DECEMBER 2013 Girls Study Group

2y ago
25 Views
2 Downloads
2.48 MB
16 Pages
Last View : 10d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Nixon Dill
Transcription

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionD E C EM BER 2 0 1 3GirlsStudy GroupUnderstanding and Responding to Girls’ DelinquencyRobert L. Listenbee, AdministratorDevelopmental Sequences ofGirls’ Delinquent BehaviorBy David Huizinga, Shari Miller, and the Conduct Problems PreventionResearch Group1According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from 1991 to 2000, arrestsof girls increased more (or decreased less) than arrests of boys for most types of offenses.By 2004, girls accounted for 30 percent of all juvenile arrests. However, questions remainabout whether these trends reflect an actual increase in girls’ delinquency or changes insocietal responses to girls’ behavior. To find answers to these questions, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention convened the Girls Study Group to establish atheoretical and empirical foundation to guide the development, testing, and dissemination of strategies to reduce or prevent girls’ involvement in delinquency and violence. Access OJJDPThe Girls Study Group series, of which this bulletin is a part, presents the Group’s findings. The series examines issues such as patterns of offending among adolescents andhow they differ for girls and boys; risk and protective factors associated with delinquency,including gender differences; and the causes and correlates of girls’ delinquency.publications online atwww.ojjdp.gov IntroductionIn 2004, the Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention (OJJDP) convened the Girls Study Group (GSG) toexamine the delinquent behavior of girls.At the request of GSG,2 to uncover theOffice of Justice Programspaths that girls who engage in delinquentbehavior take, researchers from two longterm longitudinal studies of delinquency—the Denver Youth Survey and the FastTrack Project—collaborated to establishcommon delinquency measures, conductanalyses, and integrate findings onInnovation Partnerships Safer Neighborhoods    www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Girls Study Groupdevelopmental patterns of girls’ offendingfrom childhood through adolescence.3This bulletin describes some of themajor results of that study. The firstsection briefly delineates developmental patterns of girls’ delinquency,as described in current literature. Theauthors then describe the methodologyused in the study and provide resultson the prevalence and frequency ofdelinquent behaviors and the temporal patterns of girls’ delinquency. Adescription of the methods by whichthe authors analyzed girls’ developmental patterns of delinquency andwhat they learned about the developmental pathways that occur throughgirls’ childhood and adolescence follows. The final section of the bulletinprovides general conclusions and discusses implications of the findings.Findings From theCurrent LiteratureExisting research in four areas outlinespatterns of girls’ delinquency. Thesefour research areas include examining running away as a pathway intodelinquency; creating developmentallife-stage models that examine theinitiation and cessation of girls’ delinquency at different ages; performing“stage-state” analyses, which identifygroups of girls with different delinquency patterns at specific ages and acrossage periods; and performing “growthcurve” analyses that identify groups ofgirls that share the same developmental progression in a single measure ofdelinquency.Running Away and DelinquencyThe high rate of abuse among courtinvolved girls has led some researchersto hypothesize that running away is agendered pathway into delinquency.This postulation suggests that girls may2run away to escape abuse (particularlysexual abuse) and subsequently bearrested and charged with a statusoffense for running away (Belknap,Holsinger, and Dunn, 1997; ChesneyLind and Pasko, 2004). Running awaymay also increase girls’ risk for furtherdelinquent behavior because of the survival and coping strategies girls resortto while on the run (e.g., panhandling,shoplifting for food or clothing, orexchanging sex for money) (Hagan andMcCarthy, 1997; Chesney-Lind andShelden, 1998).Research examining abuse and runningaway as pathways into female juveniledelinquency offers some insights intothis connection. Studies of justiceinvolved females show high rates of different types of trauma, includingphysical and sexual abuse and emotional neglect (Owen and Bloom, 1997).However, it is difficult to compare ratesbecause studies use different definitions of abuse and trauma, and theyouth studied may be involved at different points in the justice system (e.g.,probation, detention, out-of-homeplacement, incarceration). For example,the National Council on Crime andDelinquency reported that 56 percentof female juvenile offenders in four California counties reported sexual abuse,81 percent reported physical abuse, and88 percent reported emotional abuse(Acoca and Dedel, 1998). On the otherhand, results from Cook County, IL,indicate lower rates of sexual abuse(29.6 percent) among girls being held indetention (Abram et al., 2004).Although higher rates of sexual abuseare found among court-involvedfemales than court-involved males,rates of other types of abuse and trauma may not vary by gender. In the CookCounty study noted above, rates oftraumatic experiences (which includedexposure to community violence),although high in both genders, wereGirlsStudy GroupMembersDr. Stephanie Hawkins Anderson, PrincipalInvestigator, Girls Study Group (April 2008–Present)Research Clinical Psychologist, RTI InternationalDr. Margaret A. Zahn, Principal Investigator,Girls Study Group (2004–March 2008),Professor, North Carolina State UniversityDr. Robert Agnew, Professor, Department ofSociology, Emory UniversityDr. Meda Chesney-Lind, Professor, Women’sStudies Program, University of Hawaii–ManoaDr. Gayle Dakof, Associate Research Professor,Department of Epidemiology and Public Health,University of MiamiDr. Del Elliott, Director, Center for the Study andPrevention of Violence, University of ColoradoDr. Barry Feld, Professor, School of Law,University of MinnesotaDr. Diana Fishbein, Director, TransdisciplinaryBehavioral Science Program, RTI InternationalDr. Peggy Giordano, Professor of Sociology,Center for Family and Demographic Research,Bowling Green State UniversityDr. Candace Kruttschnitt, Professor,Department of Sociology, University of TorontoDr. Jody Miller, Associate Professor,Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice,University of Missouri–St. LouisDr. Merry Morash, Professor, School ofCriminal Justice, Michigan State UniversityDr. Darrell Steffensmeier, Professor, Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State UniversityMs. Giovanna Taormina, Executive Director,Girls Circle AssociationDr. Donna-Marie Winn, Senior ResearchScientist, Center for Social Demography andEthnography, Duke University

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquencyhigher for boys (92 percent) than girls(84 percent). Another study suggeststhat rates of physical abuse are equivalent for both genders (35 percent)(Molnar et al., 1998).Risk factors for this group includeinconsistent or harsh parenting andunderlying neurological problems,such as attention difficulties (Loeberand Farrington, 2001).Another line of study shows links between histories of physical and sexualabuse and subsequent delinquent andcriminal activity (see reviews by Trickett and Gordis, 2004; Tyler, 2002).Widom and colleagues found that children of both genders who had beenabused or neglected were more likely tohave juvenile arrest histories than thenonabused controls. However, experiencing sexual abuse was no more likelythan experiencing physical abuse orneglect to lead to an arrest (Widom,1992, 1995). Another study using thesame sample (which included boys andgirls) looked at links between abuse,running away, and arrest (Kaufman andWidom, 1999). Abuse increased thelikelihood that a youth would run away,and both abuse and running awayincreased the likelihood that a youthwould be arrested. However, abuse wasnot the only factor leading to runningaway or to arrest, and simply runningaway (whether by an abused or nonabused youth) increased the risk ofarrest. Late starters. Late starters do notDevelopmental Life-Stage ModelsStage-State Typologies Basedon Personal CharacteristicsAnother line of research, which commonly relies on community-basedsamples (as opposed to justice-involvedyouth), employs life-stage modelsbased on the age when youth begin andwhen they desist from delinquency. Initial research (Moffitt, 1993; Patterson,DeBaryshe, and Ramsey, 1989) theorized two subtypes of youth: Early starters. Early starters exhibitbehavioral difficulties early indevelopment, with their antisocialbehavior peaking in adolescenceand persisting into young adulthood.exhibit behavioral difficulties untiladolescence, and these problemsmay cease by young adulthood.Risk factors include affiliation withproblem-prone peers and shiftingsocial norms that ascribe status torisk-taking activity.Early work in this line of researchcategorized youth based on the ageat which they were first arrested orengaged in delinquency. These initialformulations were based on samples ofboys (e.g., the Chicago Youth Development Study (Tolan, Gorman-Smith, andHenry, 2003) and the Oregon YouthStudy (Capaldi and Patterson, 1991)).Studies indicate that early startersengaged in more delinquency (including more serious delinquency) that persisted over time, as compared to otheryouth. Data from the Dunedin sample(Moffitt et al., 2001) included both genders and identified late starting girls;however, there were too few early starting girls for analysis.Another body of research uses personoriented stage-state typologies. Thesetypologies use personal characteristics to place individuals into one ofseveral types or states (in this case,youth engaged in similar delinquentbehaviors) at different ages and thenidentify groups of individuals that havethe same sequence of states over time.Using this approach, researchers candetermine different life sequences orpathways from an initial state at a givenage to an outcome state at a later age(Runyon, 1980).For example, Huizinga (1995) categorized youth according to their patternof delinquency involvement at each ofseveral age groups. The types identifiedincluded nondelinquent/exploratoryoffender,4 status offender only, theft/property offender, aggressive offender,and a type that involved both theft/property and aggressive offending.Examining sequences of these types/states yielded several findings. First, agreater proportion of youth of both genders became delinquent as they grewolder, increasing delinquent activitymost between ages 13 and 14. Second,membership in any one of the typeswas relatively unstable, with 50 percentor less of a type retaining their classification in the next time period. However, youth involved in multiple formsof delinquency often remained involvedin multiple forms of delinquency overlonger periods of time. At all ages, youthmost frequently transitioned from a nondelinquent state to a status/public disorder state and frequently transitioned fromthis state to a higher level of involvementin various kinds of delinquency.Developmental TrajectoryApproachesMore recent work identifies differentdevelopmental trajectories using statistical methods. These techniques typicallyfocus on a single behavior (Nagin andTremblay, 1999; Muthén and Muthén,1998–2006). Although this body of workbegan with all-male samples, a smallnumber of studies have examined allfemale or mixed-gender samples. On thewhole, these studies suggest that girlsfollow similar trajectories to those of boys.To illustrate, Broidy and colleagues(2003) analyzed data from six sitesto examine the relationship betweendevelopmental trajectories of childhoodaggression and disruptive behavior andsubsequent delinquency. Of the foursites that included both genders, three3

Girls Study Groupidentified a group of girls with physical aggression in childhood. However,aggressive behavior in childhood didnot consistently lead to adolescentdelinquency. Another study (Cote etal., 2001) followed a large sample ofgirls from age 6 to age 12. Researchersidentified four trajectories of disruptivebehavior—consistently low, consistently medium, medium to high, andconsistently high—and placed mostgirls in the consistently low disruptivegroup. Girls whose disruptive behaviorbegan in early childhood went on tohave higher rates of conduct disordersin adolescence.A third study examined female andmale trajectories of antisocial behavior and outcomes through age 32(Odgers et al., 2008). Girls and boyshad identical trajectory groups—lifecourse-persistent, childhood-limited,adolescent-onset, and a low-trajectorygroup. The life-course-persistent andadolescent-onset groups had similarrisk factors and poor adult outcomes forboth genders. Finally, a recent studylooked at trajectories of delinquencyin adolescence and subsequent lateadolescent outcomes (risky sexualbehavior, partner violence, reportedpregnancy, depression) (Miller et al.,2010). Four developmental trajectoriesof delinquency emerged: increasing,desisting, chronic, and nonproblem.Although the proportion of boys andgirls varied (e.g., fewer girls were partof the desisting and increasing trajectories), each trajectory included bothgenders. In addition, both boys andgirls with chronic or increasing trajectories had poor outcomes at age 19.Overall, developmental patterns andoutcomes for girls mimicked thosepreviously found for boys.MethodsTo assess girls’ developmental patternsof delinquency, this study combines4information from the Fast Track Projectand the Denver Youth Survey, both ofwhich use similar measures of delinquency and measurement strategies.The Fast Track Project. The Fast TrackProject is a multisite, longitudinal investigation of the development of children’santisocial behavior and how this behavior can be prevented (Conduct ProblemsPrevention Research Group, 1992, 2000,2007). The project includes three successive cohorts of children who were atmoderate to high risk for antisocialbehavior when they entered first grade.The project took place at four sites—Durham, NC; Nashville, TN; Seattle,WA; and rural central Pennsylvania. Ateach site, the researchers matched setsof schools on the basis of ethnic composition, size, and percentage of students receiving free/reduced-priceschool lunches and then randomlyassigned schools to intervention andcontrol conditions. In each of theschools, moderate to high-risk childrenwere selected on the basis of a screening process that included teacher andparent ratings. Children with moderateto high-risk scores were in the top 40percent on the screening measure (seeConduct Problems Prevention ResearchGroup, 2007, for further information).Using this method, researchers chosethree successive cohorts of 891 highrisk children, half of whom theyassigned to an intervention group andhalf to a control group (based onwhether their initial school was in theintervention or the control group). Theintervention students received a multiyear preventive intervention (ConductProblems Prevention Research Group,2007); however, their data are notincluded in this report. In addition,researchers selected a normative sample of students in the control schoolswho would be representative of eachschool. Researchers conducted annualinterviews to collect self-report datafrom parents and children.The current study relies on Fast Trackdata from the 151 girls in the controlgroup and the 166 girls in the normative sample of students from the controlschools. This bulletin examines the girls’data from grade 4 (when the delinquencymeasure was first available) to grade 11(approximately ages 9–16).5Denver Youth Survey. The DenverYouth Survey is a longitudinal study ofproblem and prosocial behavior6 fromchildhood to early adulthood. It focuseson delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health (Huizinga,Esbensen, and Weiher, 1991). Surveyparticipants include 1,528 children andyouth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 yearsold in 1987, along with 1 of their parents. Researchers selected these participants using a large probability sampleof households in high-risk neighborhoods of Denver, CO.The sample is almost equally divided bygender (46.7 percent are female) and isethnically diverse.7 The research teaminterviewed survey respondents annually from 1988 to 1992, and annuallyfrom 1995 to 1999. The team conductedadditional interviews with selectedsubsamples in 2003 and 2005. Becausethe research reported here is concernedwith child and adolescent delinquencyamong girls, most of the Denver YouthSurvey data used in this report wereprovided by girls between the ages of 7and 17 (n 807).As described above, the Fast TrackProject sample used in this study combines girls of higher risk with girls froma normative sample, and the DenverYouth Survey sample used in the studyincludes high-risk girls only. Thus,readers should note that the findingsand conclusions of this report are representative of higher risk girls and notof the general population of girls.

Understanding and Responding to Girls’ DelinquencyDescription of Measuresand Analysis GroupsThe study described in this bulletin hadthe advantage of using data from twoprevious studies. Each of these studies obtained nearly identical measuresfrom samples of girls who were similarages. The authors use this similarity inmeasurement to examine the extentto which findings are replicated inboth samples.The delinquency measures used in thisreport come from annual interviewswith girls about their self-reportedinvolvement in delinquent behaviorover the preceding year. After a detailedreview of the delinquency measuresin each study, the authors grouped theitems into summary measures of 11kinds of delinquency. These include:8 Running away. Other status offenses (e.g., truancy,curfew violations). Public disorder offenses. Minor property offenses.Ever-PrevalenceEver-prevalence refers to the proportion of girls who engaged in a particulardelinquent behavior at some time during the period covered. Figure 1 showsthe ever-prevalence of different typesof delinquency across the child andadolescent age periods in both the FastTrack Project and the Denver YouthSurvey. Data from the Fast Track Project cover academic grades 4 to 11. Datafrom the Denver Youth Survey cover aroughly comparable age period (7 to17). Although there is some variationbetween the studies, the rates of everprevalence are generally quite similar.More than half of the girls reportedthat they engaged in truancy, minorproperty crimes, and alcohol use—theoffenses most commonly reported inboth studies. Females reported involvement in other offenses less frequently(see figure 1 for details).These estimates of ever-prevalenceindicate that a large proportion of thegirls in these two studies were involvedin delinquent behavior at some timeduring childhood or adolescence. Forexample, in the Denver Youth Survey,91 percent were involved in at least oneof the offenses considered; 88 percentwere involved in an offense other thanalcohol, marijuana, or drug use; and 87percent were involved in offenses otherthan status offenses and alcohol, marijuana, and drug use. Across both studies, and excluding alcohol use, truancyhad the highest prevalence, followedby minor property and public disorderoffenses, serious property and runawayoffenses, and lastly by serious assaultand drug sales.Prevalence by Age and/or GradeGiven the high rates of ever-prevalence,one should consider the ages at whichgirls commit these offenses. For thispurpose, the authors determined theprevalence of these offenses by academic grade (grades 4 to 11) for the FastTrack sample and by age (7 to 17) forthe Denver sample. During childhood(grades 4 and 5, ages 7 to 10),9 generally10 to 19 percent of the girls participated Serious property offenses. Minor assault.Figure 1. Ever-Prevalence of

Girls Study Group Understanding and Responding to Girls Delinquency According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from 1991 to 2000, arrests of girls increased more (or decreased less) than arrests of boys for most types of offenses. By 2004, girls accounted for 30 p

Related Documents:

CA Alameda Boys & Girls Club CA Antelope Valley Boys & Girls Club CA Boys & Girls Club of Burbank and Greater East Valley CA Boys & Girls Club of Carlsbad CA Boys & Girls Club of East Los Angeles CA Boys & Girls Club of Fontana CA Boys & Girls Club of Greater Ventura CA Boys & Girls Club of Hollywood CA Boys & Girls Club of Lake Tahoe CA Boys .

11 megan norman Suffolk U13 Girls 2 7 5 28.6 14.3% 12 Chloe Gravestock Surrey U13 Girls 1 1 100.0 100.0% 1 13 Divia Dhar Surrey U13 Girls 1 2 2 50.0 50.0% 14 Abi Balcombe Surrey U13 Girls 1 5 3 20.0 20.0% 15 Emma Stewart Surrey U13 Girls 1 5 6 20.0 60.0% 16 Meghna Nandi Surrey U13 Girls 1 8

Mckenna L. - Grade 5 Girls - 1th place Sarah M. - Grade 5 Girls - 4th place Macy T. - Grade 5 Girls - 5th place Holly A. - Grade 5 Girls - 10th place Will B. - Grade 5 Boys - 10 place Marek M. - Grade 6 Boys - 9 place Abigale M. - Grade 7 Girls - 1st place Skylar M. -Grade 7 Girls 4thplace Taryn B. - Grade 8 Girls .

December 2014 Monday December 1. Tuesday December 2. Wednesday December 3. Thursday December 4. Friday December 5. Saturday December 6. Sunday December 7. Monday December 8. Tuesday December 9 - Fall Semester Ends. Wednesday December 10- Reading Day. Thursday December 11- Final Examinatio

Mary Wolf—December 14 —December 6 Youth Birthdays Adelaide Bass—December 30 Addy Chytka—December 21 Nyabuay Diew—December 17 Quinn Feenstra—December 8 Blaine Fischer—December 21 Liam Fischer—December 22 Danielle Krontz—December 10 Hunter Lake—December 22 Hailey Lieber—December 15

an interest in science, technology, engineering, and math; and much more. Girls play a crucial role in solving the problems we face as a society and Girls Inc. is committed to supporting girls in this role in every way possible. Whitney, a Girls Inc. girl age 15 says: “I always want girls to know their full potential by understanding the depth of

Girl Scout Essentials I Daisy Uniforms Official Daisy Tunic Girls’ Size: S/M(6-7). 03040 Girls’ Size: L/XL(8-10). 03050 Official Daisy Vest Girls' Sizes: XXS/XS, S/M. 0306 Girls’ Plus Size: PM. 03072 Official Daisy Shorthand Polo Imported. Girls' Sizes: XXS, XS, S, M, L. 0353 Official Daisy Skirt Girls' Sizes: XXS, XS, S, M, L. 0337 .

Artificial Intelligence Chapter 1 Chapter 1 1. Outline} What is AI?} A brief history} The state of the art Chapter 1 2. What is AI? Systems that think like humans Systems that think rationally Systems that act like humans Systems that act rationally Chapter 1 3. Acting humanly: The Turing test Turing (1950) \Computing machinery and intelligence":} \Can machines think?" ! \Can machines behave .