Abstract
Although research over the past 20 years has specified with considerable certainty the extent and seriousness of female involvement in gangs, few gang prevention and intervention programs have been designed with girls in mind. As such, the extant research on this topic makes clear the need for both female-specific and gender-neutral programming to effectively address the needs of gang girls. This article considers various aspects of female gang involvement, keeping in mind the implications for gang prevention and control initiatives. These include the prevalence of female gang members, gender-linked risk and protective factors for gang joining, psychosocial experiences of gang-involved girls, the level and seriousness of female gang crime involvement, and the importance of gender composition in gangs. The article then reviews prevention and intervention strategies that appear most promising for girls in gangs within the framework of female-specific and gender-neutral approaches. The article concludes with policy implications and recommendations for future research in this area.
Now that evidence-based gang programs are beginning to accumulate, 1 two issues have emerged with respect to programs for gang-involved youths. Although a dozen or so gang programs have demonstrated evidence of effectiveness measured through a variety of ways, have any of these shown to be effective with females? Second, to what extent are gang girls’ treatment needs unique so as to provide a basis for tailoring services specifically for them? Although research over the past 20 years has specified with considerable certainty the extent and seriousness of female involvement in gangs, few gang prevention and intervention programs have been designed with girls in mind. As such, the extant research on this topic makes clear the need for both female-specific and gender-neutral programming to effectively address the needs of gang girls.
Dual purposes guide the organization of this article. First, we consider various aspects of female gang involvement, keeping in mind the implications for gang prevention and control initiatives. These considerations include the prevalence of female gang members, gender-linked risk, and protective factors for gang joining, psychosocial experiences of gang-involved girls, the level and seriousness of female gang crime involvement, and the importance of gender composition in gangs. Our second aim is to review prevention and intervention strategies that appear most promising for girls in gangs within the framework of female-specific and gender-neutral approaches. The article concludes with policy implications and recommendations for future research in this area. Before identifying these points, we begin by a brief discussion of various theoretical approaches on female-specific and gender-specific programming for girls in gangs.
Program Approaches for Girls in Gangs: Female Specific or Gender Neutral?
Two feminist schools of thought exist pertaining to the extent to which females should be treated the same as or equal to men. 2 The equality/sameness approach was popularized during the Civil Rights and Women’s Rights Movements of the 1960s and 1970s. This liberal feminism fought for “women’s liberation through rights and recognition in freedom of expression and choice and equal rights, treatment, and opportunities for women” (Gray & Boddy, 2010, p. 374, emphasis in original). The argument was that women generally were treated unequally to men. The equality/sameness approach demands political, social, economic, and legal equality between the sexes.
Treating females differently, however, suggests that since women and men are unique, they should be treated as unique individuals. Burgess-Proctor (2006, p. 32) notes that the difference approach would ask “do women have distinctive characteristics that require special treatment to overcome their gender-based discrimination?” The difference approach would advocate use of “gender-specific” programming but also for reforming the current justice system itself. Gender-specific programs—sometimes referred to as gender responsive (Hubbard & Matthews, 2008)—recognize differences between males and females in the type, level, and frequency of offending and the risk factors, experiences, and motivations behind those actions. 3
If gang girls and boys are similar, it then follows that services, programs, and policies should apply fairly evenly. If, however, gang boys and girls are different in important ways, then services, programs, and policies should be unique. Both of these positions are supported herein. On one hand, we contend that gender-neutral prevention and intervention programs may be equally effective with females and males because they address a similar constellation of risk factors for gang membership and serious delinquent behavior. We also suggest that gang intervention and suppression strategies used to target gangs as a group need not be gender specific even though the targeted gangs may be comprised of single or mixed members. On the other hand, certain unique treatment needs of girls require treatment service matching.
Is Female Gang Involvement Commonplace?
Premier longitudinal self-report studies in Rochester, NY, and Denver, CO, reveal that females in urban samples of early adolescents represent a substantial proportion of all gang members. For instance, the Denver Youth Survey found that females constituted between 20% and 46% of the gang members during the 4-year study period, while 18% of the boys and 9% of the girls self-identified as gang members (Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Esbensen, Huizinga, & Weiher, 1993). In the Rochester Youth Development Study, a larger proportion of female (22%) than male (18%) adolescents self-reported gang membership up to age 15 (Bjerregaard, 2002; Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993). These unexpected findings immediately drew attention within the gang research community and prompted a number of studies that dissected female versus male involvement.
Reliable data on the representation of female gang members in relation to males are now available in one national self-report survey and several local surveys. In the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, the male-to-female gang ratio was approximately 2:1, that is, 11% of males versus 6% females (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Nationwide, 8% of the youth in the sample belonged to a gang at some point between the ages of 12 and 17 years. This study and other surveys of students and adolescents show that more than one third of all gang members are female (Esbensen & Deschenes, 1998; Esbensen, Deschenes, & Winfree, 1999; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Esbensen & Winfree, 1998; Glesmann, Krisberg, & Marchionna, 2009; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2001; Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003). In sum, female involvement in gangs during adolescence and early adulthood is quite substantial.
Female Risk and Protective Factors for Gang Membership
To date, only three longitudinal studies have examined the relative influence of risk factors for gang joining for girls versus boys. Research in Seattle (Gilman, Hill, Hawkins, Howell, & Kosterman, in press; Hill, Howell, Hawkins, & Battin-Pearson, 1999) and Rochester (Thornberry et al., 2003) showed considerable gender uniformity across major risk domains (family, school, peer, individual, and community). In an analysis using a nationally representative panel of adolescents, Bell (2009) found few differences in gang-joining predictors between boys and girls and later outcomes associated with gang involvement. In particular, Bell’s study indicated that parental social control, attachment, and involvement; school safety; peer fighting; age; and race similarly influence boys’ and girls’ gang involvement. Although peer relationships can be nuanced in several respects between genders, the negative effects of peers on delinquent behavior are remarkably similar for males and females (Weerman & Hoeve, 2012).
Ethnographic studies have documented with great consistency important family conditions that render girls particularly vulnerable to gang participation. Girls who join gangs often have a history of physical and sexual abuse in the home—the latter, typically by older male family members and acquaintances (Fleisher, 1998; Hunt & Joe-Laidler, 2001; Miller, 1998, 2001; Moore & Hagedorn, 2001; Schalet, Hunt, & Joe-Laidler, 2003). Moore’s (1991) interviews of a randomly selected sample of females in two Los Angeles gangs revealed that three fourths of the gang girls had run away from home at least once and almost one third had been molested by a family member. One of Moore’s particularly important findings in this context was that more females than males who joined gangs came from extreme dysfunctional families and chaotic home environments, a finding that has been echoed by others (Archer & Grascia, 2006; Miller, 2001; Valdez, 2007). Such families typically reside in neighborhoods characterized by extreme disadvantage. Moreover, victimization by family members and others may lead girls to join gangs for protection but while they may benefit from immediate protection from victimization at home, they—and males alike—open themselves to other types of victimization as a function of exposure to risky lifestyle routines itself (Taylor, Freng, Esbensen, & Peterson, 2008) and also from the facilitating effect of gang participation (Taylor, Peterson, Esbensen, & Freng, 2007).
Because of the dearth of comparative studies of male and female risk factors for gang joining, we must turn to risk factors for delinquency that may have an extended reach into gang joining. This presumption is based on research showing that, almost without exception, delinquency involvement precedes gang joining (Howell & Egley, 2005). Although certain gender differences have been revealed, there is considerable evidence of gender similarity in risk-factor predictors of delinquency (Hubbard & Pratt, 2002; Loeber, Farrington, Howell, & Hoeve, 2012; Wong, Slotboom, & Bijleveld, 2012). A meta-analysis specifically of predictors of female delinquency (Hubbard & Pratt, 2002) found that antisocial personality and antisocial peers were the most robust predictors. In addition, school and family relationships and a history of physical and/or sexual assault, though less powerful, also were significant predictors of female delinquency.
Elevated individual factors for girls from Hubbard and Pratt’s (2002) meta-analysis are an antisocial personality, low intelligence, substance abuse, physical or sexual abuse, mental health problems, pubertal timing, and low levels of self-worth. Hipwell and colleagues (2005) found that girls are more vulnerable than boys to persistent use, alcohol abuse, and dependence at a very early age. The largest gender discrepancy, however, is in sexual assault victimization. Females are 10 times more likely to experience sexual assault than boys (McReynolds, Schwalbe, & Wasserman, 2010). Hubbard and Matthews (2008) isolate unique personality traits of girls that are believed to contribute to their antisocial behavior, particularly a greater tendency than boys to engage in self-debasing distortions (e.g., self-blame, negative thoughts about self) that can lead to internalizing behaviors and self-harm. Notably, girls also have a stronger desire than boys for affiliation and acceptance that can contribute to negative emotional (e.g., stress) and behavioral outcomes (e.g., risky sexual behavior). Hubbard and Matthews also suggest that girls may experience high rates of sexual harassment within the school setting. Additionally, these researchers underscore findings from several studies of youth in juvenile justice systems that girls are more likely than boys to have mental health problems.
In the family domain, important risk factors for girls are a history of physical and sexual abuse, the quality of parent–child relationships, conflicts within the family, parental control, family violence, and having caregivers with a history of substance abuse or crime (Hubbard & Matthews, 2008). In a comparison of brothers and sisters in a London study, Farrington and Painter (2004) found that child-rearing risk factors were stronger predictors of court conviction for sisters than for brothers, low praise by the parents, harsh or erratic discipline, and poor parental supervision; parental conflict; and low parental interest in education.
In the peer domain, the aggressive behavior of girls, more so than boys, depends on their intimate relationships (Losel & Farrington, 2012). Two features of peer relations have important implications for girls’ involvement in delinquency (Hubbard & Matthews, 2008). First, girls who report having a mixed-sex friendship group are significantly more likely to engage in delinquency than girls with a same-sex friendship groups. Second, girls may undermine the development of supportive friendships by engaging in “girlfighting” (Brown, 2003) or the “emotional and discreet bullying of other girls (e.g., gossip, manipulation, teasing, and exclusion)” (Hubbard & Matthews, 2008, p. 244).
In sum, despite largely similar risk constellations for gang joining, girls’ risk of delinquency, violence, and gang involvement are distinctly elevated on certain indicators within the individual, family, and peer domains. It also appears that the cumulative effects of risk factors may be worse for girls than for boys, requiring multimodal services (Hipwell & Loeber, 2006).
Research on protective factors that buffer boys and girls from gang-related risk factors is very scant. However, unique protective factors against delinquency and violence for girls have been highlighted in three comprehensive literature reviews. In the initial review, family connectedness, school connectedness, and religiosity provided significant protection against violence perpetration for girls (Hawkins, Graham, Williams, & Zahn, 2009). A second review found that patterns of protective factors in females seem to be “partially different” from those for males (particularly in the greater relevance of relationship issues; Losel & Farrington, 2012). Interestingly, the third review found that, in comparison with boys, girls possess several unique strengths: lower rates of hyperactivity and poor impulse control, stronger moral evaluations of behavior (that enhance their ability to counteract negative peer influences), greater empathy, and more guilt proneness (Hubbard & Matthews, 2008).
Distinctive Psychosocial Experiences of Girls in the Gang Context
Are girls uniquely affected by certain psychosocial experiences in gangs? 4 If so, this could have important implications for treatment service matching. We pinpoint three distinctive psychosocial experiences of gang girls. First, girls’ victimization in gangs—often sexual and assaultive—at the hands of fellow gang members is not uncommon. Sexual dominance and aggression have long been considered “developmental imperatives” of male gangsters (Moore, 1991). Valdez (2007) reports frequent sexual victimization of girls by male gang associates—even though the girls never joined those gangs. Other researchers report widespread sexual and physical victimization by boyfriends, and also by other male gang members in the context of the gang, particularly on dates and at parties (Valdez, 2007; also Fleisher, 1998; Hunt & Joe-Laidler, 2001; Miller, 2001; Moore, 1991, 1994; Moore & Hagedorn, 1996, 1999). Miller (1998) found young women in gangs to be at a greater risk of sexual assault/abuse, exploitation, and physical violence at the hands of male peers, that is, fellow gang members. Girls who regularly associate with predominantly male gangs appear to be at greatly elevated risk of sexual victimization by the boys within that gang. In sum, girls’ particular forms of victimization differ from boys.
Second, “the gender oppression and sexual double standards present in society often are amplified in the gang context, where masculinities play out and intersect with the female gang experience” (Peterson, 2012, p. 75). As a result of constantly being under scrutiny by males, girls may act more aggressively to demonstrate courage and/or to gain male respect. This may well account for much of girls’ elevated delinquent activity in the more mixed-gender gangs. However, the double standard would suggest that they can’t act too aggressively as they would be viewed as negative by both their male and their female peers. Peterson (2012, p. 75) further suggests that “many girls want to explore feminine aspects of their identity, but must also not appear physically weak or too sexually available or they risk victimization, ridicule, or exclusion.” As such, the psychological effects of gender oppression for girls in gangs are even further magnified as they constitute a marginalized age group.
Third, girls’ stronger sociotropic tendencies 5 that lead to tension in relationships with other girls may account for much of the girl-on-girl violence (Adamshick, 2010; Batchelor, 2009; Ness, 2010). These insightful researchers underscore that a young woman’s main “capital” on the streets is her measure of control and her reputation for handling herself. In Adamshick’s (2010) study of female aggression, the three top themes of instances of girl-to-girl aggression were (1) to protect themselves, (2) to be a part of the search for self, and (3) a means to enhancing attachment and friendship. In particular, “fighting served the purpose of marking one’s territory or space, and attempting to overcome powerlessness” (p. 546). Although Adamshick’s research did not study girls in gangs, it may be that gang girls with a strong need for social acceptance by male gang members will do “whatever it takes” to maintain close ties with male gang members.
Seriousness of Female Gang Involvement
The matter of whether the level of female gang involvement and seriousness of female offenses are sufficient to merit special public resource allocations has been answered in the affirmative. An 11-city survey of eighth graders undertaken in the mid-1990s (Esbensen, Peterson, Taylor, & Freng, 2010) found more than 90% of both male and female gang members reported having engaged in one or more violent acts in the previous 12 months. Once in a gang, the proportionate increase in the odds of violence associated with gangs is statistically similar for males and females (Melde & Esbensen, 2013). This multicity student survey found that 75% of female gang members reported being involved in gang fights, and 37% reported having attacked someone with a weapon. Individual violent offending rates were similar except for hitting someone, general violence, and particularly serious violence, for which boy’s rates were significantly higher (Esbensen et al., 2010).
Both males and females in gangs have higher rates of delinquency than their nongang peers (Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Esbensen & Winfree, 1998; Thornberry et al. 1993), hence in this regard, they are similar. Just as among boys, delinquency among girl gang members is higher than among nongang members (Deschenes & Esbensen, 1999; Miller & Decker, 2001). In Rochester and Denver, female gang members evidenced a higher prevalence rate for delinquency involvement than both nongang girls and nongang delinquent boys, and a higher incidence rate for all types of offenses than for nongang boys in Rochester (Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993). In a multisite survey, Esbensen and Winfree (1998) found delinquency among girl gang members up to five times higher than among boys not members of gangs.
Furthermore, in early adolescence, Esbensen, Peterson, Taylor, & Freng (2010) found that female gang members commit the same sort of offenses as boys, including assault, robbery, and gang fights, although a smaller proportion of girls participate in serious, violent offenses (Bjerregaard, 2002; Haymoz & Gatti, 2010). To underscore this important finding, Bjerregaard (2002) found similar proportions of girls and boys involved in many offenses within “organized” gangs, suggesting that girls often play an active involvement in serious crime.
As with boys, a small proportion of female gang members are extensively involved in more serious and violent offenses. In the Rochester study, 29% of the females in the sample were gang members at some point during the middle and high school period; and they accounted for virtually all of the entire sample of females’ serious delinquencies (88%) for nearly two thirds (64%) of all female violent offenses and for almost eight of ten female drug sales (Thornberry et al., 2003). Thus, girls actively involved in gangs became the most serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders of all young females.
Does Gender Composition Matter?
The structure of the gangs in which females participate may well have implications for gang interventions (Peterson, 2012). More than a decade ago, pioneering research called attention to the gender composition of the gangs in which females were active (Fleisher, 1998; Peterson, Miller, & Esbensen, 2001). Young women’s gangs typically have been classified in three or four female gender-laden categories (Miller, 1975; Petersen, 2000; Young, 2009): autonomous, independently functioning female groups (Taylor, 1993), members of mixed-gender or coed groups (Chesney-Lind, 1997; Miller, 2001; Moore, 1991), “auxiliaries” to male groups (Batchelor, 2009; Miller, 1975; Young, 2009), and as “semi-autonomous auxiliaries to male gangs” (Campbell, 1984, 1990) with this last categorization usually lumped with auxiliaries to male gangs. Young men’s gangs, however, usually have been categorized according to their activities, structures, and crimes (Hagedorn & Devitt, 1999) rather than their actual role, a main conceptual difference.
Researchers have hypothesized that due to the women’s movement, greater opportunities for women to work outside of the home, and the overall increased attention to female criminals, the all-female independent gang would increase. By the mid-1970s, all-female gangs and “independent cliques” were reported in New York city (Campbell, 1984, 1990), in Boston (Miller, 1966), in Chicago (Fishman, 1995, 1999); they were reported much earlier in Los Angeles, in the 1930s (Moore, 1991) and much later in Philadelphia, in the 1980s (Ness, 2010). Recent studies, however, do not support substantial development of independently functioning female gangs (Batchelor, 2009; Esbensen, Brick, Melde, Tusinski, & Taylor, 2008; Young, 2009) These latter studies clearly indicate that entirely or even predominantly female gangs are somewhat rare.
Several studies indicate that mixed gender gangs are most common. Student respondents in a nine-city student sample of male and female gang youths (Esbensen et al., 2008, p. 130), 6 largely aged 12–15, classified the members of their gang as predominantly (54%) half male/half female, regardless of racial/ethnic composition. Only 10% of the boys and 4% of the girls said their gang members were of same gender. These findings are consistent with several other studies that show considerable mixed-gender gang activity (Fleisher, 1998; Miller, 2001; Miller & Brunson, 2000; Petersen, 2000).
Studies also suggest that criminal activity and violence tend to increase as the proportion of males in the gang increases. The highest frequencies of both personal and property offending are self-reported by girls in majority-male gangs, followed by sex-balanced gangs and girls in majority- or all-female gangs (Peterson et al., 2001). “Comparing girls and boys within gang types, more gender similarity in delinquency frequency was seen in majority-male gangs than in sex-balanced gangs, in which females’ offending was significantly lower than males” (Peterson, 2012, p. 74).
In sum, the foregoing studies show considerable involvement of female gang members in serious crimes. Although female auxiliaries to male gangs are by no means extinct, it is clear that females in coed gangs account for a great majority of current members and that these gangs tend to be most actively involved in criminal activity. We next consider psychological and social impacts of gang involvement on girls.
Gender-Neutral or Gender-Specific Programs?
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has defined gender specific as those services “designed to address needs unique to the gender of the individual to whom such services are provided” (1992, 42 USC 5603, sec. 1[c][20]). Gender-specific sometimes referred to as gender-responsive (Hubbard & Matthews, 2008) programs recognize the differences between males and females in the type, level. and frequency of offending and the risk factors, experiences, and motivations behind those actions. Gender-specific programming “implies a fundamentally different implementation than general programs or those that are geared specifically toward boys” (Zahn, Day, Mihalic, & Tichavsky, 2009, p. 290). Elements of good gender-specific programs should respond to juveniles’ sex-specific needs (Kempf-Leonard & Sample, 2001). From a programming perspective, solely because a program targets only one gender it does not necessarily equate to it being “gender responsive.”
However, gender-specific services have been interpreted largely as those programs and services designed specifically for females and historically based on a feminist perspective. Gender specific has been interpreted to mean “for girls” and as such, this term generally has not been used appropriately. Gender simply makes reference to females and males and as such, “gender-specific” programming is often described as synonymous with “female-specific” programming. Goodkind (2005) also notes that this fact is overlooked in the literature on gender. Rather, approaches that specifically tailor services to girls’ unique treatment needs should be termed “female specific” and the “gender-specific” term should apply to both male- and female-based approaches. We first review gender-neutral programs. As demonstrated, these programs can be effective with either gender depending upon the intent of the program. Then, we review gender-specific programs. These reviews also suggest effectiveness depending upon the program’s intent and focus.
Gender-Neutral Programs
Because females and males share many of the same risk factors for gang involvement, are similarly affected in negative life-course-altering ways, and are most criminally active in coed gangs, the gender-neutral OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Model is the recommended framework for preventing gang involvement, promoting desistance from gangs and gang crime and reducing the community impact of gang crime. This Comprehensive Gang Model has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing arrests of girls and older females in multiple sites; in fact, across sites, the reductions were larger for females than for males (Spergel, Wa, & Sosa, 2006, p. 221). Moreover, this model has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing gang involvement and gang crime at all three impact levels (1) individual, (2) group (gang), and (3) community (especially in the views of residents; Spergel, 2007; Spergel et al., 2006).
The comprehensive gang model calls for a community-wide assessment of existing gang problems that stakeholders themselves conduct, which then is used as the basis for a targeted strategic plan. Stated in terms of a continuum, prevention programs are needed to target youth at risk of gang involvement to reduce the number of youth who join gangs; intervention programs and strategies are needed to provide sanctions and services for younger youth who are actively involved in gangs to separate them from gangs; and law enforcement suppression strategies are needed to target the most violent gangs and older, most criminally active gang members. A multidisciplinary intervention team with outreach services for at-risk and gang-involved youth is a key component of this model. Once the intervention team has been established, street outreach workers play an active role in connecting gang members to necessary services. Outreach workers are not only the primary source of program referrals but often play an active role in delivering services and working closely with community service providers. This component can be very effective in helping girls and boys desist from gang activity. Because girls and young women comprise at least one third of all gang members, and are intertwined with males, best practice calls for targeting interventions for them as along with males in comprehensive community-wide strategies (National Gang Center, 2010).
The Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program successfully prevents gang joining (Esbensen, Peterson, Taylor, & Osgood, 2012a, 2012b). This skills-based curriculum is taught to entire elementary and middle school classrooms by law enforcement officers. In addition to educating students about the dangers of gang involvement, the lesson content places considerable emphasis on cognitive–behavioral training, social skills development, refusal skills training, and conflict resolution. A summer activities program can be added to build upon the school-based curriculum. A complementary curriculum is also available to strengthen families by engaging parents/guardians and youth in cooperative lessons designed to improve communication, identify clear and consistent rules and discipline, and establish plans and goals for quality family interaction. In a 5-year formal evaluation of the revised G.R.E.A.T. curriculum, researchers found that students receiving the program had lower odds of gang membership compared to the control group and also evidenced reductions in several risk factors for gang joining (Esbensen et al., 2012a). Favorable results were maintained into high school, 4 years following program participation, including more positive attitudes toward police, less positive attitudes about gangs, more use of refusal skills, and improvement in several risk factors, such as having less anger, higher levels of altruism, and less risk seeking (Esbensen et al., 2012b). An equal proportion of boys and girls were served in the evaluated programs, and no gender differences in outcomes thus far have been reported.
Another evidence-based program that appears equally effective for girls and boys in gangs is aggression replacement training (ART). It consists of a 10-week, 30-hr cognitive–behavioral program administered to groups of 8 to 12 adolescents. There are two remarkable features of this intense cognitive–behavioral program. First, ART targets and works most effectively with violent gang and nongang offenders. Second, it has been shown to be quite effective in street-level juvenile court and secure correctional environments. Thus, ART can be used anywhere along the continuum and has excellent transportability with proper training. ART has demonstrated effectiveness with both girls and boys and has showed positive results when tested with gang-involved youth in Brooklyn, New York (Goldstein & Glick, 1994; Goldstein, Glick, & Gibbs, 1998).
Although Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT) is an evidence-based program for delinquency prevention, it has demonstrated effectiveness with gang members. The population served is children and adolescents between 8 and 17 years of age displaying (or at risk for developing) behavior problems, including substance abuse. BFST promotes positive parenting, parental monitoring, effective parental discipline, and family cohesion, because the behaviors it addresses are symptoms of dysfunctional family patterns. A modified version of BSFT 7 was tested on a highly treatment-resistant population of second- and third-generation Mexican American gang-affiliated adolescents and their families living in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods in San Antonio (Valdez, Cepeda, Parrish, Horowitz, & Kaplan, 2013). A total of 200 adolescents (half of which were female) and their family caregivers were randomly assigned to either a treatment or a control condition. In tailoring BSFT to this high crime setting, the program was modified to function as an intervention as well as prevention model to increase adolescent and parent engagement by addressing specific needs that would reinforce the BSFT therapeutic process within the very challenging environmental context. Alcohol use among adolescents in the BFST treatment group declined in a 6-month period following the intervention, as did the parents’ ratings of their child’s problematic behaviors, as evidence of effectiveness of the model with gang-affiliated adolescents in a very high-risk environment.
Other evidence-based, gender-neutral delinquency programs not designed specifically for gang contexts may be effective for preventing and reducing gang involvement among girls. Safe Dates is an evidence-based program for preventing dating violence among young males and females that consists of school and community interventions. The goals of this program are to change adolescent dating violence norms, change adolescent gender-role norms, improve conflict resolution skills for dating relationships, promote victims’ and perpetrators’ beliefs in the need for help and awareness of community resources for dating violence, promote help seeking by victims and perpetrators, and improve peer help-giving skills. Foshee and colleagues (2005) found program effectiveness for psychological abuse perpetration, moderate physical violence perpetration, and sexual violence perpetration. Intended for middle and high school students, the Safe Dates program can stand alone or fit easily within a health education, family, or general life skills curriculum. Because dating violence is often tied to substance abuse, Safe Dates may also be used with drug and alcohol prevention and general violence prevention programs.
In a national review of programs for girls, (Zahn et al., 2009), Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) and Multisystemic Therapy (MST) were judged effective for girls although these delinquency reduction interventions were not tailored to genders. MTFC is an alternative to group or residential treatment, incarceration, or hospitalization for adolescents who have problems with chronic antisocial behavior, emotional disturbance, and delinquency, and this program has demonstrated effectiveness with girls (Chamberlain, Leve, & DeGarmo, 2007; Leve & Chamberlain, 2007).
Two evidence-based family therapy programs stand out for effectiveness with both female and male serious offenders. As noted earlier, MST’s home-based family therapy program appears to be effective with girls and boys alike by using methods that promote positive social behavior and decrease antisocial behavior to reduce youth offending (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011). Second, Functional Family Therapy (FFT; Alexander & Parsons, 1982) is an evidence-based family- and community-based treatment. Because of its dual focus and the centrality of family problems in female gang members, FFT holds considerable promise for effectiveness with them. In fact, an experiment is underway in which FFT is being tested in the blueprints for Gang Prevention project at the University of Maryland to ascertain its effectiveness in reducing gang membership and delinquency among youth at high risk of joining gangs and current gang members. Unfortunately, only males are provided treatment in this experiment.
Gender-Specific Programs
In 1990, the Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provided 3 years of funding for 11 gang prevention programs for adolescent females (Moore & Hagedorn, 2001). Although broad goals were established for at-risk females in these programs (e.g., empowerment support groups, promoting cultural awareness, expanding community awareness, promoting employment opportunities, and building spirituality), noteworthy impacts were seen in the Boston, Pueblo, and Seattle programs (Williams, Curry, & Cohen, 2002). Most notably, the Movimiento Ascendencia (Upward Movement) program 8 in Pueblo, Colorado, for Mexican American girls aimed to prevent them from joining gangs and also to reduce their gang involvement. The average age for participants was 14; most of them were gang involved and had experienced contact with the juvenile justice system. Project activities centered around three main components: mediation or conflict resolution, social support, and cultural awareness. Williams, Curry, and Cohen (2002) report the program successfully provided a safe haven for girls in the target area, and the program participants showed a significant reduction in delinquency involvement and increases in school achievement. Unfortunately, no female gang-specific programs have since been funded by the federal government.
Evaluation findings from the FYSB program suggested that a better understanding of girls’ behavioral health status and service requirements is needed. This foundation has been generated in the past decade from in-depth psychiatric assessments of multistate samples in on juvenile probation, in detention, and in long-term incarceration (McReynolds et al., 2010; Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Washburn, 2006; Wasserman, McReynolds, Ko, Katz, & Carpenter, 2005). In general, antisocial females are more impaired 9 across a range of co-occurring social, health, or educational domains than are antisocial males (McReynolds et al., 2008).
Girls have higher levels of co-occurring problems than boys (McReynolds et al., 2010). Two examples are important. Girls’ rates of anxiety and affective disorders 10 such as depression are higher than boys, and violent girls are more likely than other groups to have anxiety disorders (Wasserman et al., 2005).
As few as 30% and as many as 70% of youths involved with the juvenile justice system may meet criteria for a mental health disorder (McReynolds et al., 2010), and up to 45% of boys and 50% of girls have at least one diagnosable psychiatric disorder (Wasserman et al., 2005). Girls are at significantly higher risk (80%) than boys (67%) for any type of mental health disorder, with girls demonstrating higher rates than boys of internalizing disorders (Shufelt & Cocozza, 2006).
Although boys are more likely to report some type of assault victimization, females are 10 times more likely to experience sexual assault than boys (McReynolds et al., 2010).
Girls with substance abuse and affective disorders are nearly four times more likely to recidivate than girls with no disorder and twice more likely than nonafflicted boys (McReynolds et al., 2010).
Although mental health problems have not been assessed in depth and specifically for gang members, it is well established that female associates and active gang members often display extremely risky behaviors and exposure to harmful events, including family violence, physical fights, early sexual exploitation, substance use, violent victimization, and school failure (Peterson, 2012; Valdez, 2007). Implementing a systematic behavioral health problem diagnosis and treatment protocol for adolescent gang-involved and at-risk girls is the first priority. The Columbia University Center for the Promotion of Mental Health in Juvenile Justice has established such a protocol for adolescents consisting of four stages: screening, assessment, referral, and treatment (Wasserman & Ko, 2003; Wasserman, Ko, & McReynolds, 2004).
Nevertheless, how can female-specific services be readily accessible? Juvenile justice system, child welfare, school, and mental health systems each serve as portals for services for troubled youth. Professionals in these areas would be better qualified to assess girls’ and boys’ problem behaviors that appear outside the norm. Social service and mental health systems already have this capacity. Many states have juvenile delinquency assessment centers (Oldenettel & Wordes, 2000). The Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–Second Version (MAYSI-2) and the Voice DISC 11 are comparable screening instruments (Hayes, McReynolds, & Wasserman, 2005). Evidence-based treatments for specific mental health disorders have been identified, including cognitive−behavioral therapy, treatment for traumatic victimization, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other mental health treatments (Cuellar, McReynolds, & Wasserman, 2006). A meta-analysis found that family therapy and group counseling are very effective treatments for substance abuse for girls as well as boys (Tanner-Smith, Wilson, & Lipsey, 2013). Pepler and colleagues (2010) have suggested that cognitive-based treatments 12 may produce a better response for girls, as females often exhibit greater skills in perspective taking and empathy. A new study in which these conditions were reliably assessed finds that providing juvenile justice-involved youths with systematic mental health assessment and linking those with substance use disorder to mental health and substance use services likely reduces recidivism risk (Hoeve, McReynolds, & Wasserman, 2013). Both behavioral (e.g., social skills training) and cognitive–behavioral interventions (e.g., assertiveness training and anger management) need to be integrated in treatment protocols.
Certain treatment priorities for girls are clearly indicated. One consistent theme in the female gang literature reviewed herein is the dysfunctional family life. Protection of vulnerable girls—especially as they move into the pubescent period—from sexually aggressive boys and exploitative men is paramount. Both Fleisher (1998) and Vigil (2010) recommend supervised residential centers for the purpose of insulating girls from violent community contexts. These centers, as Fleisher (1998) envisions them, would have three specific objectives: “(1) to shelter and protect girls; (2) to provide job training, and job placement; and (3) to ensure a healthy start for gang girls’ children” (p. 219). Social and life skills training (Botvin, Griffin, & Nichols, 2006) should also be provided. In short, these centers would serve as a one-stop resource for a variety of services and sources of assistance. Several other programs tailored specifically to girls appear promising for multiple problems that may include risk of gang participation.
A suggestion supported by some of the research reviewed earlier is to improve and/or develop mother–daughter relationships (Kerpelman & Smith, 1999; Snethen, 2010). Since girls raised by single mothers appear more vulnerable for gang membership but still often remain close to them, developing healthy mother–daughter bonds could help serve as a protective factor (Snethen, 2010). These could be facilitated through the support of community resources and/or parent education classes and family therapy. Although not specific for gang girls, one program is the Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Youth 10–14 (SFP 10–14) that was designed to reduce adolescent substance abuse and other problematic behaviors in both teenage girls and boys 10 to 14 years old (Kumpfer & Alvarado, 1998). Bringing parents and youth together in SFP 10–14 has been particularly effective at building parent skills (e.g., monitoring, setting limits, expressing affection), youth skills (e.g., resisting peer pressure, making positive goals, managing strong emotions), and changing behavior. As of this writing, a formal evaluation of SFP 10–14 has not been published under the Strengthening America’s Families Initiative. 13
Girls Inc. Friendly PEERsuasion® (GIFP) is a prevention program aimed at helping girls in middle school acquire knowledge, skills, and support systems to avoid substance abuse offered through a network of sites nationwide. “The program draws on the social influence and life skills models of prevention, using a combination of adult leadership and peer reinforcement to teach girls to respond critically to messages and social pressures that encourage substance use. 14 ” Generally, the program consists of two phases. In Phase I, girls participate in 14 sessions lasting an hour each of curriculum training relating to substance abuse and media and peer pressures. In Phase II, small teams of trained adults (PEERsuaders) plan and implement 8 to 10 half-hour sessions of interactive substance abuse prevention activities for girls (and sometimes boys) called PEERsuade-Me’s. Weiss and Nicholson’s (1998) evaluation found that participation in the GIFP program reduced the incidence of drinking among treatment group members who reported having drank prior to participating in the program as well as the onset of drinking alcohol among participants who had never drank alcohol.
Reaffirming Young Sister’s Excellence (RYSE) is an intensive community treatment and intervention program designed to provide a continuum of female-specific services to adjudicated females aged 12–17 (Le, Arifuku, & Nunez, 2003). The overall goal of the program is to reduce recidivism; a corollary goal is to promote the development of the participants’ social, academic, and vocational competencies so they can sustain crime-free and economically secure lifestyles. The program also aims to interrupt the intergenerational cycle of family fragmentation and delinquency through the provision of family-focused services for youths who already are pregnant or parenting. As such, it could be an effective program for gang-involved females.
Project Chrysalis is a comprehensive school-based program designed to provide abused female adolescents with a supportive and nurturing network of services, including support groups, case management, skill-building workshops, and knowledge-acquisition sessions (Brown & Block, 2001). This program aims to strengthen resiliency, improve school performance, and significantly decrease the negative outcomes of abuse—particularly substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, and suicidal ideations—among at-risk, high-school girls, aged 14–18. The main intervention was the school-based support groups, led by counselors from local nonprofit agencies, with various curriculum topics and strategies including causes/effects of sexual abuse and substance use/abuse. Brown and Block (2001) evaluated the efficacy of Project Chrysalis and concluded that it helped promote healthier beliefs and attitudes about alcohol and drug use and helped reduce initiation of smoking cigarettes or marijuana. However, risky sexual practices were associated with lower risk sexual behaviors immediately following program completion but with no effects during the first- and second-year follow-up.
Finally, Wolf and Gutierrez (2012) identify several promising services that appear to meet girls’ unique treatment needs, most of which have been described in this section, although none of these has been rigorously evaluated. Regardless, since female gang involvement differs from male gang involvement, many of the strategies described herein appear quite promising. It is difficult, however, in the absence of rigorous evaluations, to assess the extent to which these programs are “effective,” especially in preventing gang joining among girls or intervening with girls already gang involved. In sum, providing evidence-based programs for girls is critical, particularly for gang-involved girls (Petersen, 2000).
Discussion and Conclusions
From the research reviewed here, it appears that, with few exceptions, male and female gang members commit similar crimes during early adolescence while the level of seriousness of these offenses may be comparable, the frequency with which females participate in serious property and violent acts within the gang is lower than for boys. Girls’ involvement in these crimes is elevated in majority male gangs. As with boys, girls are most criminally active in organized gangs. Also, a small proportion of both genders are chronic offenders. Clearly, the intermingling of girls with boys leads to more active and serious criminal activity. Although research over the past 20 years has identified the nature and extent of female involvement in gangs, most gang prevention and intervention programs still have not been designed with girls in mind (Wolf & Gutierrez, 2012). This oversight is important because while the gang experience for boys and girls is similar in many respects, it is also quite unique.
We assessed herein the extent to which gender-specific programming is necessary and/or warranted, which we suggest hinges on similarities and differences in the context of girls’ and boys’ gang and delinquency experiences. Although female and male gang members are alike in many ways, they are also unique in their gang experiences. Based upon our review, we argue that both gender-neutral and female-specific approaches to prevention and intervention with girls are supported in the extant research. We suggest that gender-neutral universal prevention programs can be effective with girls and boys alike. We also presented compelling evidence of female-specific treatment needs that can be addressed by matching generic services with girls who apparently would benefit from them.
To be sure, this is a critical matter as it is in the best interest of our nation’s young people to tailor services to his or her risks and treatment needs. Clearly, tailored programs are needed for girls, as harmful family conditions, physical abuse, and sexual victimization may elevate their risk of gang joining for seeking protection. These conditions have important implications for prevention of gang joining, mainly that some services and protection should be female specific. We cited several studies that have demonstrated the existence of female-specific mental health treatment needs, particularly associated with family circumstances. We suggested that victimized and “beyond risk” girls could benefit from cognitive–behavioral therapy, treatment for traumatic victimization, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other mental health treatments. Thus, we drew attention to an array of programs that have the capacity to meet these unique treatment needs.
Three evidence-based gang programs have demonstrated effectiveness with samples of equal proportions of girls and boys: The Comprehensive Gang Model, G.R.E.A.T, and ART. A fourth program, one originally developed for substance abuse prevention (BSFT), has shown effectiveness with gang members in a gang-ridden economically distressed community. Other nongang evidence-based programs for delinquency reduction hold considerable promise for effectiveness with gang-involved males and females, particularly FFT, MTFC, and MST.
The best practice strategy for addressing gang-involved and at-risk girls’ unique treatment needs is to provide for systematic behavioral health problem diagnoses and treatment protocols for them. The Columbia University Center for the Promotion of Mental Health in Juvenile Justice has established such a protocol for adolescents consisting of four stages: screening, assessment, referral, and treatment (SART) diagnosing and matching. Ample evidence-based psychological and psychiatric treatment protocols are available. We further referenced several promising programs for providing supportive services for girls and safe environments where prevention and treatment services can be effectively delivered.
Although we argue that, as a matter of policy, programs should be tailored to the gang context itself, the reality is that progress on this front hinges on the availability of funding, this should be a public policy priority. We also acknowledge that gang programs, whether female specific or gender neutral, are good in theory but challenging in everyday practice given the intractability of gang problems and embeddedness of gang members (Pyrooz, Sweeten, & Piquero, 2013). Long overlooked, females should be targeted both for services and for sanctions for criminal behavior. It would be prudent to support both female-specific and gender-neutral programs, as both are needed depending upon the intent of the program. State, city, and county governments and child and adolescent-serving agencies should routinely assess at-risk and gang-involved youth for treatment needs. Juvenile justice system, child welfare, school, and mental health systems each serve as portals for services for at-risk and gang-involved males and females. Kempf-Leonard and Sample poignantly wrote “Our goal should not be to diminish the potential to serve boys better, for we have never met their needs adequately, but rather to remove gender bias, to provide access to effective treatment opportunities, and to intervene effectively by treating the needs of each individual youth” (2000, pp. 120–121).
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.