Girls Study Group Project Funded by OJJDP

1
Girls Study GroupProject Funded by OJJDP

• National Juvenile Justice Networking Forum
• June 14, 2007
• Washington, D.C.

2
Girls Study Group

• Multi-disciplinary group of researchers and
  practitioners
• Convened to (1) study patterns and causes of
  female delinquency and (2) identify effective
  strategies to prevent and reduce female
  involvement in delinquency
• Funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
  Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and coordinated by
  RTI InternationalMargaret A. Zahn, PI

3
The Girls Study Group Plan
The Girls Study Group Plan
The Girls Study Group Plan
Evidence
-
based
Evidence
-
based
practices
practices
What
What
Literature
Secondary
Literature
Secondary
Gender
-
Responsive
Gender
-
Responsive
Review
Analysis
Review
Analysis
Works for
Works for
Programming
Programming
Girls
Girls
Focus groups
Focus groups
Integrated
Integrated
with practitioners
with practitioners


Theory of Girls

Theory of Girls

Delinquency
Delinquency
Focus groups
Focus groups
Develop
Develop
with girls
with girls
template of
template of
Screening
Screening
key program
key program
assessment
assessment
elements
elements
tool review
tool review
Provide
Provide
Information for
Information for
State Formula
State Formula
Grant Fund
Grant Fund
4
Research Activities

• Review of the Literature
• Secondary Analysis of Relevant Data Sets
• Review of Programs Targeting Female Delinquency
• Review of Screening and Assessment Tools
• Development of Program and Research
  Recommendations

5
The Arrested Girl

• In 2003, 29 of juveniles arrested were female

Source Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa.
2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims 2006
National Report. Washington, DC U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
6
The Detained/Incarcerated Girl

• In 2003, females accounted for 15 of juveniles
  in custody
• Females in custody tend to be younger than their
  male counterparts
• Peak age is 15-16 for girls 16-17 for boys
• Minorities are a smaller proportion of females in
  custody (55) compared to males in custody (62)

Source Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa.
2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims 2006
National Report. Washington, DC U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
7
The Detained/Incarcerated Girl

• Percentage of male and female juveniles in
  custody by offense type, 2003

Source Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa.
2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims 2006
National Report. Washington, DC U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
8
Girls in Custody by State

• Females represent a relatively small but
  increasing proportion of juvenile offenders in
  residential placement

Source Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa.
2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims 2006
National Report. Washington, DC U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
9

• Why Girls Become Delinquent Gender Differences
  in Causes and Correlates of Girls Delinquency

Findings from the Girls Study Group
10
The Ecological Model
11
Gender Differences in Risk and Protective Factors
Associated with Delinquency

• Girls and boys experience many of the same risk
  factors, but they differ in sensitivity to and
  rate of exposure to these factors
• The following risk and protective factors are
  associated with delinquency in both girls and
  boys
• Family Dynamics
• Structure and Stability
• Supervision and Control
• Family Criminality
• Maltreatment
• School Involvement
• Neighborhood Disadvantage
• Availability of Community-Based Programs

12
Gender Differences in Risk and Protective Factors
Associated with Delinquency

• The following risk and protective factors are
  especially gender-sensitive
• Early Puberty or Developmental Factors
• Sexual Assault
• Depression and Anxiety
• Cross-Gender Peer Influence
• Attachment and Bonding to School

13
Peer Dynamics

• Girls have fewer delinquent peer associations
• Both boys and girls are influenced by romantic
  partners when serious delinquency is an issue
• However, girls may be more influenced by the
  delinquency of romantic partners, especially for
  committing minor delinquent acts

From Giordano, 2005
14
Neighborhood Effects

• There are many studies on neighborhoods, but few
  on gender related effects
• Structural disadvantage affects crime rates of
  both girls and boys
• Girls are less exposed to community violence
• Relocation to more affluent neighborhoods lowered
  girls delinquency more than boys delinquency
  (see MTO study, Kling et al. 2005)

From Zahn, 2005
15
Neighborhood Effects

• Disadvantaged Neighborhood may have less
  crime-producing effects for girls than boys
  because
• Girls stay at home more
• Girls are supervised more closely by parents
• Girls cope more with environmental pressures by
  avoidance and by internalizing rather than
  externalizing
• Disadvantaged neighborhoods coupled with early
  puberty is particularly problematic for girls

From Zahn, 2005
16
Schools

• School success has a slightly stronger protective
  effect for boys, though it depends on the type of
  delinquency
• Students perception of the fairness and clarity
  of the rules and enforcement has a protective
  effect on both genders, but more so for boys than
  girls
• Bonding to school is a stronger protective factor
  for girls

From Payne, Gottfredson, and Kruttschnitt, 2005
17
Why are Girls Delinquent?

• For some of the same reasons as boys
• Family dysfunction
• Living in disadvantaged neighborhoods
• Low bonding to conventional institutions (i.e.
  school, church)
• But also, Girls are delinquent because
• Sexual abuse or maltreatment history
• Relationship with a delinquent romantic partner
• Disparity between biological and social
  maturitymaturity gap within specific contexts
• Mother-daughter conflict

18

• What to do Review of Programs Targeting Girls
  Delinquency

19
Program Review

• Review programs designed to prevent and reduce
  female delinquency
• Develop recommendations for improving and
  promoting promising and effective programs
• Compile programs targeting delinquency prevention
  and intervention (girls-only boys and girls)
• Web searches programs submitted via GSG website
• Literature searches abstract reviews
• Review of 3-year plans submitted by states

20
Program Review

• Identify the programs that show the most promise
  and effectiveness for prevention in community
  settings and intervention in detention settings
• Collect information on program evaluations (for
  girl-only programs)
• Apply What Works Repository criteria for
  determining effectiveness for girls.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not
to our own facts (Sherman 1998)
21
Program Review What Works Repository Criteria

• Effective
• Experimental Research Design (Randomized
  Controlled Trial)
• Statistically Significant Behavioral Effects
• Sustained Effects for at least one year
• At least one Replication (different
  implementation site and team)
• Adequately meets other criteria regarding design
  and execution
• Effective With Reservation
• Same criteria as Effective except
• At least one Internal Replication (same site) or
  an external replication with modest results
• Addresses all or most of the additional criteria
  regarding study design and execution (but not as
  adequate as effective)

22
Program ReviewWhat Works Repository Criteria

• Promising
• Experimental Research Design without successful
  replication or
• Prospective, Quasi-experimental research design
  using well-matched comparison groups
• Statistically significant behavioral effects
• Sustained effects for at least one year
• Adequately addresses other criteria regarding
  study design and execution.
• Inconclusive Evidence
• Adequately rigorous research designs but
  contradictory findings and no preponderance of
  evidence demonstrating effectiveness or
  ineffectiveness or
• Adequately rigorous experimental or
  quasi-experimental research design that lack
  sustained effects.

23
Program ReviewWhat Works Repository Criteria

• Insufficient Evidence
• Quasi-experimental research design that lacks
  sufficient methodological rigor or
• Pre-Post test design or
• Purely descriptive evaluation
• Ineffective
• Experimental or quasi-experimental research
  design that in an initial study and at least one
  replication failed to demonstrate a significant
  effect.

24
Program Review Findings

• Out of 62 programs cataloged, 18 had been
  evaluated.
• None of the 18 programs met the criteria to be
  rated as Effective, Effective with
  Reservation, or Ineffective.
• 4 programs met the criteria to be rated as
  Promising.
• 4 programs met the criteria to be rated as
  Inconclusive Evidence.
• 10 programs met the criteria to be rated as
  Insufficient Evidence.

25
Program Review Findings

• Promising
• Project Chrysalis
• Urban Women Against Substance Abuse (UWASA)
• Reaffirming Young Sisters Excellence (RYSE)
• Naja Project
• Inconclusive Evidence
• Earlscourt Girls Connection
• Friendly PEERsuasion
• Movimiento Ascendencia
• Working to Insure and Nurture Girls Success
  (WINGS)

26
Program Review Findings

• Insufficient Evidence
• AMICUS Girls Restorative Justice Program
• Cultural Enhancement Project
• Girls and Boys Town (Staff-Secure Detention)
• Girls Empowered to Move Successfully (GEMS)
• Girl Power!
• Girls Circle
• Holistic Enrichment for At-Risk Teens (HEART)
• PACE Center for Girls
• Project BOLD (Girls Inc.)
• Southern Oaks Girls School

27
Program Review Conclusions

• Evidence Based Programs should be supported and
  expanded
• Programs should address causes of delinquency
• Some of those causes are the same for boys and
  girls and there are programs that have been
  effective for both girls and boys
• Big Brothers Big Sisters
• Girls and Boys Town
• Multisystemic Therapy

28
Program Review Conclusions

• Gender specific programs need more focus on
  evaluation (especially experimental model) to
  determine effectiveness
• Effective Gender specific programs need more
  focus on sustainability
• System practices must be changed to be gender
  sensitive
• No male strip searches of females or male
  officers in shower rooms
• No shackling of girls in child birth
• Personal hygiene products available to meet needs
  of girls and clothing that is suitable for girls
• Use gender validated assessments

29

• Predicting and Identifying Delinquent Girls
  Review of Assessment Instruments

30
Review of Assessment Instruments

• Conduct a review of risk and needs assessment
  tools used for delinquency prevention,
  intervention, or treatment purposes to determine
  if they have been validated for girls
• Develop recommendations for selecting and using
  instruments with girls

31
Review of Assessment Instruments

• Approximately 300 instruments were identified
  with 163 meeting the criteria for our review
• Prediction Instruments
• Risk Assessments (including risk/needs
  assessment)
• Classification
• Identification Instruments
• Abuse/Trauma
• Mental Health Disorders
• Mental Health Functioning
• Family Functioning
• Needs Assessments
• Substance Abuse
• Strength-Based

32
Review of Assessment Instruments

• Of the 12 general prediction instruments, 3 have
  been validated on girls and 2 have done gender
  analysis
• EARL-21G
• Juvenile Correctional Offender Management
  Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (Y-COMPAS)
• Risk-Sophistication-Treatment Inventory (RSTI)
• 2 examined gender differences
• Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory
  (YLS/CMI)
• Global Risk Assessment Device (GRAD)

33
Review of Assessment Instruments

• Of the 26 state-specific instruments found, 1 was
  validated for use with girls
• Mississippi Delinquency Risk Assessment Scale
• 1 examined gender differences finding that gender
  was unrelated to scores
• Florida Department of Health and Human Services
  Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI)

34
Review of Assessment Instruments

• Instruments Developed to Assess Specific
  Conditions

35
Review of Assessment Instruments Next Steps

• Know what you are trying to assess
• Use gender validated instruments
• Invest in validation of instruments

INVEST IN GIRLS
36
Web Site

• Findings from the Girls Study Group can be found
  at the GSG Web Site http//girlsstudygroup.rti.or
  g/

37
Girls Study Group Members

• Dr. Robert Agnew, Professor, Department of
  Sociology, Emory University
• Anne Marie Ambrose, Esq., Director, Bureau of
  Juvenile Justice Services, Pennsylvania Office of
  Children, Youth and Families
• Dr. Meda Chesney-Lind, Professor, Womens
  Studies Program, University of Hawaii at Manoa
• Dr. Gayle Dakof, Associate Research Professor,
  Department of Epidemiology and Public Health,
  University of Miami
• Dr. Delbert Elliott, Professor of Sociology,
  Director, Center for the Study and Prevention of
  Violence, University of Colorado
• Dr. Barry Feld, Professor, School of Law,
  University of Minnesota
• Dr. Diana Fishbein, Director, RTI
  Transdisciplinary Behavioral Science Program

38
Girls Study Group Members

• Dr. Peggy Giordano, Professor of Sociology,
  Center for Family and Demographic Research,
  Bowling Green State
• Dr. Candace Kruttschnitt, Professor, Department
  of Sociology, University of Minnesota
• Dr. Jody Miller, Associate Professor, Department
  of Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Dr. Merry Morash, Professor, School of Criminal
  Justice, Michigan State University
• Dr. Darrell Steffensmeier, Professor, Department
  of Sociology, The Pennsylvania State
• Ms. Giovanna Taormina, Executive Director, Girls
  Circle Association
• Dr. Donna-Marie Winn, Senior Research Scientist,
  Center for Child and Family Policy