Frabutt, James M

White, Jacquelyn W

English

Loyola Marymount University

Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiryand PracticeVolume 5 | Issue 4 Article 96-1-2002Delinquency and Violence Among GirlsJames M. FrabuttJacquelyn W. WhiteFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ceThis Review of Research is brought to you for free with open access by the School of Education at Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount Universityand Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for publication in Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice by the journal's editorial boardand has been published on the web by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. Formore information about Digital Commons, please contact digitalcommons@lmu.edu. To contact the editorial board of Catholic Education: A Journalof Inquiry and Practice, please email CatholicEdJournal@lmu.edu.Recommended CitationFrabutt, J. M., & White, J. W. (2002). Delinquency and Violence Among Girls. Journal of Catholic Education, 5 (4). http://dx.doi.org/10.15365/joce.0504092013541REVIEW OF RESEARCHDELINQUENCY AND VIOLENCEAMONG GIRLSJAMES M. FRABUTTJACQUELYN W. WHITECenter for the Study of Social IsstiesUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroCommunity leaders, policymakers, educators, funding agencies, and thepublic have begun to recognize that youth delinquency and violence is acomplex public health problem in this country (Dahlberg, 1998; Snyder &Sickmund, 1999; Thornton, Craft, Dahlberg, Lynch, & Baer, 2000).Embedded within the public health concerns surrounding youth delinquencyand violence, the last decade has witnessed the increasing involvement ofgirls in more serious and violent crimes. Consequently, girls have been morevisible in the juvenile justice system and have been entering the system atyounger ages. Catholic educational leaders exercise an important ministry inthis area, espousing a holistic philosophy in a faith-based setting to supportat-risk youth. As communities, schools, practitioners, and families continueto grapple with female juvenile delinquency, this review sheds light on sev-eral critical aspects of the issue by providing a statistical overview based onnational data, characteristics of female offenders, risk factors for girls' delin-quency, and promising approaches for intervention.STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUEA recent Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)publication offered a concise summary of girls' delinquency: "Femaleinvolvement in the juvenile justice system, once seen as an anomaly, hasevolved into a significant trend" (Budnick & Shields-Fletcher, 1998, p. 1; seealso Scahill, 2000). Females represented 25% of United States juvenileCatholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice. Vol. 5. No. 4. June 2002. 541-547©2002 Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice542 Catholic Fducatioti/June 2002arrests in 1996 (Snyder, 1997). That figure increased 4% since 1983, and,indicative of a much larger trend, had been rising steadily since 1960 whenfemales represented 11% of all arrests (Steffensmeier, 1993).The female rate of increase is larger than that reported for young men.Poe-Yamagata and Butts (1996) reported a 23% increase in female juvenilearrests versus an 11% increase in male juvenile arrests between 1989 and1993. A continuation of that trend is evident in Federal Bureau ofInvestigation crime statistics indicating that female arrests increased more (ordecreased less) than male arrests in most offense categories between 1994and 1998 (Snyder, 1999). The number of female juveniles arrested for violentcrimes such as murder, robbery, and aggravated assault increased 25% withno increase in arrests of male juveniles for the same offenses (Budnick &Shields-Fletcher, 1998; Chesney-Lind & Brown, 1999). Data on delinquencycases also indicate females' increased involvement in the juvenile justice sys-tem. Stahl (2000) documented an 83% increase in cases involving females forthe years 1988 through 1997, noting that "growth in cases involving femalesoutpaced the growth for males in all offense categories" (p. 1).CHARACTERISTICS OFFEMALE JUVENILE OFFENDERSOverviews of the research literature (Acoca, 1999; Community ResearchAssociates, 1998; Greene, Peters, & Associates, and Northwest RegionalEducational Laboratory, 1998) converge on the following characteristics indescribing the juvenile female population at high risk for offending:• 14 to 16 years old,• likely to be poor and living in a high crime neighborhood,• likely to have been sexually, physically, or emotionally abused,• likely to have a history of poor academic performance,• likely to have abused drugs or alcohol, and• likely to have gone without attention for medical and mental health needs.Beyond these general observations, two other trends are elaborated fur-ther: the decreasing age at first offense for female juvenile offenders and theincreased proportion of female offenders of color.Across the nation, females are becoming involved with the justice systemat a younger age. According to a report prepared for OJJDP, one in five girlsin secure confinement is now age 14 or younger (Greene, Peters, &Associates, 1998). Scahill (2000) reported that 62% of females charged withdelinquent acts in 1997 were under age 16. The National Center for JuvenileJustice (1987-91) indicated a 10% increase in the number of 13- and 14-year-olds involved in juvenile court (Bergsmann, 1994). Furthermore, from 1988REVIEW OF RESEARCH 543through 1997, an 89% increase was documented in the number of femaledelinquency cases under age 16 (Snyder, Finnegan, Stahl, & Poole, 1999).The juvenile female offender population is also characterized by a dis-proportionate representation of ethnic minorities (Bergsmann, 1989;Campbell, 1995; Community Research Associates, 1998; Greene, Peters, &Associates, 1998). Bergsmann (1994), reviewing data obtained by theNational Council on Crime and Delinquency from 29 states, found that of allyoung women in secure detention 13% were Hispanic and almost 50% wereAfrican American. For the years spanning 1988 through 1997, cases involv-ing females increased across all racial groups, with a 74% increase forWhites, a 106% increase for African American females, and a 102% increasefor other races (Scahill, 2000; Snyder et al., 1999).CAUSES AND RISK FACTORSFOR GIRLS' DELINQUENCY AND VIOLENCEGreene, Peters, & Associates (1998), along with numerous others, have con-sistently made a clear point: more often than noi, female juvenile delinquentswere victims themselves before they became offenders (Davis, Schoen,Greenberg, Desroches, & Abrams, 1997; Girls, Incorporated, 1996: Prescott,1997). Scholars and practitioners have consistently "identified victimiza-tion—physical, sexual, and emotional—as the first step along females' path-ways into the juvenile and criminal justice systems and as a primary deter-minant of the types and patterns of offenses typically committed by girls andwomen" (Acoca, 1999, p. 5; see also Acoca & Austin, 1996). Calhoun,Jurgens, and Chen (1993) found a history of sexual abuse among 70% offemale delinquents. Based on data from the National Council on Crime andDelinquency study of girls in the California juvenile justice system, Acocaand Dedel (1998) reported that 92% had been subjected to emotional, physi-cal, or sexual abuse. Moreover, 75% of these young women reported regularuse of drugs and alcohol, typically beginning around age 14.Generally, school-level factors have been associated with youth violenceand delinquency. Poor academic performance is a significant contributor toearly onset of delinquency (Dryfoos, 1990; Yoshikawa, 1994). Furthermore,academic failure (Ellickson & McGuigan, 2000; Maguin & Loeber, 1996),truancy (Farrington, 1989), and low commitment to school (Catalano &Hawkins, 1996) have each been implicated as contributors to violent behav-ior. Acoca (1999) confirmed that "failing in school was almost as universalan experience as victimization" (p. 6) in the violence trajectories of thefemales in her study. Further, her survey results indicated that 91% of thefemale juvenile offenders had experienced either suspension, expulsion,repeating a grade, or being placed in a special classroom (Acoca, 1999).Health and mental health issues are also critical risk factors for female544 Catholic Educatioti/]une 2002juvenile offending. Data from the Project on Human Development in ChicagoNeighborhoods has highlighted the role of depression in delinquency. Forexample, compared to their non-depressed counterparts, mildly to moderate-ly depressed girls were more likely to commit property crimes and crimesagainst other people, even after controlling for socioeconomic status(Obeidallah & Earls, 1999). Serious physical health problems (88%) and aneed for psychological services (53%) were reported by a majority of girls inthe California juvenile justice system (Acoca, 1999).Although it is not within the scope of this review to present an in-depthreview of all other factors that place girls at greater risk of juvenile delin-quency and crime, some areas that were not mentioned have been explored inthe research literature. For example, gang membership contributes toincreased risk of both victimization and violence (Chesney-Lind & Brown,1999; Morris et al., 1995). Also, substance abuse is an identified risk factor,as many juvenile females reported being intoxicated or under the influence ofillegal substances while engaging in criminal acts (Sommers & Baskin,199^4).PROGRAMMING AND INTERVENTIONSFOR GIRLSAs stated by Greene, Peters, & Associates (1998),the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionAct of 1974 required states to apply for federal formula grant dollars toexamine their juvenile justice systems and identify gaps in their ability toprovide services to female juvenile offenders, (chap. 2)The reauthorization further called for an analysis of gender-specific ser-vices and an attention to female service needs. The Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention, in recognition of the needs of female juvenileoffenders, has subsequently engaged in a multilevel approach to impactstates' efforts in dealing with female offenders (Budnick & Shields-Fletcher,1998), For example, an OJJDP publication. Juvenile Female Offenders: AStatus of the States Report (Community Research Associates, 1998), exam-ined the efforts of 24 states. The report provided a historical overview ofjuvenile female offending and served as a mechanism for disseminating prac-tices and programs across state boundaries.In cooperation with OJJDP, Greene, Peters, & Associates (1998) pro-duced a training document entitled Guiding Principles for Promising FemaleProgramming: An Inventory of Best Practices. This report highlighted effec-tive, female-specific programs and practices across the nation and outlinedprocesses for program and policy development (see also Girls Incorporated,REVIEW OF RESEARCH 5451996). According to their review, programs serving female juvenile delin-quents must be:• comprehensive (dealing with behavior in context; understanding influence ofrisk factors; and including primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention),• gender-specific (featuring a focus on relationship-building skills, decisionmaking, and "femaleness" as a positive identity), and• able to address resiliency as well as risk factors.Reviewing effective programs for young, at-risk females, Chesney-Lindand Shelden (1998) noted three common elements: a comprehensive coun-seling component, educational and occupational support, and a capacity toaddress the needs of young women not able to remain with their families.Despite these promising advances in the knowledge base, much more infor-mation is needed on the intersection of female-specific risk and protectivefactors with effective intervention/prevention program components.WHY ADDRESS FEMALE JUVENILEDELINQUENCY NOW?In statistical terms, as reviewed earlier, the problem of female juvenile delin-quency has escalated into a public health issue meriting our deepest attentionand concern. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of both sound gender-specifictheory and effective gender-specific programs to address youth violencenationwide (Acoca, 1999). Progress has been made in the last decade, how-ever, in mapping girls' developmental patterns and identifying some gender-specific risk factors for young females' increasing involvement in delinquen-cy and crime.Despite the reauthorization of the 1992 Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention Act, which underscored the need for eliminating gender bias inplacement and treatment and for providing access to the full range of avail-able services for female offenders, it is clear that "the needs of females in thejuvenile justice system have not kept pace with societal changes in the rolesand goals of women" (Greene, Peters, & Associates, 1998, chap. 1). Thefindings reviewed here regarding gender-specific risk factors and the com-monalities of successful girl-serving programs provide a starting point forhelping girls to lead safer and healthier lives.REFERENCESAcoca, L. (1999j. hivesting in girls: A 21st centuty .Urategy (Vol. VI, No. 1). Washington. DC:Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Acoca, L., & Austin, J. (1996). The hidden ctisis: The wottien offetiders senteticing study atidaltemative recomtnetidations project. San Francisco: National Council on Crime andDelinquency.546 Catholic Educatioti/June 2002Acoca. L., & Dedel, K. (1998). No place to hide: Utiderstatiding atid tneeting the tieeds of girlsin the California juvenile justice systetn. San Francisco: National Council on Crime andDelinquency.Bergsmann. I. (1994). Establishing a foundation: Just the fact.s. In 1994 juvenile fetnale ojfetid-ers' cotifetence: A titne for change (pp. 3-14). Lanham, MD: American CorrectionalAssociation.Bergsmann, I. R. (1989). The forgotten few: Juvenile female offenders. Federal Probation,53U). 73-78.Budnick, K. J.. & Shields-Fletcher, E. (1998). What about girls? OJJDP fact sheet.Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Calhoun, G.. Jurgens, J., & Chen. F. (1993). The neophyte female delinquent: A review of theliterature. Adole.scetice. 28( 110). 461-471.Campbell, J. R. (1995). Conference focuses on issues facing female juvenile offenders.Corrections Today, 57( 1). 72.Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antiso-cial behavior. In R. F. Catalano & J. D. Hawkins (Eds.), Delitiquency atid ctitne: Curretittheories (pp. 149-197). New York: Cambridge University Press.Chesney-Lind, M., & Brown, M. (1999). Girls and violence: An overview. In D. J. Flannery &C. R. Huff (Eds.). Youth violence: Prevention, intervention and social policy (pp. 171-199). Washington. DC: American Psychiatric Press.Chesney-Lind. M., & Shelden, R. G. (1998). Girls, delitiqueticy atid juvenile justice. Belmont,CA: West/ Wadsworth.Community Research Associates. (1998). Juvenile fetnale offender's: A status of the statesreport. Washington. DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Dahlberg, L. L. (1998). Youth violence in the United States: Major trends, risk factors and pre-ventive approaches. Atnerican Joitttial of Pteventive Medicitie, 14, 259-272.Davis, K., Schoen, C , Greenberg, L., Desroches, C , & Abrams, M. (1997). TheCotntnonwealth Fund Sutvey of health of adolescent girls. New York: CommonwealthFund.Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence atid ptevention. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.Ellick.son. P. L., & McGuigan, K. A. (2000). Early predictors of adolescent violence. AtneticanJouttial of Public Heath, 90, 566-572.Farrington, D. P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent aggression and adult violence. Violenceatid Victitns, 4(2), 79-100.Girls Incorporated. (1996). Ptevetition atid pariry: Girls in juvenile justice. Indianapolis: GirlsIncorporated National Resource Center.Greene, Peters, & Associates and Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (1998). Guidingprinciples for ptotnising fetnale progratntning and itivetUoiy of best ptactices. Retrievedfrom http://vv\vw.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/principles/contents.htmlMaguin, E., & Loeber, R. (1996). How well do ratings of academic performance by mothersand their sons correspond to grades, achievement test scores, and teachers' ratings'?Jouttial of Behaviotal Education, 6(4), 405-425.Morris, R. E., Harrison, E. A., Knox, G. W., Tromanhauser, E.. Marques, D. K., &. Watts, L. L.(1995). Health risk behavioral survey from 39 juvenile correctional facilities in the UnitedStates. Journal of Adolescent Health, 117, 334.Obeidallah. D. A., & Earls, F. J. (1999). Adolescent girls: The role of depression in the devel-opment of delinquency. National Itistitiite of Justice Reseatch Pteview. Washington. DC:National Institute of Justice.Poe-Yamagata, E., & Butts, J. A. (1996). Fetnale offetiders in the juvenile justice systetn:Statistics stttntnary. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.Prescott, L. (1997). Adolescetit girls with co-occutting disorders in the juvetiile justice systetn.New York: Policy Research, Inc.REVIEW OF RESEARCH 547Scahill, M. (2000). Female delinquency cases, 1997. OJJDP Fact Sheet. Washington. DC:Otfice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Snyder. H., Finnegan. T.. Stahl. A.. & Poole. R. (1999). Easy access to jttvenile court statistics:1988-1997. Pittsburgh. PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice (Producer). Washington,DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Distributor).Snyder, H. N. (1997). Juvenile arrests 1996. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Snyder, H. N. (1999). Jttvenile arrests 1998. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington. DC: Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders atid victitus: 1999 national report.Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Sommers, I., & Baskin, D. R. (1994). Factors related to female adolescent initiation inlo vio-lent street crime. Youth and Society, 25(4). 468-488. Washington, DC: Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.Stahl, A. (2000). Delinqtteticy cases in juvenile courts, 1997. OJJDP Fact Sheet.Steffensmeier. D. (1993). National trends in female arrest. 1960-1990: Assessment and recom-mendations for research. Joutnal of Quantitative Criminology. 9(4), 415.Thornton. T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L.. Lynch, B. S.. & Baer. K. (2000) Best ptacticesof youth violence prevention: A sourcehook for ccuumitnity action. Atlanta: Centers forDisease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support andeducation on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115( 1), 28-54.James Frabutt is co-director. Division for Prevention of Youth Violence and Aggression, and JacquelynWhite is professor of psychology and fellow at the Center for the Study of Social Issues at the University ofNorth Carolina. Greensboro. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr JamesFrabutt, Center for the Study of Social Issues, 41 McNutt Building, P. O. Box 26170, University of NorthCarolina. Greensboro, NC 27402-6170.

Delinquency and Violence Among Girls

https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1564&amp;context=ce

Delinquency and Violence Among Girls

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loyola Marymount University