U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

JAnuAry 2009 

Girls 

Study Group 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

J. Robert Flores, Administrator 

Resilient Girls—Factors That Protect 

Against Delinquency 

By Stephanie R. Hawkins, Phillip W. Graham, Jason Williams, 

and Margaret A. Zahn 

According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from 1991 to 2000, 

arrests of girls increased more (or decreased less) than arrests of boys for most types 

of offenses. By 2004, girls accounted for 30 percent of all juvenile arrests. However, 

questions remain about whether these trends reflect an actual increase in girls’ 

delinquency or changes in societal responses to girls’ behavior. To find answers to 

these questions, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 

convened the Girls Study Group to establish a theoretical and empirical foundation 

to guide the development, testing, and dissemination of strategies to reduce or 

prevent girls’ involvement in delinquency and violence. 

The Girls Study Group Series, of which this Bulletin is a part, presents the Group’s 

n n n findings. The series examines issues such as patterns of offending among adolescents and how they differ for girls and boys; risk and protective factors associated Access OJJDP with delinquency, including gender differences; and the causes and correlates of 

girls’ delinquency. publications online at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

Resilience, the psychological ability to Despite the popularity of this concept in 

successfully cope with severe stress research, scientists still cannot complete- n n n and negative events, is a widely studied ly explain why some children are resilient 

concept that has important implications to the negative events and influences in 

for the development of delinquency their life while others are not. Furtherprevention and intervention programs. more, factors associated with resilience 

may not be the same for both genders. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Girls Study Group 

Drawing on data from the National 

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent 

Health, this Bulletin examines a select 

number of factors that research suggests may “protect” girls who are at 

risk for becoming delinquent. 

Defining resilience 

Differences in conceptualizing 

resilience have led to confusion 

about what resilience really means 

(Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker, 2000; 

Luthar and Zelazo, 2003; Olsson, 

Bond, and Burns, 2003). Resilience is 

often defined as a person’s ability to 

positively adapt or achieve success 

despite having faced situations— 

being abused or neglected, witnessing violence, or living in poverty— 

that could lead to negative outcomes 

such as delinquency (Kaplan, 2005). 

Background 

Developing the Study 

Much of the research on resilience 

has focused on the risk factors that 

contribute to problem behaviors 

rather than on the factors that 

promote positive development 

(Smokowski, 1998). Although information on risk is important from a 

theoretical perspective, developing 

interventions focused on changing 

the risks for delinquent girls may not 

be the most effective approach. The 

knowledge that a girl is at risk for 

delinquency because she lives in a 

disadvantaged neighborhood or has 

a history of abuse is insufficient 

information for researchers and practitioners to develop an effective intervention program because these risk 

factors are not easily amenable to 

change in intervention programs 

(McKnight and Loper, 2002). 

In view of the limitations of riskfocused intervention strategies, 

research on resilience turned toward 

protective factors—aspects of individuals and their environments that buffer or moderate the effect of risk (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services [DHHS], 2001; Fraser, Kirby, 

and Smokowski, 2004; Wright and 

Masten, 2005). The protective factors 

discussed in this Bulletin offer an 

explanation for why children and adolescents who face similar risk factors 

may or may not have a propensity 

toward negative outcomes like delinquency (DHHS, 2001). 

The study described in this Bulletin 

was inspired in part by efforts to 

research factors that may protect 

against delinquency and to understand more clearly the unique needs 

and experiences of girls. Although 

many of the factors that place boys 

and girls at risk for delinquency are 

the same, current literature suggests 

that each sex may respond differently 

to protective factors (Resnick, Ireland, and Borowsky, 2004; Fraser, 

Kirby, and Smokowski, 2004). 

Research conducted by Resnick and 

colleagues found that grade point 

average (GPA) was the most salient 

protective factor against violence 

perpetration for both boys and girls, 

but family connectedness, school 

connectedness, and religiosity also 

provided significant protection 

against violence perpetration for 

girls only. 

Reflecting these findings, this Bulletin 

explores four processes hypothesized 

to operate as protective factors in the 

lives of girls at risk for delinquency— 

support from or presence of a caring 

adult, school connectedness, school 

success, and religiosity. 

Presence of a caring adult. Researchers have found that support from a 

caring adult can serve as a protective 

factor for adolescents, decreasing 

the likelihood that they will engage 

Dr. Margaret Zahn, Senior Research Scientist, 

RTI International; Professor, North Carolina State 

University 

Dr. robert Agnew, Professor, Department of 

Sociology, Emory University 

Dr. Elizabeth Cauffman, Assistant Professor, 

Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, 

University of California, Irvine 

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

Studies Program, University of Hawaii at Manoa 

Dr. Gayle Dakof, Associate Research Professor, 

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, 

University of Miami 

Dr. Del Elliott, Director, Center for the Study 

and Prevention of Violence, University of 

Colorado 

Dr. Barry Feld, Professor, School of Law, 

University of Minnesota 

Dr. Diana Fishbein, Director, Transdisciplinary 

Behavioral Science Program, RTI International 

Dr. Peggy Giordano, Professor of Sociology, 

Center for Family and Demographic Research, 

Bowling Green State University 

Dr. Candace Kruttschnitt, Professor, 

Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota 

Dr. Jody Miller, Associate Professor, 

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 

University of Missouri–St. Louis 

Dr. Merry Morash, Professor, School of 

Criminal Justice, Michigan State University 

Dr. Darrell Steffensmeier, Professor, 

Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania 

State University 

Ms. Giovanna Taormina, Executive Director, 

Girls Circle Association 

Dr. Donna-Marie Winn, Senior Research 

Scientist, Center for Child and Family Policy, 

Duke University 

Girls 

Study Group Members 

2 
Un

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

in delinquent behaviors (Dishion 

and Kavanagh, 2003; Romer, 2003; 

Benson, 1990; Hawley and DeHaan, 

1996; Werner and Smith, 1982, 1992). 

Adolescents are less likely to engage 

in delinquent behaviors if they have 

adults in their lives who are aware of 

their daily activities and associations 

(Luthar, 2006; Luthar and Zelazo, 

2003; Dishion and Kavanagh, 2003). 

Benson (1990) also found that such 

support can come from adults outside a child’s family. Caring adults 

from outside a child’s family may 

provide support for youth who have 

experienced unsatisfactory relationships within their families (Olds et 

al., 1997; Hawley and DeHaan, 1996; 

Werner and Smith, 1982, 1992). 

School connectedness and success. 

Schools can play a significant role 

in protecting adolescents at risk for 

delinquency. The protective factors 

in schools include school connectedness (a positive perception of the 

school environment and positive 

interactions with people at school) 

and school success (measured by 

grade point average). School settings have the potential to provide an 

important and positive developmental context where students can excel 

socially and academically. School 

connectedness appears especially 

important to adolescents who experience adversity in their homes (Perkins 

and Jones, 2004) because school may 

be one of few contexts where such 

adolescents’ achievements are recognized and celebrated (DHHS, 2001). 

Success in school can also be a protective factor against delinquency. 

As noted above, Resnick and colleagues (2004) identified a good grade 

point average as the most salient protective factor distinguishing youth 

who do not engage in violence from 

those who do. Similarly, in a study of 

academic risk among inner-city 

adolescents, Ripple and Luthar (2000) 

found that success early in a student’s academic career protected 

against negative outcomes such as 

delinquency later in adolescence. 

Religiosity. The National Study of 

Youth and Religion found religious 

faith was important in the lives of 

many teens in the United States 

(Smith, 2005). Recent literature 

documents that religiosity, or how 

important religion is to someone, 

protects against many types of 

negative outcomes for adolescents, including delinquency (Ball, 

Armistead, and Austin, 2003; Bridges 

and Moore, 2002; Clark, 1995). However, some literature points to the 

limiting protective effect of religion, 

suggesting that religion only protects against minor offenses (Benda 

and Toombs, 2000; Burkett, 1993; 

Evans et al., 1995). Despite the lack 

of consensus in the field regarding 

the impact of religiosity on different types of delinquent behaviors, 

research has established that religion 

does, in fact, have some influence 

on some delinquent behaviors (Baier 

and Wright, 2001; Regnerus, 2003; 

Benda and Toombs, 2003; Evans et 

al., 1995). 

Developmental Perspective 

Protective factors may operate at 

different points during a child’s 

development (Masten, Best, and 

Garmezy, 1990; Wright and Masten, 

1997). When exploring the issue of 

resilience in youth, researchers must 

acknowledge that risk and protection 

occur within a normative developmental context (Spencer et al., 2006). 

An example of this sort of normative 

development is that the presence of 

a caring adult may protect a younger 

child from engaging in delinquent 

behaviors more than it would an 

older adolescent, the latter of whom is 

more developmentally influenced by 

peers than adults. Researchers should 

examine the protective factors that 

exist in a child’s life and at what stage 

of a child’s development they take 

effect. As children develop, their relationships with adults, the schools they 

attend, and the neighborhoods they 

live in increasingly affect their wellbeing and expose them to factors that 

protect them and to other factors that 

put them at risk for outcomes such 

as delinquency (Wright and Masten, 

2005). Developmental transitions 

are important periods for observing 

resilience and the role of protective 

factors. Researchers lack information 

about how protective factors affect 

adolescent girls at varying levels of 

risk for delinquency and at different 

points in their development. 

The Current Study 

The study described in this Bulletin 

used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health 

(Add Health), to answer the following 

questions: 

1.	 Do the presence of a caring adult, 

connection with and success in 

school, and religiosity protect 

girls from involvement in delinquent behaviors? 

2.	 Do these protective factors operate differently for girls exposed to 

known risks for delinquency? 

Although adolescent girls are exposed 

to myriad experiences that have the 

potential to increase their risk for 

delinquent behaviors, this Bulletin 

focuses on risks from personal victimization (physical abuse, sexual 

assault, and neglect) and structural 

barriers (neighborhood disadvantage). The largest proportion of delinquency cases involving girls occurred 

at age 15 (Snyder and Sickmund, 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Girls Study Group
 

2006), when many of the negative 

experiences from childhood personal 

victimization and living in disadvantaged neighborhoods are already 

entrenched in their lives. To counteract these negative influences and 

develop interventions, researchers 

must examine the protective factors 

that can buffer girls from involvement in delinquency and determine 

which protective factors have the 

strength to overcome the impact of 

negative experiences childhood. 

Data Source 

The National Longitudinal Study of 

Adolescent Health used self-reported 

survey data to examine health-related 

behaviors in adolescence and subsequent outcomes in young adulthood (Udry, 2003). In two survey 

waves (1995 and 1996), Add Health 

researchers collected individual, 

family, school, and community-level 

information from a sample of approximately 19,000 students in grades 

7–12 at 132 schools. In a third wave 

(2000–2001), approximately 15,000 of 

the original participants were resurveyed as young adults ages 18–26. 

The analyses in this Bulletin are 

based on Add Health data for 

girls—9,641 in wave 1; 6,962 in wave 

2; and 5,736 in wave 3. The benefit of 

using the Add Health survey data is 

that it can reveal which factors may 

protect the "average" adolescent 

girl, or a girl with known risk factors, from engaging in delinquent 

behavior. This is because longitudinal 

studies can identify typical patterns 

of development and reveal experiences or behaviors that impact a 

person's developmental trajectory. 

(For detailed information on the Add 

Health study, visit www.cpc.unc.edu/ 

projects/addhealth.) 

Analyzing the Survey Data 

Using data from the Add Health 

study, the authors created measures 

of risk and protective factors and 

delinquent/criminal outcomes. 

Risk factors. The four risk indicators 

analyzed were physical assault by a 

parent or caregiver, sexual assault, 

neglect by a parent or caregiver, and 

neighborhood disadvantage. 

n	 Physical assault: Being slapped, 

hit, or kicked more than 10 times 

by a parent/caregiver before the 

sixth grade (asked retrospectively 

in wave 3). 

n	 Sexual assault: Forced sexual 

intercourse by any perpetrator 

during the previous 12 months 

Research on Risk Factors for Delinquency 

For girls, the key risk factors for delinquency and incarceration are family dysfunction, 

trauma and sexual abuse, mental health and substance abuse problems, high-risk 

sexual behaviors, school problems, and affiliation with deviant peers (Hubbard and 

Pratt, 2002; Lederman et al., 2004). Physical abuse and sexual abuse contribute to 

male and female involvement in delinquency (Dembo, Williams, and Schmeidler, 1993; 

Siegel and Senna, 2000), but female delinquents are more likely than their male counterparts to have been abused (Dembo, Williams, and Schmeidler, 1993). Researchers 

have also examined how conditions such as poverty and other forms of social and 

economic disadvantage can affect delinquent behaviors (Felner, 2005). 

(asked in wave 1); or any forced 

sexual contact, including intercourse or touching, with a parent 

or caregiver before the sixth grade 

(asked retrospectively in wave 3). 

n	 Neglect: Being left alone when 

an adult should have been present more than 10 times before 

the sixth grade, or ever not having basic needs (such as food and 

clothing) met by the parent or 

caregiver before the sixth grade 

(asked retrospectively in wave 3). 

n	 Neighborhood disadvantage: An 

index developed during wave 1, 

based on the percent of families 

living below poverty, percent 

of adults without a high school 

diploma or its equivalent, percent 

of female-headed households, and 

unemployment rate. 

Protective factors. The four protective indicators were the presence of a 

caring adult, school connectedness, 

school success, and religiosity. The 

indicators were based on responses 

to questions in wave 1. 

n	 Caring adult: Three questions 

about the degree to which respondents felt their parents, teachers, 

or other adults cared about them. 

n	 School connectedness: Seven 

questions about respondents’ 

perceptions of school and their 

interactions with peers and 

teachers. 

n	 School success: GPA in math, 

science, social studies, language 

arts, and English. 

n	 Religiosity: Three questions— 

frequency of praying and attending religious events and perceived 

importance of religion. 

For the first three indicators, 

responses were averaged to create 

4 
Un

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

an overall measure. For religiosity, 

responses were standardized to a 

single response scale and averaged. 

Delinquent and criminal outcomes. 

Delinquent and criminal outcomes 

were based on activities engaged in 

during adolescence (measured in 

wave 2) and/or late adolescence 

and young adulthood (measured in 

wave 3). These activities included 

status offenses (unexcused absence 

from school, unruliness in a public 

place); gang membership; selling 

drugs; committing a serious property 

offense (stealing something worth 

more than $50 or breaking and entering to steal something); and engaging 

in violence—simple assault (carrying 

a weapon or fighting with someone) 

or aggravated assault (using a weapon or seriously injuring someone). 

Findings 

Table 1 shows the sample’s racial and 

ethnic composition and summarizes 

risk factors and indicators of delinquent and criminal behavior. The 

majority of the female respondents 

were white (68 percent), followed by 

black respondents (16 percent) and 

Hispanic respondents (12 percent). 

During wave 1, nearly 6 percent of 

respondents reported being physically assaulted by their parent or 

caregiver more than 10 times before 

Table 1. Study Participants 

Unweighted Percent (Number) of Respondents 

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 

(N=9,641) (N=6,963) (N=5,736) 

Race/ethnicity 

White 68 (6,556) 69 (4,804) 69 (3,958) 

Black 16 (1,543) 15 (1,044) 15 (860) 

Hispanic 12 (1,157) 12 (836) 11 (631) 

Asian 2 (193) 2 (139) 3 (173) 

American Indian 1 (96) 1 (70) 1 (57) 

Other 1 (96) 1 (70) 1 (57) 

Risk factors* 

sixth grade, 10 percent reported 

being sexually assaulted, and nearly 9 

percent reported being neglected by 

their parent or caregiver. 

Protective factors and female delinquency. This analysis showed that— 

when controlling for general risk factor categories—the extent to which 

adolescent girls believed an adult 

cared about them served as a protective factor against several forms 

of delinquency (see table 2). During 

wave 1, girls who reported having 

more adults in their lives who cared 

about them were less likely to report 

committing status offenses, property 

offenses, selling drugs, gang membership, simple assault, and aggravated assault during adolescence (wave 

2) and less likely to report committing simple assault as young adults 

(wave 3). 

Contrary to the findings of previous 

research, school connectedness did 

not serve as a protective factor in 

this study. In fact, girls who reported 

higher levels of school connectedness 

in wave 1 were more likely to report 

being involved in aggravated assault 

by young adulthood. 

School success was a significant protective factor during adolescence 

(wave 2) and young adulthood 

(wave 3) for some forms of delin- Physical assault 5.5 (294) — — 

quent behaviors. Adolescent girls Sexual assault 10.5 (518) — — who reported greater school success 

Neglect 8.9 (476) — — during the initial data collection were 

Outcomes 

Serious property offense — 

Status offense — 

Simple assault — 

Aggravated assault — 

Gang membership — 

Selling drugs — 

5 (326)
 

55 (3,309)
 

17 (1,036)
 

6 (410)
 

3 (194)
 

4 (274)
 

6 (296)
 

—
 

4 (209)
 

3 (189)
 

—
 

—
 

less likely to report status offenses 

and gang membership 1 year later 

(wave 2) and less likely to report 

simple assault and aggravated assault 

during late adolescence and young 

adulthood (wave 3). However, girls 

who were successful in school were 

more likely to commit a property 

offense during late adolescence and 

young adulthood. 

* A fourth risk factor—disadvantaged neighborhood—was measured with four census-level socioeconomic 

indicators in wave 1 as a standardized score with mean of 0 and standard deviation of 0.866. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Girls Study Group
 

Table 2. Effects of Protective Factors on Delinquent or Criminal Behavior 

Behaviors 

Protective Status Gang Selling Property Property Simple Simple Aggravated Aggravated 

Factor Offense Membership Drugs Offense Offense Assault Assault Assault Assault 

(wave 1) (wave 2) (wave 2) (wave 2) (wave 2) (wave 3) (wave 2) (wave 3) (wave 2) (wave 3) 

School Success Protective Protective NS Protective Risk Protective Protective Protective Protective 

0.76 

(0.67, 0.85) 

0.47 

(0.33, 0.67) 

0.62 

(0.45, 0.85) 

Enhancing 

1.25 

(1.03, 1.51) 

0.54 

(0.47, 0.63) 

0.58 

(0.45, 0.75) 

0.57 

(0.47, 0.70) 

0.58 

(0.40, 0.83) 

Caring Adult Protective Protective Protective Protective NS Protective Protective Protective NS 

0.55 0.66 0.61 0.63 0.71 0.58 0.64 

(0.46, 0.65) (0.45, 0.98) (0.45, 0.81) (0.48, 0.82) (0.59, 0.86) (0.41, 0.80) (0.48, 0.85) 

School NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Risk 

Connectedness Enhancing 

1.98 

(1.11, 3.54) 

Religiosity NS NS Protective NS NS NS NS NS NS 

0.76 

(0.63, 0.92) 

Note: The table shows the results of logistic regression analysis. Protective = A statistically significant protective effect against the behavior. The extent of the effect 

is indicated by the numbers in the table (odds ratios); odds ratios greater than 1 indicate greater likelihood of the criminal/delinquent behavior, odds ratios less than 

1 indicate the behavior is less likely. The confidence interval for the odds ratios (a measure of their precision) is 95 percent. NS = The protective effect was not 

statistically significant, or there was no protective effect. 

Religiosity did not serve as a protective 

Figure 1. Interaction of Childhood Risk Factors and Protective Factors in factor against delinquent behaviors, 

Adolescence with one exception: girls reporting 

Childhood 

Risk Factors 

Protective Factors 

During Adolescence Delinquent Behaviors 

higher levels of religiosity in wave 1 

reported lower incidents of selling 

drugs in wave 2. 

Interactions of risk and protective 

factors. Table 2 does not take into 

account the girls’ specific likelihood 

of risk for delinquency as measured 

by the risk factors listed in table 1. 

To better understand the nature 

of resilience, the authors explored 

During adolescence, some girls have protective experiences in their lives that assist them in being resilient the effects of childhood risk facfrom engaging in delinquent and criminal behaviors. However, some protective factors may not be strong tors on the interaction between the

enough to mitigate the influence of risk factors that may have endured since childhood. The interaction protective factors girls experienced between these risk and protective factors can decrease, attenuate, or increase a girl’s propensity towards during early adolescence and their delinquent behavior. 

subsequent delinquent or criminal 

behaviors in mid-adolescence and 

late adolescence/early adulthood. 

This model is depicted in figure 1. 

Table 3 (pg. 7) shows the results of 

this analysis. 

A risk factor can modify the effects of 

protective factors in three ways: 

1. By enhancing the protective 

effect (i.e., the benefits of the 6 
Un

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Table 3: How Childhood Risk Factors and Protective Factors in Adolescence1 Interact to Produce or Prevent 

Delinquent Behavior 

Delinquent Behavior 

Risk Factor Status offense 

Gang 

Membership Selling Drugs Property Offense Simple Assault 

Aggravated 

Assault 

If a girl was ...the presence ...school ...the presence 

physically assaulted of a caring adult connectedness of a caring adult 

as a child ... reduced the reduced the reduced the 

likelihood that she likelihood that she likelihood that she 

would become would commit would commit 

involved in 

property crime in 

simple assault in 

young adulthood.2 

aggravated assault 

in adolescence.2

adolescence.2 

...religiosity and 

the presence of 

a caring adult 

increased the likelihood that she would 

commit aggravated 

assault in young 

adulthood.3 

If a girl was ...school ...religiosity 

sexually assault- success reduced reduced the 

ed as a child... the likelihood that likelihood that she 

she would commit would commit 

simple assault in 

adolescence.2 

aggravated assault 

in young adulthood.2 

If a girl spent her ...the presence of ...religiosity ...school success 

childhood in a a caring adult reduced the likeli­ minimally reduced 

disadvantaged minimally reduced hood that she the likelihood that 

neighborhood... the likelihood would commit she would commit 

that she would 

sell drugs in 

adolescence.2 

simple assault in 

young adulthood.2 

aggravated assault 

in adolescence.2 

If a girl was ...religiosity and 

neglected as a the presence of 

child... a caring adult 

increased the 

likelihood that she 

would join a gang 

in adolescence.3 

1 All protective factors—a caring adult, school connectedness, school success, and religiosity—occurred during a girl’s adolescence. 

2 The protective factor had a greater effect for girls who had not been exposed to this risk factor. In some circumstances, protective factors stabilized the risk 

of delinquent behavior, making it equivalent to that of girls who had not experienced a risk factor, rather than protecting risk-exposed girls more than their 

counterparts. 

3 These factors protected girls who had not been exposed to this risk factor. 

protective effect keep a problem 3. By negating the beneficial effect Results showed that risk factors modbehavior from occurring). or by changing the direction of ified the effects of protective factors 

2. By attenuating the protective 

effect (i.e., weakening the beneficial effect). 

the effect (i.e., the protective 

effect in the general population 

is not protective in the at-risk 

population or is associated with 

increased negative behavior). 

in the following ways: 

n Although the presence of a caring 

adult reduced the likelihood that 

girls would sell drugs whether or

7 
 

 

 

Girls Study Group
 

not they lived in a disadvantaged 

neighborhood, this protective 

effect was weakened in severely 

disadvantaged neighborhoods. 

n	 For property offenses, gang membership, and aggravated assault, 

the risk factor of physical assault 

enhanced the protective effect 

provided by a caring adult. The 

rates of these behaviors among 

girls who reported having caring 

adults in their lives decreased 

more sharply from wave 2 to 

wave 3 for girls who had been 

physically assaulted than for 

those who had not. 

n	 Not every finding supports the 

premise that a caring adult was 

protective against engaging in 

delinquent behavior when a girl 

is exposed to risk situations. For 

example, girls who had been physically assaulted were more likely 

to report engaging in aggravated 

assault during late adolescence or 

early adulthood (wave 3) if they 

had a caring adult in their lives. 

Similarly, girls who reported being 

neglected were more likely to join 

a gang during adolescence if they 

also reported having caring adults 

in their lives. 

n	 School success protected against 

involvement in aggravated assault 

among girls from disadvantaged 

neighborhoods, but the protection 

decreased as the level of neighborhood disadvantage increased. 

Although school success protected 

adolescent girls from simple 

assault in the general population, 

sexually assaulted girls were more 

likely to engage in simple assault 

during adolescence if they were 

successful in school. The protective effect of school connectedness 

against involvement in simple 

assault during late adolescence 

or early adulthood (wave 3) was 

greater among girls who had been 

physically assaulted. 

n	 Religiosity protected girls in late 

adolescence or early adulthood 

from involvement in: 

n	 Simple assault—if they 


came from disadvantaged 


neighborhoods.
 

n	 Aggravated assault—if they 

had been sexually assaulted. 

However, religiosity was associated 

with increased likelihood of: 

n	 Aggravated assault during 

late adolescence or early 

adulthood—if the girls had 

been physically assaulted. 

n	 Gang membership during 

adolescence—if the girls had 

been neglected. 

Study Limitations 

The potential inaccuracy of retrospective self-reported data in 

assessing delinquent behaviors 

is a limitation in this investigation. 

Schroeder and colleagues (2003) 

found that people tend to overreport 

situations that they view as significant, even if these events do not 

occur frequently. However, people 

may forget or underreport events that 

they view as minor or insignificant 

even if these events occur frequently. 

This suggests that youth participating 

in the Add Health study who engaged 

in delinquent behaviors over an 

extended period of time or who had 

been physically or sexually abused or 

neglected may have given less accurate self-reports, depending on the 

duration and perceived importance 

of the events they were reporting. 

The Add Health questions that 

focused on abuse and neglect 

required youth to recall the number 

of times particular events occurred 

and interpret whether or not certain 

behaviors were acceptable. However, 

such youth may have difficulty judging when they are being abused or 

neglected. Hardt and Rutter (2004) 

found that youth often have difficulty 

recalling experiences that rely primarily on this type of judgment, which 

suggests that the prevalence of these 

behaviors may be underrepresented. 

The desire to avoid shame and 

embarrassment by conforming to 

perceived social norms (i.e., social 

desirability) is another limitation in the accuracy of self-report 

assessments. Although the Add 

Health study design attempted to 

reduce this type of inaccuracy by 

asking sensitive questions via Audio 

Computer-Assisted Self Interviewing 

(ACASI), this may not have eliminated 

social desirability effects. 

Another limitation is that Add Health 

findings cannot be generalized to 

girls who are deeply involved in the 

juvenile justice system. Because Add 

Health surveyed a nationally representative sample of adolescents, 

these data can reveal which factors 

protect the average adolescent girl 

from engaging in delinquent behaviors but do not provide an accurate 

view of risk and protective factors in 

the lives of girls with extensive delinquent histories. 

The final limitations include using 

grade point average as the sole 

measure of school success and the 

fact that all of the questions used 

to measure risk factors in this study 

provided data on childhood risks 

(occurring either before sixth grade 

or at a time before the first data collection), and did not account for risks 

encountered later in life. This limited 

the possibility of exploring how 

protective factors affected girls who 

8 
Un

 

 

 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

may have only encountered risks 

after childhood.

Implications

The most consistent protective effect 

assessed in this study was the extent 

to which a girl felt she had caring 

adults in her life. The presence of caring adults reduced the likelihood that 

girls would engage in several forms of 

delinquent behaviors; however, this 

protective effect was not consistent 

for girls at high risk for delinquency. 

Physically assaulted girls were protected when they believed they had 

a caring adult in their lives during 

mid-adolescence but not in young 

adulthood. They were less likely to 

report property offenses and engage 

in aggravated assault as adolescents 

than girls who had not been physically assaulted, but reported engaging 

in more aggravated assault as they 

moved into young adulthood.

These findings are contrary to previous findings and to the general 

expectation that caring adults provide a form of protection (Dishion 

and Kavanagh, 2003; Romer, 2003; 

Benson, 1990; Hawley and DeHaan, 

1996; Werner and Smith, 1982, 1992). 

Research conducted by Perkins and 

Jones (2004) on the risk behaviors 

among physically abused adolescents concluded that adolescents 

who seek adults outside of their 

family for support may do 

so because of the perceived 

inability to obtain the support they need from their 

parents. The girls in this 

investigation who were 

physically assaulted and 

have moved into early 

adulthood may have decided that the adults in their 

lives have failed them. Moreover, they may have found 

support from other adults who 

were not good role models for prosocial behavior.

School connectedness protected 

physically assaulted girls from engaging in delinquent behaviors. When 

physically assaulted girls felt connected to their schools, they were less 

likely to report committing simple 

assault than girls who had not been 

assaulted. School, for physically 

assaulted girls, may provide a refuge 

from an unsafe home environment. 

Because the majority of a youth’s day 

is spent at school, becoming connected with this institution and the 

resources available therein seems to 

serve as a protection against delinquency for physically assaulted girls.

School success, as measured by having a high grade point average, did 

not protect physically assaulted girls 

from delinquency. School success 

served as a significant protection 

against several forms of delinquency 

for girls in the general population 

and helped girls in disadvantaged 

neighborhoods refrain from delinquent behavior. During early adolescence, having a higher GPA made it 

less likely that girls would engage in 

delinquency (status offenses, property crimes, gang membership, simple 

assault, and aggravated assault) with 

the exception of selling drugs, which 

was not significant. During early 

adulthood, a high GPA no longer 

protected against engaging in property crimes, and in fact, was associated with an increased likelihood of 

engaging in this behavior.

School success was less protective 

for girls who had been sexually or 

physically abused or lived in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Girls who 

had been sexually abused and had 

high GPAs were more likely to engage 

in simple assault in mid-adolescence. 

Although having a high GPA served 

as a protective factor against aggravated assault, this protection weakened with increased neighborhood 

disadvantage. Other studies have 

also demonstrated that academic 

competence may not have positive consequences for economically 

disadvantaged adolescents living

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Girls Study Group
 

in high-risk environments (Luthar, 

1999; Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker, 

2000; Luthar, Doernberger, and Zigler, 

1993). As neighborhood disadvantage 

increases, girls may encounter situations that make violence a more 

useful coping behavior in the short 

term than focusing on school success, whose benefit is not revealed 

immediately. Additionally, girls from 

disadvantaged neighborhoods likely 

attend disadvantaged schools. School 

success may not lead to the same 

beneficial outcomes as that experienced by girls in more advantaged 

schools and neighborhoods. 

According to Steinman (2005), youth 

at different risk levels for delinquency 

may sell drugs. Religiosity helped 

protect girls who were not at high risk 

for delinquency from selling drugs 

during early adolescence. 

Muller and Ellison (2001) found that 

religion can have different effects 

for girls at differing levels of risk for 

delinquency. In this study, religiosity 

helped protect girls who were not 

a high risk for delinquency against 

nonviolent delinquent behaviors. 

Religiosity also helped protect girls at 

high risk for delinquency from violent behavior. 

The types of risk encountered during childhood influence whether 

religiosity will have a protective effect 

on girls’ delinquent behavior. Girls 

from disadvantaged neighborhoods 

and those who had been sexually 

abused were less likely to engage in 

violent forms of delinquency when 

they were religious. However, girls 

who had been neglected or physically 

assaulted were more likely to engage 

in aggravated assault when they were 

religious. 

The work of Brody and colleagues 

(1996) provides some explanation 

for this finding. Their work found 

religiosity “gives rise to a belief system that produces norms that are 

directly and indirectly linked to youth 

competence.” The finding suggests 

that when girls are neglected and 

experience repeated physical assault 

early in life, their belief systems may 

become skewed to support the idea 

that violence is an acceptable and 

normal behavior. Additionally, if 

girls who are physically abused live 

in homes where religious beliefs are 

promoted, religion could function 

as a belief system that supports 

violence. 

Conclusion 

Abuse, neglect, poverty, and violence 

threaten the development and 

behavior of many youth, yet some 

remain resilient. The factors underlying female resilience are still being 

discovered. Participation in delinquent acts is not limited to girls 

whose circumstances place them at 

high risk for delinquency. The results 

of this study suggest that the presence 

of a caring adult, school success, 

school connectedness, and religiosity 

may protect against some forms of 

delinquent behavior for girls, but this 

protective effect is subject to complex interactions with risk factors and 

age. Understanding the role these 

protective factors play in the lives 

of girls has important implications 

for creating programs to prevent 

delinquency. 

A concerted attention to context is 

needed when developing interventions designed to promote resilience 

(Luthar, 2006). Although some of 

the factors examined in this study 

protected girls from engaging in 

delinquent behaviors, many of these 

protective factors had a differential 

effect in girls who faced severe 

adversity—including physical 

and sexual assault, neglect, and 

neighborhood disadvantage. These 

findings highlight the importance 

of considering the life histories and 

stressors that are present when developing interventions for girls at high 

risk for delinquency. Interventions 

that help adolescent girls learn how 

to manage their risk (e.g., effectively 

dealing with the trauma of childhood 

physical and sexual assault) would 

be an important contribution to the 

delinquency prevention field (Ruffolo, Sarri, and Goodkind, 2004). Additionally, interventions should focus 

on the protective factors that mitigate risk (Luthar, 2006). According to 

researcher Ann Masten, the ability 

to match the tasks and activities of 

a particular intervention program to 

those factors that protect program 

participants from negative outcomes 

may be the single most important 

contribution resilience research can 

make to delinquency program development (Masten, 1994). 

For some girls exposed to childhood risks, caring adults, school 

connectedness, school success, and 

religiosity helped to prevent certain 

forms of delinquency during early 

adolescence, but in other cases, these 

protective factors were not strong 

enough to mitigate the impact of the 

risks. This underscores the notion 

that one delinquency prevention 

program cannot be tailored to the 

needs of all girls who are at risk for 

delinquency. 

As a first step, researchers must 

understand how protective factors 

operate in girls’ lives and when these 

protective factors are most relevant 

to girls’ development. Secondly, 

researchers should understand the 

risks confronting adolescent girls and 

consider which protective factors are 

strong enough to mitigate particular risks. Future empirically-based 

effectiveness studies on delinquency 

10 
Un

 

 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

prevention may provide the field with 

more evidence of factors that protect 

girls from delinquent behavior. 

References 

Acoca, L. 1999. Investing in girls: A 

21st century strategy. Juvenile Justice 

6: 2–21. 

Baier, C., and Wright, B.R.E. 2001. "If 

you love me, keep my commandments": A meta-analysis of the effect 

of religion on crime. Journal of 

Research on Crime and Delinquency 

38(1):3–21. 

Ball, J., Armistead, L., and Austin, B. 

2003. The relationship between religiosity and adjustment among African 

American, female, urban adolescents. 

Journal of Adolescence 26:431–446. 

Benda, B.B., and Toombs, N.J. 2000. 

Religiosity and violence—Are they 

related after considering the strongest predictors? Journal of Criminal 

Justice 28:483–496. 

Benson, P.L. 1990. The Troubled 

Journey: A Portrait of 6th–12th Grade 

Youth. Minneapolis, MN: Search 

Institute. 

Bridges, L.J., and Moore, K.A. 2002. 

Religious involvement and children’s 

well-being: What research tells us 

(and what it doesn’t). Child Trends 

Research Brief. Washington, DC: 

Child Trends. 

Brody, G.H., Stoneman, Z., and Flor, 

D. 1996. Parental religiosity, family 

processes, and youth competence 

in rural, two-parent African American 

families. Developmental Psychology 

32:696–706. 

Burkett, S.R. 1993. Perceived parents’ 

religiosity, friends’ drinking, and 

hellfire: A panel study of adolescent 

drinking. Review of Religious Research 

35:136–154. 

Clark, P. 1995. Risk and resilience 

in adolescence: The current status 

of research on gender differences 

(Equity Issues, No. 1). Columbus, OH: 

The Ohio State University, Department of Home Economics Education. 

Dembo, R., Williams, L., and Schmeidler, J. 1993. Gender differences in 

mental health service needs among 

youths entering a juvenile detention 

center. Journal of Prison and Jail 

Health 12:73–101. 

Dishion, T.J., and Kavanagh, K. 2003. 

Intervening in Adolescent Problem Behavior: A Family-Centered 

Approach. New York: Guilford Press. 

Doll, B., and Lyon, M.A. 1998. Risk 

and resilience: Implications for the 

delivery of educational and mental 

health services in schools. School Psychology Review 27:348–363. 

Evans, D.T., Cullen, F.T., Dunaway, 

R.G., and Burton, V.S. 1995. Religion 

and crime reexamined: The impact 

of religion, secular controls, and 

social ecology on adult criminality. 

Criminology 33:195–217. 

Felner, R. 2005. Poverty in childhood 

and adolescence. In Handbook of 

Resilience in Children, edited by S. 

Goldstein and R. Brooks. Kluwer 

Academic/Plenum Publishers: New 

York. 

Fraser, M., Kirby, L.D., and Smokowski, P.R. 2004. Risk and resilience in 

childhood. In Risk and Resilience 

in Childhood: An Ecological Perspective, 2nd ed., edited by M. Fraser. 

Washington, DC: NASW Press. 

Hardt, J., and Rutter, M. 2004. Validity of adult retrospective reports 

of adverse childhood experienes: 

Review of the evidence. Journal of 

Child Psychology and Psychiatry 

45(2):260–273. 

Hawley, D.R., and DeHaan, L. 1996. 

Toward a definition of family resilience: Integrating life-span and 

family perspectives. Family Process 

35:283–298. 

Herrenkohl, T.I., Tajima, E.A., Whitney, S.D., and Huang, B. 2005. Protection against antisocial behavior in 

children exposed to physically abusive discipline. Journal of Adolescent 

Health 36:457–465. 

Hubbard, D.J., and Pratt, T.C. 2002. 

A meta-analysis of the predictors of 

delinquency among girls. Journal of 

Offender Rehabilitation 34:1–13. 

Kaplan, H.B. 2005. Understanding the 

concept of resilience. In Handbook 

of Resilience in Children, edited by S. 

Goldstein and R. Brooks. New York, 

NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 39–47. 

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

M.A., and Li, H. 2004. Characteristics 

of adolescent females in juvenile 

detention. International Journal 

of Law and Psychiatry 27:321–337. 

Luthar, S.S. 1999. Poverty and Children’s Adjustment. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Luthar, S.S. 2006. Resilience in development: A synthesis of research 

across five decades. In Developmental Psychopathology, Vol. 3: Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation (2nd ed.), edited by S.D. Cicchetti and D.J. Cohen. 

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 

Inc., pp. 739–795. 

Luthar, S.S., Cicchetti, D., and Becker, 

B. 2000. The construct of resilience: 

A critical evaluation and guidelines 

for future work. Child Development 

71:543–562. 

11 
 

 

Girls Study Group
 

Luthar, S.S., Doernberger, C.H., and 

Zigler, E. 1993. Resilience is not a 

unidimensional construct: Insights 

from a prospective study of innercity adolescents. Development and 

Psychopathology 5:703–717. (Special 

Issue: Milestones in the development 

of resilience). 

Luthar, S.S., and Zelazo, L.B. 2003. 

Research on resilience: An integrative review. In Resilience and VulnerAbility: Adaptation in the Context 

of Childhood Adversities, edited by 

S.S. Luthar. New York: Cambridge, pp. 

510–549. 

Masten, A. 1994. Resilience in individual development: Successful 

adaptation despite risk and adversity. 

In Risk and Resilience in Inner City 

America: Challenges and Prospects, 

edited by M. Wang and E. Gordon. 

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 3–25. 

Masten, A.S., Best, K.M., and Garmezy, N. 1990. Resilience and development: Contributions from the 

study of children who overcome 

adversity. Development and Psychopathology 2:425–444. 

McKnight, L.R., and Loper, A.B. 2002. 

The effect of risk and resilience factors on the prediction of delinquency 

in adolescent girls. School Psychology 

International 23(2):186–198. 

Muller, C., and Ellison, C. 2001. Religious involvement, social capital, and 

adolescents’ academic progress: Evidence from the National Education 

Longitudinal Study of 1988. Sociological Focus 34(2):155–183. 

Olds, D., Kitzman, H., Cole, R., and 

Robinson, J. 1997. Theoretical foundations of a program of home visitation for pregnant women and parents 

of young children. Journal of Community Psychology 25:9–25. 

Olsson, C.A., Bond, L., and Burns, 

J.M. 2003. Adolescent resilence: A 

concept analysis. Journal of Adolescence 26(1):1–11. 

Perkins, D.F., and Jones, K.R. 2004. 

Risk behaviors and resiliency within 

physically abused adolescents. Child 

Abuse and Neglect 28:547–563. 

Regnerus, M.D. 2003. Linked lives, 

faith, and behavior: Intergenerational 

religious influence on adolescent 

delinquency. Journal for the Scientific 

Study of Religion 42(2):189–203. 

Resnick, M.D., Bearman, P.S., and 

Blum, R.W., et al. 1997. Protecting 

adolescents from harm: Findings 

from the National Longitudinal Study 

on Adolescent Health. Journal of 

the American Medical Association, 

278(10):823–832. 

Resnick, M.S., Ireland, M., and 

Borowsky, I. 2004. Youth violence 

perpetration: What protects? What 

predicts? Findings from the National 

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent 

Health. Journal of Adolescent Health 

35(5):424e1–424e10 

Ripple, C.H., and Luthar, S. 2000. 

Academic risk among inner-city 

adolescents: The role of personal 

attributes. Journal of School Psychology 38(3):277–298. 

Romer, D. 2003. Reducing Adolescent 

Risk: Toward an Integrated Approach. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Ruffolo, M.C., Sarri, R., and Goodkind, S. 2004. Study of delinquent, 

diverted, and high-risk adolescent 

girls: Implications for mental health 

intervention. Social Work Research 

28(4):237–245. 

Schroeder, K.E., Carey, M.P., and 

Vanable, P.A. 2003. Methodological 

challenges in research on sexual risk 

behavior, II: Accuracy of self-reports. 

Annals of Behavioral Medicine 26(2): 

104–123. 

Siegel, L.J., and Senna, J.J. 2000. Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, 

and Law (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: 

Wadsworth. 

Smith, C. 2005. Soul Searching: The 

Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press. 

Smith, C., Faris, R., Denton, M.L., 

Regnerus, M. 2003. Mapping American adolescent subjective religiosity 

and attitudes of alienation toward 

religion: A research report. Sociology 

of Religion 64:111–133. 

Smokowski, P.R. 1998. Prevention and 

intervention strategies for promoting 

resilience in disadvantaged children. 

Social Service Review 72(3):337–364. 

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 

2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 

2006 National Report. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Spencer, M.B., Harpalani, V., Cassidy, 

E., Jacobs, C.Y., Donde, S., Goss, T.N., 

Munoz-Miller, M., Charles, N., and 

Wilson, S. 2006. Understanding vulnerability and resilience from a normative developmental perspective: 

Implications for racially and ethnically diverse youth. In Developmental 

Psychopathology—Volume 1: Theory 

and Method, edited by D. Cicchetti 

and D.J. Cohen. New Jersey: John 

Wiley and Sons. 

12 
Un

 

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency 

Steinman, K.J. 2005. Drug selling 

among high school students: Related 

risk behaviors and psychosocial 

characteristics. Journal of Adolescent 

Health 36:71e1–71e8. 

Udry, J.R. 2003. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. 

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological 

Association, Atlanta, GA, August 16. 

U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 2001. Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Center for Injury Prevention 

and Control; Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services; and National Institutes of Health, 

National Institute of Mental Health. 

Werner, E. 2005. What can we learn 

about resilience from large-scale 

longitudinal studies? In Handbook 

of Resilience in Children, edited by 

S. Goldstein and R. Brooks. New York, 

NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 91–105. 

Werner, E., and Smith, R. 1982. Vulnerable, not Invincible: A Longitudinal Study of Resilient Children and 

Youth. New York: McGraw–Hill. 

Werner, E., and Smith, R. 1992. Overcoming the Odds: High Risk Children 

From Birth to Adulthood. Ithaca, NY: 

Cornell University. 

Wright, M.O., and Masten, A.S. 1997. Yates, T., Egeland, B., and Sroufe, L. 

Vulnerability and resilience in young 2003. Rethinking resilience: A develchildren. In Handbook of Child and opmental process perspective. In 

Adolescent Psychiatry: Vol. 1, Infancy Resilience and Vulnerability: Adapand Preschoolers: Development and tation in the Context of Childhood 

Syndromes, edited by J.D. Noshpitz, Adversities, edited by S.S. Luthar. New 

S. Greenspan, S. Wieder, and J. Osof- York: Cambridge, pp. 243–266. 

sky. New York: Wiley, pp. 202–224. 

Wright, M.O., and Masten, A.S. 

2005. Resilience process in development. In Handbook of Resilience in 

Children, edited by S. Goldstein and 

R. Brooks. New York: Kluwer Academic pp. 17–37. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Girls Study Group
 

Acknowledgments 

Stephanie R. Hawkins, Ph.D., is a Research Clinical Psychologist in the Crime, Violence, 

and Justice Research Program at RTI International. 

Phillip W. Graham, DrPH, is a Senior Public Health Researcher in the Crime, Violence, and 

Justice Research Program at RTI International. 

Jason Williams, Ph.D., is a Research Psychologist in the Risk Behavior and Family 

Research Program at RTI International. 

Margaret A. Zahn, Ph.D., is a Professor of Sociology at North Carolina State University 

and Principal Scientist at RTI International. She serves as the Principal Investigator of the 

Girls Study Group Project. 

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

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document 

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

U.S. Department of Justice. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics; the Community Capacity Development 

Office; the National Institute of Justice; the 

Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex 

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking (SMART). 

 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

PRESORTED STANDARD
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

DOJ/OJJDP
 

PERmIT NO. G–91
 

Girls Study Group NCJ 220124