BRIEF C H RESEAR

MARCH

2017

Bringing Gender-Responsive 

Principles into Practice

Evidence from the Evaluation of 

the PACE Center for Girls

Louisa Treskon and Charlotte Lyn Bright

Girls in the juvenile justice 

system are different from 

boys — in their histories, 

their offenses, and their 

experiences in the system. This realization 

has prompted research on their particular 

risk factors and, in turn, the development of 

prevention and intervention programs 

tailored to both girls and women. Known as 

gender-responsive services, these programs 

have been promoted by policies at the state 

and national levels. Yet even as such programs have proliferated over the past several 

decades, research on their components and 

effectiveness remains limited. An evaluation 

under way of PACE Center for Girls in Florida 

offers an important opportunity both to 

describe how gender-responsive principles 

translate to a real-world setting and to 

investigate whether the program accomplishes its goals.

MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan 

education and social policy research 

organization, is leading this rigorous 

evaluation of PACE. The study is funded by 

the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation’s 

Social Innovation Fund, a program of the 

Corporation for National and Community 

Service; the Jessie Ball duPont Fund; and 

the Healy Foundation. 

G E N E S I S A N D 

D E V E L O P M E N T O F 

G E N D E R - R E S P O N S I V E 

PROGRAMS

For more than three decades, genderresponsive programs have been part of the 

landscape of services provided to girls and 

women in, or at risk of entering, the justice 

system. These services arose from research 

showing that pathways into, experiences 

of, and outcomes of court involvement 

differ by gender. The programs, which 

parallel gender-responsive efforts in 

substance abuse treatment, are an alternative to the typical practices — such as 

cognitive-behavioral skill development 

programs — based on the experiences of 

boys and men,1

 who make up the majority 

of people in the justice system. The Center 

for Gender and Justice defines genderresponsive services as those that “creat[e] 

an environment through site selection, 

staff selection, program development, 

content, and material that reflects an 

understanding of the realities of the lives of 

women and girls and that addresses and 

responds to their strengths and challenges.”2

 Gender-responsive programs have 

also been a response to an increase in 

girls’ presence in the juvenile justice 

system (an increase of 92 percent from 

1985 to 2002).3

 For the last few years, girls 

have represented about one-quarter of 

juvenile arrests nationwide.4

Some girls’ risk factors for delinquency 

are similar to those of boys, but they may 

manifest themselves differently in girls. 

Girls in the juvenile justice system are 

more likely than boys to have a history of 

maltreatment and other trauma, running 

away, family conflicts, exposure to crime in 

the neighborhood or at school, chronic 

mental and physical health disorders, 

substance abuse, and academic disruption.5 Their experience of abuse is striking, 

with reported prevalence as high as 92 

percent in one study of female delin-
2

MDRC RESEARCH BRIEF

quents.6

 Some risk factors, such as dating 

much older partners and self-harm, are 

almost never seen in male offenders.7

Research conducted as far back as the 

1970s focused attention on women’s and girls’ 

experiences in the court system. Research 

described how the juvenile court functioned to 

curtail girls’ “acting out” behavior, in particular 

their sexual behavior, by sanctioning them for 

minor and noncriminal acts, whereas boys 

were sanctioned for criminal offenses.8

 Twenty 

years later, research documented abuses 

within the juvenile justice system itself: 

physical and sexual abuse, neglect of health 

care for pregnant girls, sexual harassment, and 

male staff members watching girls showering 

or observing strip searches.9

In recognition of gender-responsive 

programs as an approach to better serve 

girls, federal policymakers have lent their 

support. Federal policy support crystallized 

with the 1992 amendment to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which 

remains in effect to this day. This amendment specifically referred to the different 

needs of girls and boys and acknowledged 

that existing services were best suited to 

boys. The amendment provided funding 

support and technical assistance for states to 

implement gender-responsive approaches. It 

also encouraged providing community-based 

services for girls, rather than removing them 

from their homes, noting that, compared 

with boys, they frequently exhibit a high level 

of need but a lower level of risk to the community.10 In 2004, the U.S. Department of 

Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) created a Girls 

Study Group to further the research base 

around programming for girls.11 OJJDP 

partnered with another national organization 

to create the National Girls Initiative, which 

provides training, technical assistance, and 

other resources to programs serving this 

population.12 OJJDP also released a statement about its commitment to provide 

funding for research about girls in the 

juvenile justice system.13

W H A T I S K N O W N 

ABOUT THE FIELD

Gender-responsive services are intended to 

address the different reasons girls and women 

commit crime within the context of an understanding of female development and their 

particular needs.14 While “good gender-

[responsive] services begin with good services”15 — meaning that they are part of a 

strong program, with a competent staff — 

they are distinctive in bringing an awareness 

of girls’ particular development and genderspecific issues into the program. Although 

there is some variability depending on the 

source, many descriptions of gender-responsive programming are markedly consistent. 

See the box on page 3 for a brief description of 

the most frequently articulated components.

The literature on gender-responsive 

programming in the criminal justice field 

largely focuses on components or organizing 

principles. Until recently, the literature on its 

effectiveness was extremely limited, and 

researchers have found it inconclusive.16

Findings from a few new studies, described 

below, strengthen the knowledge base, but 

more work is needed. Evidence is also lacking 

on the design and execution of services. Recent 

research suggests that, as with many other 

social services, gender-responsive program 

models may not always be implemented as 

planned, and the programs themselves are 

believed to be insufficient in number and not 

necessarily targeted to the greatest need.17 A 

clearer picture of program operations, populations served, and outcomes would aid in 

determining how to implement gender-responsive services effectively.

Qualitative research on how girls and staff 

members experience gender-responsive 

programs is illuminating, reinforcing indications that the components may not always be 

used successfully. When asked what they 

wanted out of the services, participants told 

researchers that they wanted service providers 

to listen to and use their opinions about 

program content and delivery, have caring 

staff members (including mentors and role 
3

MARCH 2017

COMMON COMPONENTS OF GENDER-RESPONSIVE PROGRAMMING

Principles

Focus on relationships. Relationships are used as the basis for personal change. Because of the 

relational nature of female development, attention is paid to relationships between staff members 

and clients and between clients and important people in their lives. 

Safety. Physical and emotional safety is essential, given the high rates of trauma and maltreatment 

in the populations served. Clients must be able to express themselves without fear of harm or 

reprisal. 

Attention to health, mental health, and substance use. Healthy living is a focus, and attention is 

paid to physical, behavioral, and reproductive health issues of relevance to women. 

Cultural appropriateness and competence. Services are consistent with clients’ cultural values. 

Racism and discrimination in the broader society are recognized, and services are designed to 

promote equality. Given that women of color are overrepresented in criminal and juvenile justice 

systems, cultural competence, or the ability to interact with people of different cultures, and an 

intersectional approach, in which each person is understood as having a complex social identity, 

are particularly relevant.

Response to sexism. Female development is central to service provision, with a focus on the 

broader social forces that perpetuate sexism and gender-based discrimination.

Strengths-based approach. Rather than concentrating on deficits, staff members actively identify 

and build on clients’ individual strengths to promote their empowerment.

Holistic approach. Services focus on the well-being of the whole person rather than treatment of a 

particular symptom or problem, in recognition of the complexities of girls’ development.

Family involvement. Resolution of family conflict, common in girls’ histories, and the development 

of positive family connections are a critical component of services. Family members are included in 

decisions and treatment. 

Services

Treatment for abuse and trauma. Individual and group activities focus on acknowledging and 

responding to interpersonal trauma and maltreatment, more commonly experienced by females 

than males. 

Life skills. Clients develop skills needed to make the transition to adulthood. This may reduce 

reliance on unhealthy relationships and promote women’s independence.

Educational and vocational opportunities. Clients learn about and have access to educational 

and job-related opportunities that prepare them to pursue any field of interest, not just femaledominated professions.

Community opportunities. Connections to the wider community are encouraged through 

introductions and opportunities to join organizations or volunteer.

SOURCES: Developed from Chesney-Lind (2001); Dodge (2004); Grella and Joshi (2003); Iowa Commission on the Status of Women (1999); 

Greene, Peters, and Associates (1998); and Kerig and Schindler (2013).
4

MDRC RESEARCH BRIEF

SELECTED GENDER-RESPONSIVE PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS

Girls Circle

The Girls Circle model was developed in the 

mid-1990s and has been used in many settings, 

including schools and mental health centers as 

well as juvenile justice. Delivered in a weekly, 

structured support group format, the program 

combines elements of motivational interviewing 

(an approach designed to increase desire for 

change), cultural responsiveness (recognition 

and respect for cultural differences), and traumainformed care (understanding and responding 

to the signs and effects of trauma). Facilitators 

complete gender-responsive training and work 

to promote healthy relationships, resilience, 

and skill-building. A recent evaluation of Girls 

Circle with girls on probation in Illinois showed a 

reduction in delinquent behaviors for participants 

compared with girls in traditional juvenile 

services.

For more information, see https://

onecirclefoundation.org/GC.aspx.

SNAP Girls

Stop Now and Plan (SNAP) is a set of crime 

prevention programs developed and used in 

Canada. SNAP Girls is unique in that it serves 

preadolescent girls exhibiting behaviors such as 

bullying or aggression. Its developers adapted 

a gender-neutral intervention that had proved 

ineffective for the girls they served, creating a 

program that promotes healthy choices and 

girls’ development in relationship-building. The 

model includes individual, group, and parenting 

interventions as well as services to promote 

school engagement and success. A randomized 

controlled trial showed that, compared with girls 

on a waiting list, girls who participated in SNAP 

Girls had less problematic behavior, and the girls’ 

parents showed improvements in their approach 

to parenting. Behavioral effects were still evident 

four years later.

For more information, see www.snapconnection.org.

SOURCES: Gies et al. (2015); Kerig and Schindler (2013).

models), offer practical life skills and services 

to heal the effects of maltreatment, and focus

on treatment rather than punishment.18 For 

their part, program staff members wished they 

had better training to address trauma, resources to provide sex education and build 

relationship skills, more funding and policy 

support, and guidance on implementing 

elements of the gender-responsive model.19 In 

sum, although gender-responsive components are relatively well defined in literature, 

implementation of these components requires 

ongoing and additional support. 

Some recent studies have attempted to 

address the question of whether genderresponsive services are effective, and if so, 

for which groups. A study reporting on three 

randomized controlled trials of communitybased programs for girls in or at risk of 

entering the justice system found that 

gender-responsive programs showed shortterm gains in treatment persistence and 

completion and in school attendance and 

achievement, and a decline in new offenses. 

In two of the groups the effect diminished 

over time, but one program showed longterm (four-year) success in reducing behavior 

problems.20 That program, SNAP Girls, is 

highlighted in the box above. Another study 

found that gender-responsive services for 

women in prison may be most effective for 

women with histories of being abused, 

especially in reducing depression and substance abuse.21 In a third study, both boys 

and girls participated in either genderresponsive or traditional behavior-reinforcement programs in a detention facility. The 

study setting was unique in providing singlegender, gender-responsive services focusing 

on safety, strengths, and empowerment to 

both boys and girls. Outcomes of this study 

were that girls with trauma histories, mental 

health symptoms, and health-related 

complaints benefited more from gender-
5

MARCH 2017

responsive services than girls with only 

behavioral risk factors or boys regardless of 

risk factors.22 In other words, girls and 

women with common risk factors for female 

offending may be the most appropriate 

target for gender-responsive services, and 

those with only behavioral risk factors may 

benefit from traditional interventions.

THE PACE EVALUATION

In response to the need to better understand 

gender-responsive services, the PACE evaluation aims to provide evidence on the implementation and effectiveness of PACE Center 

for Girls. Fourteen PACE centers participated 

in the evaluation during the two-year study 

enrollment period, from August 2013 through 

October 2015.23 This brief highlights the key 

findings of the implementation study; a 

forthcoming report describes PACE’s implementation of its full set of services in greater 

detail.24

PACE has been using these findings to 

inform its ongoing program improvement 

efforts. More broadly, the evaluation makes a 

crucial contribution to knowledge on genderresponsive programs by providing a rich 

description of how PACE implements genderresponsive elements in its day-to-day work 

and comparing outcomes for girls randomly 

assigned to PACE with outcomes for a control 

group. The evaluation will also produce a 

cost-effectiveness analysis.

PACE’s Gender-Responsive Model

PACE Center for Girls currently operates 19 

nonresidential, year-round program sites 

across the state of Florida. Girls eligible for 

PACE, a voluntary program, are between the 

ages of 11 and 17, are typically struggling 

academically, and may exhibit behavioral 

problems, along with other risk factors for 

delinquency. PACE is unusual among genderresponsive programs in that it is a prevention 

and early intervention model, serving those at 

risk as well as those already involved with the 

justice system. Girls live primarily at home 

and attend PACE daily during normal school 

hours and receive academic and social 

services. See Figure 1 for further details about 

the program model. Girls typically plan to

attend PACE for approximately one year and 

often move on to other schools in their 

communities to complete their education. 

PACE was founded in 1985 on the idea 

that girls involved in the juvenile justice 

system need different services from boys. At 

the time, the literature on gender-responsive 

programming was slim. PACE has adjusted its 

gender-responsive model over time to align 

with emerging research. In 2009, PACE began 

what its president and CEO described as “a 

year-and-a-half process of really making sure 

that the model was linked to the literature and 

was linked to the theory on what works with 

girls,” and PACE still focuses on continuous 

quality improvement in an effort to improve 

services. This section describes the central 

components of PACE’s gender-responsive 

approach at the time the research was conducted, providing examples of how these 

components were put in practice and of girls’ 

experiences in the program.

PACE’s model is specified through a set of 

broad principles that articulate the organization’s overall mission and approach and a 

manual that provides particulars about how 

services should be provided. PACE provides 

its staff — managers, counselors, teachers, 

and support staff — with comprehensive 

training on its model and conducts ongoing 

quality assurance. The examples below show 

how PACE was able to enact many of the 

principles of gender-responsive programming 

described on page 3. Key to its success is how 

it defines these principles, weaves them into 

all aspects of service delivery, and focuses on 

training its staff to deliver the services.

Program Culture

PACE’s program culture is the foundation for 

its gender-responsive services. PACE seeks 

to provide girls with a program that is safe 

and that integrates a focus on relationships, 

a strengths-based approach, and an understanding of trauma in all aspects of program 
6

MDRC RESEARCH BRIEF
MARCH 2017

delivery. PACE promotes its culture primarily 

through a set of values and guiding principles. New staff members receive training 

on these principles and the practice of 

gender-responsive services, strengths-based 

behavior management, and trauma-informed 

care, as discussed below. PACE is unique 

among gender-responsive programs in that it 

provides academic services alongside social 

services, and the gender-responsive approach is incorporated into academic services as well. As a result, PACE must train its 

teachers, whose professional backgrounds 

are different from those of counselors, on 

gender-responsive approaches that they may 

not have had exposure to. 

The evaluation found that each PACE 

center in the study reflected a program culture 

that was consistent with PACE’s values and 

guiding principles. Overall, staff members 

demonstrated a solid understanding of the 

principles of gender-responsive programming. 

Teachers who were newer to PACE and had 

less of a clinical background tended to show 

the least knowledge of these principles. This 

finding indicates that staff turnover, and the 

need to train new staff members on the 

program environment, can be a barrier to 

providing the intended culture. 

Relational Approach

At PACE, staff relationships with girls are seen 

as central to implementing a gender-responsive 

approach and also to maintaining safety. To 

facilitate these relationships, PACE has a small 

staff-to-student ratio, averaging one staff 

member for every three girls. In interviews, staff 

members said that these relationships should 

be “loving,” “family-like,” “positive,” and 

“supportive,” and they emphasized the importance of knowing each girl and her background. 

Staff members model positive relationships 

through their interactions with each other and 

with the girls, and use peer mediation to help 

resolve conflicts between girls in the program. 

In addition, counselors work with girls on strategies to promote healthy relationships with their 

families and in their romantic relationships. 

Strengths-Based Approach

A strengths-based approach, a concept that 

originated in the social work field, focuses on 

building on a girl’s strengths and assets to 

help her achieve her goals. PACE incorporates a strengths-based approach throughout 

its activities. During one-on-one sessions, 

counselors help girls identify their strengths, 

and they refer back to those strengths when 

working with girls to address the challenges 

in their lives. Counselors also discuss girls’ 

particular strengths in meetings with their 

parents or guardians. Staff members provide 

immediate recognition when they see a girl 

exhibiting positive behavior, like volunteering 

to help a classmate, and each center uses a 

rewards system to acknowledge girls’ 

achievement of goals, such as maintaining 

good attendance. 

Trauma-Informed Approach

A trauma-informed approach describes the 

way in which an organization operates to 

respond to the needs of those who have 

experienced trauma. PACE’s traumainformed approach includes many elements 

of the best practices described by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration.25 PACE staff members are 

trained to understand the impact of trauma 

on a person’s life, recognize the symptoms of 

trauma, and interact with girls in a way that 

avoids further traumatizing them and supports their healing. PACE’s assessment 

process is used to identify potential sources 

of trauma in a girl’s history. This information 

is used both to determine what support a girl 

might need to manage prior traumas and to 

understand the impact of trauma on a girl’s 

behavior. Staff members described it as 

viewing a girl’s behavior in the context of her 

experiences outside of PACE. If a girl is being 

disruptive in class, staff members try to 

understand whether there is an issue at 

home driving the behavior as opposed to 

taking a punitive approach. 7
8

Safety 

PACE defines safety as an environment free 

from both physical and emotional threats. To 

promote physical safety, girls must check 

their personal belongings at the front desk 

when they arrive at PACE, and all visitors are 

screened before they can enter the facility. To 

prevent altercations among girls, staff 

members practice “sight and sound” super- PACE builds family engagement into its 

program in several ways. Parents and guardians participate in intake activities, including 

visiting the center before a girl’s enrollment. 

Once a girl is enrolled, counselors conduct a 

home visit within 30 days to assess the home 

environment. Counselors then meet monthly, 

ideally face to face, with a parent or guardian 

to provide updates on the girl’s progress. 

Staff members also check in with parents if 

issues emerge. 

vision, ensuring that all girls are within 

hearing or sight of a staff member at all 

times. Preventing bullying is a particular 

focus; centers provide antibullying education 

through the life skills classes. 

In interviews, staff members emphasized 

the importance of knowing the girls and their 

current situations as a way to maintain 

safety. When a girl enrolls, PACE evaluates 

her needs through a comprehensive assessment process to identify her risk factors and 

strengths. Daily communications among the 

staff provide updates on emergent issues 

with, or between, girls in the program. Staff 

members said they would pay close attention 

to girls they knew were in crisis. PACE tailors 

its approach to behavior management to 

each girl and her circumstances, but staff 

members consider the safety of all girls in 

the center when making decisions. 

Life Skills Training

To support their well-being and transition to 

adulthood, PACE offers girls life skills education, including health topics such as physical 

and reproductive health, drug and alcohol 

abuse, and managing stress. At most PACE 

centers, girls attend life skills class, which is 

called Spirited Girls!, on a regular basis. 

PACE uses the Girls Circle curriculum (see 

box on page 4), which incorporates relational 

theory and trauma-informed and strengthsbased approaches.26

PACE also provides opportunities for 

career exploration and volunteer service. 

Girls take a career assessment and learn 

about possible career options, and the 

program works to strengthen girls’ academic 

and “soft” skills (interpersonal skills and 

MDRC RESEARCH BRIEF

good work habits) to support work readiness. 

Spirited Girls! covers such topics as résumé 

writing and interviewing. Girls also participate 

in a volunteer service project each semester 

to promote self-esteem, build work readiness 

skills, and contribute to the community. 

Family Engagement

In interviews, staff members said that 

parental engagement could be challenging. 

For example, some parents are part of their

daughter’s struggles, but the parents do not 

want to see or acknowledge their role. To 

encourage parental engagement, staff members try to help meet parents’ needs, connecting them to resources such as food stamps 

or counseling. Counselors reported being 

flexible with meeting locations to accommodate parents’ schedules. Staff members 

would also reach out to parents with positive 

news about their daughters. These positive 

reports could be a new experience for parents 

accustomed to hearing from school only 

when their daughter was in trouble. Parents 

mostly described positive interactions with 

the staff at PACE and appreciated the progress updates and scheduling flexibility.

Girls’ Experience of GenderResponsive Programming

The PACE evaluation gathered information 

about girls’ experiences in the program and

their perspectives on gender-responsive 

components. These data indicate that, 

overall, girls at PACE experience the genderresponsive culture as PACE intends. Most 

girls described PACE as a safe place, a place 
9

MARCH 2017

they felt cared for, and they told of positive 

relationships with the staff at PACE. Girls 

enjoyed the small class sizes and individual 

attention. Most girls also enjoyed the Spirited 

Girls! class. They said that the counseling 

they received at PACE helped them recognize 

positive qualities about themselves and gain 

self-esteem. Nearly all girls interviewed said 

there was at least one PACE staff member 

with whom they could discuss personal 

issues. One girl said, “You have people to talk 

to. Even if your mom’s not around, they make 

you feel like you have a home [at PACE].” 

Not all girls enjoyed the program. Some 

girls interviewed disliked or felt awkward with 

the way staff members related to them; for 

example, some girls felt babied.27 The minor

-

ity of girls who did not like Spirited Girls! 

expressed discomfort with the topics discussed and the group discussions. The data 

suggest that not getting along with other 

girls in the program could contribute to a 

girl’s early departure.28 Some girls said that 

they came to PACE because of problems with 

other girls at a previous school, so this 

finding may not be a product of the singlesex environment at PACE. 

L E A R N I N G F R O M P A C E 

PACE provides one example of how genderresponsive principles can be put into action. 

The research found that PACE was successful 

in implementing its model as planned, owing 

to an approach that specified the intended 

program components and focused on training 

staff. PACE also benefits from stable sources of 

funding: a line-item appropriation in Florida’s 

state budget through the Florida Department 

of Juvenile Justice, and per student funding 

from local school districts. Consistent funding 

allows it to maintain a relatively stable staffing 

structure from year to year. 

The implementation research on PACE, 

detailed in a separate report, has shown that 

gender-responsive principles can be put into 

operation.29 The impact study of PACE will 

address the question of the program’s effec-

tiveness. Results to be released in 2018 will 

include PACE’s impact on important out-

comes for girls, such as school success, 

delinquency, relationships, and mental health, 

as well as the cost-effectiveness analysis. This 

will add to the body of knowledge about the 

effectiveness of gender-responsive programs 

for a population at risk of delinquency and 

other negative outcomes.

NOTES

1 Boxer and Goldstein (2012).

2 Covington and Bloom (2017).

3 Chesney-Lind, Morash, and Stevens (2008), Snyder 

and Sickmund (2006).

4 FBI statistics available at https://ucr.fbi.gov/ 

ucr-publications.

5 Chesney-Lind, Morash, and Stevens (2008).

6 Acoca and Dedel (1998).

7 Chesney-Lind, Morash, and Stevens (2008); Belknap, 

Holsinger, and Dunn (1997).

8 Chesney-Lind (1973).

9 Acoca and Dedel (1998).

10 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2017).

11 Zahn, Hawkins, Chiancone, and Whitworth (2008).

12 National Crittenton Foundation (2016). National 

Girls Initiative was formerly known as the National 

Girls Institute.

13 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2017).

14 Miller et al. (1995); Chesney-Lind and Shelden (2014).

15 Maniglia (1998); see “Female Psychology and the 

Study of Difference.”

16 Hubbard and Matthews (2008).

17 Chesney-Lind, Morash, and Stevens (2008).

18 Garcia and Lane (2013).

19 Hodge, Holsinger, and Maziarka (2015); King and 

Foley (2014).

20 Kerig and Schindler (2013).

21 Saxena, Messina, and Grella (2014).

22 Day, Zahn, and Tichavsky (2015).

23 The evaluation employs a random assignment design. 

Data sources for the study include program participation 

and cost data; a survey of PACE staff members; observa-

tions of program activities; interviews with staff members, 

girls, and parents; focus groups with girls; and a follow-up 

survey to the study sample of girls 12 months after study 

enrollment.

24 Treskon, Millenky, and Freedman (2017).

25 SAMHSA’s description of a trauma-informed ap-

proach includes a focus on safety, trustworthiness, and 
10

MDRC RESEARCH BRIEF

transparency; a focus on collaboration and relationships; Garcia, Crystal A., and Jodi Lane. 2013. “What a Girl 

Wants, What a Girl Needs: Findings from a GenderSpecific Focus Group Study.” Criminology & Penology 59, 

4: 536-561.

Gies, Stephen V., Marcia I. Cohen, Mark Edberg, Amanda 

Bobnis, Elizabeth Spinney, and Elizabeth Berger. 2015. The 

Girls Circle: An Evaluation of a Structured Support Group 

Program for Girls. Bethesda, MD: Development Services 

Group, Inc.

Greene, Peters, and Associates. 1998. Guiding Principles 

for Promising Female Programming: An Inventory of Best 

Practices. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Grella, Christine E., and Vandana Joshi. 2003. “Treat-

ment Processes and Outcomes Among Adolescents with 

a History of Abuse Who Are in Drug Treatment.” Child 

Maltreatment 8, 1: 7-18.

Hodge, Jessica P., Kristi Holsinger, and Kristen Maziarka. 

2015. “Assessing the Status of Gender-Specific Programs 

Through the Lens of Juvenile Justice Staff.” Women & 

Criminal Justice 25, 3: 184-200.

Hubbard, Dana Jones, and Betsy Matthews. 2008. “Rec-

onciling the Differences Between the ‘Gender-Responsive’ 

and ‘What Works’ Literatures to Improve Services for 

Girls.” Crime & Delinquency 54, 2: 225-258.

Iowa Commission on the Status of Women. 1999. Providing Gender-Specific Services for Adolescent Female Offenders: 

Guidelines and Resources. Des Moines: Iowa Commission on 

the Status of Women, Iowa Department of Human Rights.

Kerig, Patricia K., and Sheryl R. Schindler. 2013. “Engen-

dering the Evidence Base: A Critical Review of the Con-

ceptual and Empirical Foundations of Gender-Responsive 

Interventions for Girls’ Delinquency.” Laws 2: 244-282.

King, Erica, and Jillian E. Foley. 2014. Gender-Responsive 

Policy Development in Corrections: What We Know and 

Roadmaps for Change. Washington, DC: National Institute 

of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.

Maniglia, Rebecca. 1998. “Juvenile Female Offenders: A 

Status of the States Report.” Washington, DC: Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Depart-

ment of Justice. Website: www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gender/.

Miller, Darcy, Catherine Trapani, Kathy Fejes-Mendoza, 

Carolyn Eggleston, and Donna Dwiggins. 1995. “Adoles-

cent Female Offenders: Unique Considerations.” Adoles-

cence 30, 118: 429-435.

National Crittenton Foundation. 2016. “National Girls 

Initiative.” Website: www.nationalcrittenton.org/what-wedo/national-girls-initiative.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

2017. “Girls and the Juvenile Justice System.” Accessed 

January 30. Website: http://www.ojjdp.gov/policyguid-

ance/girls-juvenile-justice-system/.

a strengths-based approach; and recognition of cultural, 

historical, and gender issues. See Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration (2014).

26 One Circle Foundation (2012); Gies et al. (2015). Until 

recently, PACE had used an Spirited Girls! curriculum 

developed in-house in the 1990s.

27 In the study’s 12-month follow-up survey, 19 percent of 

girls who had attended PACE said they felt misunderstood by PACE staff members.

28 In the study’s 12-month follow-up survey, nearly onethird of girls who had left PACE said that not liking or get

-

ting along with other girls in the program was a contribut-

ing factor in their departure from the program.

29 Treskon, Millenky, and Freedman (2017).

REFERENCES

Acoca, Leslie, and Kelly Dedel. 1998. No Place to Hide: 

Understanding and Meeting the Needs of Girls in the Cali-

fornia Juvenile Justice System. San Francisco, CA: National 

Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Belknap, Joanne, Kristi Holsinger, and Melissa Dunn. 

1997. “Understanding Incarcerated Girls: The Results of a 

Focus Group Study.” Prison Journal 77, 4: 381-404.

Boxer, Paul, and Sara E. Goldstein. 2012. “Treating Juvenile 

Offenders: Best Practices and Emerging Critical Issues.” 

Pages 323-340 in Elena L. Grigorenko (ed.), Handbook of Ju-

venile Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry. New York: Springer.

Chesney-Lind, Meda. 1973. “Judicial Enforcement of the 

Female Sex Role.” Issues in Criminology 3: 51-71.

Chesney-Lind, Meda. 2001. “What About the Girls? Delin-

quency Programming As If Gender Mattered.” Corrections 

Today 63, 1: 38-45.

Chesney-Lind, Meda, Merry Morash, and Tia Stevens. 

2008. “Girls’ Troubles, Girls’ Delinquency, and Gender 

Responsive Programming: A Review.” Australian & New 

Zealand Journal of Criminology 4, 1: 162-189.

Chesney-Lind, Meda, and Randall G. Shelden. 2014. Girls, 

Delinquency and Juvenile Justice. New York: Wiley.

Covington, Stephanie S., and Barbara E. Bloom. 2017. 

“Center for Gender and Justice.” Website: http://centerfor-

genderandjustice.org/.

Day, Jacob C., Margaret A. Zahn, and Lisa P. Tichavsky. 

2015. “What Works for Whom? The Effects of Gender 

Responsive Programming on Girls and Boys in Secure 

Detention.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

52, 1: 93-129.

Dodge, Kenneth A. 2004. “Public Policy and the ‘Dis-

covery’ of Girls’ Aggressive Behavior.” Pages 302-312 in 

Martha Putallaz and Karen L. Bierman (eds.), Aggression, 

Antisocial Behavior, and Violence Among Girls: A Develop-

mental Perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
11

MARCH 2017

One Circle Foundation. 2012. “Girls Circle.” Website: 

https://onecirclefoundation.org/GC.aspx.

Saxena, Preeta, Nena Messina, and Christine Grella. 

2014. “Who Benefits from Gender Responsive Treatment? Accounting for Abuse History on Longitudinal 

Outcomes for Women in Prison.” Criminal Justice and 

Behavior 41, 4: 417-432.

Snyder, Howard N., and Melissa Sickmund. 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.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2014. SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. HHS Publication 

No. (SMA) 14-4884. Rockville, MD: Substance and 

Mental Health Services Administration.

Treskon, Louisa, Megan Millenky, and Lily Freedman. 

2017. Helping Girls Get Back on Track: An Implementation 

Study of the PACE Center for Girls. New York: MDRC.

Zahn, Margaret A., Stephanie R. Hawkins, Janet Chiancone, and Ariel Whitworth. 2008. The Girls Study Group 

— Charting the Way to Delinquency Prevention for Girls. 

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Foundation, Open Society Foundations, The Penzance 

Foundation, The Samberg Family Foundation, The 

Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, 

The Starr Foundation, Tipping Point Community, 

The Wallace Foundation, and the Weingart Foundation. 

Dissemination of MDRC publications is supported 

by the following funders that help finance MDRC’s public 

policy outreach and expanding efforts to communicate 

the results and implications of our work to policymakers, 

practitioners, and others: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, 

The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, Ford Foundation, The George Gund Foundation, Daniel and Corinne 

Goldman, The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, 

Inc., The JPB Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, The 

Kresge Foundation, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 

Sandler Foundation, and The Starr Foundation.

In addition, earnings from the MDRC Endowment 

help sustain our dissemination efforts. Contributors to 

the MDRC Endowment include Alcoa Foundation, The 

Ambrose Monell Foundation, Anheuser-Busch 

Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, Charles 

Stewart Mott Foundation, Ford Foundation, The 

George Gund Foundation, The Grable Foundation, The 

Lizabeth and Frank Newman Charitable Foundation, 

The New York Times Company Foundation, Jan 

Nicholson, Paul H. O’Neill Charitable Foundation, 

John S. Reed, Sandler Foundation, and The Stupski 

Family Fund, as well as other individual contributors.

The findings and conclusions in this report do not 

necessarily represent the official positions or policies 

of the funders. 

For information about MDRC and copies of our 

publications, see our website: www.mdrc.org. 

Copyright © 2017 by MDRC®. All rights reserved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The PACE evaluation is made possible through the 

support of many individuals and organizations. It 

is funded by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, the Corporation for National and Community 

Service, the Jessie Ball duPont Fund, and the Healy 

Foundation. At the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, we are grateful for the leadership of Teresa 

Power and Gabriel Rhoads. 

The authors would like to thank the staff 

members of the PACE centers that are participating in the evaluation for providing collaboration on 

this project while working tirelessly to provide 

services to girls in their communities. The PACE 

headquarters staff was also critical in supporting 

the evaluation and providing feedback on this 

brief. In particular, we are grateful to Mary Marx, 

Shana Brodnax, and Lymari Benitez. 

At MDRC, we thank Megan Millenky, Ginger 

Knox, Dan Bloom, Christopher Boland, and 

Samantha Wulfsohn for their comments on the 

brief. Hannah Wagner provided research assistance. Carolyn Thomas designed the graphic of 

PACE’s program model. Jennie Kaufman was our 

editor. Finally, we are grateful to the young people 

who agreed to participate in the research and who 

made this study possible. 

This material is based upon work supported 

by the Social Innovation Fund, a program of the 

Corporation for National and Community Service 

(CNCS). The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation’s 

Social Innovation Fund includes support from 

CNCS and 15 private co-investors: The Edna 

McConnell Clark Foundation, The Annie E. Casey 

Foundation, The Duke Endowment, The William 

and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The JPB Foundation, George Kaiser Family Foundation, The Kresge 
CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

16 East 34th Street

New York, NY 10016-4326

NONPROFIT

ORGANIZATION

 US POSTAGE 

PAID

MERRIFIELD VA 

5659

Bringing Gender-Responsive 

Principles into Practice

Evidence from the Evaluation of the PACE Center for Girls

Louisa Treskon and Charlotte Lyn Bright

F or more than three decades, gender-responsive programs have been part of the landscape of 

services provided to women and girls in, or at risk of entering, a justice system traditionally 

geared toward males. These single-sex programs — born out of research showing that girls’ risk factors 

and pathways into the justice system are different from boys’ — focus on girls’ unique needs and 

strengths. But while policies at the state and national levels support such services, research on their 

components and their effectiveness is limited. This brief describes the principles of gender-responsive 

programs, summarizes the literature, and presents highlights of MDRC’s implementation study of PACE 

Center for Girls. The PACE evaluation offers an important opportunity to describe how gender-responsive 

principles are put into operation in a real-world setting — across 14 locations in Florida — and to 

investigate the effects on girls’ lives.