinquent behaviors and the developmental sequences 

over time.

The following conclusions can be 

drawn about the types and extent of 

girls’ delinquent behaviors: 

■ Most of the girls were involved in 

delinquency at some point during their childhood or adolescent 

years. The vast majority of girls (78 

percent of the Fast Track Project 

girls and more than 90 percent of the 

Denver Youth Survey girls) reported 

involvement in some kind of delinquency during late childhood or 

adolescence, and a sizable proportion of girls were involved in delinquent offenses before middle school.

■ Girls reported a wide range of 

offending behaviors. Although the 

most common pattern throughout 

the late childhood and adolescent 

years was being nondelinquent or 

involved in status or public disorder 

offenses, many girls also reported 

involvement in minor or serious 

property offenses or serious assault. 

At each age or grade, different 

groups of girls were involved in 

different combinations of delinquent 

behaviors. 

■ Most girls who were involved in 

delinquency did not offend frequently. With the exception of 

alcohol and drug offenses, girls who 

were involved in some delinquent 

activity generally reported five or 

fewer offenses per year through age 

11. Between ages 12 and 17, female 

offenders generally reported 10 or 

fewer offenses of any specific type 

and 23 or fewer total offenses in a 

given year. 

Figure 4. Denver Youth Survey: Transitions Between Delinquency Patterns Over Time

Notes: Percentages in boxes show the proportion of girls in each age group who were placed in each 

offense category. The arrows portray how many girls from one group moved to another. Although not shown 

in this diagram, ages 7–9 were also studied.

Nondelinquent/Minor Offenses: Girls reported one status public disorder offense, incident of alcohol use, or 

minor offense over the 2-year period, or reported no offenses.

Status Offenses/Public Disorder: Girls became involved in status or public disorder offenses. This group also 

includes girls who used alcohol.

Minor Property: Girls were involved in property offenses and theft. Many were also involved in status or 

public disorder offenses and some used alcohol.

Versatile Nonviolent: These girls’ offenses took many forms, including serious property crimes, theft, status 

and public disorder offenses, alcohol use, and other drug use. They did not commit violent offenses. 

Versatile Violent: These girls’ offenses took many forms, including serious violent offenses, serious property 

crimes, serious theft, status and public disorder offenses, alcohol use, and other drug use.

>50% moved 35–50% moved 25–34% moved <25% moved

Ages 10–11 Ages 12–13 Ages 14–15 Ages 16–17

Minor Property

0%

Status Offenses/

Public Disorder

12%

Status Offenses/

Public Disorder

50%

Minor Property

6%

Versatile

Violent

7%

Minor Property

11%

Versatile

Nonviolent

3%

Nondelinquent/

Minor Offenses

36%

Minor Property

6%

Versatile

Nonviolent

7%

Versatile

Violent

7%

Versatile

Nonviolent

8%

Versatile

Violent

15%

Nondelinquent/

Minor Offenses

36%

Nondelinquent/

Minor Offenses

36%

Nondelinquent/

Minor Offenses

36%

Status Offenses/

Public Disorder

28%

Status Offenses/

Public Disorder

41%
Girls Study Group

12

■ Some girls could be distinguished 

by a versatile pattern of offending 

behavior. Analyses of both samples 

found small groups of girls involved 

in more versatile offending patterns 

consisting of a range of delinquent 

behaviors, sometimes including 

serious offenses. 

■ Girls frequently used alcohol or 

drugs. With the exception of girls 

in the earliest grades/ages (grades 

4 and 5, ages 7 to 10), many girls 

involved in other delinquent behaviors also used alcohol and/or drugs.

The following conclusions can be drawn 

about the developmental sequences 

observed in girls’ delinquency: 

■ Girls began offending with a range 

of different behaviors. Among those 

girls who did report delinquency, 

these behaviors usually began with 

less serious offenses—alcohol use, 

status offenses, or minor thefts. 

Other behaviors (such as running 

away or violent offenses) were less 

common as a first offense. No single 

kind of offense occurred first for a 

majority of girls. 

■ Girls began and stopped offending at different ages. For some girls, 

offending was limited to childhood; 

for others, it was limited to adolescence. Moreover, some girls did not 

start offending until late adolescence. 

■ Some girls reported persistent 

patterns of delinquency; others 

reported that these behaviors were 

more transient. For some girls, 

delinquent behavior was fairly stable 

and chronic over time. Other girls’ 

delinquent behavior was intermittent and stopped and started at 

different ages. 

■ Girls showed diverse patterns of 

offending over time. Although some 

girls remained involved in status 

and public disorder offending across 

different age periods, other girls 

moved from this pattern of offending 

to more varied and serious offense 

patterns. In general, the number of 

patterns and the movement between 

these patterns increased as girls 

became older. 

■ Girls typically did not become 

involved in serious delinquency 

over a long period of time. Even 

when girls were involved in more 

serious offending, they often 

returned to a home base of status 

and public disorder offending or to 

a nondelinquent status after a year 

or two. 

A number of implications follow from 

these findings on girls’ delinquent 

behavior: 

■ Service providers should be concerned about girls’ delinquent 

behavior. The vast majority of girls 

studied were involved in some form 

of delinquency at some time during their late childhood to late teen 

years. Most offenses included status 

offenses, public disorder offenses, or 

minor crimes, but some girls were 

also involved in serious property and 

violent offenses. 

■ Although girls are involved in 

delinquency, no single or dominant delinquency sequence 

(“pathway”) occurs for all girls.

Programs and interventions should 

not assume that one delinquency 

sequence applies to most girls. 

Simple generalizations about the 

sequence of girls’ delinquent behaviors over time may be unwarranted. 

This study highlights and corrects 

common misconceptions—girls’ 

delinquency does not always begin 

with running away, and girls’ first 

offenses are not always status offenses. 

Professionals who work with delinquent 

girls should recognize the wide range 

of developmental patterns that can 

occur over time, and understand 

that a girl’s developmental sequence 

cannot be determined from a single 

delinquent behavior pattern at a 

fixed point in time.

■ Intervention efforts should consider the offending patterns of girls.

Many girls are low-level and status 

offenders, and even the most serious female juvenile offenders tend 

to desist within a year or two. Given 

that girls typically have short serious 

offending careers, providers should 

be careful when employing interventions that have not been demonstrated as successful to ensure that 

the intervention does not extend 

offending careers. Interventions 

are not necessarily benign and may 

exacerbate problem and delinquent 

behavior (McCord, 2003; Huizinga 

and Mihalic, 2003; Poulin, Dishion, and Burrastron, 2001; Dishion, 

McCord, and Poulin, 1999). 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency

13

■ Preventive interventions targeting 

delinquency in childhood should 

include both genders because girls’ 

involvement in delinquency often 

begins early. However, some early 

delinquent behaviors—especially 

assaults—frequently cease after 

childhood. 

■ Service providers should systematically assess and treat substance 

use among delinquent girls. Evidence in the samples used here 

and in other studies (Chassin, 2008; 

Grisso and Underwood, 2004; Teplin et al., 2002) points to an overlap 

between status offending, public disorder offenses, and alcohol use. 

The original question that the Girls 

Study Group posed concerned the temporal order and patterns of girls’ delinquent behavior throughout childhood 

and adolescence. This study found that 

girls were delinquent and that there was 

great diversity in their patterns of delinquent involvement at any age. It also 

found great diversity in the timing and 

sequencing of delinquency over time. 

No one developmental sequence was 

applicable to most or even a majority 

of girls. However, general patterns were 

observed over time. More than half of 

all girls in both studies were involved in 

status and/or minor offenses only, and 

those who became involved in serious 

offenses tended to return to status and 

minor offending after 1 or 2 years. 

The findings imply a need for additional research examining girls’ involvement in delinquency during the child 

and adolescent years. One of the values 

in understanding over-time sequences 

of delinquent behavior is identifying 

turning points in girls’ delinquent 

careers where specific causes and risks 

influenced their pathways of future 

delinquent behavior. Examining such 

causes and correlates was beyond the 

purview of this study and should be 

explored in future research.

Moreover, the current study is limited 

because it used annual measures of 

delinquency. Research examining 

sequences of offending over shorter 

durations may reveal patterns that do 

not occur in annual reports of offending. 

Future research should also identify 

developmental patterns of arrests so 

that these patterns can be compared 

with patterns identified in surveys or 

self-reports of delinquent behavior. 

The combination of official arrest data 

and self-report sequences would help 

researchers determine when offending 

behavior begins, when arrests occur 

during a delinquent’s career, which girls 

are arrested, and which girls enter the 

juvenile justice system. Such information can inform the design of juvenile 

justice system responses. If researchers 

then conducted similar analyses for 

boys, informative gender comparisons 

could be made. 

Endnotes

1. The Conduct Problems Prevention 

Research Group includes Karen 

L. Bierman, Pennsylvania State 

University; John Coie, Duke University; Kenneth A. Dodge, Duke 

University; Mark T. Greenberg, 

Pennsylvania State University; John 

E. Lochman, University of Alabama; 

Robert J. McMahon, Simon Fraser 

University and the Child & Family Research Institute; and Ellen E. 

Pinderhughes, Tufts University.

2. This request stipulated that the 

report should focus exclusively on 

girls, be descriptive, and examine 

specific offense types across different developmental periods. The 

request also asked that the report 

not examine causes or correlates, as 

these issues are covered in separate 

GSG reports. 

3. See the full report, Developmental

Sequences of Girls' Delinquent 

Behavior, by Huizinga, Miller, and 

the Conduct Problems Prevention 

Research Group (2009) for more 

details. 

4. An exploratory offender is an 

individual trying out various delinquencies for any of several reasons 

(e.g., for fun, for money, because 

of peer influence), but who has not 

adopted a delinquent orientation 

and who is not currently seriously 

involved in delinquency. 

5. The total number of girls was 317—

51 percent were white, 45 percent 

were African American, and 4 percent were other.

6. Prosocial behavior is behavior that 

conforms to the conventional rules 

and laws of society.

7. The total number of girls was 807—

10 percent were white, 33 percent 

were African American, 44 percent 

were Hispanic, and 13 percent were 

other or mixed ethnicity.

8. The Fast Track Project measures 

of marijuana and other drugs are 

based on 30-day use and are not 

comparable to the annual delinquency measures. Therefore, they 

are not used in this report. 

9. In these analyses, the childhood 

age groups from the two samples 

are not the same. Childhood in the 

Denver survey includes ages 7–10, 

which allowed information about 

younger ages to be included. In the 

Fast Track data, grades 4–5 were 

used for childhood.

10. Given a sample of objects or persons described by multivariate 

numerical scores, cluster analysis 

includes a number of statistical 

procedures that group individuals 

or objects into clusters that have 
Girls Study Group

14

similar multivariate patterns that 

can be distinguished from other 

clusters with different multivariate 

patterns. See Hartigan (1975). 

References 

Abram, K.M., Teplin, L.A., Charles, D.R., 

Longworth, S.L., McClelland, G.M., 

and Dulcan, M.K. 2004. Posttraumatic 

stress disorder and trauma in youth in 

juvenile detention. Archives of General 

Psychiatry 61:403–410.

Acoca, L., and Dedel, K. 1998. No Place 

to Hide: Understanding and Meeting 

the Needs of Girls in the California 

Juvenile Justice System. San Francisco, 

CA: National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency.

Belknap, J., Holsinger, K., and Dunn, M. 

1997. Understanding incarcerated girls: 

The results of a focus group study. The 

Prison Journal 77:381–404. 

Broidy, L.M., Nagin, D.S., Tremblay, 

R.E., Bates, J.E., Brame, B., Dodge, K.A., 

Fergusson, D., Horwood, J.L., Loeber, 

R., Laird, R., Lynam, D.R., Moffitt, T.E., 

Pettit, G.S., and Vitaro, F. 2003. Developmental trajectories of childhood 

disruptive behaviors and adolescent 

delinquency: A six-site, cross-national 

study. Developmental Psychology

39(2):222–245.

Capaldi, D.M., and Patterson, G.R. 

1991. Relation of parental transitions to 

boys’ adjustment problems: I. A test of 

a linear hypothesis. II. Mothers at risk 

for transitions and unskilled parenting. 

Developmental Psychology 27:489–504.

Chassin, L. 2008. Juvenile justice and 

substance use. The Future of Children

18:165–183. 

Chesney-Lind, M., and Pasko, L. 2004. 

The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and 

Crime, 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications.

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

Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice,

2d ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research 

Group. 1992. A developmental and 

clinical model for the prevention of 

conduct disorders: The Fast Track 

Program. Development and Psychopathology 4:509–527.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research 

Group. 2000. Merging universal and 

indicated prevention programs: The 

Fast Track model. Addictive Behaviors

25:913–927.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research 

Group. 2007. Fast Track randomized 

controlled trial to prevent externalizing 

psychiatric disorders: Findings from 

grades 3 to 9. Journal of the American 

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 46:1250–1262.

Cote, S., Zoccolillo, M., Tremblay, 

R.E., Nagin, D., and Vitaro, F. 2001. 

Predicting girls’ conduct disorder in 

adolescence from childhood trajectories of disruptive behaviors. Journal of 

the American Academy of Child and 

Adolescent Psychiatry 40(6):678–684.

Dishion, T.J., McCord, J., and Poulin, F. 

1999. When interventions harm: Peer 

groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist 54(9):502–512.

Grisso, T., and Underwood, L. 2004. 

Screening and Assessing Mental Health 

and Substance Use Among Youth in 

the Juvenile Justice System: A Resource 

for Practitioners. Report. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Hagan, J., and McCarthy, B. 1997. Mean 

Streets: Youth Crime and Homelessness.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 

Hartigan, J.A. 1975. Clustering Algorithms.

New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Huizinga, D. 1995. Developmental 

sequences in delinquency. In Pathways 

Through Adolescence: Individual Development in Context, edited by L. Crockett 

and N. Crowder. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates.

Huizinga, D., Esbensen, F., and Weiher, 

A. 1991. Are there multiple paths to 

delinquency? Journal of Criminal Law 

and Criminology 82:83–118.

Huizinga, D., and Mihalic, S. 2003. The 

prevention of juvenile delinquency. In 

Crime Prevention—New Approaches,

edited by H. Kury and J. Berfell-Fuchs. 

Mainz, Germany: Weisse Ring.

Huizinga, D., Miller, S., and the Conduct 

Problems Prevention Research Group. 

2009. Developmental Sequences of Girls' 

Delinquent Behavior. Report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention, March 

2009. Available online: www.ncjrs.gov/ 

pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/242663.pdf.

Kaufman, J.G., and Widom, C.S. 1999. 

Childhood victimization, running away, 

and delinquency. Journal of Research in 

Crime and Delinquency 36:347–370.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P. , eds. 

2001. Child Delinquents: Development, 

Intervention, and Service Needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Loeber, R., Wung, P., Keenan, K., 

Giroux, B., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van 

Kammen, W., and Maughan, B. 1993. 

Developmental pathways in disruptive 

child behavior. Development and Psychopathology 5:111–133.

McCord, J. 2003. Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. Annals of the American 

Academy of Political and Social Science

587:16–30.

Miller, S., Malone, P., Dodge, K.A., and the 

Conduct Problems Prevention Research 

Group. 2010. Developmental trajectories 
Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency

15

of boys’ and girls’ delinquency: Sex differences and links to later adolescent 

outcomes. Journal of Abnormal Child 

Psychology 38:1021–1032.

Moffitt, T.E. 1993. Adolescence-limited 

and life-course-persistent antisocial 

behavior: A developmental taxonomy. 

Psychological Review 100(4):674–701.

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

Silva, P.A. 2001. Sex Differences in Antisocial Behaviour: Conduct Disorder, 

Delinquency and Violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge, 

MA: Cambridge University Press. 

Molnar, B.E., Shade, S.B., Kral, A.H., 

Booth, R.E., and Watters, J.K. 1998. 

Suicidal behavior and sexual/physical 

abuse among street youth. Child Abuse 

and Neglect 22:213–222.

Muthén, L.K., and Muthén, B.O. 1998–

2006. Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles, 

CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nagin, D., and Tremblay, R.E. 1999. 

Trajectories of boys’ physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity 

on the path to physically violent and 

nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child 

Development 70(5):1181–1196.

Odgers, C.L., Moffitt, T.E., Broadbent, 

J.M., Dickson, N., Hancox, R.J., Harrington, H., Poulton, R., Sears, M.R., 

Thomson, W.M., and Caspi, A. 2008. 

Female and male antisocial trajectories: 

From childhood origins to adult outcomes. Development and Psychopathology 20:673–716. 

Owen, B., and Bloom, B. 1997. Profiling 

the Needs of Young Female Offenders: A 

Protocol and Pilot Study. Final Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice.

Patterson, G.R., DeBaryshe, B.D., and 

Ramsey, E. 1989. A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist 44:329–335.

Poulin, F., Dishion, T.J., and Burrastron, 

B. 2001. 3-year iatrogenic effects associated with aggregating high-risk adolescents in cognitive-behavioral preventive 

interventions. Applied Developmental 

Science 5(4):214–224.

Acknowledgments

David Huizinga is a senior research associate at the Institute of Behavioral Science at 

the University of Colorado at Boulder. Shari Miller is a research psychologist at RTI 

International.

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 National Institute of Justice; the 

Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex 

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking.

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.

Runyon, W. 1980. A stage-state analysis 

of the life course. Journal of Personality 

and Social Psychology 38:951–962.

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(12):1133–1143.

Tolan, P.H., Gorman-Smith, D., and 

Henry, D.B. 2003. The developmental 

ecology of urban males' youth violence. 

Developmental Psychology 39(2):274–291.

Trickett, P.K., and Gordis, E.B. 2004. 

Aggression and antisocial behavior in 

sexually abused females. In Aggression, 

Antisocial Behavior and Violence Among 

Girls, edited by M. Putallaz and K.L. 

Bierman. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

Tyler, K.A. 2002. Social and emotional 

outcomes of childhood sexual abuse: 

A review of recent research. Aggression 

and Violent Behavior 7:567–589.

Widom, C.S. 1992. The Cycle of Violence.

Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Widom, C.S. 1995. Victims of Childhood 

Sexual Abuse—Later Criminal Consequences. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice. 
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

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~238276*

NCJ 238276