Juvenile Justice: Putting It in Perspective

vixen1004

01CH_Juvenile_Johnson.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Juvenile Justice: Putting It in Perspective

Learning Objectives After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

▪ Explain the complexity of defining juvenile delinquency.

▪ Summarize the different types of juvenile delinquency.

▪ Describe how states attempt to define juvenile delinquency in relation to age.

▪ Evaluate the rates of delinquency and the three primary techniques for measuring delinquency.

▪ Analyze the benefits of using the three crime measurements together.

Juvenile Delinquency: Background and

Measurement

ncognet0/Getty Images

Chapter Outline 1.1 Introduction

1.2 What Qualifies as Juvenile Delinquency?

1.3 Who Is a Juvenile Delinquent?

1.4 How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

▪ Arrest Results and Trends

– What the UCR Reveals About Crime

– Strengths of the UCR

– Weaknesses of the UCR

– Supplementing the UCR

▪ Self-Report Surveys

– Strengths of Self-Report Surveys

– Weaknesses of Self-Report Surveys

▪ Victimization Data

– Strengths of Victimization Surveys

– Weaknesses of Victimization Surveys

1.5 Measuring Crime: Putting It All Into Perspective

During the summer of 1999, 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick was staying with a friend of her mother. The friend’s 12-year-old son, Lionel Tate, and Tiffany were playing while Lionel’s mother was in another part of the home. Two hours later, Lionel told his mother that Tiffany had stopped breathing. Lionel indicated that they were playing a wrestling game. He admitted that he had had the little girl in a headlock and her head had hit the table. Tiffany later died of her injuries. The autopsy indicated that Tiffany’s injuries included a lacerated spleen, fractured rib cage and skull, and damage to her liver (Canedy, 2001).

Lionel Tate became the youngest person in U.S. history to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Eventually the case was overturned, allowing him to serve three years in prison; however, he continued to have trouble with the law and currently resides in prison on an armed robbery conviction. The case of Lionel Tate captured national attention not only because of the nature of the crime but also because of the young age of the defendant.

Although violent crime among juveniles is cause for serious concern, other forms of delin- quency, such as drug and alcohol use among teens, can be equally concerning. In fact, the Cen- ters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) asserts that alcohol and drug use among teens is a significant public health issue. The CDC monitors drug and alcohol use among teenagers with a national school-based survey (visit http://www.cdc.gov/yrbss for more information). According to the survey, in 2017, 29.8% of high school students reported having at least one drink during the last 30 days before the survey, 19.8% of students reported using marijuana one or more times during the 30 days before the survey, and 6.2% had sniffed glue, breathed the contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhaled paints or sprays to get high one or more times during their life (Kann et al., 2018).

Section 1.1Introduction

1.1 Introduction Youth involvement in violent crime is often the subject of intense media coverage. The Tate case illustrates that children can and do commit violent criminal acts. While this case illus- trates that juveniles are capable of murder, this type of crime is rare compared to other types of crimes. If we examine arrest statistics, we see that although 682 juveniles were arrested for murder in 2016, this number is lower than that for any other violent crime category (Federal Bureau of Investi- gation [FBI], 2017). As a point of compari- son, more than 147,000 youth were arrested for property crimes in 2016 (FBI, 2017). This comparison is not to suggest that property crime is comparable to vio- lent crime, particularly murder; however, it does illustrate that an arrest made for a violent crime is a rare event.

People generally agree that a juvenile’s violent acts should be considered crimi- nal. However, defining and measuring deviant behavior among juveniles is more difficult than it might seem. For example, if a youth drinks alcohol at a weekend party with friends and does not get caught, is the behavior criminal? It certainly could be argued that underage drinking with friends is wrong, regard- less of police action. However, if a youth is given a glass of wine at the family din- ner table, does this behavior also repre- sent juvenile delinquency? The context in which the behavior occurs might alter our perspective.

We may see binge drinking at an unsupervised party differently than we see consuming a small amount of alcohol in the context of a family gathering, even though underage drinking is illegal. Similarly, the reasons behind certain behaviors may change our view. Consider a youth who skips school to escape chronic bullying or who runs away from home to escape sexual abuse. Truancy is against the law, but should the underlying cause for the behavior be considered when determining whether to involve the criminal justice system?

As we will see throughout this chapter, juvenile delinquency, which typically refers to the criminal activities of a minor child, is a complex phenomenon. The complexity can be seen in several examples. First, although the age at which a youth is considered a juvenile delinquent is 18 according to federal law, the age varies at the state level. Second, the types of offenses committed by juveniles vary dramatically, and controversy surrounds how different types of offenses should be handled within the justice system. Finally, there are various ways to

Flirt/SuperStock Defining and measuring deviant behavior among juveniles is more difficult than it might seem.

Section 1.2What Qualifies as Juvenile Delinquency?

measure delinquency and each comes to slightly different conclusions about the extent and impact of crime. The complexity surrounding juvenile delinquency should not be interpreted to mean that studying the concept is unproductive or cannot inform public policy. Instead, researchers and practitioners must appreciate and develop theories and policies that account for this complexity. Let’s begin by examining the complications and controversies that arise when trying to define juvenile delinquency.

1.2 What Qualifies as Juvenile Delinquency? Defining precisely the types of behavior that should warrant involvement in the juvenile jus- tice system is complicated. For example, although murder is clearly a crime that would invoke court involvement, other forms of delinquency are less clear. Crimes committed by juveniles range from minor violations like vandalism and truancy to more serious crimes like rape and robbery. Should individuals who engage in less serious forms of delinquency be subjected to the same arrest and court processing as those who commit more serious crime? Understand- ing this issue requires us to examine a brief history of the concept of juvenile delinquency in the United States.

Those born in the 1980s and later have known only a juvenile justice system oriented toward punishment. Historically the juvenile justice system was oriented toward rehabilitation and care of delinquent youth (see Chapter 2). Rehabilitation or reformation is the foundation behind parens patria, one of the core concepts of the system. Parens patria (Latin for “parent of the nation”) refers to the court’s focus on the welfare of the juvenile. The court’s parent- ing role becomes particularly important in cases in which a juvenile is a victim of abuse or neglect.

The juvenile court assumes jurisdiction over behaviors that are illegal only for juveniles. These types of crimes are referred to as status offenses and include delinquent acts such as tru- ancy, running away, and violating curfew. Status offenses are considered fairly minor forms of delinquency and in some states may qualify for particular types of services, such as diversion or educational classes, rather than incarceration. For example, some states offer seminars both for youth who engage in chronic truancy and for their parents. The classes might discuss the impact of skipping school on the youth’s financial and emotional well-being.

Although the juvenile justice system had long distinguished between delinquent offenses (more serious), abuse and neglect cases (serious but nondelinquent), and status offenses (less serious), it was not until the 1960s that criminal justice reformers questioned how the system should handle each. At the time, the concern was less about whether the system should be more punitive in its handling of delinquent cases than it was about whether the system could be having a negative impact on status offenders and abuse and neglect cases. The controversy surrounding status offenses became particularly important as research suggested that the system’s response could influence a youth’s chance of becoming involved in more serious delinquency in the future (Raley, 1995). In other words, could the juvenile justice system be doing more harm than good?

Section 1.2What Qualifies as Juvenile Delinquency?

The treatment of status offenders was addressed as a primary issue in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. One of the four core protections of this act is the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders, which recommends that all juveniles classi- fied as status offenders not be held for any period of time in a detention facility (Holden & Kapler, 1995). The recommendation regarding the treatment of status offenders was based on several concerns. First, although status offenses are less serious forms of delinquency, they could result in severe sanctions, such as institutionalization. Second, studies find that status offenders, particularly girls who run away from home, may be doing so to escape an abusive home life. These girls are often detained and treated as criminals rather than victims of abuse. Finally, studies also find that placing these youth under the control of the system actually increases their risk for future criminal behavior (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004; Holman & Ziedenberg, 2007; Sherman, 2005).

To reduce these potential negative impacts, some observers argue that the system should develop labels, guidelines, and even separate criminal codes for status offenders and juve- niles who offend as a result of abuse or neglect. In terms of labels, the International Associa- tion of Chiefs of Police (IACP) have long argued that status offenders should be labeled as unruly children to reduce the use of the “offender” label (Krisberg & Austin, 1978). More recently, the IACP and the John D. and Catherine T. MacAr- thur Foundation began a partnership to create innovative policies for handling youth. As a result of this collaboration, jurisdictions across the country have been able to reduce referrals to the juve- nile court for status offenses (Bahney, Daugirda, Firman, Kurash, & Phudy, 2014). Some states classify a juvenile who commit status offenses as a person in need of supervision (PINS), a youth in need of supervision (YINS), a juvenile in need of supervision (JINS), or a child in need of supervision (CINS). Still other states limit the types of charges that can be classified as a status offense. For exam- ple, North Carolina developed five catego- ries of status offenders (Governor’s Crime Commission, 2012):

• Undisciplined-type status offender: a juvenile who has committed an undisciplined-type status offense (e.g., truancy, has run away, has been disobedient)

Fuse/Thinkstock Underage drinking is a delinquent-type status offense.

Section 1.3Who Is a Juvenile Delinquent?

• Delinquent-type status offender: a juvenile who has committed a curfew, alcohol, tobacco, or motor vehicle offense that is not a crime for adults (e.g., buying tobacco under age 18, consuming alcohol under age 21)

• Nonoffender: a juvenile who is under juvenile court jurisdiction for reasons of delin- quency, neglect, or abuse

• Civil-type offender: a juvenile who is under delinquency court jurisdiction for an infraction that is civil in nature (e.g., noncriminal traffic or fish and game violations)

• Alien juvenile: a noncitizen juvenile under age 18 who is not charged with any offense

A concern regarding status offenders that is not addressed by these types of labels and guide- lines, however, is how to deal with chronic status offenders or those who commit multiple status offenses (see Chapter 4).

1.3 Who Is a Juvenile Delinquent? One of the challenges of understanding the juvenile justice system is that the system itself is, in fact, not systematic. This is particularly true when it comes to defining who qualifies as a juvenile. The U.S. juvenile justice system is comprised of 51 different entities—one for the federal system and one for each state—and who qualifies as a juvenile differs from state to state. A juvenile delinquent is a minor who commits a criminal act. But at what age is some- one considered a minor?

The federal government considers a minor to be under the age of 18. Should everyone in the country who is under the age of 18 be considered a minor? Conversely, is there an age at which someone is too young to form criminal intent and should therefore be exempt from criminal prosecution? Age ambiguity, or uncertainty regarding the age of entry into the juve- nile justice system, can be seen by how juvenile delinquent status is defined differently in different states. In Texas, the definition of a juvenile delinquent is a child between the ages of 10 and 17. However, in Massachusetts, the age is between 7 and 16 years (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2018).

If we look state by state, we see considerable variation in both the upper and lower age limits for who is considered a juvenile. The upper age limit in each state is referred to as the age of jurisdiction, or the age that dictates whether the juvenile court or the adult court system has authority over a case. Most states consider a juvenile to be any person under the age of 18 (see Table 1.1).

Support for raising the age of jurisdiction has increased over the past several years as research questioning the effectiveness of transferring youth to adult court has increased. In 2013, both Illinois and Massachusetts raised the age of jurisdiction from 16 to 17, with New Hampshire following suit in 2015. In 2017, New York voters passed legislation to raise the age of jurisdic- tion from 15 to 18 (starting in fiscal year 2018), and North Carolina raised the age of jurisdic- tion for nonviolent crimes to age 18 (effective December 1, 2019).

Section 1.3Who Is a Juvenile Delinquent?

Table 1.1: Upper age of jurisdiction in delinquency matters by state/jurisdiction

Age State/jurisdiction

16 Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin

17 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jer- sey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina*, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylva- nia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming

*Effective December 2019

From “Figure: Delinquency upper age, 2016,” in Statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04102.asp?qaDate=2016&text=no&maplink=link2

Some states also set a minimum age of jurisdiction for youth to be involved with the juvenile justice system (see Table 1.2). North Carolina allows the lowest minimum age of jurisdiction, meaning that youth as young as 6 years old are subject to the juvenile court system. The mini- mum age of jurisdiction is 7 years in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York. It is 8 years in Arizona and 10 years in 11 other states. If a youth below these ages commits a delinquent act, it would likely be handled informally by the police department and family. Youth under the age of jurisdiction are considered too young to understand that their behav- ior is criminal.

Table 1.2: Minimum age of jurisdiction in delinquency matters, by state

Age State

6 North Carolina

7 Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York

8 Arizona

10 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin

From “Figure: Delinquency lower age, 2016,” in Statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04102.asp?qaDate=2016

Not surprisingly, the maximum age of jurisdiction varies by state as well. The maximum age of jurisdiction refers to the oldest age at which a juvenile can be retained in the juvenile system. The majority of states consider the age of 20 as the maximum age of jurisdiction (see Table 1.3). So, for example, if a youth is convicted at age 14 for a crime in Ohio and is sentenced to serve time in a juvenile institution, he can be kept under supervision by the juvenile justice system until he is 20 years old. A few states will allow youth as old as 24 to remain in the juvenile justice system, and some will allow youth to remain as long as their sentence dictates.

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Table 1.3: Maximum age of jurisdiction in delinquency matters, by state/jurisdiction

Age State/jurisdiction

18 Oklahoma, Texas

19 Alaska, Connecticut, Mississippi, North Dakota

20 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada*, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washing- ton, West Virginia, Wyoming

21 Vermont

22 Kansas

24 California, Montana, Oregon, Wisconsin

— Colorado**, Hawaii**, New Jersey**

Note: Extended jurisdiction may be restricted to certain offenses or juveniles. *Until the full sentence has been served for sex offenders **Until the full sentence has been served

From “Figure: Jurisdictional boundaries,” in Statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04106.asp?qaDate=2016

1.4 How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency? National crime statistics offer a fairly complicated portrait of juvenile offending and victim- ization. The statistics can sometimes be confusing and contradictory. Let’s consider the fol- lowing facts:

• Over 850,000 juveniles were arrested in 2016. This number represents a 58% decrease since 2007 (FBI, 2016).

• Prevalence of marijuana use and inhalants increased significantly in 2017, although still below peak levels (Johnston, Miech, O’Malley, Bachman, Schulenberg, & Patrick, 2018).

• Studies show that the rate of violent victimization among juveniles between the ages of 12 and 17 declined to an all-time low in 2015 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2017).

• In recent years, the percentage of arrests has grown for girls more than for boys, although boys represent 92% of all juvenile arrests (Puzzanchera & Ehrmann, 2018).

• Up to 60% of U.S. children are exposed to violence, crime, or abuse in their homes, schools, and communities (Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, Hamby, & Kracke, 2009).

After reading these statistics, you may not feel you have any better understanding of juvenile crime than you did before. If so, you are not alone. Crime statistics can be a puzzling array of percentages, rates, and trends. These statistics, and the headlines that accompany them, can lead to confusion regarding how much delinquency occurs each year. This confusion regard- ing crime was illustrated in a mid-1990s study of college students. Researchers asked partici- pants to indicate the number of murders that occurred in the United States in the previous year. Nearly half of the students indicated that the number was as high as 250,000. In reality,

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

the number of homicides typically hovers around less than 20,000 annually, with 1,700 of those involving juveniles (VanDiver & Giacopassi, 1997). Clearly these students were misin- formed, but studies suggest that overall the public often overestimates the amount of crime that occurs each year (Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004).

One reason for this overestimation is that our views and attitudes are influenced by our per- sonal experiences and by the information we take in about the world around us. This phe- nomenon is referred to as the availability heuristic, which is the tendency to believe in the probability of an event based on how easily an example can be recalled (Tversky & Kahne- man, 1973). Regarding violent crime, information may come from a person’s experience (e.g., knowing someone who was robbed by a delinquent youth), but more often it comes from the news media’s excessive coverage of violent crime (Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004).

There are several other reasons why understanding crime statistics can be difficult. First, crime statistics can be very contextual. For example, arrest statistics can be influenced by numerous factors, one of which is organizational practices within police departments. When a police department decides to crack down on a particular type of crime, such as drug use, the arrests for drug-related crimes may increase even though the crimes themselves have not increased. Second, although we often examine crime statistics from an annual perspec- tive (e.g., the percentage of crime in 2018), crime tends to fluctuate naturally between years. Sometimes the fluctuation turns into a trend (e.g., the crime rate has decreased significantly between 2010 and 2018); other times the fluctuation represents an anomaly or an unusual year. Finally, we use multiple techniques to measure delinquency, and each technique has its own strengths and weaknesses. In particular, the juvenile justice field relies on three primary sources for collecting crime data: arrests, self-report surveys, and victimization surveys. Let’s take a look at these three sources and their strengths and weaknesses.

Arrest Results and Trends When the news media discuss the increase or decrease in the crime rate, they are most often referring to changes in the number of arrests or the arrest rate. The arrest statistics for both juveniles and adults is most commonly derived from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), whose data are published annually by the FBI. The UCR program began in the late 1920s and collects information from police departments across the country. In the 1940s, law enforce- ment agencies from nearly 400 cities provided information on arrests in their jurisdictions. By the 1960s, every state provided crime statistics for the UCR. Today, crime statistics included in the UCR are collected by approximately 17,000 different city, county, tribal, and state police agencies across the country. Even crime that occurs on university and college campuses can be part of these crime statistics (FBI, 2004). The statistics account for crimes known to police and arrests made by law enforcement agencies.

The UCR collects arrest data on what are known as Part I and Part II offenses. The Part I offenses, also known as index crimes, include homicide, rape, arson, motor vehicle theft, lar- ceny, robbery, and burglary. They are singled out because of their seriousness, frequency, and likelihood of being reported. The Part II offenses include a broader range of offenses, such as simple assault, forgery, and embezzlement. The annual report published by the FBI focuses on Part I offenses. Both types of offenses are listed in Table 1.4. Several crime categories have been added to the UCR since the 1960s. For example, police agencies began reporting officers killed in the line of duty in 1960, arson was categorized as a Part I offense in 1982, and hate crimes were added in 1990 (FBI, 2004).

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Table 1.4: Part I and II offenses

Part I offenses Part II offenses

Murder and nonnegligent homicide Rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary Larceny/theft Motor vehicle theft Arson

Other assaults Fraud Embezzlement Stolen property Weapons Prostitution Sex offenses (except rape) Drug abuse violations Runaways Gambling Forgery and counterfeiting Offenses against family and children Driving under the influence Liquor laws Drunkenness Disorderly conduct Vagrancy Suspicion Curfew & loitering All other offenses (except trafficking)

The data collected for the UCR program include three different categories:

• Crimes known to police: Data include crimes reported by victims or witnesses, or those discovered by police. These crimes may or may not be referred to the court system for formal charges.

• Crimes cleared by arrest: Data include the number of offenses cleared by an arrest. Cleared refers to whether the crime was considered “solved” by the police. Crimes cleared by an arrest do not necessarily indicate the number of people arrested. For example, the arrest of one person may “clear” a number of crimes committed by that one person. Regardless of the number of people involved, an arrest must have occurred and the case referred to court.

• Number of persons arrested for Part I and Part II offenses: Data include the number of persons arrested for Part I and Part II offenses in any given year. The statistics are collected by age, race, gender, and location.

The data collected result in three annual publications and two semiannual publications. The three annual publications are Crime in the United States, Hate Crime Statistics, and Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. The two semiannual publications provide statis- tics every six months and report changes since the last reporting period. All of these can be accessed from the FBI’s website at www.fbi.gov.

What the UCR Reveals About Crime By examining the data included in the UCR, we can get a sense of who is committing what types of crime. For example, the FBI classifies a juvenile as anyone under the age of 18, regardless of how juvenile is defined by each state. In addition, the UCR does not report circumstances in which youth are brought into custody for their own protection, such as in abuse and neglect cases. Further, comparing the amount of crime committed by juveniles relative to adults, we

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

find that juveniles contribute significantly to the overall crime rate. Specifically, Figure 1.1 shows that, in 2016, just under 14% of property crimes and 10% of violent crimes were com- mitted by juveniles (FBI, 2017).

Figure 1.1: Percentage of crime committed by those under 18, 2016

Of the total crime committed in the United States in 2016, juveniles committed almost 14% of all property crimes and 10% of all violent crimes.

From “Table 20: Arrests by age, 2016,” in Crime in the United States, by Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report, 2017, Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-20

Table 1.5 breaks down the arrests of juveniles in 2016 by charge and age, indicating that more than 680,000 juveniles were arrested during that year. Of those juveniles, slightly over 41,000 were arrested for violent offenses (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), and more than 147,000 were arrested for property offenses (bur- glary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson). A few other pieces of data are notable: just over 31,000 youth were arrested for vandalism, over 78,000 for drug abuse violations, and just over 27,000 for curfew and loitering violations. We also see some patterns regard- ing age, suggesting that older youth are arrested more frequently than younger youth. For example, the crimes committed by youth under age 15 make up only 28%, or less than a third, of all juvenile arrests in 2016.

Table 1.5: Arrests by charge and age, 2016

Offense charged

Total under 18

Under 10 10–12 13–14 15 16 17

TOTAL 681,701 4,902 42,347 143,326 127,828 164,010 199,288

Violent crime 41,335 198 2,543 8,565 7,860 10,175 11,994

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

682 0 5 55 93 198 331

Rape 2,952 30 331 829 514 561 687

Robbery 15,339 20 368 2,510 3,123 4,367 4,951

(continued on next page)

Property index Violence index

13.6

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Table 1.5: Arrests by charge and age, 2016 (continued)

Offense charged

Total under 18

Under 10 10–12 13–14 15 16 17

Aggravated assault

22,362 148 1,839 5,171 4,130 5,049 6,025

Property crime 147,350 783 8,512 31,661 29,385 36,501 40,508

Burglary 25,513 193 1,596 5,857 5,243 6,117 6,507

Larceny/theft 107,287 476 6,207 22,638 20,954 26,589 30,423

Motor vehicle theft

12,520 15 295 2,514 2,837 3,519 3,340

Arson 2,030 99 414 652 351 276 238

Vandalism 31,181 534 3,253 8,737 5,663 6,457 6,537

Weapons: carrying, possessing, etc.

15,452 203 1,377 3,220 2,734 3,551 4,367

Drug abuse violations

78,330 91 1,737 10,239 12,096 20,639 33,528

Liquor laws 29,073 9 267 2,782 4,404 8,044 13,567

Drunkenness 3,805 14 35 406 521 907 1,922

Disorderly conduct

52,315 498 4,964 14,487 10,521 11,221 10,624

Suspicion 74 0 6 18 14 19 17

Curfew and loitering law violations

27,152 135 1,615 6,046 6,186 7,288 5,882

Adapted from Crime in the United States, by Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017, Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in- the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-20

What do these numbers tell us about juvenile crime? To begin, they tell us that violent crimes, while important to study, do not represent the majority of crimes committed by juveniles each year. Rather, drug abuse violations and property violations make up the bulk of juve- nile crime. Similarly, the overall crime rate among those aged 18 and under has dropped sig- nificantly. This type of data could be used to counteract public fears that youth have become more violent over the past decade (Gramlich, 2018; NPR, 2016). Similarly, although status offenses such as curfew and loitering violations involved a fair number of juveniles (just over 27,000) in 2016, they have decreased over time (see Figure 1.6). Could this decrease reflect policies implemented since the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders protection was rec- ommended in the mid-1970s to address the justice system’s reach into the lives of juveniles?

Understanding crime statistics also requires an appreciation of how crime rates vary across time. Examining rates across time allows us to see whether any potential patterns or trends are emerging, which can, for instance, inform legislation or departmental policy. For example, the rate of delinquency peaked in the mid-1990s and since then has declined significantly

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

(see Figure 1.2). In particular, it began to decline in 1995, became fairly stable from 2005 to 2008, and then declined significantly until 2016. In fact, juvenile crime rates are the lowest they have been since the get-tough movement of the 1980s, when the system began imple- menting policies that led to an increase in arrests. When we examine trends by crime type, we see similar trends. For example, violent crime rates declined steeply from 1995 to 2000, before leveling off and then declining again steeply until 2012 (see Figure 1.3). Compare this trajectory to that of property crime, which declined more gradually from 1995 to 2016 (see Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.2: Delinquency rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980–2016

Delinquency rates peaked in 1995 at around 8,200 juveniles, declined steadily after that, and eventually leveled off at around 5,900 in 2005 before dropping dramatically to around 2,500 in 2016.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www .ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

Figure 1.3: Violent crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980–2012*

Violent crime rates peaked in 1995 at just under 500 juveniles, declined steadily after that, and eventually leveled off below 300 in 2005 before dropping again to around 180 in 2012.

*Data after 2012 is not available.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www .ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 1980 1985 1990 1995

Years

R at e

2000 2005 2010 2016

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012

Years

R at e

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Figure 1.4: Property crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980–2016

Property crime rates consistently declined from 1995 to 2016.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www .ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

Declines are also seen with drug abuse violations and status offenses. Drug violations rose dramatically, peaking in the mid-1990s. They have declined slowly since then (see Figure 1.5).

When we examine three types of status offenses—liquor law, runaway, and curfew viola- tions—we see similar trends (see Figure 1.6). Examining trends in this way tells us that the decline in juvenile crime has been a consistent trend over a period of years that varies only slightly by offense type. This type of information could inform, say, statewide approaches to allocating law enforcement resources. For example, if the arrest rates for arson were increas- ing steadily over time while rates for all other offenses were decreasing, a state might devote a greater percentage of its resources to exploring why more juveniles were committing arson each year.

Figure 1.5: Drug violation crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980–2016

Drug violations saw a rapid increase from just under 300 in 1990 to nearly 700 in 1995. Since then, violation rates have declined slowly to around 295 in the year 2016.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www .ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016

Years

R at e

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016

Years

R at e

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Figure 1.6: Status offense rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980–2016*

Liquor law violations peaked in 1990 at just under 600, while both runaway and curfew and loitering offenses peaked in 1995 at around 800 and 500, respectively. All three rates declined throughout the 2000s, with both liquor and curfew and loitering violations at nearly 100 by 2016. Runaway offenses peaked in 1995 and then fell rapidly until 2000, after which they leveled off until 2009.

*Data for “runaway” not available after 2009.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www .ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

Finally, if we examine differences by gender, Figures 1.7 and 1.8 indicate that boys commit substantially more offenses than girls. Despite this difference, crime rates for both genders followed about the same trajectory over time, peaking in the 1990s and then leveling off.

Figure 1.7: Crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17 by gender, 1980–2016

Between 1980 and 2008, boys committed substantially more offenses than girls did. However, although the rates of crime committed by both boys and girls peaked in the 1990s, the rate of crimes committed by boys has dropped at a more substantial rate since then.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www .ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Runaway Liquor law Curfew and loitering

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016

Years

R at e

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

Boys Girls

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016

Years

R at e

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Figure 1.8: Crime rates for violent offenses only by gender, 1980–2012*

From 1980 to 2012, boys committed violent offenses significantly more often than girls. However, the decline in the rate of crimes committed by girls was much less substantial after a peak in the 1990s.

*Data after 2012 are not available.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www .ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

Although the UCR is a useful tool for determining trends, it has both strengths and weak- nesses as a measure of crime.

Strengths of the UCR The UCR is a popular and widely used measure of crime. Arguably, it is more useful for exam- ining trends among adults than juveniles; however, the data available on youth are also impor- tant. The UCR has several strengths:

• The longevity of the program is notable. The UCR program has been in existence longer than any other program of its kind. The amount of data collected through this program over such a long period of time allows us to examine crime trends from a more historical perspective that provides us with a bigger picture view of crime and crime trends.

• The data collection is national in scope. The UCR coverage area includes 17,000 police departments from every state in the nation. So not only are we able to exam- ine rates and trends, but we also are able to examine how crime may vary by area.

• The source of the data included in the UCR appears to be a valid measure of serious crime (Gove, Hughes, & Geerken, 1985). The UCR collects data on crimes that are serious enough to warrant a call to the police, such as murder, motor vehicle theft, robbery, or burglary. So, for example, if we want to examine crimes known to the police, we know that the UCR includes data on crimes for which a victim or loved one would be more likely to contact law enforcement for help.

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Boys Girls

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012

Years

R at e

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Weaknesses of the UCR At the same time, the UCR is criticized on a number of grounds:

• A key criticism is that the UCR collects data only on reported crimes, and not all crimes are reported to the police. Reasons for not reporting vary but often include reluctance on the part of the victim to report to police because the crime may not seem serious enough, because of feelings that the police may not help them, or because they think the incident is a private matter (Gove et al., 1985). The UCR pro- gram also employs a reporting requirement referred to as the hierarchy rule. Accord- ing to this rule, even when a person has committed multiple crimes, police report only the most serious crimes that person has committed. The FBI provides guide- lines on which offenses are the most serious, but the exclusion of any crimes means that the UCR does not capture all crime committed.

• The crime measure reflected in the UCR may be biased by law enforcement prac- tices. For example, not everyone reports that a crime has occurred. In addition, arrests may be more likely in areas targeted for enforcement. If enforcement occurs in lower-income areas more frequently than in others, low-income residents may be disproportionately represented in the UCR statistics.

• The UCR does not tap into why a person may have committed a crime or why a crime may have occurred. Although police agencies collect basic information on the person arrested (e.g., age, race, gender), they do not collect other incident-level data (e.g., relationship between victim and offender, alcohol or drug use). Understanding the person’s motivation for the crime is difficult to discern without additional infor- mation (Farrington, 1994; Gove et al., 1985).

Supplementing the UCR In the late 1970s, law enforcement agencies suggested supplementing the UCR program with additional data and crime categories for several reasons. First, the law enforcement com- munity’s proficiency in collecting data had increased. Second, the UCR does not provide the details necessary to fully understand trends in crime. Finally, the hierarchy rule is concerning to those who believe the UCR does not provide an accurate picture of the amount of crime occurring in the United States each year (Maxfield, 1999).

In response to law enforcement’s suggestions, a new incident-based data collection system, the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), was approved in 1988. This data col- lection system is meant to collect data on every incident and arrest throughout the United States. Although participating states began collecting data for NIBRS in the late 1980s, imple- mentation of the program nationwide has been fairly slow. Currently, approximately 6,000 law enforcement agencies, representing only about 25% of the U.S. population, provide data to the FBI on an annual basis. Given this low response rate, the FBI continues to rely on UCR statistics when publishing its annual report on crime in the United States.

The accompanying Spotlight feature lists the offense categories included in the NIBRS.

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Self-Report Surveys A self-report survey is a data-gathering tool that asks participants to report on their own thoughts, behaviors, and experiences. Since the 1950s, self-report surveys have been used in crime reporting and research to address two particular weakness of the UCR. First, the information collected as part of the UCR program is not sufficient to explain why a crime may have occurred. Criminological theories (see Chapter 3) are designed to explain the motivation for crime or the factors that may influence a person’s decision to commit a crime. By using UCR data, a researcher can identify that a certain number of arrests occurred among males, or in the summer months, or in a particular geographic region. However, the same researcher cannot say why a man in Texas may have committed a crime in July. Second, the UCR mea- sures only crimes reported to or discovered by the police. Some researchers argue that the UCR captures only 10% of the crime that occurs each year, whereas others put the figure at a more conservative estimate of 50% (Biederman & Lynch, 1991; Klaus, 2004). Regardless of the extent, it is an agreed-upon fact that police are not aware of every crime committed. The number of unreported crimes or crimes undiscovered by police is referred to as the dark figure of crime.

Self-report surveys about crime are able to address these weaknesses of the UCR by asking participants a range of questions about their behavior. For example, a self-report survey about delinquent behavior might ask participants whether they have engaged in delinquency and to provide details regarding the offenses. Self-report surveys can be fairly wide-ranging. For example, a survey can be administered almost anywhere (e.g., schools, prisons, community gatherings) and in many ways (e.g., face-to-face, by mail or phone) and cover a variety of top- ics (e.g., involvement with cheating, exposure to violence, or attitudes toward punishment).

Self-report surveys became popular for a couple of reasons. First, survey results indicated that some of the assumptions about who commits crime were incorrect. For example, the UCR indicates that disadvantaged neighborhoods have higher arrest rates. Self-report studies showed that people from a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds commit crime (Short & Nye, 1958). Second, researchers began to use self-report surveys to examine why people commit crime. For example, we know that various factors can influence criminal behavior. Self-report surveys allow us to disentangle which factors are particularly important. Risk fac- tors such as family relationships, school environments, and the influence of peers were dis- covered primarily through the use of self-report surveys. The results of these types of studies led to a dramatic increase in new ideas and theories to explain juvenile delinquency (Thorn- berry & Krohn, 2000).

Although self-report surveys can give a broader picture of delinquency, survey information is often collected among fairly limited groups of people. For example, often the people complet- ing a survey live in a particular area (e.g., a survey of youth in Denver, Colorado) or are mem- bers of a particular demographic (e.g., high school students in a rural area). To address this issue, Delbert Elliott and colleagues (Elliott & Huizinga, 1983) developed the National Youth Survey (NYS) in the mid-1970s to measure juvenile delinquency. The first NYS was a longitu- dinal household study of 1,700 adolescents. The crime categories measured included all but homicide from the UCR Part I offenses and 60% of the Part II offenses. In addition, the survey questions tapped social issues and attitudes. The results of the NYS produced results similar to those of local and regional surveys. In particular, the results confirmed that youth from various socioeconomic backgrounds were committing crimes. The results also confirmed

Spotlight: The National Incident-Based Reporting System

The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) supplements the UCR system by pro- viding incident-level data on crimes reported to the police. The NIBRS greatly expands the types of crimes reported by law enforcement officials to the FBI. It asks police agencies to collect information on incidents involving victims younger than 12 as well as victimizations that occur with individuals, households, and businesses.

The NIBRS categorizes crimes into Group A offenses and Group B offenses. Police depart- ments are instructed to collect detailed information on the 22 Group A categories. Only arrest data are collected on the 11 Group B offenses.

Group A Offense Categories

• Arson homicide offenses • Assault offenses • Bribery • Burglary/breaking and entering • Counterfeiting/forgery • Destruction/ vandalism of property • Drug/narcotic offenses • Embezzlement • Extortion/blackmail • Fraud offenses • Gambling offenses • Kidnapping/abduction • Larceny/theft offenses • Motor vehicle theft • Obscene material • Prostitution offenses • Robbery • Sex offenses, forcible • Sex offenses, nonforcible • Stolen property • Weapon law violations

Group B Offense Categories

• Bad checks • Curfew/loitering/vagrancy violations • Disorderly conduct • Driving under the influence • Drunkenness • Family offenses, nonviolent • Liquor law violations • Peeping Tom offenses • Runaways • Trespass of real property • All other offenses

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Spotlight: The National Incident-Based Reporting System

Group A Offense Categories

Group B Offense Categories

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

that many of the crimes reported by the youth were not coming to the attention of the police (Elliott & Huizinga, 1983).

Another frequently used survey of crime and youth is called the Monitoring the Future survey (Johnston et al., 2018). The Monitoring the Future survey is a national survey on drug and alcohol use that began in the 1970s and has since been conducted annually. Each year approximately 50,000 students in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades are asked about their exposure to, attitudes about, and access to drugs and alcohol. The accompa- nying Spotlight feature provides more details about this survey.

Spotlight: Monitoring the Future Survey

The Monitoring the Future survey was developed in 1975 and is facilitated by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. It is a nationally representative survey of ado- lescents that asks participants about their involvement with and opinions about drugs and alcohol. Initially conducted only with high school seniors, the survey sample was extended to 10th graders and 8th graders beginning in 1991. An additional survey is sent to those par- ticipating in the 12th-grade sample for longitudinal follow-up. On average, 50,000 students from across the country participate in the survey each year.

The questions asked in the Monitoring the Future survey fall into four general categories:

Drug and Alcohol Use “How many occasions (if any) have you used [x substance] in your lifetime?” “How many occasions (if any) have you used [x substance] in the last 12 months?” “How many occasions (if any) have you used [x substance] in the last 30 days?”

Alcohol Use For alcohol use, the questions regarding drug and alcohol use are used as well as a similar set of questions asking participants how often they have been drunk in their lifetime, in the last 12 months, and in the last 30 days. In addition, participants are asked, “How many times in the last week have you had five or more drinks?”

Perceptions of Risk Based on a five-point scale (no risk, slight risk, moderate risk, great risk, and “can’t say, drug unfamiliar”), participants are asked to rate the degree to which consuming alcohol and vari- ous drugs is risky: “How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways), if they . . .?”

(continued on next page)

Charles Dharapak/Associated Press President George W. Bush takes part in a meeting on the Monitoring the Future Study on Teen Drug Use, Tuesday, December 11, 2007, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington.

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

We see some interesting trends when we use the Monitoring the Future survey to examine reported drug use among U.S. adolescents. Recall that the UCR told us that juvenile drug offenses in the United States peaked in the mid-1990s and then leveled off, albeit less dra- matically than other types of offenses. Figure 1.9 uses Monitoring the Future data to illustrate that in 2016 alcohol was the substance used most among students in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades, with higher rates of use among older youth. When it comes to drug use, the figure shows us that youth were more likely to use marijuana than other illicit drugs. However, nearly 20% of high school seniors indicated that they had used an illicit drug other than mari- juana in their lifetime.

Figure 1.9: Lifetime use of drugs and alcohol among juveniles, 2016

From “Table 5: Trends in lifetime prevalence of use of various drugs in grades 8, 10, and 12,” in Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use: 1975–2017: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use, by L. D. Johnston, R. A. Miech, P. M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, J. E. Schulenberg, and M. E. Patrick, 2018, Retrieved from http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/ monographs/mtf-overview2017.pdf. Licensed under CC-BY 4.0.

As we do with the UCR data, we should also use the Monitoring the Future data to examine the trends over time to see whether the 2016 statistics are part of a trend or are an anomaly.

Spotlight: Monitoring the Future Survey (continued)

Disapproval of Use Participants are asked to rate their level of disapproval with using drugs and alcohol: “Do YOU disapprove of people doing each of the following?”

Perceptions of Availability Based on a five-point scale (probably impossible, very difficult, fairly difficult, fairly easy, and very easy), participants are asked how easily they could obtain various drugs and alcohol: “How difficult do you think it would be for you to get each of the following types of drugs, if you wanted some?” For 8th and 10th graders, the option “can’t say, drug unfamiliar” is added to the questionnaire.

Any illicit drug Alcohol

17.2

33.7

48.3

Any illicit drug except marijuana

8th grade 12th grade10th grade

8.9 14

20.7 22.8

43.4

61.5

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Figure 1.10 indicates that drug and alcohol use among adolescents overall has been declining over time, with the greatest decline in the use of alcohol. The data tell us that the decline is a long-term trend.

Figure 1.10: Lifetime use of drugs among juveniles, 1991–2017

From “Table 1: Trends in lifetime prevalence of use of various drugs for grades 8, 10, and 12 combined,” in Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use: 1975–2017: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use, by L. D. Johnston, R. A. Miech, P. M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, J. E. Schulenberg, and M. E. Patrick, 2018, Retrieved from http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/ monographs/mtf-overview2017.pdf. Licensed under CC-BY 4.0.

Information like that shown in Figures 1.9 and 1.10 can be useful in several ways, such as helping to assess the effect of law enforcement that targets drug use or reconsidering ways to restrict sales of alcohol to minors.

Strengths of Self-Report Surveys Much like the UCR, self-report surveys have their strengths and weaknesses. The self-report method is very useful for criminological theory development. A self-report survey can include virtually any type of question about a variety of subjects. The survey can ask participants various questions about family, neighborhoods, peers, teachers, and thoughts about the crime. Through this method, the researcher can ask participants why they chose to (or not to) engage in the behavior. For example, if surveying youth about binge drinking, the survey can not only ask them whether they engaged in binge drinking in the last 30 days, but it may also ask the participant who they drank with (e.g., peers), in what environment (e.g., home, school, community), and at what time of day (e.g., evenings, weekends). The results can lead to a better understanding of the individual and environmental factors that come into play when someone engages in delinquency.

In addition, self-report survey results allow us to expose and understand the dark figure of crime. Crimes that are underreported to the police are equally important to understanding delinquency. Several areas of inquiry become important in this regard. In particular, it begs the question whether law enforcement agencies are likely to target certain areas more than

Any illicit drug Any illicit drug except marijuana Alcohol

Years

R at e

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

others. Not that targeted enforcement is an automatic indication of discrimination but that targeted enforcement has consequences. Those consequences include the lack of enforce- ment in other areas. Researchers find that the UCR is a valid measure of serious crime, but if less serious crime, say recreational drug use, is not as likely to result in a call to the police, then crime rates as measured by the UCR do little to help us understand the extent of drug use among teens. Examining only drug possession arrests clearly misses a tremendous number of people who use drugs but are not detected by the police. Recognizing this issue allows us to understand the limits of the UCR and better contextualize the results. Self-report surveys provide insight into delinquent behavior that the UCR cannot.

Although early self-report surveys were criticized for being too limited in scale (e.g., just a few questions were asked) and population (e.g., high school students), current surveys con- tinue to improve and are considered a reliable and valid measure for a range of offense types (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000).

Weaknesses of Self-Report Surveys Although improvements in the self-report method continue, several weaknesses remain. For example, although a few national surveys are available (e.g., Monitoring the Future), the mea- sures are not comparable to the UCR in terms of its scope. For example, with UCR data we can make comparisons between cities, states, and regions. Even the national self-report surveys are unable to provide these types of data. Although national surveys do exist, the measures are not comparable to the UCR and do not consistently provide comparisons by year and across populations. For example, some of the most popular self-report surveys are with high school students. However, surveying high school students misses important target popula- tions: those who drop out of school or who are chronically truant and may not be in school at the time the survey is administered.

The self-report method can be influenced by the participants themselves. For example, recall is an important issue for self-report surveys. People may have difficulty recalling certain events, particularly when exploring the factors that may have motivated someone to commit a crime. Another area of concern is deception. Juveniles may over- or underreport certain offenses for various reasons. For example, some juveniles may exaggerate their involvement in drugs and alcohol in order to be seen desirably by their peers. Others may not report delin- quency out of embarrassment or fear of being caught.

Victimization Data The third most common way to measure crime is through victimization surveys, which sup- plement what is known about crime from the UCR and self-report surveys by asking victims to report whether they have been victimized. The most commonly utilized data source on victims is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS is collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and provides a national portrait of victimization experienced each year.

As seen in the accompanying Spotlight feature, the NCVS mirrors many of the crime catego- ries of the UCR. If individuals indicate that they (or someone in the household) experienced victimization, they are asked to report details of the crime. The victimization data include situational characteristics, such as month, time, and location; victim characteristics, such as age, race, and relationship with the offender; and impact of the victimization, such as loss of

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

money and property. The survey also asks victims whether they reported the victimization to the police and whether they felt targeted due to personal factors such as religion, race, or sexual orientation.

There are differences between the types of data collected through this survey and the data collected through the UCR. Two important differences include the age cutoff (the youngest age captured in the NCVS is 12) and the types of crimes recorded. By asking victims to report experiences with crime, we are able to understand details about the commission of the crime, the relationships between victims and offenders, and even the impact of the crimes.

Like self-reports, victimization data should also tap into the dark figure of crime and allow us to examine instances of delinquency that may not have come to attention of the police. Even

Spotlight: National Crime Victimization Survey

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) began in 1973 under the name National Crime Survey. The survey was redesigned and changed names to its current moniker in the early 1990s. The NCVS samples households twice a year. Only those who are 12 and older can participate as respondents. Each household is interviewed on seven separate occasions. In 2016, the sample covered 135,000 households and approximately 225,000 people.

The NCVS measures both crimes that happen to individuals (personal and property) and crimes that occur to other members living at the residence (household). The survey includes all the Part I UCR offenses except for murder and arson.

Victimization Categories

• Rape and sexual assault • Robbery • Aggravated and simple assault • Purse snatching and pickpocketing • Burglary • Theft • Motor vehicle theft • Identity theft • Vandalism

Respondents are asked to report details about victimization. Questions include the following:

• Whether the respondent was the victim of a crime • How many times in the last six months the respondent was the victim of a crime • The month, time, and location of the victimization • Whether the respondent knew the person(s) who victimized him or her • Whether the incident was reported to police • The extent of damage or whether there was a loss of money, property, or other items • Whether the respondent felt targeted due to his or her race, religion, ethnic back-

ground, disability, gender, or sexual orientation • Whether the respondent felt targeted in the ways mentioned above due to the people

with whom he or she associated

These questions help us understand criminal acts from the victim’s perspective, which helps us to better understand the nature and consequence of crime.

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

further, if the victim did not report the incident to the police, it allows us to examine why the victim may have chosen not to do so.

The NCVS can be administered to anyone 12 years or older who resides in the household. If we examine these results we see that the pattern is similar to the UCR. For example, Figure 1.11 shows that the rate of reported victimization is also declining. The Bureau of Justice Statis- tics published a report in 2005 that pulled out only youth ages 12–17 to illustrate additional details about juvenile victimization. For example, in terms of the victim and offender relation- ship, Figure 1.12 illustrates that 52% knew their victimizer, followed by 37% who indicated that the offender was a stranger. Finally, when examining the location of the victimization, 43% of victimizations occurring during this time happened at school (see Figure 1.13).

Figure 1.11: Rate of violent victimizations among juveniles per 1,000, 1980–2015

From “Victimizations per 1,000 juveniles ages 12–17,” in OJJDP statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/victims/qa02501.asp?qaDate=2015

Figure 1.12: Relationship between victim and offender

Adapted from Juvenile victimization and offending, 1993–2003, by K. Baum, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

12–14 yrs 15–17 yrs

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Years

R at e

100

2 3 3 3

Acquaintance Stranger Parent Relative Intimate Don’t know

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Figure 1.13: Most common locations of violent crime incidents

Adapted from Juvenile victimization and offending, 1993–2003, by K. Baum, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

We can see from these results that victimization surveys help us understand the crime puzzle even further. By examining victimization in terms of characteristics, relationships, and location we can understand the circumstances in which victimization is likely to occur. Understanding the circumstances and issues of child victims is very important, as is the relationship between victimization and delinquency. For example, statistics show that abused or maltreated chil- dren are at significant risk for later delinquency. Maltreatment can include physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Studies estimate that nearly half of children who become delinquents report childhood abuse or neglect (Teague, Mazerolle, Legosz, & Sanderson, 2008).

The NCVS is not the only victimization survey in existence. Like self-report surveys, research- ers can use victimization surveys with a variety of populations. For example, the Bureau of Jus- tice Statistics surveys incarcerated youth each year to examine their experiences with victim- ization in institutional settings. As with self-report surveys, researchers can tailor questions to tap into a variety of circumstances. Because the victimization surveys are methodologically similar to self-report surveys, they share many of the same strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths of Victimization Surveys The first strength is the level of detail victimization surveys provide. The NCVS includes detailed information about victims that allows for more informed policy creation regarding how best to prevent crime and similar victimization in the future. Similarly, details of the incident such as location, time of day, and the victim-offender relationship help inform the general public on how to protect themselves against victimization. Unlike self-report surveys, the NCVS measures serious crimes on an annual basis and closely parallels the UCR. In 1992, it was revamped to improve reporting of such things as non-stranger crimes and rape. Finally, the NCVS employs a national sample and annual statistics for year-by-year comparisons.

School Open area

9 12

Victim’s home Other home Other locations

Section 1.5Measuring Crime: Putting It All Into Perspective

Weaknesses of Victimization Surveys However, like self-report surveys, there are some weaknesses with this approach. People may forget the exact details of their victimization, which could lead to misleading or erroneous reporting. In addition, people may answer in socially desirable ways to either exaggerate or not tell the truth (Gove et al., 1985). Bias can also be an issue with victimization surveys. The NCVS can be quite extensive and take up a significant amount of time to fill out completely. Consequently, there is concern that people will underreport victimization during the later phases of the survey to avoid the lengthy questionnaire (Sykes & Cullen, 1992).

Another weakness with this type of survey is the population sampled. The NCVS is a national sample of households; however, it is not feasible to break down the data by state or city because the sample is not drawn to represent each city or state, although region comparisons are feasible in some circumstances.

The most important weakness for understanding juvenile delinquency is the age cutoff for the NCVS. The NCVS asks only about victimization experiences among those 12 and older. The survey may be underrepresenting juveniles if they are not the respondent or do not wish to talk about victimization due to embarrassment. The juvenile may be fearful of discussing victimization in the home if the perpetrator of the abuse (e.g., caregiver or sibling) is present in the home.

1.5 Measuring Crime: Putting It All Into Perspective Given that all three measures of crime have both strengths and weakness, the question becomes which do we use and when? The short answer is all three. If we wish to examine seri- ous crime such as homicide, the UCR is likely our best measure. If we wish to examine drug and alcohol use among teens, we are better off using self-report surveys. Finally, if we wish to examine the victim-offender relationship more clearly, we are better off using victimization surveys. In other words, each measure can help us understand a different facet of crime. How- ever, there remain benefits and disadvantages of comparing the three measures when trying to understand delinquency.

The benefits of using all three measures include the following:

• The UCR and the NCVS cover many of the same types of crime. Studies have also found that the two measures are comparable with regard to burglary and robbery (Gove et al., 1985; Lauritsen & Schaum, 1998). As such, these two measures tend to validate each other, which makes them useful in examining crime trends.

• Both the NCVS and self-report surveys find that the UCR is underestimating the amount of crime occurring each year (Kirk, 2006; Wells & Rankin, 1995). This revelation is important for understanding the relationship between socioeconomic status and delinquency. As such, the findings should remind us to be cautious of the latest headlines regarding arrest rates.

• Victimization and self-report data help identify risk factors for delinquency such as peers, family, and school performance. The more we know of victims of crime and

Summary of Learning Objectives

how victims experience crime, the more we can do to help prevent crime in the first place and also help those who have suffered a traumatic experience.

• Combining the measures provides additional details on the characteristics of offend- ers and victims—in particular, why victims may not report crime and how situ- ational factors influence victimization.

However, there are also reasons to be cautious when combining the three measures of crime:

• The UCR and NCVS may not be directly comparable because they use different samples and work with different time spans.

• The UCR and NCVS report rates in different metrics—the UCR is a rate per 100,000 persons, and the NCVS is a rate per 1,000 persons.

• Self-report surveys often focus on minor crimes, making direct comparisons to the UCR or NCVS difficult.

Overall, what do these measures tell us about juvenile delinquency? First, all three agree that the juvenile crime (and victimization) rate has declined significantly over the past decade. Second, all three measures show differences by gender, race, region, and crime type, although all show similar rates of decline. Finally, the three measures have been able to identify certain risk factors that are known to be strong and consistent predictors of crime.

Summary of Learning Objectives Explain the complexity of defining juvenile delinquency.

• Juvenile delinquency is a complex phenomenon. Defining who is a juvenile and what behaviors represent juvenile delinquency can vary by state.

• National statistics can provide us with an understanding of the rates of delinquency over time.

Summarize the different types of juvenile delinquency.

• Juvenile delinquency refers to unlawful acts of a minor child. • The juvenile court assumes jurisdiction over behaviors that are illegal only for juve-

niles. These types of crimes are referred to as status offenses and include delinquent acts such as truancy, running away, and violating curfew.

Describe how states attempt to define juvenile delinquency in relation to age.

• The upper age of jurisdiction refers to the age that dictates whether a youth’s case is handled by the juvenile court or the adult court system. The majority of the states consider anyone 17 years or younger as under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court system.

• The minimum age of jurisdiction refers to the youngest age at which a youth can be sent to the juvenile court system. The majority of states consider 10 years of age as the youngest, although North Carolina sets the age at 6 years old.

Summary of Learning Objectives

Evaluate the rates of delinquency and the three primary techniques for measuring delinquency.

• National crime statistics offer a fairly complicated portrait of juvenile offending and victimization. The statistics can sometimes be confusing and contradictory and must be analyzed closely with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of how we measure delinquency.

• The three measures of juvenile crime include arrest data, self-report surveys, and victimization surveys.

• The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) is the primary source of arrest data. The UCR is collected annually by police departments all across the United States and provides a solid measure of serious crime among juveniles.

• Self-report surveys have been popular for several decades and allow researchers to examine crime from various angles. Self-report surveys have evolved over time and are a meaningful way to collect crime data, particularly minor offenses not collected by the UCR.

• The National Crime Victimization Survey is the primary source of victimization data. Similar to the UCR, the NCVS is published annually and provides a national portrait of victimization.

• The results of the three measures show that crime and victimization have declined significantly during the past decade.

Analyze the benefits of using the three crime measurements together.

• All three measures of crime have strengths and weaknesses. Combining the three measures gives us a deeper understanding of crime.

• The three measures of crime show congruence when analyzing trends over time.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Do you think the federal government should mandate that all states agree upon

the age at which someone is considered a minor? Discuss the problems with this approach.

2. Do you believe status offenses should be illegal? Do you think they should be han- dled by the juvenile justice system or an alternative system?

3. If you were interested in studying rape, which measure of crime would you use? 4. Why do you think boys are overrepresented in the system?

Key Terms age ambiguity Uncertainty surrounding the age of entry into the juvenile justice system.

age of jurisdiction The age that dictates whether the juvenile court or the adult court system has authority over a case.

availability heuristic The phenomenon that our view and attitudes are influenced by the world and information around us. The tendency to believe in the probability of an event based on how easily an example can be recalled.

Summary of Learning Objectives

dark figure of crime Refers to crimes not brought to the attention of the police.

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offend- ers The statute that protects status offend- ers and recommends that all juveniles clas- sified as status offenders not be held for any period of time in a detention facility.

juvenile delinquency Unlawful activities of a minor child.

Monitoring the Future survey A national youth crime survey on alcohol and drug use.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) The most common victimization survey; collected yearly by the U.S. Census Bureau.

National Youth Survey (NYS) A self-report survey that measures juvenile delinquency using all the crime categories from the UCR Part I with the exception of homicide offenses and 60% of the Part II offenses; the survey questions also dig into social issues and attitudes.

parens patria (Latin for “parent of the nation”) Refers to the court’s parenting role that focuses on the welfare of the juvenile.

self-report surveys Data-gathering tools that ask participants about their criminal behavior.

status offenses Behaviors that are illegal for juveniles but would be legal for adults.

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Official arrest statistics for juveniles and adults compiled by the FBI.

victimization surveys Surveys that sup- plement what is known about crime from the UCR and self-report surveys by asking victims to report whether they have been victimized.