THE CAUSES OF GIRLS’ DELINQUENCY AND

Zahn/THE
FAMILY
Blackwell
Malden,
Family
FCRE
©
1531-2445
July
3O
45
riginal COURT
CAUSES
Association
2007
Court
Article
USA REVIEW
Publishing
Review OF
of Family GIRLS’
Incand DELINQUENCY
Conciliation and THEIR PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS
Courts, 2007

THEIR PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS

Margaret A. Zahn

This article summarizes some of the literature reviewed by the Girls Study Group, which is a federally funded
project aimed at assessing the causes of girls’ delinquency as well as evaluating programs to address it. The
literature reveals that a number of factors such as family dysfunction, involvement with antisocial peers, and living
in disadvantaged neighborhoods are correlated with delinquency for both boys and girls. Some factors, however,
are gender sensitive, meaning that either girls are more exposed to a given risk factor than boys or react some-
what differently to a given risk factor. Girls have higher rates of exposure to sexual assault, which is associated
with delinquency and, although more research is needed, they are more affected by the impacts of early puberty,
when it is coupled with harsh parenting and disadvantaged neighborhoods. This article discusses some implica-
tions of the research on correlates of delinquency for programming for girls and makes recommendations for
program selection.

Keywords: delinquent girls; juvenile justice

INTRODUCTION

As the Juvenile Offenders and Victims Report shows, the proportion of females entering
the juvenile justice system has risen (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). In 1980, 20% of all juvenile
arrests were females; in 2003, this percentage had increased to 29%—with the majority of the
increase occurring since the early 1990s. This report shows that the proportion of females
committing violent crimes increased from 10% to 18% and the proportion committing
property crimes increased from 19% to 32%. The 14,590 girls in custody in 2003 represented
15% of all juvenile offenders in custody; this was a 2% increase between 1991 and 2003.
Although they account for only 15% of the entire population of juvenile offenders in
custody in recent years, the proportion of girls in custody has been increasing in the United
States (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Along with their growing population, a growing
body of research is examining the characteristics of these girls (Lederman et al., 2004).
Researchers have identified basic demographic and offense characteristics of girls in
custody, as well as characteristics such as family dysfunction, trauma, abuse, mental health
issues, substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, academic problems, and delinquent peers as
common features among girls in custody (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006; Lederman et al.,
2004; Acoca, 1999).
In terms of demographic characteristics, girls in custody tend to be younger; 46% of
females in custody in 2003 were below the age of 15 compared with 33% of males. Similarly,
among older juveniles in custody (aged 18 to 21), a much smaller proportion of females
are in custody (7%) than males (16%). The racial/ethnic makeup of girls in custody is also
different from boys; minorities constitute a smaller proportion of females in custody (55%)

Correspondence: mzahn@rti.org

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 45 No. 3, July 2007 456– 465

© 2007 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
 Zahn /THE CAUSES OF GIRLS’ DELINQUENCY AND THEIR PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS 457

than males (63%). However, this percentage has increased for females since 1997 while
decreasing for males (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
When examining the offenses that lead to girls’ incarceration, we see that, when compared
with boys, girls are in custody for more minor offenses. According to recent data, girls are
more likely than boys to be incarcerated for simple assault (an actual attempt of threatened
attack without a weapon that causes less than serious physical harm), technical violations
(violations of probation, parole, or court orders), and status offenses (Snyder & Sickmund,
2006). Researchers explain this discrepancy in multiple ways, including a “sexual double
standard,” where more protectionist policies are geared toward girls than boys, but at
the same time harsher treatment is targeted at male delinquents than at females (Bishop &
Frazier, 1992). Another more recent explanation of this discrepancy is “bootstrapping”
where lesser offenses such as status offenses are relabeled as delinquent to fall under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system, thus making the offenders available for adjudica-
tion and incarceration as well as “upcriming” of minor forms of youth violence (Chesney-
Lind, 2004; Chesney-Lind & Belknap, 2003). While these system changes decidedly affect
arrest and in-custody rates, these trends and characteristics also suggest a need to learn
more about girls’ pathways to delinquency. As early as 2001, the American Bar Association’s
report, Justice by Gender, indicated a lack of appropriate prevention, diversion, and treat-
ment alternatives for girls in the justice system. The report also indicated a serious need for
additional research on girls’ pathways to and cause of law breaking. The Girls Study Group
(GSG)* brings together and evaluates existing research on causes of girls’ delinquency.
This article summarizes some of the GSG findings.
The GSG was formed to examine literature on girls’ delinquency and girls’ programs.
Each member of the research group read and evaluated available information on causes and
correlates of girls’ delinquency. The full review of this literature will appear in a forthcom-
ing book, and a full summary will also appear in a bulletin to be placed on the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Web site. For our purposes here, we
briefly summarize some correlates of female delinquency and their implications for
girls’ programming.

CAUSES AND CORRELATES

Much of the past literature has focused on the correlates of delinquency in boys. With
the rise in girls’ arrests, it becomes imperative to examine whether the same factors explain
female delinquency or whether factors are specific to girls. It is assumed that pathways to
girls’ delinquency are correlated with multiple factors. The ecological model, which attempts
to show individual, family, peer, school, and community correlates, has been a useful
approach when describing causes and correlates (see Figure 1).

FAMILY INFLUENCES

A number of family processes affect the development of law-violating behavior, includ-

ing family structure, amount and type of supervision, family criminality, and varying forms
of family neglect and maltreatment. In terms of family structure, early research suggested
that youth living in two-parent biological families fare better on a range of developmental
outcomes, including delinquency, than those in single-parent or alternate structures (Amato
& Keith, 1991). However, this research typically finds that effects due to type of family
458 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

Figure 1. The Ecological Model.

structure are not large (e.g., Heatherington & Kelly, 2002), and aggregate differences are
largely explained by more tangible differences in family dynamics.
The more complex family processes at issue are attachment, parental supervision, and
maltreatment. These are more salient in explaining the onset of girls’ and boys’ delinquency.
Findings on effects of parental supervision and monitoring are statistically strong.
Consistent parental supervision and monitoring seem to protect children and adolescents
from involvement in delinquency (e.g., Cernkovich and Giordano, 1987; Hirschi, 1969;
Schlossman & Cairns, 1993). In Patterson, Crosby, and Vuchinich’s (1992) comprehensive
study of family dynamics, monitoring exerted a protective effect. Conversely, ineffective
parenting practices—including inconsistent discipline and a pattern of nagging followed by
explosive outbursts—characterized families of delinquent youths more than families of
comparison youths. More recent research by Chamberlain (2003) documented these types
of negative family processes in the backgrounds of delinquent girls.
Parental and familial crime also has long been considered a risk factor for delinquency
(Glueck & Glueck, 1950; McCord, 1991; Rowe & Farrington, 1997), but this has not been
extensively investigated in studies of girls. Some qualitative studies in the 1980s suggest
that women involved in prostitution and other illegal survival strategies were introduced to
this behavior by cousins, young aunts, and other relatives who were themselves heavily
involved in street life (e.g., Miller, 1986). The use of illegal drugs also is likely to be
encouraged by drug-using parents.
Family instability, with consequent disruptions in social ties and continuity of education,
also appears to be a factor in the development of erratic or disruptive behavior among
youth. Keller, Catalano, Haggerty, and Fleming (2002) focused on parental “transitions” (e.g.,
residential moves and changes in parental caretakers) among the children of drug-using
parents and found that a higher number of transitions were significantly associated with the
child adopting drugs and becoming delinquent.
Of the many forms of family influence, maltreatment in the forms of physical assault,
sexual abuse, and neglect have been studied frequently. Although disentangling separate
impacts of childhood physical assault sexual abuse, and neglect is often difficult in the
existing studies, findings from this body of research suggest that a history of abuse/neglect
significantly increases the chances of having both a juvenile and an adult criminal record
(e.g., Widom, 1989b, 1991).
In her prospective cohort study, Widom and colleagues found that children who had
experienced severe child abuse or neglect within families were at significantly higher risk
 Zahn /THE CAUSES OF GIRLS’ DELINQUENCY AND THEIR PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS 459

for arrest as juveniles compared with the matched control group (Widom & Ames, 1994;
Widom & Maxfield, 2001).
Recent prospective work that looked at family effects on delinquency in a community
sample analyzed data by gender found that girls who had experienced severe child abuse
were over seven times as likely to commit violent acts that were referred to the juvenile
justice system as nonabused girls, even when co-occurring risk factors in violent families
were controlled (Herrera & McCloskey, 2001).
The role of sexual assault has been studied both inside the family and outside as a
correlate of delinquency. However, making comparisons across studies is difficult because
of a number of methodological problems. Sexual abuse, for example, may be defined as
being “inappropriate touching” in one study and rape in another. Although methodology
limitations must be duly noted, findings suggest that sexual abuse victims have an increased
likelihood of both juvenile violent arrests and adult arrests. Further, a small sample of youth
in Widom’s study who had experienced sexual abuse as well as severe neglect or nonsexual
physical abuse (n = 28)—what Widom termed the “sexual abuse plus group”—were more
likely than those in other maltreatment groups and those in the comparison sample to be
arrested for running away (Widom, 1995).
Although there are a number of unanswered questions regarding the role of sexual
assault in delinquency causation, clearly more girls in juvenile justice custody have been
sexually abused than boys in custody, thus suggesting a need to attend to that issue.

PEERS

In addition to family influences, peers, neighborhoods, and individual characteristics are

also correlated with girls’ delinquency. Peer influence has been a long-standing critical
factor in understanding delinquency, because delinquency is most often a group activity
(e.g., Haynie, 2001). In her analysis of Add Health1 data, Haynie (2001) found that peers’
delinquency had a significant effect on a youth’s own delinquency, as did the cohesiveness
of the peer network. The majority of adolescents in this nationally representative study
reported a mix of friendships, including delinquent and nondelinquent friends. However,
youth involved in the highest level of delinquency reported that virtually all of their friends
were delinquent (Haynie, 2002).
For girls, association with males is a factor in the onset and course of delinquency.
Stattin and Magnusson (1990) suggested that girls’ early maturation may influence their
association with older males and, in turn, increase their risk for delinquent behavior if the
older male is involved in delinquent activities. Haynie et al.’s (2005) analyses did find that
the impact of romantic partners’ delinquency influenced the respondents’ likelihood of
delinquency. This dynamic has stronger relevance for girls’ delinquency than for boys’.

SCHOOLS

Much research has been done on the relationship between school performance and vary-
ing aspects of school attachment, commitment, and school climate on delinquent behavior
(e.g., Gottfredson, 1981, 2001; Maguin & Loeber, 1996). Although some have found a
stronger relationship between academic performance and delinquency for males than for
females, others find that it depends on the type of delinquency studied; as an example,
academic performance and drug use are equally important for girls and boys (e.g., Paulson
et al., 1990; Rosay et al., 2000).
460 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

One analysis that used a national sample of adolescents in school conducted for the GSG
project and that will be released in a forthcoming bulletin on resilience examined the
impact of school success (i.e., grade point average) on subsequent delinquency of girls. It
found that school success was a factor inhibiting delinquency, although the positive effects
diminished as the level of neighborhood disadvantage increased (Hawkins et al., in press).
Attachment to school or the extent to which students care about school and about their
teachers’ opinions of them is also a salient characteristic. Some recent studies have found
that school attachment is an especially protective factor for girls (e.g., Crosnoe, Erickson,
& Dornbusch, 2002) as is commitment to school or amount of time and energy devoted to
school activities (e.g., Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Gottfredson, 2001). In sum, the role
of schools and especially girls’ feelings of attachment to them is important.
The fact that girls in custody have lower levels of performance in school and are at least
a year behind their peers may represent many issues. It may represent difficulties in learning
or lack of attachment and commitment to school. The deficits that arise, no matter the
source, however, need to be addressed in any programming for girls.

NEIGHBORHOODS

Further, the peer effect may be amplified in disadvantaged neighborhoods where violence,
drug use, and drug sales may be more common. One of the most rigorous studies on neigh-
borhood effects on delinquency of boys and girls was the Moving to Opportunity Study
(MTO) reported by Kling, Ludwig, and Katz (2005). This study assigned housing vouchers
via random lottery to public housing residents in five cities. Residents were randomly
assigned to an experimental group, in which they were offered the opportunity to relocate
using a housing voucher to lease a unit in a nonpoverty area. Section 8 families could relocate
wherever the vouchers could be redeemed; a control group was offered no services through
MTO. Importantly, the findings on crime used both arrest data and survey information.
As reported in Kling, Ludwig, and Katz (2005), after random assignment, both girls
and boys in the experimental group experienced fewer violent-crime arrests, compared with
those in the control group. Girls were arrested less for other crimes as well. However, several
years after the move occurred, these effects changed for males. Property crime arrests
became more common for boys who had moved to more advantaged neighborhoods than
for males who had not been offered this opportunity, although violent crime by males
remained low. The positive effects for females’ arrests for violent and property crime
remained over time. The move to a better neighborhood also improved girls’ expectations
for completing college and their participation in sports and was associated with a reduction
in school absences and an increase in associations with peers who engaged in school activities
(Kling, Ludwig, & Katz, 2005).
The role of neighborhood disadvantage may also exacerbate the impact of individual
factors, such as the early onset of puberty. In a prospective study with a diverse ethnic and
economic sample across 80 Chicago neighborhoods, Obeidallah et al. (2004) found that
girls who experience early-onset puberty and live in highly disadvantaged neighborhoods
are at significantly greater risk for violent behaviors than are those who live in less
disadvantaged neighborhoods.
The role of early puberty, which is a key gender-sensitive factor in girls’ delinquency, is
complex. It appears that girls who enter into early puberty are at greater risk of delinquency,
because they may then date earlier and, if linked to older males who may be delinquent, also
engage in delinquent activity (Stattin & Magnusson, 1990).
 Zahn /THE CAUSES OF GIRLS’ DELINQUENCY AND THEIR PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS 461

When examining the multiple causes of girls’ delinquency, it is clear that family
dysfunction, antisocial peers, poor school attachment, and exposure to disadvantaged neigh-
borhoods are as correlated for girls as these causes are for boys.

GENDER-SENSITIVE FACTORS

The rate of exposure to some of these causes, as well as their salience, has, however,
some gendered effects. Sexual assault, for example, correlates with delinquency; however,
the rate of exposure for this is greater for girls than boys. Thus, it is a gender-sensitive factor.
Involvement with delinquent peers affects boys and girls; however, girls are more influenced
by boys’ behavior, especially when minor delinquency is involved, than the reverse.
Thus, involvement with delinquent male peers is also gender sensitive. And, although early
puberty (and the resulting maturity gaps) affects boys and girls, the effect appears much
greater for girls (Fishbein et al., in press). The sexualization of a girl’s body and the social
reaction to that event by parents sometimes leads to harsh parenting, rising conflict between
the girl and her caretakers, and an increased association with older boys who are attracted
to her (and may abuse her). These are highly gendered processes and, although much
additional research is needed, they appear correlated with delinquency outcomes. Programs
then need to be aware of some of these differences to enhance their effectiveness with girls.
(Portions of this review are found in the Causes and Correlates Bulletin forthcoming from
OJJDP†).

IMPLICATIONS FOR DELINQUENCY INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

Part of the GSG’s mission has also been to identify effective programs for girls. This task
poses very specific challenges. First, many programs are new and have not been in effect
for a long period, so evaluating program effectiveness is difficult. Second, consistent criteria
for determining where to place a program on a continuum of effectiveness are lacking.
Programs may be at a minimum judged as effective, promising, or ineffective or may have
insufficient evidence to make a judgment. The What Works Repository and the OJJDP
Model Guidelines as well as the Healthy American Youth (HAY) tool are some federal
classification guidelines that exist in this area. For most of the guidelines, the gold standard for
judging program effectiveness is based on a randomized control trial model where girls are
randomly assigned to the program and a comparison group of similar girls are not. Such
trials are very difficult to mount in the justice field for both ethical and cost reasons; thus,
few programs would meet the highest evaluation standards.
Although faced with these challenges, we nonetheless have assembled a list of 58
girls-only programs currently in effect in the United States that we constructed using
literature searches and Web site reviews. Whether girls-only programs are effective, or
which ones are, is seriously understudied. To date, our project has located 16 programs
that have any type of evaluation. For many programs, the evaluation simply involves a
pre/post test on girls who are in the program. Such evaluations without the use of control
groups cannot generally inform us sufficiently of effectiveness. Programs that have so far
been identified that have used control groups and demonstrate positive results are included
in Table 1.
Because the amount of evidence is slim, and many of the programs so new, specific pro-
grams have not yet been vetted and endorsed by the GSG, or by OJJDP. However, based
462 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

Table 1
Programs That Have Been Evaluated Using Control Groups
Friendly PEERsuation (Girls Inc.), USA Reaffirming Young Sisters’ Excellence (RYSE), California
Movimiento Ascendencia, Colorado Urban Women Against Substance Abuse, Connecticut
Naja Project, Washington, DC WINGS (Working to Insure and Nurture Girls Success),
California
Project Chrysalis, Oregon

on those that have been evaluated and based on information about the causes of female
delinquency, the following recommendations seem justified.

RECOMMENDATIONS‡

1. Where possible, use programs that have been evaluated and judged effective
by as high a standard as possible. Some of these programs will be equally
effective for boys and girls, such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Father Flanagan’s
Girls and Boys Town, life skills training, multidimensional treatment foster care,
and multisystemic therapy (Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence,
undated).
For gender-specific girls’ programs, those that have shown positive effects and have used
a control group to demonstrate them are preferred. Also based on the foregoing analysis of
causal factors in girls’ delinquency, intervention programs should do the following:

2. Address family dysfunction, including attempts, where possible, to build better

conflict-free, positive relations with parents who use appropriate supervision.
3. Address educational deficits, either by individualized tutoring or classes geared to
specific deficits and after-school programs that encourage learning and prosocial
activity.
4. Establish connections of girls to prosocial organizations and community groups and
services. Social peers make a big difference as do positive mentors.
5. Provide mental health and community support services to address the legacy of
abuse, both physical and sexual, and the harm of neglect.
6. Provide discussions of and information about gender, sexuality, and health and
information on how to establish nonabusive relationships with romantic partners,
including selection of male peer friendships.
7. Provide life skills training, with specifics about anger management, meaningful
vocation skills, and parenting skills.

Although the relationship of skills training to delinquency prevention was not included
in the preceding literature review, girls indicate their need for this type of training. The
recommendations listed above should be useful as we search for programs to effectively
address the rising number of girls in our juvenile justice system. Letters received by Judge
Cindy Lederman from girls under jurisdiction in the Miami court system indicate their
perceived need for programs. Given this special issue’s emphasis on the voices of youth at
risk, I am closing with some quotes from several of these girls in detention.
 Zahn /THE CAUSES OF GIRLS’ DELINQUENCY AND THEIR PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS 463

• From Jemika: “What I would like to have is a job . . . and I would like to get put in
a different school so that I am not with my friends. I want to be at a school that I
don’t know no one there . . . I am straightening up my life, and I don’t need to be out
on the street being a nobody . . .”
• From Margaret: “One of the first most useful thing that would help me is find a job.
Second, somewhere where I can keep myself busy . . . and a school where I can study
to become what I want to become or an after school program where I can go . . .”

And lest we forget that these are young girls, the note from one other girl: “What I need
most is my mama.”
In sum, girls’ programming must be multidimensional, involving families, schools,
prosocial organizations, economic opportunities, and strategies for appropriately addressing
sexuality, abuse, and male relationships.

NOTES

* The ultimate goal of the GSG project is to develop the research foundation that communities need to make
sound decisions about how best to prevent and reduce delinquency and violence by girls. The GSG is responsible
for developing and providing scientifically sound, useful guidance on program development and implementation
to policy makers, practitioners, and the research community. Members of the GSG are Margaret A. Zahn, PI; Ann
Marie Ambrose, Esq.; Dr. Robert Agnew; Dr. Elizabeth Cauffman; Dr. Meda Chesney-Lind; Dr. Gayle Dakof; Dr.
Del Elliott; Dr. Barry Feld; Dr. Diana Fishbein; Dr. Peggy Giordano; Dr. Candace Kruttschnitt; Dr. Jody Miller;
Dr. Merry Morash; Dr. Darrell Steffensmeier; Giovanna Taormina; and Dr. Donna-Marie Winn. This project is
funded by OJJDP through cooperative agreement no. 2004-JF-FX-K001 with RTI International.
† The materials summarized in this section derive from chapters prepared by the following GSG members and
associates. The full chapters will be available in a forthcoming book published by Temple University Press
(contract now in negotiation): “An Overview of Key Themes in Female Delinquency,” Meda Chesney-Lind;
“Peer Influences on Girls’ Delinquency,” Peggy Giordano; “Family Influences on Girls’ Delinquency,” Candace
Kruttschnitt and Peggy Giordano; “Girls, Schooling, and Delinquency,” Allison Payne, Denise Gottfredson, and
Candace Kruttschnitt; and “Individual Risk Factors in Girls’ Delinquency,” Diana Fishbein, Shari Miller-Johnson,
Donna-Marie Winn, and Gayle Dakof.
‡ These recommendations flow from the literature review on causes and correlates, as well as from program
evaluations. They have not yet been vetted or endorsed by either the GSG or OJJDP.
1. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, known as “Add Health,” used self-reported survey
data to examine health-related behaviors in adolescence and subsequent outcomes in young adulthood (Udry,
2003). A sample of 80 high schools and 52 middle schools from the US was selected. The Add Health study design
ensured this sample was representative of U.S. schools with respect to region of country, urbanicity, school size,
school type, and ethnicity.

REFERENCES

Acoca, L. (1999). Investing in girls: A 21st century strategy. Juvenile Justice, 6, 3–13.
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 110, 26 – 46.
American Bar Association & National Bar Association. (2001). Justice by gender: The lack of appropriate
prevention, diversion and treatment alternatives for girls in the justice system. Washington, DC: American Bar
Association and National Bar Association.
Bishop, D. M. & Frazier, C. E. (1992). Gender bias in juvenile justice processing: Implications of the JJDP Act.
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 82, 1162–1186.
Bloom, B., Owen, B., Dechenes, E. P., & Rosenbaum, J. (2002). Moving toward justice for female juvenile offenders
in the new millennium: Modeling gender-specific policies and programs. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 18(1), 37–56.
464 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology, 25, 295–321.
Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1992). School bonding, race, and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 261–287.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado at Boulder. Blueprints for violence
prevention. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html
Chamberlain, P. (2003). Treating chronic juvenile offenders: Advances made through the Oregon multidimensional
treatment foster care model. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Chesney-Lind, M., & Belknap, J. (2004). Trends in delinquent girls’ aggression and violent behavior: A review
of the evidence. In M. Putallaz & P. Bierman (Eds.), Aggression, antisocial behavior and violence among
girls: A developmental perspective (pp. 203–220). New York: Guilford Press.
Chesney-Lind, Meda. (2004, August). Girls and violence: is the gender gap closing? National Electronic Network
on Violence Against Women.
Crosnoe, R., Erickson, K. G., & Dornbusch, S. M. (2002). Protective functions of family relationships and school
factors on the deviant behavior of adolescent boys and girls. Youth and Society, 33, 4.
Fishbein, D., Miller-Johnson, S., Winn, D. M., & Dakof, G. (in press). Individual risk factors in girls’ delinquency.
Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gottfredson, G. D. (1981). Schooling and delinquency. In S. E. Martin, L. B. Sechrest, & R. Redner (Eds.), New
Directions in the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders (pp. 424–469). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Delinquency and schools. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, S. R., Graham, P. W., Williams, J., & Zahn, M. A. (in press). Resilient girls and the protective factors that
can make a difference. (Resilience Bulletin).
Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology,
106(4), 1013–1057.
Haynie, D. L. (2002). Friendship networks and delinquency: The relative nature of peer delinquency. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 18(2), 99 –134.
Haynie, D. L., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2005). Adolescent romantic relationships
and delinquency involvement. Criminology, 43, 117–210.
Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). Better or worse: Divorce reconsidered. New York: WW Norton and Company.
Herrera, V. M., & McCloskey, L. A. (2001). Gender differences in the risk for delinquency among youth exposed
to family violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 1037–1052.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Keller, T. E., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. B. (2002). Parent figure transitions and delinquency
and drug use among early adolescent children of substance abusers. The American Journal of Drug and
Alcohol Abuse, 28, 399 – 427.
Kling, J. R., Ludwig, J., & Katz, L. F. (2005). Neighborhood effects on crime for female and male youth: Evidence
from a randomized housing voucher experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87–130.
Lederman, C. S., Dakof, G. A., Larreal, M. A., & Hua, L. (2004). Characteristics of adolescent females in juvenile
detention. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 321–337.
Maguin, E., & R. Loeber. (1996). Academic performance and delinquency. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice:
A review of research (Vol. 20). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McCord, J. (1991). The cycle of crime and socialization practices. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82,
211–228.
Miller, E. M. (1986). Street women. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Obeidallah, D., Brennan, R. T., Brooks-Grunn, J., & Earls, F. (2004). Links between pubertal timing and neigh-
borhood contexts: Implications for girls’ violent behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 1460 –1468.
Patterson, G. R., Crosby, L., & Vuchinich, S. (1992). Predicting risk for early police arrest. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 8(4), 335 –355.
Paulson, M. J., Coombs, R. H., & Richardson, M. A. (1990). School performance, academic aspirations, and drug
use among children and adolescents. Journal of Drug Education, 20(4), 289–303.
Rosay, A. B., Gottfredson, D. C., Armstrong, T. A., & Harmon, M. A. (2000). Invariance of measures of preven-
tion program effectiveness: A replication. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 341–367.
Rowe, D. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1997). The familial transmission of criminal convictions. Criminology, 35, 177–201.
Schlossman, S., & Cairns, R. B. (1993). Problem girls: Observations on past and present. In G. H. Elder Jr., J.
Modell, & R. D. Park (Eds.), Children in time and place: Developmental and historical insights (pp. 110 –130).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
 Zahn /THE CAUSES OF GIRLS’ DELINQUENCY AND THEIR PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS 465

Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (1990). Pubertal maturation in female development, Vol. 2: Paths through life .
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Udry, J. R. (2003). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health (Add Health), Waves I & II, 1994–1996;
Wave III, 2001–2002. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Widom, C. S., & Maxfield, M. G. (2001). An update on the “cycle of violence.” Research in brief. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Widom, C. S. (1995). Victims of childhood sexual abuse: Later criminal consequences. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Widom, C. S. (1991). Childhood victimization: Risk factor for delinquency. In M. E. Colten and S. Gore (Eds.),
Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Widom, C. S. (1989). Child abuse, neglect, and violent criminal behavior. Criminology, 27, 251–272.
Widom, C. S., & Ames, M. A. (1994). Criminal consequences of childhood sexual victimization. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 18(4), 303 –318.

Margaret A. Zahn is Professor of Sociology at North Carolina State University and Principal Investigator
of the Girls Study Project which is an OJJDP funded project to assess state of the art knowledge and
programming for delinquent girls. Dr. Zahn has been director of the Violence and Victimization Division
of the National Institute of Justice in Washington, DC. Prior to that, she was Dean of Humanities and
Social Sciences at North Carolina State University. During her academic career, she has led a number of
research projects. She is a Fellow of and has served as President of the American Society of Criminology.
She has edited three books on violence and has published extensively in peer-reviewed social science and
criminology journals.