Girls in the Juvenile Justice System

Girls have historically been less likely than boys to become involved in the juvenile justice system, especially at the “deeper end” of the system involving secure residential placement and transfer to adult court (Ehrmann, Hyland, and Puzzanchera, 2019). This gender gap also exists in the adult system and has been referred to as “one of the most enduring findings in criminology” (O’Neil, 2020). During the 1990s, the proportion of girls involved in the juvenile justice system began to increase, and continues to increase in some stages of the system, including arrests.

Arrests

The number of juvenile arrests has declined considerably since its peak in the mid-1990s and was at its lowest level in 2020 since at least 1980. Arrest rates for girls also have declined. The arrest rate for girls peaked in 1996 at 4,030 arrests per 100,000 girls. This rate declined to about 3,400 arrests per 100,000 girls from 2000 through 2008 and then began to drop again. By 2020 the juvenile arrest rate for girls was 756 per 100,000 girls (see Figure 1).

At the same time, the proportion of juvenile arrests that involved girls has steadily increased. This is in part because between 1980 and the late 1990s increases in girls’ arrest rates outpaced increases in boys’ arrest rates. Then in the 2000s and 2010s, and so far in the 2020s, girls’ arrest rates have declined less than boys’ arrest rates. In 1980 the girls’ arrest rate was about 22 percent of the boys’ arrest rate (2,300 per 100,000 for girls, compared with 10,321 per 100,000 for boys) [see the relative rates in Figure 1]. In other words, in 1980, boys were about 4½ times as likely as girls to be arrested. In 2019 the girls’ arrest rate was 46 percent of the boys’ arrest rate (1,274 per 100,000 girls, compared with 2,783 per 100,000 boys), which was the closest it’s been to the boys’ rate since at least 1980. In other words, the male arrest rate was 2.2 times greater than the female arrest rate in 2019. In 2020 the female arrest rate was 43 percent of the male rate (756 per 100,000, compared with 1,763 per 100,000), which means that the male arrest rate was 2.3 times the female arrest rate in 2020 [Statistical Briefing Book, 2022; Puzzanchera, 2021].

Juvenile Court

There was a large decline in both male and female delinquency cases between 2005 and 2020. Involvement of boys exceeded that of girls across all age groups and all offense categories (e.g., person, property, drug, and public order offenses). In 2020, girls were involved in 27 percent of the 508,400 delinquency cases referred to court (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2023). This includes 30 percent of person offenses, 27 percent of the public order offenses, 26 percent of the drug offenses, and 24 percent of the property offenses (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2022). When looking only at the 136,314 cases involving girls, 39 percent were for person offenses, 28 percent for property offenses, 22 percent for public order offenses, and 11 percent for drug offenses (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2023).

After being referred to court for delinquency cases, girls are less likely than boys to be petitioned (46 percent of the time, compared with 57 percent) and, alternatively, more likely to be informally handled (54 percent of the time for girls, compared with 43 percent of the time for boys). After petition, cases involving girls were less likely to result in a delinquency adjudication than cases involving boys (43 percent, compared with 50 percent). After adjudication, cases involving girls were less likely than cases involving boys to result in out-of-home placement at disposition (20 percent, compared with 28 percent). Girls were also less likely than boys to be transferred to adult court (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2023).

Compared with delinquency cases, girls accounted for a substantially larger proportion of petitioned status offense cases. Status offenses are acts that are illegal because the persons committing them are of juvenile status (e.g., truancy, running away from home, curfew violations). In 2020, girls accounted for 44 percent of the estimated 57,700 juvenile court status offense caseload. Similar to boys, the most-common status offense for girls was truancy. When looking only at the status offense cases involving girls, 59 percent were for truancy, 14 percent were for running away, 10 percent were for liquor law violations, 8 percent were for ungovernability, 3 percent were for curfew violations, and 5 percent were listed as miscellaneous. Between 2005 and 2020, the number of petitioned status offense cases decreased about 70 percent for both girls and boys (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2023). For more information, see the Model Programs Guide (MPG) literature review on Status Offenders.

Transfer to Adult Court

One of the most important decisions made in court about youth cases is whether a case should proceed in the juvenile court system or in the criminal (adult) justice system. There are several ways that a juvenile case is transferred to criminal court, including judicial waiver (discretionary, mandatory, and presumptive), statutory exclusion, and prosecutorial discretion (Keenen, 2021; Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2023). National data are available for youths transferred to adult court through judicial waiver, but not through the other mechanisms. In 2020, about 200 girls in the United States were transferred to adult court through judicial waiver, representing about 7 percent of all youths transferred to adult court through judicial waiver (compared with boys, who made up 93 percent of waivers) [Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2022]. From 2005 to 2020, the number of girls transferred to the adult system through judicial waiver decreased by about two thirds (from about 602 to about 200) [Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2022].

Secure Detention and Commitment

In 2019, there were 5,415 girls in the juvenile residential population, which represented 15 percent of the total residential population (Sickmund et al., 2021). Fifty-five percent of the girls were in the committed population (that is, in placement as part of a court-ordered disposition); 42 percent were in the detained population (i.e., juveniles held while awaiting their transfer, trial, adjudication, or disposition placement after adjudication); 2 percent were part of the diversion population (juveniles sent to a residential facility in lieu of adjudication as part of a diversion agreement), and 2 percent were in some other type (or unknown).

From 2001 to 2019, the number of girls in the detained population decreased 56 percent, and the number of girls in the committed population decreased 70 percent (Sickmund et al., 2021). Although the number of girls in residential placement has declined during the past 20 years, their proportion of the placement population has remained stable at about 15 percent (while boys have accounted for about 85 percent of the residential population during this time) [Hockenberry, 2022].

In 2019, 91 percent of the girls in residential placement had been adjudicated for delinquency offenses and 9 percent for status offenses. More specifically, 37 percent were adjudicated for person offenses, 21 percent for technical violations, 19 percent for property offense, 9 percent for public order offenses, 9 percent for status offenses, and 5 percent for drug offenses (Sickmund et al., 2021).

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement provides information on more than 30 specific types and categories of offenses. In 2019, girls were underrepresented in juvenile residential facilities across all offense categories except running away. While there were more girls held for running away than boys, fewer than 3 percent of the girls in the residential population had running away as their most serious charge. Girls constituted less than 10 percent of the residential population whose most serious charges were sexual assault, weapons offenses, robbery, burglary, trafficking, or criminal homicide. For example, in 2019, there were 858 boys in the residential population for criminal homicide, compared with 83 girls (that is, 91 percent of the youths in residential placement charged with criminal homicide were boys, while 9 percent were girls). Girls constituted between 30 percent and 50 percent of the residential population whose most serious offenses were curfew violation, truancy, status offenses overall, or other status offenses. However, these offenses tend to have the fewest number of youths. For example, in 2019, there were 194 boys and 112 girls in the residential population with truancy as their most serious charge.

For more information about residential programs, see the MPG literature review Residential Programs.

Recidivism

Though national juvenile recidivism rates are not available (Casey and Siennick, 2022; Development Services Group, Inc., 2017), most analyses of state, local, and programmatic sources find that girls are less likely to recidivate then boys after involvement in the juvenile justice system (e.g., Baglivio, 2009; Baglivio and Wolff, 2020; Indiana Department of Correction, 2021; Lehmann, Meldrum, and Greenwald, 2020; Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, 2022; Ryan, Williams, and Courtney, 2013). For example, a study of more than 28,000 juveniles in the Florida Juvenile Justice System found that girls were less likely than boys both to be rearrested and reconvicted after system involvement (Baglivio and Wolff, 2020). Analysis of recidivism 1 year after discharge from juvenile commitment in Massachusetts found that the recidivism rate was 28 percent for boys and 11 percent for girls, and that in the past 6 years recidivism rates for girls were never more than 40 percent of the boys’ rate (Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, 2022). Similarly, 1-year recidivism rates for justice system–involved youths in Oregon in 2020 were 28 percent for boys and 18 percent for girls (Oregon Youth Authority, 2021). Several program evaluations also have found that boys are more likely than girls to recidivate (e.g., Day, Zahn, and Tichavsky, 2015; Pullman et al., 2006; Trupin et al., 2011).

Racial and Ethnic Disparities

Girls of color are more likely than white girls to be arrested and subsequently go deeper into the juvenile justice system (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2023; Puzzanchera, Sladky, and Kang, 2021; Sickmund et al., 2022). Black girls and American Indian girls tend to be most affected by racial disparities. In 2020, Black, non-Hispanic girls made up 14.7 percent of girls ages 10 to 17 in the United States, but they accounted for 34.0 percent of the girls referred to juvenile court, 36.5 percent of the girls sent to residential facilities, and 39.7 percent of the girls transferred to adult court (Puzzanchera, Sladky, and Kang, 2021; Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2022). A 1-day count of girls in residential placement in 2019 indicated that Black girls made up 34.8 percent of girls in the residential placement population, including 37.2 percent of the detained population and 33.3 percent of the committed population (Sickmund et al., 2022). Similarly, American Indian girls made up only 1.0 percent of the girls ages 10 to 17 in the United States in 2019 but constituted 3.3 percent of the girls in the residential placement population (Puzzanchera, Sladky, and Kang, 2021; Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2022). Asian girls are underrepresented in the juvenile justice system: they make up 6 percent of the girls in the U.S. youth population ages 10–17, but less than 2 percent of the female cases in juvenile court, less than 1 percent of the girls transferred to adult court, and less than 1 percent of the girls in residential placement (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2023; Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2022; Sickmund et al., 2022).

There is also some evidence to suggest that within different racial and ethnic groups, there are differences in disparities by gender. Specifically, American Indian girls are more likely to be involved in the juvenile justice system than girls of other races and ethnicities. For example, among youths sent to juvenile court in 2019 for delinquency cases, girls constituted 25.8 percent of the Hispanic cases, 27.9 percent of the Black cases, 28.7 percent of the Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander cases, 28.2 percent of the white cases, and 32.5 percent of the American Indian cases (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2022). Among the juvenile residential population in 2019, girls made up 10.1 percent of the Pacific Islander population, 12.6 percent of the Black population, 14.7 percent of the Hispanic population, 16.9 percent of the white population, 17.2 of the Asian population, and 24.1 percent of the American Indian population (Sickmund et al., 2022).

For more information, please see the MPG literature review on Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Juvenile Justice Processing.

Some researchers and theorists have found that traditional criminological research is deficient in explaining girls’ and women’s crime and delinquency, giving a low priority to the role of gender in traditional theoretical frameworks (Belknap and Holsinger, 2006; Daly et al., 2002; Daly and Chesney–Lind, 1988). Theorists have given several reasons justifying gender-specific frameworks, including biological differences, differences in how girls and boys are socialized, and differences in delinquent behavior, sexism, and potentially different pathways into delinquency and criminality (Belknap and Holsinger, 2006; Chesney–Lind, 2006; Jones et al., 2014; Liu and Miller, 2020; Shoemaker, 2018). Thus, gender-specific theories and models have emerged. Though general theories of crime and delinquency also are used for girls, this section provides information related to a few of the gender-specific theoretical positions that characterize much of the literature related to girls in the juvenile justice system.

Feminist Pathways Theories

Feminist criminology began during the second wave of the women’s movement in the 1970s and early 1980s (Chesney–Lind, 2006). In terms of explaining girls’ involvement in delinquent behaviors, contemporary feminist criminology emphasizes “the complexity, tentativeness, and variability with which individuals, particularly youths, negotiate (and resist) gender identity” (Chesney–Lind, 2006:8). This contrasts with other approaches that may introduce gender only as a variable within a larger analysis, if at all (Chesney–Lind, 2006). Feminist theories underscore the differences between the experiences of girls and boys as a crucial component to understanding delinquency and emphasize early events in a girl’s life, such as abuse and neglect, as significant risk factors for girls’ delinquent behavior (Belknap and Holsinger, 2006;Daly, 1992; Foley, 2008; Holsinger, 2000; Jones et al., 2014; Petersen, Salisbury, and Sundt, 2015; Sutton and Simons, 2021). Some feminist criminologists argue that, while girls and boys may face similar risk factors, their cognitive and emotional responses to these problems are different.

Relational–Cultural Theory

Relational–cultural theory, which was developed initially to understand women’s psychological experiences, emphasizes the centrality of relationships in people’s lives (Comstock et al., 2008; Jordan and Hartling, 2002; Miller, 1976). Several researchers have used this model of human development to explain girls’ aggressive and delinquent behaviors and develop programming for girls (e.g., Cannon et al., 2012; Gies et al., 2015; Lenz, Speciale, and Aguilar, 2012). They posit that relationships may play a unique role in the lives of girls.

Judicial Paternalism

Judicial paternalism focuses on the role of official decisionmakers and suggests that justice systems are gendered institutions with traditional patriarchal norms, which treat girls differently from boys. One of the main interpretations of judicial paternalism is chivalry, which results in girls being treated more leniently than boys (Bishop and Frazier, 1992; Crew, 1991; Gomez, 2022; Gruhl, Welch, and Spohn, 1984). Another interpretation of judicial paternalism is the “evil woman” hypothesis, which posits that girls receive harsher treatment for certain crimes when they violate gender norms (Erez, 1992; Kempf–Leonard and Johansson, 2007; Spivak et al., 2014). Like paternalism, the masculinization framework explains the simplistic notions of “good” and “bad” femininity, which “permit the demonization of some girls and women if they stray from the path of “true” (passive, controlled, and constrained) “womanhood” (Chesney–Lind, 2006).

The Intersectionality Theoretical Framework

The intersectionality theoretical framework highlights the importance of how gender, race, and class influence life course outcomes, especially as they relate to privilege and oppression (Krumer–Nevo and Komem, 2013; Leiber, Brubaker, and Fox, 2009; Potter, 2013; Potter, 2006). The intersectionality framework considers gender and race simultaneously, rather than separating each into individual categories and assuming that all individuals within each category share the same experiences (Leiber, Brubaker, and Fox, 2009). The intersectional perspective argues that girls of color are likely to be treated differently in the juvenile justice system, compared with white girls, because of group stereotypes, victimization experiences, and how courtroom actors perceive their culpability, agency, and amenability to rehabilitation (Comack and Balfour, 2004; Goodkind, 2005; Nanda, 2012). Some researchers have used an intersectional perspective to examine girls’ delinquency, violence, and experiences in juvenile justice settings, often finding that stereotypes, stigma, oppression, and privilege can occur at the individual, group, and structural levels (e.g., De La Rue and Ortega, 2019; Guevara, Herz, and Spohn, 2006; Leiber, Brubaker and Fox, 2009; Lowery, 2019; Maggard, Higgins, and Chappell, 2013; Pasko and Lopez, 2018a; Quinn et al., 2022).

Several other theoretical frameworks also are used to explain girls’ delinquency. These include the context of risk model, which focuses on biological and social factors and contends that early pubertal development leads to exposure to more risk factors for delinquency for girls (Haynie, 2003; Klopack, Simons, and Simons, 2020); the developmental psychopathology perspective, which integrates an understanding of the social, psychological, biological, and environmental risk and protective factors that influence girls’ developmental trajectories toward or away from delinquency (Cicchetti and Rogosch, 2002; Kerig and Schindler, 2013); and ecological systems theories, which concentrate on the interactions between individuals and their social environments and how these interactions affect individual behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Darling, 2007; Duerden and Witt, 2010; Javdani and Allen, 2016; Theokas and Lerner, 2006).

Empirical research has found that gender often influences pathways through the juvenile justice system, even when accounting for offense characteristics and other legal and demographic variables (Charish, Davis, and Damphousse, 2004; Leiber, Brubaker, and Fox, 2009; Maggard, Higgins, and Chappell, 2013; Spivak et al., 2014). Explanations for these differences often are explored using the theoretical frameworks described in Theoretical Frameworks.

Findings from quantitative analyses are mixed on whether girls are treated more or less leniently than boys. For instance, Leiber, Brubaker, and Fox (2009) analyzed 21 years (1980–2000) of juvenile case files from a midwestern state to examine the individual and joint effects of gender and race on judicial decisionmaking. After controlling for age, family structure, offense type and severity, prior offenses, and other factors, the authors found that, compared with boys, at intake girls were more likely to be released than referred to court, more likely to be released than sent to a diversion program, and less likely to be securely detained (Leiber, Brubaker, and Fox, 2009). In other words, girls received more lenient court outcomes than similarly situated boys.

Analyses of data from other jurisdictions also have found that girls often receive more lenient court outcomes, compared with similarly situated boys. A study of predispositional detention decisions in Virginia found that girls were treated more leniently than boys, when examining decisions about detention, release, and referral to a detention alternatives program (Maggard, Higgins, and Chappell, 2013). Also, a study of racial, ethnic, and gender effects in juvenile justice system processing in Oklahoma found that, statewide, girls were less likely to be securely detained, more likely to be diverted, less likely to have a petition filed, more likely to have their case dismissed, less likely to be adjudicated delinquent, and less likely to be transferred to the adult court system. Further, if girls were adjudicated, they were less likely than boys to be placed in custody and more likely to be placed on probation (Charish, Davis, and Damphousse, 2004).

Other decision points have been analyzed. For example, some researchers have examined departures from detention and dispositional guidelines. Analysis of more than 57,000 dispositions in the Florida Juvenile Justice System found that boys were 137 percent more likely than girls to receive an above-guideline disposition (Lehmann, Meldrum, and Greenwald, 2020). Also, researchers have found that girls are more likely than boys to be referred for treatment to mental health programs and hospitals, when compared with referrals for correctional placements (Chesney–Lind, 1995; Daurio, 2009; Herz 2001).

However, a study by Carr and colleagues (2008) found contrary results. Using administrative data over 4 years from a large county in Alabama, their findings supported “the limited tolerance for girls’ misbehavior and a greater acceptance of boys’ delinquency” (Carr et al., 2008:37). After analyzing data on 587 youths in a minimum-security residential program, the authors found that, once in the system, girls remained under court supervision much longer than boys. Additionally, despite being convicted for less-serious offenses, girls were more likely to be recommitted to residential treatment. Lastly, when testing for an interaction effect between gender and age, the results showed that young girls who reoffended were at greater risk of reincarceration (this had no relationship with the type of offense committed) [Carr et al., 2008].

Similarly, some studies looking specifically at status offenses have found that girls are sometimes treated more harshly than boys. In their examination of data from Oklahoma, Spivak and colleagues (2014) found that girls outnumbered boys among youths with status offenses and that girls were more likely than boys to have their status offense petitions filed for review. However, this same study also found that boys were more likely to be adjudicated as responsible for a status offense than girls and found no difference by gender in the disposition decision (incarceration versus probation). The authors concluded that their data suggest the possibility of both models of judicial paternalism: 1) the chivalry hypotheses, which claims girls are treated more leniently to protect them and 2) the evil woman hypothesis, which claims that girls are punished for violating gender norms. However, other studies (for example, Freiburger and Burke, 2011) have not found significant differences in judicial processing of status offenses by gender.

Finally, researchers have examined the interaction of gender and race (e.g., Bryson and Peck, 2020; Burke, 2009; Freiburger and Burke, 2011; Guevara, Herz, and Spohn, 2006; Johnson, 2009; Leiber, Brubaker, and Fox, 2009; Nanda, 2012). Often, these studies find that white girls and Black boys lie “on opposing sides of a spectrum of culpability and intervention worthiness” (Cochran and Mears, 2015:205), meaning that white girls are treated the most leniently, and Black boys are treated the most harshly. Several studies also have examined samples of girls only, often finding race effects disadvantaging girls of color, especially Black girls, when compared with white girls (Lowery, 2019; Moore and Padavic, 2010). There are many explanations for racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice decisionmaking, such as evidence that adults view Black girls are less innocent and more adult-like than their white peers (Epstein, Blake, and Gonzalez, 2017; Morris, 2016). For more information, visit the MPG literature review on Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Juvenile Justice Processing.

Risk and protective factors are characteristics in the individual, peer, family, school, and community domains that influence the likelihood of outcomes, such as delinquency and juvenile justice system involvement. Risk and protective factors related to girls’ delinquency and involvement in the juvenile justice system generally have been shown to parallel those of boys (Fagan et al., 2007; Leve, Chamberlain, and Kim, 2015; Zahn et al., 2008; Zahn et al., 2010). However, there are clear differences between girls’ and boys’ involvement in the juvenile justice system, and researchers have examined whether these differences can be explained by variations in exposure to and influence of risk and protective factors (Day, Zahn, and Tichavsky, 2015; Haynie, Doogan, and Soller, 2014; Liu and Miller, 2020; Pierce and Jones, 2022; Zahn et al., 2010). 

1. Some researchers posit that boys are exposed to more of the risk factors that lead to delinquency than girls are, which explains their greater involvement in crime and the justice system (Bottiani et al., 2021; Chan, 2021; Estrada et al., 2021; Finkelhor et al., 2009; Lambert et al., 2005; Zona and Milan, 2011).
2. Another explanation is that delinquent behavior may have different pathways (or causes) for boys than for girls (Day, Zahn, and Tichavsky, 2015; Fagan and Wright, 2012; Jones et al., 2014; Pierce and Jones, 2022).
3. A third explanation is that although the same factors influence boys’ and girls’ delinquency, girls may need more exposure to the same risk factors for these factors to influence their delinquency (Leve, Chamberlain, and Kim, 2015; Loeber and Keenen, 1994; Moffitt and Caspi, 2001; Wong. Slotboom, and Bijleveld, 2010).

For example, a study of nearly 8,000 tenth grade students from the Communities That Care Youth Survey examined 22 risk and protective factors in the individual, peer, family, and school domains, finding that, for both girls and boys, all the protective factors were associated with lesser involvement in serious offending, while all the risk factors were associated with increased serious delinquency (Fagan et al., 2007). However, boys experienced higher levels of risk and lower levels of protection in 18 of the 22 factors. The largest differences in exposure to protective factors between boys and girls were 1) belief in a moral order, 2) social skills, and 3) attachment to one’s mother. The largest differences in risk factors were 1) favorable attitudes regarding delinquency, 2) high sensation seeking, and 3) delinquent peers. In other words, girls were more likely than boys to believe in a moral order, have strong social skills, and have a strong relationship with their mothers and were less likely than boys to have favorable attitudes regarding delinquency, high sensation seeking, and exposure to peers who engage in delinquency. Also, for more than half of the assessed factors, the strength of the relationship between the risk or protective factor and serious delinquency was stronger for boys than for girls. There was no case in which the associations between a risk or protective factor and delinquency was stronger for girls than for boys. The largest gender differences were observed in parental attitudes favorable to delinquency and drugs, social skills, and peer rewards for delinquency. In other words, although parental attitudes favorable to delinquency and drugs, social skills, and peer rewards for delinquency influenced both boys and girls, these factors influenced boys more.

Boys also have been found to be at higher risk than girls for several other risk factors, including exposure to gun violence and community violence (Bottiani et al., 2021; Estrada et al., 2021; Finkelhor et al., 2009; Lambert et al., 2005; Zona and Milan, 2011), which may provide some explanation for their greater involvement in violence and delinquency. However, some risk factors are more prevalent in girls. For example, sexual assault is a risk factor for both boys and girls, but the rate of exposure to this risk factor is greater for girls (Zahn et al., 2010).

In addition to risk and protective factors influencing delinquent behavior in the general population, researchers continue to identify differences in the exposure to and the influence of these factors after involvement in the juvenile justice system (Baglivio, 2009; Gómez and Nicolasa Durá, 2023). For example, analysis of more than 8,000 youth in the Florida juvenile justice system found that, while race was a significant predictor for both boys and girls, all others differed by gender. Greater histories of drug use and problems associated with that use, having antisocial peer associations, inadequate/inconsistent parental supervision, and a greater history of school suspensions or expulsions predicted male recidivism.  But the only variables, other than race, that were predictive of female recidivism were history of running away and lack of relationships with prosocial adults other than teachers and employers.

Some researchers have used the term gender-sensitive risk factors to describe risk factors that influence girls differently from how they influence boys (Day, Zahn, and Tichavsky, 2015; Haney-Caron and Baker, 2022; Thomann, 2019). In addition to the examples provided above, several studies have explored whether family factors influence girls’ delinquency more than they influence boys’ delinquency. Analysis of data on more than 6,000 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health found that, although there were no major differences in the levels of parental monitoring that boys and girls received, girls were more receptive to parental supervision, which had an “amplified effect on girls in terms of inhibiting aggressive delinquency” (Liu and Miller, 2020).

Some other factors that have been identified in research as having more of an effect on girls’ delinquent behaviors than boys’ delinquent behaviors are early puberty, sexual abuse or maltreatment, depression and anxiety, traumatic experiences, and romantic partners (Zahn et al., 2008). Also, some researchers have found that the protective nature of sports participation may also differ by gender (see, for example, Spruit et al., 2016).

For more detail, go to the MPG literature reviews on Risk Factors for Delinquency and Protective Factors Against Delinquency.

Some researchers have found that the needs and other characteristics of youth in the juvenile justice system may vary by gender. For example, analysis of data from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement, which analyzed data gathered through interviews with a nationally representative sample of 7,073 youths in residential placement in 2003, found that girls in the placement population were younger than boys, had shorter lengths of stays in residential placement than boys, were less likely to be Black/African American than boys, and differed in their offense patterns from boys (Sedlak and Bruce, 2016). Similar to the information presented in the Scope of the Problem, significantly higher percentages of boys than girls were in placement for murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery, and drug or public order offenses; significantly higher percentages of girls than boys were in placement for status offenses and assaults (with or without a weapon). Also, girls were more likely to have current offenses that are less serious than their prior convictions (35 percent of girls, versus 30 percent of boys), whereas more boys exhibit an escalating pattern of offenses (23 percent, versus 20 percent of girls).

That study also found that, compared with boys in the residential population, girls were less likely to participate in sports or clubs, less likely to be expelled from school, more likely to report receiving good grades, and less likely to have a learning disability. Finally, the study found differences in perceived personal strengths and future aspirations. Girls were more likely than boys to see themselves as strong in music, art, writing, dance, working with people, and working with computers and less strong than boys in sports, math, and working with their hands. They also had higher educational aspirations and were more likely than boys to say they expect to be married and to have a steady job (Sedlak and Bruce, 2016).

Three additional factors that are commonly identified in the literature related to how girls may differ from boys in the juvenile justice systems are 1) adverse childhood experiences and trauma, 2) mental health disorders, and 3) child welfare system involvement. These factors sometimes are referred to as responsivity factors, which means that although they may not influence delinquency or recidivism directly (i.e., risk factors) they are important to consider for intervention and reentry planning.

Gender Differences in Adverse Childhood Experiences

Research has demonstrated that exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and the impact of these exposures can vary by gender. ACEs are potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood, including experiencing violence, abuse, or neglect; witnessing violence in the home or community; having a family member attempt or die by suicide; and growing up in a household with substance use problems, mental health problems, and instability (CDC, 2021). Exposure to ACEs has been found to influence several negative life outcomes, including involvement in delinquency and the justice system (e.g., Baglivio et al., 2014; Bellis et al., 2019; Bernard et al., 2021; Felitti, 2002; Ford et al., 2010; Johnson, 2018; Perez, Jennings, and Baglivio, 2018; Pierce and Jones, 2022; Wolf et al., 2020). Several studies have found that exposure to ACEs is higher among youths in the juvenile justice system than for youths in other populations (Baglivio et al., 2014; Dierkhising et al., 2013; Malvaso et al., 2022; Vitopoulos et al., 2019; Wood et al., 2002) and that cumulative adversity increases the risk of reoffending and elevated substance use and psychiatric needs (e.g., Folk et al., 2021; Weber and Lynch, 2021; Wolff, Baglivio, and Piquero, 2017). Also, exposure to interpersonal violence, victimization, and other types of abuse can increase the likelihood of externalizing symptoms, such as aggressiveness, impulsivity, and disruptive behavior problems (Ford et al., 2011; Moylan et al., 2010), which can make engagement in programming and following rules more difficult.

Although some researchers have found that girls and boys experience similar levels of childhood adversity, others find differences by gender. Findings are more consistent related to the different types of adverse experience vary by gender. Generally, researchers find that girls are at higher risk for dating violence and sexual violence victimization (Basile et al., 2020; Dierkhising et al., 2013; Finkelhor et al., 2009; Finkelhor et al., 2015; Tharp et al., 2017), while boys are at higher risk of gun violence and community violence victimization and exposure (Bottiani et al., 2021; Brosky and Lally, 2004; Estrada et al., 2021; Finkelhor et al., 2009; Lambert et al., 2005; Zona and Milan, 2011). Several studies have found that adolescent girls are more likely than adolescent boys to develop posttraumatic stress disorder following a significant trauma (Nooner et al., 2012).

Among youths in the juvenile justice system, researchers also have identified several differences by gender in ACEs. Similar to studies of youths in the general population, several studies have found that among justice-involved youths, girls report higher levels of exposure to sexual victimization and interpersonal victimization while boys report higher rates of witnessing violence (Cauffman et al., 1998; Dierkhising et al., 2013; Folk et al., 2021; Ford et al., 2007; Wood et al., 2002). Others have found that girls have higher exposure to all types of ACEs (Baglivio et al., 2014). A study of 64,000 youths in the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) system found that more than three fourths of the sample had been exposed to family violence, parental separation, or divorce and more than two thirds had a household member who had been incarcerated (Baglivio et al., 2014). Florida DJJ data also revealed that girls had a higher prevalence than boys on every ACE indicator (see Figure 2). Girls in the juvenile justice system also tend to have a higher number of ACEs, compared with boys (Baglivio et al., 2014; Folk et al., 2021). However, other studies have found higher levels of ACEs for justice-involved boys, compared with girls (e.g., Duron et al., 2022).

Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Human Trafficking

Commercial sexual exploitation of children refers to a “range of crimes and activities involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a child for the financial benefit of any person or in exchange for anything of value (including monetary and nonmonetary benefits) given or received by any person” (OJJDP, n.d.). Children can be victimized by the human trafficking and sex trade in many ways, including prostitution, pornography, and child sex tourism (Development Services Group, Inc. 2014; Development Services Group, Inc. 2016; Miller–Perrin and Wurtele, 2017; Swaner et al., 2016). In a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on the characteristics of suspected human trafficking incidents, almost 94 percent of sex trafficked victims were female, and more than half were age 17 or younger (Banks and Kyckelhahn, 2011). Also, data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’s) Child Maltreatment 2020 indicated that 88.6 percent of the 877 reported victims of sex trafficking were female (HHS, 2022).

Within the juvenile justice system, girls are more likely than boys to have a history of human trafficking (Reid et al., 2017). A study using the Florida DJJ data found that 87.7 percent of the youth with a history of trafficking were girls (while 12.3 percent were boys). This study also examined the difference between youths with a history of human trafficking abuse reports and those without such reports, examining six ACEs: 1) emotional abuse, 2) physical abuse, 3) sexual abuse, 4) emotional neglect, 5) physical neglect, and 6) family violence. They found that each of the ACEs were more prevalent among youths who had trafficking reports. For example, the odds of human trafficking were 2.5 times as great for girls who experienced sexual abuse, compared with girls who did not experience sexual abuse (Reid et al., 2017). Another study of commercially sexually exploited girls in a specialty court in Los Angeles found that the girls in the sample demonstrated high rates of mental health problems and substance use, with 43 percent of the sample reporting at least one hospitalization due to mental health problems (Cook et al., 2018).

For more information, see the MPG literature reviews on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Sex Trafficking and Child Labor Trafficking. 

Gender Differences in Mental Health and Substance Use Needs

Mental health disorders can impede the ability to successfully engage in and benefit from programming aimed at reducing delinquency. Both girls and boys in the juvenile justice system have higher levels of mental health needs than youths outside of the system (Beaudry et al., 2021; Borschmann et al., 2020), and these needs vary by gender. Many studies find that girls in the juvenile justice system have higher psychological and mental health needs than boys (e.g., Duron et al., 2022). Specifically, studies often find that girls in the juvenile justice system are more likely to experience major depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and emotion dysregulation, compared with boys in the juvenile justice system (Beaudry et al., 2021; Loyd et al., 2019; Kerig, and Becker, 2012; Shufelt and Cocozza, 2006).

A study that collected data from more than 1,400 youths in 29 different programs and facilities in three U.S. states found that more than 80 percent of the girls in the sample met criteria for at least one disorder, compared with 67 percent of boys (Shufelt and Cocozza, 2006). The authors found that much of the difference between girls’ and boys’ mental health needs was attributable to girls’ higher rates of internalizing disorders, such as anxiety disorder (56 percent of girls, compared with 26 percent of boys) and mood disorders (29 percent of girls, compared with 14 percent of boys). This study also found that girls and boys experience comparable rates of disruptive disorders, such as conduct disorders, and substance use disorders. This is notable since studies of non–justice-involved populations tend to find that girls are less likely than boys to have substance use disorders and disruptive disorders (also called externalizing disorders) [Copeland et al., 2011; Fairchild et al., 2019; Kilpatrick et al., 2003; McHugh et al. 2018].

Studies examining substance use specifically have also found differences by gender. A study of more than 3,000 youths with a positive drug screen in a midwestern urban juvenile justice system found that use of benzodiazepines, opioids, methamphetamines, and alcohol all were more common among girls than among boys, while cannabis was more common among boys. Boys also had a greater number of positive oral drug screen frequency than girls, but there were no differences in rates of polysubstance use by gender (Dir et al., 2020).

For more information on mental health needs of youth in the juvenile justice system, see the MPG literature review on Intersection between Mental Health and the Juvenile Justice System.

Gender Differences in Child Welfare System Involvement

Youths who have experienced abuse or neglect and who engage in delinquent behaviors are called crossover youths (Kolivoski, Barnett, and Abbott, 2015; Herz et al., 2019), and youths who are involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems are called dual-system or dual status youths (Grisso and Vincent, 2014; Herz et al., 2019; Onifade et al., 2014). Crossover and dual-system youths share many of the same risk factors and other characteristics as youths involved in just one of these systems; however, crossover and dual-system youths tend to face a greater number of these risk factors, more complex risk factors, and fewer protective factors (Dierkhising et al., 2019; Herz, Ryan, and Bilchik, 2010; Kim et al., 2020; Lee and Villagrana, 2015).

In 2020, child abuse and neglect victimization rates were higher for girls than for boys (8.9 per 1,000 for girls, compared with 7.9 per 1,000 boys) [HHS, 2022]. Although several studies have found that girls in the child welfare system are less likely than boys to become a part of the juvenile justice system (Cho et al., 2019; Cutuli et al., 2016; Kolivoski et al., 2014; Vidal et al., 2017), among juvenile justice system youths, crossover and dual-system youths are more likely to be girls than juvenile justice youths without child abuse/neglect or child welfare system experience (Baidawi, Papalia, and Featherston, 2023; Dierkhising et al., 2013; Dierkhising et al., 2019; Halemba and Siegel, 2011). For example, in Los Angeles County, CA, girls were involved in 28 percent of the delinquency cases but 40 percent of the dually involved cases; in Cook County, IL, girls were involved in 17 percent of the first-time juvenile delinquency court petitions but 22 percent of the dual systems youth; in Cuyahoga County, OH, girls constituted 28 percent of the first-time juvenile delinquency court petitions but 35 percent of the dual system youth; and in New York, NY, girls accounted for 15 percent of the first-time juvenile delinquency court petitions but 25 percent of the dual system youths (Dierkhising et al., 2019; Herz et al., 2019). Also, analysis of a nationally representative sample of more than 7,000 youths in residential placement in 2003 found that a higher percentage of girls than boys were raised by a foster parent, a group home, or an agency (14 percent of girls, compared with 8 percent of boys) [Sedlak and Bruce, 2016].

Crossover and dual-system girls often have greater needs, compared with girls in the juvenile justice system without abuse or child welfare experiences. These include higher need for case coordination across agencies; addressing the physical, logical, emotional, and metal health consequences related to experiencing child abuse and neglect; and additional emphasis on planning for youth housing, permanency, and transition after leaving a secure facility (Flores et al., 2018; Herz, Ryan, and Bilchik, 2010). Further, some researchers have identified crossover status as a predictor for recidivism. A study of youths with serious offenses in the Florida DJJ system found that white and Hispanic girls with a closed dependency case were more likely than girls without dependency cases to recidivate. However, dependency status did not influence recidivism for Black girls (Baglivio et al., 2016).

In addition, crossover and dual-system girls with multiple marginalized identities—including girls of color and girls who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, or other identities (LGBTQ+)—are particularly vulnerable to negative outcomes (Irvine and Canfield, 2016; Kolivoski, 2022).

For more information about crossover youth, please see the Intersection of Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare System literature review.

A small but growing body of literature attempts to identify prevalence rates and unique pathways and needs of youth who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, or other identities (LGBTQ+) [see Barnett et al., 2022; Irvine–Baker, Jones, and Canfield, 2019; Jonnson et al., 2019; Poteat, Scheer, and Chong, 2016; Wilson et al., 2017]. Most of this literature finds that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and gender-nonconforming girls are disproportionately involved in the juvenile justice system (see Barnett et al., 2022; Jonnson et al., 2019; Poteat, Scheer, and Chong, 2016; Wilson et al., 2017). The body of literature studying transgender youths in the juvenile justice system is smaller than the body of literature examining sexual orientation and gender nonconformity (Watson et al., 2023).

For example, a study of a nationally representative sample of more than 8,000 youths in juvenile correctional facilities in 2012 found that 39.2 percent of the girls identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (Wilson et al., 2017). Also, a study comparing more than 800 lesbian, gay, bisexual, or questioning youths to more than 800 heterosexual youths in high schools in one county in Wisconsin found that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, or questioning youths were more likely than heterosexual youths to report juvenile justice system involvement (Poteat, Scheer, and Chong, 2016). However, this study did not examine girls and boys separately.

Studies also have found that girls in the juvenile justice system are more likely to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning/queer, or gender nonconforming than boys in the juvenile justice system are. In the study mentioned above (Wilson et al., 2017), only 3.2 percent of the boys (compared with 39.2 percent of the girls) identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Smaller studies have found similar results. A study of 404 incarcerated youths in 12 residential programs in Ohio found that 27.0 percent of the girls (compared with 5.3 percent of the boys) identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual (Belknap, Holsinger, and Little, 2012). Another study of seven detention centers found that about 40 percent of girls were gender nonconforming and/or lesbian, bisexual, or questioning, which the researchers categorized in three ways: a) 23 percent gender conforming and lesbian, bisexual, or questioning; b) 9 percent gender nonconforming and lesbian, bisexual, or questioning; and c) 8 percent gender nonconforming and heterosexual (Irvine and Canfield, 2016). This same study found that only about 14 percent of boys were gay, bisexual, questioning, and/or gender nonconforming.

For more information, visit the MPG literature review on LGBTQ Youths in the Juvenile Justice System.

Many of the programs that have demonstrated effectiveness for youth in the juvenile justice system have been found to work specifically for girls (Chamberlain, Leve, and DeGarmo, 2007; Quinn and Van Dyke, 2004; Zahn et al., 2009). However, sometimes girls do not experience the same level of success in these programs as boys do (Celinska et al., 2013; Granski et al., 2020). Thus, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners have examined the utility of responses designed and developed specifically for girls. These often are referred to as gender-responsive or gender-specific approaches. Although these terms can be interpreted to be relevant for both boys and girls, and although the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act defines gender-specific services as “services designed to address needs unique to the gender of the individual to whom such services are provided,” they often are used as a reference solely to reflect programming for girls (Anderson et al., 2019; Foley, 2008; Garcia and Lane, 2010; Goodkind, 2005).

Gender responsivity in the juvenile justice system has been described as a comprehensive systems response that emphasizes the importance of girls’ experiences and pathways into crime and which addresses girls’ unique developmental, social, and psychological needs (Anderson et al., 2019; Garcia and Lane, 2010). What makes gender-specific programs different from gender-nonspecific programs is the concentration on some of the differences between girls and boys and the provision of services that address the distinct needs of girls in the justice system (Zahn et al., 2009).

Several approaches have been promoted as gender responsive in the research literature:

• Use assessment instruments that are effective for girls. The standardized instruments used to make decisions about placement and services in the juvenile justice system are not always effective for girls, but many effective ones have been identified (Matthews and Hubbard, 2008; Zahn et al., 2008).
• Develop interventions based on relationships. Promotion of healthy connections is especially important for girls, given the importance of relationships in their lives (Garcia and Lane, 2012; Walker, Muno, and Sullivan–Colglazier, 2015). Positive change for girls often is dependent on affiliation with others through trusting relationships (Covington, 2000; Gilligan, 1982). Interventions for girls should include promoting healthy connections with others and should be built into the family, peer, school, and community domains (Matthews and Hubbard, 2008:497).
• Use gender-responsive cognitive–behavioral approaches. Cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT) is a problem-focused, therapeutic approach designed to help individuals identify and change dysfunctional beliefs, thoughts, and patterns that contribute to maladaptive behavior (Feucht and Holt, 2016). It is a common intervention for youth in the juvenile justice system. Matthews and Hubbard (2008) recommend modifying CBT group processes for girls to accommodate girls’ need for greater supports, safety, and intimacy and allowing extra time to engage in more-informal (and less-structured) conversations. They also recommend modifying some of the content of CBT programs related to the types of cognitive distortions and protective factors most likely to be associated with girls. For example, girls are more likely to engage in self-debasing distortions such as self-blame and other negative thoughts about self, while boys are more likely to engage in self-serving distortions such as rationalizations and externalization of blame. For more information, see the MPG literature review on Cognitive–Behavioral Treatment and the CrimeSolutions Practice Profile on CBT for Anger-Related Problems in Children.
• Recognize within-girl differences. Individual girls may follow different developmental sequences related to delinquency (Day, Zahn, and Tichavsky, 2015; Zahn et al., 2008). Identifying these differences can help distinguish subgroups for whom particular programs are most relevant and useful (Matthews and Hubbard, 2008; Zahn et al., 2009).
• Create single-sex groups, which appear to benefit both boys and girls who are involved in the justice system (Covington and Bloom, 2014; Grella, 2008; Latessa, Listwan, and Koetzle, 2015).

Two other gender-responsive approaches are serving girls holistically (and not focusing excluding on their criminogenic needs) and being culturally responsive (Walker, Muno, and Sullivan–Colglazier, 2015). Also, meeting the specific needs of girls in the juvenile justice system may require specialized staffing and training, particularly in terms of relationship and communication skills, the role of abuse, developmental stages of female adolescence, gender identities and sexual orientations, and appropriateness of available programs (Bloom et al., 2002; Holsinger and Hodge, 2016).

Several gender-specific interventions have been developed, implemented, and evaluated (e.g., Anderson et al., 2019; Froeschle, Smith, and Ricard, 2007; Goldstein et al., 2018; Pepler et al., 2010; Williams et al., 1999). These include community- and school-based programs aiming to prevent violence, delinquency, and substance use and programs designed for girls already in the juvenile justice system. There also are programs that aim to prevent the crossover of girls from child welfare to juvenile justice. Finally, at the end of this section, we describe non–gender-specific programs that have been found to be effective for girls.

Prevention Programs Designed for Girls

Prevention programs include a broad array of activities, initiatives, and interventions designed to enhance child development and prevent negative developmental outcomes (Deković et al., 2011). Delinquency prevention programs aim to prevent or reduce engagement in delinquent behaviors, to delay these behaviors, or to prevent entry into the juvenile justice system among youths already engaging in minor delinquent behaviors. Some of these programs are designed specifically for girls.

Movimiento Ascendencia (Upward Movement) was established in Pueblo, CO, to provide Mexican American girls with positive alternatives to substance use and gang involvement. It is a culturally focused, gender-specific program that was designed around the components of 1) mediation/conflict resolution, 2) self-esteem/social support, and 3) cultural awareness. A 1999 evaluation by Williams and colleagues found a statistically significant reduction in self-reports of damaging property, stealing more than $50, and buying, selling, or holding stolen goods. However, the program made no impact on self-esteem, grades in school, concealing weapons, and stealing less than $50.

SAM (Solution, Action, Mentorship) Program for Adolescent Girls is a school-based, substance use–prevention program that uses a solution-focused brief therapy and community and peer mentorship. The objective of SAM is to change participants’ drug-using behaviors through group therapy. A study compared 40 girls who participated in SAM with 40 girls who did not. The authors found that program participation had a statistically significant effect on lowering drug use, improving social competence, increasing knowledge surrounding drug use, and increasing negative attitudes toward drug use. The program had no statistically significant effect on grade point average or self-esteem (Froeschle, Smith, and Ricard, 2007).

Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise & Nutrition Alternative (ATHENA) is a team-centered, peer-led, health promotion program for female high school athletes. The curriculum targets modifiable risk and protective factors associated with disordered eating and body-shaping drug use. The intervention addresses issues such as depression, mood, self-esteem, norms of behavior, effects of media depictions of women, perceptions of healthy body weight, and societal pressures to be thin. Girls who participated in the program had a statistically significant higher likelihood of reporting improved nutritional behaviors and decrease in lifetime alcohol and marijuana use, compared with girls who did not participate. However, findings regarding the use of diet pills were mixed, and there was no statistically significant impact on the use of athletic-enhancing substances (Elliot et al., 2004; Elliot et al., 2008).

SNAP (Stop Now And Plan) Girls is a specialized, family-focused intervention for girls (ages 6 to 11) who have exhibited conduct, oppositional, or externalizing problems. Participants and their parents meet in separate groups once a week for 13 weeks. Individually and in their group meetings, girls learn how to regulate their emotions, practice self-control, and improve problem-solving skills, with an emphasis on challenging cognitive distortion to help them make better choices in the moment. The goal is to reduce the girls’ disruptive behavior, risk of police contact, and discipline issues while also improving parent-management skills. A study of families in Canada that participated in SNAP found that participation in the program resulted in statistically significantly lower levels of behavior problems among the girls (including externalizing problems, rule breaking, aggression, conduct disorder, and social problems), compared with the girls in the comparison group (Pepler et al., 2010).

Programs Designed for Girls in the Juvenile Justice System

There are several interventions that have been evaluated for girls once they are involved with the juvenile justice system. These include studies of programs that aim to reduce recidivism and other factors related to offending, such as aggression. Programs have also been evaluated that concentrate on other outcomes for girls in the juvenile justice system, such as mental health and education.

Juvenile Justice Anger Management (JJAM) Treatment for Girls is a cognitive–behavioral, anger-management treatment for adolescent girls in residential juvenile justice facilities. JJAM is a manualized group intervention designed to reduce participants’ anger, physical aggression, and relational aggression. Treatment sessions are related to psychoeducation, skill building, problem solving, and training on application of these skills to real-world events. A randomized controlled trial study of 57 girls ages 12 to 20 in juvenile justice facilities in two states found that girls who participated in JJAM showed statistically significant reductions in anger, physical aggression, and relational aggression scores, compared with the control group (Goldstein et al., 2018).

The Gender-Responsive Intervention for Female Juvenile Offenders was a program in a midwestern state for adjudicated girls in the juvenile justice system. The goal was to provide gender-responsive treatment services to high-risk girls in a group-home setting with the aim of reducing the likelihood of reoffending. The program emphasized comprehensiveness, safety, empowerment, and family and relationship support—all in the context of community-based services. Personalized treatment plans were created at the group homes, using assessment tools. In addition, Cognitive–Behavioral Therapy, the Thinking for a Change behavior curriculum, and Girls Moving On gender-responsive programming were implemented. Anderson and colleagues (2019) found that girls who received the gender-responsive intervention were less likely to have a new offense petitioned to court within the 24-month follow-up period, compared with a comparison group of girls who received probation as usual (a statistically significant difference).

Trauma Affect Regulation: Guide for Education and Therapy (TARGET) is a trauma-focused psychotherapy program for adolescents and adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It is a manualized program that teaches skills for processing and managing trauma-related reactions to stressful situations, such as PTSD symptoms, traumatic grief, survivor guilt, and shame. The goal of treatment is to help individuals regulate intense emotions and gain control of posttraumatic stress reactions. Ford and colleagues (2012) conducted a randomized controlled trial involving girls (ages 13 to 17) exhibiting delinquent behavior and full or partial PTSD. They examined several outcomes, finding that the girls who participated in TARGET had a statistically significantly greater reduction in PTSD Criterion B symptoms (intrusive re-experiencing), compared with girls who did not participate. However, the intervention had no statistically significant effect on PTSD diagnosis, anxiety, depression, emotion regulation, anger, posttraumatic cognitions, PTSD Criterion C symptoms (avoidance and emotional numbing), or PTSD Criterion D symptoms (hyperarousal). Also, girls who participated in TARGET showed a statistically significantly lower level of hope, compared with girls who did not participate (an opposite-than-expected finding).

Non–Gender-Specific Programs for Girls in the Juvenile Justice System

Non–gender-specific programs can also improve outcomes for girls in the juvenile justice system. The number of evaluations that examine the effect of these programs on girls is limited, but some have demonstrated effectiveness for girls in reducing recidivism, behavior problems, and incarceration (Zahn et al., 2009).

Multisystemic Therapy (MST) is a family and community-based treatment program for adolescents with serious antisocial, delinquent, and other problem behaviors who have offended. Youths who have participated in this program have experienced statistically significant reductions in rearrest and the number of days incarcerated (Borduin et al., 1995; Henggeler et al., 1992; Timmons–Mitchell et al., 2006). In their review of studies evaluating MST, Zahn and colleagues (2009) concluded: “MST appears to work equally well for both female and male juvenile offenders across multiple sites and samples” and that its effects on recidivism, behaviors problems, psychiatric symptomatology, and days incarcerated do not differ by gender (2009:286). There are several versions of MST, including MST–Family Integrated Transitions, MST for Youth with Problem Sexual Behaviors, and MST for Child Abuse and Neglect.

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) is a behavioral treatment alternative to residential placement for adolescents with antisocial behavior, emotional disturbance, and delinquency. There are several versions of MTFC. For example, MTFC–A is for adolescents, ages 12 to 16, and includes activities such as behavioral parent training and support for the foster parents, family therapy for the biological parents, skills training for youth, supportive therapy for youth, school-based behavioral interventions and academic support, and psychiatric consultation and medication management, when needed. Girls who have participated in MTFC–A have shown a statistically significant reduction in delinquency, compared with control group girls (Chamberlain, Leve, and DeGarmo, 2007).

An evaluation of Family Solutions, a multifamily group-based intervention targeting youths involved in juvenile court for their first offense, resulted in reductions in recidivism for both boys and girls in two Georgia counties (Quinn and Van Dyke, 2004). The program includes 10 weekly 2-hour sessions with six to eight families focused on building a support system within the group, family cooperation, family–school partnerships, parental monitoring and communication, anger-management skills, decisionmaking, and community service.

Programs for Girls in the Child Welfare System

Girls who are involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems often face a greater number of risk factors, more complex risk factors, and fewer protective factors, compared with girls involved in just one of these systems (Dierkhising et al., 2019; Herz, Ryan, and Bilchik, 2010; Kim et al., 2020; Lee and Villagrana, 2015). Several interventions have attempted to prevent movement into the juvenile justice system from the child welfare system.

KEEP SAFE is a multicomponent intervention to prevent delinquency and substance misuse for girls in foster care transitioning from elementary school to middle school. The intervention contains two components. The first component concentrates on the girls’ caregivers and consists of six sessions of group-based caregiver training and development of parenting skills. The second component consists of group-based skills training sessions for the girls, designed to increase their social skills for positive peer relationships, increase their self-confidence, and decrease their susceptibility to negative peer influence. A randomized controlled trial study of 100 girls in the Pacific Northwest found that girls who participated in KEEP SAFE reported statistically significantly reduced tobacco use, marijuana use, and delinquent behavior, compared with control group girls. However, there was no statistically significant impact on alcohol use or association with delinquent peers (Kim and Leve, 2011).

Social Learning/Feminist Intervention is a 12-session program for adolescent girls with a history of exposure to violence/abuse and involvement in the child welfare system. The goal of the program is to reduce revictimization in teen dating situations by using a health-promotion approach to help girls develop healthy relationships. A study of the effects of this program with girls ages 12 to 19 found that it made a statistically significant impact on reducing physical victimization but no impact on sexual revictimization (DePrince et al., 2013).

Researchers have identified several challenges to implementing effective programming for girls in the juvenile justice system. Matthews and Hubbard (2008) identified four impediments: 1) gender-stereotyped thinking, 2) placing more formal controls on girls, instead of supporting the development of effective programming designed for their needs, 3) small numbers of girls in the system, which limits the quantity and range of programming for girls, and 4) the “abstract nature of the principles promulgated by ‘gender-responsive’ and ‘what works’ scholars” (2008:495).

With regard to the first impediment, gender-stereotyped thinking includes the belief that making something gender responsive merely requires aesthetic changes (e.g., feminine paint color and furniture) or implementing activities and programming that girls may like more than boys (e.g., jewelry-making classes, vocational training in cosmetology or nursing, knitting classes, dance groups). It also includes perceptions that girls are sexually promiscuous, manipulative, harder to work with than boys, have too many issues, are “catty,” and are too needy (Gaarder et al., 2004; Garcia and Lane, 2010; Lopez and Nuño, 2016). Girls of color are subjected to even more stereotyping (Epstein, Blake, and González, 2017; Lopez and Nuño, 2016; Nanda, 2012; Pasko and Lopez, 2018b). Even some of the gender-specific approaches that scholars advocate can be misconstrued into the very type of gender stereotyping that they attempt to avoid (Matthews and Hubbard, 2008).

The second obstacle is that many jurisdictions respond to girls’ delinquency by placing more formal controls on girls, instead of implementing evidence-based approaches to reduce delinquent behavior. This is a challenge facing both boys and girls. What makes this unique to girls is the perception that girls have become more violent and deviant than in the past (e.g., Garbarino, 2007; Steffensmeier et al., 2005).

The third challenge identified by Matthews and Hubbard (2008) was the small numbers of girls in the justice system, because this limits the quantity and range of programming for girls. This challenge—albeit a “positive” one—has become only greater since the year their article was published. In 2008 the girls’ arrest rate was 3,406 per 100,000, and in 2020 the girls’ arrest rate was 751, a decrease of 78 percent. Also, the number of girls in residential placement decreased from 11,797 in 2007 to 5,415 in 2019 (Sickmund et al., 2022). For more information, see Scope of the Problem and Data Trends.

Finally, the abstract nature of what it means to be gender responsive or gender specific, and the contradictions between the gender-responsive literature and the “what works” literature, is a challenge that continues to impede proper development of programs to serve girls. The gender-specific literature emphasizes the unique experiences of being a girl and the different pathways to delinquency among boys and girls. This perspective asserts that girls need qualitatively different types of programs and services to adequately address their delinquent behavior (Belknap and Holsinger, 1998; Bloom, 2000; Bloom, Owen, and Covington, 2003; Chesney–Lind, 1995). (For more information, see Gender-Responsive Approaches). The “what works” literature synthesizes quantitative research and has disseminated principles of effective intervention associated with a reduction in delinquency and recidivism (see for example, Andrews et al., 1990; Cullen and Gendreau, 2000; Evans-Chase and Zhou, 2014; Latessa, Cullen, and Gendreau, 2002; Lipsey and Wilson, 1998). These researchers assert that the strongest predictors of delinquency (which are called criminogenic needs) are similar between boys and girls and that evidence-based principles for addressing delinquency are applicable to boys and girls alike. However, “neither does a sufficient job of providing concrete ways to transfer these principles and knowledge into programs for girls” (Matthews and Hubbard, 2008:495). Although this challenge was identified more than 15 years ago, it continues to be identified in more-recent literature (e.g., Anderson, Hoskins, and Rubino, 2019).

Although girls are underrepresented in the juvenile justice system, their representation has increased over the past few decades (Ehrmann, Hyland, and Puzzanchera, 2019; Statistical Briefing Book, 2022). There is a substantial body of literature that examines whether girls have unique risk factors, protective factors, and needs, which could require gender-specific interventions to prevent delinquency and reduce recidivism (Day, Zahn, and Tichavsky, 2015; Fagan and Wright, 2012; Matthews and Hubbard, 2008; Zahn et al., 2010). For example, among juvenile justice system populations, researchers have found meaningful differences by gender in three main areas: 1) exposure to adverse childhood experiences and trauma, 2) mental health disorders, and 3) child welfare system involvement (Baglivio et al., 2014; Dierkhising et al., 2013; Dierkhising et al., 2019; Duron et al., 2022; Halemba and Siegel, 2011; Shufelt and Cocozza, 2006). These factors are important to consider for intervention and reentry planning (Latessa, Listwan, and Koetzle, 2015).

Several gender-specific approaches have been designed, implemented, and evaluated. These include programs to prevent drug use, violence, and delinquency (Elliot et al., 2008; Froeschle, Smith, and Ricard, 2007; Pepler et al., 2010; Williams et al., 1999) and programs for girls already involved in the juvenile justice system (Anderson et al., 2019; Ford et al., 2012; Goldstein et al., 2018). Gender-specific interventions also have been developed to prevent girls in the child welfare system from crossing over into the juvenile justice system (DePrince et al., 2013; Kim and Leve, 2011).

Researchers also have examined non–gender-specific programs and the effects on girls specifically (Zahn et al., 2009). Though the effects sometimes vary by gender, researchers have found that many of the same programs that work for boys also work for girls (Chamberlain, Leve, and DeGarmo, 2007; Quinn and Van Dyke, 2004; Zahn et al., 2009).

Anderson, V.R., Walerych, B.M., Campbell, N.A., Barnes, A.R., Davidson, W.S., Campbell, C.A., Onifade, E., and Petersen, J.L. 2019. Gender-responsive intervention for female juvenile offenders: A quasi-experimental outcome evaluation. Feminist Criminology 14(1):24–44.

Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Bonta, J.D., Gendreau, P., and Cullen, F.T. 1990. Does correctional treatment work? A psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology 28:369−404.

Baglivio, M.T. 2009. The assessment of risk to recidivate among a juvenile offending population. Journal of Criminal Justice 37(6):596–607.

Baglivio, M.T., and Epps, N. 2016. The interrelatedness of adverse childhood experiences among high-risk juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14(3):179–198.

Baglivio, M.T., Epps, N., Swartz, K., Huq, M.S., Sheer, A., and Hardt, N.S. 2014. The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences in the lives of juvenile offenders. Journal of Juvenile Justice 3(2):1–23.

Baglivio, M.T., Wolff, K.T., Piquero, A.R., Bilchik, S., Jackowski, K., Greenwald, M.A., and Epps, N. 2016. Maltreatment, child welfare, and recidivism in a sample of deep-end crossover youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 45:625–654.

Baglivio, M.T., and Wolff, K.T. 2021. Positive childhood experiences (PCE): Cumulative resiliency in the face of adverse childhood experiences. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 192(2):139–162.

Baidawi, S., Papalia, N., and Featherston, R. 2023. Gender differences in the maltreatment-youth offending relationship: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 24(2):1140–1156.

Banks, D., and Kyckelhahn, T. 2011. Characteristics of Suspected Human Trafficking Incidents, 2008–2010. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Barnett, A.P., Houck, C.D., Barker, D., and Rizzo, C.J. 2022. Sexual minority status, bullying exposure, emotion regulation difficulties, and delinquency among court-involved adolescent girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 51(3):471–485.

Basile, K.C., Clayton, H.B., DeGue, S., Gilford, J.W., Vagi, K J., Suarez, N.A., Zwald, M.L., and Lowry, R. 2020. Interpersonal violence victimization among high school students—Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Supplements 69(1):28–37.

Beaudry, G., Yu, R., Långström, N., and Fazel, S. 2021. An updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis: Mental disorders among adolescents in juvenile detention and correctional facilities. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 60(1):46–60.

Belknap, J., and Holsinger, K. 1998. An overview of delinquent girls: How theory and practice have failed and the need for innovative changes. In Female offenders: Critical perspectives and effective interventions, 31-64.

Belknap, J., and Holsinger, K. 2006. The gendered nature of risk factors for delinquency. Feminist Criminology 1(1):48–71.

Belknap, J., Holsinger, K., and Little, J. 2012. Sexual minority status, abuse, and self-harming behaviors among incarcerated girls. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 5:173–185.

Bellis, M.A., Hughes, K., Ford, K., Rodriguez, G.R., Sethi, D., and Passmore, J. 2019. Life course health consequences and associated annual costs of adverse childhood experiences across Europe and North America: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health 4(10):e517–e528.

Bernard, D.L., Calhoun, C.D., Banks, D.E., Halliday, C.A., Hughes–Halbert, C., and Danielson, C.K. 2021. Making the “C–ACE” for a culturally informed adverse childhood experiences framework to understand the pervasive mental health impact of racism on Black youth. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 14(2):233–247.

Bishop, D.M., and Frazier, C.E. 1992. Gender bias in juvenile justice processing: Implications of the JJDP Act. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 82:1162.

Bloom, B., Owen, B.A., and Covington, S. 2003. Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Bloom, B.E., Owen, B., Deschenes, E.P., and Rosenbaum, J. 2002. Improving juvenile justice for females: A statewide assessment in California. Crime & Delinquency 48(4):526–552.

Borduin, C.M., Mann, B.J., Cone, L.T., Henggeler, S.W., Fucci, B.R., Blaske, D.M., and Williams, R.A. 1995. Multisystemic treatment of serious juvenile offenders: Long-term prevention of criminality and violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63(4):569.

Borschmann, R., Janca, E., Carter, A., Willoughby, M., Hughes, N., Snow, K., Stockings, E., Hill, N.T.M., Hocking, J., Love, A., Patton, G.C., Sawyer, S.M., Fazel, S., Puljević, C., Robinson, J., and Kinner, S.A. 2020. The health of adolescents in detention: A global scoping review. The Lancet Public Health 5(2):e114–e126.

Bottiani, J.H., Camacho, D.A., Lindstrom Johnson, S., and Bradshaw, C.P. 2021. Annual research review: Youth firearm violence disparities in the United States and implications for prevention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 62(5):563–579.

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1994. Ecological models of human development. International Encyclopedia of Education 3(2):37–43.

Brosky, B.A., and Lally, S.J. 2004. Prevalence of trauma, PTSD, and dissociation in court-referred adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19(7):801–814.

Bryson, S.L., and Peck, J.H. 2020. Understanding the subgroup complexities of transfer: The impact of juvenile race and gender on waiver decisions. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 18(2):135–155.

Burke, Alison S. 2009. Gender and justice: An examination of policy and practice regarding judicial waiver. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences 69(8).

Cannon, K.B., Hammer, T.R., Reicherzer, S., and Gilliam, B.J. 2012. Relational–cultural theory: A framework for relational competencies and movement in group work with female adolescents. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health 7(1):2–16.

Carr, N.T., Hudson, K., Hanks, R.S., and Hunt, A.N. 2008. Gender effects along the juvenile justice system. Feminist Criminology 3(1):25–42.

Casey, W.M., and Siennick, S.E. 2022. Juvenile recidivism: An examination of state measurement strategies. American Journal of Criminal Justice 1–22.

Celinska, K., Furrer, S., and Cheng, C.C. 2013. An outcome-based evaluation of functional family therapy for youth with behavioral problems. Journal of Juvenile Justice 2(2):23.

Chamberlain, P., Leve, L.D., and DeGarmo, D.S. 2007. Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care for girls in the juvenile justice system: 2-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 75:187–93.

Chan, H.C. 2021. Violent offending, nonviolent offending, and general delinquency: Exploring the criminogenic risk factors of Hong Kong male and female adolescents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 65(9):975–998.

Charish, C., Davis, S., and Damphousse, K. 2004. Race/Ethnicity and Gender Effects on Juvenile Justice System Processing: Final Report. Prepared for The Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs.

Chesney–Lind, M. 1995. Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice: Toward a feminist theory of young women’s crime. In The Criminal Justice System and Women: Offenders, Victims, and Workers. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 71–88.

Chesney–Lind, M. 2006. Patriarchy, crime, and justice: Feminist criminology in an era of backlash. Feminist Criminology 1(1):6–26.

Cho, M., Haight, W., Choi, W.S., Hong, S., and Piescher, K. 2019. A prospective, longitudinal study of risk factors for early onset of delinquency among maltreated youth. Children and Youth Services Review 102:222–230.

Cicchetti, D., and Rogosch, F.A. 2002. A developmental psychopathology perspective on adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 70(1):6–20.

Cochran, J.C., and Mears, D.P. 2015. Race, ethnic, and gender divides in juvenile court sanctioning and rehabilitative intervention. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 52(2):181–212.

Comstock, D.L., Hammer, T.R., Strentzsch, J., Cannon, K., Parsons, J., and Salazar, G. 2008. Relational–cultural theory: A framework for bridging relational, multicultural, and social justice competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development 86(3):279–287.

Comack, E., and Balfour, G. 2004. The Power to Criminalize: Violence, Inequality, and the Law. Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishing.

Cook, M.C., Barnert, E., Ijadi–Maghsoodi, R., Ports, K., and Bath, E. 2018. Exploring mental health and substance use treatment needs of commercially sexually exploited youth participating in a specialty juvenile court. Behavioral Medicine 44(3):242–249.

Copeland, W., Shanahan, L., Costello, E.J., and Angold, A. 2011. Cumulative prevalence of psychiatric disorders by young adulthood: A prospective cohort analysis from the Great Smoky Mountains Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 50(3):252–261.

Covington, S. 2000. Helping women recover: Gender-specific treatment for substance abuse in community corrections. In M. McMahon (Ed.), Assessment to Assistance: Programs for Women in Community. Alexandria, VA: American Correctional Association.

Covington, S.S., and Bloom, B.E. 2014. Gender responsive treatment and services in correctional settings. In Inside and Out. New York, NY: Routledge, 9–33.

Crew, B.K. 1991. Sex differences in criminal sentencing: Chivalry or patriarchy? Justice Quarterly 8(1):59–84.

Cullen, F.T., and Gendreau, P. 2000. Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. Criminal Justice 3(1):299–370.

Cutuli, J.J., Goerge, R.M., Coulton, C., Schretzman, M., Crampton, D., Charvat, B.J., Lalich, N., Raithel, J.A., Gacitua, C., and Lee, E.L. 2016. From foster care to juvenile justice: Exploring characteristics of youth in three cities. Children and Youth Services Review 67:84–94.

Daly, K. 1992. Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problem of representation. Review of Law and Women’s Studies 2(11):11–52.

Daly, K., and Chesney–Lind, M. 1988. Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly 5(4):497–535.

Daly, K., Chesney-Lind, M., Cullen, F.T., and Agnew, R. 2002. Feminism and criminology. Criminological Theories: Bridging the Past to the Future, 267284.

Darling, N. 2007. Ecological systems theory: The person in the center of the circles. Research in Human Development 4(3–4):203–217.

Daurio, R. 2009. Factors Associated With Court Decisions to Provide Juvenile Offenders With Mental Health Placements. Doctoral dissertation. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University.

Day, J.C., Zahn, M.A., and Tichavsky, L.P. 2015. What works for whom? Effects of gender-responsive programming on girls and boys in secure detention. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 52(1):93–129.

Deković, M., Slagt, M.I., Asscher, J.J., Boendermaker, L., Eichelsheim, V.I., and Prinzie, P. 2011. Effects of early prevention programs on adult criminal offending: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review 31(4):532–544.

De La Rue, L., and Ortega, L. 2019. Intersectional trauma-responsive care: A framework for humanizing care for justice-involved girls and women of color. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 28(4):502–517.

DePrince, A.P., Chu, A.T., Labus, J., Shirk, S.R., and Potter, C. 2013. Preventing Revictimization in Teen Dating Relationships. Technical Report. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Development Services Group, Inc. 2014. Commercial sexual exploitation of children/sex trafficking. Literature Review. Model Programs Guide. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/commercial_sexual_exploitation_of_children_and_sex_trafficking.pdf

Development Services Group, Inc. 2016. Child labor trafficking. Literature review. Model Programs Guide. Washington, D.C.: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/child-labor-trafficking.pdf

Development Services Group, Inc. 2017. Juvenile reentry. Literature review. Model Programs Guide. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Aftercare.pdf

Dierkhising, C.B., Herz, D., Hirsch, R.A., and Abbott, S. 2019. System backgrounds, psychosocial characteristics, and service access among dually involved youth: A Los Angeles case study. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 17(3):309–329.

Dierkhising, C.B., Ko, S.J., Woods–Jaeger, B., Briggs, E.C., Lee, R., and Pynoos, R.S. 2013. Trauma histories among justice-involved youth: Findings from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network. European Journal of Psychotraumatology 4.

Dir, A.L., Clifton, R.L., Magee, L.A., Johnson–Kwochka, A.V., Wiehe, S.E., and Aalsma, M.C. 2020. Patterns of drug screen results and court-ordered substance use treatment referrals and completion among justice-involved youth. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 118, 108095.

Duerden, M.D., and Witt, P.A. 2010. An ecological systems theory perspective on youth programming. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 28(2):108–120.

Duron, J.F., Williams–Butler, A., Mattson, P., and Boxer, P. 2022. Trauma exposure and mental health needs among adolescents involved with the juvenile justice system. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(17–18):NP15700–NP15725.

Ehrmann, S., Hyland, N., and Puzzanchera, C.M. 2019. Girls in the juvenile justice system. Juvenile Justice Statistics: National Report Series Bulletin. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Elliot, D.L., Goldberg, L., Moe, E.L., DeFrancesco, C.A., Durham, M.B., and Hix–Small, H. 2004. Preventing substance use and disordered eating: Initial outcomes of the ATHENA (Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise & Nutrition Alternatives) program. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 158(11):1043–49.

Elliot, D.L., Goldberg, L., Moe, E.L., DeFrancesco, C.A., Durham, M.B., McGinnis, W., and Lockwood, C.M. 2008. Long-term outcomes of the ATHENA (Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise & Nutrition Alternatives) program for female high school athletes. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 52(2):73–92.

Epstein, R., Blake, J., and González, T. 2017. Girlhood Interrupted: The Erasure of Black Girls’ Childhood. Rochester, NY: SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3000695

Erez, E. (1992). Dangerous men, evil women: Gender and parole decisionmaking. Justice Quarterly, 9(1), 105-126.

Estrada, S., Gee, D.G., Bozic, I., Cinguina, M., Joormann, J., and Baskin–Sommers, A. 2021. Individual and environmental correlates of childhood maltreatment and exposure to community violence: Utilizing a latent profile and a multilevel meta-analytic approach. Psychological Medicine 1–17. 

Evans-Chase, M., and Zhou, H. 2014. A systematic review of the juvenile justice intervention literature: What it can (and cannot) tell us about what works with delinquent youth. Crime & Delinquency 60(3):451–470.

Fagan, A.A., Van Horn, M.L., Hawkins, J.D., and Arthur, M.W. 2007. Gender similarities and differences in the association between risk and protective factors and self-reported serious delinquency. Prevention Science 8:115–124.

Fagan, A.A., and Wright, E.M. 2012. The effects of neighborhood context on youth violence and delinquency: Does gender matter? Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 10(1):64–82.

Fairchild, G., Hawes, D.J., Frick, P.J., Copeland, W.E., Odgers, C.L., Franke, B., Freitag, C., and De Brito, S.A. 2019. Conduct disorder. Nature Reviews Disease Primers 5(1):1–25.

Felitti, V.J. 2002. The relation between adverse childhood experiences and adult health: Turning gold into lead. Permanente Journal 6(1):44–47

Feucht, T., and Holt, T. 2016. Does cognitive–behavioral therapy work in criminal justice? A new analysis from CrimeSolutions.gov. NIJ Journal 277.

Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Ormrod, R., Hamby, S.L., and Kracke, K. 2009. National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence—OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP.

Finkelhor, D., Turner, H.A., Shattuck, A., and Hamby, S.L. 2015. Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: Results from the National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence. Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics 169(8):746–754.

Flores, J., Hawes, J., Westbrooks, A., and Henderson, C. 2018. Crossover youth and gender: What are the challenges of girls involved in both the foster care and juvenile justice systems? Children and Youth Services Review 91:149–155.

Foley, A. 2008. The current state of gender-specific delinquency programming.” Journal of Criminal Justice 36:262–269.

Folk, J.B., Ramos, L.M.C., Bath, E.P., Rosen, B., Marshall, B.D.L., Kemp, K., Brown, L., Conrad, S., and Tolou–Shams, M. 2021. The prospective impact of adverse childhood experiences on justice-involved youths’ psychiatric symptoms and substance use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 89(6):483–498.

Ford, J.D., Chapman, J.F., Hawke, J., and Albert, D. 2007. Trauma Among Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Critical Issues and New Directions. Delmar, NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice.

Ford, J.D., Elhai, J.D., Connor, D.F., and Frueh, B.C. 2010. Polyvictimization and risk of posttraumatic, depressive, and substance use disorders and involvement in delinquency in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 46(6):545–552.

Ford, J.D., Gagnon, K., Connor, D.F., and Pearson, G. 2011. History of interpersonal violence, abuse, and nonvictimization trauma and severity of psychiatric symptoms among children in outpatient psychiatric treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26(16):3316–3337.

Ford, J.D., Steinberg, K.L., Hawke, J.M., Levine, J., and Zhang, W. 2012. Randomized trial comparison of emotion regulation and relational psychotherapies for PTSD with girls involved in delinquency. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 41(1):27–37.

Freiburger, T.L., and Burke, A.S. 2011. Status offenders in the juvenile court: The effects of gender, race, and ethnicity on the adjudication decision. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 9(4):352–365.

Froeschle, J.G., Smith, R.L., and Ricard, R. 2007. The efficacy of a systematic substance abuse program for adolescent females. Professional School of Counseling 10(5):498–505.

Gaarder, E., Rodriguez, N., and Zatz, M.S. 2004. Criers, liars, and manipulators: Probation officers’ views of girls. Justice Quarterly 21(3):547–578.

Garbarino, J. 2007. See Jane Hit: Why Girls Are Growing More Violent and What We Can Do About It. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Garcia, C.A., and Lane, J. 2010. Looking in the rearview mirror: What incarcerated women think girls need from the system. Feminist Criminology 5:227–243.

Garcia, C.A., and Lane, J. 2012. Dealing with the fallout: Identifying and addressing the role that relationship strain plays in the lives of girls in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice (3):259–267.

Gies, S.V., Cohen, M.I., Edberg, M.C., Bobnis, A., Spinney, E., and Berger, E. 2015. The Girls Circle: An Evaluation of a Structured Support Group Program for Girls. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP.

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goldstein, N.E.S., Giallella, C.L., Haney–Caron, E., Peterson, L., Serico, J., Kemp, K., Riggs Romaine, C.L., Leff, S., Zelechoski, A.D., Holliday, S.B., Kalbeitzer, R., Messenheimer Kelley, S., Hinz, H., Meghann Sallee, M., Daniel Pennacchia, D., Prelic, A., Burkard, C., Grisso, T., Heilbrun, K., Núñez, A., Leff, H.S., and Lochman, J.L. 2018. Juvenile Justice Anger Management (JJAM) treatment for girls: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Psychological Services 15(4):386–397.

Goodkind, S. 2005. Gender-specific services in the juvenile justice system: A critical examination. Affilia 20(1):52–70.

Gomez, A.I. 2022. Split Sentencing and the Effects of Gender and Offense Type. Master’s dissertation. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University.

Gómez, A.S., and Durán, N. 2023. Association between callous–unemotional traits, empathy, and moral disengagement mechanisms in juvenile offenders. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica.

Granski, M., Javdani, S., Anderson, V.R., and Caires, R. 2020. A meta‐analysis of program characteristics for youth with disruptive behavior problems: The moderating role of program format and youth gender. American Journal of Community Psychology 65(1–2):201–222.

Grella, C.E. 2008. From generic to gender-responsive treatment: Changes in social policies, treatment services, and outcomes of women in substance abuse treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 40(sup5):327–343.

Grisso, T., and Vincent, G. 2014. Trauma in dual status youth: Putting things in perspective. Lancaster, MA: Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps.

Gruhl, J., Welch, S., and Spohn, C. 1984. Women as criminal defendants: A test for paternalism. Western Political Quarterly 37(3):456–467.

Guevara, L., Herz, D., and Spohn, C. 2006. Gender and juvenile justice decisionmaking: What role does race play? Feminist Criminology 1(4):258–282.

Halemba, G.J., and Siegel, G.C. 2011. Doorways to Delinquency: Multisystem Involvement of Delinquent Youth in King County (Seattle). Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Haney-Caron, E., and Baker, S. 2022. Juvenile Probation Reform: Moving from Surveillance to Effective Intervention. In Handbook of Issues in Criminal Justice Reform in the United States. New York, NY: Springer, 307-334.

Haynie, D.L. 2003. Contexts of risk? Explaining the link between girls' pubertal development and their delinquency involvement. Social Forces 82(1):355–397.

Haynie, D.L., Doogan, N.J., and Soller, B. 2014. Gender, friendship networks, and delinquency: A dynamic network approach. Criminology 52(4):688–722.

Henggeler, S.W., Melton, G.B., and Smith, L.A. 1992. Family preservation using Multisystemic Therapy: An effective alternative to incarcerating serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60(6):953–61.

Herz, D.C. 2001. Understanding the use of mental health placements by the juvenile justice system. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 9(3):172–181.

Herz, D.C., Dierkhising, C.B., Raithel, J., Schretzman, M., Guiltinan, S., Goerge, R.M., Cho, Y., Coulton, C., and Abbott, S. 2019. Dual system youth and their pathways: A comparison of incidence, characteristics, and system experiences using linked administrative data. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48(12):2432–2450.

Herz, D.C., Ryan, J.P., and Bilchik, S. 2010. Challenges facing crossover youth: An examination of juvenile justice decisionmaking and recidivism. Family Court Review 48(2): 305–321.

(HHS) U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. 2022. Washington, DC: HHS. Child Maltreatment 2020. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment

Hockenberry, S. 2022. Juveniles in residential placement, 2019. Juvenile Justice Statistics National Report Series Bulletin. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP.

Hockenberry, S., and Puzzanchera, C. 2023. Juvenile Court Statistics 2020. Pittsburgh, PA, and Washington, DC: National Center for Juvenile Justice and DOJ, OJP.

Holsinger, K. 2000. Feminist perspectives on female offending: Examining real girls’ lives. Women & Criminal Justice 12(1):23–51.

Holsinger, K., and Hodge, J.P. 2016. The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender girls in juvenile justice systems. Feminist Criminology 11(1):23–47.

Indiana Department of Correction, 2021. Juvenile Recidivism 2021. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Correction. https://www.in.gov/idoc/files/data-and-statistics/2021.JuvRecidivismRpt-1.pdf

Irvine, A., and Canfield, A. 2016. The overrepresentation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning, gender nonconforming and transgender youth within the child welfare to juvenile justice crossover population. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 24(2):243–261.

Irvine–Baker, A., Jones, N., and Canfield, A. 2019. Taking the “girl” out of gender-responsive programming in the juvenile justice system. Annual Review of Criminology 2(1):321–336.

Javdani, S., and Allen, N.E. 2016. An ecological model for intervention for juvenile justice-involved girls: Development and preliminary prospective evaluation. Feminist Criminology 11(2):135–162.

Johnson, Dustin Paul. 2009. Gender and Juvenile Case Processing: A Look at Texas. University of North Texas, Texas.

Johnson, M.E. 2018. Trauma, race, and risk for violent felony arrests among Florida juvenile offenders. Crime & Delinquency 64(11):1437–1457.

Jones, N.J., Brown, S.L., Wanamaker, K.A., and Greiner, L.E. 2014. A quantitative exploration of gendered pathways to crime in a sample of male and female juvenile offenders. Feminist Criminology 9(2):113–136.

Jonnson, M.R., Bird, B.M., Li, S.M., and Viljoen, J.L. 2019. The prevalence of sexual and gender minority youth in the justice system: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior 46(7):999–1019.

Jordan, J.V., and Hartling, L.M. 2002. Rethinking Mental Health and Disorders: Feminist Perspectives. New York, NY: Guildford Publications.

Keenan, S.K. 2021. The Transferring of America’s Youth. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Kempf–Leonard, K., and Johansson, P. 2007. Gender and runaways: Risk factors, delinquency, and juvenile justice experiences. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 5(3):308–327.

Kerig, P.K., and Becker, S.P. 2012. Trauma and girls’ delinquency. In Delinquent Girls: Contexts, Relationships, and Adaptation, edited by S. Miller, L.D. Leve, and P.K. Kerig. New York, NY: Springer, 119–143.

Kerig, P.K., and Schindler, S.R. 2013. Engendering the evidence base: A critical review of the conceptual and empirical foundations of gender-responsive interventions for girls’ delinquency. Laws 2:244–282.

Kilpatrick, D.G., Ruggiero, K.J., Acierno, R., Saunders, B.E., Resnick, H.S., and Best, C.L. 2003. Violence and risk of PTSD, major depression, substance abuse/dependence, and comorbidity: Results from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 71(4):692–700.

Kim, M., Garcia, A.R., Jung, N., and Barnhart, S. 2020. Rates and predictors of mental health service use among dual system youth. Children and Youth Services Review 114:1–10.

Kim, H.K., and Leve, L.D. 2011. Substance use and delinquency among middle school girls in foster care: A 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 79(6):740–750.

Klopack, E.T., Simons, R.L., and Simons, L.G. 2020. Puberty and girls’ delinquency: A test of competing models explaining the relationship between pubertal development and delinquent behavior. Justice Quarterly 37(1):25–52.

Kolivoski, K.M. 2022. Applying critical race theory (CRT) and intersectionality to address the needs of African American crossover girls. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 39(2):133–145.

Kolivoski, K.M., Barnett, E., and Abbott, S. 2015. The Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) in Brief: Out-of-Home Placements and Crossover Youth. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center for Juvenile Justice Reform.

Kolivoski, K.M., Shook, J.J., Goodkind, S., and Kim, K.H. 2014. Developmental trajectories and predictors of juvenile detention, placement, and jail among youth with out-of-home child welfare placement. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research 5(2):137–160.

Krumer–Nevo, M., and Komem, M. 2013. Intersectionality and critical social work with girls: Theory and practice. British Journal of Social Work 45(4):1190–1206.

Lambert, S.F., Ialongo, N.S., Boyd, R.C., and Cooley, M.R. 2005. Risk factors for community violence exposure in adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology 36(1–2):29–48.

Latessa, E.J., Cullen, F.T., and Gendreau, P. 2002. Beyond correctional quackery-Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation 66(2):43–49.

Latessa, E.J., Listwan, S.J., and Koetzle, D. 2015. What works with women. In What Works (and Doesn’t) in Reducing Recidivism. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lee, S.Y., and Villagrana, M. 2015. Differences in risk and protective factors between crossover and noncrossover youth in juvenile justice. Children and Youth Services Review 58:18–27.

Lehmann, P.S., Meldrum, R.C., and Greenwald, M.A. 2020. Upward departures from structured recommendations in juvenile court dispositions: The intersection of race, ethnicity, and gender. Justice Quarterly 37(3):514–540.

Leiber, M.J., Brubaker, S.J., and Fox, K.C. 2009. A closer look at the individual and joint effects of gender and race on juvenile justice decisionmaking. Feminist Criminology 4(4):333–358.

Lenz, A.S., Speciale, M., and Aguilar, J.V. 2012. Relational–cultural therapy intervention with incarcerated adolescents: A single-case effectiveness design. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation 3(1), 17–29.

Leve, L.D., Chamberlain, P., and Kim, H.K. 2015. Risks, outcomes, and evidence-based interventions for girls in the U.S. juvenile justice system. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 18(3):252–279.

Lipsey, M.W., and Wilson, D. 1998. Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Liu, L., and Miller, S.L. 2020. Protective factors against juvenile delinquency: Exploring gender with a nationally representative sample of youth. Social Science Research 86.

Loeber, R., and Keenan, K. 1994. Interaction between conduct disorder and its comorbid conditions: Effects of age and gender. Clinical Psychology Review 14(6):497–523.

Lopez, V., and Nuño, L. 2016. Latina and African‐American girls in the juvenile justice system: Needs, problems, and solutions. Sociology Compass 10(1):24–37.

Loyd, A.B., Hotton, A.L., Walden, A.L., Kendall, A.D., Emerson, E., and Donenberg, G.R. 2019. Associations of ethnic/racial discrimination with internalizing symptoms and externalizing behaviors among juvenile justice–involved youth of color. Journal of Adolescence 75:138–150.

Lowery, P.G. 2019. The independent and joint effects of race, crime, and social location on the dispositional decisions of juvenile girls. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 17(2):81–109.

Maggard, S.R., Higgins, J.L., and Chappell, A.T. 2013. Predispositional juvenile detention: An analysis of race, gender, and intersectionality. Journal of Crime and Justice 36(1):67–86.

Malvaso, C.G., Cale, J., Whitten, T., Day, A., Singh, S., Hackett, L., Delfabbro, P.H., and Ross, S. 2022. Associations between adverse childhood experiences and trauma among young people who offend: A systematic literature review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 23(5):1677–1694.

Massachusetts Department of Youth Services. 2022. Juvenile Recidivism Report for Youth Discharged During 2017. Boston, MA.

Matthews, B., and Hubbard, D.J. 2008. Moving ahead: Five essential elements for working effectively with girls. Journal of Criminal Justice 36(6):494–502.

McHugh, R.K., Votaw, V.R., Sugarman, D.E., and Greenfield, S.F. 2018. Sex and gender differences in substance use disorders. Clinical Psychology Review 66(December):12–23.

Miller, J.B. 1976. Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Miller–Perrin, C., and Wurtele, S.K. 2017. Sex trafficking and the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Women & Therapy 40(1–2):123–151.

Moffitt T.E., Caspi A. 2001. Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways, among males and females. Development & Psychopathology 13(2):355–375.

Moore, L.D., and Padavic, I. 2010. Racial and ethnic disparities in girls’ sentencing in the juvenile justice system. Feminist Criminology 5(3):263–285.

Morris M.W. 2016. Pushout: The Criminalization of Black Girls in Schools. New York, NY: New Press.

Moylan, C.A., Herrenkohl, T.I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E.A., Herrenkohl, R.C., and Russo, M.J. 2010. The effects of child abuse and exposure to domestic violence on adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Violence 25:53–63.

Nanda, J. 2012. Blind discretion: Girls of color and delinquency in the juvenile justice system. UCLA Law Review 59:1502–1539.

Nooner, K.B., Linares, L.O., Batinjanem, J., Kramer, R.A., Silva, R., and Cloitre, M. 2012. Factors related to posttraumatic stress disorder in adolescence. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse 13(3):153–166.

(OJJDP) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. n.d. Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP. https://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/csec_program.html

O’Neill, K.K. 2020. Adolescence, empathy, and the gender gap in delinquency. Feminist Criminology 15(4):410–437.

Onifade, E., Barnes, A., Campbell, C., Anderson, V., Petersen, J., and Davidson, W. 2014. Juvenile offenders and experiences of neglect: The validity of the YLS/CMI with dual-status youth. Children and Youth Services Review 46:112–119.

Oregon Youth Authority. 2021. 12-Month Referral-Based Recidivism, 2020. Data and evaluation report. Salem, OR. https://www.oregon.gov/oya/jjis/Reports/2020%20-%2012-month%20Recidivism.pdf

Pasko, L., and Lopez, V. 2018a. All the rage: Contextualizing intersectionality and violence in delinquent girls’ lives. In Girls, Aggression, and Intersectionality. New York, NY: Routledge, 109–129.

Pasko, L., and Lopez, V. 2018b. The Latina penalty: Juvenile correctional attitudes toward the Latina juvenile offender. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 16(4):272–291.

Pepler, D., Walsh, M., Yuile, A., Levene, K., Jiang, D., Vaughan, A., and Webber, J. 2010. Bridging the gender gap: Interventions with aggressive girls and their parents. Prevention Science 11:229–238.

Perez, N.M., Jennings, W.G., and Baglivio, M.T. 2018. A path to serious, violent, chronic delinquency: The harmful aftermath of adverse childhood experiences. Crime & Delinquency 64(1):3–25.

Petersen, A.M., Salisbury, E., and Sundt, J. 2015. Does feminist theory matter? In Sisters in Crime Revisited: Bringing Gender Into Criminology (first edition), edited by F.T. Cullen, P. Wilcox, J.L. Lux, and C.L. Johnson. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 260–278.

Pierce, H., and Jones, M.S. 2022. Gender differences in the accumulation, timing, and duration of childhood adverse experiences and youth delinquency in fragile families. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 59(1):3–43.

Poteat, V.P., Scheer, J.R., and Chong, E.S. 2016. Sexual orientation-based disparities in school and juvenile justice discipline: A multiple group comparison of contributing factors. Journal of Educational Psychology 108(2):229–241.

Potter, H. 2006. An argument for Black feminist criminology: Understanding African American women’s experiences with intimate-partner abuse using an integrated approach. Feminist Criminology 1(2):106–124.

Potter, H. 2013. Intersectional criminology: Interrogating identity and power in criminological research and theory. Critical Criminology 21(3):305–318.

Pullman, M.D., Kerbs, J., Koroloff, N., Veach–White, E., Gaylor, R., and Sieler, D. 2006. Juvenile offenders with mental health needs: Reducing recidivism using wraparound. Crime and Delinquency 52(3):375–397.

Puzzanchera, C. 2021. Juvenile arrests, 2019. Juvenile Justice Statistics. Bulletin. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, NIJ.

Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. 2021. Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990–2020. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/

Quinn, C.R., Boyd, D.T., Beaujolais, B., Hughley, A., Mitchell, M., Allen, J.L., DiClemente, R.J., and Voisin, D.R. 2022. Perceptions of sexual risk and HIV/STI prevention among Black adolescent girls in a detention center: An investigation of the role of parents and peers. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities 1–10.

Quinn, W.H., and Van Dyke, D.J. 2004. A multiple family group intervention for first-time juvenile offenders: Comparisons with probation and dropouts on recidivism. Journal of Community Psychology 32(2):177–200.

Reid, J.A., Baglivio, M.T., Piquero, A.R., Greenwald, M.A., and Epps, N. 2017. Human trafficking of minors and childhood adversity in Florida. American Journal of Public Health 107(2):306–311.

Ryan, J.P., Williams, A.B., and Courtney, M.E. 2013. Adolescent neglect, juvenile delinquency, and the risk of recidivism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence (42(3):454–465.

Sedlak, A.J. and Bruce, C. 2016. Survey of Youth in Residential Placement: Youth’s Characteristics and Backgrounds. SYRP Report. Rockville, MD: Westat.

Shoemaker, D.J. 2018. Female delinquency. In Theories of Delinquency: An Examination of Explanations of Delinquent Behavior (seventh edition). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 315–354.

Shufelt, J.L., and Cocozza, J.J. 2006. Youth With Mental Health Disorders in the Juvenile Justice System: Results From a Multistate Prevalence Study. Delmar, NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, pp. 1–6.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., and Kang, W. 2022. Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1985–2020. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/

Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Puzzanchera, C., and Kang, W. 2022. National crosstabs. Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/

Sickmund, M., Sladky T.J., Puzzanchera, C., and Kang, W. 2021. U.S. and State Profiles tab.  Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/

Spivak, A.L., Wagner, B.M., Whitmer, J.M., and Charish, C.L. 2014. Gender and status offending: Judicial paternalism in juvenile justice processing. Feminist Criminology 9(3):224–248.

Spruit, A., Van Vugt, E., Van Der Put, C., Van Der Stouwe, T., and Stams, G.J. 2016. Sports participation and juvenile delinquency: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 45(4):655–671.

Statistical Briefing Book. 2022. Juvenile Arrest Rate Trends.  Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05230&selOffenses=1. Updated July 8.

Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J., Zhong, H., and Ackerman, J. 2005. An assessment of recent trends in girls’ violence using diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender gap closing? Criminology 43(2):355–406.

Sutton, T.E., and Simons, L.G. 2021. A longitudinal test of a feminist pathways model among Black youth: Incorporating racial discrimination and school difficulties. Feminist Criminology 16(1):26–46.

Swaner, R. Jensen, E., Ayoub, L.H., Rempel, M., Kralstein, D. 2015. An Outcome Evaluation of the Defending Childhood Demonstration Program. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.  

Tharp, A.T., McNaughton Reyes, H.L., Foshee, V., Swahn, M.H., Hall, J.E., and Logan, J. 2017. Examining the prevalence and predictors of injury from adolescent dating violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 26(5):445–461.

Theokas, C., and Lerner, R.M. 2006. Observed ecological assets in families, schools, and neighborhoods: Conceptualization, measurement, and relations with positive and negative developmental outcomes. Applied Developmental Science 10(2):61–74.

Timmons–Mitchell, J., Bender, M.B., Kishna, M.A., and Mitchell, C.C. 2006. An independent effectiveness trial of Multisystemic Therapy with juvenile justice youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 35:227–36.

Tracy, P.E., Kempf–Leonard, K., and Abramoski–James, S. 2009. Gender differences in delinquency and juvenile justice processing: Evidence from national data. Crime & Delinquency 55(2):171–215.

Thomann, A.M. 2019. Intervention Response to the Trauma-Exposed, Female Juvenile Offender: A Review of Effectiveness in Reducing Recidivism. The University of Texas at Arlington.

Trupin, E.J., Kerns, S.E., Walker, S.C., DeRobertis, M.T., and Stewart, D.G. 2011. Family integrated transitions: A promising program for juvenile offenders with co-occurring disorders. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse 20(5):421–436.

Vidal, S., Prince, D., Connell, C.M., Caron, C.M., Kaufman, J.S., and Tebes, J.K. 2017. Maltreatment, family environment, and social risk factors: Determinants of the child welfare to juvenile justice transition among maltreated children and adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect 63:7–18.

Vitopoulos, N.A., Peterson–Badali, M., Brown, S., and Skilling, T.A. 2019. The relationship between trauma, recidivism risk, and reoffending in male and female juvenile offenders. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 12(3):351–364.

Walker, S.C., Muno, A., and Sullivan–Colglazier, C. 2015. Principles in practice: A multistate study of gender-responsive reforms in the juvenile justice system. Crime & Delinquency 61(5):742–766.

Watson, J., Bryce, I., Phillips, T.M., Sanders, T., and Brömdal, A. 2023. Transgender youth, challenges, responses, and the juvenile justice system: A systematic literature review of an emerging literature. Youth Justice. doi:14732254231167344.

Weber, S., and Lynch, S. 2021. Understanding the relations among adverse childhood experiences, substance use, and reoffending among detained youth. Child Abuse & Neglect 120:105211.

Williams, K., Cohen, M.I., and Curry, G.D. 1999. Evaluation of Youth Gang Drug Intervention/Prevention Programs for Female Adolescents. Vol. 1: Final Report. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, NIJ.

Wilson, B.D., Jordan, S.P., Meyer, I.H., Flores, A.R., Stemple, L., and Herman, J.L. 2017. Disproportionality and disparities among sexual minority youth in custody. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 46:1547–1561.

Wolff, K.T., Baglivio, M.T., Klein, H.J., Piquero, A.R., DeLisi, M., and Howell, J.C. 2020. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and gang involvement among juvenile offenders: Assessing the mediation effects of substance use and temperament deficits. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 18(1):24–53.

Wolff, K.T., Baglivio, M.T., and Piquero, A.R. 2017. The relationship between adverse childhood experiences and recidivism in a sample of juvenile offenders in community-based treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61(11):1210–1242.

Wong, T.M., Slotboom, A.M., and Bijleveld, C.C. 2010. Risk factors for delinquency in adolescent and young adult females: A European review. European Journal of Criminology 7(4):266–284.

Wood, J., Foy, D.W., Layne, C., Pynoos, R., and James, C.B. 2002. 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 & Trauma 6(1):127–147.

Zahn, M.A., Agnew, R., Fishbein, D., Miller, S. Winn, D., Dakoff, G., Kruttschnitt, C., Giordano, P., Gottfredson, D.C., Payne, A.A., Feld, B.C., and Chesney–Lind, M. 2010. Causes and Correlates of Girls’ Delinquency. Washington DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP.

Zahn, M.A., Day, J.C., Mihalic, S.F., and Tichavsky, L. 2009. Determining what works for girls in the juvenile justice system: A summary of the evidence. Crime & Delinquency 55(2):266–293.

Zahn, M.A., Hawkins, S.R., Chiancone, J., and Whitworth, A. 2008. The Girls Study Group—Charting the Way to Delinquency Prevention for Girls. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP.

Zona, K., and Milan, S. 2011. Gender differences in the longitudinal impact of exposure to violence on mental health in urban youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 40:1674–1690.

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. August 2023. “Girls in the Juvenile Justice System.” Literature review. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/girls-juvenile-justice-system

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under Contract Number: 47QRAA20D002V.