Gendered Risks and Responses: A Study of Runaway Youth
1. 308
Gender and Runaways
Risk Factors, Delinquency, and
Juvenile Justice Experiences
Kimberly Kempf-Leonard
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Pernilla Johansson
University of Texas at Dallas
Runaway is a status offense for which there is concern that
youths, particularly girls, are
vulnerable to the “evils of the streets.” Prior research suggests
that many personal and family
risks of runaway are gendered, that the streets may be meaner,
and that the strategies for
survival disproportionately serve to criminalize girls. Moreover,
patriarchial values may make
the juvenile justice response to runaway girls overly harsh “for
their own good.”
Unfortunately, research has been hampered by small or biased
samples. This study examines
many risk factors to discern patterns and gender differences
among runaway youths for whom
there is a status offense charged. Many charged runaway youths
are followed to determine the
nature of official responses and whether responses appear
gendered. The findings have
implications for changes in how officials respond to runaway
youths, both in terms of what
2. will better serve the youths’ best interests and for improving
public safety.
Keywords: runaway; status offense; child abuse; juvenile justice
alternatives
The dearth of knowledge about who the girls are who get
referred to juvenile court andhow best to respond to girls in
juvenile justice is the result of attention focused almost
exclusively at the consistently more prevalent male offender
population. This situation,
described variously as the “tyranny of small numbers” or
“persistent invisibility of girls”
(Acoca, 1998, p. 562), was finally recognized as problematic in
the late 1990s as females
became the fastest growing segment of most juvenile and adult
criminal justice systems. It
is impossible to disentangle whether the rise in female offenders
reflects changing social
and cultural norms and behaviors among the female population
or among parents, police,
and court officials, but that females now have the attention of
researchers and administra-
tors is without dispute.
One recurrent issue that arises in the literature that does exist
on females and juvenile
justice is the perception of their vulnerability, for which they
are often viewed as requiring
greater protection than their male counterparts. From the
beginning, the designation of a
special category of status offenses eligible only to youths
because of their age has been a
Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice
4. offenses related to
perceptions of sexual promiscuity, and girls were incarcerated
disproportionately more
than boys in reform schools (Schlossman & Wallach, 1978).
There is evidence that early
differential treatment of status offenders was gender biased and
class based and linked
to anti-immigrant sentiments (Bernard, 1992; Feld, 1999; Odem,
1995; Odem &
Schlossman, 1991; Rothman, 1980; Schlossman, 1977;
Schlossman & Wallach, 1978;
Tanenhaus, 2004).
Although the Victorian and Progressive eras have passed,
patterns that reflect similar
gendered values continue (Belknap, 2001; Belknap & Holsinger,
1998; Bishop & Frazier,
1995; Chesney-Lind, 1973, 1988, 1995, 1997; Chesney-Lind &
Shelden, 1998; Datesman
& Scarpetti, 1980; Feld, 1999; Myers & Sangster, 2001; Snyder
& Sickmund, 2006).
Many critics assert that a double standard of case processing
exists for girls. According to
Chesney-Lind and Shelden (1998), differential treatment is the
way in which juvenile
justice ensures “enforcement of girls’ obedience to a special set
of expectations about their
deportment, their sexuality, and their obedience to familial
demands” (p. 6). It is not only
police and court officials but also parents who access juvenile
justice systems to intervene
with their daughters in ways that they do not with their sons
(Sussman, 1977, p. 183).
Understanding how gender affects juvenile justice processing is
further complicated
because of prevailing views that victimization and offending
5. converge for girls in ways
they do not for boys (Belknap, 2001; Chesney-Lind, 1997;
Chesney-Lind & Shelden,
1998).
The offense for which this gendered view is most pronounced is
the status offense of
runaway. According to the National Academy of Sciences Panel
on Juvenile Crime:
Prevention, Treatment, and Control, girls have consistently had
a higher rate of arrest for
running away than have boys. Studies of runaways, however,
have found that boys and girls
are about equally likely to run away (Finkelhor, Hotaling,
Lewis, & Smith, 1990; Kaufman
& Widom, 1999). This disproportionate arrest of girls for
running away has been explained
by “unique and intense preoccupation with girls’ sexuality and
their obedience to parental
authority” (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 1998, p. 135), but it could
also reflect a greater con-
cern for their safety (McCord, Widom, & Crowell, 2001, p. 56).
This article examines how gender affects youths who are
referred to juvenile court for
runaway offenses. We look at personal and family
characteristics, including known risks
and other offending. We also analyze the role of gender in
shaping how juvenile justice offi-
cials intervene with youths who are arrested as runaways. In the
following section, we
review the relevant prior criminological research on this topic.
We then describe empirical
findings based on a large and diverse group of arrested youths
from which we are able to
discern patterns and relationships involving gender and runaway
6. that have not previously
been examined.
310 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Prior Research
Runaways, Risks, and Interventions
Runaway is a status offense for which there has been, and
continues to be, an acute con-
cern about the effect of the evils of the streets for which youths,
and girls in particular, may
be vulnerable. There is a lot of speculation about runaway
youths but very little systematic
information about who they are or what happens to them.
According to authors of the
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report, “The
stereotype of a runaway is a
youth roaming the streets of a large, unfamiliar city alone or in
the company of drug deal-
ers or a pimp” (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006, p. 45). This notion
has also been chastised as
based on anecdotal and distorted information, to the detriment
of understanding the real
needs of runaway youths (Moss, 1986). Chesney-Lind and
Shelden (1998) also rebuke the
current practice of juvenile justice interventions with runaway
girls that serve to victimize
them a second time, while the real culprits, their abusers, are
uninhibited. The only real
issue on which there is consensus appears to be that our
knowledge of runaways and their
experiences is inadequate (Kurtz, Lindsey, Jarvis, & Nackerud,
7. 2000; Rotheram-Borus
et al., 1992; Slesnick, 2001).
Although there is a good chance that most children contemplate
a runaway experience
at sometime during their childhood, the majority never run
away, and the actual prevalence
of running away is unknown. Available estimates suggest that
one out of eight children run
away prior to age 18, and 40% do not return to the same living
situation they had prior to
leaving (Whitbeck & Simons, 1990). Estimates vary by location
too, from 2.1% in Houston
and 5.7% in New York City to 12% in San Francisco
(Rotheram-Borus et al., 1992; Stricof,
Kennedy, Nattell, Weifuse, & Novick, 1991). According to the
best available information,
during any given year in the United States, there are
approximately 1.7 million runaway
children, with girls and boys equally represented (Hammer,
Finkelhor, & Sedlack, 2002).
In this section, we review what is known about why youths run
away, what happens to them
on the streets, and their involvement with juvenile justice
systems.
There are many reasons youths run away from home. Generally,
running away coincides
with decisions that alternative living situations are preferable to
the status quo. According
to Zide and Cherry (1992), these decisions fall within four
categories: (a) running to seek
adventure; (b) running from conflicting, alienating, and
dangerous family situations; (c)
being thrown out by alienated families often following school or
legal problems; and (d)
8. being forsaken because their families can no longer support
them. Seeking fun and adven-
ture seems almost to define the quests of American adolescents
who tend to prefer the com-
pany of friends to parents and family and for whom romance is
a new pursuit. Rather than
running to something, however, most researchers attribute
running away to flight from
family difficulties.
Family difficulties associated with runaways may be a lack of
understanding from par-
ents (Spillane-Grieco, 1984), family conflict or chaos (Crespi &
Sabatelli, 1993; Pipher,
1994; Spillane-Grieco, 2000), dysfunctional families, or
families with problem behaviors
(Hwang & Bedford, 2003). The most frequently noted family
difficulty related to runaway
is child abuse, and sexual abuse in particular (Bucy &
Obolensky, 1990; Fleming, 1991;
Kempf-Leonard, Johansson / Gender and Runaways 311
Garbarino, Schellenbach, & Seber, 1987; Janus, Burgess, &
McCormack, 1987; Jencks,
1994; McCormack, Janus, & Burgess, 1986; Tyler, Hoyt,
Whitbeck, & Cause, 2001).
Generally, it is assumed that females are the more common
sexual abuse victims. In sup-
port of this view, more sexual abuse has been reported by
female runaway than male run-
away and homeless youths (Janus et al., 1987; McCormack et
al., 1986). However,
Kaufman and Widom (1999) found that childhood sexual abuse
9. was not more often asso-
ciated with running away than other forms of abuse or neglect.
Besides running away,
researchers report that childhood sexual abuse can lead to self-
medication via drug use
(Finkelhor et al., 1990; Rotheram-Borus et al., 1992; Rutter,
1989; Widom & Ames, 1994).
Sexual abuse also nearly doubled the odds of prostitution
(McClanahan, McClelland,
Abram, & Teplin, 1999); sexual abuse is directly linked to
prostitution, independent of run-
ning away (Foti, 1995).
Most runaway youths stay nearby and return home within a few
days (Nye & Edelbrock,
1980). For other runaway youths, the risks do not end with their
flight from home. To the
contrary, many problems are attributed to difficulties following
running away. These include
drug abuse, delinquency, sexually transmitted diseases, teenage
pregnancy, dropping out of
school, and violence (Hagan & McCarthy, 1997; Kipke,
Montgomery, Simon, & Iverson,
1997; Kurtz, Jarvis, & Kurtz, 1991; Whitbeck, Hoyt, Yoder,
Cauce, & Paradise, 2001).
It is easy to envision runaway youths without adult supervision
as vulnerable, overly
exposed to risks, and missing adequate support networks (Bass,
1992; McMorris, Tyler,
Whitbeck, & Hoyt, 2002). Many runaway and homeless youths
are sexually active, initiate
sexual intercourse at young ages (Robertson, 1989; Rotheram-
Borus et al., 1992; Tyler,
Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Cauce, 2004; Yates, Mackenzie, Pennbridge,
& Cohen, 1988), and are
10. consequently at heightened risk of sexually transmitted
diseases, including HIV (Miller,
Turner, & Moss, 1990). Black and Hispanic runaways may be at
higher risk as these
minorities already represent higher percentage of adolescent
AIDS cases (56%; Centers for
Disease Control, 1991). Elsewhere, analyses of these data show
that gay, lesbian, and bisex-
ual adolescent runaways experienced more victimization, mental
health problems, and
risky survival strategies than heterosexual counterparts
(Whitbeck, Chen, Hoyt, Tyler, &
Johnson, 2004). Among other problems, homeless and runaway
youths are also at high risk
for illicit drug use (Hagan & McCarthy, 1997; McMorris et al.,
2002; Yates et al., 1988). In
one study, two thirds of the runaways experienced either
alcohol abuse or dependence, or
drug abuse (Johnson, Whitbeck, & Hoyt, 2005). In another
study, substance abuse among
homeless and runaways was five times as high as teenagers
living at home (Stiffman, Earls,
Powell, & Robins, 1987).
Moreover, younger runaways logically are the most vulnerable
because potentially they
have spent longer time on the streets and thus are more exposed
to risks (Chen, Tyler,
Whitbeck, & Hoyt, 2004; Hagan & McCarthy, 1997; Obeidallah
& Earls, 1999). In the
multisite longitudinal study mentioned earlier, researchers have
identified a pathway from
early abuse to running away while very young and a trajectory
for early independence—
street life and high-risk behaviors (Tyler et al., 2001). These
researchers suggest the risk for
11. young runaways of becoming what Moffit (1993) calls “life-
course persistent offenders”
(p. 173). Chapple, Johnson, and Whitbeck (2004) observed the
highest rate offenders
among the runaways who had accumulated arrests prior to their
leaving home.
From the research to date, it is unclear whether the risks
experienced by runaways are due
more to their vulnerable status or to choices they make as part
of lifestyle and strategies to
survive independently (Rotheram-Borus et al., 1992, p. 16).
Survival strategies make some
sense too, such as theft for food and clothes, prostitution for
economic survival, and drugs to
self-medicate the pain (Gilfus, 1992). In their study on
homelessness, Hagan and McCarthy
(1997) identify both sexual and nonsexual survival strategies
for life on the streets. Whether
the result of taking risks or merely trying to survive as a
runaway, their status is a juvenile
offense in every state, and some of them encounter the juvenile
justice system.
The juvenile justice response to runaway youths is a contentious
policy issue, but also
another issue about which there is limited information. As a
status offense, runaway falls
within the provision for deinstitutionalization of status
offenders in the 1974 Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act—the DSO provision.
Given the lack of viable
alternatives, in 1986, the Advisory Board on Missing Children
criticized this provision and
12. recommended that police be allowed to detain runaway children
who otherwise could leave
police stations and shelters “regardless of the risks and dangers
of the street” (Moss, 1986,
p. 28). Because of the DSO provision, incarceration for runaway
is allowable only through
reclassification of the status offense as a law violation termed
bootstrapping (Chesney-Lind
& Shelden, 1998) or by parental consent—and payment—to
confine youths in a private
facility (Parham v. J. R., 1979). The general practices of
reclassification and privatization
of status offenders have been frequently criticized (Castellano,
1986, pp. 496-497;
Krisberg, Schwartz, Fishman, Eisikovits, & Guttman, 1986;
Schneider, 1984; Schwartz,
1989; Weithorn, 1988), and this may hold true more for
runaway youths than for those who
violate curfews or are otherwise unruly.
A Gendered Pathway
Meda Chesney-Lind (1997) contends that running away plays a
unique and salient role
in the pathway from delinquency to crime for girls. According
to Chesney-Lind (1989; see
also Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 1998), the first issue is that
adolescent girls are likely to run
from violence and abuse in the home. Indeed, the National
Academy of Sciences Panel on
Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control agree:
The motivation for running away may differ by gender. For
examples, females may be running
away to escape physical or sexual abuse or neglect in their
homes. For boys, running away may
13. be an indirect consequence of childhood victimization or may
be part of a larger constellation
of antisocial and problem behaviors. (Luntz & Widom, 1994;
McCord et al., 2001, p, 101)
The situation after leaving home also may be more problematic
for girls, whether because
of risks or survival strategies that are gendered. In their
longitudinal study of 428 runaway
and homeless youths in eight midwestern cities, Tyler et al.
(2001) report sexual predation
and victimization of runaway females. Hagan and McCarthy
(1997) found that among
youths living on the streets, girls were more likely than boys to
become involved in prosti-
tution. Hwang and Bedford (2003) assert that a common
criminal career trajectory for run-
away girls is prostitution, but their methodology is somewhat
suspect as they base this
finding on interviews with only adult prostitutes, many of whom
report childhood sexual
312 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
abuse. In his developmental theory, Howell (2003) includes
runaway as one stepping stone
in the female-specific pathway to serious, violent, and chronic
offending. Chesney-Lind
(1989) refers to this as the “criminalization of girls’ survival
strategies” (p. 11).
Finally, several authors argue that the response to runaway
youths by juvenile justice sys-
tems is gendered in a way that is problematic for girls. One
14. specific concern is differential treat-
ment resulting from the policy for deinstitutionalization of
status offenders may have led to a
double standard of justice for girls (Chesney-Lind & Shelden,
1998; Feld, 1999; Wiethorn,
1988). Feld (1999) argues that this policy contributes an
element to the “triage” of juvenile jus-
tice that “increasingly removes many middle class, White, and
female juveniles to private insti-
tutions and relegates young Black males to secure residential
facilities” (p. 169). He considers
this part of a larger difficulty in juvenile justice policy that
allows competing visions of youths
as vulnerable and dependent or as autonomous and responsible
to affect wide discretionary
application of the law. More recently, Bloom, Owen,
Deschenes, and Rosenbaum (2005)
argued that “the high incidence of runaway incidents bears a
closer look, as this survival strat-
egy may lead to incarceration” (p. 800). The probability of
confinement is unknown, but this
outcome was observed among a small number of juvenile case
files in Washington.
[E]ven as they recognized the poor family environments the
girls came from and the abuse
they suffered, probation officers repeatedly recommended
confinement in juvenile correc-
tional facilities as a way for the girls to get out of their homes
and to get counseling and treat-
ment. (Inderbitzin, 2005, p. 789)
Our review shows that prior research has identified a variety of
reasons youths may run
away from home and that attention has focused on difficulties
with family. Several schol-
15. ars underscore a connection between runaway and child abuse,
and especially sexual abuse.
Given their vulnerabilities and minimal resources, the lives of
many runaways also involve
risks to their own well-being and to public safety. There is some
indication that the juve-
nile justice policy arena in which the government responds to
runaway youths lacks both
the appropriate means and the relevant knowledge about
effective interventions with run-
away youths. Moreover, the literature suggests that these
difficulties are gendered in ways
that exacerbate the problems for girls. The prevailing view on
the gendered pathway for
runaway girls is perhaps aptly summarized by Chesney-Lind
(1997) as follows:
Some girls resort to panhandling and shoplifting; others theft
for money, food, and clothes.
Some exchange sex for these necessities and become involved
in prostitution and drug abuse.
Girls’ situations often are worsened by patriarchial law
enforcement and justice systems that
require girls to obey parents and stay at home. In many cases,
girls are sent back to their vic-
timizers. Even when taken out of their homes, courts have few
placement alternatives for girls
and sometimes are left only with returning them home. (p. 5)
The available criminology literature suggests that significant
risks of crime and safety
exist both in the home and on the streets for runaway youths.
Moreover, published works
indicate that the difficulties are exacerbated for girls, many of
whom also subsequently
receive ineffective, biased, and potentially harmful responses
16. from juvenile justice systems.
In our review of prior research, the problems of runaway youths
seem far reaching and
Kempf-Leonard, Johansson / Gender and Runaways 313
314 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
gendered, yet it is also important to recognize that past
inquiries fail to identify how far
reaching these problems are. One reason this information does
not yet exist is that delin-
quency and juvenile justice have been secondary concerns in
most prior research on run-
aways. The majority of studies selected small samples of youths
from shelter facilities and
used in-depth interviews to obtain detailed information about
their current lives and prior
experiences. Without a criminological focus, researchers often
do not distinguish between
runaways and youths who are homeless for other reasons.
Although orphans and youths
“thrown away” by parents may experience similar
vulnerabilities and strategies for survival
as runaways, they do not share their legal status or evoke the
same responses from juvenile
justice systems. In most studies based on participants from
shelters, the shelter experience
was not court imposed.
Another measurement issue is that although the qualitative
interview data provide rich
details about the youths’ perceptions and experiences, they are
not capable of conveying the
17. generalizability of those perceptions and experiences beyond
the immediate samples. This
is particularly troubling in the research based on small samples
of adjudicated females
because we cannot know whether the difficulties observed are
female specific. We cannot
be certain that the difficulties are disproportionately borne by
females when males are not
in the sample or are not studied in the same way (Daly, 1994;
Visher, 1983).
The runaway information available from official juvenile justice
data sources also has suf-
fered some methodological weaknesses. First, most court
information systems record infor-
mation on referrals rather than individual youths, and often it is
routine to count only the
most serious statute violation per referral. Thus, in these
systems, runaway youths are lost
when they also are charged as delinquents with misdemeanor or
felony offenses. Second,
given the referral focus, most systems also do not capture data
on individual risk factors suf-
ficiently to recreate criteria used by court officials in their
decision making. Researchers
must overcome these difficulties and learn whether the risks and
poor treatment identified in
the extant research are typical of runaways and whether the
problems are gendered to the
detriment of females, if we are to inspire public concern to the
plight of these at-risk youths
and to justify policy attention for establishing appropriate
interventions. In the next section,
we describe data that provide a valuable next step in this line of
inquiry.
18. Data and Methods
The data we examine include all arrest referrals between 1997
and 2003 to a juvenile jus-
tice system in one of four counties in a metropolitan area in
Texas with more than 5 mil-
lion people. This area is among the 10 most populous in the
nation and among the most
diverse. Although among the juveniles arrested, Hispanic and
African American youths are
overrepresented. Given the size of the population they serve, the
juvenile justice system is
a formal bureaucracy, with specialized court services and
treatment, on-site prosecutorial
and public defender staff, and a large secure detention facility.
Most importantly for our
purposes, of the 42,577 individual youths with charges, there
are 6,473—65.3% of them
girls—who are charged with the status offense of runaway and
processed by the juvenile
justice system.
Kempf-Leonard, Johansson / Gender and Runaways 315
Most of the background and initial referral data are recorded at
intake screening by court
officials who rely on self-reported information from the youths,
parents, and police reports.
Information about interventions and any changes in status are
updated at each meeting with
court officials through disposition. All data fields are
completed. Although we cannot com-
ment on the accuracy or comprehensiveness of these data, we
can discern patterns across 7
19. years, which give us more confidence in the quality than would
data for a single year.
Analyses are based on individual youths rather than referrals.
We do this for two reasons.
First, juvenile justice officials respond to youths rather than
only specific charges.
Sometimes, cases are merged, and officials base decisions on all
information available.
Analysis based on youths more closely corresponds to this
actual practice of juvenile case
processing. Second, all offense codes charged are recorded and
not merely the most seri-
ous charge, as is often the case in juvenile justice data. Thus,
we can examine all types of
charges for which the youths are processed. This is particularly
important for observing
runaway, which may be the lesser charges for runaway youths
who come to the attention of
police. Prior charges and court experiences are available only
for referrals within the 1997
to 2003 time frame.
In addition to offense code information on multiple charges for
a single referral, these
data are unique in providing information about youths that
typically is known to court offi-
cials but not recorded. As such, these data enable statistical
analysis to more closely repre-
sent criteria used in court processing. Several data fields serve
as indicators of youth risk
or need. We know who the child lives with at each referral,
including two parents, single
parents, a variety of relatives and friends, foster care, group
homes, and institutional set-
tings. Information is recorded about child abuse, including
20. physical, emotional, and sexual
abuse, and whether the Child Protective Services agency has
involvement with the family.
Pregnancy and youths who are parents are also recorded.
Substance abuse and gang
involvement are also reported.
In the initial analyses, we provide descriptive comparisons of
the individual characteris-
tics, offenses, and juvenile justice experiences across distinct
groups of youths: runaways
and other youths referred to juvenile justice, female and male
runaways, female and male
runaways referred to court by age 13 (early onset), and female
and male runaways with
child abuse. We then examine multivariate models to determine
(a) whether the risk factors
help to distinguish runaways from other youths and whether
gender makes a difference and
(b) whether formal juvenile justice interventions with runaway
youths differs by gender.
Following the advice of Visher (1983) and Daly (1994) that we
not merely “add-women-
and-stir” (Daly, 1994, p. 121), the multivariate models are
tested separately by gender so
that the independent effects of all variables can be seen.
Results
Of the 42,577 youths processed by the juvenile justice system
between 1997 and 2003,
6,473 youths had at least one referral for running away from
home. Moreover, gender is
associated with referrals for runaway. As Table 1 shows,
females constitute the majority
(65.3%) of youths with a runaway referral but constitute the
21. minority (27.7%) of youths
316 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
referred to the juvenile court with no charges for runaway.
There are other differences
between the two groups as well. Somewhat more of the youths
referred for a runaway vio-
lation are White. Among both groups, most of the youths lived
with a single parent, but a
higher percentage of runaways lived with other relatives or
family, or in foster care, group
homes, or other institutional settings. Runaways also had more
recorded child abuse than
other referred youths for each of the five measures: emotional
abuse; physical abuse; sex-
ual abuse; formal involvement with the family by the state
agency for abuse; and one or
more of any of the four (29.7% runaways, 6.6% nonrunaways).
A slightly higher percent-
age of runaway youths than other youths in juvenile justice
were either currently parents
themselves or pregnant (girls only, obviously). Substance abuse
was higher among run-
aways, but gang involvement was similar in the two groups.
Table 1 also shows that there is a statistically significant
difference (t tests) in the risk
factors between females and males among only runaway youths.
The highest proportions
Table 1
Percentages for Demographic and Risk Characteristics of
Youths by Trait
22. All Youths Referred to
Juvenile Justice Runaways
No Runaway Runaway Females Males
Trait (36,101) (6,473) Significance (4,228) (2,244) Significance
Sex p < .001
Female 27.7 65.3
Male 72.3 34.7
Race or ethnicity
White 26.6 38.3 p < .001 39.2 36.6 p < .001
Black 36.0 30.8 p < .001 27.8 36.5 p < .001
Hispanic 35.0 29.0 p < .001 30.9 25.4 p < .001
Other 2.3 1.9 NS 2.1 1.6 NS
Age, 1st charge ≤ 13 15.4 15.9 NS 14.1 19.3 p < .001
Lives with
Two parents 21.7 18.2 p < .001 19.5 15.7 p < .001
Single parent 51.2 46.3 p < .001 48.1 43.0 p < .001
Friend or relative 17.8 23.1 p < .001 22.5 24.3 NS
Foster care, group home,
or institution 4.7 7.4 p < .001 5.2 11.6 p < .001
Other or unknown 4.6 5.0 NS 4.8 5.3 NS
Risk factors
Emotional abuse or neglect 2.1 13.9 p < .001 16.8 8.4 p < .001
Physical abuse 3.4 18.2 p < .001 20.4 14.2 p < .001
Sexual abuse 3.4 14.0 p < .001 19.6 3.5 p < .001
Child welfare agency involved 3.4 17.5 p < .001 20.2 12.6 p <
.001
Any abuse 6.6 29.7 p < .001 34.8 20.0 p < .001
Pregnant or already a parent 2.9 5.2 p < .001 6.9 1.9 p < .001
Drug abuse 36.2 45.5 p < .001 42.4 52.4 p < .001
23. Gang involvement 7.6 7.9 NS 5.3 12.8 p < .001
Note: NS = not significant.
Kempf-Leonard, Johansson / Gender and Runaways 317
of both girls and boys were White, but then differences emerge
with more runaway Black
boys and Hispanic girls. Foster care, group homes, and
institutional living were higher
among runaway boys. Child abuse, according to all available
indicators, was higher among
runaway girls, as was pending or current parenthood. Both
groups, but particularly boys,
had a high level of substance abuse indicated. Gang
involvement among boys was more
than double that recorded for girls.
The distributions of offense characteristics and juvenile justice
interventions are shown
in Table 2. Most youths were referred only once for a single
offense, however, higher pro-
portions of runaways than other youths involved with the court
had multiple charges.
Multiple charges were significantly higher among runaway boys
than girls. Three fourths
of the runaways had only one runaway offense, but one fourth
of them were charged mul-
tiple times with runaway violations. There was no difference by
gender. One youth accu-
mulated 15 runaway charges (not shown).
Table 2 also shows several types of offenses for which the
youths were charged. There
24. were 111 homicide charges, including 7 among youths who were
runaways. Serious charges,
including homicide, robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, and
weapons violations, were not
as common among runaways as other youths involved with the
juvenile justice system. More
than 10% of runaways also were charged with theft or simple
assaults sometime between
1997 and 2003. Half of the youths charged with prostitution
were girls who also had a run-
away charge. When only youth with at least one runaway charge
are compared, the findings
show a statistically significant difference with boys more
involved than girls with other types
of offending, particularly theft, assault, burglary, drug
violations, and weapons.
Finally, Table 2 shows the most restrictive outcome the youths
ever received from the
juvenile justice system during the 1997 to 2003 time frame. All
charges were dismissed for
7.4% of runaways—slightly higher at 8.5% among girls
compared to 5.5% among boys—
and 13.5% of youths with no runaway charges. More than one
third of other youths and
11.7% of runaways had their referrals deferred, which meant
they were set aside and would
have a petition filed only if a new referral occurred. The most
common juvenile justice
intervention with runaway youths, particularly girls, was a stern
warning cautioning them
against further offending. The remaining interventions involve
formal outcomes following
petitions and adjudication. Approximately 3% of the youths had
no recorded disposition for
referrals during this period, but some of these had cases merged
25. with other referrals in years
outside those studied. Probation was the most restrictive
intervention for 27.1% of other
youths and 17.2% of all runaways, but 28.0% of runaway boys
and only 11.5% of runaway
girls. Out of home commitment was the outcome for 4.4% of
other youths and 3.6% of run-
aways, but 8.2% of runaway boys and only 1.1% of girls. Just
more than 1% of youths were
certified as adults, and the highest level was among runaway
boys (1.7%).
Table 3 shows the results of logit regressions of runaway on
risk factors for females and
males separately. The table compares the effects of the risk
factors for youths charged with
at least one runaway status offense to all other youths charged
with offenses but no run-
away. The regression analysis for females shows that with
respect to family structure,
females who live with a single parent are less likely to have a
runaway charge than those
who live with two parents. In contrast, living in foster care,
group home, or institution
improves the chances of being charged as a runaway. Analysis
of the effect of race indicates
318 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
that African American and Hispanic females are significantly
less likely to have a runaway
charge than White females.
The effect of child abuse experiences on likelihood of a
26. runaway referral is positive and
significant after controlling for other relevant risk factors.
Among females, odds of being a
runaway increases 3.4 times with abuse victimization.
Similarly, the coefficient for
substance abuse is statistically significant and increases the
likelihood of being a runaway.
Table 2
Percentages for Offense Characteristics/Juvenile Justice
Interventions by Trait
All Youths Referred to
Juvenile Justice Runaways
No Runaway Runaway Females Males
Trait (36,101) (6,473) Significance (4,228) (2,245) Significance
Total # charges p < .001 p < .001
1 66.6 47.1 54.2 33.7
2 to 4 27.7 38.9 37.3 41.9
5 or more 5.7 14.0 8.5 24.4
# runaway charges NS
1 76.5 75.5 78.4
2 or more 23.5 24.5 21.6
Offense types
Homicide (104) (7) (2) (5)
Robbery 3.0 1.6 p < .001 .7 3.4 p < .001
Burglary 14.6 7.2 p < .001 2.0 17.0 p < .001
Aggravated assault 8.4 3.6 p < .001 2.2 6.1 p < .001
Other assault 15.5 12.2 p < .001 9.2 18.0 p < .001
Theft 30.1 17.5 p < .001 13.3 25.3 p < .001
Drug violation 15.6 6.7 p < .001 3.1 13.5 p < .001
Property damage 6.3 3.3 p < .001 1.3 7.1 p < .001
27. Disturbance 2.0 1.3 p < .001 .9 2.0 p < .001
Forgery or fraud 1.3 1.5 NS 1.7 1.3 NS
Truancy 5.7 4.4 p < .001 2.2 8.6 p < .001
Curfew .8 1.6 p < .001 1.1 2.4 p < .001
Weapons violation 3.4 1.3 p < .001 .5 2.9 p < .001
Prostitution (37) (36) (36) (0)
Most restrictive outcome
Dismissed 13.5 7.4 8.5 5.5
Deferred 36.1 11.7 12.0 11.1
Cautioned 14.4 56.8 64.1 43.0
Consolidated
or no disposition 3.3 2.3 2.3 2.4
Probation 27.1 17.2 11.5 28.0
Commitment 4.4 3.6 1.1 8.2
Certified 1.2 1.0 .5 1.7
Note: Because of the small number of cases, numbers are
reported for homicide and prostitution rather than
percentages. NS = not significant.
Kempf-Leonard, Johansson / Gender and Runaways 319
Early onset of offending (a court referral by age 13), being
pregnant or already a parent, or
being involved with a gang are not significantly related to being
a runaway among females.
The regression results for males show that early onset is
positively related to having a
referral as a runaway, unlike the model for females in which the
early onset coefficient was
insignificant. Regarding family structure, several alternative
28. family constellations are pos-
itively related to being a runaway. Living with a relative or
friend and living in a foster fam-
ily, group home or institution, and unknown or other residential
situations make the odds
of having a runaway charge more likely than living with two
parents for boys. However,
living with a single parent does not have a significantly
different effect for the risk of being
a runaway.
As was shown for girls, boys are more likely to have a runaway
charge if they are White
than if they are African American, Hispanic, or members of
another racial group. Boys with
known or suspected child abuse are also more apt to runaway.
Substance abuse also is more
common among runaway boys. In contrast to the girls, the
coefficient for gang involvement
is positive and statistically significant for boys, indicating that
for them, gang involvement
is a risk factor associated with running away.
In sum, for both girls and boys, the likelihood of runaway
referrals to juvenile court
increases if they are White, are known or suspected victims of
child abuse, have substance
Table 3
Runaway Regressed on Risk Variables by Gender.
Females Males
B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B)
Constant –.943** .054 –2.76** .068
29. Early onset .123 .057 1.13 .201* .058 1.22
Family structure
Single parenta –.134* .052 .875 .091 .066 1.09
Relative or friend .135 .062 1.14 .457** .074 1.58
Foster, group, institution .345* .113 1.41 .604** .093 1.83
Other or unknown .183 .099 1.20 .445** .114 1.56
Race or ethnicity
African American –.641** .049 .53 –.292** .054 .747
Hispanic –.374** .048 .69 –.608** .060 .544
Other raceb –.335 .136 .72 –.566* .180 .568
Parent or pregnant .006 .080 1.01 –.117 .168 .890
Any abuse 1.230** .049 3.42 1.359** .063 3.89
Substance abuse .481** .042 1.62 .411** .047 1.51
Gang involvement –.006 .096 .99 .280** .073 1.32
Log likelihood –7951.5385 –7375.2552
Pseudo R-squared .0798 .0565
N 14,204 28,192
aCategory is living with two parents.
bReference category is White.
*p < .01. **p < .001.
320 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
abuse problems, and live in a group setting such as foster care.
Runaway girls are less likely
to live with a single parent than both parents. Although not
significant factors for girls, early
involvement with juvenile justice prior to age 13, gang
involvement, and living with friends
or relatives instead of parents help to distinguish runaway boys
30. from others involved with
juvenile justice.
Next, we try to determine what factors affect juvenile justice
interventions with run-
away youths. This is somewhat difficult because, as was shown
in Table 2, many runaway
youths also are involved with juvenile justice for other types of
offenses. Moreover, it is
not uncommon for youths to have juvenile justice involvement
throughout their adoles-
cence. Table 4 and Table 5 shows that although most youths had
offense referrals during
only a single year, male runaways had more multiple year
offending than other youths.
The results also show that for the majority of youths with a
runaway charge, this occurred
during their initial year of juvenile justice involvement. During
the initial year, the most
restrictive response from the juvenile justice system to runaway
youths was a cautionary
warning (60.4%), followed by an equally informal warning via
deferring the case (17.2%),
and probation (10.1%). Cautionary warnings are higher among
girls, and probation is
higher among boys. However, the more restrictive outcomes for
more boys may be
because of their other charges. This appears even more likely
when looking at Year 1 run-
aways with no other types of charges. Among the 2,871 girls
and 612 boys (72.8% of
3,944 and 56.2% of 1,862, respectively), there was almost no
variation from cautionary
warnings (not shown).
To identify the factors that affect juvenile justice interventions
31. with runaways simulta-
neously controlling for all others, we restrict the analysis to
youths with a runaway refer-
ral during their 1st year of involvement. For their most
restrictive juvenile justice response
Table 4
Percentages for Initial Referral Year Experiences
All Youths Referred to
Juvenile Justice Runaways
No Runaway Runaway Females Males
Trait (36,101) (6,473) Significance (4,228) (2,245) Significance
Single year 76.9 62.9 p < .001 69.3 50.9 p < .001
Multiple year 23.1 37.1 30.7 49.1
Runaway 1st year 89.7 93.3 83.0 p < .001
1st year most restrictive outcome p < .001 p < .001
Dismissed 14.7 9.4 10.0 8.3
Deferred 36.5 17.2 15.9 19.5
Cautioned 21.9 60.4 66.1 49.6
Consolidated or no disposition 3.2 2.1 1.7 2.8
Probation 21.3 10.1 5.8 18.2
Commitment 1.6 .4 .2 1.0
Certified .7 .4 .3 .6
Kempf-Leonard, Johansson / Gender and Runaways 321
during that initial year, we distinguish formal outcomes
(probation, commitment, certifi-
cation = 1) from informal outcomes (cautionary warnings,
deferred cases = 0) and omit
32. youths whose cases were dismissed. The logit regression results
are shown separately by
gender in Table 6.
For both girls and boys, formal juvenile justice interventions
are more likely when run-
aways are living in group settings without two parents, are
African Americans, have sub-
stance abuse problems, gang involvement, and other charges.
Age is not a significant factor
for interventions with girls; the likelihood of formal
dispositions for runaway boys increase
when they are older than age 13. Boys living with friends and
relatives rather than two par-
ents also have more chance of a formal outcome for runaway.
Although the negative coef-
ficient suggests informal warnings, child abuse victimization is
not significant in juvenile
court responses to runaway youths regardless of gender.
To summarize, the findings show that the gender relationship
among most juvenile court
referrals reversed itself for runaway charges, which were more
common for girls. A race
effect is also evident with more runaways who were White.
Child abuse was indicated
more often among runaways than youths with other charges.
Approximately one third of
the female runways had known or suspected child abuse, but the
same was true for only one
fifth of the male runaways. Substance abuse was also a problem
for many runaway youths.
Running away is not the only juvenile offense for many youths,
and additional charges and
referrals are more common for boys. When all variables are
controlled simultaneously in
33. the multivariate analyses, findings show that runaways, both
girls and boys, are signifi-
cantly different in terms of risk factors than youths with other
reasons for juvenile court
involvement.
Juvenile justice interventions tended to be informal warnings
more often for runaways
than other youths. For both girls and boys, warnings were the
most common response, but
runaway boys received probation and commitment more than
runaway girls. These gender
differences in the initial findings likely reflect the other
offending, including serious
charges of homicide, robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, and
weapon violations that was
more common among runaway boys than girls. When serious
and other offending is con-
trolled for statistically, juvenile justice dispositions were
related to race—Black youths
with more restrictive outcomes, in addition to substance abuse,
gang involvement, and liv-
ing situation for both runaway girls and boys. Child abuse
victimization did not signifi-
cantly affect responses to runaways from the juvenile justice
system.
Table 5
Runaway During 1st Year and Seriousness of Charges That Year
Females (%) Males (%)
(N = 3,944) (N = 1,862)
Only runaway 72.8 56.2
Runaway and nonserious charges 25.2 32.9
Runaway and serious chargesa 2.1 11.0
34. aSerious charges include homicide, aggravated assault, robbery,
burglary, and weapons violations.
322 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Discussion and Conclusions
This study has examined characteristics, offending, and juvenile
justice interventions
among a large group of youths referred for a runaway offense.
Runaways have been com-
pared to other youths involved with juvenile justice. The large
number of youths has also
facilitated gender comparisons among runaways. Some of the
findings support relation-
ships that have been identified in previous studies, but others
have never before been exam-
ined to provide information that is new.
Unlike most of the research on runaways, which identify
participants from residential
shelters, this study examines only runaways identified by legal
charges of runaway. The
data used in this study provide information on several risk
factors of interest, offense
charges, and juvenile justice interventions. They are valuable
both in scope and quality
compared to information routinely available in many juvenile
justice systems. The data are
not without limitations, however, including two which have
implications for our findings.
Table 6
35. Offense Seriousness Controlled by Gender
Females Males
B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B)
Constant –5.958** .374 –4.720** .333
Early onset .037 .228 1.03 –.936** .238 .39
Family structure
Single parenta .058 .254 1.06 .416 .256 1.51
Relative or friend .110 .284 1.12 .810* .267 2.25
Foster, group, institution 1.257** .331 3.51 1.667** .303 5.30
Other or unknown .482 .472 1.62 –.043 .533 .96
Race or ethnicity
African American .548* .202 1.73 .649* .195 1.91
Hispanic .092 .216 1.10 .226 .220 1.25
Race otherb –.693 .870 .50 .340 .653 1.41
Parent or pregnant .602 .263 1.83 –.079 .484 .92
Any abuse –.093 .168 .911 –.312 .198 .73
Substance abuse .705** .177 2.02 .576* .170 1.78
Gang involvement .950** .240 2.59 .957** .208 2.60
Delinquency Year 1
Not serious charges 3.373** .285 29.16 2.689** .225 14.71
Serious charges 5.467** .372 236.82 4.793** .282 120.67
Log likelihood –520.97133 –516.29168
Pseudo R-squared .3637 .4098
N 3,496 1,672
Note: Youths with a runaway referral during first referral year
only. Total sample size n = 5,168 because of
omission of cases dismissed at disposition (n = 626) and
missing cases in age variable (n = 13).
36. aReference category is living with two parents.
bReference category is White.
cReference category is only runaway charges during 1st year.
*p < 0.01. **p < 0.001.
Kempf-Leonard, Johansson / Gender and Runaways 323
First, most of the indicators used to measure risk factors and
other characteristics of the
youths were recorded by intake court staff members noting
information they received directly
from youths, their parents, or police officers. The extent to
which this information was verified
for accuracy through cross-checks is apt to have been minimal.
Child abuse is one example.
Some of the youths had no recorded child abuse, yet the child
welfare agency was known to be
involved with the family. This discrepancy might be explained
by siblings. Most importantly,
there is no way to discern whether gender differences in
recorded abuse are valid or because of
gender differences in self-reports or perceptions of gender
differences on the part of intake staff.
Second, when youths have numerous referrals, the information
recorded at the most
recent intake screening supplants the original records for most
of the risk measures. This
may pose a causal order dilemma in that substance abuse, gang
involvement, and residential
setting may follow rather than precede the runaway experience.
This situation is less apt to
be problematic in the analyses of juvenile justice outcomes
because they were restricted to
37. the year of the initial runaway year, and thus the information
was more current.
Despite limitations, these data provide a valuable foundation for
criminological research on
runaways, including information on gender that has not
previously been available. The large
number of runaways allow for observation of patterns while
controlling simultaneously for
risks and offending. The abilities to test models separately by
gender and to control for diver-
sity by race and ethnicity, which also may differ by gender, are
particularly valuable. The busy
bureaucracy of this juvenile justice system includes many court
officials, thus patterns of
responses are not likely to reflect biases of individual intake
officers, prosecutors, or judges.
The results support those found elsewhere that girls are more
often brought to court for
runaway status offenses. More runaway girls have been victims
of child abuse, including
sexual abuse, than other girls who are involved in juvenile
justice. This is one offense for
which the White majority is represented, even after risk factors
are controlled. Single par-
ents make no difference for sons but may serve as a protective
factor over two parents for
daughters. It may be that problematic parent-child relationships,
including sexually abusive
fathers, involve the parent not in residence or that single
parents are equally and sometimes
better at providing the parental warmth previously found
important (Chapple et al., 2004).
Runaway girls also have higher rates of substance abuse
problems and gang involvement,
38. although this may occur after running away. The findings also
support concern that at least
some runaway girls, whether because of vulnerabilities or as
strategies for survival on the
streets, engage in prostitution, theft, forgery, and fraud.
In addition, some of our findings differ somewhat from
relationships that previous
authors led us to expect. Rather than incarceration (Bloom et
al., 2005; Inderbitzin, 2005),
the juvenile justice response to runaway girls is an informal
caution against further offend-
ing, after which girls are sent home and court involvement with
the youths is discontinued.
Runaway girls who do receive formal dispositions more often
are African American than
White. The risk factors of child abuse, substance abuse, gang
involvement, foster care, and
other group living situations are factors for runaway boys just
as they are for runaway girls.
Juvenile justice interventions with runaway boys, even
controlling for other offending, is
somewhat more restrictive than it is for girls. This is likely
associated with their greater
number of arrests, which is a gendered finding similar to
Chapple et al. (2004). Juvenile
justice interventions with runaway youths are affected by
substance abuse, gang involve-
ment, and living situation, but surprisingly not by child abuse.
324 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
The results of this study suggest implications both for future
research to explain what
39. happens to runaway youths and for procedural changes within
juvenile justice systems that
will make interventions with runaways more beneficial for the
individual youths and reduce
their potential for subsequent offending. One aim for future
research is to determine
whether risky behaviors among runaways more often reflect
survival strategies or predatory
victimization because of their vulnerable status. This knowledge
would enable police and
child welfare officials to develop prevention and intervention
strategies that would be more
effective. It also would be beneficial to extend the study of
runaway youths into adulthood
with longitudinal investigations of long-term effects of their
childhood experiences. Both
of these types of inquiries need to include girls and boys.
Our findings also provide fairly compelling evidence that child
abuse victimization con-
stitutes a risk for runaway differently than for other juvenile
offending. The nature of that
abuse may differ for girls and boys, and the impact may also be
gendered in other ways,
but the effect promoting runaway is similar. Substance abuse is
also a factor; although
whether drug use is another effect of victimization is not
identified herein. What is partic-
ularly noteworthy, especially given the literature that led us to
expect more gender differ-
ence, is the finding that juvenile justice interventions with
runaways are very minimal and
do not reflect attention to child abuse. Thus, it seems clear that
juvenile justice officials
should be encouraged to pay attention to the abuse experiences
of youths, as well as their
40. substance abuse, gang involvement, and living situations.
Juvenile justice officials must have ways to respond to runaway
youths that are effective.
Our findings suggest that at least in this system, but also quite
likely in most juvenile justice
systems, the main problem is lack of alternatives and
understanding about how best to
respond to runaways. Although there are gender differences in
how adolescents develop their
self-identities in relation to their experiences in the world
(Gilligan, 1982) that need to be
addressed in gender-specific ways, both runaway girls and boys
also need caring, professional
intervention that provides concrete assistance in setting
boundaries and teaching responsibil-
ity and with communication, family relationships, and living
arrangements (Kurtz et al.,
2000). Beyond a cautionary warning, runaways merit attention
regardless of other behavior.
This does not mean that the intervention must involve
residential placement, but it does indi-
cate that formal supervision of the youths’ residential situation,
whether in the home, else-
where, or independently, and services for healthy adolescent
development should be required.
Without it, subsequent referrals including more serious
offenses, are quite likely.
References
Acoca, L. (1998). Outside/inside: The violation of American
girls at home, on the streets, and in the juvenile
justice system. Crime & Delinquency, 44(4), 561-589.
Bass, D. (1992). Helping vulnerable youths: Runaway and
41. homeless adolescents in the United States.
Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers Press.
Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and
justice (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Belknap, J., & Holsinger, K. (1998). An overview of delinquent
girls: How theory and practice have failed and
the need for innovative change. In R. T. Zaplin (Ed.), Female
offenders: Critical Perspectives and effective
interventions (pp. 31-64). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Bernard, T. J. (1992). The cycle of juvenile justice. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Kempf-Leonard, Johansson / Gender and Runaways 325
Bishop, D., & Frazer, C. (1995). Gender bias in juvenile justice
processing: Implications of the JJDP Act.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 1162-1186.
Bloom, B., Owen, B., Deschenes, E. P., & Rosenbaum, J.
(2005). Developing gender-specific services for delin-
quency prevention: Understanding risk and resiliency. In R.
Muraskin (Ed.), It’s a Crime: Women and
Justice (4th ed., pp. 792-819). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Bucy, J., & Obolensky, N. (1990). Runaway and homeless
youths. In M. Rotheram-Borus, V. Bradley, &
N. Obolensky (Eds.), Planning to live: Evaluation and treating
suicidal teens in community settings (pp.
333-353). Tulsa: University of Oklahoma Press.
42. Castellano, T. C. (1986). The justice model in the juvenile
justice system: Washington State’s experiences. Law
& Policy, 8, 397-418.
Centers for Disease Control. (1991, June). HIV/AIDS
surveillance report. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control.
Chapple, C. L., Johnson, K, D., & Whitbeck, L. B. (2004).
Gender and arrest among homeless and runaway youth:
An analysis of background, family, and situational factors.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2, 129-147.
Chen, X., Tyler, K. A., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2004).
Early sexual abuse, street adversity, and drug
use among female homeless and runaway adolescents in the
Midwest. Journal of Drug Issues, 1, 1-22.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1973). Judicial enforcement of the female
sex role. Issues in Criminology, 8, 51-70.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Girls and status offenses: Is juvenile
justice still sexist? Criminal Justice Abstracts,
20, 144-165.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1995). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile
justice: Toward a feminist theory of young women’s
crime. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal
justice system and women: Offenders, victims,
and workers (pp. 71-88). New York, McGraw-Hill.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). Female offenders: Girls, women, and
crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. (1998). Girls, delinquency,
and juvenile justice (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Crespi, T. D., & Sabatelli, R. M. (1993). Adolescent runaways
43. and family strife: A conflict induced resolution
framework. Adolescence, 28, 867-878.
Daly, K. (1994). Gender and punishment disparity. In M. Myers
& G. Bridges (Eds.), Inequality, crime, and
social control (pp. 117-133). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Datesman, S. K., & Scarpetti, F. R. (1980). Unequal protection
for males and females in the juvenile court. In
S. K. Datesman & F. R. Scarpitti (Eds.), Women, crime and
justice (pp. 300-319). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Feld, B. C. (1999). Bad kids: Race and the transformation of the
juvenile court. New York: Oxford University Press.
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G. T., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C. (1990).
Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men
and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 14, 19-28.
Foti, S. (1995). Child sexual abuse as a precursor to
prostitution. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 8b.
(UMI No. AAM9433836)
Garbarino, H., Schellenbach, C. J., & Seber, J. (1987). Troubled
youth, troubled families. New York: Alpine De
Gruyter.
Gilfus, M. E. (1992). From victims to survivors to offenders:
Women’s routes of entry and immersion into street
crime. Women and Criminal Justice, 4, 63-90.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory
and women’s development. Cambridge, MA:
44. Harvard University Press.
Hagan, J., & McCarthy, B. (1997). Mean streets: Youth crime
and homelessness. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., & Sedlack, A. (2002).
Runaway/thrownaway children: National estimates and
characteristics. (NISMART: National Incidence Studies of
Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway
Children). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing and reducing juvenile
delinquency: A comprehensive framework. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hwang, S., & Bedford, O. (2003). Precursors and pathways to
adolescent prostitution in Taiwan. Journal of Sex
Research, 40(2), 201-210.
326 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Inderbitzin, M. (2005). The impact of gender on juvenile justice
decisions. In R. Muraskin (Ed.), It’s a crime:
Women and justice (4th ed., pp. 782-790). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education.
Janus, M., Burgess, A., & McCormack, A. (1987). Histories of
sexual abuse in adolescent male runaways.
Adolescence, 22, 405-417.
Jencks, C. (1994). The homeless. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
45. University Press.
Johnson, K. D., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2005).
Substance abuse disorders among homeless and run-
away adolescents. Journal of Drug Issues, 2, 799-816.
Kaufman, J. G., & Widom, C. S. (1999). Childhood
victimization, running away, and delinquency. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(4), 347-371.
Kett, J. F. (1977). Rites of passage: Adolescence in America
1790 to present. New York: Basic Books.
Kipke, M. S., Montgomery, S. B., Simon, T. R., & Iverson, E.
F. (1997). Substance abuse disorders among run-
away and homeless youth. Substance Use and Misuse, 32, 969-
986.
Krisberg, B., Schwartz, I. M., Fishman, G., Eisikovits, Z., &
Guttman, E. (1986). The incarceration of minor-
ity youth. Minneapolis, MN: Hubert Humphrey Institute of
Public Affairs.
Kurtz, P. D., Jarvis, S. V., & Kurtz, G. (1991). The problems of
homeless youth: Empirical findings and human
service issues. Social Work, 36, 309-314.
Kurtz, P. D., Lindsey, E. W., Jarvis, S., & Nackerud, L. (2000).
How runaway and homeless youth navigate
troubled waters: The role of formal and informal helpers. Child
and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17
(5), 381-402.
Luntz, B. K., & Widom, C. S. (1994). Antisocial personality
disorder in abused and neglected children grown
up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 670-674.
46. McClanahan, S., McClelland, G., Abram, K., & Teplin, L.
(1999). Pathways into prostitution among female jail
detainees and their implications for mental health services.
Psychiatric Services, 50, 1606-1613.
McCord, J., Widom, C. S., & Crowell, N. A. (2001). Juvenile
crime, juvenile justice. Washington, DC: National
Academy.
McCormack, A., Janus, M., & Burgess, A.W. (1986). Runaway
youths and sexual victimization: Gender dif-
ferences in adolescent runaway populations. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 10, 387-395.
McMorris, B. J., Tyler, K. A., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R.
(2002). Familial and “on-the-street” risk factors
associated with alcohol use among homeless and runaway
adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63,
34-43.
Miller, H. G., Turner, G. F., & Moss, L. E. (1990). AIDS: The
second decade. Report of the National Research
Council. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-
persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental tax-
onomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701.
Moss, D. C. (1986, December 1). Getting tough with juveniles:
Justice department urges changes. ABA
Journal, p. 28.
Myers, T., & Sangster, J. (2001). Retorts, runaways and riots:
Patterns of resistance in Canadian reform schools
for girls, 1930-60. Journal of Social History, 34, 669-697.
47. Obeidallah, D. A., & Earls, F. J. (1999). Adolescent girls: The
role of depression in the development of delin-
quency. Research preview, July. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Odem, M. (1995). Delinquent daughters: Protecting and policing
adolescent female sexuality in the United
States, 1885-1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
Odem, M. E., & Schlossman, S. (1991). Guardians of virtue:
The juvenile court and females delinquency in
early 20th century Los Angeles. Crime and Delinquency, 37,
186-203.
Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 609 (1979).
Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of
adolescent girls. New York: Ballantine.
Robertson, M. J. (1989). Homeless youth in Hollywood:
Patterns of alcohol use. Berkeley, CA: School of
Public Health, University of California–Berkeley.
Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Koopman,
C., Rosario, M., Exner, T. M., Henderson, R., et al.
(1992). Lifetime sexual behaviors among runaway males and
females. Journal of Sex Research, 29(1), 15-29.
Rothman, D. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum
and its alternative in progressive America.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Kempf-Leonard, Johansson / Gender and Runaways 327
48. Rutter, M. (1989). Pathways from childhood to adult life.
Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 30, 23-51.
Schlossman, S. (1977). Love and the American delinquent: The
theory and practice of “progressive” juvenile
justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schlossman, S., & Wallach, S. (1978). The crime of precocious
sexuality: Female juvenile delinquency in the
Progressive era. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 65-94.
Schneider, A. (1984). Divesting status offenses for juvenile
court jurisdiction. Crime & Delinquency, 30, 347-370.
Schwartz, I. M. (1989). (In)justice for juveniles: Rethinking the
best interests of the child. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Slesnick, N. (2001). Variables associated with therapy
attendance in runaway substance abusing youth:
Preliminary findings. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29,
411-420.
Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and
victims: 2006 national report. Pittsburgh, PA:
National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Spillane-Grieco, E. (1984). Characteristics of a helpful
relationship: A study of empathic understanding and
positive regard between runaways and parents. Adolescence, 73,
63-75.
Spillane-Grieco, E. (2000). From parent verbal abuse to teenage
physical aggression. Child and Adolescent
Social Work Journal, 17(6), 411-430.
Stiffman, A. R., Earls, F., Powell, J., & Robins, L. N. (1987).
Correlates of alcohol and illicit drug use in
49. adolescent medical patients. Contemporary Drug Problems, 14,
295-314.
Stricof, R., Kennedy, J., Nattell, T., Weifuse, I., & Novick, L.
(1991). HIV seroprevalence in a facility for
runaway and homeless adolescents. American Journal of Public
Health, 81, 50-53.
Sussman, A. (1977). Sex-based discrimination and PINS
jurisdiction. In L. E. Tietelbaum & A. R. Gough
(Eds.), Beyond control: Status offenders in the juvenile court
(pp. 179-199). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Tanenhaus, D. S. (2004). Juvenile justice in the making. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Tyler, K. A., Hoyt, D. R., Whitbeck, L. B., & Cauce, A. M.
(2001). The impact of childhood sexual abuse on
later sexual victimization among runaway youth. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 11(2), 151-176.
Tyler, K., Whitbeck, L., Hoyt, D., & Cause, A. (2004). Risk
factors for sexual victimization among male and
female homeless and runaway youth. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 19, 503-520.
Visher, C. (1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions
of chivalry. Criminology, 21, 5-28.
Weithorn, L. A. (1988). Mental hospitalization of troublesome
youth: An analysis of skyrocketing admission
rates. Stanford Law Review, 40, 773-838.
Whitbeck, L. B., Chen, X., Hoyt, D., Tyler, K. A., & Johnson,
K. D. (2004). Mental disorder, subsistence strate-
gies, and victimization among gay, lesbian, and bisexual
homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Sex
50. Research, 41(4), 329-342.
Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D., Yoder, K., Cauce, A., & Paradise, M.
(2001). Deviant behavior and victimization
among homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1175-1204.
Whitbeck, L. B., & Simons, R. I. (1990). Life on the streets:
The victimization of runaway and homeless ado-
lescents. Youth & Society, 22 (1), 108-125.
Widom, C. S., & Ames, M. A. (1994). Criminal consequences of
childhood sexual victimization. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 18, 303-318.
Yates, G. L., Mackenzie, R., Pennbridge, J., & Cohen, E.
(1988). A risk profile comparison of runaway and non-
runaway youth. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 820-
821.
Zide, M., & Cherry, A. (1992). A typology of runaway youths:
An empirically based definition. Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 9, 155-168.
Kimberly Kempf-Leonard is professor and chair of the Center
for Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections at
Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Her research examines
inequality, criminal and juvenile justice policy, and criminal
career development.
Pernilla Johansson is assistant director of the Eugene
McDermott Scholars Program at the University of Texas at
Dallas. Her
research examines the life course perspective, gender and crime,
and social control.
81. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
82. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.