Victims & Offenders

An International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and

Practice

ISSN: 1556-4886 (Print) 1556-4991 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uvao20

What Is the Hidden Figure of Delinquency in Girls?

Scaling Up From Police Charges to Self-Reports

Lia Ahonen, Rolf Loeber, David P. Farrington, Alison E. Hipwell & Stephanie
D. Stepp

To cite this article: Lia Ahonen, Rolf Loeber, David P. Farrington, Alison E. Hipwell & Stephanie D.
Stepp (2017) What Is the Hidden Figure of Delinquency in Girls? Scaling Up From Police Charges
to Self-Reports, Victims & Offenders, 12:5, 761-776, DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2016.1185486

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2016.1185486

Published online: 14 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 68

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uvao20

Download by: [92.20.243.217] Date: 31 May 2017, At: 12:37

VICTIMS & OFFENDERS
2017, VOL. 12, NO. 5, 761776
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2016.1185486

What Is the Hidden Figure of Delinquency in Girls? Scaling Up

From Police Charges to Self-Reports
Lia Ahonena,b, Rolf Loebera, David P. Farringtonc, Alison E. Hipwella,
and Stephanie D. Steppa
a
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; brebro University, rebro, Sweden; cUniversity of
Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Research on males shows discrepancies between ocial records delinquency; girls; race;
and self-reports of delinquency, thus creating a scaling-up factor. scaling up; theft; violence
Comparable information for girls is still needed. We investigated
discrepancies (scaling up factors) from ocial records to self-
reports in a large sample of girls between ages 12 and 17
(N = 2,450). On average there were three self-reported juvenile
female oenders for every individual charged by the police, and
for every police charge there were four oenses that were com-
mitted. The scaling-up factor was highest in early adolescence,
indicating that female oenders at a young age were more likely
to stay undetected by the police. The scaling-up factor was sig-
nicantly lower for African American than white girls: a higher
proportion of African American delinquent girls were charged by
the police. Racial dierences in scaling up were signicant only
for prevalence, not for frequency of oending. Knowledge about
scaling-up factors is important for the design and implementation
of intervention programs. We discuss racial dierences, implica-
tions for justice administration, and practical implications for
intervention science.

Introduction
One of the most contentious issues in criminology is how best to measure juvenile
delinquency and adult criminality (Erickson & Empey, 1963; Farrington, 1986;
Farrington, Jollie, Loeber, & Homish, 2007; Krohn, Lizotte, Philips, Thornberry &
Bell, 2013; Krohn, Thornberry, Gibson, & Baldwin, 2010), taking into account dier-
ent biases for dierent measures such as underreporting in self-reports and over-
representation of minorities in ocial records. Traditionally, ocial records have
been used as the main source of information about individuals oending, but in
recent decades self-reported delinquency measures have become available (Elliott,
Huizinga, & Menard, 1989), with much improved validity (Jolie & Farrington,
2014; Piquero, Schubert, & Brame, 2014; Thornberry & Krohn, 2000).
Fifty years ago self-reported delinquency studies, in contrast to studies based on
conviction data, showed that crime was not just something that happened in lower-class

CONTACT Lia Ahonen ahonenl@upmc.edu Life History Program Studies, 3501 Forbes Avenue, Oxford Building,
Suite 800, Pittsburgh, PA 15218.
2017 Taylor & Francis
762 L. AHONEN ET AL.

neighborhoods where oenses were committed by individuals of a certain race or gender,

but was much more evenly distributed than previously shown (e.g., Akers, 1964; Empey &
Erickson, 1966; Erickson & Empey, 1963). We are aware of very few studies investigating
dierences in rates of oending when comparing self-reported measures to ocial record
data for young females with sucient statistical power (but see Farrington et al., 2009;
Jollie et al., 2003; Piquero et al., 2014), and recent research emphasizes the need for
studies based on all-female samples and samples of dierent races (e.g., Theobald,
Farrington, Loeber, Pardini, & Piquero, 2014). A large number of studies on delinquent
behavior rely solely on data collected from ocial records, with fewer studies relying on
self-reported oending alone or in combination with ocial conviction data (for the latter,
see Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, & White, 2008). In addition, research on
young males has shown that there are large discrepancies between ocial records and
self-reports of delinquency, with many more self-reported oenses compared to police
charges. Thus the dark gure of male delinquency is high (Farrington et al., 2007). The
concept of scaling up has been developed to indicate the prevalence and average number
of self-reported delinquent acts as a proportion of all ocial contacts with the justice
system during a given time period. For instance, as to prevalence, the scaling up indicates
the proportion of self-reported delinquents over the proportion of arrested or convicted
delinquents. As to frequency, if a population of youth self-reports an average of ten
delinquent acts, but on average is arrested for two delinquent acts, then the scaling-up
factor is ve. Thus, a scaling-up factor describes the hidden gures of the prevalence and
frequency of individuals oending.
Several recent studies on males have investigated the scaling up from court petitions/
charges to self-reported delinquency (Farrington et al., 2007; Theobald et al., 2014). The
results are clear, and the authors agree that a majority (as high as 82%) of males self-
reported at least some delinquency during adolescence, but ocial records showed that
only 35% of all the boys were detected within the juvenile justice system. These studies
included violent oenses, property and/or theft, and drug-related oenses. Recently, an
entire special issue of Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health was dedicated to compar-
isons of criminal careers in ocial records and self-reports (Farrington, Tto, Crago, &
Coid, 2014), suggesting that the study of scaling-up factors is of signicant public value
because this information can potentially guide policy making and the distribution of
nancial resources to interventions. However, comparisons of the scaling-up factors across
gender and studies are not easy, as studies vary in terms of the type of oenses examined
(e.g., including or excluding drug oenses), demographic characteristics of the sample
(e.g., age, gender, socioeconomic status), and time period under investigation.
The importance of the scaling-up ndings extends to the calculation of cost-benet
ratios of programs in terms of their long-term eectiveness. The implications of cost-
benet analyses based only on ocial records are by necessity dierent, and possibly
lower, than when compared on the basis of self-reported delinquency. To give an example,
Farrington and Koegl (2015) suggested that for every dollar spent on an intervention
program (Stop Now and Plan) for young boys, between $2.05 and $3.75 was saved, when
delinquency was based on ocial records. Scaling up to self-reports the savings were
substantially higher: $17.33 to $31.77 saved per dollar spent on the program. Thus,
scaling-up factors are important for cost-benet analyses of intervention and prevention
programs.
 VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 763

Turning to racial dierences, it is well known from previous literature that African
American males compared to white males have more contacts with the police and justice
system (e.g., Hartney & Vuong, 2009; Sickmund, 2009; Spohn, 2000; Steensmeier &
Ulmer, 1998) and that this also applies to African American females.
What is less well known is the extent to which scaling up factors dier by race.
Specically, are more self-reported African American female oenders, compared to
white female oenders, charged by the police? There are several related questions. For
example, are there racial dierences in scaling up independent of the type of delinquency
such as violence and theft? And do racial disparities in scaling up change with age or are
they constant? To our knowledge there are no studies investigating the scaling up factor in
large longitudinal community samples of African American and white girls.
The answers to these questions are likely to vary depending on whether the scaling-up
factor is computed based on the prevalence of individual oenders or on the frequency of
oenses. The key issue is to what extent scaling-up factors for prevalence and frequency
per oender dier by race and age.
The above discussion raises the question of whether there is a dark gure of female
delinquency and of what magnitude, and if ocial records are just a small part of a bigger
problem. This information is crucial in terms of directing resources to certain types of
interventions for girls.
The specic aims of the present paper are to investigate scaling-up factors from ocial
records to self-reported delinquency for violent oenses, theft oenses, and all oenses
(the combination of violent and theft oenses) between the ages of 12 and 17 in a large
sample of young females followed up in the Pittsburgh Girls Study. Further we examined
age- and race-related dierences in scaling-up factors.
The specic questions we addressed were:

(1) What is the prevalence and frequency of self-reported oending and police charges
for violent and/or theft oenses?
(2) For each girl charged with delinquent behavior, how many girls are engaged in
delinquency according to their self-reports? And is the scaling-up factor dierent
by violence, theft, age, and race?
(3) What is the scaling-up factor for the frequency of charges to the frequency of self-
reports, and does the scaling-up factor dier by violence, theft, age, and race?
(4) What are the implications of the ndings for optimizing juvenile justice practices?

Methods
The Pittsburgh Girls Study (PGS) is a longitudinal study with yearly follow-ups of girls in
the city of Pittsburgh, which started in 1999/2000 (Hipwell et al., 2002). Some of the
unique features of the PGS are as follows: a large community sample of 2,450 girls; early
age at rst assessment (ages 5, 6, 7, and 8 for the four cohorts, respectively); and multiple
informants (the girls, their caregiver, teachers, and ocial records). The main focus of the
yearly assessments was to study the development of mental health problems, delinquency,
substance use, and prosocial behavior from middle childhood extending into early adult-
hood. The study examines a large range of risk and protective factors that are thought to
impact on the course of girls development.
764 L. AHONEN ET AL.

To increase the number of high-risk girls, the most disadvantaged neighborhoods

(according to U.S. Census data) were oversampled (100% in the 23 disadvantaged neigh-
borhoods, 50% in the 66 advantaged neighborhoods) (for more details see Hipwell et al.,
2002). In order to examine juvenile justice responses to delinquency among girls, the
current study utilized data from six annual assessments when girls were between the ages
of 12 and 17 (Wave 611).
The four age-based cohorts did not signicantly dier by socioeconomic status,
living conditions, or family constellations (i.e., single-parent versus two-parent
households). Thus, all four cohorts were merged for the present analyses (Table 1).
Table 1 shows the demographics of the sample. The initial participation rate for the
four age cohorts was 85% of all identied families that were eligible for participation.
The study has an overall high average retention rate of over 90%, averaged over all
assessment waves.
The racial distribution at the initial assessment was as follows: 52.9% were African
American, 41.2% of the girls were white, and 5.9% were reported as another race (Asian or
biracial); the latter two nonAfrican American groups were merged and are referred to as
white. In the current study we were interested specically in African American girls versus
other girls. At the initial assessment the majority (93%) of the girls were living with their
biological mother. Most of the girls attended public schools at age 11 (82.6%); 16.5%
attended private schools and only a fraction (0.9%) were homeschooled. There were no
statistically signicant dierences in the distribution of types of schools over the four
dierent cohorts.
Attrition analyses were conducted to compare girls on Wave 1 demographic
characteristics who declined further participation through Wave 11 with those who
continued in the study (Hipwell et al., 2002). With the exception of public assistance,
no statistically signicant dierences between those who dropped out and those who
continued were observed for ethnicity, parent education, and single parent status.
These attrition analyses may indicate that we could have lost families that may be
more at risk of delinquency. However, no other demographics separated the families
who dropped out from the remaining ones and therefore the risk is negligible.
Additional details of how the PGS team ensured high participation rates, including
information on the data, can be found in Keenan and colleagues (2010).

Table 1. Demographics of the four cohorts at initial assessment.

5 (n = 586) 6 (n = 630) 7 (n = 612) 8 (n = 622)
Cohort (N = 2,450) N % N % N % N %
Girl
African American 299 50.9 341 54.1 319 52.2 325 52.3
Caregiver
Female 544 92.5 595 94.4 562 92.0 576 92.6
Biological parent 553 94.0 584 92.7 571 93.5 563 90.5
Married/live-in partner 354 60.2 364 57.8 370 60.6 349 56.1
Caregiver completed 11 years or less of education 95 16.2 108 17.1 102 16.7 107 17.2
Note: Size of cohort 5 diers from earlier publications due to new information on a participant not interviewed for over
10 years.
 VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 765

Self-reported delinquency
Self-reported delinquency was measured on a yearly basis using the Self-Reported
Delinquency Questionnaire (SRD). The 40 items of the SRD are based on the National
Youth Survey and have been widely evaluated (e.g., Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985;
Stouthamer-Loeber & Stallings, 2008). We used a conservative approach to delinquency,
and thus we did not include status oenses or minor oending. The following items were
included in theft oenses: stealing more than ve dollars, pickpocketing, stealing from a
car, dealing in stolen goods, breaking and entering, joyriding, and stealing a car. Violence
included gang ghting, robbery, assault, and attacking with a weapon. All items from both
categories (theft and violence) were combined to create a total self-reported delinquency
scale (called all delinquency). Each girl responded whether or not she had committed a
particular oense type in the previous 12 monthsand if yes, how many times. The
response alternatives ranged from zero to n (no upper limit).

Juvenile criminal records

We used juvenile records from age 12 (which was the minimum age for ocial records)
up until age 17 to investigate whether the girls had been charged with any moderate or
serious oenses (see the measurement section for exclusion criteria). Juvenile records were
acquired from the Allegheny County Juvenile Probation Oce (JPO), which provided
countywide data on participants aged 17 and younger according to their name, current
address(es), date of birth, and/or Social Security number. The data included information
about arrests, charges, and dispositions, and in the current study we only used police
charges. Valid data on delinquency charges was available for 9194% of the entire sample
(range N = 2,224 to 2,302, over the four cohorts). Charges were missing where girls had
moved out of the county or were deceased by the age of 17 (n = 7). The following charges
were included for violence: assault (all types of), robbery, and carjacking. Theft charges
included larceny, selling stolen property, burglary, and unauthorized use of a motor
vehicle. For further details on the categorization of charges see Loeber et al. (2008).

Analyses
Unless stated otherwise, all values are weighted to correct for the oversampling of
disadvantaged neighborhoods. Values are truncated to account for possible outliers
(girls were coded to have committed no more than 50 oenses per year). The number
of girls committing 50 or more oenses ranged from 1 at age 17 to 6 at age 15. This was
done to make the results of the present study comparable to the scaling-up study on males
in the Pittsburgh Youth Study (PYS; Farrington et al., 2007). Signicance testing of
dierences in the prevalence of oending in the total sample of girls by self-reports and
charges were performed with Chi-square tests, to calculate the odds ratios for the like-
lihood to belong to a certain group. Testing for group dierences in the frequency of
oending by active oenders was performed using Mann Whitney tests of ranks because,
although these data concern only active oenders rather than the entire sample, data were
not normally distributed. Active oenders are dened as those who committed one or
more oenses (prevalence), while the frequency of oending refers to the number of
766 L. AHONEN ET AL.

oenses per active oender. In the tables we present the mean number of oenses for each
oender rather than the median, since the scaling-up factor is based on the mean.
The scaling-up factors for each category of girls and oenses were calculated by
dividing the average number of self-reported oenders with the average number of
ocially charged oenders, and the average number of self-reported oenses with the
number of oenses charged. The ultimate scaling-up factor show how many oenders or
oenses stay undetected in ocial records per charged oender/oenses.

Results
Prevalence of self-reported delinquency and police charges for violent and/or theft
oenses
Self-reported prevalence
Considering all ages combined (12 to 17), more than one-third of the girls reported
delinquency (32.1%), and more than a quarter self-reported violence (27.5%), but fewer
reported theft oenses (13.1%) (Table 2).
A larger number of African American compared to white girls self-reported delin-
quency, and were approximately three times more likely to report any type of oending
than white girls (OR = 2.94, 95% CI 2.393.61). More than twice as many of the African
American compared to the white girls reported committing at least one violent oense
(38.8% versus 15.7%), and thus the odds for African American girls to be self-reported
oenders were almost three and a half times the odds of white girls being involved in
violent oending (OR = 3.39, 95% CI 2.724.23). More African American girls also
reported theft oenses than white girls, although the dierence was smaller in magnitude
than violence (16.4% versus 9.7%). The odds ratio was higher that African American girls
self-reported theft than white girls (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.382.41).

Prevalence by age
Concordant with the age-crime curve (Loeber, Hipwell, Pardini, Stepp, & Ahonen, 2015),
we found that the prevalence of any self-reported delinquency increased steadily between
ages 12 and 15 and then decreased at ages 16 and 17 (Table 2). The prevalence of any self-
reported delinquency was lowest at age 17 (7.7%) and highest at age 14 (13.0%). Across all
ages, more African American girls self-reported delinquency compared to white girls:
ranging from 11.5% and 4.3% at age 12 to 18.4% and 7.5% at age 15 for African American
and white girls, respectively (Table 2). The odds that African American girls would report
delinquency at any age were on average three times the odds of white girls (OR ranges
from 2.40 to 3.39, see Table 2).
The prevalence of self-reported violent oenses ranged between 5.7% (age 17) and
10.5% (age 14) for all girls combined (Table 2). For African American girls the range was
8.8% (age 17) to 15.8% (age 14), compared to white girls for whom the range was 2.5%
(age 17) to 5.3% (age 15). At every age more African American than white girls reported
engaging in violent delinquent acts, with odds ratios ranging from 2.88 to 3.67 (see Table 2
for details on all ages).
The prevalence of self-reported theft was in general lower than for violence and ranged
from 1.9% for all girls at age 12 to 4.7% at age 16. For African American girls the range
Table 2. Prevalence of self-reported delinquency versus ocial charges between ages 1217, and scaling-up factors.
% Self-Reports % Charges Scaling-Up factors
% of girls who are oenders All girls C AA Odds ratio CI-95% All girls C AA Odds ratio CI-95% All girls C AA
Total 32.1 20.5 43.2 2.94** 2.393.61 11.0 3.1 19.1 7.45** 5.1310.83 2.92 6.61 2.26
-Violence 27.5 15.7 38.8 3.39** 2.724.23 9.1 2.1 16.3 9.14** 5.8514.24 3.02 7.48 2.38
-Theft 13.1 9.7 16.4 1.83** 1.382.41 3.8 1.3 6.4 4.95** 2.818.70 3.45 7.46 2.56
% Violence and theft oenders combined by age
12 (n = 2,229) 7.9 4.3 11.5 2.93** 2.084.12 1.1 NA 2.2 NA NA 7.18 NA 5.23
13 (n = 2,190) 10.6 5.3 15.9 3.39** 2.494.62 1.8 0.2 3.5 20.52** 4.9485.20 5.89 26.5 4.54
14 (n = 2,137) 12.5 6.7 18.3 3.10** 2.444.12 2.3 0.4 4.3 10.18** 4.0425.68 5.43 16.75 4.26
15 (n = 2,100) 13.0 7.5 18.4 2.76** 2.103.64 3.6 1.1 6.1 5.60** 3.0810.20 3.61 6.82 3.02
16 (n = 2,060) 10.3 6.5 14.2 2.40** 1.783.25 3.9 1.0 6.9 7.58** 4.0114.35 2.64 6.5 2.06
17 (n = 2,036) 7.7 4.4 11.0 2.67** 1.873.83 3.0 0.9 5.2 6.13** 3.1912.06 2.57 4.89 2.16
% Violent oenders by age
12 (n = 2,229) 6.8 3.4 10.2 3.19** 2.194.67 0.9 NA 1.1 NA NA 7.56 NA 9.27
13 (n = 2,190) 9.1 4.2 14.1 3.58** 2.565.08 1.7 0.2 3.2 18.90** 4.5478.66 5.35 21.00 4.41
14 (n = 2,137) 10.5 5.1 15.8 3.55** 2.544.97 1.9 0.3 3.6 10.53** 3.7529.53 5.53 17.00 4.39
15 (n = 2,100) 10.4 5.3 15.4 3.19** 2.304.44 2.6 0.9 4.3 6.06** 2.5510.05 4.00 5.89 3.58
16 (n = 2,060) 7.3 4.1 10.4 2.88** 1.964.22 2.6 0.7 4.6 7.74** 3.4917.12 2.80 5.86 2.26
17 (n = 2,036) 5.7 2.5 8.8 3.67** 2.285.90 2.5 0.3 4.7 13.71** 4.9438.05 2.28 8.33 1.87
% Theft oenders by age
12 (n = 2,229) 1.9 1.4 2.4 ns ns 0.2 NA 0.4 NA NA 9.5 NA 6.00
13 (n = 2,190) 2.5 1.7 3.3 2.06* 1.143.74 0.2 NA 0.5 NA NA 12.5 NA 6.60
14 (n = 2,137) 3.7 2.5 4.9 2.20** 1.353.59 0.5 0.1 0.9 11.31* 1.4687.73 7.4 25.00 5.44
15 (n = 2,100) 4.0 3.0 5.1 1.74* 1.112.75 1.2 0.3 2.0 5.69** 1.9516.56 3.33 10.00 2.55
16 (n = 2,060) 4.7 3.4 6.0 1.86* 1.202.88 1.5 0.4 2.7 6.25** 2.4216.17 9.4 8.50 2.22
17 (n = 2,036) 2.9 2.4 3.5 ns ns 0.8 0.5 1.0 ns ns 3.63
4.8 3.50
Note: NA = not applicable, C = Caucasian, AA = African American, df = 1, p < .05*, p < .001**, ns = nonsignicant
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS
767
768 L. AHONEN ET AL.

was between 2.4% (age 12) and 6.0% (age 16), compared to white girls for whom the range
was 1.4% (age 12) to 3.4% (age 16). Comparisons between white and African American
girls further show that a larger number of African American girls compared to white girls
self-reported theft oenses at ages 13 (OR = 2.06, 95% CI 1.143.74), 14 (OR = 2.20, 95%
CI 1.353.59), 15 (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.112.75), and 16 (OR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.202.88),
but there was no signicant dierence found at ages 12 and 17 (Table 2). African
American girls were approximately twice as likely to self-report theft oenses compared
to white girls with odds ratios ranging from 1.86 to 2.20 (for details see Table 2).

Prevalence of ocial charges

Of all girls, 11% were charged with a delinquent act9.1% for violence and 3.8% for theftat
some point between ages 12 and 17. Approximately ve to six times as many African
American compared to white girls were charged with any oense (19.1% versus 3.1%),
violence (16.3% versus 2.1%), or theft (6.4% versus 1.3%). The overall likelihood that
African American girls would get charged for any oense was greater than for white girls
being charged (OR = 7.45, 95% CI 5.1310.83). For violent oenses, the odds were even higher
that African American girls would be charged (OR = 9.14, 95% CI 5.8514.24) and for theft
charges, the odds were approximately ve times higher for African American girls (OR = 4.95,
95% CI 2.818.70). There were also racial dierences by age, with African American girls
being overrepresented for all delinquency charges and violent charges at all ages compared to
white girls. The dierences are more prominent at younger ages and decrease somewhat with
age. For example, at age 13 the odds were more than 20 that African American girls would be
charged with any delinquency compared to white girls (OR = 20.52, 95% CI 4.9485.20) and
more than 6 at age 17 (OR = 6.13, 95% CI 3.1912.06). For more details at every age see
Table 2. It should be noted that no calculations of dierences between African American and
white girls were made for age 12 because there were no white girls charged at that age.
Turning to violence charges the racial disparity is also evident; more African American
girls were charged at age 12 (OR = 18.90, 95% CI 4.5478.66). The odds ratios of African
American girls getting charged more often than white girls decreased until age 15
(OR = 6.06, 95% CI, 2.5510.05) but increased slightly at ages 16 and 17 (see Table 2).
This race disparity also emerged for theft oenses at ages 14 (OR = 11.31, 95% CI 1.4687.73),
15 (OR = 5.69, 95% CI 1.9516.56), and 16 (OR = 6.25, 95% CI 2.4216.17), but was not
signicant at age 17. There were no theft charges for white girls at ages 12 and 13 (see Table 2).

Scaling-up factors based on the prevalence of oending

Next we investigated how many girls were engaged in delinquency according to their self-
reports but not charged, and translated this into a scaling-up factor. We further investi-
gated whether the scaling-up factor diered by type of oense, age, and race.
The results show that only one in three of the self-reported female oenders were
charged in the juvenile justice system, which means that there are on average almost three
(2.92) oenders per police charge that stay undetected in the juvenile justice system
(Table 2). The scaling-up factor for African American girls was a third of the scaling-up
factor for white girls (2.26 versus 6.61), indicating that a much higher proportion of self-
reported female African American oenders were registered in the court records com-
pared to white girls.
 VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 769

The scaling-up factor for all girls of any type of delinquency varied with age, and
decreased from 7.18 at age 12 to 2.57 at age 17 (Figure 1), indicating that self-reported
delinquent girls in general were more likely to get arrested at older ages. However, we
found major race dierences. At age 13 the scaling-up factor was more than ve times
higher for white compared to African American girls (26.50 versus 4.54), but this
dierence gradually decreased with age, and became more similar by age 17 (4.89 versus
2.16). Thus, the results show that scaling-up factors are higher at a young age, especially
for white girls compared to African American girls, indicating that a higher proportion of
African American self-reported delinquents were charged.
The results for the scaling-up factors for violence and theft basically replicated the
scaling-up ndings for any delinquency (violence and theft combined). The scaling up
factor for the prevalence of violence across ages 1217 was 3.02 and diered signicantly
between African American girls (7.48) and white girls (2.35), with African American girls
being roughly three times more likely to be charged overall than white girls (Table 2).
The scaling-up factor for the prevalence of theft across ages 1217 was 3.45, and thus
only slightly higher than that for violence. Again, the scaling-up factor was higher for
African American girls compared to white girls. Also, African American self-reported
delinquent girls were roughly three times more often charged than white girls (scaling up
factors 7.46 versus 2.56) (Figure 1).

Mean frequency of oending and the scaling up from police charges to self-
reported delinquency
The above ndings on scaling up from the prevalence of girls charged by the police for
delinquent acts to the prevalence of self-reported delinquents does not take into account
that each active oender may have committed additional oenses and only a small
proportion of these oenses may lead to police charges. For that reason, we now look
rst at the mean frequency of self-reported oending by oenders, the mean frequency of
police charges by oenders, and the scaling-up factor between the two.

Scaling up factors across age (prevalence)

30
25
Scaling up factor

20
15 All girls
10 Caucasian
5 African American
0
12 13 14 15 16 17
Age

Figure 1. Number of self-reported oenders per ocially charged oender (prevalence). Note: no
Caucasian girls were charged at age 12.
770 L. AHONEN ET AL.

Self-reports
The results show that the self-reported oenders committed on average approximately 10
(9.64) oenses per active oender for all delinquency (6.82 violent oenses per violent
oender and 9.34 theft oenses per theft oender) (Table 3). There was a small yet signicant
dierence in the median frequency of any oenses by African American and white oending
girls (U = 321938, z 10.28. (Table 3). The mean frequency of any self-reported delinquent
acts for active oenders ranged from 4.03 to 4.54 between ages 12 to 17, and there were no
signicant dierences between white and African American girls at any age (Table 3).

Charges
The results show that active oenders on average incurred two charges (2.0) per oender,
and this was marginally lower for violence than for theft (1.9 versus 2.12). There were no
median frequency dierences of charges of active African American compared to white
oending girls (Table 3), nor were there other statistically signicant racial dierences in
the frequency of ocially recorded oenses. There were also no discernible age trends in
police charges (not computable for age 12), which ranged from 1.38 (age 12) to 1.93 (age
17) charges per active oender. In addition, we found no signicant dierence at any age
in the frequency of charges for white girls compared to African American girls.

Violence and theft

The mean frequency of self-reported theft oenses (9.34) was on average higher than for
violence (6.82), although not statistically signicant. Using the median values as criterion,
there were no statistically signicant dierences between white and African American girls
(Table 3). We also did not nd dierences in the median frequency of police theft charges
per oender between African American and white girls.

Scaling up factors based on the frequency of oending

Next we addressed the scaling-up factors for frequency of charges to the frequency of self-
reports, and whether the scaling-up factor diers by type of oense, age, and race. The
results show that for every oense charged by the police there were on average more than
4 oenses that did not result in a police charge according to self-reports. Further, the
scaling-up factor was slightly higher for theft compared to violence (5.24 versus 3.82). The
overall scaling-up factor for any delinquency was higher for African American girls than
for white girls (4.68 versus 2.92) (Table 3), but there was no relevant dierence for
violence (2.82 versus 2.4) or for theft (5.24 versus 3.03).
Turning to age trends (Figure 2), the results for violence and theft replicate the ndings
for any delinquency, showing that the scaling-up factors for violence and theft were
slightly higher in early rather than late adolescence (violence: 2.85 at age 12 and 1.77 at
age 17; theft: 3.03 at age 12 and 2.03 at age 17), and this nding applied to both African
American and white girls (Table 3, Figure 2). We found no racial dierence in the median
frequency of violent or theft oenses committed by African American or white girls on
any age separately. Note that no race comparisons for scaling-up factors were made for
theft charges at age 12 and 13, since no white girls were charged, or for violent charges at
age 12 for the same reason. In summary, almost 3 violent oenses did not result in a police
charge, ranging from 2.09 at age 17 to 3.07 at age 13.
Table 3. Mean frequency of self-reported delinquent acts, ocial charges, and scaling-up factors.
Violence and theft combined Mean number of self-reported delinquent acts Mean number of ocial delinquency charges Scaling-Up factor
a
Average frequency of all oenses All girls C AA U (Median) All girls C AA U(Median) All girls C AA
Total 9.64 7.29 10.72 U = 321938* 2.31 2.50 2.29 ns 4.17 2.92 4.68
-Violent 6.82 5.80 7.22 ns 1.90 2.42 1.89 ns 3.59 2.4 3.82
-Theft 9.34 6.05 11.21 ns 2.12 2.0 2.14 ns 4.45 3.03 5.24
Average number of all oenses by age
12 4.10 5.58 3.54 ns 1.38 NA 1.38 NA 2.97 NA 2.57
13 4.37 ns 1.39 1.00 1.40 ns 3.07 3.97 3.12
14 4.27 3.97 4.49 ns 1.51 1.25 1.53 ns 2.95 3.48 2.93
15 4.45 4.35 4.00 ns 1.67 3.0 1.48 ns 2.54 1.62 2.70
16 4.25 4.87 4.60 ns 1.52 1.22 1.55 ns 2.99 3.61 2.97
17 4.544.03 4.403.92 4.06 ns 1.93 2.25 1.90 ns 2.09 1.74 2.15
Average number of violent oenses by age
12 3.56 5.02 3.07 ns 1.25 NA 1.25 NA 2.85 NA 2.46
13 3.98 3.20 4.22 ns 1.29 1.00 1.30 ns 3.09 3.20 3.25
14 3.87 4.28 3.74 ns 1.46 1.33 1.47 ns 2.65 3.22 2.54
15 3.14 4.10 2.81 ns 1.58 3.33 1.32 ns 1.99 1.23 2.13
16 2.89 2.50 3.04 ns 1.24 1.17 1.25 ns 2.33 2.14 2.43
17 2.82 2.37 2.95 ns 1.59 1.00 1.62 ns 1.77 2.37 1.82
Average number of theft oenses by age
12 4.55 5.54 3.95 ns 1.50 NA 1.50 NA 3.03 NA 2.63
13 4.13 4.33 4.02 ns 1.67 NA 1.67 NA 2.47 NA 2.40
14 4.41 2.91 5.18 ns 1.40 1.0 1.43 ns 3.15 2.91 3.62
15 5.97 5.64 6.16 ns 1.65 1.33 1.68 ns 3.62 4.24 3.67
16 5.60 5.36 5.74 ns 1.77 1.00 1.86 ns 3.16 5.36 3.09
17 5.12 4.76 5.37 ns 2.52 1.00 2.36 ns 2.03 4.76 2.28
Note: NA = not applicable, C = Caucasian, AA = African American, aMann Whitney test of ranks, p < .05*, ns = non signicant
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS
771
772 L. AHONEN ET AL.

Scaling up factors across age (frequency)

5

Scaling up factor
4
3
All girls
2
Caucasian
1
African American
0
12 13 14 15 16 17
Age

Figure 2. Number of self-reported oenses per charge (frequency). Note: no Caucasian girls were
charged at age 12.

Discussion and conclusions

In summary, the results show considerable evidence for a dark gure of female delinquency in
that many girls goes undetected in the juvenile justice systemthe severity and frequency of
their oending is not known to justice personnel. As far as we are aware, the present paper is the
rst to report on scaling-up factors for delinquent acts committed by girls based on a large all-
female community sample. We found that, for every female oender charged by the police
between ages 12 and 17, there were about 3 self-reported oenders who did not show up in
police reports, and this applied to both violent and theft oenders. In terms of the frequency of
oenses, the results show that on average 5 oenses were self-reported for every police charge.
This scaling-up factor varied by oense type, and was on average 7 for violent acts and 10 for
theft oenses. The prevalence of especially theft oenses at each age was, in comparison to other
studies on female theft oending, on the lower end of the range (e.g., Huizinga, Miller, & the
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2013) mostly because we used self-reported
moderate and serious theftthus excluding minor theft such as stealing small items or money at
home. One exception is the study by Grant and colleagues (2011) using self-reported data from
high-school students showing that 12.46% of the females reported theft oending, which is
almost identical to the prevalence as in the current study (13.1%) (Grant et al., 2011).
We also found that the scaling-up factors were higher in early compared to late
adolescence, and that this applied to both violence and theft. Thus, young adolescent
girls compared to older adolescent girls were less likely to be charged by the police. One
might argue that older girls potentially engage in more serious oending and are more
likely to get caught by the police. However, we also included moderate and serious
oending at all ages as dened by Loeber et al. (2008) in the Pittsburgh Youth Study.
Since early onset compared to later onset of oending is predictive of worse delinquency
over time for both boys and girls (Loeber & Farrington, 2001), this means that the police
are reluctant in charging young female delinquents who are likely to be headed for a
career of crime.
One of the other striking results is that the scaling-up factor for all types of oenses was
three times higher for white girls than for African American girls. Thus, African American
girls were three times more likely to be charged than white girls. This racial dierence was
amplied at a young age. Specically, almost ve times as many African American girls were
charged at age 13 compared to white girls, which was true for all types of oenses. There are a
 VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 773

few competing hypothesis to explain these results. First, African American compared to
white girls may underreport delinquency in self-report measures. However, the results show
a higher prevalence and frequency of self-reported moderate and serious forms of delin-
quency by African American compared with white girls. A second possible interpretation is
that African American compared to white girls may be more likely to be stopped and arrested
by the police for delinquent acts because, at least judging from their self-reports, more
African Americans committed delinquent acts. Third, African American girls on average
often live in neighborhoods with a higher delinquency rate, and may therefore get charged
more often because of higher police presence in such neighborhoods. However, we cannot
exclude the possibility of racial bias of the police and/or juvenile justice system. Moore and
Padavic (2010) found signicant dierences in the way dierent groups of girls were
sentenced, with harsher responses and sentences for African American girls than white
girls, especially at a young age. Yet other studies have shown dierences in responses to
African American youth in the justice system and that justice personnel evaluate minority
youth dierently than white youth (Bridges & Steen, 1998).
We conclude that, although more African American than white self-reported female
oenders were charged by the police, the median and mean frequency of oending by
African American girls was similar to that for white girls. Along that line and importantly,
we did not nd that there were racial dierences in scaling-up factors based on the mean
frequency of self-reported oending and police charges. It is unclear to what extent this
similarity across race is a result of police practices.
The present study sheds some light on gender dierences in scaling-up factors. The
comparison between girls in the present study and boys in the PYS (Farrington et al.,
2007; Theobald et al., 2014) is somewhat complicated by the fact that the overall scaling-
up factor for boys included drug oenses whereas this study on girls did not because of
dierences in measurements. This fact likely makes the estimation of the prevalence of
female delinquency an underestimate compared to boys. We found that the scaling-up
factor for girls in some instances seemed to be higher than what has recently been found
for boys (Farrington et al., 2007), although the indicators were not fully comparable. Girls
compared to boys were less likely to be charged at very young ages (thus a higher scaling-
up factor), but they were more likely to be charged later in adolescence. This is in line with
previous literature showing an increase in female arrests in late adolescence (Chesney-
Lind, 1997; Hubbard-Jones & Pratt, 2002; Steensmeier & Schwartz, 2009). This result has
to be considered in the light of gender dierences in the frequency of oending: boys
commit a much higher frequency of oenses per oender than girls, and so it is unlikely
that every oender is charged (or convicted) for every oense (Farrington et al., 2007).

Limitations and strengths of the study

This study has several limitations. We focused on police charges (but not proven culpability),
and because of low base rates did not use all forms of ocial records from the JPO, such as
conviction or diversion data. Therefore, the present paper does not shed light on the scaling-
up factor on justice practices beyond police charges. We focused on clear delinquent acts
(excluding drug oenses) and did not include status oenses, such as running away and
underage drinking. Also we did not include oenses such as stealing at home or hitting a
sibling. We focused on oenses that could be compared to police charges.
774 L. AHONEN ET AL.

We could not independently conrm either the validity of ocial charges or the validity
of self-reported delinquency. One example of issues surrounding self-reports is whether
certain racial groups report dierently from other groups. For the latter, Farrington and
colleagues (1996) showed that African American males were no more likely to self-report
delinquency than were white males, but some studies suggest underreporting of delinquent
acts by African American males (see Thornberry & Krohn, 2000 for an overview).
The scaling-up factors calculated in this paper do not represent the fact that many girls
co-oend with their peers; the extent to which co-oending aects scaling-up factors
remains unknown. We were only partly able to replicate ndings on the scaling-up factors
documented for boys (see above). Gender comparisons between ndings based on the
PGS and the PYS proved complex. The published scaling-up factor for boys in the PYS
included drug-related oenses and property oenses (not just theft). Further, the overall
base rate of girls serious oending was low, which left little variance to be explained. In
addition, we did not attempt to test dierent developmental models of girls self-reported
and ocial oending to illustrate changes over time.
Against the above limitations, the strengths of the present study include a large long-
itudinal sample of girls, the use of a standard assessment of self-reported delinquency with
measurements over time, a high cooperation rate, and complete records of police charges.
Another strength was our ability to examine possible racial dierences in scaling-up factors.

Practical and policy implications, and directions for future research

The study of scaling-up factors for females is of crucial importance for policy makers, service
providers, and police at all stages of involvement in the juvenile justice system. Scaling-up
factors should be considered when making policy decisions on funding for intervention
initiatives for females. Information on scaling-up factors should also be used when evaluating
eectiveness of interventions and prevention programs aimed at delinquent girls. The success
of such programs needs to be gauged not just in terms of ocial delinquency records, but also
by taking into account the higher rates of self-reported delinquency (with the occasional
exception of referrals to, for example, child and youth services) although juveniles are drawn
into the systems based on ocial reports. Ocial charges are often the trigger for referral for
an intervention, but the true extent of earlier forms of delinquency often may only become
apparent when prior delinquency and social agency records are accessed, complemented by
the youths self-reports and the reports of parents or guardians. The measurement of the
intervention and criminal justice often relies on ocial records. However, the results of the
scaling-up research suggest that the magnitude of intervention success and criminal justice
processes can be better assessed when self-reported delinquency is used as an additional
outcome. In addition, to be able to determine the true nancial cost of delinquency the
scaling-up factor is crucial to show the true rates of crime and delinquency.
Further, service provision and service needs are not always concordant. Service provi-
ders and policy makers need to be aware that there are a larger number of delinquent girls
than is evident in ocial records. In practice this could mean that community interven-
tions, such as adults patrolling neighborhoods, should not just focus on the dark gures of
crime by young males but also, as the present research indicates, focus on the dark gures
of female delinquency.
 VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 775

Acknowledgments
Dr. Ahonen is grateful to the Swedish Research Council (VR) for supporting her work.

Funding
This project was supported by Grant #(2013-JF-FX-0058) awarded by the Oce of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, Oce of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions,
ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reect those of the Department of Justice.

References
Akers, R. (1964). Socioeconomic status and delinquent behavior: A retest. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 1(1), 3846. doi:10.1177/002242786400100105
Bridges, G. S., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in ocial assessments of juvenile oenders:
Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 554
570. doi:10.2307/2657267
Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female oender: Girls, women and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, substance use,
and mental health problems. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Empey, L., & Erickson, M. (1966). Hidden delinquency and social status. Social Forces, 44(4), 546
554. doi:10.1093/sf/44.4.546
Erickson, M. L., & Empey, L. T. (1963). Court records, undetected delinquency and decision
making. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 54(4), 454469.
Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and crime. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An
annual review of research (Vol. 7, pp. 189250). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Farrington, D. P., Jollie, D., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Kosterman, R. (2009).
Why are boys more likely to be referred to juvenile court? Gender dierences in ocial and self-
reported delinquency. Victims & Oenders, 5(1), 2544. doi:10.1080/15564880903422963
Farrington, D. P., Jollie, D., Loeber, R., & Homish, L. D. (2007). How many oenses are really
committed per juvenile court oender? Victims & Oenders, 2(3), 227249. doi:10.1080/
15564880701403934
Farrington, D. P., & Koegl, C. J. (2015). Monetary benets and costs of the stop now and plan
program for boys aged 611, based on the prevention of later oending. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 31, 263287. doi:10.1007/s10940-014-9240-7
Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W. B., & Schmidt, L. (1996).
Self-reported delinquency and a combined delinquency seriousness scale based on boys, mothers,
and teachers: Concurrent and predictive validity for African Americans and Caucasians.
Criminology, 34, 493517. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01217.x
Farrington, D. P., Tto, M. M., Crago, R. V., & Coid, J. W. (2014). Prevalence, frequency, onset,
desistance and criminal career duration in self-reports compared with ocial records. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 4, 241253. doi:10.1002/cbm.1930
Grant, J. E., Potenza, M. N., Krishnan-Sarin, S., Cavallo, D. A., & Desai, R. A. (2011). Stealing
among high school students: Prevalence and clinical correlates. Journal of American Academy of
Psychiatry and Law, 39(1), 4452.
Hartney, C., & Vuong, L. (2009). Created equal: Racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. justice
system. Retrieved from http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/les/publication_pdf/created-
equal.pdf.
776 L. AHONEN ET AL.

Hipwell, A. E., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Keenan, K., White, H. R., & Kroneman, L.
(2002). Characteristics of girls with early onset disruptive and antisocial behavior. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 12, 99118. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1471-2857
Hubbard Jones, D., & Pratt, T. C. (2002). A meta-analysis of the predictors of delinquency among
girls. Journal of Oender Rehabilitation, 34(3), 113. doi:10.1300/J076v34n03_01
Huizinga, D., Miller, S., & the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2013).
Developmental sequences of girls delinquent behavior. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.
Jolie, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2014). Self-reported oending: Reliability and validity. In G. J. N.
Bruinsma & D. L. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. New York,
NY: Springer.
Jollie, D., Farrington, D. P., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Kosterman, R. (2003).
Predictive, concurrent, prospective and retrospective validity of self-reported delinquency.
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 13, 179197. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1471-2857
Keenan, K., Hipwell, A., Stepp, S., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., & McTigue, K. (2010). The
Pittsburgh Girls Study: Overview and initial ndings. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 39, 506521. doi:10.1080/15374416.2010.486320
Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Phillips, M. D., Thornberry, T. P., & Bell, K. A. (2013). Explaining
systematic bias in self-reported measures: Factors that aect the under- and overreporting of self-
reported arrests. Justice Quarterly, 30(3), 501528. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.606226
Krohn, M. D., Thornberry, T. P., Gibson, C. L., & Baldwin, J. M. (2010). The development and
impact of self-report measures of crime and delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26
(4), 509525. doi:10.1007/s10940-010-9119-1
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2001). Child delinquents: Development, intervention and
service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & White, H. R. (2008). Violence and serious
theft: Development and prediction from childhood to adulthood. New York, NY: Routledge.
Loeber, R., Hipwell, A. E., Pardini, D. P., Stepp, S. D., & Ahonen, L. (2015). Constancy and change
in the prevalence and frequency of oending when based on longitudinal self-reports or ocial
records: Comparisons by gender, race, and crime type. Journal of Developmental and Life Course
Criminology, 1, 150168. doi:10.1007/s40865-015-0010-5
Moore, L. D., & Padavic, I. (2010). Racial and ethnic disparities in girls sentencing in the juvenile
justice system. Feminist Criminology, 5, 263285. doi:10.1177/1557085110380583
Piquero, A. R., Schubert, C. A., & Brame, R. (2014). Comparing ocial and self-report records of
oending across gender and race/ethnicity in a longitudinal study of serious youthful oenders.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(4), 526556. doi:10.1177/0022427813520445
Sickmund, M. (2009). Delinquency cases in juvenile court, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Oce of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Spohn, C. C. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing
process. In J. Horney (Ed.), Criminal justice (Vol. 3, pp. 427501). Washington, DC: NIJ.
Steensmeier, D., & Schwartz, J. (2009). Trends in girls delinquency and the gender gap: Statistical
assessment of diverse sources. In M. Zahn (Ed.), The delinquent girl (pp. 5083). Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press.
Steensmeier, D., & Ulmer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal senten-
cing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763798.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Stallings, R. (2008). Measurement instruments and constructs. In R
Loeber, D. P.. Farrington, M. Stouthamer-Loeber, & . White H (Eds.), Violence and serious theft:
Development and prediction from childhood to adulthood (pp. 3973). New York, NY: Routledge.
Theobald, D., Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Pardini, D. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2014). Scaling up from
convictions to self-reported oending. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 24(4), 265276.
doi:10.1002/cbm.v24.4
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and
crime. In J. Horney (Ed.), Criminal justice (Vol. 4, pp. 3383). Washington, DC: NIJ.