Study findings support the predictive validity of juvenile risk-assessment instruments with both male and female offenders. The meta-analysis showed that risk-assessment predictive validity did not vary appreciably by gender, except when sample base rates of recidivism approached 70 percent, as might be the case in some residential settings that serve high-risk youths. Thus, gender-specific risk assessments should not be required for most jurisdictions and programs. One argument against the use of gender-neutral risk-assessment instruments has been that these instruments may be less accurate for female offenders than for male offenders, tending to over predict recidivism for female offenders. The current meta-analysis found, however, that risk assessment instruments were more accurate with female offenders than with male offenders, although the magnitude of these differences was small. It can be inferred from the study findings that the design of most risk-assessment instruments leads to risk classification with similar levels of predictive validity for male and female offenders; however, this does not imply that male and female risk patterns are the same. It is likely that boys and girls with similar risk levels will require different intervention packages that target distinctive gender-related risk factors. For this meta-analysis, 19 studies that encompassed 20 unique samples met inclusion criteria. These were reports of risk-assessment predictive validity in which predictive validity estimates were reported separately by gender. Inclusion was restricted to studies that estimated the predictive validity of a structured risk-assessment instrument in a juvenile justice setting using a prospective longitudinal design. 5 tables and 67 references