Law and Human Behavior, Vol 22, No. 1, 1998
Female Juvenile Delinquency: Misunderstood by the
Juvenile Justice System, Neglected by Social Science
Stephanie Hoyt1 and David G. Scherer2,3
The study of juvenile delinquency has focused primarily on conduct disorder and
aggression in males, while relatively little attention has been paid to females who commit
delinquent acts. This article offers a critical review of the existing theories of and
research on female delinquency and the juvenile justice system's response to female
delinquency. The inadequacies and persistence of historical theories and the conceptual
and methodological strengths and weaknesses of contemporary perspectives in female
delinquency are reviewed. Understanding and treatment of female and male delinquency
could be enhanced through the adoption of a gender-integrated theory of delinquency
that is informed by the comprehensive study of developmental, psychological, and
social-ecological determinants.
Delinquency and youth violence have been growing by epidemic proportions. From
1983 to 1993, juvenile murder and manslaughter arrests leaped 128% (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1993) and from 1986 to 1995, violent crime arrests among
juveniles rose 67% (Snyder, 1996). This escalation in violent crime by adolescents
has raised concerns about the number of juveniles victimized by youth violence,
prompted projections of a doubling in juvenile arrests for violent crime by 2010,
and fueled anxieties about a future crime wave as these juvenile delinquents mature
into adults (Snyder & Sickmund, 1995; Snyder, Sickmund, & Poe-Yamagata, 1996).
Until recently, the research and theories of social scientists and the attention of
policy makers and the public have centered on male delinquency (Chamberlain &
Reid, 1994; Hirschi, 1969; Zoccolillo, 1993). However, the issue of female delinquency is forcing its way into social awareness. From 1983 to 1992, arrests of female
adolescents rose over 25% (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1993), and in 1994
and 1995 girls accounted for one fourth of all juvenile arrests (Girls Incorporated,
1996; Snyder, 1996; Snyder et al., 1996). Moreover, from 1985 to 1994, arrests of
females for violent offenses more than doubled (Girls Incorporated, 1996). Fur1 University of South Carolina.
2University of New Mexico.
3Correspondence should be addressed
to David Scherer, Ph.D., 114 Simpson Hall, College of Education,
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 (e-mail: scherer@unm.edu).
81
0147-7307/98/0200-0081J15.00/1 © 1998 American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association
82
Hoyt and Scherer
thermore, epidemiological studies have found that conduct disorder (diagnostically
akin to juvenile delinquency) is among the most common psychiatric diagnoses for
girls, has a similar prevalence rate in females and males by adolescence, and is
predictive of poor long-term psychological outcomes for females (Chamberlain &
Reid, 1994; Dembo, Williams, & Schmeidler, 1993; Webster-Stratton, 1996; Zoccolillo, 1993).
Despite growing concern, relatively little is known empirically about female
delinquency (Calhoun, Jurgens, & Chen, 1993). Social scientists have excluded females from their studies of delinquents, apparently suspecting that delinquency
among females is simply a subset or minor variation of delinquency among males
(Figueira-McDonough, 1992; Rhodes & Fischer, 1993). What literature exists on
female delinquency betrays a variety of biases and fallibilities (Girls Incorporated,
1996). Moreover, these biases in the study of delinquency also appear to be reflected in the applications of juvenile justice (Bergsmann, 1989; Girls Incorporated,
1996). This review examines these themes. We begin with a look at the precedents
established by the nascent studies of female delinquency and how the predilections
that emerged from this literature have been paralleled in juvenile justice practices
toward females. In the second section, we chronicle contemporary efforts to understand the phenomena of female delinquency by surveying some of the more
prominent theses that have emerged from research on female delinquents. These
topics span the range of human ecology from individual factors (e.g., developmental
considerations, history of victimization), to the effects of social context (e.g., family,
peer, and academic correlates of female delinquency) and larger social environmental considerations (e.g., socioeconomic status and opportunity, the impact of
the women's movement). We conclude that, without renewed effort from social scientists, female delinquents are apt to continue to encounter misguided justice and
intervention.
FEMALE DELINQUENCY, SEXUALITY,
AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD
The Stigma of Female Delinquency
Early theories of female delinquency emphasized sexuality as either the cause
or expression of females' delinquent behavior (Lombroso & Ferrero, 1895; Thomas,
1928). For example, the "deceitful" nature of women (derived from practice at faking sexual arousal), along with precocious biological maturity, were proposed to
account for female delinquency (Pollak, 1950; Pollak & Freidman, 1969). By the
1960s, researchers were documenting the prevalence of "sex delinquencies," vague
status-type offenses like incorrigibility, or simply "needing care and protection" as
the major factors distinguishing female from male delinquents (Cowie, Cowie, &
Slater, 1968; Konopka, 1966; Vedder & Somerville, 1970). Cowie et al. noted that
many of the girls in their study claimed they ran away from home because of sexual
advances by relatives, but they did not examine this finding for its implication for
explaining female delinquency. Vedder and Somerville accounted for reports like
Female Juvenile
83
these by suggesting that adolescent females ran away from home because they
feared the incestuous consequences of their sexual impulses. Konopka also attributed the sometimes harsh treatment that female delinquents received to the agitation and ambivalence engendered in others by female delinquents' sexual behavior.
Differential Treatment of Male and Female Delinquents Within the Juvenile
Justice System
As a consequence of these early studies that assumed that female delinquency
was sexual in nature, female delinquency acquired a stigma not associated with
male delinquency. Historically, female delinquents were charged with immorality,
waywardness, or status offenses (i.e., offenses such as running away, truancy, or
underage drinking, that are illegal for juveniles, but not adults) because of concern
about their sexual behavior and moral depravity (Schlossman & Wallach, 1978;
Shelden, 1981), and subsequently treated more harshly than males who committed
the same or similar crimes (Chesney-Lind, 1973; Datesman & Scarpitti, 1977;
Shelden, 1981). This led some to conclude that a sexual double standard existed
in the juvenile justice system (Chesney-Lind, 1977; Pope & Feyerherm, 1982).
Over the past 15 years, the question of a double standard in the administration
of juvenile justice for females and males has become more complex. There are
considerable gender differences in "official" delinquency, the picture of delinquency
derived from statistics maintained by law enforcement agencies. Most notably, adolescent females are arrested less frequently than male adolescents, and are more
likely than males to have their cases handled informally rather than through formal
adjudication hearings. Females arrested for delinquency and formally petitioned to
court are less likely to be adjudicated and are less likely to be remanded to adult
courts than males (Girls Incorporated, 1996; Poe-Yamagata & Butts, 1996). However, female adolescents are arrested and involved in the juvenile justice system
for less serious offenses more often than male adolescents (Girls Incorporated,
1996; Poe-Yamagata & Butts, 1996).
One interpretation of these data is that female delinquents are treated more
leniently than male delinquents. Others have argued, however, that the juvenile
justice system continues to discriminate against female delinquents, holding them
more accountable than males for the commission of status offenses (Girls Incorporated, 1996). The perception of a negative bias toward arresting female adolescents more often for less serious offenses is accented by self-report delinquency data
which indicate that females and males commit similar rates of status offenses and
minor index crimes (e.g., larceny-theft, vandalism, and prostitution) (Canter, 1982a;
Kruttschnitt, 1996; Steffensmeier & Steffensmeier, 1980). The juvenile justice system's commitment to the parens patrie concept and the language of status offense
provisions allow discretionary application by law enforcement and juvenile court
personnel to hold females legally accountable for behavior (frequently behavior interpreted as sexual acting out) that would not be considered serious if committed
by males (Rosenbaum & Chesney-Lind, 1994; Sussman, 1977; Teitelbaum & Gough,
1977). This has raised the specter that the juvenile justice system has evidenced a
84
Hoyt and Scherer
concern for controlling the sexuality of females not seen in the handling of male
delinquents (Bergsmann, 1989; Krohn, Curry, & Nelson-Kilger, 1983; Rosenbaum
& Chesney-Lind, 1994).
The disparity between females and males in arrest and referral rates for status
offenses continues to be found in studies of delinquents (Dembo et al., 1993; Girls
Incorporated, 1996; Hancock & Chesney-Lind, 1982; Horowitz & Pottieger, 1991;
Rhodes & Fischer, 1993; Rosenbaum & Chesney-Lind, 1994; Smith, 1980). Over
the past 15 years, the procedure of "bootstrapping" (the rearrest and detention of
previously adjudicated minors upon a violation of a court order) has raised particular concern. Bootstrapping, some contend, has resulted in disproportionately
more females being adjudicated and incarcerated for status offenses or violation
of non-offense conditions of the original court order (Girls Incorporated, 1996). In
fact, much like the case with delinquency crimes, the arrest and incarceration rates
of female delinquents for status offenses has been rising (Bergsmann, 1989; Rosenbaum & Chesney-Lind, 1994), and the rates of growth of female petitioned status
offenses exceeds that of males (Butts, Snyder, Finnegan, Augenbaugh, & Poole,
1996).
In addition to bias in arresting female delinquents, the juvenile justice system
also has been accused of bias against female delinquents in determining their disposition (Girls Incorporated, 1996). The evidence is ambiguous. On the one hand,
some social scientists contend that adolescent females have a greater possibility of
being incarcerated for less serious delinquent activity than males (Bergsmann, 1989;
Chesney-Lind, 1977, 1988; Horowitz & Pottieger, 1991; Rhodes & Fischer, 1993;
Schwartz, Steketee, & Schneider, 1990). For example, the decision to process female
delinquents informally or to not adjudicate them when formally referred to court
has not led necessarily to less serious or less restrictive dispositions (Girls Incorporated, 1996). Following the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974, which emphasized diversion and deinstitutionalization of juvenile delinquents,
the adjudication and rate of incarceration of juvenile delinquents for status offenses
declined. This result chiefly affected the adjudication and incarceration of female
delinquents. There is evidence, however, that these delinquents were merely redirected or shifted from public correctional facilities to confinement in private treatment centers (Bergsmann, 1989; Girls Incorporated, 1996; Weithorn, 1988). This
incarceration occurred absent even the limited access juveniles have to due process
and under conditions that cast doubt on the voluntarinesss of their consent. Another
consideration is that female status offenders are much more often referred to juvenile court for running away, while male status offenders are more often referred
for liquor law violations. As a result, female status offenders more often received
formal probation than male status offenders, who more often received less formal
judicial dispositions such as fines and referrals to counseling (Butts et al., 1996).
However, from 1989 to 1993, the percentages of female and male status offenders
detained and subsequently placed out-of-home for status offenses were quite comparable. Consequently, other researchers assert that when the type of offense and
a variety of additional covariates are accounted for in analyses of the incarceration
of female delinquents, females receive lenient treatment for the commission of less
serious offenses and that no differences exist in adjudication of females and males
Female Juvenile
85
for serious crimes against persons (D. R. Johnson & Scheuble, 1991; Kruttschnitt,
1996).
However, in maintaining a narrow, status-offense, sexuality-dominated perspective on female delinquents, the juvenile justice system is missing the larger picture
of serious offending committed by female delinquents. The largest gender differences in both official and self-report delinquency occur for violent and serious index
crimes (Kruttschnitt, 1996). Though official delinquency rates indicate that many
more males than females are arrested for both offenses against persons and property offenses, the percentages of adolescent females arrested for these crimes have
been increasing dramatically and at greater rates than males (Poe-Yamagata &
Butts, 1996). For example, between 1989 and 1993, the growth rate of female juvenile arrests was more than twice the growth rate in male juvenile arrests (PoeYamagata & Butts, 1996). From 1985 to 1994, violent crime arrests have increased
125% for females compared to 67% for males, mostly due to arrests for robbery
and aggravated assault (male juveniles continue to exceed female juveniles in
growth rates for homicide arrests) (Poe-Yamagata & Butts, 1996; Snyder & Sickmund, 1995; Snyder et al., 1996). Property crime arrest rates for female juveniles
continue to increase (Snyder & Sickmund, 1995; Snyder et al., 1996). From 1989
to 1993, female arrests for property crimes climbed 22%, while arrests of males for
property crimes dropped 3% (Poe-Yamagata & Butts, 1996). Even for most categories of non-index offenses the growth rate of female juvenile arrests exceeds that
of male juvenile arrests (Poe-Yamagata & Butts, 1996).
Because the juvenile justice system is oriented toward coping with female status
offenders, it quite possibly may be employing ineffective or inappropriate correctional practices (Horowitz & Pottieger, 1991). Treatment interventions for delinquent females are distinctly lacking and have fallen behind the development of
intervention programs for males and adult females (Bergsmann, 1989). Calls to intervene with the communities, families, and mental health needs of delinquent females have a long history (Vedder & Somerville, 1970) and continue to be the
focus of entreaties on behalf of delinquent females (Bergsmann, 1989; Dembo et
al., 1993). Yet, the juvenile justice system has failed to provide services tailored for
the needs of female delinquents. When intervention programs are available, incarcerated female delinquents are apt to receive intervention focused on acting-out
conduct rather than the internalizing concerns that are potentially more salient
(Bergsmann, 1989; Chamberlain & Reid, 1994). Furthermore, those female delinquents who are removed from their homes and placed in residential treatment,
foster care, or group homes also may not be receiving appropriate treatment. Chamberlain and Reid (1994) reported that female delinquents respond to therapeutic
placement quite differently than males. While males generally responded to Treatment Foster Care with steady improvement after a troubled start, female delinquents appear to begin quietly and then express more problem behaviors,
theoretically after gaining some measure of comfort or intimacy in foster care. Consequently, the course and strategy of treatment used for male delinquents in outof-home placements may not be effective for female delinquents.
In sum, the original theories about the sexual etiology of female delinquency
were stigmatizing and led to stereotyping of female delinquents. This stereotyping
86
Hoyt and Scherer
of female delinquents has been reflected in the practices of the juvenile justice
system, which, in spite of reform efforts, still is accused of unfair bias by handling
female delinquents more harshly than male delinquents. Absent more informed social science input, juvenile justice is liable to continue to disregard the unique needs
of female delinquents. Over the past 15 years, a variety of correlates, covariates,
and theories of female delinquency have been empirically explored. However, the
current state of the science of female delinquency is rife with methodological complications and theoretical ambiguity.
CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES ON FEMALE DELINQUENCY
Models of female delinquency that generally emphasized status offenses and
female sexuality may never have been accurate and certainly do not account for
the full range of delinquent behavior exhibited by contemporary adolescent females.
Only recently have social scientists attempted to correct common misconceptions
about the nature of female delinquency by emphasizing developmental and socioecological determinants of female delinquency. In doing so, they have encountered
considerable uncertainty about how to proceed theoretically and empirically with
studies of female delinquency. Many investigations reflect popular misconceptions
and stereotypes about females and their lives. Others assume "gender-sameness"
and attempt to understand female delinquency by applying the same concepts that
dominate research on male delinquency. Still others have argued that female delinquency is a unique phenomenon requiring separate constructs and hypothesizing
unique causal paths to the development of female delinquency. As a consequence,
basic issues such as whether to use cross-gender analyses or same-sex comparisons
are the subject of considerable debate.
Although empirical interest in female delinquency has grown in recent years
(Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 1992; Rosenbaum &
Lashley, 1990; Seydlitz, 1991), this research has suffered from the basic limitations
imposed by biased sampling, inadequate sample descriptions, measurement inadequacies, and design restrictions. For example, studies of female delinquency have
sampled Caucasians primarily, despite concerns about delinquency in minority
populations, have omitted certain types of family structures such as mother-only
families (e.g., Brown, 1984; Henggeler, Edwards, & Borduin, 1987), and have neglected chronic offenders (Cernkovich, Giordano, & Pugh, 1985). Often, researchers
have failed to specify the actual numbers of females and males in the sample (e.g.,
Rankin, 1980; Shover, Norland, James, & Thorton, 1979). Some studies (e.g., Seydlitz, 1991) carried out secondary analyses on regional or national surveys like the
Seattle Youth Study (Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981) or the National Youth Survey (Elliott, 1993) confining what variables could be studied to those collected in
the original survey. Some of these data sets were collected in the early 1970s and
may not reflect more contemporary trends in female delinquency. Moreover, several
studies have used the same data set repeatedly in attempts to test modifications of
a theory (e.g., Hagan, Simpson, & Gillis, 1987; R. Johnson, 1986).
Female Juvenile
87
Problems with measurement instruments also have hindered research on female delinquency. Reliance on self-report delinquency inventories has been criticized because they underrepresent truly serious offenses, while overrepresenting
relatively minor offenses, typically inquire about behaviors that are not sufficiently
described, and aggregate high-frequency offenders in the same category in spite of
the severity of criminal conduct (Cernkovich et al, 1985). The lack of standardization in self-report measures used to assess various correlates of delinquency
has resulted in researchers using one-item measures and idiosyncratic definitions
and constructs, and failing to capture the dynamic and multidimensional nature of
female delinquency.
Few systematic attempts have been made to design research or collect data
specifically on female delinquents. Research in the field of delinquency has been
dominated by cross-sectional designs that provide information about correlates of
offending, but offer little firm evidence about the causes of offending. Moreover,
statistical analyses that are sensitive to prevalence, such as correlations, may yield
lower effect sizes because of the relatively low base rate of female offending. Consequently, while many studies have shown relationships between certain variables
and female delinquency, few are able to account for any significant amount of variation in delinquent behavior.
In spite of these methodological complications, several topics have stood
out in contemporary theories and research on female delinquents. These themes
span the range of biopsychosocial variables from individual traits to larger socio-ecological influences. For example, research on the developmental characteristics of conduct-disorder and delinquency has begun to emerge. An empirical
literature on the effects of abuse and sexual victimization and their relationship
to female delinquency has been developing. Promising research has addressed
how family factors and peer influences play a role in the etiology and maintenance of female delinquency. Academic correlates of female delinquency have
been examined along with the significance of broader sociological considerations
such as socioeconomic status and opportunity. Even the influence of the
women's movement has been studied. The following is a brief review of each
of these influences.
Table 1 provides summary information on key studies for the contemporary
perspectives discussed below. The studies included in the table were selected because they provided data about factors contributing to the etiology of female delinquency or tested a theoretical perspective on female delinquency. Studies
(regardless of sample size and type of participants) were included in the table if
their designs were either quasiexperimental or longitudinal. While several crosssectional studies are mentioned in the text, only those cross-sectional studies that
tested a model of female delinquency versus cross-sectional studies that are descriptive in nature are included in the table. These studies represent the vanguard
in efforts to understand empirically the phenomenon of female delinquency and
pave the way for a more comprehensive understanding of female delinquency in
the future.
88
Hoyt and Scherer
Female Juvenile
89
90
Hoyt and Scherer
Female Juvenile
91
92
Hoyt and Scherer
Female Juvenile
93
94
Hoyt and Scherer
Developmental Correlates of Female Delinquency
Delinquency researchers often contend that the early predictors of male conduct disorders and delinquency are not as effective when applied to females (Chamberlain & Reid, 1994; Stattin & Magnusson, 1989; Tremblay et al., 1992; Zoccolillo,
1993). The childhood externalizing behaviors, conduct problems, and aggressiveness
that predict subsequent delinquency for males do not seem to manifest themselves
in female delinquents until adolescence (Robins, 1986; Stattin & Magnusson, 1989;
Tremblay et al., 1992; J. L. White, Moffitt, & Silva, 1989). However, others argue
that the quantitative difference between boys' and girls' aggression is exaggerated
and that girls' aggression is expressed qualitatively differently than boys' aggression
(Hamalainen & Pulkkinen, 1995; Krueger et al., 1994; Webster-Stratton, 1996; J.
W. White & Kowalski, 1994). Supporting this view are Hamalainen and Pulkkinen's
(1995) findings that lower prosocial behavior and higher bullying-type aggression
in girls of age 8 years correlated with criminality in adult women.
Research supporting both perspectives (i.e., Hamalainen & Pulkkinen, 1995;
Tremblay et al., 1992; Webster-Stratton, 1996) has employed longitudinal or quasiexperimental designs, sampled large populations, and included male participants as
a comparison group. Hamalainen and Pulkkinen (1995) and Webster-Stratton
(1996) collected data from multiple informants which provides a more comprehensive picture and adds credibility to the contention that the differences between boys'
and girls' aggression are not so great. However, the issue of the early predictors
of female delinquency is most likely a much more complex issue. For example, the
research of Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt, and Silva (1993) suggests that interactions between biological factors, such as age of menarche, and social context variables, such
as enrollment in a mixed-sex or all-girl school, account for familiarity with delinquent peers, norm-violating behavior, and the incidence of female delinquency. For
each of these studies (Caspi et al., 1993; Hamalainen & Pulkkinen, 1995; Tremblay
et al., 1992; Webster-Stratton, 1996), the reliance on either self-reported delinquency or official delinquency statistics, rather than analyzing data from both
sources, is a shortcoming. It hinders efforts to compare the results of the studies
and limits our picture of female delinquency, which varies depending on the source
used to quantify delinquency.
Female Delinquency and Sexual Abuse
The impact of sexual abuse has been absent from formal theories on female
delinquency (Gray, 1988), despite empirical studies that have found significant correlations between delinquency and female victimization (e.g., Simons & Whitbeck,
1991). This may be, in part, because research on the sequelae of child maltreatment,
in general, is problematic and limited by poor sampling procedures, descriptive
rather than inferential statistics, and reliance on official statistics (Dembo et al.,
1987). However, some studies have provided a general picture of the link between
sexual abuse and female delinquency. For example, females arrested for ungovernability and running away frequently have cited family violence (Koroki & Ches-
Female Juvenile
95
ney-Lind, 1985; McCormack, Janus, & Burgess, 1986; Rush, 1980) and being emotionally, physically, and sexually abused (McCormack et al., 1986; Rhodes & Fischer, 1993; Silbert & Pines, 1981) as their motivation for leaving home. Sexually
abused female runaways reported more trouble with school officials, employers, and
the law, and participation in more acts of physical violence than nonabused female
runaways. Running away often leads these young women to commit a variety of
crimes, such as shoplifting and prostitution, to survive (McCormack et al., 1986;
Phelps, Mclntosh, Jesudason, Warner, & Pohlkamp, 1982). Many adult and adolescent females report that sexual exploitation affected their eventual entrance into
prostitution (Silbert & Pines, 1981). Similarly, sexual and physical abuse have been
determined to have significant direct effects on lifetime drug use for adolescents,
which, in turn, is correlated with increased delinquency for both females and males
(Dembo et al., 1989; Dembo et al., 1987; Snyder & Sickmund, 1995).
Unfortunately, research linking female delinquency with sexual abuse of adolescent females has been descriptive and plagued with methodological problems,
such as a lack of consensus on how to define abuse, poor sampling procedures,
and a reliance on official delinquency statistics only (Brown, 1984; Dembo et al.,
1987). Research comparing females and males on the association between sexual
abuse and delinquency is similarly undeveloped. A self-reported history of having
been sexually abused has been associated with comparatively more externalizing
behaviors, including delinquency, for males, and comparatively more internalizing
behaviors (e.g., suicidality, eating disorders) for females (Chandy, Blum, & Resnick,
1996). However, absent more conclusive research, it is not clear whether sexual
abuse, in particular, leads to increased participation in delinquent behavior, or
whether other factors, such as destructive parenting in general, are responsible for
the appearance of a relationship between sexual abuse and delinquency.
Family Factors and Female Delinquency
Family correlates of delinquency have taken on special importance in explaining female delinquency because of the presumption that adolescent females evince
less autonomy in families. Consequently, female delinquents are thought to be more
subject to the effects of family conditions, although the validity of these presumptions is far from certain (Barton & Figueria-McDonough, 1985; Canter, 1982b;
Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; Henggeler et al., 1987; R. Johnson, 1986; Kroupa,
1988; Seydlitz, 1991). Numerous family factors have been correlated with female
delinquency (Rosenbaum, 1989), with a greater focus on structural components of
the family (e.g., family composition and size, the presence of parental criminality)
than family process variables that measure the quality of interaction between family
members (e.g., nurturing, parental supervision and monitoring).
One common assumption has been that a "broken" home is a major factor in
the causation of juvenile delinquency or at least the commission of status offenses
(Rosenbaum, 1989; Van Vooris, Cullen, Mathers, & Garner, 1988; Wells & Rankin,
1991; Wright & Wright, 1994). This view was supported by official delinquency statistics, which generally indicated that adolescents from single-parent homes were
96
Hoyt and Scberer
more likely to be arrested (Datesman & Scarpitti, 1975; Wells & Rankin, 1991).
Studies using self-reported delinquency statistics typically have not found strong evidence of this relationship for females or males (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; R.
Johnson, 1986; see Canter, 1982a, for contrary findings). Wells and Rankin (1991)
concluded from their meta-analytic review of the research that coming from a "broken home" or single-parent family has a modest effect (phi = .05 to .15) on the
prevalence of delinquency for both females and males. Moreover, they concluded
there are few detectable gender differences in the relationship between coming
from a "broken home" and juvenile delinquency. However, delinquents' reports of
contacts with police have been correlated with gender and family structure. Specifically, police authorities have been more likely to intervene in the lives of girls
from single-mother homes than they have been to intervene in the lives of girls
from intact homes (R. Johnson, 1986).
The correlation between "broken homes" and delinquency requires a more
complex explanation than simply attributing it to the structural constitution of the
family. A single-parent family can occur in a variety of ways, some of which may
be troubling, others of which may constitute a relief from chronic distress (Wells
& Rankin, 1991; Wright & Wright, 1994). Consequently, the structure of the family
is likely to have a more indirect effect on delinquency than family process variables
(e.g., multiple family disruptions, poor parental supervision and monitoring, marital
discord, lack of economic opportunity) that are apt to have a more direct effect
on the etiology of delinquency in both males and females.
Exposure to family violence and parent criminality or antisocial personality also
have been cited as risk factors for the development of conduct disorder and delinquency that vary depending on gender (Kruttschnitt, 1996). Indeed, females and
males respond differently to being subjected to family violence, with females exhibiting less externalizing, aggressive, or violent behaviors (Everett & Scherer, in
press). Parental criminality may also have a differential effect on daughters and
sons, although it is unclear (especially with males) whether this is a consequence
of a trait variable, like genetic factors or child temperament, or a parent-child interaction process such as ineffective parenting (Frick, Lahey, Loeber, StouthamerLoeber, Christ, & Hanson, 1992; Rosenbaum, 1989; Zoccolillo, 1993). However,
the preliminary empirical evidence suggests that the impact of parental deviance
on females is contingent on the degree of identification with the same-sex parent
(Kruttschnitt, 1996), suggesting a more process versus trait explanation.
Studies of family interactive processes have yielded important empirical observations on the impact of family functioning on female and male delinquency. Most
of the following studies of the relationship between family functioning and delinquency (Barton & Figueria-McDonough, 1985; Canter, 1982a; Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; R. Johnson, 1986; Seydlitz, 1991) have been conducted with robust
samples and have used self-report delinquency data. The use of idiosyncratic measures of family functioning, however, has made it difficult to draw comparisons between the studies. Nonetheless a variety of conclusions stand out.
In general, parenting style and discipline practices with young children are gender-differentiated (Mulhern & Passman, 1981; Starrels, 1994). However, there do
not appear to be substantial gender differences in parenting styles and discipline
Female Juvenile
97
of young children with conduct disorder, except that mothers tend to resort to more
physical punishment with boys (Webster-Stratton, 1996). Consequently, parents of
conduct-disordered girls (especially those with early onset of conduct disorder) may
be using parenting practices with their daughters that are unlike those used by parents of daughters without conduct disorder (Webster-Stratton, 1996).
With adolescents, the effect of parenting style varies depending on the age
and gender of the juvenile. In general, parental influence and control have been
found to have an inhibiting effect on delinquency. However, parental controls are
more effective for females in later adolescence, whereas for males they are more
effective in mid-adolescence (Seydlitz, 1991). Similarly, Cernkovich and Giordano
(1987) concluded from their large factor analytic study that the family interaction
patterns that were predictive of female delinquency were different from those predictive of male delinquency. Identity support (parental acceptance and respect for
the youth), conflict with parents, and parental disapproval of peers were the strongest predictors of delinquency among females. The degree of parental supervision
and monitoring and the quality of intimate and instrumental communication were
the strongest predictors of delinquency for males.
Furthermore, female delinquents apparently have a more negative view of their
parents than do nondelinquent females (Kroupa, 1988). Henggeler et al. (1987), in
a small sample study using official delinquency data, also found that delinquent
females have more conflict in their relationships with their parents than similarly
situated delinquent males. On the other hand, gender does not appear to be related
to the strength of parental attachment, nor does family bonding and parental attachment appear to explain the differences between male and female offending
(Barton & Figueria-McDonough, 1985; Canter, 1982a; Kruttschnitt, 1996). Both
males and females report being closer to their mothers than to their fathers, although the degree of closeness to father has been shown to be a better predictor
of delinquent behavior than attachment to mother (R. Johnson, 1987; Kroupa,
1988).
In short, the emphasis on family structure in studies of female delinquency is
unlikely to provide a detailed picture of the etiology of female delinquency. Problematic forms of family structure are frequently side effects of dysfunctional family
processes. A more fruitful tactic for clarifying the family influences on the etiology
of female delinquency lies in studying family functioning. Studies of delinquency
in general have emphasized parenting style, family attachment patterns, and parental monitoring and supervision (Tolan, 1988). For female delinquents, the quality
of parental influence and control seem to be key issues. In particular, there appear
to be strong correlations between female delinquency and a lack of parental acceptance and a high degree of conflict with parents; however, it is uncertain whether
this is a cause or effect of female delinquency.
The Peer Context of Female Delinquency
The delinquent orientation of peers has been related consistently to delinquency for both genders, although there appear to be distinct patterns of relation-
98
Hoyt and Scherer
ship that differ in female and male delinquent peer groups (Campbell, 1987; Giordano, Cernkovich, & Pugh, 1986; Kruttschnitt, 1996; Morash, 1986). Giordano et
al. (1986) and Morash (1986), in particular, conducted well-designed studies using
large, stratified, community samples and self-reported delinquency as the outcome
measure. On the basis of these studies, it appears that delinquent females are more
likely than males to have engaged in intimate self-disclosure, to have characterized
their friendships as caring and trusting, and to have reported significantly less conflict and imbalance in their relationships. Female peer groups engaged in less delinquency were less likely to have a regular meeting place outside of their homes
and were less exclusive than males (Morash, 1986). These results cast doubt on the
stereotype of the female delinquent as a lonely, social misfit (Short & Strodbeck,
1965) and the assumption that the gender difference in delinquency is due to the
fact that females are not as peer-oriented as males (Giordano et al., 1986). In fact,
peer relationships may mitigate delinquent behavior in females, in contrast to their
amplifying affect in males (Giordano et al., 1986; Kruttschnitt, 1996).
Similarly, female gangs appear to have developmental and functional processes
that differ from male gangs. A female gang typically emerges after a male gang
has been established and often takes a feminized version of the male name (Campbell, 1990). The stereotypical gang role for girls is to conceal and carry weapons
for the boys, provide sexual favors, and sometimes fight against girls who are connected with enemy male gangs (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 1992). The most consistent empirical research finding is that friendship and bonding between gang
members (sometimes sealed through initiation rituals) is an important factor in accounting for female participation in gangs (Brown, 1977; Bowker & Klein, 1983;
Giordano, 1978).
Academic Correlates of Female Delinquency
Academic difficulties have been one of the single best predictors of delinquent
behavior, particularly for boys (Empey, 1982; Tremblay et al., 1992). For girls, the
association is less clear, with some studies finding no significant correlation until
adolescence (Stattin & Magnusson, 1989; Tremblay et al., 1992) and others reporting poor school achievement at age 8 years predicting later criminality in women
(Hamalainen & Pulkkinen, 1995). How academic attitudes and success relate or
contribute to female delinquency remains unclear even with the use of large, community samples (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Hamalainen & Pulkkinen, 1995;
Rosenbaum & Lashley, 1990; Torstensson, 1990) and longitudinal data (Hamalainen
& Pulkkinen, 1995; Torstensson, 1990). An array of ecological covariates including
ethnicity and school composition, community context, socioeconomic status, and institutional bonding have complicated efforts to draw hard conclusions about the
contribution of academic correlates to female delinquency.
Researchers studying the academic correlates of female delinquency consistently have used strain and control theories as a foundation (Jarjoura, 1996; 'Iorstensson, 1990). Strain theory has predicted that unpleasant school experiences and
school failures lead to the frustration of long-range ambitions, reducing students'
Female Juvenile
99
commitment to conformity, and thus increasing the probability of delinquency.
Theoretically, the salience of blocked ambitions and restricted vocational opportunities is greater for males and older adolescents than it is for females and younger
adolescents (Cohen, 1955). However, empirical research on how age and gender
affect the impact of blocked ambitions and restricted vocational opportunity on
delinquency have been inconclusive (Rankin, 1980). Control theory has postulated
that school failure and consequent delinquent behavior are due to a lack of attachment to parents and teachers and a weak commitment to educational and occupational goals. Similar to strain theory, empirical efforts have found limited support
for the premises of control theory, but researchers generally caution that the effect
may be weak and inextricably intertwined with other socio-ecological variables
(Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992; Farnworth, 1984; Torstensson, 1990).
Power-Control Theory and Female Delinquency
The power-control theory of delinquency (Hagan, Gillis, & Simpson, 1985; Hagan & Kay, 1990; Hagan, Simpson, & Gillis, 1979, 1987, 1988) was developed to
explain why gender differences in common forms of delinquency decline with each
step down the class structure. Class is defined by the power the mother or father
wields at work. Parents in the command class supervise or manage others at work,
while parents in the obey class do not. When there is no difference between the
parents' class at work or the family is headed by the mother, the family is defined
as egalitarian. When the father has a higher class position than the mother, the
family is classified patriarchal. This family type is assumed to determine who controls the children and the extensiveness of that control, which, in turn, is presumed
to account for differences in the levels of male and female delinquency (Hagan et
al., 1979, 1985, 1987, 1988).
The theory postulates that girls will be less delinquent than boys because of
girls' greater identification with the mother (relational control) and mothers' greater
monitoring of girls (instrumental control). Moreover, the theory suggests that girls
in egalitarian families (because mothers are engaged in less parenting) and boys in
patriarchal families (because they are being prepared for greater occupational risktaking) are assumed to be the most delinquent-prone. In support of power-control
theory, female adolescents' identification with their mothers and mothers' monitoring of daughters have been found to lead to a reduction in risk-taking and delinquent behavior particularly in patriarchal families (Hagan et al., 1987, 1988). In
egalitarian families, daughters gained a kind of freedom which was reflected in reduced control by mothers and an increased openness to risk-taking, resulting in
more delinquency (Hagan et al., 1988). Also, gender differences in delinquency in
the underprivileged classes have been found to be smaller, presumably because neither lower socioeconomic status males or females are being prepared for occupations that involve risk-taking (Hagan et al., 1985, 1987, 1988).
However, questions have been raised in empirical studies about several of the
key premises to power-control theory (Hill & Atkinson, 1988; Jensen & Thompson,
1990; Morash & Chesney-Lind, 1991; Singer & Levine, 1988). For example, research
100
Hoyt and Scherer
has shown that fathers also exert control over their children. The quality of that
control, however, is probably different from mothers' and may be more focused on
sons (Hill & Atkinson, 1988; Morash & Chesney-Lind, 1991). Other research has
found gender differences in delinquency to be greater in egalitarian families than
in patriarchal families or found less delinquency in females in every type of family
(Morash & Chesney-Lind, 1991; Singer & Levine, 1988). Moreover, family social
class rather than socialization for risk-taking was found to be a better predictor for
delinquent behavior in both females and males (Morash & Chesney-Lind, 1991).
In short, it remains unclear to what extent social class accounts for the differences between female and male delinquency. The contradictory findings suggest
that, while some effect for social class and family style may exist, the postulates of
power and control theory have yet to be validated. It may be that family social
status is only indirectly related to female delinquency through the more direct effects of family process variables that may covary with family social status.
The Women's Movement and Female Delinquency
Misconceptions and stereotypes about females have been incorporated into research that attributed increases in female delinquency to the rise of feminism. This
section briefly highlights this empirical research, which was conducted from the mid1970s to the early 1980s. In general, however, this line of research is no longer
considered to be a viable explanatory factor in the causation of female delinquency.
Originally, it was assumed that the women's liberation movement radically altered women's perceptions of their personal needs and abilities (Adler, 1975).
Women and female adolescents were thought to be committing more crimes either
because they perceived less legitimate access to opportunities on the basis of gender
or because changing gender roles gave young women more incentive to abandon
traditional roles and become more "masculinized." Two results seem to lend some
support to these ideas. Black and White female delinquents were found to regard
their opportunities less positively than nondelinquent females (Datesman, Scarpitti,
& Stephenson, 1975), and the perception of general blocked opportunity was predictive of delinquency (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1979). However, the perception
of gender-based blocked opportunities was not correlated with female delinquency
(Cernkovich & Giordano, 1979). Furthermore, a masculine sex role, whether in
terms of self or others' expectation, has not been associated with an increased frequency of any category of delinquency in females (Norland, Wessel, & Shover, 1981;
Shover et al., 1979; Thornton & James, 1979). In fact, females with more-masculine
traits were found to be less involved in delinquency than those with less masculine
traits. Similarly, the hypothesized association between liberated attitudes among females and actual involvement in delinquent behavior has been found to be minimal
(Austin, 1982). In fact, adolescent females with more traditional gender attitudes
tended to be more delinquent than those with liberated attitudes (FigueriaMcDonough, 1984; Giordano & Cernkovich, 1979).
Taken together, these results suggest that the women's movement has not
served to increase female delinquency by altering women's perceptions of their
Female Juvenile
101
needs and abilities. Alternately, some commentators have suggested that the
women's movement may have precipitated a societal backlash, which is reflected
in a greater likelihood of the justice system to arrest, convict, and punish women
offenders (Simon & Landis, 1991; J. W. White & Kowalski, 1994). However, there
is no empirical support for this supposition. Instead, it is more likely that the slight
rise that occurred in female delinquency during the 1970s was primarily a function
of the legal reclassification of juvenile offenses and the introduction of new procedural standards (Curran, 1984).
THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE OF FEMALE DELINQUENCY
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
The most prevalent impressions left from a review of the female delinquency
literature are the ambiguities and piecemeal nature of the research. As a result,
we have little conclusive understanding of the important etiological factors contributing to female delinquency. While some social scientists have determined that female delinquency follows a unique developmental course (Chamberlain & Reid,
1994; Dembo et al., 1993; Robins, 1986; Stattin & Magnusson, 1989; J. L. White
et al., 1989), other researchers have concluded that the underlying causes, evolution,
and personality factors that are associated with female delinquency and conduct
disorder are perhaps subtler than, but essentially the same as those for male delinquency (Hamalainen & Pulkkinen, 1995; Krueger et al., 1994; Zoccolillo, 1993).
Researchers have observed a high correlation between female delinquency and a
history of having been physically and sexually abused, yet it remains unknown
whether this is a consequence of the abuse or some other concomitant family dysfunction. Family structure has been investigated, but the more etiologically promising family process variables have yet to be thoroughly examined. We know that
female and male delinquent peer relationship patterns are different and suspect
that peer relationships may buffer females from involvement in delinquency, however, empirical evidence is lacking. Studies of school correlates of female delinquency and the effects of social class have been contradictory. Even the women's
movement has been implicated in generating an increase in female delinquency,
but it is more likely that the women's movement has simply drawn attention to the
travails that young women encounter in the juvenile justice system. Some social
scientists suggest that "relative deviance" accounts for bias in the juvenile justice
system's response to female delinquency. In essence, because the threshold for arrest and conviction of females is higher, those females who are arrested and convicted are expected to be more deviant and therefore are sanctioned more severely
(Dembo et al., 1993). Others contend that female aggression and conduct problems
are judged more harshly because of women's status in society. Namely, females
who are aggressive are deemed more deviant from society's patriarchal norms, particularly relative to males whose aggression is expected, tolerated, and condoned
(J. W White & Kowalski, 1994).
A renewal of theoretical and empirical efforts is needed before the phenomenon of female delinquency can be understood and adequately prevented or treated.
102
Hoyt and Scherer
Clearly, female delinquency is a multivariate phenomenon with a variety of determinants and diverse etiological paths. It is quite likely that a subset of female delinquents manifest delinquent offenses that are every bit as serious and antisocial
as male delinquents and acquire their behavioral problems through similar etiological processes to many male delinquents. On the other hand, it is equally likely that
many female delinquents acquire their antisocial conduct through gender-specific
developmental processes, gender-related socialization, and a vulnerability to sexual
abuse that are not a part of the pathway to male delinquency. In other words,
female delinquents are both similar to male delinquents and different than male
delinquents.
Three strategies have been identified for expanding our knowledge about female delinquency: add-and-stir research, female-only focused research, and integrated universal models of research (Figueria-McDonough, 1992). The add-and-stir
strategy of including females in studies of male delinquents has been useful for
highlighting gender stereotypes and examining behavioral similarities and differences across gender. Researchers employing this tactic believe that existing theories
should be systematically tested with females before deciding that they do not explain
female delinquency (Rosenbaum & Lashley, 1990). Others argue that gender differences and the absence of gender sensitivity in delinquency theory and research
necessitates a separate theory to explain female delinquency (Chesney-Lind, 1989).
We believe that both same-sex and cross-gender studies are needed. It is very likely
that the substantial developmental and social differences between females and
males alter the etiology of delinquency. Female delinquents report different qualities of family process, different patterns of relating to peers, different attitudes toward school, and more victimization. Yet, rejecting analyses known to contribute
to male delinquency is an exercise in "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
A recognition and integration of both these realities will lead to the development
of a unified theory of delinquency that is gender-sensitive and comprehensive in
the selection of predictor variables (Figueria-McDonough, 1992; FigueriaMcDonough, Barton, & Sarri, 1981).
More comprehensive and gender-integrated studies of delinquency are possible, but require attention to the diversity of biopsychosocial influences on human
nature. Developmental and individual factors such as age, endocrinological effects,
identity development, and history of victimization are vital considerations. More
detailed observations of family process (rather than family structure) will yield invaluable data on etiology and potential objectives for prevention and intervention.
Larger socio-ecological influences such as school context, peer relationships, community resources, and cultural background are essential if we are to distinguish
between the various etiologies and types of delinquency (Elliott, Wilson, Huizinga,
Sampson, Elliot, & Rankin, 1996; Figueira-McDonough, 1992; Kruttschnitt, 1996;
Sommers & Baskin, 1993; J. W White & Kowalski, 1994). Some delinquency-related
studies have approximated this comprehensiveness through inclusion of various
theories, multivariate strategies, and longitudinal designs (Caspi et al, 1993; Robins,
1986; Simons, Miller, & Aigner, 1980; Smith & Patternoster, 1987). These studies
and the preceding review clearly indicate a need for comprehensive and multisystemic studies of female delinquency that will enhance our understanding of female
Female Juvenile
103
and male delinquents by drawing attention to the diversity in delinquency and clarifying the relationships between the wide variety of etiological factors that contribute
to delinquency. Ultimately, this could lead to a gender-integrated model of delinquency that will result in efficient, impartial, and effective delinquency prevention
and juvenile justice intervention efforts.
REFERENCES
Adler, F. (1975). Sisters in crime. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Austin, R. (1982). Women's liberation and increases in minor, major, and occupational offenses. Criminology, 20, 407-430.
Barton, W, & Figueira-McDonough, J. (1985). Attachments, gender, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior,
6, 119-144.
Bergsmann, I. R. (1989). The forgotten few: Juvenile female offenders. Federal Probation, 53, 73-78.
Bowker, L., & Klein, M. (1983). The etiology of female juvenile delinquency and gang membership: A
test of psychological and social structure explanations. Adolescence, 18, 739-751.
Brown, S. (1984). Social class, child maltreatment, and delinquent behavior. Criminology, 22, 259-278.
Brown, W K. (1977). Black female gangs in Philadelphia. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 21, 221-228.
Butts, J. A., Snyder, H. N., Finnegan, T A., Augenbaugh, A. L, & Poole, R, S. (1996). Juvenile court
statistics 1993. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Calhoun, G., Jurgens, J., & Chen, F. (1993). The neophyte female delinquent: A review of the literature.
Adolescence, 28, 461-471.
Campbell, A. (1987). Self definition by rejection: The case of gang girls. Social Problems, 34, 451-466.
Campbell, A. (1990). On the invisibility of the female delinquent peer group. Criminal Justice, 2, 41-62.
Canter, R. (1982a). Sex differences in self-report delinquency. Criminology, 20, 373-393.
Canter, R. (1982b). Family correlates of male and female delinquency. Criminology, 20, 149-167.
Caspi, A., Lynam, D., Moffitt, T, & Silva, P. (1993). Unraveling girls' delinquency: Biological, dispositional, and contextual contributions to adolescent misbehavior. Developmental Psychology, 29,19-30.
Cernkovich, S., & Giordano, P (1979). Delinquency, opportunity, and gender. Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 70, 145-151.
Cernkovich, S., & Giordano, P. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology, 25, 295-319.
Cernkovich, S., & Giordano, E (1992). School bonding, race, and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 261-291.
Cernkovich, S., Giordano, P., & Pugh, M. (1985). Chronic offenders: The missing cases in self-report
delinquency research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 705-732.
Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. (1994). Differences in risk factors and adjustment for male and female
delinquents in treatment foster care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3, 23-39.
Chandy, J. M., Blum, R. W., & Resnick, M. D. (1996). Gender-specific outcomes for sexually abused
adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 1219-1231.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1973). Judicial enforcement of the female sex role: The family court and the female
delinquent. Issues in Criminology, 8, 51-59.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1977). Judicial paternalism and the female status offender: Training women to know
their place. Crime and Delinquency, 23, 121-130.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Girls in jail. Crime and Delinquency, 34, 150-168.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1989). Girl's crime and woman's place: Toward a feminist model of female delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 35, 5-29.
Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. (1992). Girls: Delinquency and juvenile justice. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. New York: Free Press.
Cowie, J., Cowie, V, & Slater, E. (1968). Delinquency in girts. London: Heinemann.
Curran, D. (1984). The myth of the "new" female delinquent. Crime and Delinquency, 30, 386-399.
Datesman, S., & Scarpitti, F. (1975). Female delinquency and broken homes. Criminology, 13, 33-55.
Datesman, S., & Scarpitti, F. (1977). Unequal protection for males and females in the juvenile court.
In T. N. Ferdinand (Ed.), Juvenile delinquency: Little brother grows up (pp. 59-77) Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Datesman, S,, Scarpitti, F, & Stephenson, R. (1975). Female delinquency: An application of self and
opportunity theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12, 107-123.
104
Hoyt and Scherer
Dembo, R., Dertke, M., La Voie, L., Borders, S., Washburn, M., & Schmeidler, J. (1987). Physical abuse,
sexual victimization, and illicit drug use: A structural analysis among high risk adolescents. Journal
of Adolescence, 10, 13-34.
Dembo, R., Williams, L, La Voie, L., Berry, E., Getreu, A., Wish, E. D., Schmeidler, J., & Washburn,
M. (1989). Physical abuse, sexual victimization, and illicit drug use: Replication of a structure analysis
among high risk adolescents. Violence and Victims, 4, 121-138.
Dembo, R., Williams, L., & Schmeidler, J. (1993). Gender differences in mental health service needs
among youths entering a juvenile detention center. Journal of Prison and Jail Health, 12, 73-101.
Elliott, D. S. (1993). National youth survey (United States): Wave VI, 1983. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Elliott, D. S., Wilson, W. J., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R. J., Elliott, A., & Rankin, B. (1996). The effects
of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 389-426.
Empey, L. T (1982). American delinquency. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Everett, T, & Scherer, D. G. (in press). Children who witness interparental violence: Empirical data
and theoretical implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior.
Farnworth, M. (1984). Male-female differences in delinquency in a minority group sample. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21, 191-212.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1993). Crime in the United States. Washington, DC: US Department
of Justice.
Figueria-McDonough, J. (1984). Feminism and delinquency. British Journal of Criminology, 24, 325-342.
Figueria-McDonough, J. (1992). Community structure and female delinquency rates. Youth and Society,
24, 3-30.
Figueria-McDonough, J., Barton, W H., & Sarri, R. C. (1981). Normal deviance: Gender similarities in
adolescent subcultures. In M. Q. Warren (Ed.), Comparing female and male offenders (pp. 17-45).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Frick, P. J., Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Christ, M. A. G., & Hanson, K. (1992).
Familial risk factors to oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: Parental psychopathology
and maternal parenting. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 49-55.
Giordano, P.(1978). Girls, guys, and gangs: The changing social context of female delinquency. Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology, 69, 126-132.
Giordano, P., & Cernkovich, S. (1979). On complicating the relationship between liberation and delinquency. Social Problems, 26, 467-481.
Giordano, P., Cernkovich, S., & Pugh, M. (1986). Friendships and delinquency. American Journal of
Sociology, 5, 1170-1202.
Girls Incorporated (1996). Prevention and parity: Girls in juvenile justice. Indianapolis, IN: Girls Incorporated National Resource Center.
Gray, E. (1988). The link between child abuse and juvenile delinquency: What we know and recommendations for policy and research. In G. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, & M. Strauss (Eds.), Family
abuse and it consequences (pp. 109-123). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hagan, J., Gillis, A., & Simpson, J. (1985). The class structure of gender and delinquency: Toward a
power-control theory of common delinquent behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 90,1151-1178.
Hagan, J., & Kay, F. (1990). Gender and delinquency in white-collar families: A power-control perspective. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 391-407.
Hagan, J., Simpson, J., & Gillis, A. (1979). The sexual stratification of social control: A gender based
perspective on crime and delinquency. British Journal of Sociology, 30, 25-38.
Hagan J., Simpson, J., & Gillis, A. (1987). Class in the household: A power-control theory of gender
and delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 788-816.
Hagan J., Simpson, J., & Gillis, A. (1988). Feminist scholarship, relational and instrumental control,
and a power-control theory of gender and delinquency. British Journal of Sociology, 39, 301-336.
Hamalainen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (1995). Aggressive and non-prosocial behaviour as precursors of criminality. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 4, 6-21.
Hancock, L., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1982). Female status offenders and justice reforms: An international
perspective. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 15, 109-122.
Henggeler, S., Edwards, J., & Borduin, C. (1987). The family relations of female juvenile delinquents.
The Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 199-209.
Hill, G., & Atkinson, M. (1988). Gender, familial control, and delinquency. Criminology, 26, 127-147.
Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T, & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hirschi, T (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Horowitz, R., & Pottieger, A. E. (1991). Gender bias in juvenile justice handling of serious crime-involved
youths. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28, 75-100.
Female Juvenile
105
Jarjoura, G. R. (1996). The conditional effect of social class on the dropout-delinquency relationship.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 232-255.
Jensen, G., & Thompson, K. (1990). What's class got to do with it? A further examination of powercontrol theory. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1009-1023.
Johnson, D. R., & Scheuble, L. K. (1991). Gender bias in the disposition of juvenile court referrals:
The effects of time and location. Criminology, 29, 677-698.
Johnson, R. (1986). Family structure and delinquency: General patterns and gender differences. Criminology, 24, 65-84.
Johnson, R. (1987). Mother's versus father's role in causing delinquency. Adolescence, 22, 305-315.
Konopka, G. (1966). The adolescent girl in conflict. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Koroki, J., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1985). Everything just going down the drain: Interviews with female delinquents in Hawaii Report 319. Honolulu, HI: Youth Development and Research Center.
Krohn, M., Curry, J., & Nelson-Kilger, S. (1983). Is chivalry dead? An analysis of changes in police
dispositions of males and females. Criminology, 21, 417-437.
Kroupa, S. (1988). Perceived parental acceptance and female juvenile delinquency. Adolescence, 23,171185.
Krueger, R. F., Schmutte, P S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T E., Campbell, K., & Silva, P. A. (1994). Personality
traits are linked to crime among men and women: Evidence from a birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 103, 328-338.
Kruttschnitt, C. (1996). Contributions of quantitative methods to the study of gender and crime, or
bootstrapping our way into the theoretical thicket. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12,135-161.
Lombroso, C., & Ferrero, W. (1895). The female offender. New York: Philosophical Library.
McCormack, A., Janus, M., & Burgess, A. (1986). Runaway youths and sexual victimization: Gender
differences in an adolescent runaway population. Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 387-395.
Morash, M. (1986). Gender, peer group experiences, and seriousness of delinquency. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 43-67.
Morash, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1991). A reformulation and partial test of the power control theory
of delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 8, 347-376.
Mulhern, R. K., & Passman, R. H. (1981). Parental discipline as affected by the sex of the parent, the
sex of the child, and the child's apparent responsiveness to discipline. Developmental Psychology, 17,
604-613.
Norland, S., Wessel, R., & Shover, N. (1981). Masculinity and delinquency. Criminology, 19, 421-433.
Phelps, R. J., McIntosh, M., Jesudason, V, Warner, P., & Pohlkamp, J. (1982). Wisconsin juvenile female
offender project. Madison, WI: Youth Policy and Law Center, Wisconsin Council on Juvenile Justice.
Poe-Yamagata, E., & Butts, J. A. (1996). Female offenders in the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC:
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Pollak, O. (1950). The criminality of women. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Pollak, O., & Freidman, A. S. (Eds.). (1969). Family dynamics and female sexual delinquency. Palo Alto,
CA: Science and Behavior Books.
Pope, C, & Feyerherm, W (1982). Gender bias in juvenile court dispositions. Social Service Research,
6, 1-16.
Rankin, J. (1980). School factors and delinquency: Interactions by age and sex. Sociology and Social
Research, 64, 420-434.
Rhodes, J. E., & Fischer, K. (1993). Spanning the gender gap: Gender differences in delinquency among
inner-city adolescents. Adolescence, 28, 879-889
Robins, L N. (1986). The consequences of conduct disorder in girls. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M.
Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior: Research, theories, and issues.
New York: Academic Press.
Rosenbaum, J. L. (1989). Family dysfunction and female delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 35, 31-44.
Rosenbaum, J. L., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1994). Appearance and delinquency: A research note. Crime
and Delinquency, 40, 250-261.
Rosenbaum, J., & Lashley, J. R. (1990). School, community context, and delinquency: Rethinking the
gender gap. Justice Quarterly, 7, 493-513.
Rush, F. (1980). The best kept secret: Sexual abuse of children. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schlossman, S., & Wallach, S. (1978). The crime of precocious sexuality: Female delinquency in the
progressive era. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 65-94.
Schwartz, 1. M., Steketee, M. W, & Schneider, V W. (1990). Federal juvenile justice policy and the
incarceration of girls. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 503-520.
Seydlitz, R. (1991). The effects of age and gender on parental control and delinquency. Youth and Society,
23, 175-201.
106
Hoyt and Scherer
Shelden, R. G, (1981). Sex discrimination in the juvenile justice system: Memphis, Tennessee, 1900-1917.
In M. Q. Warren (Ed.), Comparing male and female offenders (pp. 55-72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Short, J. F., & Strodbeck, F. L. (1965). Group process and gang delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shover, N., Norland, S., James, J., & Thornton, W. (1979). Gender roles and delinquency. Social Forces,
58, 162-175.
Silbert, M., & Pines, M. (1981). Sexual child abuse as an antecedent to prostitution. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 5, 407-411.
Simon, R. J., & Landis, J. (1991). The crimes women commit, the punishments they receive. Lexington,
MA: Heath.
Simons, R., Miller, M., & Aigner, S. (1980). Contemporary theories of deviance and female delinquency:
An empirical test. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17, 42-57.
Simons, R., & Whitbeck, L. (1991). Sexual abuse as a precursor to prostitution and victimization among
adolescent and adult homeless women. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 361-379.
Singer, S., & Levine, M. (1988). Power-control theory, gender, and delinquency: A partial replication
with additional evidence on the effects of peers. Criminology, 26, 627-647.
Smith, D. L. (1980). Young female offenders: Analysis of differential handling based on sex. Pittsburgh, PA:
National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Smith, D., & Patternoster, R. (1987). The gender gap in theories of deviance: Issues and evidence.
Justice of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24, 140-172.
Snyder, H. N. (1996). Juvenile arrests, 1995. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: A national report. Washington,
DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Snyder, H. N., Sickmund, M., & Poe-Yamagata, E. (1996). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1996 update
on violence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Sommers, L, & Baskin, D. R. (1993). The situational context of violent female offending. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 136-162.
Starrels, M. E. (1994). Gender differences in parent-child relations. Journal of Family Issues, 15,148-165.
Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (1989). The role of early aggressive behavior in the frequency, seriousness,
and types of later crime. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 710-718.
Steffensmeier, D. J., & Steffensmeier, R. (1980). Trends in female delinquency: An examination of arrest,
juvenile court, self-report, and field data. Criminology, 18, 62-85.
Sussman, A. (1977). Sex-based discrimination and the PINS jurisdiction. In L. E. Teitelbaum & A. R.
Gough (Eds.), Beyond control: Status offenders in the juvenile court (pp. 179-191). Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Teitelbaum, L. E., & Gough, A. R. (Eds.). (1977). Beyond control: Status offenders in the juvenile court.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Thomas, W. I. (1928). The unadjusted girl. Boston: Little Brown.
Thornton, W, & James, J. (1979). Masculinity and delinquency revisited. British Journal of Criminology,
19, 225-241.
Tolan, P. (1988). Socioeconomic, family, and social stress correlates of adolescent antisocial and delinquent behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 317-331.
Torstensson, M. (1990). Female delinquents in a birth cohort: Tests of some aspects of control theory.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6, 101-115.
Tremblay, R. E., Masse, B., Perron, D., Leblanc, M., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham, J. E. (1992).
Early disruptive behavior, poor school achievement, delinquent behavior, and delinquent personality:
Longitudinal analyses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 64-72.
Van Vooris, P., Cullen, F., Mathers, R., & Garner, C. (1988). The impact of family structure and quality
on delinquency: A comparative assessment of structural and functional factors. Criminology, 26,
235-261.
Vedder, C. B., & Somerville, D. B. (1970), The delinquent girl. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Webster-Stratton, C. (1996). Early-onset conduct problems: Does gender make a difference? Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 540-551.
Weithorn, L. A. (1988). Mental hospitalization of troublesome youth: An analysis of skyrocketing admission rates. Stanford Law Review, 40, 773-838.
Wells, L. E., & Rankin, J. H. (1991). Families and delinquency: A meta-analysis of the impact of broken
homes. Social Problems, 38, 71-93.
White, J. L, Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1989). A prospective replication of the protective effects of
IQ in subjects at high risk for juvenile delinquency. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
57, 719-724.
Female Juvenile
107
White, J. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (1994). Deconstructing the myth of the nonaggressive woman: A feminist
analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 487-508.
Wright, K., & Wright, K. (1994). Family life, delinquency, and crime: A policymakers guide. Washington,
DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Zoccolillo, M. (1993). Gender and the development of conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 65-78.