U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

MAY 2008 

Girls 

Study Group 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

J. Robert Flores, Administrator 

Violence by Teenage Girls: 

Trends and Context 

Margaret A. Zahn, Susan Brumbaugh, Darrell Steffensmeier, Barry C. 

Feld, Merry Morash, Meda Chesney-Lind, Jody Miller, Allison Ann Payne, 

Denise C. Gottfredson, and Candace Kruttschnitt 

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 (OJJDP) 

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 adolesAccess OJJDP cents and how they differ for girls and boys; risk and protective factors associated 

with delinquency, including gender differences; and the causes and correlates of publications online at girls’ delinquency. 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

I

n June 2005, Newsweek ran a story media accounts. This Bulletin assesses 

■ ■ ■ titled “Bad Girls Go Wild,” which the accuracy of these assertions using 

described “the significant rise in violent the best available data. Drawing on 

behavior among girls” as a “burgeon- information from official arrest sources, 

ing national crisis” (Scelfo, 2005)—a nationally based self-report and victimdepiction that echoes other recent ization surveys, and studies reported 

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

Girls Study Group
 

in the social science literature, the 

Bulletin examines the involvement 

of girls in violent activity (including 

whether such activity has increased 

relative to the increase for boys) and 

the contexts in which girls engage in 

violent behavior. 

One of the most consistent and robust 

findings in criminology is that, for 

nearly every offense, females engage 

in much less crime and juvenile delinquency than males. In recent years, 

however, the extent and character of 

this gender difference in offending are 

increasingly being called into question by statistics and media reports 

suggesting the increasing involvement 

of girls in the juvenile and criminal 

justice systems. During the past twoand-a-half decades, official statistics 

suggest that female delinquency 

has undergone substantial changes 

compared with male delinquency. 

Between 1980 and 2005, arrests of girls 

increased nationwide, while arrests 

of boys decreased (Federal Bureau 

of Investigation, 2006). These arrest 

trends, along with high-profile cases 

of female delinquency, have become 

the main support for media headlines. 

However, because arrest counts 

are a product of both delinquent 

behavior and official responses to it, 

researchers and policymakers face 

a dilemma about how to interpret 

the arrest statistics. Do the increases 

in arrests indicate real changes in 

girls’ behaviors, or are the increases 

a product of recent changes in public 

sentiment and enforcement policies 

that have elevated the visibility and 

reporting of girls’ delinquency and 

violence? This Bulletin attempts to 

answer this question. 

Trends in Girls’ Violence 

This Bulletin relies on three data 

sources—official arrest data, selfreport data, and victimization data— 

to examine trends in girls’ violence 

from 1980 through 2005. Each source 

has strengths and weaknesses and 

provides a somewhat different picture of crime. 

Data Sources 

Official sources of data on delinquency include information collected and disseminated by local 

agencies such as police, as well as 

State and national organizations 

that disseminate information collected at the local level. The primary 

source of official data on delinquency 

comes from the Federal Bureau of 

Violence Defined 

Many different sources of data examine violence and girls’ involvement in it. However, 

these sources often rely on different definitions and measures of violence. Official 

criminal justice system data sources (e.g., Uniform Crime Reports) use legal definitions focusing on homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault (which usually involves 

assault with a weapon or assault producing injury), and simple assault (a behavior 

defined differently in various jurisdictions). Self-report studies and those involving 

interviews with adolescents focus on a variety of behaviors including, for example, 

fighting and weapon-carrying. Some studies include relational aggression in their 

definitions of violent behavior (see p. 11 for a discussion of relational aggression). 

In general, this Bulletin defines violence as behaviors that inflict or threaten to inflict 

bodily injury on other persons. 

Dr. Margaret Zahn, Senior Research Scientist, 

RTI International; Professor, North Carolina State 

University 

Dr. Robert Agnew, Professor, Department of 

Sociology, Emory University 

Dr. Elizabeth Cauffman, Assistant Professor, 

Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, 

University of California, Irvine 

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

Studies Program, University of Hawaii at 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 Minnesota 

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 Child and Family Policy, 

Duke University 

Girls 

Study Group Members 

2 
UnUnderstanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Investigation’s (FBI’s) Uniform Crime 

Report (UCR), published annually. 

Each UCR reflects thousands of local 

police reports on crimes known to 

police and on arrests, from which the 

FBI compiles statistics on the type of 

crime (roughly 30 broad categories), 

the location of the arrest (urban, suburban, or rural), and the demographic characteristics of the offender (e.g., 

age, gender). 

Self-report surveys on juvenile crime 

and its correlates are another major 

source of information. In addition to 

the detailed information on respondent characteristics, the main benefit 

of self-report data is the information 

obtained on crimes that were committed by youth but not known to the 

police. Most self-report delinquency 

surveys are cross-sectional (i.e., cover 

only one point in time) and localized 

(i.e., limited to a particular community or region). Among the surveys 

that provide longitudinal or trend 

data on youth delinquency for the 

Nation as a whole, the authors use 

Monitoring the Future (MTF).1

 MTF 

is an ongoing study of the behaviors, 

attitudes, and values of American 

secondary school students. Each 

year, a total of approximately 50,000 

8th, 10th, and 12th grade students are 

surveyed (12th graders since 1975, 

and 8th and 10th graders since 1991). 

Victimization surveys provide a third 

important source of information on 

delinquent behavior. These types of 

data provide a different perspective. 

Whereas information on self-reported 

delinquent activity is collected from 

the offender, the source of information for victimization surveys is 

the victim of criminal activity. The 

Census Bureau has conducted the 

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) for the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics annually since 1973. Each 

year, NCVS interviews individuals 

age 12 and older in a nationally representative sample of approximately 

50,000 households. Victims of various 

types of crimes (including violent 

and property crimes) report detailed 

characteristics of criminal events, 

Primary Data Sources 

■ Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)

arrest data. 

■ Monitoring the Future (MTF). 

■ National Crime Victimization 

Survey (NCVS). 

including time and location, level of 

physical and property damage, and— 

in the case of violent crime—the 

perceived characteristics (e.g., age, 

gender, race) of the offender(s). 

Trends in Arrests for Violent 

Offenses: UCR Data 

In 2005, out of 14 million arrests, 2.1 

million involved juveniles (Snyder, 

forthcoming).2

 Juveniles comprised 

about 15 percent of arrests for all 

offenses, about 16 percent of arrests 

for Violent Crime Index3

 offenses, 

and about 26 percent of arrests for 

Limitations 

All three data sources have limitations. The official or arrest data capture only detected 

offenses—those that are known to the police or that result in an arrest. Reporting 

police agencies also vary widely in their reporting coverage. Some jurisdictions have 

100-percent reporting, while other jurisdictions are underrepresented. Moreover, 

because offense categories are very broad, conclusions may be misleading.* For 

example, the increase in girls’ arrests for “serious crimes” (i.e., UCR Index Crimes, as 

discussed and defined later in this Bulletin) is largely attributable to the inclusion of 

larceny-theft in that category. Furthermore, arrest data may be affected by changes in 

enforcement policy that may affect one gender more than the other. Given the gender 

difference in the character and context of delinquency (i.e., that girls generally engage 

in less serious forms of crime), changes in laws and enforcement toward targeting 

less serious forms of lawbreaking may disproportionately impact the risk of arrest for 

females. 

Limitations of self-report and victimization data are that they typically cover only a 

few forms of lawbreaking and have sampling deficiencies (e.g., MTF is administered 

in schools and so would underreport crimes committed by youth who have dropped 

out of school or are frequently truant, and NCVS only interviews victims who are 

age 12 and older). These data are, however, particularly useful for thinking about 

whether girls’ delinquency trends reflect changes in underlying behavior or changes 

in enforcement and arrest policies—at least when data sources overlap for the forms 

of law-violating behavior being measured. For example, longitudinal arrest data on 

assault can be compared with information on assaults collected in self-report and 

victimization surveys over time. Confidence in recent assertions regarding levels of 

violence among girls is enhanced if all of these sources agree on the nature of the 

trends, whereas confidence is diminished if the sources disagree. 

*Reporting agencies classify each arrest by the most serious offense charged in that arrest. If a 

juvenile is arrested for an aggravated assault and a simple assault, only the aggravated assault is 

counted in the report—the accompanying simple assault would not be represented in the data. 

This means that UCR data may be underrepresenting certain offenses when they are committed 

at the same time as more serious offenses. 

3 
Girls Study Group
 

Property Crime Index4 offenses. Girls 

comprised nearly one-third (29 percent) of all juvenile arrests, about 

one-third (34 percent) of arrests 

for Property Crime Index offenses, 

and less than one-fifth (18 percent) 

of arrests for Violent Crime Index 

offenses. Although serious and violent crimes capture media and public 

attention, the vast majority of juvenile arrests are for less serious offenses—nonindex and status offenses5 

accounted for three-quarters (76 percent) of all juvenile arrests. 

Only 4 percent of juvenile arrests 

in 2005 were for Violent Crime 

Index offenses; aggravated assaults 

accounted for two-thirds (64 percent) of Violent Crime Index juvenile arrests (3 percent of all juvenile 

arrests). Girls comprised about onequarter (24 percent) of all juvenile 

arrests for aggravated assault. By 

contrast, simple assaults accounted 

for 12 percent of all juvenile arrests; 

other than larceny-theft and “all 

other offenses,” simple assault was 

the offense for which police made 

the largest number of juvenile arrests 

(247,900). Significantly, girls accounted for one-third (33 percent) of juvenile arrests for simple assault, the 

largest female proportion of arrests 

for any type of violent crime. 

Although girls comprise a smaller 

overall portion of juvenile arrests 

than boys, the two groups’ arrest patterns have diverged somewhat over 

the past decade. As the percentage 

changes in table 1 indicate, juvenile 

arrests generally decreased between 

1996 and 2005, but the decrease was 

greater for boys than for girls; the 

exception to the general trend was 

arrests for simple assault, which 

increased for girls while decreasing 

for boys.6 

Arrests for aggravated assault comprise the single largest component 

of the Violent Crime Index, and 

arrests for simple assault are the 

largest component of nonindex 

violent arrests. As shown in table 1, 

boys’ arrests for aggravated assault 

decreased nearly one-quarter (–23 

percent) between 1996 and 2005, 

while girls’ arrests decreased far 

less (–5 percent). In contrast, girls’ 

arrests for simple assault increased 

nearly one-quarter (24 percent), 

while boys’ arrests decreased slightly 

(–4 percent). For Violent Crime Index 

offenses, arrests of males decreased 

more substantially (–28 percent) than 

did arrests of females (–10 percent). 

Between 1996 and 2005, the overall total of juvenile arrests dropped 

about 22 percent, primarily because 

arrests of males decreased 29 percent, whereas arrests of females 

decreased 14 percent. 

Table 1: Percent Change in Male 

and Female Juvenile Arrests for 

Violent Crimes, 1996–2005 

Type Girls Boys 

Aggravated assault –5.4% –23.4% 

Simple assault 24.0 –4.1 

Violent Crime Index –10.2 –27.9 

All crimes –14.3 –28.7 

Source: Crime in the United States, 2005—Table 

33 (FBI, 2006) 

Steffensmeier and colleagues (2005) 

assess statistically whether the gender difference in arrest trends over 

the past two decades has been narrowing, widening, or has remained 

essentially stable. Based on UCR 

arrest data from 1980 through 2003, 

their analysis found that the gender 

difference in arrest rates is essentially 

stable for homicide, rape, and robbery but has narrowed considerably 

for aggravated assault and simple 

assault (Steffensmeier et al., 2005). 

The gender difference for the Violent Crime Index has also narrowed 

significantly, but this narrowing is 

largely attributable to the rise in 

female juvenile arrest rates for aggravated assault during the 1990s (see 

figure 1). If arrests for aggravated 

assault are omitted from the Index, 

the trend is essentially stable. 

To better show what a narrowing or 

widening gender difference in violence means, figure 1 plots juvenile 

female and male arrest rate trends for 

aggravated assault, simple assault, 

and the Violent Crime Index (sum of 

arrests for homicide, robbery, rape, 

and aggravated assault), along with 

the female percentage of arrests, 

according to the UCR. 

Over the past two decades, clear 

changes have occurred in girls’ 

arrests and between boys’ and girls’ 

patterns of arrests in aggravated and 

simple assault. As figure 1 indicates, 

boys’ and girls’ arrests for aggravated 

assault diverged conspicuously—the 

female arrest rate in 2003 (88.3 girls 

per 100,000) was nearly double 

the arrest rate in 1980 (45 girls per 

100,000). Although males’ arrest rate 

for aggravated assault was five times 

higher than that of females, males’ 

proportional increase from 1980 to 

2003 (12.5 percent, from 239.4 to 

269.5 boys per 100,000) was much 

more modest than that of girls. 

The juvenile arrest rate for simple 

assaults is more than three times 

greater than the rate for aggravated 

assaults. Again, changes in the arrest 

rates of females for simple assault 

over the past two decades have 

greatly outpaced those of males. The 

arrest rate of girls for simple assault 

in 2003 was more than triple (3.5 

times) the rate in 1980 (478.3 versus 

129.7 per 100,000). Although male 

arrests for simple assaults started 

from a higher base rate, that rate 

4 
UnUnderstanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

barely doubled over the same period 

Figure 1: Trends in Juvenile Female and Male Arrest Ratesa (per 100,000) 

and Juvenile Female Percentage of Arrestsb

 for Violent Offending: Uniform 

Crime Reports, 1980–2003 

(934.4 versus 462.7 per 100,000). 

Arrest rates for both groups peaked in 

the mid-1990s, and then male rates 

A. Aggravated Assault exhibited a much sharper dropoff 

50 than female rates. Moreover, while 

45 the male juvenile arrest rate for Vio­ 40 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

Rate per 100,000

lent Crime Index offenses was lower 

Female Percentage Female Percentage Female Percentage

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

in 2003 than in 1980, the rate for girls 

was much higher—the girls’ arrest 

rate for Violent Crime Index offenses 

rose from 70.4 to 103.1 per 100,000 

between 1980 and 2003, a 46-percent 

increase. Thus, the juvenile “crime 5 

0 drop” of the past decade reflects 

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 primarily changes in arrest rates for Male Ra te s Fe ma le Rates Fe ma le Pe rc e ntag e s boys.
 

In general, the gender difference in 
 B. Simple Assault 50 arrests has narrowed considerably for 

45 aggravated assault and simple assault 

40 and has also narrowed for the Violent 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

Rate per 100,000

Crime Index—the female percentage 

of juvenile arrests held steady during 

the 1980s, followed by a fairly steep 

rise in the female share of juvenile 

arrests during the 1990s. The Index 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 trend essentially matches the pat­ 5 

tern for aggravated assault, primarily 0 

because the large arrest volumes for 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 

Male Ra te s Fe ma le Rates Female Perc en ta g es aggravated assault (two-thirds of all 

Violent Index offenses) swamped 

the effects of arrest trends in the C. Violent Crime Indexc 

other Index violent crimes during 2500 50 

the 1990s. 45 

2000 40 

Figure 1 helps clarify whether the 

Rate per 100,000 

35 

1500 30 movement in arrest rates is similar 

for both genders and whether sub­ 25 

1000 20 stantial gender differences in juvenile 15 arrests for violent offenses still exist. 500 10 

5 

0 0 

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 

Ma le Rates Fe ma le Rates Fem ale Pe rc e ntage s 

a Rates are adjusted for the gender composition of the population and for changes in UCR coverage over 


time. The population base includes ages 12–17.
 

b Female Percentage = Female Rate / (Female Rate + Male Rate) x 100%
 

c The Violent Crime Index includes homicide, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery
 

Source: Steffensmeier et al., 2005. Permission was given by the American Society of Criminology to reprint 


this figure, which was originally published in Criminology (Vol. 43, No. 2).
 

Data indicate that trends in arrest 

rates are roughly similar for both 

genders across all violent crime categories, but with some divergence 

since the mid-1990s. For example, 

arrest rates rose for both boys and 

girls over much of the past two 

decades, particularly during 1986–94. 

Then rates leveled off or declined in 

the late 1990s for boys, while rates 

5 
 

Girls Study Group 

for girls merely stabilized or continued to inch upward. Therefore, the 

narrowing difference in trends (particularly for both types of assault) is 

at least partly a function of the recent 

downward movement in boys arrest 

rates for violence. 

Figure 2: Ratio of Simple/Aggravated Assault Rates for Juvenile Males and 

Females, 1980–2003 

6
 

5
 

4 

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003 

Male 

Female 

Figure 2 compares the simple/ 

aggravated assault arrest rate ratios 

(arrest rate for simple assault divided 

by the arrest rate for aggravated 

assault) over two decades for boys 

and girls. These ratios and changes 

Ratio of Arrest Rates 

3 

2 

in the ratios indicate the relative 

seriousness of offenses for which 

police have arrested juveniles. In 

1980, the ratio for girls was 2.9, which 

means that police arrested girls for 

simple assault about three times as 

often as they arrested girls for aggravated assault. They arrested boys for 

simple assault about twice (1.9 times) 

as often as they arrested boys for 

aggravated assault. By 2003, police 

arrested girls more than five times 

(5.4) as often for simple assault as 

for aggravated assault. By contrast, 

the ratio of boys’ arrests for simple 

to aggravated assault was just over 

threefold (3.5). These ratios show that 

(1) arrests for simple assault are more 

common than for aggravated assault 

(i.e., the ratios for both boys and girls 

are greater than 1.0) and (2) simple 

assaults comprise a larger percentage 

of arrests for girls than for boys (i.e., 

the simple/aggravated assault ratios 

are consistently higher for girls than 

for boys), particularly in recent years. 

These differences in ratios are partly 

explained by gender differences in 

the underlying trends for aggravated and simple assaults. The large 

decline in boys’ arrests for aggravated assaults over the past decade 

raised their ratio of simple to aggravated assault. By contrast, the larger 

increase in the girls’ ratio of simple 

to aggravated assault is attributable 

1
 

0
 

Source: National Center for Juvenile Justice (February 28, 2005), available at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ 

crime/excel/jar_20050228.xls. 

to their large increase in arrests for 

simple assault over the same period. 

The statistics on juvenile arrests 

for assault point to certain conclusions about the seriousness of 

girls’ violence, especially relative 

to the seriousness of boys’ violence. Although juvenile arrests for 

assault—regardless of gender—are 

far more likely to involve simple 

assault than aggravated assault, the 

fact that the ratio of simple to aggravated assault arrests is much higher 

for girls than boys suggests that most 

girls’ violence is of a less serious 

nature than boys’ violence. Moreover, one of the reasons that boys are 

more likely than girls to be charged 

with aggravated assault is that boys 

use weapons more frequently and 

physically inflict more injury on 

their victims—both indicators of the 

relative seriousness of boys’ versus 

girls’ violence. Finally, although girls’ 

rate of arrest for simple assault has 

increased over the decades, their 

arrest rate for aggravated assault 

has not. 

Despite dramatic changes in the 

number and rate of arrests and in 

simple/aggravated assault ratios, 

the question remains whether these 

trends signify a real change in girls’ 

underlying violent behavior or reflect 

other factors. 

Researchers have examined the 

changing nature of assaults over the 

past decades by comparing ratios 

of aggravated assaults to homicides 

(e.g., Zimring, 1998) or ratios of 

assaults to robberies (e.g., Zimring 

and Hawkins, 1997; Snyder and 

Sickmund, 2000). Because arrests 

for assault increased without corresponding increases in arrests for 

homicide or robbery, these analysts 

attribute the increases in assault 

arrests to changes in law enforcement policies, such as responses to 

domestic violence, rather than to 

actual increases in assaults. Several 

factors relevant to interpreting statistics on girls’ arrests for assault must 

be considered: 

6 
UnUnderstanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

■	 Law enforcement policies that 

lower the threshold for reporting 

an assault or for classifying an 

assault as ag gravated may create 

the appearance of a “crime wave” 

when the underlying behavior 

remains relatively stable. 

■	 Heightened sensitivity to domestic 

violence has led many States and 

localities to implement “mandatory arrest” policies in response to 

domestic disturbances. Behaviors 

once considered “ungovernable” 

(a status offense) may, in a domestic situation, result instead in an 

arrest for simple assault—possibly 

in response to the Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention Act 

of 2002, which requires States to 

decriminalize and deinstitutionalize status offenses (Schneider, 

1984; Mahoney and Fenster, 1982; 

Chesney-Lind and Sheldon, 2004; 

Girls Inc., 1996). 

■	 Family dynamics may also contribute to gender differences in 

juvenile arrests for assault. Parents have different expectations 

about their sons’ and daughters’ 

obedience to parental authority 

(Chesney-Lind, 1988), and these 

expectations may affect how the 

justice system responds to a girl’s 

behavior when she “acts out” within the home (Krause and McShane, 

1994). Research indicates that 

girls fight with family members 

or siblings more frequently than 

boys, who more often fight with 

friends or strangers (Bloom et al., 

2002). Some research suggests that 

girls are three times as likely as 

boys to assault a family member 

(Franke, Huynh-Hohnbaum, and 

Chung, 2002). 

■	 Policies of mandatory arrest for 

domestic violence, initially adopted to protect victims from further 

attacks, also provide parents with 

another method for attempting 

to control their “unruly” daughters. Regardless of who initiates 

a violent domestic incident, law 

enforcement first responders may 

consider it more practical and 

efficient to identify the youth as 

the offender, especially when the 

parent is the caretaker for other 

children in the home (Gaarder, 

Rodriguez, and Zatz, 2004). 

■	 It is possible that school officials’ 

adoption of zero-tolerance policies toward youth violence may 

increase the number of youth 

referred to police for schoolyard 

tussles that schools previously 

handled internally. 

One way of assessing the “policy 

change hypothesis” is to compare 

girls’ arrest trends for violent offenses 

to trends reflected in self-report and 

victimization data, using MTF and 

NCVS. Unlike the UCR, these data 

are not limited to cases that come to 

the attention of the police or result in 

arrests. If higher female arrest rates 

for violent crime are a byproduct 

of policy changes, then one would 

expect to find disagreement between 

official and unofficial data sources, 

with arrest data showing noticeably 

larger gains in female violence than 

found in self-report or victimization 

data. In contrast, if higher female 

rates reflect true changes in the 

aggressive tendencies of girls, then 

data sources should generally be in 

agreement. 

Trends in Self-Reported Assaults: 

Monitoring the Future Data 

As with the UCR arrest data, 

Steffensmeier and colleagues (2005) 

used MTF data from 1980 through 

2003 to explore female- versus-male 

trends with tests to determine any 

statistical differences. Focusing on 

What Do We Learn From 

Self-Report Data? 

In contrast to official arrest statistics, self-report data from the Monitoring the Future surveys show that 

levels of assault for juvenile females 

and males have been fairly constant 

over the past two decades and 

that female involvement in violence 

has not increased relative to male 

violence. 

self-reported assaults, the researchers calculated prevalence (one or 

more incidents) and high frequency 

(five or more incidents) estimates for 

an assault index comprising three 

assault items7

 for 12th graders (ages 

17–18). Data indicate marked stability in the separate trends for both 

boys and girls for the assault index 

over the 1980–2003 period, regardless of whether prevalence or highfrequency measures are used. 

These statistical patterns are illustrated in figure 3 (p. 8), where the 

trends over the past two decades 

show overall stability (i.e., random 

fluctuations rather than any consistent upward or downward trend). 

Assault rates among both girls and 

boys are relatively unchanged over 

this period, although female assault 

levels are consistently lower than 

male levels for both prevalence and 

high- frequency measures. Also, the 

gender difference in high-frequency 

violent assaults is quite large: Girls 

account for an average of about 15 

percent of high-frequency assaults, 

compared with about 35 percent for 

less frequent or minor involvement 

in violence. 

7 
Girls Study Group
 

Figure 3: Trends in Female and Male Self-Reported Assault* and 

Female Percentage of Violent Offending: Monitoring the Future, 

1980–2003 (17- and 18-year-olds) 

A. Prevalence (one or more assaults) 

100 50 

90 45 

80 40 

assault and simple assault are stable, 

a pattern contrary to UCR arrest 

trends, which show a narrowing gender gap. The gender difference in 

NCVS trends is also stable for the Violent Crime Index, also contrary to the 

UCR trends. 

Figure 4 (p. 9) illustrates these 

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 

70 35 

Female Percentage Female Percentage 

findings by showing NCVS rates 

of violence for juvenile males and 

females (per 100,000), along with the 

relevant female percentages. Based 

on NCVS reports, girls’ violence levRate per 100 Rate per 100

60 30 

50 25 

40 20 

30 15 

20 10 els are much lower than boys’ levels. 

5 Girls’ rates typically rise when boys’ 

0 rates rise and decline when boys’ 

10 

0 

rates decline (i.e., male and female 

Ma le Ra tes Fe male Rate s Fema le Per c e nta ge s rates move in tandem), yielding a 

stable gender gap in overall violence. 

Similar to UCR data, girls’ and boys’ B. High frequency (five or more assaults) 50 assault rates rose during the late 

45 1980s through the early 1990s and 

100 

90 

40 then tapered off, but the rise is small­ 80 

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 

er and the decline is greater in the 

NCVS series than in the UCR series. 

The NCVS data show both girls’ and 

boys’ rates of assault dropping considerably in recent years, whereas the 

70 35 

60 30 

50 25 

40 20 

30 15 

20 10 

10 5 

0 0 

Ma le Ra te s Fe ma le Ra te s Fe ma le Pe rc e n ta g e s 

* Items in the assault index include (1) hit instructor/supervisor, (2) fight at school/work, and (3) hurt 

someone badly in a fight. 

Source: Steffensmeier et al., 2005. Permission was given by the American Society of Criminology to reprint 

this figure, which was originally published in Criminology (Vol. 43, No. 2). 

Trends in Victims’ Reports 

of Assaults: National Crime 

Victimization Survey Data 

Steffensmeier and colleagues (2005) 

also analyzed NCVS data to explore 

trends in assault and violence as 

reported by victims. Again, their analysis relies on statistical tests and illustrative plots of female- versus-male trends 

during 1980–2003. The results indicate 

that the rates of violence among adolescent females relative to rates 

among adolescent males have 

changed very little during this period 

(i.e., year-to-year changes in femaleversus-male rates are not statistically 

significant). This is true for violent 

offenses in general and assault in particular. The trends for both aggravated 

UCR data show that assault arrest 

rates declined only for boys. This telling difference between the two data 

sources supports the conclusion that 

policy shifts and changes in enforcement may have had a greater impact 

on arrest rates than have actual 

changes in the behavior of girls. 

The gender difference in violence is 

fairly comparable between NCVS and 

UCR figures in earlier years, but the 

two sources diverge in more recent 

years, as would be expected based 

on the policy change hypothesis. 

For example, the female percentage 

for the assault index (defined the 

same in the NCVS as in the UCR as 

aggravated assaults, simple assaults, 

and other offenses against persons) 

in the early 1980s was about 18–20 

percent in both the NCVS and the 

8 
UnUnderstanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

What Do We Learn From 

Victimization Data? 

In contrast to official arrest statistics, victimization data from the 

National Crime Victimization Survey 

show very little change in the gender gap for assault crimes and the 

Violent Crime Index over the past 

two decades and since the 1994 

peak in violent crimes. 

Figure 4: Trends in Juvenile Female and Male Violence Ratesa (per 

100,000) and Female Percentage of Violent Offending: National Crime 

Victimization Survey, 1980–2003 

A. Aggravated Assault 

50000 50 

45000 45 

40000 40 

Rate per 100,000 Rate per 100,000	 Rate per 100,000

Female Percentage	 Female Percentage Female Percentage

35000 

30000 

25000 

20000 

15000 

10000 

5000 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 UCR—essentially no difference; by 0 

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 

50000 

45000 

40000 

Male Ra tes Female Ra tes Female Perc en tag es 

B. Simple Assault 

0	 the late 1990s, however, the percentage holds steady at about 20 percent 

in the NCVS but jumps to about 30 

percent in the UCR. Sizable declines 

in NCVS assault rates in recent years 50 

45 have considerably outpaced the 

4 0 	 much smaller declines in UCR 

assault arrest rates, particularly 

among adolescent girls. 

Several conclusions can be drawn 

from the NCVS data: 

■ First, gender differences in juve35000 35 

30000 30 

25000 25 

20000 20 

15000 15 

10000 10 

5000 5 nile violent offending, including 0 0 assault, have not changed mean­ 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 

ingfully or systematically in the Male Rates Female Rates Fe m a le Pe r c e n ta g e s 

NCVS data since 1980. The NCVS 

assault finding stands in sharp C. Violent Crime Indexb 

50000 50 contrast to UCR arrest statistics, 

45000 45 where the gender difference has 

40000 40 

35000 35 

30000 30 

25000 25 

narrowed significantly for both 

simple and aggravated assault. 

■ Second, the NCVS series reveals 

sharp declines in assault crimes 

among both girls and boys since 

20000 20 

15000 15 

80 81 

0 

5000 

10000 

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 

0 

5 

10 

Male Rates Fe ma le Rate s Female Per c e nta g es 

a Data are adjusted to take into account effects of the survey redesign in 1992. The multiplier is offense 

and sex specific and is calculated based only on juvenile data. The formula is: Multiplier = (n92 + n93 + 

n94)/(n90 + n91 + n92). 

b The Violent Crime Index includes aggravated assault, rape, and robbery. 

Source: Steffensmeier et al., 2005. Permission was given by the American Society of Criminology to reprint 

this figure, which was originally published in Criminology (Vol. 43, No. 2). 

about the mid-1990s, but girls’ 


declines are not seen in the UCR 


arrest data. This discrepancy in the 


two data sources may be caused 


in part by changes in policies and 


practices. 


■	 Third, these possible changes in 

policy are particularly salient for 

girls, whose arrest figures have 

9 
 

Girls Study Group
 

Figure 5: Summary of Trends in Juvenile Gender Gap for Assault in Arrest 

Data Compared With Victimization and Self-Report Sources: Uniform 

Crime Reports, National Crime Victimization Survey, and Monitoring the 

Future,1980–2003 

A. Assault Index (all juveniles): UCR and NCVS 

gain insight into female offending 

patterns, the Girls Study Group has 

explored the context in which girls 

exhibit violence. In a nationally 

representative sample, research has 

found that for both girls and boys, 

physical aggression is most common 

among same-sex peers, accounting 

for about 50 percent of incidents in 

which adolescents are violent (Franke 

et al., 2002). For girls who are physically assaultive, a family member 

is the second most common target 

(20.2 percent of girls’ compared with 

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 8 7 8 8 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 

UCR N CV S 

B. Assault Index (ages 17–18): UCR and MTF 

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 

UCR M TF (Pr ev a le n c e ) MTF (High Frequenc y ) 

Source: Steffensmeier et al., 2005. Permission was given by the American Society of Criminology to reprint 

this figure, which was originally published in Criminology (Vol. 43, No. 2). 

continued to rise or barely level graphs clearly show the upward trend 


off compared with victim reports in the female percent of arrests for 


that show sizable declines in girls’ assaults based on UCR arrest data, 


assaults since at least the mid- while the trends based on victimiza1990s. tion data and self-reports have been 


fairly stable over time. 

Summary 

Figure 5 highlights the differences in Context of Girls’ Violence 

trends between official arrest data In addition to analyzing juvenile 

(UCR) and victimization (NCVS) and violence trends in arrests, victimizaself-report (MTF) sources. These tion, and self-reported behavior to 

What Have We Learned 

About Trends In Girls’ and 

Boys’ Violence? 

Across all data sources, the gender 

difference in trends for minor kinds 

of violence (e.g., simple assault) is 

much smaller than the gender difference for more serious violence 

(e.g., aggravated assault). In contrast to conclusions about rises in 

girls’ violence based on arrest statistics (UCR), the results from other 

sources (MTF and NCVS) show very 

little overall change in girls’ assault 

levels or in Violent Crime Index 

offenses and essentially no change 

in the gender differences or femaleto-male ratio of violent offending. 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 

Female Percentage

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 

Female Percentage 

10 
UnUnderstanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

5.7 percent of boys’ fights are with 

family members). The second most 

common target of boys’ assaults is 

strangers. Consistent with this pattern, girls’ violence more often occurs 

at home, whereas boys’ violence 

more often occurs away from home. 

Findings that girls are particularly 

likely to act violently in certain settings or under certain conditions 

affirm the importance of examining 

the context of violence for insights 

into why girls are sometimes violent. 

Violence Against Peers 

Girls and boys are more likely to 

attack their same-sex peers than any 

other type of victim (Franke et al., 

2002), as noted above. A study by 

Lockwood (1997) found that, regardless of gender, the most common reasons youth were violent toward peers 

was to punish them for something 

done or said, to get them to back 

down from offensive actions, and in 

self-defense. Physical touching, often 

aggressive, was the most frequent 

immediate precipitator of a violent 

incident. The second most common 

trigger of peer violence was negative 

verbal exchanges. 

Other researchers have examined 

the relationship between physical 

violence and relational aggression, 

which includes trying to damage 

the social standing or self-esteem 

of peers by using verbal rejection, 

gossip, rumor spreading, and social 

ostracism (Cairns et al., 1989; Galen 

and Underwood, 1997). In some 

social and cultural groups, the 

influences against fighting weaken 

the connection of relational aggression to physical violence; specifically, 

Goodwin (1990) found that among 

middle-class African American 

youth, episodes of relational aggression were followed by nonphysical 

confrontations and ostracism but 

Context Defined 

Context includes targets (e.g., peers, family members); specific settings (e.g., 

schools, neighborhoods, peer groups); and the precursors (e.g., prior victimization, 

relational aggression) leading up to an act of violence. 

not by physical fighting. Corsaro and 

Eder (1990) found that relational 

aggression among economically disadvantaged girls may be more likely 

to escalate into physical fighting, 

perhaps due to a need or desire to 

emphasize one’s own toughness and 

independence. Whether relational 

aggression leads to physical fighting 

may be tempered by other factors 

such as social class and local community and peer group norms (on 

peer group norms, see Crick, Bigbee, 

and Howe, 1996). 

Research indicates that another factor in girls’ violence against other 

girls involves the contradictory messages girls receive regarding sexuality. 

For most girls, models and images 

of healthy sexual desire are rare or 

nonexistent (Welles, 2005). Rigid 

imagery about “appropriate” behavior for girls can emphasize being 

attractive to and desired by boys and 

at the same time, send girls messages 

that they are valued for abstaining 

from sexual behavior. A great deal of 

societal emphasis is placed on being 

thin and looking like a supermodel 

or a Barbie doll (Schooler, Ward, and 

Merriwether, 2004; Wolf, 1991; Bordo, 

1993; Davis, 1995). Artz (1997) found 

that the girls at risk for engaging in 

same-sex peer violence did not have 

any sense of themselves or other girls 

as having their own legitimate sexual 

desires or being valued. They understood their own sexual value only in 

relation to how they satisfied males 

and lived up to idealized standards 

of femininity. Thus, these girls were 

quick to strike out at other girls who 

threatened their view of self or their 

relationships with valued males. 

Violence Against Family Members 

After peers, family members are the 

second most common target of girls’ 

violence. Data from the FBI’s National 

Incident-Based Reporting System for 

2001 (FBI, 2003), analyzing reports 

of assaults by juvenile males and 

females by type of victim, clearly 

show that girls are more likely to 

be involved in both aggravated and 

simple assaults against adult family 

members than are their male peers, 

as shown in table 2 (p. 12). 

When a girl uses violence against a 

family member, a parent—usually 

the mother—is the most common 

target.8 

Prior victimization (in the home, in 

the community, or at school) appears 

to be a significant precursor to violent behavior for girls (Song, Singer, 

and Anglin, 1998; Molnar et al., 2005). 

Violence against a family member 

may also be a result of social learning that takes place when girls watch 

family and others who are constantly 

assaulting them and each other 

(Miller, 2001). Although girls are 

more likely than boys to internalize 

negative emotions when victimized 

(e.g., become depressed or anxious), 

they do sometimes exhibit externalizing behavior, using violence in selfdefense, to prevent further attack, or 

because they are angry. 

11 
Girls Study Group
 

Table 2: Type of Victim in Aggravated and Simple Assaults by 

Boys and Girls 

Simple Assault Aggravated Assault 

Type of Victim Boys Girls Boys Girls 

Juvenile family 

Juvenile acquaintance 

Juvenile stranger 

Adult family 

Adult acquaintance 

Adult stranger 

5% 5% 4% 7% 

54 49 45 40 

5 3 6 2 

17 23 12 21 

16 17 21 24 

4 3 12 6 

Source: Information for this table was provided by Howard Snyder (Director of Systems Research at the 

National Center for Juvenile Justice), using data from the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System 

for 2001 (FBI, 2003). 

Research indicates that in cultures 

that are very patriarchal and/or that 

devalue females, girls may be more 

at risk for abuse, neglect, and sexual 

assault (Jiwani, Janovicek, and Cameron, 2002). However, no research 

adequately examines whether this 

greater abuse or control of girls in 

some cultural groups translates into 

the girls’ greater use of violence, 

either inside or outside the family. It 

is plausible that in very patriarchal 

families, gender-related restrictions 

on girls severely limit girls’ use of violence and their expression of anger. A 

study by Heimer and DeCoster (1999) 

using self-report survey data showed 

that girls who have traditional views 

of gender, and, therefore, traditional 

views of female behavior, are less 

likely to engage in violence. 

Violence in Schools 

Although school-related deaths, 

violent victimizations in school, and 

overall school crime declined during the 1990s (Kaufman et al., 2001), 

public concern about school safety 

increased, especially in the wake 

of several highly publicized school 

shootings between 1992 and 1999 

(Anderson et al., 2001). The Youth 

Risk Behavior Surveillance surveys 

(YRBSS), conducted biannually in 

schools in 32 States and certain 

localities by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, provide 

statistics regarding violent behavior 

by students. The 2003 survey shows 

that fighting is common among 

high school students: 33 percent of 

students (40.5 percent of males and 

25.1 percent of females) surveyed 

had been in a physical fight in the 

last year (Grunbaum et al., 2004). 

Research has also shown that girls’ 

violent delinquency is greater in 

middle schools than in high schools, 

independent of a girl’s age. (Payne 

and Gottfredson, 2005). Furthermore, in 2004, 32 percent of all serious, violent crimes (including rape, 

sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated 

assault) against youth ages 12–18 

occurred during school or on the way 

to and from school (Dinkes et al., 

2006). 

Bullying in schools appears to differ 

by gender. Boys are more likely to be 

the perpetrators and victims of direct 

bullying, either with physical actions 

or with words or gestures. Girls, in 

contrast, are more likely to be the 

perpetrators and victims of indirect 

bullying, or relational aggression, 

such as spreading rumors. In addition, boys are more often the perpetrators in bullying incidents in which 

girls were the victims (Olweus, 1993; 

Isernhagen Harris, 2003). 

Although girls are not frequently 

violent in schools, when they behave 

violently they may do so to protect 

themselves. Some studies have found 

that girls intensify their fighting to 

stop their own victimization (including sexual harassment) and when 

they feel this victimization is ignored 

by school officials (Brown, 1998; 

Belknap, Dunn, and Holsinger, 1997). 

Some teachers communicate a very 

restrictive standard for what is considered “appropriate” behavior for 

boys as compared with girls. When 

teachers hold girls and boys to different standards, they can create an 

atmosphere that indirectly encourages girls to use violence. Research on a 

school with a socially diverse student 

body found that teachers sometimes 

created a hostile environment that 

fed antagonisms among groups of 

youth (Rosenbloom and Way, 2004). 

In another study, some girls who 

perceived themselves as negatively 

“marked” by minority racial and 

socioeconomic identity maintained 

their status in school by not backing 

down when they were threatened by 

peers and/or when they were angry 

with teachers. Some also reported 

saving face or earning status through 

their prowess in fighting (Leitz, 2003). 

Girls may also fight out of a sense of 

hopelessness. A recent ethnographic 

study of low-income girls in Philadelphia found that the girls thought their 

futures were bleak regardless of what 

they did at school. They felt alienated 

from legitimate institutions, including 

schools, and felt that entanglement 

12 
UnUnderstanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

with the law could not make things 

worse (Ness, 2004). 

Poverty and Disorganized 

Communities 

Poverty concentrates mothers and 

their children in neighborhoods 

characterized by few legitimate 

opportunities to earn money, a 

prevalence of illegitimate opportunities, and limited and strained public 

health, mental health, educational, 

and recreational resources. Several 

studies have found a link between 

exposure to violence in disorganized 

communities and youth’s use of violence (DuRant et al., 1994; Burman, 

2003; Fitzpatrick, 1997). A recent longitudinal study (Molnar et al., 2005) 

of adolescent girls in Chicago found 

that girls were more likely to perpetrate violence if they had previously 

been victimized and if they lived in 

neighborhoods with a high concentration of poverty or with high homicide rates. 

A girl living in a disorganized neighborhood may be more likely to use 

violence for a number of reasons 

(Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2000). 

In communities that lack informal 

institutions for monitoring and 

supervising youth’s behavior, risk of 

victimization is high, and girls may 

be violent to prevent or stop attacks 

on themselves (Leitz, 2003). Parents 

who are themselves coping with 

structurally disadvantaged neighborhoods and poverty may lack the 

capacity to buffer the negative environment for their daughters by, for 

example, providing close monitoring or safe places for recreation and 

socializing. In such communities, 

schools and recreational activities 

often do not provide safe places 

for youth, leaving girls to their 

own devices to establish status 

among peers and to prevent and 

counteract violence against themselves. As discussed earlier, willingness to fight and prowess in fighting 

are two of the few ways that youth 

feel they can gain status in communities with few opportunities to 

develop talents or succeed in school. 

Status may be enhanced for girls 

who are willing to fight, because 

these girls are valuable to friends 

who might need protection and also 

because they can protect themselves 

(Jones, 2004; Ness, 2004). 

A girl’s physical maturity may place 

her at special risk in disorganized 

neighborhoods. Girls with early-onset 

puberty who live in neighborhoods 

of highly concentrated disadvantage 

are at significantly greater risk for 

violent behaviors when compared 

to early-maturing girls who live in 

less dis advantaged neighborhoods 

(Obeidallah et al., 2004). This finding 

has several possible explanations. 

Early-maturing girls who live in disadvantaged neighborhoods may be 

particularly prone to affiliate with 

delinquent peers (Ge et al., 2002). 

These girls might become involved 

with older boys who are attracted 

to them, and the older boys might 

model and encourage girls’ use of 

violence (Ge et al., 2002). Some studies suggest that girls with boyfriends 

who live in disorganized or poor 

communities may be more likely to 

engage in fighting to keep the boyfriend, who may provide important 

material or financial support (Ness, 

2004). Finally, early-maturing girls 

may become involved with gangs 

and other negative peers in reaction 

to parental efforts to protect them 

by keeping them at home (Haynie, 

2003). 

Girls and Gangs 

A very specific aspect of the context 

in which girls may exhibit violence is 

their involvement in gangs. Because 

research relevant to understanding 

girls’ involvement in gangs is diverse, 

this section offers an overview in 

three parts: membership, delinquency, and risk factors. 

Membership 

Researchers have derived estimates 

of girls’ membership in gangs from 

official data sources and self-report 

surveys. In addition to estimating 

the prevalence of girls’ membership, 

research has also examined the 

gender composition of gangs. 

Data from official sources sometimes 

underestimate the extent of girls’ 

gang membership, especially when 

contrasted with self-report data. For 

instance, Curry, Ball, and Fox (1994) 

found that in some jurisdictions, 

law enforcement policies officially 

exclude females from counts of gang 

members. Controlling for data from 

these cities, the researchers still 

found that girls represented only 5.7 

percent of gang members known to 

law enforcement agencies. 

Underestimation of girls’ gang 

involvement based on official reports 

may also be partly attributable to 

male gang members’ greater likelihood of being involved in serious 

crime, as well as to differences in 

average age of males and females in 

gangs (Bjerregaard and Smith, 1993; 

Fagan, 1990). Boys are more likely 

than girls to remain gang involved 

into young adulthood; for girls, gang 

membership is much more likely to 

be limited to the adolescent years 

(Hunt, Joe-Laidler, and MacKenzie, 

2005; Miller, 2001; Moore and Hagedorn, 1996). These gender-related 

variations may increase the likelihood that male gang members will 

come to the attention of police more 

often than female gang members 

(Curry, 1999; Esbensen and Winfree, 

1998). 

13 
Girls Study Group
 

On the other hand, results from 

youth surveys indicate that girls’ 

gang involvement is only slightly 

below that of boys, particularly in 

early adolescence. For instance, findings from the Rochester Youth Development Study, based on a stratified 

sample of youth in high-risk, highcrime neighborhoods, found that 

approximately the same percentage 

of girls (29.4 percent) and boys (32.4 

percent) claimed gang membership 

when self-definition9

 was used as a 

measure (Thornberry et al., 2000). 

Evidence from this longitudinal study 

also suggests that girls’ gang involvement tends to be of a shorter duration than boys’, with girls’ peak gang 

involvement around eighth and ninth 

grades. 

In research based on youth surveys, 

estimates of girls’ share of total gang 

membership range from 20 percent to 

46 percent (Esbensen and Huizinga, 

1993; Esbensen and Winfree, 1998; 

Fagan, 1990; Moore, 1991; Winfree et 

al., 1992), with wide variations from 

gang to gang. When female gang 

members in Columbus, OH, and 

St. Louis, MO, were asked what 

percentage of their gang’s members 

were girls, answers ranged from 7 

percent to 75 percent; the vast majority were in predominantly male gangs 

(Miller, 2001). In a survey of 366 gang 

members (Peterson, Miller, and 

Esbensen, 2001), 84 percent of males 

and 93 percent of females said their 

gangs had both male and female 

members. Approximately 45 percent 

of the male gang members and 30 

percent of the females described 

their gangs as having a majority of 

male members, and 38 percent of 

males and 64 percent of females said 

their gangs had “fairly equal” numbers of males and females. Several 

studies suggest that the gender composition of gangs has a significant 

impact on the nature of gang members’ activities, including their 

involvement in delinquency (JoeLaidler and Hunt, 1997; Peterson, 

Miller, and Esbensen, 2001; Miller, 

2001). 

Delinquent Activity 

Girls’ gang-related delinquency 

appears to be strongly associated 

with the gender organization of their 

groups. Fleisher and Krienert (2004) 

suggest that having a sizable proportion of males in their social networks 

increases young women’s participation in delinquency and violence 

(see also Miller and Brunson, 2000). 

Peterson, Miller, and Esbensen (2001), 

examining delinquent activity among 

members of gangs classified by gender 

composition, found that delinquency, 

particularly of a serious nature, was 

less characteristic of primarily female 

gangs than of primarily male, allmale, or gender-balanced gangs. The 

Girls and Gangs 

Most research on girls and gangs focuses on amounts of gang involvement (over 

time and relative to boys) or the factors associated with gang involvement. Very little 

research has examined girls’ violence within gangs. The research that has been done 

shows that boys in gangs are more violent than girls in gangs. Still, girls in gangs are 

more likely to be delinquent and violent than girls who are not in gangs. Peers, families, and neighborhoods have intersecting influences when girls become involved 

with gangs. 

same researchers, however, found 

significant within-gender differences 

in delinquency rates for both girls and 

boys across the gang gender-composition categories (e.g., girls in primarily 

female gangs had the lowest rates of 

delinquency, but girls in majoritymale gangs had higher rates of delinquency than boys in all-male gangs). 

Gang-involved girls tend to participate in different types of activities 

than gang-involved boys. One study 

(Miller, 2001) found that most ganginvolved young women did not 

participate routinely in the most 

serious forms of gang crime, in part 

because male members excluded 

them from these activities, but also 

because many of the young women 

chose not to be involved in activities they considered dangerous or 

morally troubling. Other researchers 

attribute differences in the delinquent activities of gang-involved girls 

and gang-involved boys to gender 

differences in norms supportive of 

violence and delinquency (Joe and 

Chesney-Lind, 1995; see also Campbell, 1993). 

Risk Factors 

Researchers often have focused on 

the extent to which community 

disorganization may have contributed to the growth of gangs in many 

cities.10 These researchers suggest 

that inner-city youth join gangs as a 

way of adapting to oppressive living 

conditions imposed by their environments (see Hagedorn, 1998; Huff, 

1989; Klein, 1995). A few studies have 

linked these conditions specifically 

to female gang involvement. For 

example, findings from the Rochester 

Youth Development Study suggest 

that growing up in disorganized, violent neighborhoods is a risk factor 

for gang involvement among young 

women (Thornberry, 1997). Gangs 

may help young women survive in 

14 
UnUnderstanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

these neighborhoods by teaching 

them how to protect themselves 

(Fishman, 1995) and by offering protection and retaliation (Miller, 2001). 

Several studies have explored the 

relationship between gang involvement and the family. In a study of 

gangs in Kansas City, MO, Fleisher 

(1998) documents intergenerational 

patterns of abuse and neglect, exacerbated by poverty and abject neighborhood conditions, which Fleisher 

suggests are at the heart of the gang 

problem (see also Campbell, 1984; 

Fleisher and Krienert, 2004). Moore 

(1991) also documents a myriad of 

family problems that contribute 

to the likelihood of gang involvement and concludes that young 

female gang members are especially 

likely to come from deeply troubled 

families. Female gang members are 

significantly more likely than male 

gang members (Moore, 1991) and 

at-risk nongang girls (Miller, 2001) to 

say they have experienced multiple 

 family problems. 

The ways in which family problems 

influence girls’ gang involvement 

are varied, but they share a common 

thread: because of difficulties and 

dangers at home, girls began spending time away from home and meeting their social and emotional needs 

elsewhere. Researchers studying 

both male and female gang members 

have suggested the idea of the gang 

as a surrogate family for adolescents 

who do not see their own families as 

meeting their needs for belonging, 

nurturance, and acceptance (Huff, 

1993; see also Campbell, 1990, and 

Joe and Chesney-Lind, 1995). In a 

gang, girls may find a network of 

friends who serve as a support system for coping with life problems 

(Fleisher and Krienert, 2004; Joe and 

Chesney-Lind, 1995). 

Qualitative studies of risk factors 

for girls’ involvement in gangs 

have focused on the influence of 

com munity conditions and family 

problems. Some survey-based studies, however, note various schoolrelated attitudes and individual 

behaviors as risk factors or correlates for girls' involvement in gangs. 

School-related attitudes include 

low expectations for completing 

school (Bjerregaard and Smith, 1993; 

Bowker and Klein, 1983; Thornberry, 

1997), lack of school commitment 

(Esbensen and Deschenes, 1998), 

and negative attitudes toward school 

(Thornberry, 1997). Individual characteristics/behaviors include commitment to negative peers (Esbensen 

and Deschenes, 1998); delinquency, 

drug use, and positive values about 

drugs (Thornberry, 1997); and delinquent peers and early onset of sexual 

activity (Bjerregaard and Smith, 

1993). 

Conclusions 

What We Know About 

Girls and Violence 

Trends 

Available evidence based on arrest, 

victimization, and self-report data 

suggests that although girls are currently arrested more for simple 

assaults than previously, the actual 

incidence of their being seriously violent has not changed much over the 

last two decades. This suggests that 

increases in arrests may be attributable more to changes in enforcement 

policies than to changes in girls’ 

behavior. Juvenile female involvement in violence has not increased 

relative to juvenile male violence. 

There is no burgeoning national 

crisis of increasing serious violence 

among adolescent girls. 

Context 

Although more information is needed, current literature suggests that 

girls’ violence occurs in the following 

situations, for the following reasons: 

■	 Peer violence. Girls fight with 

peers to gain status, to defend 

their sexual reputation, and 

in self-defense against sexual 

 harassment. 

■	 Family violence. Girls fight more 

frequently at home with parents 

than do boys, who engage more 

frequently in violence outside the 

household. Girls’ violence against 

parents is multidimensional: for 

some, it represents striking back 

against what they view as an overly 

controlling structure; for others, 

it is a defense against or an expression of anger stemming from 

being sexually and or physically 

abused by members of the household. 

■	 Violence within schools. When 

girls fight in schools, they may do 

so as a result of teacher labeling, 

in self-defense, or out of a general 

sense of hopelessness. 

■	 Violence within disadvantaged 

neighborhoods. Girls in disadvantaged neighborhoods are 

more likely to perpetrate violence against others because of 

the increased risk of victimization (and the resulting violent 

self-defense against that victimization), parental inability to 

counteract negative community 

influences, and lack of opportunities for success. 

■	 Girls in gangs. Survey research 

has shown a number of factors 

associated with girls’ involvement 

in gangs (e.g., attitudes toward 

school, peers, delinquency, drug 

use, and early sexual activity); 

15 
 

Girls Study Group
 

qualitative research points to the 

role of disadvantaged neighborhoods and families with multiple 

problems (violence, drug and 

alcohol abuse, neglect). Girls associated with primarily male gangs 

exhibit more violence than those 

in all-female gangs. Girls in gangs 

are more violent than other girls 

but less violent than boys in gangs. 

What We Need To Know 

Available evidence strongly suggests that girls are, over time, being 

arrested more frequently for simple 

assaults, despite evidence from 

longitudinal self-report and victimization surveys that they are not 

actually more violent. The reasons 

for increasing arrests, however, 

are not well established. Studies of 

police and court practices—particularly with regard to girls—are sorely 

needed. Evaluations of domestic 

violence laws and zero-tolerance 

school policies and enforcement 

practices are also crucial. 

It is also important to develop a 

better understanding of the consequences for girls of increased 

involvement in the juvenile justice 

system. Longitudinal studies of 

girls who are arrested for assaultive behavior would help us better 

understand the pathways to and 

consequences of arrests for violent 

behavior among girls. 

Although there does not appear to be 

a large increase in physical violence 

committed by girls, some girls do 

engage in violent behavior, and it is 

important to understand the context 

in which such violence occurs and 

how these situations differ for girls 

and boys. Although peers and family 

members are the most common targets of violence by girls, not all family 

or peer conflicts result in physical 

assault. Understanding which ones 

do, and why, remains vital for both 

prevention and intervention efforts. 

Endnotes 

1. 	 The MTF study is funded by the 

National Institute on Drug Abuse. 

Findings are available online at 

www.monitoringthefuture.org. 

2. 	 Note that UCR data count the 

number of arrests, not the 

number of individuals arrested. 

An unknown number of individuals are arrested more than once 

during a year. 

3. 	 The Violent Crime Index includes 

homicide, forcible rape, robbery, 

and aggravated assaults. 

4. 	 The Property Crime Index 

includes burglary, larceny-theft, 

motor vehicle theft, and arson. 

5. 	 Nonindex offenses are simple 

assault, weapons offenses, drug 

and liquor law violations, driving under the influence, disorderly conduct, vandalism, and 

other categories not included in 

the FBI’s Crime Indexes. Status 

offenses are acts that are offenses 

only when committed by juveniles (e.g., running away). 

6. 	 Aggravated assault is defined 

as “an unlawful attack by one 

person upon another for the 

purpose of inflicting severe or 

aggravated bodily injury. This 

type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or 

by means likely to produce death 

or great bodily harm” (FBI, 2004, 

p. 23). Simple assault is defined 

as including “all assaults which 

do not involve the use of a firearm, knife, cutting instrument, or 

other dangerous weapon and in 

which the victim did not sustain 

serious or aggravated injuries. 

Agencies must classify as simple 

assault such offenses as assault 

and battery, injury caused by 

culpable negligence, intimidation, coercion, and all attempts 

to commit these offenses” (FBI, 

2004, p. 26). 

7. 	 The 12th graders were asked how 

often during the past 12 months 

they had: (1) “hit an instructor 

or supervisor,” (2) “gotten into 

a serious fight at school or at 

work,” and (3) “hurt someone 

badly enough to need bandages 

or a doctor.” 

8. 	 Some research indicates that 

parents are more likely to be 

violent toward adolescents than 

adolescents are toward their 

parents (Browne and Hamilton, 

1998; Straus and Gelles, 1990). 

In a survey of college students 

(Browne and Hamilton, 1998), 

80 percent of the youth who 

were violent toward parents said 

their parents were violent toward 

them, whereas only 59 percent of 

mothers’ violence and 71 percent 

16 
UnUnderstanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

of fathers’ violence was met with 

or precipitated by violence from 

the youth. 

9. 	 A number of scholars now use 

self-definition as a measure of 

gang membership, either alone or 

in conjunction with more restrictive guidelines. Some researchers 

suggest that only youth who are 

members of groups involved in 

illegal activities should be classified as gang members (see 

Esbensen, Huizinga, and Weihen, 

1993; Esbensen and Huizinga, 

1993). However, Winfree et al. 

(1992: 34–35) found that the “selfreported definition of gang membership proved to be a better 

predictor of gang-related crime 

than the more restrictive definition,” which they speculate may 

be a result of fringe or “wannabe” 

members’ efforts to demonstrate 

gang membership. Additional 

evidence supporting the utility 

of self-definition as a measure of 

gang membership comes from 

studies that have found large 

and stable differences between 

self-identified gang members 

and nongang youth with regard 

to rates of involvement in delinquency and serious crime (see 

Fagan, 1990). 

10. 	Larger cities and suburban counties consistently account for the 

largest proportion (around 85 

percent) of reported gang members (Egley and Major, 2004). 

Because research has focused on 

urban gangs, less is known about 

the social processes that explain 

gang formation—and girls’ gang 

involvement—in rural and suburban areas, although some scholars have hypothesized possible 

cultural diffusion processes (see 

Klein, 1995; Miller, 2001). 

References 

Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, 


T., Barrios, L., Paulozzi, L., Ryan, 


G., Hammond, R., Modzeleski, W., 


Feucht, T., Potter, L., and the School-


Associated Violent Deaths Study 


Group. 2001. School-associated 


violent deaths in the United States, 


1994–1999. Journal of the American 


Medical Association 286:2695–2702.
 

Artz, S. 1997. On becoming an object. 


Journal of Child and Youth Care 

11(2):17–37. 

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

K. 1997. Moving Toward Juvenile Justice and Youth-Serving Systems That 

Address the Distinct Experience of the 

Adolescent Female. Gender Specific 

Work Group Report to the Governor. 

Columbus, OH: Office of Criminal 

Justice Services. 

Benson, M.L., Fox, G.L., DeMaris, A., 

and Van Wyk, J. 2003. Neighborhood 

disadvantage, individual economic 

distress and violence against women 

in intimate relationships. Journal of 

Quantitative Criminology 19:207–235. 

Bjerregaard, B., and Smith, C. 1993. 

Gender differences in gang participation, delinquency, and substance use. 

Journal of Quantitative Criminology 

4:329–355. 

Bloom, B., Owne, B., Deschenes, E., 

and Rosenbaum, J. 2002. Improving 

juvenile justice for females: A statewide assessment in California. Crime 

& Delinquency 4:526–552. 

Bordo, S. 1993. Unbearable Weight: 

Feminism, Western Culture and the 

Body. Berkeley, CA: University of 

 California Press. 

Bowker, L.H., and Klein, M.W. 1983. 

The etiology of female juvenile 

delinquency and gang membership: 

A test of psychological and social 

structural explanations. Adolescence 18: 739–751. 

Brown, L.M. 1998. Raising Their 

Voices: The Politics of Girls’ Anger. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 

Press. 

Browne, K.D., and Hamilton, C.E. 

1998. Physical violence between 

young adults and their parents: Associations with a history of child maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence 

13(1):59–79. 

Burman, M. 2003. Challenging conceptions of violence: A view from the 

girls. Sociology Review 13(4):2–6. 

Cairns, R.B., Cairns, B.D., Neckerman, 

H.J., Ferguson, L.L., and Gariépy, J.L. 

1989. Growth and aggression: Childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology 25:320–330. 

Campbell, A. 1984. The Girls in the 

Gang. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell. 

Campbell, A. 1990. Female participation in gangs. In Gangs in America, edited by C. Ronald Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 

pp. 163–182. 

Campbell, A. 1993. Men, Women 

and Aggression. New York, NY: Basic 

Books. 

Chesney-Lind, M. 1988. Girls and 

status offenses: Is juvenile justice 

still sexist? Criminal Justice Abstracts 

20:144–165. 

Chesney-Lind, M., and Sheldon, R. 

2004. Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. 2d ed. Belmont, CA: 

 Thompson/Wadsworth. 

Corsaro, W.A., and Eder, D. 1990. 

Children’s peer cultures. Annual 

Review of Sociology 16:197–220. 

17 
Girls Study Group
 

Crick, N.R., Bigbee, M.A., and Howe, 

C. 1996. Gender differences in 

children’s normative beliefs about 

aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let 

me count the ways. Child Development 67:1003–1014. 

Curry, G.D. 1999. Race, ethnicity and 

gender issues in gangs: Reconciling 

police data. In Problem-Oriented 

Policing: Crime-Specific Issues and 

Making POP Work, Volume II, edited 

by C.S. Brito and T. Allan, Washington, DC: Police Executive Research 

Forum, pp. 63–89. 

Curry, G.D., Ball, R.A., and Fox, R.J. 

1994. Gang Crime and Law Enforcement Recordkeeping. Research in 

Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Davis, K. 1995. Reshaping the Female 

Body: The Dilemma of Cosmetic Surgery. New York, NY: Routledge. 

Devoe, J.F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., 

Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., Planty, M., 

Snyder, T.D., and Rand, M.R. 2003. 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 

2003. (NCJ 201257). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Departments of Education and 

Justice, National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. 

Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E.F., Kena G., and 

Baurn, K., 2006. Indicators of School 

Crime and Safety 2006. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Departments of Education 

and Justice, National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. 

DuRant, R., Cadenhead, C., 

Pendergrast, R.A., Slavens, G., and 

Wand Linder, C. 1994. Factors associated with the use of violence among 

urban black adolescents. American 

Journal of Public Health 84:612–617. 

Egley, A., Jr., and Major, A.K. 2004. 

Highlights of the 2002 National Youth 

Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

 Prevention. 

Esbensen, F.A., and Deschenes, E.P. 

1998. A multi-site examination of 

gang membership: Does gender 

matter? Criminology 36:799–828. 

Esbensen, F.A., and Huizinga, D. 

1993. Gangs, drugs, and delinquency 

in a survey of urban youth. Criminology 31:565–589. 

Esbensen, F.A., Huizinga, D., and 

Weiher, A.W. 1993. Gang and nongang youth: Differences in explanatory factors. Journal of Contemporary 

Criminal Justice 9:94–116. 

Esbensen, F.A., and Winfree, L.T. 

1998. Race and gender differences 

between gang and nongang youth: 

Results from a multisite survey. Justice Quarterly 15:505–525. 

Fagan, J. 1990. Social processes of 

delinquency and drug use among 

urban gangs. In Gangs in America, 

edited by C.R. Huff. Newbury Park, 

CA: Sage Publications, pp. 183–219. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2003. 

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master File for the year 

2001 [machine-readable data files]. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, FBI. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2004. 

Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, FBI. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2006. 

Crime in the United States, 2005: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, FBI. 

Fishman, L.T. 1995. The vice queens: 

An ethnographic study of black 

female gang behavior. In The Modern Gang Reader, edited by M.W. 

Klein, C.L. Maxson, and J. Miller. Los 

Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co., 

pp. 83–92. 

Fitzpatrick, K.M. 1997. Aggression 

and environmental risk among lowincome African-American youth. 

Journal of Adolescent Health 

21:172–178. 

Fleisher, M.S. 1998. Dead End Kids: 

Gang Girls and the Boys They Know. 

Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin 

Press. 

Fleisher, M.S., and Krienert, J.L. 

2004. Life-course events, social networks, and the emergence of violence among female gang members. 

Journal of Community Psychology 

32:607–622. 

Franke, T.M., Huynh-Hohnbaum, 

A.L.T., and Chung, Y. 2002. Adolescent violence: With whom they 

fight and where. Journal of Ethnic 

& Cultural Diversity in Social Work 

11(3–4):133–158. 

Gaarder, E., Rodriguez, N., and Zatz, 

M.S. 2004. Criers, liars, and manipulators: Probation officers’ views of 

girls. Justice Quarterly 21:547–578. 

Galen, B.R., and Underwood, M.K., 

1997. A developmental investigation of social aggression among 

children. Developmental Psychology 

33:589–600. 

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

Simons, R.L., and Murray, V.M. 2002. 

Contextual amplification of pubertal 

transition effects on deviant peer 

affiliation and externalizing behavior 

among African American children. 

Developmental Psychology 38:42–54. 

18 
UnUnderstanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Girls Inc. 1996. Prevention and Parity: 

Girls in Juvenile Justice. Indianapolis, 

IN: Girls Incorporated. 

Goodwin, M.H. 1990. He-Said- SheSaid: Talk as Social Organization 

Among Black Children. Bloomington, 

IN: Indiana University Press. 

Gottfredson, G.D., and Gottfredson, 

D.C. 1985. Victimization in Schools. 

New York, NY: Plenum. 

Grunbaum, J.A., Kann, L., Kinchen, 

S., Ross, J., Hawkins, J., Lowry, R., 

Harris, W.A., McManus, T., Chyen, D., 

and Collins, J. 2004. Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2003. 

In Surveillance Summaries, May 

21. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 

Report 53:SS–2, pp. 1–96. 

Hagedorn, J.M. 1998. People and 

Folks: Gangs, Crime and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City. 2d ed. 

Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press. 

Haynie, D. 2003. Contexts of risk? 

Explaining the link between girls’ 

pubertal development and their 

delinquency involvement. Social 

Forces 82(1):355–397. 

Heimer, K., and DeCoster, S. 1999. 

The gendering of violent delinquency. Criminology 37:277–317. 

Huff, C.R. 1989. Youth gangs and 

public policy. Crime and Delinquency 

35:524–537. 

Huff, C.R. 1993. Gangs in the United 

States. In The Gang Intervention 

Handbook, edited by A.P. Goldstein 

and C.R. Huff. Champaign, IL: 

Research Press, pp. 3–20. 

Hunt, G., Joe-Laidler, K., and 

MacKenzie, K. 2005. Moving into 

motherhood: Gang girls and 

 controlled risk. Youth & Society 

36:333–373. 

Isernhagen, J., and Harris, S. 2003. 

A comparison of ninth- and tenthgrade boys’ and girls’ bullying behavior in two states. Journal of School 

Violence. 2(2):67–80. 

Jiwani, Y., Janovicek, N., and Cameron, A. 2002. Erased realities: The violence of racism in the lives of immigrant and refugee girls of colour. In 

In the Best Interests of the Girl Child, 

Phase II Report, edited by H. Berman 

and Y. Jiwani. Ottawa, Canada: Alliance of Five Research Centres on Violence, Status of Women in Canada, 

pp. 45–88. 

Joe, K.A., and Chesney-Lind, M. 1995. 

“Just Every Mother’s Angel”: An analysis of gender and ethnic variations 

in youth gang membership. Gender & 

Society 9:408–430. 

Joe-Laidler, K., and Hunt, G. 1997. 

Violence and social organization 

in female gangs. Social Justice 

24:148–169. 

Jones, N. 2004. “It’s not where you 

live, it’s how you live”: How young 

women negotiate conflict and violence in the inner city. Annals of 

the Academy of Political and Social 

Science 595:49–62. 

Kaufman, P., Xianglei, C., Choy, S., 

Peter, K., Ruddy, S., Miller, A., Fleury, 

J., Chandler, K., Planty, M., and Rand, 

M. 2001. Indicators of School Crime 

and Safety: 2001. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Departments of Education and 

Justice, National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice 

Statistics 

Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street 

Gang: Its Nature, Prevalence and Control. New York, NY: Oxford University 

Press. 

Krause, W., and McShane, M. 1994. A 

deinstitutionalization retrospective: 

Relabeling the status offender. Journal of Crime and Justice 17:45–67. 

Leitz, L. 2003. Girl fights: Exploring 

females’ resistance to educational 

structures. International Journal of 

Sociology and Social Policy 

23(11):15–43. 

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

2000. The neighborhoods they live 

in: The effects of neighborhood 

residence on child and adolescent 

outcomes. Psychological Bulletin 

126(2):309–337. 

Lockwood, D. 1997. Violence Among 

Middle School and High School 

Students: Analysis and Implications 

for Prevention. Research in Brief. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice. 

Mahoney, A.R., and Fenster, C. 1982. 

Female delinquents in a suburban 

court. In Judge, Lawyer, Victim and 

Thief: Women, Gender Roles and 

Criminal Justice, edited by N.H. 

Rafter and E.A. Stanko. Boston, MA: 

Northeastern University Press. 

Miller, J. 2001. One of the Guys: Girls, 

Gangs and Gender. New York, NY: 

Oxford University Press. 

Miller, J., and Brunson, R.K. 2000. 

Gender dynamics in youth gangs: 

A comparison of male and female 

accounts. Justice Quarterly 

17(3):801–830. 

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

and Buka, S.L. 2005. Violent behavior 

by girls reporting violent victimization. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 159:731–39. 

19 
 

Girls Study Group
 

Moore, J. 1991. Going Down to the 

Barrio: Homeboys and Homegirls in 

Change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple 

University Press. 

Moore, J., and Hagedorn, J. 1996. 

What happens to girls in the gang? In 

Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by 

C.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications, pp. 205–218. 

Ness, C.D. 2004. Why girls fight: 

Female youth violence in the inner 

city. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 

595:32–48. 

Obeidallah, D., Brennan, R.T., BrooksGunn, J., and Earls, F. 2004. Links 

between pubertal timing and neighborhood contexts: Implications for 

girls’ violent behavior. Journal of the 

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 43(12):1460–1468. 

Olweus, D. 1993. Bullying at School: 

What We Know and What We Can Do. 

Oxford, England: Blackwell. 

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

2005. Gender- and race-based outcomes in the effect of school-related 

factors on delinquency and victimization. Unpublished manuscript. 

Peterson, D., Miller, J., and Esbensen, 

F.A. 2001. The impact of sex composition on gangs and gang member 

delinquency. Criminology 

39(2):411–439. 

Rosenbloom, S.R., and Way, N. 2004. 

Experiences of discrimination among 

African American, Asian American, and Latino adolescents in an 

urban high school. Youth & Society 

35(4):420–451. 

Scelfo, J. 2005. Bad girls go wild. 

Newsweek (June 13). [Available online 

at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ 

id/8101517/site/newsweek/page/2/.] 

Schneider, A.L. 1984. Divesting status offenses from juvenile court 

jurisdiction. Crime and Delinquency 

30:347–370. 

Schooler, D., Ward, L.M., and 

Merriwether, A. 2004. Who’s that girl: 

Television’s role in the body image 

development of young white and 

black women. Psychology of Women 

Quarterly 28:38–47. 

Snyder, H. forthcoming. Juvenile 

Arrests 2005. Bulletin. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

 Prevention. 

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 2000. 

Challenging the Myths. Bulletin. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

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

T.M. 1998. Violence exposure and 

emotional trauma as contributors 

to adolescents’ violent behaviors. 

Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent 

Medicine 152:531–536. 

Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J., 

Zhong, S.H., and Ackerman, J. 2005. 

An assessment of recent trends in 

girls’ violence using diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender gap 

closing? Criminology 43(2):355–406. 

Straus, M.A., and Gelles, R.J. 1990. 

How violent are American families?: 

Estimates from the National Family 

Violence Resurvey and other studies. In Physical Violence in American 

Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families, 

edited by M.A. Straus and R.J. Gelles. 

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction 

Books, pp. 95–112. 

Thornberry, T.P. 1997. Membership in 

youth gangs and involvement in serious and violent offending. In Serious 

and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk 

Factors and Successful Interventions, 

edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications, pp. 147–166. 

Thornberry, T.P., Krohn, M.P., Lizotte, 

A.J., Smith, C.A., and Tobin, K. 2000. 

Gangs in Developmental Perspective: 

The Origins and Consequences of 

Gang Membership. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

 Prevention. 

Welles, C.E. 2005. Breaking the 

silence surrounding female adolescent sexual desire. Women and 

Therapy 28:31–45. 

Winfree, L.T., Jr., Fuller, K., Vigil, T., 

and Mays, G.L. 1992. The definition 

and measurement of “gang status”: 

Policy implications for juvenile justice. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 43:29–37. 

Wolf, N. 1991. The Beauty Myth: How 

Images of Beauty Are Used Against 

Women. New York, NY: Anchor Books. 

Worcel, S.D., Shields, S.A., and Paterson, C.A. 1999. “She looked at me 

crazy”: Escalation of conflict through 

telegraphed emotion. Adolescence 34: 

689–697. 

Zimring, F.E. 1998. American Youth 

Violence. New York, NY: Oxford 

 University Press. 

Zimring, F.E., and Hawkins, G. 1997. 

Crime Is Not the Problem: Lethal 

Violence in America. New York, NY: 

Oxford University Press. 

20 
UnUnderstanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Acknowledgments 

The Girls Study Group is a group of multidisciplinary experts who have been convened to 

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

design appropriate intervention programs based on this information. 

This Bulletin was compiled by Margaret A. Zahn (Principal Investigator of the Girls Study 

Group project) and Susan Brumbaugh, with the assistance of Tara Williams, and is based 

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

■	 Barry Feld* and Darrell Steffensmeier*: trends (permission to use previously published 

material from Darrell Steffensmeier is granted by Criminology). 

■	 Merry Morash* and Meda Chesney-Lind*: context. 

■	 Allison Ann Payne, Denise Gottfredson, Candace Kruttschnitt*: violence within 

schools. 

■	 Jody Miller*: girls in gangs. 

Additional analyses on peers were contributed by Howard Snyder, Director of Systems 

Research at the National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

* Girls Study Group member. 

This Bulletin was prepared under cooperative agreement number #2004–JF–FX–K001 from the Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document 

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics; the Community Capacity Development 

Office; the National Institute of Justice; the 

Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex 

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking (SMART). 

21 

23 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~218905*

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 218905