The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Poly-victimization Among Girls in the Juvenile 

Justice System: Manifestations & Associations 

to Delinquency 

Author: Dana D. DeHart, Ph.D. 

Document No.: 228620 

Date Received: October 2009 

Award Number: 2006-WG-BX-0011 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies. 

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
Poly-victimization Among Girls 

in the Juvenile Justice System: 

Manifestations & Associations to 

Delinquency 

Submitted to the National Institute of Justice 

By Dana D. DeHart, Ph.D. 

October 2009 

The Center for Child & Family Studies 

College of Social Work 

University of South Carolina 

226 Bull Street 

Columbia, SC 29208 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Interim Center Director 

Johnny Jones, Ph.D. 

Project Director 

Dana D. DeHart, Ph.D. 

Research Assistants 

Eriel Harker 

Jennifer McLeer, M.A. 

Seokwon Yoon, MSW 

Administrative Assistant 

Judy Bauer 

This project was supported by Grant No. #2006-WG-BX-0011 awarded by the National 

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice and with 

support of the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. Points of view in this 

document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the South Carolina Department of Juvenile 

Justice.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We would like to express appreciation to advisory board members, our national 

consultants, anonymous reviewers, and other professionals who spoke with us, provided 

suggestions and materials, and helped to contribute to this report. Their efforts have 

ensured that this project is informed by issues and concerns at community, state, and 

national levels. We thank the administration, research division, and front-line staff at the 

South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice for their support and logistical assistance 

throughout data collection. We thank SC State Law Enforcement Division, SC 

Department of Social Services, SC Department of Mental Health, SC Department of 

Education, and SC Medicaid/Uniform Billing for providing permissions to access archival 

data through the SC Data Warehouse. Special thanks to the many girls who shared their life 

stories and personal thoughts. We hope that their accounts will lend insight so that we may 

improve the human condition for girls and women struggling through adversity. 

Advisory Board Members 

Judy C. Anderson, M.A., Warden, Camille Griffin-Graham Correctional Institution 

Christina Derrick, Ed.S., LMFT, Executive Director, Family Resource Center of Camden, SC 

Marilyn Edelhock, formerly of SC Department of Social Services 

Sylvia Kenley, Volunteer Mentor Coordinator, A Better Way: Project Gang Out 

Barbara Koons-Witt, Ph.D., Associate Professor, USC Department of Criminology and 

Criminal Justice 

Carolyn Miner, LISW-CP, Treatment Director of Social Work, Broad River Road Complex 

Rehabilitative Services, SC Department of Juvenile Justice 

Rita Rhodes, Associate Professor, USC College of Social Work 

Surleaner Smith, Director of Victim Services, SC Department of Juvenile Justice 

Suzanne Swan, Ph.D., Associate Professor, USC Department of Psychology and Women’s & 

Gender Studies Program 

Diana Tester, Director of Research, SC Department of Social Services 

Consultants 

Kristy Martyn, Ph.D., RN, Associate Professor, School of Nursing, University of Michigan 

Heather Turner, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sociology, Crimes Against Children Research 

Center, University of New Hampshire 

i 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
ABSTRACT 

There is considerable evidence that victimization is pervasive in the backgrounds of 

delinquent girls. This study collected lifespan data on girls’ victimization and juvenile 

offending to: 1) examine range, diversity, and co-occurrence of different types of violence 

over the course of girls’ lives, identifying strength and dynamics of relationships between 

forms of exposure; 2) examine independent, relative, and cumulative trajectories of risk 

for varied types of victimization over the lifespan, including critical periods of risk; 3) 

examine additional ecological factors as these relate to victimization; and 4) examine 

relationship of victimization to nature and chronicity of girls' offending. Life History 

Calendars were used in conjunction with the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire to 

examine co-occurrence of multiple forms of abuse and develop a comprehensive view of 

girls' experiences. Our sample consisted of 100 girls adjudicated delinquent through the 

South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and up to one primary caregiver for each 

girl. Risk trajectories indicated girls’ susceptibility to caregiver violence and witnessed 

violence starting prior to school age, with a second peak in risk during adolescence. In 

contrast, risk for gang or group attacks began rising just before pubescence, and dating 

violence risk logically escalated after pubescence. Sexual violence was a risk for girls 

throughout their lives but was particularly prevalent during adolescence. In predicting 

substance use, caregiver violence displayed the greatest stability followed by sexual 

violence and witnessing violence. Examination of qualitative accounts revealed that use of 

alcohol and drugs as a means of coping was an underlying theme in girls’ lives. Corruption 

was also evident, usually involving parents or adult sexual partners who enabled girls’ 

substance abuse. Findings illuminate the need for education and services addressing alcohol 

and drug use among traumatized girls, as well as need for skill-building to develop 

alternative coping mechanisms to address violence, loss, and other stressors in girls’ lives. 

Project findings have theoretical implications regarding range and consequences of violence 

exposure for at-risk girls, as well as applied utility for service interventions, justice 

interventions to promote rehabilitation and accountability, and efforts to increase 

ecological safety for delinquent girls through work with families and communities. 

ii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

There is considerable evidence that victimization is pervasive in the backgrounds of 

delinquent girls. Violence exposure within this population is of particular interest not only 

because these girls experience numerous other health risks, but also because of the 

behavioral risk that victimization may pose according to emerging theory on girls' and 

women's crime. Finkelhor and associates (2005) examined “poly-victimization”—

simultaneously experiencing several different kinds of victimization in separate incidents—

and found that sheer number of victimization types predicted outcomes better than any 

single type of victimization. If, indeed, children who experience high levels of exposure to 

violence also carry the bulk of emotional and behavioral symptomatology, this may lend 

insight to the recurring social question of why some abused individuals commit crimes 

while others do not. Given such considerations regarding aggregate impact of 

victimization, the field would benefit from an understanding that takes into account not 

only different types of exposure, but also factors such as trajectory of risk over the lifespan, 

dependence of different forms of exposure, and ways that cumulative impacts influence life 

outcomes. 

This study used lifespan data on girls’ victimization and juvenile offending to: 

 Examine range, diversity, and co-occurrence of different types of violence over the 

course of girls’ lives, identifying strength and dynamics of relationships among forms of 

exposure. 

 Examine independent, relative, and cumulative trajectories of risk for varied types 

of victimization over the lifespan, including critical periods of risk. 

 Examine additional ecological factors (e.g., family conflict, parental addiction) as 

these relate to victimization. 

 Examine relationship of victimization to nature and chronicity of girls' offending. 

Method 

Life History Calendars were used in conjunction with the Juvenile Victimization 

Questionnaire, one of the most rigorously constructed measures of exposure to violence. 

This approach was particularly useful in examining co-occurrence of multiple forms of 

abuse and developing a comprehensive view of girls' subjective experiences. Caregivers 

iii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
who chose to participate completed the caregiver-report on their girl’s experiences. We 

also accessed archival data through the SC Budget and Control Board’s Data Warehouse, 

an integrated data system tapping legal and safety services, social services, physical and 

mental health services, claims systems, and education, among others. 

Our sample consisted of 100 girls adjudicated delinquent through SCDJJ and up to one 

primary caregiver for each girl. Key victimization and offending constructs from girls’ 

interviews were conceptualized in several ways, including 1) binary presence/absence 

coding of whether the girl experienced the event in question, 2) time-to-onset coding to 

indicate age at which the girl first experienced the event, and 3) duration and frequency 

coding to indicate number of years or number of incidents of the event. We used 

nonparametric techniques for binary dependent variables, survival analyses and Cox 

regression for time-to-onset dependent variables, and standard parametric techniques for 

continuous duration/frequency dependent variables. Qualitative transcripts were coded 

and analyzed using ATLAS/ti software. 

Results 

Sixty-nine percent of girls reported experiencing caregiver violence. Thirty-one percent of 

girls reported having been attacked by a gang or group of people, and 42% reported 

experiencing dating violence. Eighty-one percent experienced sexual violence. Ninety 

percent of girls had witnessed violence. Only 2% of girls reported no victimization. 

Of the five major categories of victimization, witnessing violence demonstrated the most 

consistent associations with other types of violence and gang attacks showed the least 

consistent associations. As one would expect given the literature on poly-victimization, 

number of types of victimization was highly correlated with all categories of victimization 

and with adverse childhood events. Caregivers’ perceptions of violence in their girls’ lives 

were most closely aligned with girls’ self-reports for experiences of caregiver violence, 

dating violence, and sexual violence. 

Within this sample of delinquent girls, risk trajectories indicated susceptibility to caregiver 

violence and witnessed violence starting prior to school age, with a second peak in risk 

during adolescence. In contrast, risk for gang or group attacks began rising just before 

pubescence, and dating violence risk logically escalated after pubescence. Sexual violence 

was a risk for girls throughout their lives but was particularly prevalent during 

adolescence. Trajectories of crime and delinquency over the lifespan showed earliest risk 

for fighting or assaults, followed by substance use, then stealing and running away, and 

finally, prostitution. 

In predicting substance use, caregiver violence displayed the greatest stability, and both 

sexual violence and witnessing were significant predictors in two of the three types of 

analyses. No category of victimization consistently predicted stealing or running away. 

Fighting was predicted by witnessing violence in two of the three types of analyses. Finally, 

iv 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
dating violence, sexual violence, and witnessing each were significant predictors of 

prostitution in two of the three types of analyses.

Substance abuse was associated with experiences of caregiver violence, sexual violence, 

and witnessing. Examination of qualitative accounts revealed that use of alcohol and drugs 

as a means of coping was an underlying theme across all three associations. Corruption 

involving parents or other caregivers was also a factor in girls’ substance use. Another 

strikingly common intersection of sexual abuse and corruption was girls’ involvement with 

adult sexual partners who enabled substance abuse. The association between witnessing 

violence and engaging in fighting or aggression appeared to be largely a function of girls’ 

use of retaliatory or protective violence. Much like substance use, involvement in 

prostitution was also associated with girls’ sexual relationships with adult men. 

Prostitution activity was, in turn, associated with risk for dating violence from pimps as 

well as witnessed violence associated with risky situations. 

Discussion 

Early onset of violence exposure, as well as recurring exposure to risk throughout 

childhood and adolescence, indicates that assessment for victimization and trauma should 

occur early and frequently in girls’ lives. Furthermore, programs or services to address 

multiple, co-occurring forms of violence exposure might be implemented during the teen 

years as likelihood of poly-victimization increases. One prominent theme in girls’ accounts 

involved substance abuse as a form of self-medication used to cope with past caregiver 

violence, witnessed violence, and sexual violence. This illuminates the need for education 

and services addressing alcohol and drug use among traumatized girls, as well as need for 

skill-building to develop alternative coping mechanisms to address violence, loss, and other 

stressors in girls’ lives. Both substance abuse and involvement in prostitution bore 

associations to these young girls’ relationships with criminally involved adults. These 

findings highlight the importance of examining corruption of girls through social networks, 

including missocialization by caregivers and sexual exploitation by older men. 

Collectively, project findings have theoretical implications regarding range and 

consequences of violence exposure for at-risk girls, as well as applied utility for service 

interventions, justice interventions to promote rehabilitation and accountability, and 

efforts to increase ecological safety for delinquent girls through work with families and 

communities. 

v 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction ...............................................................................................1 

Background & Significance 

Objectives 

Method......................................................................................................4 

Advisory Board & Consultation 

Research Measures 

Recruitment & Interview Procedures 

Data Transfer & Analyses 

Results.....................................................................................................10 

Participants 

Girls’ Experiences of Victimization & Adversity 

Girls’ Crime & Delinquency 

Association of Victimization & Adversity to Crime & Delinquency 

Discussion................................................................................................32 

References...............................................................................................34 

Appendices ..............................................................................................38 

 

vi 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

1 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Background & Significance 

Increased awareness among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers regarding 

violence exposure and its effects has led to a need to explore range and consequences of 

different forms of exposure for children living in varied contexts of risk. The present 

project focused on girls adjudicated delinquent—a population plagued by high levels of 

exposure to a variety of violent events. Exposure within this population is of particular 

interest not only because these girls experience numerous other health risks (e.g., poverty, 

mental disorders), but also because of the sociobehavioral risk that victimization may pose 

according to emerging theory on girls' and women's crime. Because crime and delinquency 

are among the most feared consequences of violence exposure, and because girls face 

escalating risk for exposure once involved in delinquency, focusing on this population has 

great potential for theory as well as practice and policy. 

Children Exposed to Violence 

Exposure to violence ranges from direct exposure to physical, sexual, or psychological 

abuse to witnessing violence in the family or community. Although researchers note 

difficulties in establishing prevalence estimates of childhood exposure to violence 

(Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Salcido, Welthorn, & Behrman, 1999), they indicate that it is 

commonplace, particularly for children in urban environments. This includes some 

children who experience "chronic community violence," or recurrent exposure to 

weapons, drugs, and violence in their neighborhoods (Osofsky, 1999). 

The literature on effects of exposure largely derives from research on direct abuse and 

witnessing intimate partner violence. Fantuzzo and Mohr (1999) provide an overview of 

effects of child witnessing, including findings from review articles spanning decades 

(Fantuzzo & Lindquist, 1989; Kolbo, Blakely & Engleman, 1996; Margolin, 1998). 

Children from violent (versus nonviolent) homes are said to display greater levels of: 

externalizing such as aggression and behavior problems in schools and communities; 

internalizing such as depression, anxiety, fearfulness, suicidal ideation, sleep problems, 

bedwetting, and low self-esteem; cognitive difficulties including trouble concentrating and 

lower test scores; and social competence problems including lack of empathy and impaired 

problem solving. Adverse effects vary across developmental stages and are more likely 

when witnessing co-occurs with direct abuse or ecological1 risk factors (e.g., family 

conflict, parental addiction). Other research indicates that, as children grow older, effects 

1

 An ecological model posits that individual, family, community, and cultural factors form a nested context in which 

exposure to violence occurs, with each level including risk and protective factors which increase or decrease 

probability of victimization (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

of exposure are more likely to include risky and delinquent behavior such as sexual 

promiscuity, substance abuse, truancy, running away, and property crime (Osofsky, 1999; 

Thornberry, Huizinga, & Loeber, 2004; Widom, 1995a/b). 

A prominent gap in the literature has to do with relationships between different types of 

violence exposure. Finkelhor and associates (2005) examined “poly-victimization”—

simultaneously experiencing several different kinds of victimization in separate incidents 

(e.g., bullying at school, witnessing family violence at home, sexual abuse). These 

researchers examined methods of operationally defining poly-victimization using the 

Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ) and found that, no matter how polyvictimization was operationalized, children who experienced multiple victimizations were 

at high risk of additional victimization and trauma symptomatology (e.g., anger, 

depression, anxiety) relative to other children. In fact, sheer number of victimizations was 

a better predictor of children’s symptomatology than any particular type of victimization. 

These findings are similar to those regarding Adverse Childhood Experiences2 (ACEs; e.g., 

Felitti & Anda, 2002), in that they point to a need for greater exploration of intersecting 

impacts of multiple traumatic experiences so that policy and practice can address 

cumulative exposure. The Finkelhor study also examined lifetime adversity, finding that 

poly-victimized children were more likely than other children to have high rates of adverse 

experiences, as well. 

If, indeed, children who experience high levels of exposure to violence also carry the bulk 

of emotional and behavioral symptomatology, this may lend insight to the recurring social 

question of why some abused individuals commit crimes while others do not (i.e., different 

volumes and/or intersecting impacts of victimization). Given such considerations 

regarding aggregate impact of victimization, the field would benefit from an understanding 

that takes into account not only different types of exposure, but also factors such as 

trajectory of risk over the lifespan, dependence of different forms of exposure, and ways 

that cumulative impacts influence life outcomes. 

Examining childhood violence exposure from a methodological viewpoint, Fantuzzo and 

Mohr (1999) note research limitations including lack of corroboration for incidents of 

abuse and lack of research that employs a guiding theoretical framework. Perhaps most 

notably, past research on children's exposure is based largely on adults' perceptions of 

children's experiences. As users of services, children require interventions tailored to their 

levels of understanding, developmental capacities, and unique circumstances (Mullender et 

al., 2002). Researchers and funders are thereby beginning to recognize the need for studies 

tapping views of children (McGee, 2000; Mullender et al., 2002; OJJDP, 1998), and we 

 

2 Felitti & Anda outlined ACEs said to contribute to disrupted neurodevelopment, socioemotional and cognitive 

impairment, health-risk behaviors, disease and disability, and early death. ACEs include growing up in a household 

with: recurrent physical, emotional, or sexual abuse; an alcohol/drug abuser; incarcerated household member; 

someone chronically depressed, suicidal, institutionalized, or mentally ill; mother being treated violently; one or no 

biological parents; and/or emotional or physical neglect.

2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

hoped to ameliorate this deficit in the research literature. Further, most studies of violence 

exposure focus on past year or lifetime prevalence, without detailed consideration of 

changing risks and co-occurrence of violence over the lifespan (Yoshihama & Gillespie, 

2002). As we will explain, our event-history methods were innovative in this respect. 

Finally, Osofsky (1999) notes the need for qualitative data to supplement quantitative data. 

She argues that studies of children exposed to violence should include family members 

closest to children. Beyond gaining a corroborating perspective on the child's experiences, 

she notes the caregiver role in creating stability and supporting resilience for the child. 

Understanding the caregiver's perspective on a child’s experiences may lend insight into 

family coping and opportunities for risk reduction. She notes that this may be time 

consuming, requires particular sensitivity, and may be stressful for researchers who lack 

experience in collecting this type of data. Multi-generational research requires precautions 

to assure that a caregiver's involvement does not present a threat to the child, and we 

examined child and caregiver perspectives via a research context that included meticulous 

attention to safety. 

Girls in the Juvenile Justice System 

Rates of delinquency are rising among girls, and detention units are struggling with chronic 

overcrowding (OJJDP, 1998; Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). Experts argue disproportionate 

growth of the population of girl offenders is, in part, due to "fundamental systemic failure" 

to understand girls' needs, noting girls’ "invisibility" in the justice system with regard to 

abuse histories, pregnancy, and other gendered issues (ABA & NBA, 2001; Chesney-Lind 

& Shelden, 1992). 

There is considerable evidence that victimization is pervasive in the backgrounds of 

delinquent girls. In interviews with nearly 100 female juvenile offenders, Cauffman and 

associates (1998) found over 70% had been exposed to trauma such as molestation or 

witnessing violence. About three-quarters of those interviewed had been badly hurt or in 

danger of being hurt, three-quarters had witnessed someone being severely injured or 

killed, and 60% had been raped or nearly raped. Similarly, Wood and associates (2002a/b) 

found that, relative to boys, their sample of 100 girls in the juvenile system experienced 

high levels of physical punishment, sexual violence, exposure to community violence, and 

psychological distress associated with exposure. In another sample of incarcerated youth, 

Steiner and associates (1997) also found rates of direct victimization to be higher among 

girls. Artz (1998) found victimization rates and fear of revictimization to be higher among 

violent versus nonviolent girls. Finally, in a study of nearly 1000 case files and 193 

interviews with girl offenders, Acoca (1998) found strong correlations between violence 

exposure and risk behaviors such as poly-drug use and gang membership. Once involved in 

delinquency, girls face heightened risk of re-exposure to violence in association with 

crime-involved peer networks and high-risk hangouts or activities (Widom, 2000), as well 

as in group homes and detention settings (Acoca & Dedel, 1998). Such girls may be 

3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

reluctant to report or to use services due to their marginalized social position and 

precarious legal status (Richie, 2000). 

Aside from violence exposure, what we know about girls in the justice system indicates 

they face a number of additional risks, rendering this a particularly important population 

for risk-reduction and intervention. The profile of delinquent girls includes poverty, family 

fragmentation, school failure, and physical and mental health problems and is similar to 

that for adult female offenders (Owen & Bloom, 2000). There is also evidence that females 

arrested as juveniles, particularly those with victimization histories, are likely to be rearrested as adults (Widom, 2000). Although there is emerging interest in how intersecting 

problems faced by delinquent girls may be part of a developmental "pathway" to crime 

(OJJDP, 1998), there is a lack of research examining the role of poly-victimization as it 

rests among other risks for delinquency. 

Existing studies have provided a valuable foundation regarding prevalence of victimization 

and other risks among delinquent girls. However, the studies typically employ limited 

concepts of victimization (e.g., one or two types of exposure) and a focus on identification 

of mental disorders. There is a lack of research specifically to gather information on 

frequency and co-occurrence of different forms of violence exposure, its trajectory over 

the girls’ lifespans, and relationship of violence exposure to juvenile offending. The current 

study addressed these gaps in the literature. 

Objectives 

This study used lifespan data on girls’ victimization and juvenile offending to: 

 Examine range, diversity, and co-occurrence of different types of violence over the 

course of girls’ lives, identifying strength and dynamics of relationships among forms of 

exposure. 

 Examine independent, relative, and cumulative trajectories of risk for varied types 

of victimization over the lifespan, including critical periods of risk. 

 Examine additional ecological factors (e.g., family conflict, parental addiction) as 

these relate to victimization. 

 Examine relationship of victimization to nature and chronicity of girls' offending. 

Findings were explored with consideration of theory on victimization and etiology of 

crime, as well as gender-responsive programming for risk-reduction and crime prevention. 

METHOD 

The University of South Carolina (USC) Institutional Review Board reviewed and 

approved the project, and a Privacy Certificate was approved by NIJ. Our methodology 

involved gathering a group of knowledgeable stakeholders to provide insights on project 

4 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

logistics, developing research measures, recruiting and interviewing participants, and 

implementing an analytic strategy. 

Advisory Board & Consultation 

Research involving children and/or prisoners necessarily involves consideration of multiple 

interests, including the interests of child advocates, prisoner advocates, victim advocates, 

and advocates for the community at-large, as well as the interests of various agencies and 

systems involved in youth services and justice administration. Working with children in 

correctional settings also requires consideration of ethical issues, mandates that may 

counter routine confidentiality, and barriers and delays due to unforeseen circumstances. 

For these reasons, we enlisted the assistance of community experts through development 

of an advisory board. Board members comprised an ethnically diverse group deriving from 

multiple disciplinary affiliations, with members committed to child welfare, girls’ and 

women's personal development, equity of opportunity for rehabilitation, and 

accountability for offenders. Their expertise included specialty in female offenders, 

correctional programs and populations, impact of violence on women's physical and mental 

health, addiction among incarcerated women, domestic abuse and sexual assault services, 

juvenile services, general social services, legislative activism, public policy, research 

methodology, and victims' rights, among other topics. We also solicited the input of 

national experts on methodologies to be utilized in the project (Dr. Kristy Martyn, 

University of Michigan on Life-History Calendars; Dr. Heather Turner, University of New 

Hampshire on the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire). Throughout the project, these 

advisors helped contribute to sound decision making and innovation to meet task demands, 

and they have been and will continue to be a valuable resource in formatting findings to 

suit a variety of practice applications. 

Research Measures 

Triangulation in data collection—including child, caregiver, and archival perspectives—

allows cross-validation as well as a more comprehensive picture of victimization and 

offending. Combined quantitative-qualitative data allow theory building and illustration of 

concepts via case examples. 

Child Interviews 

Life History Calendar method. The Life History Calendar (LHC; Freedman, 

Thornton, Camburn, Alwin & Young-DeMarco, 1988) is an established research tool 

designed to optimize accuracy in collection of event timing/sequencing data. The LHC 

method uses a calendar-like matrix, providing visual cues said to enhance both interviewee 

and interviewer performance. Column headings typically denote years or ages, while row 

headings denote categories of life events. At the outset of the interview, the interviewer 

5 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

explains the calendar and—with the respondent's help—maps memorable life experiences 

(e.g., schools, grades, living arrangements, neighborhoods). These salient cues then 

provide a temporal context for recalling events that may be less salient in time (e.g., "The 

abuse happened when I was in third grade living with my aunt"). The LHC's rows and 

columns encourage recall at both thematic and temporal levels and thereby may increase 

power of autobiographical memory (Axinn, Pearce & Ghimire, 1999; Belli, 1998). In 

victimization studies, the LHC method was found to have high test-retest reliability, good 

construct validity, and to elicit more reports of intimate partner violence than 

administration using only structured interview prompts (Yoshihama, 2004). Here, as in 

that research, the LHC was used in conjunction with victimization measures as a 

documentation aid that enhances specificity of timing and sequencing of events, providing 

insight into the “chronosystem” (e.g., passage of time) which spans nested ecological levels 

(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The LHC was particularly useful in examining co-occurrence of 

multiple forms of abuse and developing a comprehensive view of girls' subjective 

experiences. A simplified sample of a completed LHC is provided in Appendix A. 

Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. Our measure of exposure to violence was the 

Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (Hamby & Finkelhor, 2004). The JVQ is one of the 

most rigorously constructed measures of exposure to violence. Development included 

extensive review by experts, focus groups with parents and youth, and cognitive testing to 

help ensure conceptual integrity and developmental appropriateness for children aged 8 to 

17 (Hamby & Finkelhor, 2001). The JVQ includes items on child maltreatment, gang 

violence, dating violence, sexual victimization, and witnessing/indirect victimization, 

among other things. For girls’ interviews, we used the child self-report version of the JVQ 

with items orally administered in sequence. Based on input from our expert consultant 

(Heather Turner, personal communication, January, 2007), we did not use the scale in its 

entirety given the need to keep interviews at a manageable length with our high-risk 

sample; thus, we deleted items on property victimization and lesser forms of peer 

victimization and instead focused on moderate and severe forms of violence. Minor 

wording changes were made to a few items to render items more suitable for our intended 

audience of adolescent girls from a variety of home settings (e.g., changing "parents" to 

"caregivers"). We used lifetime retrospective administration, an option provided in the 

full manual (Hamby, Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2004), with the leading phrase of 

items modified accordingly (e.g., "In the last year, did anyone..." was changed to "Can you 

think of a time someone ..."). Girls were asked the first time they remembered each event 

happening and about subsequent times if it happened more than once. Typical follow-ups 

on the JVQ address number of times the child was victimized, relationship to perpetrator, 

whether the child was hurt, and questions specific to the victimization. 

Non-victimization adversity and other prompts. Prompts on familial ecological 

risks were adapted from Turner, Finkelhor, and Ormrod’s (2006) measure of nonvictimization adversity. We included items on experiencing major natural disasters, 

accidents requiring hospitalization, illnesses requiring hospitalization, major family illnesses 

6 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

or deaths, caregiver unemployment, caregiver imprisonment, family addictions, family 

mental disorders, persistent family conflict, and persistent experiences of bullying. To 

assess general family history, offense history, contacts with services or systems, and social 

supports, we adapted additional prompts from our previous NIJ study of incarcerated 

women (DeHart, 2008). For purposes of this report, we focus on offenses including 

alcohol and drug use, stealing (e.g., shoplifting, burglary), running away, fighting or 

physical assaults, and prostitution. 

Caregiver Surveys 

Caregivers who chose to participate completed the caregiver-report JVQ on their girl’s 

experiences, with items identical to key prompts used in girls’ interviews. The caregiver 

version has been used for children as young as 2, and researchers have concluded that 

child- and caregiver-report formats yield comparable information (Finkelhor et al., 2005; 

Hamby et al., 2004). 

Archival Data 

For each participant, we had access to juvenile justice admissions data including basic 

demographics, history of criminality among parents and siblings, and offense history with 

justice contacts and sanctions. We also had access to additional archival data through the 

SC Budget and Control Board’s Data Warehouse, an integrated data system tapping legal 

and safety services, social services, physical and mental health services, claims systems, and 

education, among others. This included file-matchable data for each participant from SC 

State Law Enforcement Division, SC Department of Social Services, SC Department of 

Mental Health, SC Department of Education, and SC Medicaid/Uniform Billing. These 

data attest to convergent validity, in that we found few major discrepancies when 

examining girls’ interview accounts in conjunction with major events from the girls’ justice 

files, social service files, and healthcare files. Due to volume and complexity of archival 

data sets (e.g., multiple files per agency and multiple records per case), we limit 

quantitative analyses here to key constructs of general interest and will reserve in-depth 

analyses for subsequent reports. 

Recruitment & Interview Procedures 

The SC Department of Juvenile Justice (SCDJJ) is responsible for custodial care and 

rehabilitation of the state's children who are incarcerated, on probation or parole, or in 

community placement for a criminal or status offense. Juveniles usually enter the justice 

system after being taken into custody by law enforcement or when a prosecutor or school 

refers them to SCDJJ. After a child is adjudicated delinquent, the juvenile is either 

sentenced to probation or committed to a juvenile facility. SCDJJ's primary long-term 

commitment facility for girls is Willow Lane, a comprehensive facility with its own 

campus, middle school, high school, and gym. At the same Broad River Road Complex are 

7 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

two group homes for girls, Gateways for moderate management, and Hope House for high 

management. These were our sampling sites. 

Our sample consisted of 100 girls adjudicated delinquent through SCDJJ and up to one 

primary caregiver for each girl. Qualitative researchers posit that traditional criteria of 

external validity or generalizability need reconceptualization in qualitative work (Becker, 

1990; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Schofield, 1990), with good sampling achieving a range or 

“strategic coverage” of phenomena under exploration (Johnson, 1990; Werner & Bernard, 

1994). Swanson (1986) has suggested 20 to 50 interviews, and Lee and Fielding (1996) 

found a median sample size of 40 in existing studies. In our previous research, we found 60 

interviews to produce a manageable dataset with a wealth of information. For the current 

study, we scaled back the qualitative component in order to accommodate a larger sample 

of girls from a range of delinquency backgrounds in the interest of statistical power and 

variability for quantitative analyses. 

Prospective participants were identified via the SCDJJ database with frequent updates from 

intake rosters. Children in SCDJJ custody are considered "in loco parentis," and SCDJJ 

policy for approved studies is to provide consent when the child provides assent. All 

committed girls met individually with the interviewer in a private room at SCDJJ. Assent 

forms were presented both in written form and read aloud to the child. If the child 

assented, we conducted the interview at that time. Girls who chose to participate received 

a $20 cash deposit to the SCDJJ spending account. We conducted exhaustive sampling of 

incoming girls over a multi-year period in order to obtain our sample of 100 girls from the 

three facilities. We used participant files to identify one primary caregiver (usually female) 

for each girl who participated in the study. The caregiver was mailed a caregiver survey 

and could earn a Visa Check gift card for returning the survey via postage-paid envelope. 

Amount for this caregiver incentive varied over the course of the project (from $35 to 

$100) due to methodological refinements to be described, and caregivers’ receipt of a gift 

card for returning a survey was not contingent upon girls’ participation. 

Our sampling methodology was refined midway through the study, in that we had initially 

planned to sample probationers living in the community as well as committed girls, 

requiring caregiver consent for probationers and also requiring substantial caregiver time 

in bringing probationers for in-person interviews. For comparability of subsamples, we had 

initially abstained from sampling committed girls prior to obtaining consent from their 

caregivers, although such consent was not needed by law for these girls in SCDJJ custody. 

We encountered numerous logistical problems in contacting caregivers, in that contact 

information on record was often outdated, and we were often unable to establish definitive 

contact with caregivers for about two-thirds of our potential sample. We tracked contact 

efforts and response rates (detailed below) and eventually refined the project plan to 

sample only committed girls, with surveys being sent to their caregivers upon scheduling 

of each girl’s interview. A response from caregivers was not necessary for the girl to assent 

to interviews, and all refinements were approved by university and SCDJJ internal review 

boards as well as by NIJ. 

8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Data Transfer & Analysis 

Documentation of Child Interviews 

We chose to use field notes in conjunction with life-calendar mapping to document child 

interviews. Researchers generally discourage tape recording of interviews in correctional 

settings (Drs. Angela Browne & Beth Richie, personal communication, November 8, 

2000). Audio taping may elevate risk to participants by providing a direct link to identity 

(voice recognition); audio tapes are not protected from subpoena under the Privacy 

Certificate, and they require additional confidentiality agreements for transcription 

services not under control of the research team. Given these considerations and our 

success with shorthand-style field notes (Easyscript; Levin, 2001), we felt that benefits of 

audiotaping were outweighed by the elevated risk to participants. Interviewer training 

included mock interviews with performance to a benchmark of limited errors and 

omissions. To promote integrity of data, the interviewer transcribed speedwritten notes 

into interview transcripts and translated life calendar data into electronic format within 24 

hours of each interview. Within transcripts, we attempted to be as accurate as possible in 

representing each girl's thoughts and to use the words and language she used, as well as to 

honor veracity of her account (i.e., omitting outsider inferences about plausibility). We 

chose to transcribe using third-person perspective to underscore that these are not direct 

quotes, in that thoughts have been necessarily filtered through the interviewer in the 

transcription process. 

Quantitative Analyses 

SPSS was used to conduct all quantitative analyses. Descriptive statistics were performed 

to attest to characteristics of our sample and their self-reported experiences of 

victimization and offending. Key victimization and offending constructs from girls’ 

interviews were conceptualized in several ways, including 1) binary presence/absence 

coding of whether the girl experienced the event in question, 2) time-to-onset coding to 

indicate age at which the girl first experienced the event, and 3) duration and frequency 

coding to indicate number of years or number of incidents of the event.3

 Caregiver survey 

responses were coded using standard JVQ scoring (frequency codes ranging from zero to 

five or more times per event). We used nonparametric techniques (e.g., Chi-square, 

logistic regression) for binary dependent variables, survival analyses and Cox regression for 

time-to-onset dependent variables, and standard parametric techniques (e.g., Pearson 

correlation, linear regression) for continuous duration/frequency dependent variables. For 

 

3

 For purposes of these analyses, number of victimizations was operationalized using JVQ 6-point scoring ranges of 0 

incidents to 5 or more incidents on each subcategory of victimization; subcategory scores were then averaged within 

categories for equivalent 6-point scale ranges on all major categories. Duration of victimization was operationalized as 

the number of calendar years in each girl’s life history that the event was present (e.g., if a girl were abused by a 

caregiver from ages 5 to 8, caregiver violence duration would be coded as three years within her life history; if she 

were sexually abused at ages 7, 8, and 13, sexual abuse duration would be coded as three years). 

9 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

any set of analyses involving multiple comparisons, we adjusted significance thresholds 

using the Bonferroni method. 

Qualitative Analyses 

Qualitative interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using ATLAS/ti software, 

which allows the researcher to mark computerized text passages in a manner akin to 

underlining in a book. Passages can be tagged with commentary or labeled with codes 

(e.g., "self-worth,"). Passages, codes, and commentaries can be sorted into hierarchies, 

and participant files can be grouped into "families" or categories (e.g., "violent 

offenders"). For purposes of the present report, we used a first-cycle coding method with 

provisional top-down coding based on categories of items in girls’ interviews. This 

approach allowed us to identify specific exemplars to illustrate findings revealed in 

quantitative analysis of girls’ interview data. In this way, we will bring ATLAS/ti’s 

powerful capabilities to bear upon inferences as these emerge from the quantitative data, 

which will thereby help us to understand manifest associations between variables. 

RESULTS 

Findings of the study include descriptive information about our sample, girls’ experiences 

of victimization and adversity, girls’ crime and delinquency, and associations of 

victimization to offending. 

Participants 

Participation rates were 32% for caregivers and 98% for eligible girls, with rates being 

somewhat analogous across both the original and the refined sampling methods.4

 Records 

did not track specific kinship relationship of primary caregivers to girls, but these included 

biological and adoptive mothers, stepmothers, grandmothers, foster mothers, and in some 

cases, fathers or other relatives. Exploratory Chi-square analyses using Bonferroni 

adjustments for number of comparisons indicated no differences between girls whose 

caregivers responded (n = 45) and those whose caregivers did not respond (n = 55) for 

key victimization and offending variables including: having ever experienced caregiver 

violence (2

 = 0.00), gang violence (2 = 0.17), dating violence (2 = 1.40), sexual 

violence (2

 = 0.05), witnessing violence (2 = 1.01), or having ever engaged in alcohol 

or drug abuse (2

 = 0.12), stealing (2 = 0.26), running away (2 = 0.55), fighting or 

aggression (2

 = 0.11), or prostitution (2 = 0.17), dfs = 1, N = 100, all ps ns at the 

0.005 Bonferroni-adjusted level. 

 

4 For sampling method #1, 58% of caregivers could not be contacted after repeated phone/mail attempts, 3% of 

caregivers declined, 39% of caregivers participated, and 96% of invited girls participated. For method #2, repeated 

contact was not attempted and participation rates were 26% for caregivers and 99% for girls.

10 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Our sample of 100 committed girls ranged in age from 12 to 18, with the mean, median, 

and modal age being 16 years old. Sixty-three percent of girls were African American, 

35% were White, and 2% were Hispanic. Fifty-eight girls were sampled from the longterm commitment facility, and the remaining girls were from the moderate-management 

(n = 22) and high-management (n = 20) group homes. Exploratory Chi-square analyses 

using Bonferroni adjustments for number of comparisons indicated no differences between 

girls sampled from the long-term facility and those sampled from group homes for key 

victimization and offending variables including: having ever experienced caregiver violence 

(2

 = 1.75), gang violence (2 = 1.75), dating violence (2 = 0.94), sexual violence (2

= 1.05), witnessing violence (2

 = 0.02), or having ever engaged in alcohol or drug abuse 

(2

 = 0.38), stealing (2 = 0.31), running away (2 = 0.13), fighting or aggression (2 = 

0.02), or prostitution (2

 = 0.00), dfs = 1, N = 100, all ps ns at the 0.005 Bonferroniadjusted level. 

Girls’ Experiences of Victimization & Adversity 

Prevalence of Victimization 

Descriptive statistics were performed to examine frequencies for self-reported and 

caregiver-reported violence exposure for our sample of girls committed to the juvenile 

justice system. As can be seen in Table 1, victimization was pervasive. Sixty-nine percent 

of girls self-reported experiencing caregiver violence, including half of girls self-reporting 

physical abuse and nearly as many self-reporting psychological abuse from caregivers. It 

should be noted that within these subcategories, we coded caregivers’ provision of alcohol 

or illicit drugs to girls—behavior sometimes referred to as “missocializing” or “corruption” 

(APSAC, 1995; Hart, Germaine, & Brassard, 1987)—as a form of psychological abuse. 

Almost a quarter of girls reported experiencing caregiver neglect. Thirty-one percent of 

girls reported having been attacked by a gang or group of people, and 42% reported 

experiencing dating violence. Eighty-one percent reported experiences of sexual violence, 

including over a third of the sample reporting having been sexually assaulted by a known 

adult. About one-fifth of girls reported experiencing sexual assaults by peers, and over 

two-thirds reported that they had engaged in “consensual” sex with adults (e.g., statutory 

rape)5

. Ninety percent of girls reported witnessing violence, with roughly half of girls 

reporting that they had experienced events such as witnessing assault of a caregiver, 

witnessing an attack with a weapon, having a close friend or family member who was 

murdered, or being in a place where the girl could see or hear shooting or rioting. 

 

5

 To accommodate variations in age-of-consent from age 14 to 18 across different U.S. states (Norman-Eady, 

Reinhart, & Martino, 2003), we included events in this category if any girl under the age of 18 engaged in sexual 

intercourse with an adult 18 or over. 

11 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Only 2% of girls reported no victimization. On average, girls experienced about three of 

these five major categories of violence and about seven of the twenty subtypes of violence 

within their lifetimes (Ms = 3.13 and 6.72, respectively). 

Table 1: Prevalence of Self-Reported & Caregiver-Reported Victimization for Girls 

GIRLS’ VICTIMIZATION EXPERIENCES % GIRLS SELFREPORTING 

(N = 100) 

% CGIVERS 

REPORTING 

(N = 45)

Any caregiver violence 

 Physical abuse 

 Psychological abuse 

 Neglect 

 Parental kidnapping or custodial interference 

69 

50 

46 

23 

10 

59 

32 

41 

14 

27 

Gang or group attacks 31 22 

Dating violence 42 16 

Any sexual violence 

 Assaults by known adults 

 Assaults by unknown adults 

 Assaults by peers 

 Attempted rape 

 Flashing 

 Verbal sexual harassment 

 “Consensual” sex with adults 

81 

36 

14 

20 

20 

14 

11 

69 

67 

32 

11 

21 

33 

14 

16 

48 

Any witnessed violence 

 Witnessed assault of caregiver 

 Witnessed assault of a sibling by caregiver 

 Witnessed a bad attack with a weapon 

 Witnessed a bad attack without a weapon 

 Had a close friend/family who was murdered 

 Witnessed a murder 

 Seen or heard community shootings or riots 

90 

45 

23 

55 

36 

46 

35 

57 

79 

51 

16 

42 

46 

26 

7 

18 

Within Table 1, it appears that—among those caregivers who responded to the survey on 

their girls’ victimization—rates of reported victimization for girls were generally lower 

than those rates reported by girls themselves. The most marked exception to this involves 

parental kidnapping or custodial interference, which caregivers reported at nearly three 

times the rate reported by girls. Table 2 shows associations between case-matched 

caregivers’ responses regarding their girls’ victimization and the girls’ self-reports of 

victimization, with significance levels adjusted using Bonferroni’s method for multiple 

tests. Caregivers’ perceptions of violence in their girls’ lives were most closely aligned 

with their girls’ self-reports for experiences of caregiver violence, dating violence, and 

sexual violence. 

12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Table 2: Associations between Caregivers’ & Girls’ Responses Regarding Girls’ 

Victimization 

Correlation w/caregiver report of girls’ 

violence exposure 

Girl’s self-report of caregiver violence .41* 

Girl’s self-report of gang violence .09 

Girl’s self-report of dating violence .33* 

Girl’s self-report of sexual violence .46* 

Girl’s self-report of witnessing violence .06 

*p < .01 Bonferroni-adjusted, one-tailed criterion. 

Non-Victimization Adversity 

Table 3 shows prevalence of non-victimization adversity. Nearly every girl self-reported at 

least one adverse childhood event, with the median number of adverse childhood 

experiences being three. Girls faced particular risk for death or serious illness of a close 

friend or family member, followed by incarceration of a caregiver, caregiver substance 

abuse, and persistent family conflict. It should be noted that a number of girls were 

hospitalized for incidents of severe self-injury (e.g., overdose, cutting) that may or may 

not have been intentional (e.g., “I don’t know if I was trying to kill myself”); these events 

were included in our coding of “bad accidents.” 

Table 3: Prevalence of Self-Reported Non-Victimization Adversity 

ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES PERCENT OF 

SAMPLE 

(N=100) 

At least one of the following adverse events 

 Was in a bad fire, flood, storm, or other disaster 

 Had a bad accident with hospitalization 

 Had a bad illness with hospitalization 

 Death or serious illness of a close friend or family member 

 Caregiver went to jail or prison 

 Caregiver’s drug or alcohol use caused problems 

 Caregiver lost job and could not find work 

 Family always argued or fought 

 Household member had mental health problems 

 Was always bullied or teased 

97 

20 

24 

12 

84 

54 

48 

16 

44 

20 

41 

13 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

These data on self-reported adverse events also provide some opportunity for convergent 

validity with archival data, specifically around readily definable events such as incarceration 

of a caregiver. SCDJJ records are aligned with girls’ self-reports indicating that exactly 

54% had caregivers with criminal records. 

Table 4 shows Pearson correlation coefficients for associations among different categories 

of victimization and adverse events. For each of the five categories of victimization, we 

used a variable indicating number of victimizations within that category. We have included 

a variable indicating the count of number of subtypes of victimization reported by the girl 

(poly-victimization) as well as a count of number of self-reported adverse childhood 

experiences (ACEs). One-tailed significance levels were used based on literature indicating 

positive associations between various forms of victimization and adverse events (Finkelhor 

et al., 2005), and significance levels are adjusted using Bonferroni’s method for multiple 

tests. 

Consistent with the literature, all associations were positive. Of the five major categories 

of victimization, witnessing violence demonstrated the most consistent associations with 

other categories, and gang attacks showed the least consistent associations. As one would 

expect given the literature on poly-victimization, number of subtypes of victimization was 

highly correlated with all categories of victimization and with adverse childhood events. 

Also consistent with logic, number of adverse events—many of which may be based in the 

household of origin—was highly correlated with caregiver violence and witnessing 

violence. 

Table 4: Pearson Correlations among Victimization Categories and Adverse Events 

Gang Dating Sexual Witnessing Polyvictimization 

ACEs 

Caregiver .34* .26 .22 .38* .57* .50* 

Gang .17 .25 .44* .47* .12 

Dating .34* .35* .45* .31* 

Sexual .41* .64* .29* 

Witnessing .74* .62* 

Polyvictimization .58* 

*p < .002 Bonferroni-adjusted, one-tailed criterion. 

14 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Risk Trajectories for Victimization 

Survival analyses were used to examine risk trajectories for each category of violence. As 

can be seen in Table 5, the median time for which girls were exposed to risk (e.g., their 

age at interview) was 16 years. Median age until onset of each category of violence is also 

provided in the table; this indicates the age at which at least 50% of the sample had 

experienced each category of violence (e.g., by age 12, just over 50 girls in our sample of 

100 had experienced caregiver violence). The table indicates that girls tend to risk 

witnessing violence at a much earlier age than other categories of violence, followed by 

risk for caregiver violence, sexual violence, dating violence, and gang violence, 

respectively. 

Table 5: Median Exposure and Survival Time to Victimization 

Median Age 

Overall time at risk 16 

Onset of caregiver violence 12 

Onset of gang violence 17 

Onset of dating violence 16 

Onset of sexual violence 13 

Onset of witnessing violence 8 

Table 6 illustrates trajectory of risk for each category of victimization and for polyvictimization. These hazard functions graphically illustrate the proportion of those girls 

who were exposed to risk and experienced a given event. For example, the hazard function 

for caregiver violence shows approximately one quarter of the 100 girls experienced 

caregiver violence by age 4. These girls have “terminated” (experienced onset for this 

category of violence) and are removed from the remaining calculations. At age 5, another 

girl experiences caregiver violence and is removed from the sample, five more terminate at 

age six, one terminates at age 7, three at age 8, and so on. The dots on the graph indicate 

the number of those terminating relative to the number left in the sample at that step, and 

this is a measure of the “riskiness” of that particular age. At age 14, for instance, seven of 

the remaining 34 girls experience caregiver violence—a 20% hazard rate. That is, if a girl 

had not already experienced violence by this age, she has a 7 out of 34 chance of 

experiencing it. It should be noted that—because fewer cases remain in analyses at later 

stages—estimates at these stages might be viewed as less stable than those based on a 

greater number of cases. For instance, by the final caregiver violence interval representing 

girls at age 16, only five girls remained in the sample (i.e., exposed to risk), but one of 

these five experienced caregiver violence, resulting in the relatively high 1-in-5 hazard 

rate. 

15 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

As can be seen by the interpolated hazard functions, risk for caregiver violence peaks prior 

to school age and shows sporadic increases thereafter. Risk for gang attacks begins in prepubescence and peaks in early adolescence, with risk declining in later adolescence. Risk 

for dating violence begins around pubescence and rises dramatically thereafter. Girls face 

some risk of sexual violence throughout childhood, with risk increasing around pubescence 

and peaking sharply in early adolescence, then declining thereafter. Risk for witnessing 

violence begins before school age, rising throughout pubescence and peaking in late 

adolescence. Poly-victimization (as operationalized by experiencing four or more subtypes 

of victimization6

) presents some risk throughout childhood, with risk rising throughout 

adolescence. 

 

6

 The “cut-off” for classifying someone as a poly-victim has varied across projects depending on items included in the 

assessment (all JVQ vs. subset), how these are tallied (per act vs. per incident), and the time frame of measurement 

(e.g., past year vs. life). Using four subtypes is common, and researchers have found that a variety of 

conceptualizations have similar predictive validity (Finkelhor et al., 2005; Turner, Finkelhor, & Ormrod, 2006). 

16 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Table 6: Interpolated Hazard for Categories of Victimization & Poly-victimization 

17 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Girls’ Crime & Delinquency 

Types & Prevalence of Crime & Delinquency 

SCDJJ arrest data indicate the girls collectively had accumulated nearly as many different 

charges as there were girls, with their collective nine-hundred-seventeen offenses and 

ninety-six distinct charges ranging from minor delinquency (e.g., status offenses, probation 

violations) to more severe crimes including assaults, burglaries, criminal sexual conduct, 

fraud, shoplifting, and weapons charges, among others. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of 

these offenses for the entire sample. 

Figure 1: Number of Offenses by Type

Alc/Drugs, 14

Steal/Fraud, 152

Runaway, 82

Violent, 233

Prostit, 1

Probat Vio, 176

Other, 259

A substantial portion of girls’ offenses were probation or technical violations, as one might 

expect in a sample of committed girls. In Figure 1, the “Other” category includes a range 

of charges such as littering, truancy, and conspiracy. However, the bulk of this category 

consists of charges for incorrigibility, disturbing school, disorderly conduct, and property 

damage/trespassing. Girls’ accounts of such charges were often more elusive, in that these 

offenses seemed less salient to girls, who sometimes expressed that they did not 

understand charges or that charges did not reflect events. Consider the following accounts. 

 Shalena’s court date for incorrigibility was earlier this year. She had never done anything 

illegal until she found out about her charge....Shalena didn’t even know incorrigible was a 

charge. They used everything she had done against her. It wasn’t just one event. 

 The public disorderly conduct was because Cynthia was caught messing with a boy on the 

football field in the press box. 

18 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

For the present report, we chose to focus on five tangible types of offenses explicitly 

addressed in our interviews: substance use, stealing, running away, fighting or assaults, and 

prostitution. Table 7 shows girls’ self-reported and officially recorded involvement in 

crime and delinquency. 

Table 7: Prevalence of Crime & Delinquency in Self-Reports and Arrest Records 

CRIME & DELINQUENCY PERCENT 

SELFREPORTING 

(N = 100) 

PERCENT 

ARRESTED 

FOR OFFENSE 

(N = 100) 

Any alcohol or drugs 

 Alcohol 

 Marijuana 

 Cocaine, crack, or methamphetamines 

 Other drugs (e.g., illicit pills, inhalants, heroine)

83 

66 

78 

31 

44 

10 

Shoplifting or stealing 76 39 

Running away from home or placement 77 38 

Fighting or assaults 90 72 

Prostitution 14 1 

Self-report data, viewed in conjunction with SCDJJ official data, indicate that girls’ selfreports of offending include offenses not captured in arrest data. The discrepancy between 

self-reports and arrest data was greatest for alcohol and drug offenses. Examination of 

additional SCDJJ intake records also indicate that self-reports to officials do not capture 

substance use analogous to girls’ self-reports for our research interviews; that is, intake 

records list only 59% of girls as ever having used alcohol or drugs. Arrest data was most 

closely aligned with girls’ self-reports for overt, public acts such as assaults. 

Obviously, girls were not caught each time they engaged in delinquency over the lifespan, 

and if they were caught, full charges may not have been levied. Consider the following 

accounts. 

 When Daphne was in ninth grade, she broke into a house with her cousin. It was a trap 

house (drug house). It was Daphne’s cousin’s idea to break in and steal clothes, shoes, and 

weed. They didn’t get caught. 

 Amber could have been charged with assault because she fought the girl, but Amber lied and 

said the girl hit her first. Amber’s friends backed her up and Amber wasn’t charged. 

There is also likelihood that girls’ accounts may include self-effacing omissions or 

embellishments. We conducted case-by-case analyses of interview transcripts in 

conjunction with multi-agency archival records in order to establish whether excessive 

misrepresentation might be an issue of concern. For the vast majority of cases, girls’ 

19 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

interview transcripts verified most or all of girls’ documented SCDJJ charges, bolstering 

our confidence in the veracity of girls’ accounts with regard to salient life events. 

Qualitative data sheds light on the varied events represented in girls’ records and selfreports. Alcohol and drug related charges in girls’ records were predominated by 

possession, with several charges for drug manufacture or sales. The following are 

representative self-reports of substance use from girls’ interviews, including use of 

marijuana, liquor, and inhalants. 

 Alice started smoking weed in eighth grade. She smoked more in ninth grade...like she’d 

spend her lunch money on weed. 

 Meleena started drinking in eighth grade. She drank gin and Grey Goose and Petrone. She’s 

had Crown Royal and Jim Beam....It started when she was sitting in the traphouse and 

people were drinking and smoking. Meleena wanted a shot, and then she kept drinking after 

that. 

 Sarah did airduster (huffing) from Wal-Mart in ninth and tenth grade. Her friends were 

dating marines, and the marines couldn’t fail their drug test, so that’s what they used to do. 

Many girls stole, with records including acts such as burglary, forgery or transaction card 

theft, larceny, shoplifting, and use of a vehicle without the owner’s permission. Girls’ 

interviews provide examples. 

 Meleena was shoplifting in her first and second years of ninth grade. She was with a girl and 

Meleena saw a pretty shirt. The girl said, “Why don’t you go ahead and get it?” The girl took 

the shirt and took off the tags and put it in her bag, and they walked out of the store. When 

they got to the car, Meleena said, “It’s that easy?! We’re going to another store to do that 

again!” 

 Hailey did an armed robbery in seventh grade. She was angry....Someone asked if she 

wanted to do it, and Hailey said, “Yeah,” because she was so mad that day. She used her BB 

gun and robbed a video store while the other kids waited outside....One of the other kids that 

had been with her told. 

Many girls described running away from home or placements, with motivations ranging 

from escaping abuse to avoiding rules to pursuing boys. 

 Hailey ran away once when she was 13. It was because of abuse. Hailey’s stepdad was mad 

at her mom, so he started beating Hailey and her sister...She jumped out the window with 

her bag and ran three miles to go to the bus station with nothing but a dollar and some 

change in her pocket. She went to her grandmom’s house and stayed for a week. 

 Alaina ran away about forty times from eighth grade on. She doesn’t like listening to her 

mom and doesn’t like rules. She doesn’t think she should have to come home at night. She 

should be able to stay out and have fun. 

20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

 Alice left her house hundreds of times from fifth grade to seventh grade, and once in seventh 

grade she ran away for three days....Alice’s brother started to run away, and Alice saw that 

it worked for him, so she tried it because she wanted to be with her boyfriends. 

Examples of fighting included brawls with peers, assaults of family members or teachers, 

and entanglement in drug disputes. Some girls were charged with assaults on animals, 

resisting arrest, threats to life of a person, or weapons offenses. Girls’ self-reports of 

violence included those initiated solely by the girl as well as mutual or retaliatory assaults. 

 Willow got in a fight in 6th grade, then fought more often—maybe 12 to 15 times—from 

9th to 11th grade....She would have a bunch of anger because she didn’t like hanging 

around people. Someone would say something to her and she’d swing first. 

 Gabrielle got in a fight with her dad in ninth grade. She was arguing with her stepmom, and 

her dad came in her room to talk to her. Gabrielle pushed him, and he flipped out and pushed 

her back. Gabrielle swung at him, and they started fighting. 

 Daneeka used to fight all the time in eighth and ninth grade....If she was fighting a girl, it 

was usually over a boy. If she was fighting a boy, it was usually over drugs—like they didn’t 

give her the right money, and she’d beat their ass. 

A sizable minority of girls reported exchanging sex for money or drugs, but only one girl 

was ever charged with prostitution. According to self-reports, the range of girls’ sexual 

acts and those who colluded varied, ranging from stripping for drugs to more overt 

commercial exploitation by adults. 

 Jenna used to strip for drugs when she was fifteen. Jenna doesn’t think of it as prostitution. 

She likes to think of it as a “thank you” present. She guesses she’s in denial about it, because 

it’s not such a thing to be proud of, that you had sex and they gave you a quarter (bag of 

marijuana)....God punished her for it by giving her herpes. 

 Brooke’s mom prostituted her when she was 13....It was maybe two or three times in a week. 

Brooke was afraid, but it was for her mom, and Brooke would do it for her mom. Then when 

she turned fourteen, Brooke said she wouldn’t do it no more....It probably happened seven or 

eight times all together. 

Risk Trajectories for Delinquency 

Survival analyses were used to examine risk trajectories for each category of delinquency as 

well as for onset of involvement with the justice system. Table 8 shows median age until 

onset of each category of delinquency and of SCDJJ involvement. The table indicates that 

girls tend to become involved in fighting slightly before becoming involved in substance 

use, followed by stealing and running away. Around that same age, girls may come to the 

21 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

attention of the justice system. Involvement in prostitution tends to occur later in 

adolescence. 

Table 8: Median Survival Time to Delinquency 

Median Age 

Onset of alcohol/drug use 13 

Onset of stealing 14 

Onset of running away 14 

Onset of fighting/assaults 12 

Onset of prostitution 17 

Onset of SCDJJ involvement 14 

Table 9 illustrates trajectory of risk for each category of delinquency and for SCDJJ 

involvement. As can be seen by the interpolated hazard functions, risk for substance use 

begins prior to school age for a very small number of girls and increases sporadically in 

prepubescence, then rises steadily throughout most of adolescence. There exists some risk 

for stealing throughout childhood, with hazard rising markedly throughout adolescence. 

Risk for running away begins in pre-pubescence and rises sharply throughout adolescence. 

Fighting shows an early peak in risk prior to school age, followed by multiple subsequent 

peaks in adolescence. Prostitution risk begins around pubescence and peaks sharply near 

age fifteen. Finally, first involvement in the justice system shows a gradual slope, with risk 

beginning as early as school age and escalating throughout adolescence. It is notable that 

the curve for justice involvement is more closely aligned with those for offenses such as 

stealing and running away than for those such as substance use or physical assaults. 

22 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Table 9: Interpolated Hazard for Self-Reported Delinquency & Recorded SCDJJ 

Involvement 

23 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Association of Victimization & Adversity to Crime & 

Delinquency 

Regression Analyses of Victimization-Delinquency Associations 

Regression equations were used to examine association of self-reports for each of the five 

categories of victimization to each of the five types of crime. To help us assess stability of 

findings within our sample of 100 girls, we employed both nonparametric and parametric 

techniques via several types of regression. Logistic regression was used to examine how 

presence/absence of victimization may predict presence/absence of each type of crime; 

Cox regression was used to examine how number of victimizations may predict age of 

onset for each type of crime; and linear regression was used to examine how number of 

victimizations may predict duration (chronicity) of crime. Each set of regression equations 

included one of the five crime types as a dependent variable and the five victimization 

categories entered in one step as independent variables. Trimmed equations were then 

performed using only those independent variables that met a significance threshold of p < 

.10. For purposes of this report, we will focus only on significant findings. 

Association of Having Been Victimized to Having Committed Crime 

Logistic regression was used to examine how presence of victimization may predict 

presence of each type of crime. For presence of substance use, presence of caregiver 

violence and sexual violence demonstrated a significant overall effect , 2

 (3, N = 100) = 

18.27, p < .001. Table 10 shows coefficients for these two variables, which accounted for 

17% of the variance in girls’ substance use. 

Table 10: Logistic Regression of Presence of Victimization on Presence of Substance Use 

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Caregiver 1.413 .605 5.453 1 .020 4.108

Sexual 2.084 .623 11.179 1 .001 8.038

(Constant) -.709 .601 1.392 1 .238 .492

Model Cox & Snell R Square = .167 

For presence of prostitution, presence of gang violence and dating violence met criteria for 

the trimmed model. The overall model was significant, 2

 (2, N = 98) = 12.77, p < .01, 

accounting for 12% of the variance in prostitution. As can be seen in Table 11, only dating 

violence was a significant predictor in the trimmed model. 

24 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Table 11: Logistic Regression of Presence of Victimization on Presence of Prostitution 

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Gang -1.495 .829 3.253 1 .071 .224

Dating 2.033 .707 8.273 1 .004 7.635

(Constant) -2.628 .601 19.154 1 .000 .072

Model Cox & Snell R Square = .122 

Association of Number of Victimizations to Onset of Crime 

Cox regression was used to examine how number of victimizations may predict age of 

onset for each type of crime. For age of first substance use, number of caregiver 

victimizations and number of witnessing victimizations met criteria for inclusion in the 

trimmed equation. The overall model was significant, 2

 (2, N = 100) = 20.75, p < .001 

and both categories of victimization contributed to prediction of substance use onset (Table 

12). 

Table 12: Cox Regression of Number of Victimizations on Onset of Substance Use 

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Caregiver .241 .102 5.597 1 .018 1.272

Witnessing .430 .133 10.533 1 .001 1.538

For age of first fight, only number of witnessing victimizations contributed to prediction, 

2

 (1, N = 100) = 4.27, p < .05 (Table 13). 

Table 13: Cox Regression of Number of Victimizations on Onset of Fighting 

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Witnessing .216 .105 4.247 1 .039 1.241

For age of first prostitution, number of sexual victimizations and number of witnessing 

victimizations contributed to prediction, 2

 (2, N = 100) = 15.07, p < .001 (Table 14). 

Table 14: Cox Regression of Number of Victimizations on Onset of Prostitution 

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Sexual 1.411 .329 18.425 1 .000 4.101

Witnessing -.635 .268 5.633 1 .018 .530

25 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Association of Number of Victimizations to Duration of Crime 

Linear regression was used to examine how number of victimizations may predict duration 

of crime. For duration of substance use, number of caregiver victimizations, sexual 

victimizations, and witnessing victimizations contributed to prediction, F (3, 89) = 26.14, 

p < .001, accounting for 45% of the variance (Table 15). 

Table 15: Linear Regression of Number of Victimizations on Duration of Substance Use 

Unstandardized 

Coefficients 

Standardized 

Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 

(Constant) .745 .331 2.252 .027

Caregiver .449 .175 .215 2.562 .012

Sexual 1.373 .310 .377 4.435 .000

Witnessing .733 .211 .312 3.480 .001

Model Adjusted R Square = .450 

For duration of stealing, only number of caregiver victimizations contributed to 

prediction, F (1, 94) = 9.28, p < .01, accounting for 8% of the variance (Table 16). 

Table 16: Linear Regression of Number of Victimizations on Duration of Stealing 

Unstandardized 

Coefficients 

Standardized 

Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 

(Constant) 1.604 .321 4.997 .000

Caregiver .597 .196 .300 3.046 .003

Model Adjusted R Square = .080 

For duration of running away, only number of gang victimizations contributed to 

prediction, F (1, 95) = 11.44, p < .001, accounting for 10% of the variance (Table 17). 

Table 17: Linear Regression of Number of Victimizations on Duration of Running Away 

Unstandardized 

Coefficients 

Standardized 

Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 

(Constant) 1.476 .171 8.608 .000

Gang .452 .134 .328 3.383 .001

Model Adjusted R Square = .098 

26 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

For duration of fighting, number of caregiver victimizations, gang victimizations, and 

witnessing victimizations met criteria for the trimmed model, F (3, 89) = 6.69, p < .001. 

Only caregiver victimization and witnessing contributed to prediction, accounting for 16% 

of the variance (Table 18). 

Table 18: Linear Regression of Number of Victimizations on Duration of Fighting 

Unstandardized 

Coefficients 

Standardized 

Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 

(Constant) 3.621 .584 6.205 .000

Caregiver -.747 .334 -.238 -2.240 .028

Gang .621 .347 .196 1.791 .077

Witnessing 1.234 .387 .353 3.188 .002

Model Adjusted R Square = .156 

For duration of prostitution, number of dating victimizations, sexual victimizations, and 

witnessing victimizations contributed to prediction, F (3, 90) = 12.48, p < .001, 

accounting for 27% of the variance (Table 19). 

Table 19: Linear Regression of Number of Victimizations on Duration of Prostitution 

Unstandardized 

Coefficients 

Standardized 

Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 

(Constant) -.020 .091 -.223 .824

Dating .067 .028 .238 2.430 .017

Sexual .434 .092 .474 4.698 .000

Witnessing -.118 .059 -.201 -2.011 .047

Model Adjusted R Square = .270 

Summary & Qualitative Exploration 

As can be seen in Table 20, some findings demonstrated greater stability across the three 

types of regression analyses than do other findings. In predicting substance use, caregiver 

violence displayed the greatest stability, and both sexual violence and witnessing were 

significant predictors in two of the three types of analyses. No category of victimization 

consistently predicted stealing or running away. Fighting was predicted by witnessing 

violence in two of the three types of analyses. Finally, dating violence, sexual violence, and 

witnessing each were significant predictors of prostitution in two of the three types of 

analyses.

27 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Table 20: Significant Predictors of Crime across Three Types of Regression Analyses 

DV: CRIME TYPE IV: CATEGORY OF VICTIMIZATION 

LOGISTIC 

Presence of Crime by 

Presence of Victimization 

COX 

Age of Crime Onset by 

Number of Victimizations 

LINEAR 

Duration of Crime by Number 

of Victimizations 

Substance Use Caregiver violence 

Sexual violence 

Caregiver violence 

Witnessing violence

Caregiver violence 

Sexual violence 

Witnessing violence 

Stealing (none) (none) Caregiver violence 

Running Away (none) (none) Gang violence 

Fighting/Aggression (none) Witnessing violence Caregiver violence 

Witnessing violence 

Prostitution Dating violence Sexual violence 

Witnessing violence

Dating violence 

Sexual violence 

Witnessing violence 

To delve further into the nature of these more stable associations, we examined girls’ 

narrative accounts of victimization and crime, specifically searching the qualitative data set 

for examples of victimization-crime linkage. Explication of themes follows. 

Substance Use & Victimization 

Substance use was associated with experiences of caregiver violence, sexual violence, and 

witnessing. Examination of qualitative accounts revealed that use of alcohol and drugs as a 

means of coping was an underlying theme across all three associations. Consider the 

following accounts. 

 Alice is still going to drink when she’s out of here. It makes you forget your problems for just 

one night--problems like past stuff from when her mom used child abuse and was on 

drugs...stuff like that never goes away. 

 Angie saw her mom beaten by her dad all of her life...Every fight there was a bloody nose or 

busted lip, bruises. Lots of times her mom would have broken bones. Angie didn’t like it. 

Drugs helped her cope. 

 The drug rape in sixth or seventh grade affected Latanya’s self-esteem. Latanya wrote a 

poem...so that other kids could read it to their parents to help them explain why they do the 

things they do. Latanya does drugs because she feels pain, to try to hide relationships and 

people dying, death. 

 Ella was sexually abused. It happened from the time she was in fifth grade until seventh 

grade, and then she came out with it when she was fourteen. There was a deposition about it, 

and Ella had to say everything in detail that happened, on camera...Ella guesses that 

brought up all the pain, and after that she started doing drugs....she started doing more and 

more drugs and running away for long periods of time. That got her locked up the first time. 

28 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Corruption involving parents or other caregivers was also a factor in girls’ substance use. 

 Jenna did Oxycontin with her mom the first time. That’s how Jenna’s mom found out that 

Jenna was doing it and snorting it because they sniffed it when they did it together. It was 

weird because her mom patted her on the back for snorting it. Like most kids get patted on the 

back by their moms for playing sports or something, and Jenna’s mom patted her on the back 

for snorting pills. It made Jenna feel like a badass, kinda cool. 

 Shannon started doing drugs in sixth grade, shooting up cocaine--that was her first 

drug...Shannon had left her mom’s house and was living with [an adult woman]. Shannon 

saw [them shoot up] and thought that looked alright. The woman and her boyfriend tied a 

belt around Shannon’s arm and shot her up, and Shannon kept doing it ever since...Shannon 

wasn’t but 11, but she thought she was grown. 

 Cynthia’s uncles used to sell drugs and that’s how Cynthia got exposed to all that. Her 

uncles knew that kids at school wanted it, and they asked Cynthia if she wanted to sell and 

earn some money. 

Another strikingly common intersection of sexual abuse and corruption was girls’ 

involvement with adult sexual partners who enabled substance abuse. 

 When Chastity was 16...she ran away with a 48-year-old man, and he beat her like she was 

a grown woman. He sold drugs, and Chastity didn’t do them, but she had been around them 

a lot. That led to her smoking weed and drinking and smoking cigarettes. 

 Sarah’s boyfriend in ninth and tenth grade was 19. In the long run, he was bad for Sarah. 

She followed him doing stuff, stole, and tried to support him. He got Sarah doing drugs, and 

once he even tried to convince her to go to the police station and turn herself in so he 

wouldn’t get in trouble for something. 

Once involved in substance use, girls’ presence in risky situations was sometimes 

associated with witnessed violence. 

 Jenna saw a murder in tenth grade. Jenna was with the lady to go get drugs...Jenna was in 

the same room...She saw it...The lady spoke Spanish, and she and the man were arguing in 

Spanish. He took a gun out of his back pocket...There was brain everywhere. That 

image...It was terrifying. It takes your breath away, when the life of someone is taken. It’s 

powerful in a weird, creepy way. 

Fighting & Victimization 

The association between witnessing violence and engaging in fighting or assaults appeared 

to be largely a function of girls’ use of retaliatory or protective violence, as is illustrated in 

the following examples. 

29 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

 The whole time Sandy lived with her grandmother, she used to see her grandmom beat 

Sandy’s sister. That’s when Sandy started beating on her grandmom. Sandy and her sister 

didn’t call DSS because they knew their grandmom would get locked up. 

 When Alice was 16 she jumped her cousin’s baby’s daddy because he spit in her face...Alice 

beat him with her brothers. They were kicking him and all. Alice still has blood on the shoes 

she was wearing when she came in here to DJJ from that. After they kicked him, Alice robbed 

him, took the money out of his pockets. 

 When Rogenia was 11, she saw her mom get jumped over crack, and her mom stabbed the 

dude. Her mom got jumped more than five times. Sometimes Rogenia had to defend her mom 

because there wasn’t always that knife there. It made Rogenia more paranoid and more 

aggressive. 

Prostitution & Victimization 

Much like substance use, involvement in prostitution was also associated with girls’ sexual 

relationships with adult men. 

 Amber had a sugardaddy in tenth and eleventh grade. She would have sex with him for 

money and other stuff. He was in his 60s. He was on the news this year because he got busted. 

 Emily was tricking when she ran away at 16 and 17. She probably did it twenty times. That 

guy that was a crackhead got her into it...He suggested it as a way they could get money. 

Emily has lots of flashbacks about it. She wonders why she ever did it, how she even got in 

that position. She gets pictures of it happening in her head. 

 Corretta ran away in tenth grade. She went to another state with her cousin....They stayed 

in motels...The dudes they were with were pimps--they would get dudes to come in, and 

Corretta and her cousin would perform sex acts on them. They’d make 500 to 800 dollars a 

night. Corretta and her cousin just met the pimps in the streets, and they were in their 40s 

and 50s. 

 Jessica prostituted herself last year. It was her boyfriend’s idea--to support drugs. Jessica did 

it lots. He acted as her pimp. Jessica had about forty adult male sex partners...Jessica still 

feels bad and nasty to this day about it. Especially if you’re having sex with someone that’s so 

old that you just feel nasty doing it. 

Prostitution activity was, in turn, associated with dating violence from pimps as well as 

witnessed violence associated with risky situations. 

 Corretta was attacked a lot by the dude she was with. He would pistol whip her and drag her 

down the strip by her hair. He did it to show out, like every other night. He used to say he 

did it because he loved her. It would happen because Corretta didn’t do what she was told, or 

she’d go outside to talk on the cell phone because she couldn’t get reception inside. He’d drag 

her off the fire escape back inside, beat her, and make her have sex--with him and with other 

30 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

people. He’d do it even if she was bleeding--then he’d make her have oral sex. Corretta has 

dreams about it, and sometimes if she’s thinking about it, she’ll break down and cry. 

 Rebecca met this girl who had run away from her house. The girl ran into Rebecca at a store, 

and the girl looked kinda tore up and dirty. Rebecca asked her if she had any money, and she 

didn’t. The girl told Rebecca she had run away because her stepfather raped her. Rebecca 

bought her some clothes and told her she could help her make some money. The girl brought 

four of her friends along. Rebecca felt bad for the girl, and it was the guys’ idea to sell them. 

They sold a couple of girls and stopped after one of the little girls got killed. A dude that 

wanted her for sex shot her in the head because she didn’t want to go with him. Rebecca was 

there. Now she doesn’t like the sight of blood. 

Associations of Delinquency to Poly-victimization and Adverse 

Childhood Experiences7

Exploratory analyses indicated that entry of poly-victimization or adverse childhood 

experiences into regression equations with other victimization variables did not add to 

prediction and that neither poly-victimization nor adverse experiences emerged as 

significant predictors in any equation. To elucidate any potential association of these 

constructs to crime, we conducted bivariate correlations of our continuous 

operationalizations of each (number of subtypes of victimization, number of adverse 

experiences) with duration of each of the five types of crime. 

Table 21: Pearson Correlations of Duration of Crime with Poly-victimization & ACEs 

Substance 

Use 

Stealing Running 

Away 

Fighting Prostitution 

Polyvictimization .57* .29* .23 .17 .20 

ACEs .37* .11 .01 .09 .03 

*p < .005 Bonferroni-adjusted, two-tailed criterion. 

As can be seen in Table 21, the number of subtypes of victimization experienced by girls 

was most strongly associated with duration of offending for substance use and stealing. 

There were non-significant trends toward association of poly-victimization with running 

away and prostitution (both ps < .05). Girls’ number of non-victimization adverse 

childhood experiences was associated only with duration of substance use. 

 

7 We also conducted exploratory analyses on association of offending to several indicators of childhood stability (e.g., 

number of homes, schools, and caregivers). Detailed discussion of these is beyond the scope of this report, but we 

have included a summary in Appendix B.

31 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

DISCUSSION 

These girls committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice reported very high levels of 

victimization, particularly caregiver violence, sexual violence, and witnessing violence. 

Many girls might be classified as “poly-victims,” having experienced multiple types of 

violence exposure. Girls’ self-reported victimization was most closely aligned with their 

caregivers’ perceptions for categories of violence associated with the family and sexuality, 

specifically caregiver violence, dating violence, and sexual abuse. It appeared that 

caregivers may be less privy to girls’ experiences of violence exposure regarding gang or 

group attacks and witnessing violence. Girls in our sample also experienced high rates of 

other adverse childhood experiences, especially death or illness of a caregiver, caregiver 

incarceration, caregiver addiction, and persistent family conflict. Although polyvictimization and adverse experiences did not add to prediction of delinquency beyond 

other categories of victimization, these cumulative and ecological risks were associated 

with nearly all major categories of violence exposure, underscoring the importance of 

addressing victimization as it rests among other risks in the context of girls’ lives. 

Examining the hazard function for different categories of victimization and isolating time 

periods with steep slope changes is a way to identify risky time periods for girls (Singer & 

Willett, 1991)—periods during which prevention or risk reduction may take on 

heightened importance. Within this sample of delinquent girls, risk trajectories indicated 

susceptibility to caregiver violence and witnessed violence starting prior to school age, 

with a second peak in risk during adolescence. Thus, early childhood and adolescence may 

be times to target interventions to specifically address these risks and provide support that 

may mitigate impacts of violence exposure. In contrast, risk for gang or group attacks 

began rising just before pubescence, and dating violence risk logically escalated after 

pubescence. Sexual violence was a risk for girls throughout their lives but was particularly 

prevalent during adolescence. Thus, early preventative education on such risks might be 

supplemented with skill-building around adolescence to bolster girls’ resilience to these 

threats. Early onset of violence exposure, as well as recurring exposure to risk throughout 

childhood and adolescence, indicates that assessment for victimization and trauma should 

occur early and frequently in girls’ lives. Furthermore, programs or services to address 

multiple, co-occurring forms of violence exposure might be implemented throughout 

girls’ lives, and especially during the teen years as likelihood of poly-victimization 

increases. 

Hazard functions for crime and delinquency evinced assaultiveness and substance use as 

risks that emerge relatively early in girls’ lives, prior to their involvement with justice 

agencies. Thus, it may be advisable to educate persons who work with children regarding 

signs and potential early interventions for such behaviors. Offenses such as stealing and 

running away were more prominent around early adolescence, about the same time girls 

come to the attention of the justice system. This may be indicative of a tendency to utilize 

justice responses to address these problems. Because prostitution risk tended to occur later 

32 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

in adolescence, after the age at which most girls had already entered the justice system, 

juvenile justice programmers may wish to develop more focused awareness and riskreduction education around issues of sexual exploitation. 

Our findings regarding associations between victimization and girls’ offending provide 

valuable information regarding content for gender-responsive programming to reduce 

crime and delinquency. One prominent theme in girls’ accounts involved substance abuse 

as a form of self-medication used to cope with past caregiver violence, witnessed violence, 

and sexual violence. This illuminates the need for education and services addressing alcohol 

and drug use among traumatized girls, as well as need for skill-building to develop 

alternative coping mechanisms to address violence, loss, and other stressors in girls’ lives. 

Our findings indicated that girls’ use of violence and aggression frequently occurred in 

retaliation to witnessed violence in the girls’ homes or communities. Thus, enhancing the 

safety of girls’ ecological contexts may be a necessary step in reducing this type of reactive 

aggression. Again, alternative coping skills may be needed, including non-violent conflict 

resolution and use of appropriate systemic resources (e.g., law enforcement, social 

services). 

Both substance abuse and involvement in prostitution bore associations to these young 

girls’ relationships with criminally involved adults. These findings highlight the importance 

of examining corruption of girls through social networks, including missocialization by 

caregivers and sexual exploitation by older men. This also holds important policy 

implications for addressing child corruption. For instance, advocates for girls might wish to 

address guidelines and penalties surrounding issues such as provision of alcohol and drugs 

to minors, statutory rape, and enticement of youth into criminal activity such as drug 

dealing and prostitution. 

Girls’ accounts illustrated how involvement in high-risk activities such as drug use and 

commercial sex work heightened risk for revictimization, including exposure to drug and 

gang violence, physical abuse from “johns” and pimps, and sexual assaults by acquaintances 

and predators. These risks indicate that there may be need for greater presence of 

confidential community-based services to address victimization that may occur in a 

criminal context, in that these victims may be unlikely to utilize systemic resources for fear 

of implicating themselves in criminal conduct. 

Collectively, project findings have theoretical implications regarding range and 

consequences of violence exposure for at-risk girls, as well as applied utility for service 

interventions, justice interventions to promote rehabilitation and accountability, and 

efforts to increase ecological safety for delinquent girls through work with families and 

communities. We plan to work closely with our project advisory board to identify 

audiences and formats for dissemination so that these findings may be of maximum utility 

for professionals and lay community members who interact with girls. This might include 

applications for educators at all levels of schooling, faith-based groups and nongovernmental organizations that provide services in community settings, program 

33 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

developers and social service staff working in juvenile justice settings, and policy makers 

concerned about well-being of youth and families. Further, our findings provide 

information for researchers regarding importance of focusing inquiry on issues such as 

victimization by caregivers and sexual predators and role of social networks in girls’ 

pathways to delinquency. Understanding prevalence and dynamics of these risks is essential 

for developing effective prevention, risk reduction, and intervention. 

The current findings are limited in deriving from a modest sample of girls committed to 

juvenile facilities. Our participants may have been more criminally involved or 

experienced higher levels of victimization than delinquent girls who had not penetrated the 

juvenile justice system. Similarly, these findings may not generalize to girls who were 

referred to adult youthful offender programs. For particular delinquent activity within our 

sample (e.g., fighting, stealing, running away), it is possible that ceiling effects of frequent 

offending or other sample biases may have attenuated associations to victimization. 

Additional research might examine associations between victimization and delinquency 

among probationers or less systemically involved girls. Researchers could also investigate 

ways in which patterns identified here continue into adulthood. Further research is needed 

to explore how resiliency and mental health outcomes may mediate associations between 

girls’ victimization and delinquency. We plan to explore such constructs through our 

archival quantitative data, and we will conduct intensive grounded-theory analyses 

(Strauss, 1987) of qualitative data via subsampling from our dataset. We believe that the 

rich data amassed here will lend itself to a variety of applications in years to come. 

REFERENCES 

Acoca, L. (1998). Outside/inside: The violation of American girls at home, on the streets, 

and in the juvenile justice system. Crime and Delinquency, 44(4), 561-589. 

Acoca, L., & Dedel, K. (1998). No place to hide: Understanding and meeting the needs of girls in 

the California juvenile justice system. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime 

and Delinquency. 

American Bar Association & National Bar Association. (2001). Justice by gender: The lack of 

appropriate prevention, diversion, and treatment services for girls in the juvenile justice 

system. Chicago, IL: ABA & NBA. 

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (1995). Psychosocial evaluation 

of suspected psychological maltreatment in children and adolescents. Cultic Studies 

Journal, 13, 153-170. 

Artz, S. (1998). Sex, power, and the violent school girl. Toronto: Trifolium. 

Axinn, W., Pearce, L., & Ghimire, D. (1999). Innovations in Life History Calendar 

applications. Social Science Research, 28, 243-264. 

Becker, H. S. (1990). Generalizing from case studies. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.) 

Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 233-242). New York, NY: 

Teachers College. 

34 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Belli, R. (1998). The structure of autobiographical memory and the event history calendar: 

Potential improvements in the quality of retrospective reports in surveys. Memory, 

6, 383-406. 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge: Harvard 

University Press. 

Cauffman, E., et al. (1998). PTSD among female juvenile offenders. Journal of the American 

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37(11). 

Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. (1992). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice. Pacific 

Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. 

Cicchetti, D., & Lynch, M. (1993). Toward an ecological/transactional model of 

community violence and child maltreatment: Consequences for children's 

development. Psychiatry, 56, 96-118. 

DeHart, D. D. (2008). Pathways to prison: Impact of victimization in the lives of 

incarcerated women. Violence Against Women, 14(12), 1362-1381. DOI: 

10.1177/1077801208327018. 

Fantuzzo, J., & Lindquist, C. (1989). The effects of observing conjugal violence on 

children: A review and analysis of research methodology. Journal of Family Violence, 

4, 77–94. 

Fantuzzo, J., & Mohr, W. (1999). Prevalence and effects of child exposure to domestic 

violence. Future of Children, 9(2), 21-32. 

Felitti, V., & Anda, R. (2002). The ACE study: The science in your life (Radio Interview). 

www.scienceandsociety.emory.edu and http://forum.acestudy.org. 

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. (2005). Measuring polyvictimization using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. Child Abuse & Neglect, 

29, 1297-1312. 

Freedman, D., Thornton, A., Camburn, D., Alwin, D., & Young-DeMarco, L. (1988). 

The life history calendar: A technique for collecting retrospective data. Sociological 

Methodology, 18, 37-68. 

Hamby, S., & Finkelhor, D. (2001). Juvenile justice bulletin: Choosing and using child 

victimization questionnaires. Washington, DC: USDOJ. 

Hamby, S., & Finkelhor, D. (2004). The comprehensive Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. 

Durham, NH: Crimes against Children Research Center. 

Hamby, S., Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., & Turner, H. (2004). The Juvenile Victimization 

Questionnaire (JVQ): Administration and Scoring Manual. Durham, NH: Crimes against 

Children Research Center. 

Hart, S. M., Germain, R., & Brassard, M. R. (1987). The challenge: To better understand 

and combat the psychological maltreatment of children and youth. In M. R. 

Brassard, R. Germain, & S. N. Hart (Eds.), Psychological maltreatment of children and 

youth (pp. 3-24). New York: Pergamon. 

Johnson, J. C. (1990). Selecting ethnographic informants. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Kolbo, J. R., Blakely, E. H., & Engleman, D. (1996). Children who witness domestic 

violence: A review of empirical literature. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 281–

93. 

35 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Lee, R., & Fielding, N. (1996). Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis: The user's 

perspective. In F. Faulbaum and W. Bandilla (Eds.) SOFTSTAT '95: Advances in 

Statistical Software 5. Stuttgart: Lucius. 

Levin, L. (2001). Easyscript express. Newton, MA: Legend. 

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Margolin, G. (1998). Effects of domestic violence on children. In P.K. Trickett & C.J. 

Shellenbach, (Eds.) Violence against children in the family and the community (pp. 57–

101). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

McGee, C. (2000). Childhood experiences of domestic violence. London: Kingsley. 

Mullender, A., Hague, G., Imam, U., Kelly, L., Malos, E., & Regan, L. (2002). Children's 

perspectives on domestic violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Norman-Eady, S., Reinhart, C., & Martino, P. (2003). OLR Research Report: Statutory rape 

laws by state. Hartford, CT: Office of Legislative Research, CT General Assembly. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1998). Guiding principles for 

promising female programming: An inventory of best practices. Washington, DC: OJJDP. 

Osofsky, J. (1999). The impact of violence on children. Future of Children, 9(3), 33-49. 

Owen, B., & Bloom, B. (2000). Profiling the needs of young female offenders: Instrument 

development and pilot study—Final report. Washington, DC: USDOJ. 

Richie, B. (2000). Exploring the link between violence against women and women's 

involvement in illegal activity. In J. Samuels (Ed.) Research on women and girls in the 

justice system: Plenary papers of the 1999 Conference on Criminal Justice Research and 

Evaluation—Enhancing Policy and Practice Through Research (Vol. 3). Washington, 

DC: USDOJ. 

Salcido, L., Welthorn, L., & Behrman, R. (1999). Domestic violence and children: 

Analysis and recommendations. Future of Children, 9(3), 4-20. 

Schofield, J. W. (1990). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In E. W. 

Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 

201-232). New York, NY: Teachers College. 

Singer, J., & Willett, J. (1991). Modeling the days of our lives: Using survival analysis 

when designing and analyzing longitudinal studies of duration and the time of 

events. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 268-290. 

Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. 

Washington, DC: OJJDP. 

Steiner, H., Garcia, I. G., & Mathews, Z. (1997). Posttraumatic stress disorder in 

incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent 

Psychiatry, 36(3), 357-365. 

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University. 

Swanson, J. M. (1986). The formal qualitative interview for grounded theory. In W. C. 

Chenitz & J. M. Swanson (Eds.), From practice to grounded theory: Qualitative research 

in nursing (pp. 66-78). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 

Thornberry, T., Huizinga, D., & Loeber, R. (2004). The causes and correlates studies: 

Findings and policy implications. Juvenile Justice, 9(1). 

36 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Turner, H., Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2006). The effect of lifetime victimization on 

the mental health of children and adolescents. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 13-27. 

Werner, O., & Bernard, H. R. (1994). Ethnographic sampling. Cultural Anthropology 

Methods, 62, 7-9. 

Widom, C. (1995a). Cycle of violence revisited six years later. NIJ Research Brief. Washington, 

DC: USDOJ. 

Widom, C. (1995b). Victims of childhood sexual abuse: Later criminal consequences. NIJ 

Research Brief. Washington, DC: USDOJ. 

Widom, C. (2000). Childhood victimization and the derailment of girls and women to the 

criminal justice system. In J. Samuels (Ed.) Research on women and girls in the justice 

system: Plenary papers of the 1999 Conference on Criminal Justice Research and 

Evaluation—Enhancing Policy and Practice Through Research (Vol. 3). Washington, 

DC: USDOJ. 

Wood, J., Foy, D., Goguen, C., Pynoos, R., James, C. (2002a). Violence exposure and 

PTSD among delinquent girls. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 6 (1), 

109-126. 

Wood, J., Foy, D., Layne, C., Pynoos, R., and Boyd J., (2002b). An examination of the 

relationships between violence exposure posttraumatic stress symptomatology and 

delinquent activity: An “ecopathological” model of delinquent behavior among 

incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 6(1), 127-

147. 

Yoshihama, M. (2004). Application of the Life History Calendar method to understand 

women's experiences of intimate partner violence over the lifecourse. Paper 

presented at the Nebraska Symposium on Survey Science: Exposures and WellBeing: Emerging Methodologies in Life-Events Research, Gallup University 

Riverfront Campus, Omaha, Nebraska. 

Yoshihama, M., & Gillespie, B. W. (2002). Age adjustment and recall bias in the analysis 

of domestic violence data: Methodological improvements through the application 

of survival analysis methods. Journal of Family Violence, 17(3), 199-221. 

37 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE LIFE HISTORY CALENDAR (actual sample with some details changed to protect confidentiality) 

Grade Pre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 School As & Bs Fs; fights in school 

Suspended & write-ups for disrespecting teachers, disturbing school, cigarettes, tardiness 

Home live w/Mom, Dad, Sis Mom &Sis Dad, Stepmom, Grandmom Mom Dad Grandmo

Di vorce 

D drank more 

AOD drinking some drinking regularly 

smoking pot huffing 

coke 

meth 

Crime Trespass 

Dmg prop 

Disturbing school Drv w/o lic Drv w/o l

Incite riot Dirty urine 

Grand laSelling cPoss gun ShopliftinProstituti

Victimization D beat D beat 

D/SM call whore 

Witn M/D phys fighting 

SA - cousin SA - teen SA - teen SA - drug SA - b s oy 

Sex w/older men 

Dating viWitness 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

39 

APPENDIX B: 

STATUS OFFENDING & CHILDHOOD STABILITY 

Because research literature indicates some association between delinquency and childhood stability 

factors such as changes in schools, homes, and caregivers, we conducted exploratory analyses of 

interview and life calendar data to examine relationships within our sample of committed girls. We 

found significant associations between stability factors and status offenses (substance use, running 

away) but not between stability and other offenses (stealing, fighting, and prostitution). The 

following analyses further explore significant associations. 

Descriptive Statistics 

Using life calendar interview data, we examined associations of duration in years for two types of 

status offenses—substance use and running away—with stability indicators including number of 

schools attended, number of homes in which girls lived, and number of different primary caregivers 

with whom girls resided. In operationalizing number of schools and homes, the first school (or 

home) was coded ‘1’ on the life calendar and an ongoing count was kept with each move thereafter. 

In operationalizing number of primary caregivers, we counted only one primary caregiver per 

household, and we kept an ongoing count when there was a change to a new (nonredundant) 

caregiver (i.e., moving from mom to dad back to mom would only count as two distinct primary 

caregivers). Table 1 displays mean, median, and mode for each childhood stability variable. 

Appendix Table 1: Mean, Median, & Mode for Childhood Stability Factors 

Mean Median Mode 

Number of schools 5.9 5 4 

Number of homes 3.94 3 2 

Number of primary 

caregivers 

2.38 2 1 

Association of Status Offending to Childhood Stability 

We performed linear regression analyses to examine prediction of duration of status offending by 

the three childhood stability factors. Because duration of offending was associated with girls’ ages, 

we controlled for age using forced entry regression entering age in the first step and entering the 

three stability variables as a second step. 

Our first equation included duration of substance use as the dependent variable, age as a control 

variable entered in the first step, and number of schools, homes, and caregivers as independent 

variables entered in the second step. Our control variable accounted for 12% of the adjusted 

variance in duration of substance use, F(1, 83) = 12.13, p < .001. Stability factors added another 

10% of adjusted variance, F(4, 80) = 6.74, p < .001. As can be seen in Table 2, number of schools 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

was the only independent variable to reach statistical significance at the p < .05 level, indicating 

that duration of substance use was longer for girls who had many school changes. 

Appendix Table 2: Prediction of Substance Use by Childhood Stability Controlling for Age 

Unstandardized 

Coefficients 

Standardized 

Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 

1 (Constant) -8.831 3.440 -2.567 .012

AGE .761 .218 .357 3.483 .001

(Constant) -6.511 3.308 -1.968 .053

AGE .495 .220 .232 2.251 .027

#SCHOOLS .212 .095 .259 2.232 .028

#HOMES .162 .104 .175 1.560 .123

2 

#CGIVERS -.025 .147 -.017 -.171 .864

Model Adjusted R-square = .215 

Our second equation included duration of running away as the dependent variable, age as a control 

variable entered in the first step, and number of schools, homes, and caregivers as independent 

variables entered in the second step. Our control variable accounted for 5% of the adjusted 

variance in duration of substance use, F(1, 82) = 5.14, p < .05. Stability factors added another 

17% of adjusted variance, F(4, 79) = 6.90, p < .001. As can be seen in Table 3, all three stability 

factors reached statistical significance. Findings indicate that duration of running away was longer 

for girls who changed schools and caregivers often, but—contrary to our expectations—shorter for 

girls who changed homes often. 

Appendix Table 3: Prediction of Running Away by Childhood Stability Controlling for Age 

Unstandardized 

Coefficients 

Standardized 

Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 

1 (Constant) -3.362 2.245 -1.497 .138

AGE .324 .143 .243 2.267 .026

(Constant) -3.125 2.075 -1.506 .136

AGE .277 .138 .208 2.004 .048

#SCHOOLS .124 .059 .243 2.094 .039

#HOMES -.211 .065 -.367 -3.262 .002

2 

#CGIVERS .285 .091 .311 3.119 .003

Model Adjusted R-square = .221 

40 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Qualitative Analyses 

Examination of qualitative data was used to further examine patterns revealed in quantitative 

analyses. Case-by-case inspection of life calendar data demonstrates that onset of substance use and 

running away almost always coincide with or follow (as opposed to proceed) changes in schools 

and/or homes. We examined girls’ qualitative interview transcripts to identify key dynamics of 

associations between status offending and childhood stability. 

Positive Association between Duration of Substance Use and Number of Schools

A prominent theme throughout girls’ accounts was use of alcohol and drugs as a means for coping. 

Examination of girls’ stories regarding changes in schools demonstrated that this same dynamic 

might occur in coping with the stress of moving or the new school setting. One participant, for 

instance described onset of misuse of prescription drugs as a result of being “very depressed about 

her situation and about moving and school.” After changing schools eight times, another participant 

describes herself as “not popular” and an “outcast.” These moves, and the resulting lack of 

consistent social relationships, seem to be an integral to the beginning of her use of drugs and 

alcohol. 

Courtney began smoking weed and drinking alcohol....That same year she did meth, crack, coke, or X 

daily. It all started with her friend... Courtney wasn’t popular or nothing, and he lived nearby. He 

took an interest in her. They started hanging out every day. They started smoking cigarettes together. 

They were both outcasts.

Others express similar sentiments, including substance use as means of coping with isolation, peer 

pressure, or attempts to “fit in.”

From fourth grade through sixth grade, at her new schools, Angela was sort of a loner and only had a 

couple of friends. She would smoke cigarettes and sneak and drink by herself. 

Destiny started smoking cigarettes when she was 14 or 15, just because other people were doing it. Now 

she does it because it’s stress relief....With weed, instead of Destiny getting infuriated because of stuff, 

it doesn’t make her mad no more, because she’s in a cool state of mind. 

Emily went to a Christian school in another state from kindergarten through ninth grade....Then she 

moved here and started going to public school, attending ninth grade again. That’s when she started 

getting Fs because she was doing drugs and hanging out with bad friends on weekends. 

In many cases, it is unclear whether substance use was a reaction to a school change or whether the 

change in schools may have stemmed from substance use, as in cases in which girls were placed in 

alternative schools following disciplinary actions. 

41 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

Marla attended a different school in seventh grade but was kicked out and attended an alternative 

school for the end of seventh grade....She was expelled for threatening to throw a chair at the 

teacher....That was around the same time she started smoking pot and drinking...There was probably a 

little pressure for her to smoke it as she didn’t want to get picked on. 

Thus, girls’ accounts indicate substance use may be a means of coping with childhood instability, 

particularly around quality and consistency of peer relationships. However, directionality of 

associations is sometimes unclear in the tangle of co-occurring activities and motivations 

surrounding school changes and substance use. 

Associations of Duration of Running Away with Number of Schools, Caregivers, and 

Homes

Quantitative data indicated positive associations between duration of running away and number of 

schools and number of caregivers, but a negative association between duration of running away and 

number of homes. The most salient theme in examining girls’ stories of running away concerns 

escape from conflict at home. 

Heather ran away a lot from seventh grade on. Usually it was because she was frustrated and mad at 

her mom—her mom talking and yelling and screaming and not making sense....The longest Heather 

ever stayed gone was three days, and that was running from her dad, not her mom. She ran from her 

dad because his kids got on her nerves and she didn’t want to be there; he wouldn’t let her go, so she 

left. 

Sometimes, school changes appeared to be part of disciplinary actions for girls’ running away, as in 

cases in which girls were sent to alternative schools. 

Lori being in DJJ all started with a runaway charge. Her dad was hitting on her (beating) and her 

brother was hitting on her, so she left....It’s not the first time Lori ran away, so when she tried to come 

home, her dad has all these games he plays on her. He’ll lock her out of the house and won’t let her in 

unless he’s there. He’ll tape the doors. When Lori got home, he wasn’t there, so she took a brick and 

broke the window to get into the house. The neighbor called the police....They sent her to the 

detention center for three days, then she went to court. Then the ordered her back to go to the detention 

center before going to a boarding school. Lori ran away from the boarding school because she didn’t like 

it. 

Again, this story illustrates entanglement of status offenses with childhood stability factors, 

including cyclical or reciprocal relationships between the two. 

With regard to the positive association between duration of running away and number of 

caregivers, moves to kinship care or social service settings were often accompanied by reactance 

and running away. 

42 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Poly-victimization 

43 

In fifth grade, Jessica got taken into DSS custody because her mom abused her...Jessica was put in a 

foster home for two months before going to live with her dad and her stepmom...and then was in group 

homes from then on....Jessica ran away to be with her mom. She ran away from every group home she 

was in. Usually, she turned herself in to do the right thing, but then they’d put her in another group 

home and she’d do it again. 

Marissa ran away a lot from fourth grade on after getting in DSS custody. She usually did it because 

she was upset and angry. She felt like the placements were trying to take the place of her mom....Every 

time Marissa would talk to her mom, it would make her sad and cry so she’d leave or walk out of the 

placement....DSS counts how many places they put you in. This is the 24th or 25th place that she has 

been in DSS custody. 

Closer examination of girls’ accounts provides some insight into why girls who had more changes in 

homes seemed to run away less. For some girls, moving back and forth between a few different 

primary caregivers seemed to circumvent running away as a means of dealing with family conflict. 

The reason Cynthia was always moving was because she was arguing with her mom or with her dad, so 

she’d move in with the other one. She was disrespecting them and always getting in trouble at school. 

Cynthia’s dad was cool sometimes. Her mom let her do what she wanted. Her grandmom was real strict. 

Amber lived with her mom, dad, and sister in a trailer up through second grade...They divorced and 

Amber moved to a trailer park with her mom and sister. But Amber was fighting with her mom and 

having problems with her babysitter, so she moved back with her dad and grandmother that same year. 

The next year her dad began dating Amber’s stepmother, and she moved in with them when they 

married. Amber went to DJJ in seventh grade and moved in with her mom when she got out. It didn’t 

work out so she moved back in with her dad. She went back to DJJ in eighth grade and moved in with 

her mom in ninth when she got out. But things were rough, so she moved back with her dad again. In 

tenth grade she lived with her grandmother for a while before going back into DJJ . In eleventh grade 

she was in DJJ and on the run, then lived with her mom, aunt, grandmother, and dad intermittently 

between DJJ stints in the twelfth grade. 

As the last account illustrates, having an alternative place to live may have provided respite from 

conflict or reduced frequency of running away, but it did not prevent this girl from getting into 

trouble all together. Further research that includes girls who are not involved with the justice 

system may provide insight into effective means for addressing family conflict yet providing more 

stability in girls’ lives. Finally, some girls shared lessons garnered from their own attempts to cope 

with conflict and instability. 

Jamie wants other kids to know that instead of running away, talk to your mom and compromise about 

problems. Because when you are running away, you don’t know where you’re going to sleep at, or 

where you’ll get your food, or wash you’re a**, or get clothes, or do your hair. And people will use 

you, and you get used just to have a place to stay. Jamie cries every night she’s here...You don’t know 

what freedom is until somebody takes it away from you....Jail is no place for nobody.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.