Purpose: In recent decades, juvenile justice literature has shifted from a gender-blind or boys-only perspective to a recognition that the pathways to juvenile offending may be gender-specific. Authors in this area tend to emphasize the impact of child maltreatment on girls, assuming a less influential role of maltreatment for boys. Similarly, poverty is often considered more relevant to the study of male offending behavior. This study advances knowledge by addressing the question of the differential impact of maltreatment and poverty on the onset of status and delinquent offenses for girls compared to boys.

Methods: A subgroup of youth born in 1982-1986 in a large Midwestern metropolitan region was selected from a longitudinal study of service paths of maltreated children. The total sample size for this analysis was 3,576 children (1729 girls and 1847 boys). The independent variables were poverty, measured as receipt of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), maltreatment, measured as being reported as a victim of child maltreatment, and both. Race, foster care placement, eligibility for special education by type of disability, and census-tract person crimes were included in the model as control variables. The risks of delinquent petition and status petition were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models; relative risk ratios are reported here.

Results: First, risk of onset of juvenile court petition for status offense was examined (model chi-square=305.09, df=10, p<.0001). Both boys (RR=.0592) and girls (RR=.470) in the AFDC-only (no maltreatment) group were less likely to have a status offense petition than those in the maltreatment-only group. Having both a record of AFDC and maltreatment increased the risk of a status offense among boys (RR=1.825) but not girls. In the model of onset of delinquency petitions (model chi-square=400.08, df=10, p<.0001), both boys (RR=1.292) and girls (RR=1.390) had an increased risk of delinquency petition if they had the combined experience of AFCD and maltreatment compared to maltreatment only. There was no significant difference in delinquency risk for boys or girls between the AFDC-only and the maltreatment-only groups.

Implications: These findings are consistent with research suggesting that there are gender differences in the pathways to juvenile offending behavior. However, the present study found this to be true only for youth whose first juvenile court petition was for a status offense. While the absence of maltreatment was “protective” for both boys and girls in the status offense model, only boys faced additional risk if the maltreatment was combined with family AFDC use. Although little prior empirical research is available for comparison, the findings that maltreatment is central to the risk of status offending for girls is consistent with feminist theory about the central role of family in the socialization of females. For boys, theories of cumulative risk may be more applicable. Although these findings must be replicated before drawing firm conclusions, it may be that girls would particularly benefit from interventions designed to improve family functioning.