Psychology of Women Quarterly

35(2) 282-292
Juvenile Delinquency and Teenage The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Pregnancy: A Comparison of DOI: 10.1177/0361684310384103
http://pwq.sagepub.com
Ecological Risk Profiles Among
Midwestern White and Black Female
Juvenile Offenders

Atika Khurana1, Elizabeth C. Cooksey2, and Stephen M. Gavazzi1

Abstract
The authors examined ecological risk factors associated with teen pregnancy with a sample of 1,190 court-involved female
juvenile offenders between 11 and 18 years of age. Data were obtained from five Midwestern juvenile county courts using
a recently developed youth risk assessment instrument called the global risk assessment device (GRAD). In line with past
research on teen pregnancy, the authors found that young African American female offenders were three times more
likely to have ever been pregnant than their European American counterparts. Factorial multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) procedures were conducted to identify the ecological risk domains that differentiated groups of female juve-
nile offenders in the sample of this study, based on their pregnancy history and racial background. The findings of this
study suggest that female offenders who had experienced a pregnancy had significantly higher levels of health-related risks
as compared to their counterparts who had never been pregnant. Furthermore, regardless of their pregnancy history,
White female offenders reported significantly greater involvement in substance abuse behaviors as compared to Blacks.
Taken together, these findings underscore the need to utilize comprehensive risk assessments when designing integrated
intervention programs that are tailored to the unique needs of young female offenders who are at risk for early
pregnancies.

Keywords
juvenile delinquency, adolescent pregnancy, risk assessment, criminal justice, racial differences, substance abuse, health
behaviors

Traditional theories of juvenile delinquency have spawned
many studies of deviant behavior development among ado-
lescent boys, with relatively sparse attention paid to girls.
Although a surfeit of male adolescents still exists in the juve-
nile justice system, recent reports released by the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
point to an overall increase in crime involvement by girls
(Henington, Hughes, Cavell, & Thompson, 1998; Snyder &
Sickmund, 1999). More specifically, whereas male juvenile
arrests declined by 22% between 1994 and 2003, over the
same period female juvenile arrests declined by a mere 3%,
with young women (under 18 years of age) accounting for
almost one third of all juvenile arrests in 2003 (Snyder &
Sickmund, 2006).
Although the official arrest statistics are suggestive of an
incipient narrowing of the gender gap in the juvenile justice
system, the pitfalls of making generalizations based exclu-
sively on arrest trends cannot be overemphasized. Mindful
of the discord between official arrest data and self-report data
on female delinquency, some researchers have cautioned
that the increased visibility of young women in the juvenile
justice system is more likely to be an outcome of policy
changes and stricter policing, rather than a change in
female behaviors per se (Steffensmeier, Schwartz, Zhong,
& Ackerman, 2005). However, regardless of the discrepan-
cies surrounding causes of increased visibility of young
women in the juvenile justice system, there are unique risks
1
Department of Human Development and Family Science, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH, USA
2
Center for Human Resource Research and Department of Sociology, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Atika Khurana, The Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 202 S. 36th Street, Philadelphia, PA
19104, USA
Email: akhurana@asc.upenn.edu
Khurana et al.
and needs faced by this burgeoning population that present
a set of novel challenges for the juvenile justice system and
thus warrant the attention of academicians and juvenile jus-
tice professionals.
Overrepresentation of African American Female
Juveniles
The issue of disproportionate minority representation also
looms large in the juvenile justice system (DeJong & Jackson,
1998). Although African American youth make up only
15% of the total U.S. youth population (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2006), they represent more than 25% of all juve-
nile arrests (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008) and
nearly 40% of juvenile detention populations (Snyder &
Sickmund, 1999). Furthermore, African American youth
(especially young women) are disproportionately affected
by sexually transmitted illnesses, HIV, and teen pregnan-
cies, often associated with long-lasting negative conse-
quences (Elliott & Morse, 1989; Furstenberg, 1987;
Hogan & Kitagawa, 1985). According to recent statistics
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), the incidence rate of HIV reported among Black
women aged 1329 years is 11 times greater than that for
similar Whites (CDC, 2006). In 2004, the gonorrhea rate
among Black young women aged 1519 was 14 times
higher than the rate among similar Whites, and the syphilis
rate was 16 times higher (CDC, 2005). Finally, the rate of
teen pregnancies reported in 2002 was approximately three
times higher for Black young women than for their White
counterparts (Ventura, Abma, Mosher, & Henshaw, 2006).
African American young women within the juvenile jus-
tice system report even higher rates of risky sexual behaviors
when compared with their African American, nondelinquent
peers (Lanctot & Smith, 2001). Hence, the combination of
delinquent involvement and risky sexual behavior in cases
of young women, and especially among ethnic minority
women, is of particular concern. However, relatively little
research has been directed at the significant and complex eco-
logical influences of individual, family, and community fac-
tors on offending and risky sexual involvement among
female juvenile offenders. One of the few studies that has
examined racial variations in individual and contextual corre-
lates of female delinquency found that significant differences
existed in European American and African American girls
responses to abuse victimization (Holsinger & Holsinger,
2005). However, to the best of our knowledge, no research
to date has addressed the differential impact that race/ethni-
city can have on a female offenders likelihood of involve-
ment in a teenage pregnancy within an ecological framework.
Female juvenile offenders who have experienced a preg-
nancy are both similar and different, in terms of risks and
needs, from their delinquent peers who have not experienced
a pregnancy (Hope, Wilder, & Watt, 2003). The fact that
racial variations have been found in the individual and
283
contextual risks experienced by female delinquents, and in
their responses to these risk factors, suggests that racial dif-
ferences need to be explored within the subgroup of female
delinquents who have also experienced a pregnancy at a
young age. This line of research would not only help us to
fully understand the differential pathways to delinquency and
teenage pregnancy among young women of color, but more
importantly would aid in the development of interventions
that are both gender-appropriate and culturally sensitive.
Ecological Systems Framework
The main theoretical perspectives used in prior research to
explain delinquent behavior among adolescents include strain
theoryincluding subcultural theories (Agnew, 1992), social
control theory (Hirschi, 1969), and differential association/
social learning theory (Akers, 1998; Sutherland, 1973). Each
was originally developed to explain the delinquent behaviors
of young men and therefore cannot necessarily account for
unique risks related to female delinquency (Daly &
Chesney-Lind, 1988). In studying juvenile delinquency, gen-
der should neither be ignored nor be examined in isolation
because it interacts with multiple contexts such as family,
school, or neighborhood to produce unique stressors such
as exposure to abuse and mental health problems for female
delinquents. Even when contextual risk factors are shared
by both male and female youth, the reactions of female delin-
quents to these risks tend to differ from those of their male
counterparts (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). Further,
researchers have cautioned against treating female delin-
quents as a homogeneous group because there are unique
within-group differences related to their racial and cultural
backgrounds (Holsinger & Holsinger, 2005). Therefore,
recognizing the need for a comprehensive framework that can
fully capture the individual and multicontextual influences on
delinquency and unintended pregnancy among female juve-
nile offenders, our study utilizes an ecological systems
approach to risk assessment (Bronfenbrenner, 1989).
Within the nonreductionist framework of ecological sys-
tems theory, an individual is viewed as being embedded in
a set of overlapping and reciprocally interacting micro- and
macroscopic social contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1989), and
individual behavior is regarded an outcome of dynamic inter-
actions within overlapping microsystems that are conditioned
by broader sociocultural macro contexts (Blum, McNeely, &
Nonnemaker, 2002; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2003).
This embeddedness means that the association between risk
factors (such as socialization with delinquent peers or disrup-
tive family relationships and behavioral outcomes of sub-
stance use or sexual risk taking) cannot be understood
outside the social contexts within which the risks are experi-
enced (Lochman, 2004). Accordingly, in order to understand
the behavioral outcomes of delinquency and teenage preg-
nancy, we should investigate how risk manifests and cumu-
lates for female delinquents within overlapping social
284
echelons (Bogenschneider, 1996) that are unique to the broader
sociocultural context in which they are nested (Kazdin,
Kraemer, Kessler, Kupfer, & Offord, 1997; Tolan et al., 2003).
Recent work using an ecological approach has highlighted
the mediating and moderating influences of neighborhood
contexts on proximal microsystem interactions like parenting
practices and peer influences (Roche et al., 2005; Tolan et al.,
2003). In turn, these family variables have been shown to dif-
ferentially impact mental health outcomes based on the gen-
der of the adolescent (Gavazzi, Bostic, Lim, & Yarcheck,
2008). Most recently, other scholars have suggested that
within a socialecological framework, gender, race/ethni-
city, and other markers of status should be regarded as meta-
constructs rather than as individual characteristicsthat
is, as social constructions that operate at all levels of the
individuals social ecology (White, 2009). Employing this
approach to understanding the comorbidity of delinquent
involvement and early pregnancy among female juvenile
offenders emphasizes the need to examine the risks and
needs of female delinquents in light of their gendered
experiences within multiple contexts.
Risk Profiles of Female Juvenile Offenders
Most comparative studies have found no significant gender
differences in the risk factors associated with male and
female juvenile offending, with the exception of differential
exposure of female delinquents to abuse victimization
(Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994; Kempf-Leonard &
Sample, 2000; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2003; Wood-
ward, Fergusson, & Horwood, 2006). However, prominent
scholars in the field of female criminality have highlighted
the gendered nature of risk factors (Chesney-Lind & Pasko,
2004), emphasizing that even the same risk factors can poten-
tially lead to different behavioral and developmental outcomes
for young men and women due to the differential impact of
the sociocultural interactions (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006;
Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 1998). As reviewed below, more
recent studies examining significant predictors of female
juvenile offending have identified additional unique risk fac-
tors at the individual, family, peer, and school levels.
In a longitudinal assessment of the arrest records of abused
and nonabused children, Widom and Maxfield (2001) found
that abused children had a 59% higher likelihood of being
arrested as a juvenile when compared to their nonabused
counterparts. Furthermore, juveniles (especially young
women) with abusive pasts were more likely to be arrested
for specific types of offenses, including property damage,
substance abuse, violence, and misdemeanors than juveniles
without reports of past abuse.
Other studies have shown a strong association between
abuse victimization among female juvenile offenders and
their involvement in risky sexual practices and teen pregnan-
cies (Acoca, 1999; Dembo, Dertke, Lawrence, & Borders,
1987; Roosa, Tein, Reinholtz, & Angelini, 1997; Saewyc,
Psychology of Women Quarterly 35(2)
Magee, & Pettingell, 2004; Sondheimer, 2001). Young
women in the juvenile justice system who have been victims
of abuse are significantly more likely to report early sexual
coitus, unprotected sexual activity (Mason, Zimmerman, &
Evans, 1998), and teenage pregnancies when compared to
their nonabused delinquent peers (Williams & Hollis,
1999). Another high-risk behavior consistently found to be
associated with adolescent sexual risk taking, both among
youth in general and among delinquent youth populations
(Rosenbaum & Kandel, 1990), is substance abuse. Both mar-
ijuana use (Guo et al., 2002; Kingree & Betz, 2003) and alco-
hol use (Coleman & Cater, 2005; LaBrie, Earleywine,
Schiffman, Pedersen, & Marriot, 2005; Malow, Devieux,
Rosenberg, Samuels, & Jean-Gilles, 2006; Santelli, Brener,
Lowry, Bhatt, & Zabin, 1998) are reported to be associated
with inconsistent condom use and multiple sexual partners.
Further, developmental studies have shown that substance
abusing youth initiate sexual activity at much younger ages
and are far less likely to use safer sex practices than nonabus-
ing youth, thereby dramatically increasing their risk for HIV/
STIs and unintended pregnancies (Guo et al., 2002). Mensch
and Kandel (1992) also found that female delinquents who
used illicit drugs other than marijuana had a risk of premarital
teen pregnancy four times higher than their counterparts with
no history of substance use.
Besides their involvement in delinquent activities (Smith,
Leve, & Chamberlain, 2006) and substance abuse (Rew,
Taylor-Seehafer, & Fitzgerald, 2001), young women with
histories of sexual and physical abuse are also more likely
to experience serious emotional disturbances (Arroyo,
2001; Cauffman, Feldman, Waterman, & Steiner, 1998;
Molnar, Shade, Kral, Booth, & Watters, 1998) as compared
to nonabused female adolescents. Given its prominence in
the lives of female juvenile offenders, many researchers
have labeled abuse victimization as the first step in young
womens pathway to juvenile and criminal justice system
involvement (Belknap & Holsinger, 1998; Fergusson, Lynskey,
& Horwood, 1996; Funk, 1999).
Further, recent studies have begun to illustrate not only the
influence of family factors on adolescent problem behaviors,
but also how these associations can differ by gender and race/
ethnicity. A variety of familial risk factors including disrup-
tive family processes such as inconsistent or coercive paren-
tal disciplining, high rates of family conflicts (Miller,
Benson, & Galbraith, 2001; Silverthorn & Frick, 1999), and
exposure to family violence and parental criminality
(Kruttschnitt, 1996) are significantly associated with girls
involvement in juvenile offending.
Research by Gavazzi, Yarcheck, and Chesney-Lind
(2006), looking at the reasons for an adolescents appearance
at a juvenile detention facility, showed that unlike young
men, young women were often detained for offenses that
involved family-related incidents such as exhibiting out-of-
control behavior in the home and/or engaging in physical
altercations with family members. Further, using a sample
Khurana et al.
of court-involved juvenile offenders, Gavazzi, Lim,
Yarcheck, Bostic, and Scheer (2008) report that the associa-
tion of disrupted family processes with internalizing prob-
lems and substance abuse was more pronounced among
young women than men. They also reported a significant
gender-by-race interaction wherein African American female
offenders scored significantly higher in externalizing beha-
vior than African American male offenders. The authors pro-
posed that the high risk for victimization and violence
exposure commonly reported among African American
female offenders may, in part, explain their high rates of
externalizing behaviors. Gavazzi and colleagues also sug-
gested that disrupted family processes mediated the relation-
ship between gender and mental health problems among
African American youthbut not among European Ameri-
can youth (Gavazzi et al., 2008).
Socializing with deviant peers serves as another channel
for involvement in delinquency, drug abuse, and risky sexual
behaviors (Dishion, 2000; French & Dishion, 2003). When
compared with nonoffenders, female juvenile offenders
report greater involvement with delinquent peers and also
experience higher rates of dating violence and sexual victimi-
zation in their dating relationships (Chamberlain & Moore,
2002; Lederman, Dakof, Larrea, & Li, 2004). Disruptive fam-
ily relationships, commonly reported by female juvenile
offenders, are thought to create vulnerable contexts condu-
cive for deviant peer influence (Mullis, Cornille, Mullis, &
Huber, 2004). Evidence of this interaction between family
and peer contexts underscores the importance of dynamic
interactions across contexts (meso-systemic interactions) that
can influence involvement in problem behaviors during ado-
lescence (Bronfenbrenner, 1989).
The Present Study
As is evident from the preceding review, adolescent behavior
patterns are shaped by multiple psychosocial factors that
operate at different levels of the adolescents social ecology
(Kotchick, Shaffer, Forehand, & Miller, 2001). In our study,
we utilize an ecological systems framework to explore the
dynamic interactions of risk factors across contexts as they
relate to delinquency and teenage pregnancy among a sample
of court-involved female juvenile offenders. We view our
study as an initial step in unpacking the ecological risks and
needs associated with this at-risk population. Further,
because minority youth are disproportionately represented
in juvenile justice populations, we pay particular attention
to racial differences. The three main exploratory research
questions we pose are (a) How prevalent is current or past
pregnancy among a sample of court-involved delinquent
young women? (b) Which ecological risk factors are most
highly associated with teen pregnancy among delinquent
female offenders? and (c) Do these factors differ for African
American and European American female adolescents who
come into contact with the juvenile justice system? The nine
285
specific ecological factors we explored were prior offenses,
family/parenting issues, deviant peer relationships, substance
abuse, traumatic events, mental health issues, health compro-
mising behaviors, accountability, and educational issues.
Method
Participants
Data were collected from 1,190 female youth, ages 1118
years (M 15.03 years, SD 1.5), who were assessed by
juvenile justice professionals in five Midwestern county juve-
nile courts as part of each courts standard and usual proce-
dure for assessing youth at the outset of their contact with
the juvenile justice system. Our sample was 56% European
American (n 670) and 44% African American (n 520).
The mean age of the African American subsample (14.8
years) was significantly younger than that of the European
American subsample (15.2 years), t(1188) 3.69, p < .001.
Approximately 35% of the sample was between 10 and 14
years of age (including 208 Whites and 205 Blacks), 46%
of youth were 1516 years old (312 Whites and 232 Blacks),
and the remaining 19% of the sample was between 17 and 18
years of age (150 Whites and 83 Blacks). At the time of data
collection, 58% lived in a household headed by a single par-
ent, 36% lived with either two biological parents or in a two-
adult stepfamily, and 6% lived in another family type such as
a grandparent-headed household or foster family.
Measures and Data Collection
Data were collected using the 132-item global risk assess-
ment device (GRAD version 1.0; Gavazzi, Slade, et al.,
2003), a recently developed, Internet-based instrument that
assesses potential threats to the numerous developmental
needs of adolescents who come into contact with the juvenile
justice system. Typically, the GRAD is employed at the out-
set of a juvenile justice professionals contact with a given
youth (prior to the youths court appearance) and is used to
make recommendations and referrals based on reliable and
valid information about risk factors and needs in a wide vari-
ety of relevant domains. Six hours of training are provided to
all juvenile justice professionals who utilize the assessment
tool as part of their standard and usual procedure for obtain-
ing information from youth. All such training was completed
prior to the professionals participation in the data collection
process. A total of 38 professionals contributed assessments
to the database employed in our study. Each of these profes-
sionals had ongoing telephone contact with their GRAD trai-
ners and face-to-face consultation with their administrative
officers as part of a quality control effort designed to ensure
competence of administration. For the present sample,
GRAD assessments were only conducted once, between
November 2004 and May 2007.
The GRAD system establishes a secure connection over
the Internet between the users browser (Microsoft Internet
286
Explorer, Netscape, etc.) and the computers in the GRAD
secure data center. Data flowing between the browser and the
data center are encrypted rendering them unusable by anyone
attempting to intercept them. At the data center, systems and
databases are operated in a manner ensuring that each client
has access only to their own data. Because the GRAD system
is designed, implemented, and operated to provide a level of
security, meeting or exceeding the security present in the
most secure online applications available today, the users
of this version of GRAD did not have the ability to enter per-
sonal identifying information about the youth being assessed.
Hence, an exemption was granted to the Principal Investiga-
tor of our study from the institutional review board (IRB),
because the data rendered to the investigators were de-
identified and thus could not be traced to specific participants
The GRAD contains 11 domains of risk/needs: prior
offenses, family/parenting issues, deviant peer relationships,
substance abuse, traumatic events, mental health issues, psy-
chopathy, sexual activity, and other health-related risks, lei-
sure activities, accountability, and education/work issues.
On average, it takes participants approximately 25 min to
complete the GRAD. Respondents were asked how much
each item applied to their lives where 0 indicates no/never,
1 (yes/a couple of times), and 2 (yes/a lot). Item scores were
then totaled to compute a risk score for each domain. The
GRAD was designed to collect information from multiple
perspectives (youth, parent, and professional) throughout the
case management process. In our study, we used data
obtained directly from the youth through interviews con-
ducted by juvenile justice professionals.
The GRAD is currently being used by juvenile justice pro-
fessionals across several Midwestern juvenile courts to make
referrals and recommendations based on its comprehensive
and accurate assessments of risks and needs of youthful
offenders. In addition, the GRAD has been used in several
studies that have generated initial evidence of its reliability
and validity. For instance, preliminary empirical work con-
ducted with the GRAD has reported excellent psychometric
properties, including a solid factor structure and high coeffi-
cient as ranging from .87 to .97 (Gavazzi, Slade, et al., 2003),
concurrent validity evidence with other well-established
measures of risks and needs like the Youth Risk Behavior
Survey (Gavazzi & Lim, 2003), and predictive validity evi-
dence supporting this tools use in correctly referring youth
(Wilks l .848, p < .001) to the most appropriate level of
intervention support (Gavazzi, Lim, Yarcheck, & Eyre,
2003). Additionally, two particular sub-domains of the
GRADeducational issues and accountability (measuring
youths ability to take responsibility for their own
actions)were found to be significantly associated with reci-
divistic behavior in a low-risk sample of first-time misdemea-
nant offenders, supporting the use of these domains in
correctly identifying first-time offenders who have the great-
est and least likelihood for future offending behavior
(Gavazzi, Yarcheck, Sullivan, Jones, & Khurana, 2008).
Psychology of Women Quarterly 35(2)
More recently, the GRAD has been used to examine gender
and racial/ethnic differences in the risks and needs of youthful
offenders among detention populations (Gavazzi et al., 2006)
and status offender populations (Gavazzi, Yarcheck, &
Lim, 2005). Also, the particular combination of gender and
race/ethnicity generates a complex picture of youth risks
and needs in relation to the family environments of young
African Americans and European Americans (Gavazzi,
2006). In sum, the research evidence suggests an important
bottom line: The GRAD items measure what they are sup-
posed to measure, they do so in consistent fashion, and the
resulting information can presage the need for directing ser-
vices related to the global risks and needs measured by this
assessment tool.
Description of the subscales. In this article, we assessed risk
factors across nine GRAD domains. The prior offenses sub-
scale of the GRAD comprises 5 items regarding youths
involvement in illegal activities and contact with law-
enforcement agencies in the past 6 months (e.g., Have you
ever made a formal/informal appearance in a court?). The
family/parenting domain contains 17 items that focus atten-
tion on disruptive family processes like family conflict, lack
of parental discipline and monitoring, and parentadolescent
relationship quality (e.g., How much of the time do the
adults who live with you not know where you are?). The
peer relations domain captures juveniles association with
deviant peers and includes 15 items (e.g., Have you ever had
friends who have been in trouble with the law?). The sub-
stance use/abuse subscale includes 14 items pertaining to a
youths level of alcohol and other drug use as well as the dis-
ruptive outcomes of substance use behaviors (e.g., Have
drugs and/or alcohol ever played a role in disrupting the rela-
tionship between you and your family members?). Exposure
to traumatic events is assessed using 12 items measuring
whether the youth has ever been a victim of and/or has wit-
nessed physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, and/or violence.
The mental health subscale constitutes 26 items that assess
both externalizing (e.g., Do you have difficulty controlling
your anger?) and internalizing behavior problems (e.g., Do
you feel sad, moody, blue or depressed?). Health-related
risks (e.g., Have you ever engaged in unprotected sex within
the past 1 year?; Have you gone without regular medical
check-ups in the past 12 months?) are assessed using 9
items. Within this subscale, youth are also asked if they have
ever been involved in a pregnancy. A youths response on this
item was used to categorize the present sample into two
groups: those who had never been pregnant and those who
had experienced one or more pregnancies. The accountability
subscale includes 7 items that assess whether a youth takes
responsibility for her actions (e.g., In the past 6 months,
have you tried to cover up your actions after you have done
something wrong?). Finally, 16 questions in the education
domain tap into a youths academic performance, disruptive
behaviors in the classroom, and reading/writing difficulties.
Khurana et al.
Table 1. Cell Sample Sizes for the Race  Pregnancy History
Factorial MANOVA
Pregnancy History
Never Pregnant at
Race Pregnant Least Once Total
European American 618 (92.2%) 52 (7.8%) 670 (100%)
African American 413 (79.4%) 107 (20.6%) 520 (100%)
Total 1,031 (86.6%) 159 (13.4%) 1,190 (100%)
The remaining two subscales of psychopathy and leisure
comprise 7 and 4 items, respectively, but we did not include
them in our analyses because the variance in their scores
was truncated.
Results
Prevalence of Pregnancy
In our sample of 1,190 court-involved female juvenile offen-
ders, 159 young women (just over 13%) reported either a cur-
rent or a prior pregnancy. Initial analyses revealed significant
racial differences, indicating that African American juveniles
(n 107; 21%; Mage 15.36 years) were almost three times
more likely to report a pregnancy than European American
juveniles (n 52; 8%; Mage 16.11 years), w2 41.54, p
< .01, and at significantly younger ages, t(157) 3.33, p
.001, Z2 0.066. Given their higher rate of involvement in
teen pregnancies, we next examined whether African Amer-
ican offenders were also more likely to engage in risky sexual
behaviors. As expected, African American young women
were more likely to be sexually active, t(1188) 3.44, p
.001, Z2 0.01, engage in unprotected sexual activity,
t(1188) 2.79, p .005, Z2 0.007, report multiple sexual
partners, t(1188) 1.97, p .049, Z2 0.003, and lack reg-
ular medical health checkups, t(1188) 2.51, p .012, Z2
0.005, than their European American counterparts.
Multivariate Analyses
We conducted a 2  2 factorial multivariate analysis of var-
iance (MANOVA) with Race as one factor (1 White, 2
Black) and Pregnancy History as the second factor (1 never
been pregnant, 2 experienced at least one pregnancy). Risk
scores on the nine ecological domains assessed were included
in the model as the dependent variables, and age was included
as a covariate. We were interested in determining whether
(a) individual scores on the nine ecological risk domains
might vary based on respondents racial background and
pregnancy history and (b) the differences in risk scores
between female offenders who had never experienced a preg-
nancy and those who had might vary based on their racial
background (i.e., expecting an interaction). Prior to perform-
ing the factorial MANOVA, we ran a simple cross-tabulation
287
of race and pregnancy history to determine the number of
cases in each cell (see Table 1). The unbalanced numbers
across the four cells shows that Black female offenders were
significantly more likely to have experienced a pregnancy as
compared to their White counterparts.
In our multivariate model, the interaction effect of Race 
Pregnancy History was not significant, Wilks criterion L
0.99; F(9, 1177) 1.69, p .087; t2adj 0.11. This finding
means that any potential difference among the ecological
risks experienced by pregnant and never-pregnant female
offenders in our sample did not vary based on their racial
background. Since the omnibus test for interaction was not
significant, we do not provide the univariate statistics or the
discriminant function output for this interaction effect.
Next, we examined the main effects for race and pregnancy
history and found a significant main effect for race, Wilks
criterion L 0.96; F(9, 1177) 4.83, p < .001; t2adj 0.19.
This implies that White and Black female offenders in our
sample had significantly different ecological risk scores.
We, therefore, conducted a multivariate discriminant function
analysis to better understand the nature of the main effect of
race (i.e., exploring on what ecological risk domains the two
groups significantly differed). A higher absolute value of the
discriminant function coefficient associated with a variable
implies that that variable is a powerful contributor in discrimi-
nating between the two groups, in this case White and Black
female offenders (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Using an arbi-
trary cutoff value of 0.50 as the criterion for a large discri-
minant function coefficient, we found that only one ecological
risk domains discriminant function coefficient exceeded this
threshold: substance abuse (with a standardized coefficient of
1.05). Because White female offenders had a higher mean
score on the discriminant function, they were at significantly
higher risk of having engaged in substance abuse as compared
to Black female offenders in our sample.
We also found a significant main effect for pregnancy his-
tory, Wilks criterion, L 0.91; F(9, 1177) 13.39, p < .001;
t2adj 0.30. Again, taking 0.50 as the arbitrary cut point for
large discriminant function loadings, we found that the health
risk domain differentiated never pregnant female offenders
from their counterparts who had experienced at least one preg-
nancy (with a standardized coefficient of 1.13). Because higher
mean values on the discriminant function were associated with
the group that had experienced at least one pregnancy, this find-
ing means that female offenders with a pregnancy history had
significantly higher health risk scores as compared to female
offenders who had never experienced a pregnancy. We present
means and standard deviations of the sample risk scores in the
nine ecological domains, overall and separated by their racial
background and pregnancy history, in Table 2.
Discussion
This research is the first known to use an ecological sys-
tems approach to study the prevalence and multicontextual
288 Psychology of Women Quarterly 35(2)

Table 2. Means (Standard Deviations) for Nine Ecological Risk Domains by Pregnancy History and Racial Background

Racial Background Pregnancy History

Full Sample African American European American Ever Pregnant Never Pregnant
Ecological Risk Domains (Range) (N 1190) (n 520) (n 670) (n 159) (n 1031)

Prior offenses (010) 2.28 (2.21) 2.56 (2.10) 2.06 (2.26) 3.35 (2.37) 2.12 (2.13)
Family dysfunction (034) 8.22 (6.47) 8.95 (6.31) 7.64 (6.54) 9.55 (6.12) 8.01 (6.50)
Deviant peer risk (030) 6.11 (5.09) 6.78 (4.99) 5.51 (5.09) 7.75 (5.27) 5.81 (5.01)
Substance abuse (08) 1.81 (1.88) 1.53 (1.82) 2.02 (1.91) 2.23 (1.88) 1.74 (1.88)
Exposure to trauma (024) 4.28 (4.16) 4.57 (4.03) 4.05 (4.24) 5.85 (4.40) 4.04 (4.07)
Mental Health Issues (010) 3.10 (2.58) 3.13 (2.53) 3.06 (2.61) 3.64 (2.56) 3.01 (2.57)
Health-related Risks (012) 2.30 (2.24) 2.49 (2.16) 2.14 (2.29) 4.28 (2.13) 1.99 (2.10)
Accountability (014) 3.44 (3.11) 3.76 (3.03) 3.20 (3.16) 3.96 (3.08) 3.36 (3.17)
Educational risks (024) 4.61 (4.31) 5.33 (4.06) 4.04 (4.42) 5.08 (4.35) 4.53 (4.30)

Note. The boldface entries indicate statistically large group differences.

risk factors associated with teenage pregnancy among
court-involved female juvenile offenders. Nearly 13% of
female juvenile offenders in our sample reported either a
current or prior pregnancy. Although this percentage is sig-
nificantly higher than would be found in the general population
(Kost, Henshaw, & Carlin, 2010), it is also significantly lower
than estimates of over 30% reported in prior research examining
pregnancy risk among detained female juvenile offenders
(Crosby et al., 2004; Lawrence, Snodgrass, Robertson, &
Baird-Thomas, 2008; Williams & Hollis, 1999). It is plau-
sible that the lower rate of pregnancy noted for our sample
is related to the fact that most of these girls had been
arrested for misdemeanor offenses and thus had lower
rates of involvement in serious delinquency, substance
abuse and sexual risk-taking that is considered more
typical of their incarcerated counterparts, interviewed in
previous studies. This level of pregnancy involvement is
still disconcerting, however, as these girls are at a lower
risk on average than incarcerated female offenders, but
at the same time it also represents an opportunity for
intervention to take place.
Past research has found abuse victimization (Goodkind,
Ng, & Sarri, 2006) and substance abuse (Lawrence et al.,
2008) to significantly escalate the risk of teen pregnancy
among female delinquents. In contrast, we find that involve-
ment in risky sexual behaviors is the single most significant
predictor of teen pregnancy among our sample of female
juvenile offenders, even after controlling for abuse victimiza-
tion and substance abuse behaviors. A logical next step for
future research would be to explore the ecological risk fac-
tors associated with risky sexual behaviors, besides involve-
ment in pregnancy, among female juvenile offenders. As an
initial starting point, we looked at racial differences in
female offenders involvement in risky sexual behaviors and
found African American females had significantly higher
rates of involvement in unprotected sexual intercourse and
significantly more multiple sexual partners than their European
American counterparts, most likely helping to explain their
higher rate of pregnancy involvement as compared to their
European American counterparts.
It is widely recognized that girls of color grow up in contexts
with qualitatively distinct socialization experiences from their
White counterparts as a result of factors associated with their
racial minority status (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004; Ingoldsby
& Shaw, 2002; Orenstein, 1994). For example, prior studies
have found that teen pregnancy is not necessarily considered
a negative or undesired outcome among minority females living
in disadvantaged contexts. In contrast, in a sociocultural milieu
that is characterized by a dearth of legal avenues to establish
adult identity, early parenthood may instead be considered a
positive rite of passage that provides a sense of meaning and
purpose to their lives (Edin & Kefalas, 2005). Furthermore, high
rates of socioeconomic disadvantage can present unique and
challenging life experiences for African American females,
including but not limited to lack of access to health care, sexual
victimization, illicit drug dealing and use, and exposure to risky
neighborhood contexts, all of which can further lower the
perceived costs associated with teen pregnancy (Coley &
Chase-Lansdale, 1998; Sells & Blum, 1996). Some or all of
these factors may have been operating in the lives of our sample
of female offenders, but our lack of socioeconomic background
information prevented us from studying or controlling for
the effects of these variables in the present analysis.
We did, however, find that White female offenders in
our sample reported greater substance abuse as compared
to their Black counterparts, irrespective of their pregnancy
history. Similar findings were also reported by Cauffman
(2004) in a statewide risk assessment of female offenders
across 15 juvenile detention centers in Pennsylvania. Our
confirming results in Ohio may be indicative of a common
trend in the Midwestern region of the country, and as such
should inform treatment decisions targeting this group of
at-risk female adolescents.
In addition, our studys focus on off-time pregnancies and
sexual risk taking has direct relevance for juvenile justice
professionals and clinicians working with this at-risk group
Khurana et al.
of females, whose sexual health risks and needs are not that
well understood (Staples-Home, 2007). Despite the
consistent reports of high rates of STIs/HIV and unplanned
pregnancies among juvenile justice involved youth (Belenko,
Dembo, Rollie, Childs, & Salvatore, 2009), there is a striking
scarcity of intervention programs targeting risky sexual beha-
viors among juvenile female offenders. Based on our find-
ings, we argue that an understanding of the ecological risk
factors is critical in designing interventions that are both
gender-specific and culturally sensitive (Chesney-Lind,
Morash, & Stevens, 2008). Use of comprehensive assess-
ments such as the GRAD, at the outset of a youths entry into
the juvenile justice system, could assist in early identification
of and intervention with adolescent females who are at risk of
becoming pregnant. High scores on risky sexual behaviors
can be used preventatively by clinicians and educators who
work with this at-risk population to develop a set of red
flags that signal the potential for teenage pregnancy. How-
ever, at the same time, our spotlight on the sexual behaviors
of female offenders is not to suggest that delinquent boys do
not engage in sexual behaviors that may produce a preg-
nancy, but instead we consciously chose to focus on girls,
because boys may not necessarily know about the pregnan-
cies that they have helped create. Future research may want
to include both delinquent boys and girls in their samples.
Despite its merits, the present study design has certain lim-
itations which inhibit extrapolation of findings to other
female offender populations and preclude direct translation
into intervention efforts. First, due to the unavailability of
such data, we were unable to compare risks of female adoles-
cents who had been involved in a pregnancy but had not car-
ried their pregnancy to term with those who had become teen
mothers. Significant differences have been noted in the delin-
quent involvement of females who carry their pregnancy to
term and raise their child versus those who terminate their
pregnancy or give up their child for adoption (Hope et al.,
2003). Research exploring the nature of multicontextual
influences present in the lives of both groups of girls could
shed some light on their varied delinquent involvement, and
the pathways through which teen motherhood might have a
protective effect in reducing delinquent involvement.
The second limitation of our study stems from the cross-
sectional nature of our data, which, at best, can only inform
us about possible correlations that exist between teenage preg-
nancy and the ecological risk factors that we examine. We can
infer nothing about causal influences, although the set of
ecological risk factors that we are able to examine is a large
one. Third, like many other studies, our data refers to a some-
what limited geographical region, although both rural and
urban settings were included. The GRAD is currently being
used in additional states in regions of the country outside the
Midwest (Connecticut, New York, and Oregon) and hence
future research will be able to overcome this limitation. In a
related vein, our findings only speak to the relative differences
between African American and European American female
289
offenders. Finally, as emphasized earlier, the unavailability
of information regarding the socioeconomic background of
our sample prevented us from controlling for its influence,
which could, in part, explain the racial variations in rates of
risky sexual involvement and teen pregnancies.
Recommendations for future research include (a) system-
atically examining ecological risk factors associated with
teen pregnancy and delinquency using larger samples of non-
institutionalized juvenile offenders in order to verify present
findings and also to obtain estimates that have greater signif-
icance for prevention and intervention programs; (b) asses-
sing the long-term influence of pregnancy outcome/
resolution on delinquent and substance abuse behaviors of
female juvenile offenders; and (c) conducting more in-
depth, qualitative research that could enhance our under-
standing of the perceptions and experiences of these young
females and what causes them to engage in law-breaking
activities and sexual risk-taking behaviors.
Despite these limitations, our study provides information
that is particularly pertinent for the overall health and well-
being of young women who come into contact with the juve-
nile justice system, often as first-time offenders. Although
female juvenile offenders constitute a rapidly growing popula-
tion within the juvenile justice system, their risks and needs are
not well understood and this lack of understanding poses a seri-
ous barrier to providing appropriate treatment services.
Because high rates of involvement in off-time pregnancies
have been reported among this population (which are known
to have long lasting, mostly adverse consequences for the ado-
lescent and her child), the primary objective of the present
research was to develop an understanding of the ecological risk
factors experienced by female juvenile offenders, with an
emphasis on variations based on pregnancy history and racial
background. Our main finding that female juvenile offenders
with a pregnancy history are more likely to have risky sexual
lifestyles, underscores the need not only to assess the sexual
behaviors of young women who come into contact with the
juvenile justice system but also to provide them with the
knowledge, skills, resources, and incentives necessary to pro-
mote responsible sexual behaviors. Further, given that there
are variations in risks experienced by female offenders, based
on their racial background (as found in the present study) and
other factors such as abusive pasts, family, and neighborhood
contexts (documented in previous studies), we believe that an
essential first step to designing effective intervention support
strategies for these adolescents is to develop a better under-
standing of their unique risks and needs.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect
to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
290
References
Acoca, L. (1999). Investing in girls: A 21st century strategy. Juve-
nile Justice, 6, 616.
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime
and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 4788.
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general
theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern
University Press.
Arroyo, W. (2001). PTSD in children and adolescents in the juvenile
justice system. In S. Eth (Ed.), Review of psychiatry, 20: PTSD in
children and adolescents (1st ed., pp. 5986). Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Publishing.
Belenko, S., Dembo, R., Rollie, M., Childs, K., & Salvatore, C.
(2009). Detecting, preventing, and treating sexually transmitted
diseases among adolescent arrestees: An unmet public health
need. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 10321041.
Belknap, J., & Holsinger, K. (1998). An overview of delinquent
girls: How theory and practice failed and the need for innovative
changes. In R. Zaplin (Ed.), Female offenders: Critical perspec-
tives and effective interventions (pp. 2130). Gaithersburg, MD:
Aspen.
Belknap, J., & Holsinger, K. (2006). The gendered nature of risk fac-
tors for delinquency. Feminist Criminology, 1, 4871.
Blum, R. W., McNeely, C., & Nonnemaker, J. (2002). Vulnerability,
risk and protection. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31S, 2839.
Bogenschneider, K. (1996). An ecological risk/protective theory for
building prevention programs, policies, and community capacity
to support youth. Family Relations, 45, 127138.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta
(Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 6, pp. 187249).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cauffman, E. (2004). A statewide screening of mental health symp-
toms among juvenile offenders in detention. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43,
430439.
Cauffman, E., Feldman, S., Waterman, J., & Steiner, H. (1998).
Posttraumatic stress disorder among female juvenile offenders.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy-
chiatry, 37, 12091216.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). Sexually
transmitted disease surveillance, 2004. Atlanta: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). HIV/AIDS surveil-
lance report, 2006 (Vol. 18). Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Chamberlain, P., & Moore, K. J. (2002). Chaos and trauma in the
lives of adolescent females with antisocial behavior and delin-
quency. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 6,
79108.
Chesney-Lind, M., Morash, M., & Stevens, T. (2008). Girls trou-
bles, girls delinquency, and gender responsive programming:
A review. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
41, 162189.
Psychology of Women Quarterly 35(2)
Chesney-Lind, M., & Pasko, L. (2004). The female offender: Girls,
women and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Chesney-Lind, M., & Sheldon, R. G. (1998). Girls, delinquency, and
the juvenile justice system. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Coleman, L. M., & Cater, S. M. (2005). A qualitative study of the
relationship between alcohol consumption and risky sex in ado-
lescents. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 649661.
Coley, R. V., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (1998). Adolescent preg-
nancy and parenthood: Recent evidence and future directions.
American Psychologist, 53, 152166.
Crosby, R., Salazar, L. F., DiClemente, R. J., Yarber, W. L.,
Caliendo, A. M., & Staples-Horne, M. (2004). Health risk factors
among detained adolescent females. American Journal of Pre-
ventive Medicine, 27, 404410.
Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology.
Justice Quarterly, 5, 497538.
DeJong, C., & Jackson, K. C. (1998). Putting race into context:
Race, juvenile justice processing, and urbanization. Justice
Quarterly, 15, 487504.
Dembo, R., Dertke, M., Lawrence, L. V., & Borders, S. (1987).
Physical abuse, sexual victimization and illicit drug use: A struc-
tural analysis among high risk adolescents. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 10, 1334.
Dishion, T. J. (2000). Cross-setting consistency in early adolescent
psychopathology: Deviant friendships and problem behavior
sequelae. Journal of Personality, 68, 11091126.
Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Elliott, D. S., & Morse, B. J. (1989). Delinquency and drug use as
risk factors in teenage sexual activity. Youth and Society, 21,
3260.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008). Crime in the United States
2008: Uniform crime reports. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/
ucr/cius2008/data/table_43.html
Fergusson, D. M., Lynskey, M. T., & Horwood, L. J. (1996). Child-
hood sexual abuse and the psychiatric disorder in young adult-
hood: I. Prevalence of sexual abuse and factors associated with
sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 13551364.
Finkelhor, D., & Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1994). Victimization of
children. American Psychologist, 49, 173183.
French, D. C., & Dishion, T. J. (2003). Predictors of early initiation
of sexual intercourse among high-risk adolescents. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 23, 295315.
Funk, S. J. (1999). Risk assessment for juveniles on probation:
A focus on gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 4468.
Furstenberg, F. (1987). Race differences in teenage sexuality, preg-
nancy, and adolescent childbearing. The Milbank Quarterly, 65,
381403.
Gavazzi, S. M. (2006). Gender, ethnicity and the family environ-
ment: Contributions to assessment efforts within the realm of
juvenile justice. Family Relations, 55, 190199.
Gavazzi, S. M., Bostic, J. M., Lim, J., & Yarcheck, C. M. (2008).
Examining the impact of gender, race/ethnicity, and family
Khurana et al.
factors on mental health issues in a sample of court-involved
youth. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 353368.
Gavazzi, S. M., & Lim, J. Y. (2003). Advances in measurement of
global risk indicators in lives of court-involved youth: Brief evi-
dence for concurrent validity. Psychological Reports, 93,
750752.
Gavazzi, S. M., Lim, J., Yarcheck, C. M., Bostic, J. M., & Scheer, S.
D. (2008). The impact of gender and family processes on mental
health and substance use issues in a sample of court-involved
female and male adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
37, 10711084.
Gavazzi, S. M., Lim, J. Y., Yarcheck, C. M., & Eyre, E. L. (2003).
A brief report regarding predictive validity evidence of global
risk indicators in the lives of court-involved youth. Psychological
Reports, 93, 12391242.
Gavazzi, S. M., Slade, D., Buettner, C. K., Partridge, C.,
Yarcheck, C. M., & Andrews, D.W. (2003). Toward conceptual
development and empirical measurement of global risk indica-
tors in the lives of court-involved youth. Psychological Reports,
92, 599615.
Gavazzi, S. M., Yarcheck, C. M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2006). Glo-
bal risk indicators and the role of gender in a juvenile detention
sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 597612.
Gavazzi, S. M., Yarcheck, C. M., & Lim, J. Y. (2005). Ethnicity,
gender, and global risk indicators in the lives of status offenders
coming to the attention of the juvenile court. International Jour-
nal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49,
696710.
Gavazzi, S. M., Yarcheck, C. M., Sullivan, J. M., Jones, S. C., &
Khurana, A. (2008). Global risk factors and the prediction of
recidivism rates in a sample of first-time misdemeanant offen-
ders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Compara-
tive Criminology, 52, 330345.
Goodkind, S., Ng, I., & Sarri, R. C. (2006). The impact of sexual
abuse in the lives of young women involved or at risk of involve-
ment with the juvenile justice system. Violence Against Women,
12, 456477.
Guo, J., Chung, I. J., Hill, K. G., Hawkins, D., Catalano, R. F., &
Abbott, R. D. (2002). Developmental relationships between ado-
lescent substance use and risky sexual behavior in young adult-
hood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 354362.
Henington, C., Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Thompson, B.
(1998). The role of relational aggression in identifying
aggressive boys and girls. Journal of School Psychology,
36, 457477.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkley, CA: University
of California Press.
Hogan, D. P., & Kitagawa, E. M. (1985). The impact of social
status, family structure, and neighborhood on the fertility of
Black adolescents. American Journal of Sociology, 90,
825855.
Holsinger, K., & Holsinger, A. M. (2005). Differential pathways to
violence and self-injurious behavior: African American and
White girls in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 211242.
291
Hope, T. L., Wilder, E. I., & Watt, T. T. (2003). The relationships
among adolescent pregnancy, pregnancy resolution, and juvenile
delinquency. The Sociological Quarterly, 44, 555576.
Ingoldsby, E. M., & Shaw, D. S. (2002). Neighborhood contextual
factors and early-starting antisocial pathways. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 5, 2155.
Kazdin, A. E., Kraemer, H. C., Kessler, R. C., Kupfer, D. J., &
Offord, D. R. (1997). Contributions of risk-factor research to devel-
opmental psychopathology. Clinical Psychology Review, 17,
375406.
Kempf-Leonard, K., & Sample, L. L. (2000). Disparity based on
sex: Is gender-specific treatment warranted? Justice Quarterly,
17, 89128.
Kingree, J. B., & Betz, H. (2003). Risky sexual behavior in relation
to marijuana and alcohol use among African-American, male
adolescent detainees and their female partners. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 72, 197203.
Kost, K., Henshaw, S., & Carlin, L. (2010). U.S. Teenage Pregnan-
cies, Births and Abortions: National and State Trends and Trends
by Race and Ethnicity. Retrieved from http://www.guttmacher
.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf
Kotchick, B. A., Shaffer, A., Forehand, R., & Miller, K. S. (2001).
Adolescent sexual risk behavior: A multi-system perspective.
Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 493519.
Kruttschnitt, C. (1996). Contributions of quantitative methods to the
study of gender and crime, or bootstrapping our way into the the-
oretical thicket. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12, 135161.
LaBrie, J., Earleywine, M., Schiffman, J., Pedersen, E., &
Marriot, C. (2005). Effects of alcohol, expectancies, and partner
type on condom use in college males: Event-level analyses. The
Journal of Sex Research, 42, 259266.
Lanctot, N., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Sexual activity, pregnancy, and
deviance in a representative urban sample of African American
girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 349372.
Lawrence, J. S. S., Snodgrass, C. E., Robertson, A., &
Baird-Thomas, C. (2008). Minimizing the risk of pregnancy,
sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV among incarcerated
adolescent girls: Identifying potential points of intervention.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 15001514.
Lederman, C. S., Dakof, G. A., Larrea, M. A., & Li, H. (2004). Char-
acteristics of adolescent females in juvenile detention. Interna-
tional Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 321337.
Lochman, J. E. (2004). Contextual factors in risk and prevention
research. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 50, 311325.
Malow, R. M., Devieux, J. G., Rosenberg, R., Samuels, D. M., &
Jean-Gilles, M. M. (2006). Alcohol use severity and HIV sexual
risk among juvenile offenders. Substance Use and Misuse, 41,
17691788.
Mason, W. A., Zimmerman, L., & Evans, W. (1998). Sexual and
physical abuse among incarcerated youth: Implications for sexual
behavior, contraceptive use, and teenage pregnancy. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 22, 987995. doi:10.1016/S01452134(98)000805
Mensch, B., & Kandel, D. B. (1992). Drug use as a risk factor for
premarital teen pregnancy and abortion in a national sample of
young White women. Demography, 29, 409429.
292
Miller, B. C., Benson, B., & Galbraith, K. A. (2001). Family
relationships and adolescent pregnancy risk: A research synth-
esis. Developmental Review, 21, 138.
Moffitt, X., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, X. (2003). Sex differ-
ences in antisocial behavior. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 27, 190191.
Molnar, B. E., Shade, S. B., Kral, A. H., Booth, R. E., & Watters, J.
K. (1998). Suicidal behavior and sexual/physical abuse among
street youth. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 213222.
Mullis, R. L., Cornille, T. A., Mullis, A. K., & Huber, J. (2004).
Female juvenile offending: A review of characteristics
and contexts. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13,
205218.
Orenstein, P. (1994). School girls. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Rew, L., Taylor-Seehafer, M., & Fitzgerald, M. L. (2001). Sexual
abuse, alcohol and other drug use, and suicidal behaviors in home-
less adolescents. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 24,
225240.
Roche, K. M., Mekos, D., Alexander, C. S., Astone, N. M.,
Bandeen-Roche, K., & Ensminger, M. E. (2005). Parenting influ-
ences on early sex initiation among adolescents: How neighbor-
hood matters. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 3254.
Roosa, M. W., Tein, J. Y., Reinholtz, C., & Angelini, P. J. (1997).
The relationship of childhood sexual abuse to teenage pregnancy.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 119130.
Rosenbaum, E., & Kandel, D. B. (1990). Early onset of adolescent
sexual behavior and drug involvement. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 52, 783798.
Saewyc, E. M., Magee, L. L., & Pettingell, S. E. (2004). Teenage preg-
nancy and associated risk behaviors among sexually abused adoles-
cents. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36,
98105.
Santelli, J. S., Brener, N. D., Lowry, R., Bhatt, A., & Zabin, L. S.
(1998). Multiple sexual partners among U.S. adolescents and
young adults. Family Planning Perspectives, 30, 271275.
Sells, W. C., & Blum, R. W. (1996). Morbidity and mortality among
US adolescents: An overview of data and trends. American Jour-
nal of Public Health, 86, 513519.
Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P. J. (1999). Developmental pathways to
antisocial behavior: The delayed-onset pathway in girls. Devel-
opment and Psychopathology, 11, 101126.
Smith, D. K., Leve, L. D., & Chamberlain, P. (2006).
Adolescent girls offending and health-risking sexual behavior:
The predictive role of trauma. Child Maltreatment, 11, 346353.
Psychology of Women Quarterly 35(2)
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and
victims: 1999 national report. Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (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.
Sondheimer, D. L. (2001). Young female offenders: Increasingly
visible yet poorly understood. Gender Issues, 19, 7990.
Staples-Home, M. (2007). Addressing the specific health care needs
of female adolescents. Corrections Today, 69, 4245.
Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a
gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociol-
ogy, 22, 459487.
Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J., Zhong, H., & Ackerman, J. (2005).
Assessment of recent trends in girls violence using diverse long-
itudinal sources: Is the gender gap closing. Criminology, 43,
355405.
Sutherland, E. (1973). Susceptibility and differential association. In
K. Schuessler (Ed.), On analyzing crime (pp. 4243). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Tolan, P. H., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. B. (2003). The devel-
opmental ecology of urban males youth violence. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 39, 274291.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Nations population one-third minority.
Washington, DC: Public Information Office.
Ventura, S. J., Abma, J. C., Mosher, W. D., & Henshaw, S. K.
(2006). Recent trends in teenage pregnancy in the United
States, 19902002. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for
Health Statistics.
White, J. W. (2009). A gendered approach to adolescent dating vio-
lence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 33, 115.
Widom, C. S., & Maxfield, M. G. (2001). An update on the cycle of
violence: Research in brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Williams, R. A., & Hollis, H. M. (1999). Health beliefs and reported
symptoms among a sample of incarcerated adolescent females.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 24, 2127.
Woodward, L. J., Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2006). Gen-
der differences in transition to early parenthood. Development
and Psychopathology, 18, 275294.