Introduction To Juvenile Justice: 1200 words and three scholarly references

https___dftj9wb4gc6c5.cloudfront.net_Bethel_Courses_CCJ_4300_Unit_1_read1.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Introduction To Juvenile Justice: 1200 words and three scholarly references

F o u r t h E d i t i o n

JuVEniLE JuStiCE

A SoCiAL, hiStoriCAL, And LEGAL PErSPECtiVE

P r E S t o n E L r o d, P h d School of Justice Studies Eastern Kentucky University Richmond, KY

r . S C o t t ry d E r , J d Tribal Cour t Administrator Adjunct Faculty at Spring Arbor University Kalamazoo, MI

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter ObjeCtives After studying this chapter, you should be able to

• Define basic concepts necessary for understanding the juvenile justice process

• present a legal definition of delinquency

• Describe the shortcomings of legal definitions of delinquency

• explain why it is important to understand diversity in the population of juvenile offenders

• explain why age is the primary criterion for defining a juvenile from a legal perspective

• Describe the problems associated with using age to define the clients of the juvenile justice process

• Describe those factors that contribute to variation and conflict in juvenile justice practice

• explain why “juvenile justice system” may be a misleading term

• Describe the role that public perception plays in responding to the “delinquency problem”

• assess the potential for harm that is associated with institutions of social control

Chapter Outline introduction

Defining Delinquency

Defining juveniles: the legal perspective

the juvenile justice system

public perceptions of Delinquency and the politics of juvenile justice

juvenile justice as an institution of social Control

Chapter summary

Key Concepts

review Questions

additional readings

notes

The Context of Juvenile Justice Defining basic Concepts and examining public perceptions of juvenile Crime

chapter

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ introduction

The creation of separate institutions for the treatment of youths who engage in illegal or immoral behavior is a recent historical development. From the beginning of the colonial period to the early 1800s, youths were subject to the same criminal justice process as adults. Consequently, children who were apprehended for crimes were tried in the same courts and, when found guilty, were often given the same punishments as adults.1

Today, most Americans are aware that a separate justice process exists for juveniles. How- ever, many people lack an understanding of how this process works or how effective juvenile justice programs are, and others hold views that are based more on myth than reality. Moreover, most lack an understanding of the social, political, and economic contexts that shape juvenile crime and juvenile justice practice.

Although many citizens lack an understanding of the operation and effectiveness of juvenile justice programs, they often express strong opinions about the causes of delinquent behavior and how such behaviors should be handled. Such opinions are found in letters to local newspapers, in radio talk show programs, in television commentaries, and in the everyday discussions that people have about current events. Some members of the public call for increased efforts to prevent delin- quency and rehabilitate young offenders. Others call for harsher punishments for young “thugs” and demand that youths who commit “adult” crimes be treated like adults. Similar sentiments are found among political leaders as well. Although rhetoric designed to capture the public’s attention may be seen by some as “good politics,” it is problematic for several reasons. First, it contributes little to the public’s understanding of juvenile crime and the development of effective methods of responding to juvenile offenders. Second, labeling youths as “thugs” dehumanizes them and makes it easier to respond to them in ways that protect neither their interests nor the interests of the community. Third, inflammatory rhetoric about juvenile crime often results in poorly conceived and ineffective policies that squander precious resources and lead to increased public cynicism about our ability to deal with juvenile crime.

Young people do commit serious offenses, although most juvenile crime does not result in serious injury or property loss. The question is, what is the best response to the illegal behavior of youths? Which responses are more likely to help youths learn from their mistakes and make more socially productive decisions in the future? Which responses are more likely to represent a sound investment of public funds and protect community safety? These are not easy questions to answer, but any viable response to juvenile crime must be predicated on sound knowledge of the causes of delinquency as well as a clear understanding of past and present responses to the juvenile crime problem, including the effectiveness of those responses. A primary purpose of this text is to help readers gain such an understanding.

F Y i FOr YOur inFOrmatiOn

Throughout this text, important points of information that help you understand juvenile justice practice are highlighted. In addition, myths about the operation of juvenile justice are explored in sidebars separated from the main text.

F Y i juvenile justiCe praCtiCe

Ultimately, juvenile justice consists of a number of decision-making stages where people make determinations about how youths should be handled when they are alleged to have broken the law or when they have been found guilty of some offense. It is important to recognize that those making decisions about youth are not perfect, and the information used to make decisions is sometimes incomplete or incorrect. Moreover, it is important to remember that these decisions can have a profound influence on the lives of youths, their families, and others in the community.

labeling Defining and

responding to a youth as a delin-

quent. Labeling can lead to stigmatiza-

tion, lost opportuni- ties, and additional

delinquent behavior.

2 chapTer 1 The context of Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Although this text is intended to help students understand the social, historical, and legal context of juvenile crime and juvenile justice, and to understand present juvenile justice responses to juvenile crime, bear in mind that juvenile justice is ultimately a human endeavor in which a variety of individuals, from police officers to correctional personnel, have responsibility for making decisions about how to respond to youths’ behavior. Indeed, what makes juvenile justice an interesting, challenging, and potentially very rewarding career is that many youths and their families are helped by the many committed, highly trained, and caring individuals who work in juvenile justice. However, it is also true that other youths are not helped, despite the best efforts of juvenile justice professionals. In other instances, youths and their families are harmed, sometimes intentionally, by those who are ostensibly charged with protecting their well-being. Unfortunately, in some instances, those who work in juvenile justice lack the knowledge, training, support, and commitment necessary for effective practice. Our goal in this text is to point out the many positive things that occur in juvenile justice, but also to balance our presentation by critically examining many of the problems that have historically plagued juvenile justice operations in the United States. We also provide descriptions of juvenile justice practices in other countries in sections that focus on comparative juvenile justice throughout the text in order to give readers insights on other approaches to juvenile justice. Globalization can already be seen in juvenile justice practice, and we can expect the sharing of ideas about juvenile justice to expand in the future. Although people in other countries have learned from our experiences in juvenile justice, both good and bad, we can also learn important lessons from others.

This chapter is intended to introduce the basic concepts necessary for understanding present juvenile justice practice. It begins by defining delinquency. Next, it provides a profile of juvenile offenders, examines public perceptions of delinquency (which form an important part of the contemporary context of juvenile justice), and explores the concept of a juvenile justice system.

■ Defining Delinquency

From a legal standpoint, delinquency consists of those behaviors that are prohibited by the fam- ily or juvenile code of the state and that subject minors (i.e., persons not legally adults) to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Behaviors prohibited by juvenile codes can be grouped into two general categories: (1) behaviors that would be defined as criminal offenses if committed by adults (e.g., malicious destruction of property, larceny, robbery, motor vehicle theft, etc.), and (2) behaviors that are prohibited only for minors, which are called status offenses (e.g., school truancy, running away from home, incorrigibility, etc.).

C O m pa r at i v e F O C u s

Comparative juvenile justice Focus

according to Dammer and albanese in their book Comparative Criminal Justice Systems, there are three practi- cal reasons for studying criminal justice in other countries or cultures: “(1) to benefit from the experience of others, (2) to broaden our understanding of different cultures and approaches to problems, and (3) to help us deal with the many transnational crime problems that plague our world today.”2

Although the preceding definition of delinquency is technically accurate, like all legal definitions, it fails to completely capture the complex human dimension of delinquency and juvenile justice responses to youths’ illegal behaviors. For example, police respond to only some of the actions that are legally defined as delinquent. Police often ignore some (typically minor) illegal behaviors that are prohibited by legal codes. Also, how police respond to youths alleged to be engaged in illegal behavior can vary considerably from one community to another. Police in one community may arrest youths who do not go to school, whereas in another community,

comparative juvenile justice The examination of juvenile justice his- tory and practice in one country or cul- ture by comparing it with the history and practice of juvenile justice in another country or culture.

delinquency Behaviors that fall within the jurisdic- tion of the juvenile court and result in processing by official juvenile justice agents.

status offenses Acts that are considered illegal when committed by a minor but not when committed by an adult (e.g., run- ning away, school truancy, and failure to obey parents’ directions).

Defining Delinquency 3

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

failure to attend school receives little attention from the authorities. Moreover, the delinquent activities of some youths tend to be more visible than the activities of others, thus increas- ing the likelihood that certain youths will come to the attention of the police and be labeled delinquents. In addition, factors such as youths’ demeanor, the demands of complainants, and, in some circumstances, youths’ race and gender, can also influence police decisions. Defining delinquency as behavior that violates the legal code ignores these nuances in juvenile justice practice. In recognition of these realities, some have suggested that a more useful definition of delinquency would focus on those acts that official agents select for enforcement rather than on all legally prohibited behaviors.3 From this perspective, delinquency actually represents a sample of those behaviors prohibited by state law, and delinquents are, for all practical purposes, youths who are “caught” and subject to formal processing by the authorities.

Another problem with using a legal definition is that such definitions cover an extremely broad range of behaviors, from incorrigibility (i.e., not obeying one’s parents) to serious crimi- nal actions (e.g., homicide). From a legal standpoint, almost all minors could be considered delinquents because most youths engage in at least one illegal behavior at some time during their juvenile years. For example, research conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that approximately 80% of high school seniors reported using alco- hol during their lifetime, and approximately 46% reported using marijuana.4 The percentage of youths who fail to obey their parents, also illegal in many jurisdictions, is likely to be even higher. According to a strict legal definition, most youths would be considered delinquents, even though most people would not consider many of these youths to be delinquents, nor would they consider their actions to be illegal.

There are additional problems with legal definitions of delinquency. Legal definitions do not make a distinction between those who are caught and those who engage in delinquent behavior. Yet this distinction may be important because those who are caught may be subject to the loss or restriction of their freedom. Moreover, we should not assume that our reactions to juvenile offenders will necessarily lead to a cessation of their illegal behavior. As Harold Garfinkel notes, the process of labeling a youth a delinquent may be seen as a status degradation ceremony through which the youth’s identity is (possibly) transformed into a lesser form of humanity.5 Not only may labeling cause the individual to see him- or herself differently (e.g., as a troublemaker, thief, or delinquent), but it also may cause others to respond differently or avoid the person, leading to rejection and the restriction of law-abiding opportunities. This, in turn, can increase the likelihood of further delinquency.6

F Y i the saints anD the rOughneCKs

In a classic study of delinquency, “The Saints and the roughnecks,” William chambliss pointed out that lower- class youths, who tend to be visible to the community, nonmobile, and not very adept at meeting the social expectations of authorities, are more likely to be selected for punishment than affluent youths, who are generally less visible and more mobile. By observing the Saints, eight white males from solid middle-class families, and the roughnecks, six lower-class white males, chambliss discovered that the Saints actually engaged in more frequent delinquent behaviors than the roughnecks, who engaged in somewhat more serious behaviors, such as fighting and property offenses. The roughnecks, however, were more likely to be seen as delinquents destined for lives of trouble than the Saints, who were seen as upstanding students with bright futures.

In explaining the difference in the reaction to these two groups, chambliss stated that the roughnecks’ activities took place within the purview of the community because the roughnecks did not have access to cars. In contrast, the Saints, who had access to cars, were able to travel to the periphery of town or to other towns. Thus, their delinquent behaviors were less visible. Furthermore, chambliss noted that, during contact with the authorities, the demeanor of the Saints allowed them to avoid difficulty. The Saints generally responded in ways that were felt to be more accept- able by authority figures. as a result, the authorities possessed a perceptual bias that led them to see lower-class youths as more problematic—a bias reinforced by the visibility of the roughnecks and their lack of social skills.7

jurisdiction A geographic area

subject to a particu- lar law or court and in which particular

law enforcement agencies and indi- viduals have legal

authority.

4 chapTer 1 The context of Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

A number of studies have uncovered the problems faced by persons who are given negative labels such as mental patients, youths identified as delinquents, and those convicted of crimes. For example, Charles Frazier documented the problems experienced by “Ken,” a young man who lived in a small town and was labeled a “criminal” at a public trial. Subsequent to his official labeling, people began to see previous events in Ken’s life as indications of deviance. In addition, former friends and associates began to reject Ken, and their rejection led Ken to see himself as a criminal.8 Research by Christine Bodwitch that examined school disciplinary practices revealed that students who were seen as delinquents by school administrators were more likely to receive more severe disciplinary responses, such as suspension, transfer to another school, or even explusion.9 Moreover, studies in the United States and in the Netherlands have highlighted the problems faced by “offenders” in their efforts to seek employment.10 In these studies, prospective employers were given job applications of fictitious persons that contained varying amounts of information regarding criminal involvement. Not surprisingly, both studies found that employers were more likely to consider a prospective candidate with no criminal history than a candidate with a criminal history.

The labeling perspective predicts that system involvement may lead to negative out- comes because it can limit youths’ educational, social, and employment opportunities. Support for this argument was found in research conducted in Rochester, New York, that examined a representative sample of males over a nine-year period from the time the subjects were approximately age 13 years until they were approximately age 22 years. The researchers found that involvement in the juvenile justice process decreases the odds that youths will graduate from high school, and that educational success is related to future employment prospects. In addition, involvement in the juvenile justice process was found to increase the odds that those youths will engage in crime in their young adult years. Moreover, the negative effects of system involvement were particularly strong for eco- nomically disadvantaged and African American youths.11 Efforts to examine the effect of race on system processing indicate that being a minority youth is often associated with more severe dispositions12 and that minority youths may be viewed less sympathetically by juvenile court judges.13

m Y t h v s r e a l i t Y punishment is nOt alwaYs an eFFeCtive respOnse tO YOuths’ behaviOr

Myth—Youths should always be punished when they violate the law. reality—Sometimes our responses to youths can increase the likelihood of further deviant behavior, which sociologist edwin Lemert called “secondary deviance.” Lemert claimed that persons may engage in initial acts of deviance, such as delinquency, for a variety of reasons. Lemert termed such deviance “primary devi- ance.” however, through repeated interaction between someone identified as deviant and authority figures, a process that may involve labeling and stigmatization, the individual may reorganize his or her identity around a more deviant role, thus increasing the likelihood of further acts of deviance. This secondary deviance is not a product of the original factors that produced the initial acts of deviance, but an adjustment to or a means of defense against societal reactions to the primary deviance.14

Although the preceding studies do not address the possible positive effects of labeling, such as the avoidance of negative behaviors out of fear of receiving a negative label or the potential deterrent effects of shame and embarrassment associated with criminal justice involvement,

enuez/photodisc/Getty Im ages

Defining Delinquency 5

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

they do challenge the notion that a formal response to a juvenile offender is always beneficial. Although some youths are helped by their involvement in juvenile justice, there are other instances in which youths are placed in correctional facilities where they are exposed to more hardened offenders and are victimized by other youths and/or staff. Moreover, juvenile justice responses may set some youths on paths that increases their odds of future criminality.

Another difficulty with legal definitions of delinquency is that they obscure potentially important differences between youths involved in illegal behavior. Some youths become involved in the juvenile justice process because of their involvement in status offenses; others become involved because of criminal offending. However, making distinc- tions between status and criminal offenders still does not take into account the many ways in which youths differ from

one another. Indeed, youths who engage in illegal behavior constitute a diverse population. They vary considerably in terms of their psychological and biological characteristics and the social context in which they live. Moreover, these variations in psychological and biological characteristics, as well as social context, need to be considered when making decisions about their treatment.

Finally, legal definitions of delinquency present it as an either/or phenomenon and ignore both the frequency and the seriousness of delinquent conduct. In reality, most youths engage in infrequent and minor types of delinquent behavior; only a small percentage of the juvenile population engages in repetitive and serious delinquent actions. Consequently, it would argu- ably be more accurate to view delinquency as a form of behavior that falls on a behavioral continuum ranging from extreme conformity to extreme nonconformity.15

In fact, juvenile justice practitioners spend a considerable amount of time attempting to determine how they should respond to youths who engage in minor to very serious forms of delinquency. How many resources should we devote to minor offenders? If we fail to devote resources to minor offenders, will they become serious offenders? How many resources should we devote to serious offenders? Which juvenile offenders represent a threat to the public, and which are “good kids” who have made a mistake? These are questions that juvenile justice practitioners wrestle with daily. Moreover, how juvenile justice practitioners answer these questions can have profound effects, not only on youths who come to the attention of the authorities, but also on their families and the wider community. Consider the actual case of James (see Box 1-1). How has the court responded to this case? From James’s point of view, what have been the pros and cons of court involvement? Do you think the court responded appropriately?

F Y i Distinguishing between status OFFenDers anD DelinQuents

Most states make a distinction between youths who engage in criminal behaviors by designating them “delin- quent offenders” or “public offenders” and those who engage in status offenses, who are called pINS (persons in need of supervision), chINS (children in need of supervision), or “undisciplined children.”

pINS Persons in need of

supervision; children who engage

in status offenses.

chINS Children in need

of supervision; see PINS.

Which definition of delinquency is best? Should we use a legal definition and include all youths who violate juvenile laws, or should we employ a definition based on the system’s identification and response to particular youths?

publishing/Thinkstock

6 chapTer 1 The context of Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

As noted earlier, strictly legal definitions of delinquency ignore much of its complexity. Moreover, delinquency can be defined in more than one way. Because this text focuses on the processing of youths by officials who work in the juvenile justice process, a legal and justice agency response definition will be used. According to this definition, delinquency consists

b O x 1 - 1 InTervIew: James, a CourT-Involved YouTh

Q: how old were you when you first became involved in the juvenile court system, and how old are you now? a: I was 15 when I was first arrested, and I am 16 years old now.

Q: What was your presenting delinquent offense? Were you alone or with someone? a: a friend and I robbed a convenience store, and we had a pistol; the charge was armed robbery.

Q: What was your sentence or disposition? a: I was sentenced to probation and put into the day treatment program. They monitor me 24 hours a day,

including before and after school, but I get to live at home.

Q: Since being sentenced, have you committed any new delinquent crimes or violated your probation? a: I violated my probation by trying to buy some marijuana after a few months on probation. I got 24 hours

in detention and in-home detention for Valentine’s weekend, so I couldn’t spend Valentine’s Day with my girlfriend. I learned my lesson and have not violated since!

Q: What are the benefits that you believe you are receiving from your involvement with the juvenile court? a: My involvement with the court has really helped turn my life around. The referee who sentenced me made me

attend soccer workouts all summer as part of my probation. I ended up playing on my high school’s junior var- sity soccer team and was elected captain and selected as most valuable player. These good things that have happened to me have helped my confidence. I feel good about them. My day treatment worker, teachers, and soccer coaches have been very positive persons in my life. The structure and the pressure of having rules that I must follow helps keep me out of trouble. In addition to soccer, the day treatment program gives good rewards for obeying the rules, like traveling to amusement parks. We also do stuff in the community.

Q: What don’t you like about your involvement with the court? a: It’s not too bad so long as you obey the rules, so long as you don’t mess up. I don’t like the tracking and

monitoring part of day treatment because it really takes away my freedom, but I know if I violate the rules, I’ll only get deeper into trouble and deeper into the system.

Q: how do you feel about committing a crime that hurt someone? a: I feel bad about it. I know it was wrong; I know I shouldn’t have done it. I got the idea from a bunch of guys.

Q: how are you doing in school? a: My grades are improving because I know I have to be eligible to play soccer next fall.

Q: When do you think you will be off court supervision? a: I am not sure of a date, but I must complete my community service hours. I have about 3 1/2 hours left.

probably not until the school year is finished, maybe longer.

Q: What goals for your future do you have now? a: I want to graduate from high school with a 3.0 grade point average. I want to play soccer in college at Indiana

University or some other Division I university. I want to major in athletic administration and be a coach.

Q: What have you learned from your court involvement? a: even though you make a real big mistake, there’s always someone out there to give you another chance.

You need to take advantage of that chance or you’ll get locked back up.

Q: has your experience with the court been enough to keep you from committing another delinquent offense? a: Yes!

Source: James (personal communication, april 28, 1998)

Defining Delinquency 7

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

of behaviors that fall within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and result in processing by official agents of juvenile justice. Keep in mind that this definition does not take into account the differences that exist among youths who engage in delinquency, nor does it take into account the differences that exist among the types of delinquency that youths commit. These differences are important, however, because they help determine how youths are processed by juvenile justice agencies.

■ Defining juveniles: the legal perspective

Implicit in the definition of juvenile delinquency is an assumption about which youths are considered juveniles. As noted earlier, persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court are considered minors; however, the legal definition of a minor varies from state to state.

In the majority of states, in the District of Columbia, and in the federal system, the upper age limit for original juvenile court jurisdiction is age 17 years. This means that after youths turn age 18 years, they are subject to the jurisdiction of adult courts. In a number of other states (Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin), youths become adults in the eyes of the criminal justice system when they become age 17 years. In two states (New York and North Carolina), adult court jurisdiction begins at age 16 years.16

F Y i it is COmmOn in manY Other COuntries tO treat YOuths as juveniles until theY turn age 18 Or 21 Years

countries such as Belgium, canada, china, the czech republic, France, Northern Ireland, Scandinavia, South africa, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom treat youths as adults until age 18 years, whereas austria, Germany, Lithuania, and Spain treat youths as juveniles until they turn age 21 years.17

In addition to an upper age limit, some states have a lower age limit for juvenile court jurisdiction, which varies from age 6 years to age 10 years. Where a lower age limit exists, minors younger than the statutorily specified age cannot engage in delinquent behavior. These youths are felt to be too young to have criminal intent, or mens rea. The idea that children cannot commit crimes is based on the legal principle of doli incapax, which holds that young children do not know right from wrong. As a result, they cannot be held liable for actions that would be considered illegal if committed by an adult.

Although each state sets age limits that determine which youths are subject to juvenile court jurisdiction, some state juvenile codes allow juvenile justice agencies to continue jurisdiction over a youth for a specified period after he or she passes the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction. In most states, after the juvenile court takes jurisdiction over a case, it can retain that jurisdiction until the youth turns age 21 years; in four states (California, Montana, Oregon, and Wisconsin) juvenile court jurisdiction can extend until age 25 years, and in several other states (Colorado, Hawaii, and New Jersey) it extends until the full term of the dispositional order.18 However, after a youth who is under juvenile court jurisdiction achieves the age at which persons are considered adults, subsequent offenses fall under the jurisdiction of the adult court.

Although state juvenile codes establish the general parameters for juvenile court jurisdic- tion, state laws also make it possible to transfer some juveniles to criminal courts for trial. The process by which some juveniles are processed as adults is typically called waiver, remand, transfer, bind over, or certification to adult court.

Using age as a basis for transfer to adult court satisfies legal criteria that require clear- cut definitions for those juveniles who are eligible for trial in adult court; however, it suffers from at least two shortcomings. First, it flies in the face of existing knowledge about human

mens rea Criminal intent.

doli incapax Not capable of

criminal intention or malice; unable to formulate criminal

intent (mens rea); not able, due to lack of maturity, to know

right from wrong; not criminally

responsible.

waiver, remand, transfer, bind over,

certification A legal process

whereby a juvenile is sent to adult court

for trial.

8 chapTer 1 The context of Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

psychological, social, and physical development. An adult is commonly defined as a person who has reached maturity, whereas a juvenile is commonly defined as a person who is no longer a child but not yet an adult. At what stage of life, however, does one become an adult, and what exactly is maturity? Psychologists who take a developmental approach suggest that a mature person is one who possesses certain skills that are the product of both cognitive development and the nature of the person’s interactions with his or her environment. Moreover, they maintain that these skills are acquired in a developmental sequence. According to this perspective, the ability of individuals to understand their world, including how they relate to others and how their behavior affects and is affected by others, depends on their level of cognitive development and the quality of the interactions they have had with their environment. Accordingly, their ability to understand the effects of their actions on others and themselves is not static, but changes over time.19

Building on the work of developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg argued that an individual’s ability to engage in moral reasoning develops over time and is affected by his or her cognitive development, education, and social experience.20 At the earliest level of moral reasoning, the individual is more egocentric, focusing attention on how actions affect him or her. At higher stages of moral development, the individual considers how his or her actions affect everyone.21 Importantly, a number of studies that have examined the relation- ship between levels of moral reasoning and delinquency have found that low levels of moral reasoning are related to delinquency and criminal behavior. Although these studies do not prove that low moral reasoning causes delinquency, they do suggest that low moral develop- ment, along with other psychological and social factors, appears to play an important role.22

A second shortcoming of relying on age as the major determinant of adulthood is that it fails to consider variations in the social and psychological development of youths. Although developmental psychologists indicate that cognitive and moral development occur in stages that typically begin and end around specific ages, they recognize that youths vary considerably in their rates of development. Also, some research indicates that boys may develop “other- oriented” reasoning, the ability to be empathic, later than girls.23 Consequently, the fact that a youth has turned age 17 or age 18 and becomes subject to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court does not mean that he or she is a mature adult capable of making adult decisions.

Although there is an emerging consensus in the psychological literature that youths are not fully adults before age 18 years, this consensus is not always reflected in the law. Although a state law may mandate that youths who are age 16 or age 17 fall under the jurisdiction of adult criminal courts, other laws in that state may deny those youths full participation in adult social and political life by denying them the right to vote, possess alcohol, and enter into legal contracts until they reach age 18 or age 21. From a developmental perspective, this type of inconsistency makes little sense. What does make sense is to recognize that responses to youths who violate the law should reflect their psychological and social development.

F Y i human DevelOpment

Jean piaget argued that the ability of the individual to understand and interpret his or her world proceeds in a series of stages, beginning with the sensorimotor period, which lasts roughly from birth until age 2, and ending with the formal operations period, which lasts from roughly age 11 through adulthood. During the sensorimotor period, the cognitive abilities of the child are quite different from those of an adult. During this period, the young child learns to make sense out of visual, tactile, auditory, and other sensations and focuses on how the world responds to the child’s actions. however, during the middle school years, the child enters the formal operations stage, at which point the child’s cognitive abilities change greatly. During this period, the child is able to understand and interpret the world differently because of his or her ability to engage in more abstract thought. In addition, the development of the child’s cognitive abilities is, to some extent, influenced by the child’s environment.24

juvenile A youth who falls within an age range specified by state law. The age range varies from state to state.

Defining Juveniles: The Legal perspective 9

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ the juvenile justice system

In referring to juvenile justice practices, it is common to use the phrase “the juvenile jus- tice system.” However, the extent to which juvenile justice constitutes a system is a matter of debate. Although state juvenile codes usually specify two main purposes of the juvenile court—to protect the best interests of children and to protect the community—daily juvenile justice operations typically result in considerable variation in practices as well as conflict between juvenile justice practitioners and agencies. In this section, we examine factors that are responsible for variation in juvenile justice practice and for conflict between agencies and practitioners.

Differences in the law also lead to variation in juvenile justice practices. Each state has its own juvenile laws, which vary regarding the age ranges that fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Consequently, a youth who is age 16 in South Carolina is considered a juvenile, whereas a youth who is age 16 in North Carolina falls under the jurisdiction of adult courts. Moreover, the expressed purposes of juvenile codes also vary from state to state. Some juve- nile codes emphasize child welfare (e.g., the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and West Virginia), whereas others emphasize accountability and protection of the public (e.g., Connecticut, Hawaii, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming).25 Differences in the law exist within states as well, because states contain smaller jurisdictional units, such as cities, townships, and counties, that can develop local ordinances prohibiting certain juvenile behaviors. For example, the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, has a curfew ordinance that prohibits youths younger than 13 years from being out between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and youths between 13 and 15 from being out between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. unless they are supervised by an adult. However, this ordinance does not affect youths younger than 16 years who live outside the city limits.

m Y t h v s r e a l i t Y juvenile justiCe gOals OFten varY bY agenCY anD inDiviDual praCtitiOner

Myth—The juvenile justice system comprises police agencies, courts, and correctional institutions that work together to achieve the same common goals. reality—although the various components of the juvenile justice process (i.e., police agencies, courts, and correctional institutions) and individuals who work within these different components are charged with protect- ing the public and serving the best interests of children, they often work at cross-purposes. Importantly, those who work in different areas of juvenile justice, such as police officers, district attorneys, defense attorneys, judges, and probation officers, have different roles and responsibilities. Moreover, those who work in juvenile justice perceive their roles differently, and they are influenced by a variety of factors that result in a consider- able amount of conflict over how particular cases or types of cases should be handled.

Differences in the social, political, and economic environments found in different com- munities also influence variation in juvenile justice practices. The level of juvenile crime, the range of economic opportunities for youths, the quality of the public schools, the existence of activist community groups that demand certain responses to juvenile crime, and a host of other social, political, and economic factors can influence juvenile justice practices. As a result, the response to a youth who violates the law (e.g., by shoplifting or failing to obey his or her parents) in one county may be quite different from the response to those who commit the same offense in an adjacent county in the same state.

Another factor that leads to variation in juvenile justice practice is the discretion that juvenile justice decision makers (police officers, district attorneys, probation officers, etc.) have when determining how to respond to youths who violate the law. Discretion is the ability to

discretion The authority to

exercise judgment.

10 chapTer 1 The context of Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

make judgments on one’s own authority. However, it is important to recognize that the use of discretion itself is influenced by a number of political, social, economic, legal, and other factors. For example, juvenile justice decision makers work in a legal context that places statu- tory limits on their decision-making ability. Moreover, their decisions may be constrained by monetary resources and by their awareness of what the community will tolerate or support. In addition, juvenile justice decision makers have different juvenile justice ideologies (i.e., ideas about the causes of juvenile crime and what should be done about it).

The individualized nature of juvenile justice also contributes to variation in juvenile justice practice. Since their inception, juvenile courts, like other courts, have taken an individualized approach to dealing with offenders. This individualized approach has been reflected in efforts by juvenile justice decision makers to consider the characteristics of each offender (e.g., his or her age, maturity, mental capacity, and home environment) and the circumstances surround- ing the offense (e.g., whether there was provocation) in determining the appropriate response. Finally, different juvenile justice practitioners have different roles and responsibilities in the juvenile justice process. These different roles and responsibilities inevitably lead to some degree of conflict between agencies and individuals as they strive to carry out what they feel their positions require of them.

The fact that youths are often dealt with differently, even within the same juvenile justice agency, should not be surprising because (1) the local social, economic, political, and legal context of juvenile justice practice places limits on juvenile justice decision making; (2) local decision makers within juvenile justice have discretion; (3) decision makers have different views about what constitutes an appropriate response to various types of delinquent behav- ior; (4) there is a history of individualized justice given to youths; and (5) different roles and responsibilities are assumed by those who work in juvenile justice. Nor should it be surpris- ing that there can be considerable conflict between the agencies and individuals responsible for responding to delinquent youths. In some instances, of course, juvenile justice practice involves relatively coordinated responses to juvenile offenders and relatively low levels of conflict. What makes the idea of a juvenile justice “system” open to question are the many instances of low levels of coordination and high levels of conflict between juvenile justice practitioners and agencies.

■ public perceptions of Delinquency and the politics of juvenile justice

The preceding sections have addressed some important issues related to basic concepts employed in juvenile justice. In this section, we turn our attention to understanding public perceptions of delinquency. These perceptions are important because they color much of what we think about the so-called delinquency problem and how we should respond to it.

Interestingly, public concern over delinquency is not new. Indeed, each generation of Americans seems to believe that the country is experiencing a juvenile crime wave.26 Con- cern about youth crime and waywardness in eastern cities led reformers in the early 1800s to develop the first specialized juvenile institutions. In the late 1800s, other reformers, called the “child savers,” had similar concerns and developed the first juvenile courts. During the 1950s, many members of the public were alarmed at what they perceived to be the negative influences of youth culture on adolescents. Movies about young rebels, played so well by actors such as James Dean and Marlon Brando, caused many Americans to question the influence of the media on middle-class youths, who, it was felt, were being seduced by lower-class values that spawned delinquency. As a result, various efforts were undertaken to censor movies, comic books, and other media believed to spread the wrong values.27

Although public concern about delinquency is hardly new, each wave of concern pro- duces its own set of solutions to the delinquency problem. Changes in the juvenile justice

juvenile justice ideology A set of ideas about the causes of juvenile crime and what should be done about it.

public perceptions of Delinquency and the politics of Juvenile Justice 11

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

response to offenders have not always coincided with actual increases in the level of delin- quency, nor are responses to delinquency always in line with our knowledge of effective responses to juvenile offenders. Since the late 1970s, concerns about serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders, sometimes referred to as juvenile “superpredators,” have led to a variety of “get-tough” efforts, including legislation in a number of states intended to ensure that serious juvenile offenders receive maximum terms of confinement, often by making it easier to process juveniles in adult courts.28 Unfortunately, these policies have been driven more by the politics of juvenile justice than by our knowledge of juvenile crime or youths who engage in illegal behaviors. Various data sources on delinquency provide no evidence of a juvenile crime wave, nor do they indicate that there is a grow- ing population of violent juvenile offenders. This highlights three important facts about juvenile justice.

1. How we respond to juvenile offenders is, to a large extent, a reflection of our perception of juvenile crime.

2. Changes in our perception of the nature and extent of juvenile offending, irrespective of the actual level of juvenile crime, can produce changes in juvenile justice policies.

3. Responses to juvenile crime are the result of a political process in which particular sets of ideas about what constitutes a reasonable response to the delinquency problem win out over others. Unfortunately, the juvenile justice process is often driven by public perceptions based

on sensational and distorted media accounts of juvenile crime that influence public beliefs about the level of juvenile crime, the etiology of delinquency, the characteristics of juvenile offenders, and the most appropriate response to the juvenile crime problem. One result is that existing policies are frequently at odds with our current knowledge about delinquency and about the best way to deal with juvenile offenders. In fact, many of these policies are harmful to youths, their families, and the communities in which we live because they are ineffective and, in some cases, counterproductive. Such policies also have a negative effect on those who work in juvenile justice because they limit the ability of these individuals to facilitate successful client outcomes.

As noted earlier, public perception that a serious juvenile crime problem existed during the past two decades resulted in a variety of policies intended to “get tough” with juvenile offenders, despite a lack of evidence that the juvenile crime problem was actually getting worse. The cumulative effect of these policies was to increase reliance on incarceration as a response to delinquency, a policy that continues today in many jurisdictions, even though there is no sound evidence that incarceration has any significant effect on levels of juve- nile crime. Nevertheless, the “get-tough” approach continues to have considerable appeal because it fits well with the perception that many people have about what should be done. An important question to ask, however, is this: What is the most appropriate response to juvenile crime? The information provided throughout this text is intended to assist you in formulating your own answer to this question (as well as answers to many other questions you will have).

F Y i publiC OpiniOn

although increasingly more punitive responses to juvenile offenders have been developed around the United States,29 there is considerable evidence that the public still favors the traditional rehabilitative focus of the juvenile court when it comes to treating juvenile offenders.30 Thus, efforts to treat youths more punitively may not necessarily reflect public sentiment.

etiology The study of

causation.

12 chapTer 1 The context of Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ juvenile justice as an institution of social Control

In closing this chapter, it is important to note that juvenile justice constitutes an important institution of social control for the young. The ability to exert social control over the young is also a major responsibility of social institutions such as families and schools, and it plays a valuable role in the socialization of youths. For example, it is through the exercise of social control that youths learn social expectations and rules and learn about their place in the world. Social control exercised through families, schools, and juvenile justice agencies even helps keep youths and others safe when children learn to avoid actions that are harmful to themselves or others. Thus, social control has positive benefits for youths and society. Yet there has always been a darker side to social control. In efforts to enforce conformity among the young, children have often been abused in families, in schools, and within the agencies of juvenile justice. Indeed, as the history of juvenile justice makes clear, many youths and their families have been helped by their experiences with juvenile justice; many others, however, have been harmed. Indeed, the institutions and individuals that make up the juvenile justice process have considerable power. Consequently, it important that those who study and work in juvenile justice recognize the potential for harm that exists, and that we strive to ensure that juvenile justice works in ways that truly benefit children and the communities in which they live.

CrITICal ThInkIng QuesTIon

How might a focus on social control among people working in juvenile justice lead to actions that harm youths?

social control The efforts of indi- viduals, groups, or institutions to regu- late behavior and ensure conformity to social rules, expecta- tions, or laws.

Juvenile Justice as an Institution of Social control 13

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter summarY

This chapter was designed to introduce some of the basic concepts necessary for developing a clear understanding of the juvenile justice process. It began by defining two important concepts, delinquency and juvenile, and exploring a number of shortcomings of these definitions. Clearly, there are several ways to think about what constitutes delinquency and who is considered to be a delinquent (and consequently subject to the jurisdiction of juvenile justice agencies). The chapter also pointed out the broad range of behaviors that are treated as juvenile offenses and the tremendous variation in the psychological, biological, and social characteristics of the youths who engage in illegal behavior.

In addition, the chapter suggested that talk about the juvenile justice system may be best viewed as rhetorical. It examined a variety of factors that produce variation and conflict in juvenile justice practice and that make systemic responses to juvenile offenders difficult. Of course, some commonalities in juvenile justice operations across the United States exist. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that there is often considerable conflict between the agencies and individuals responsible for responding to juvenile offenders—conflict that sometimes impedes systemic responses to juvenile crime.

The chapter also discussed the important role of public perceptions and politics in the development of juvenile justice policy. As noted, public opinion about juvenile justice is not always based on accurate knowledge of the juvenile justice process or juvenile offenders. Nevertheless, public perceptions and beliefs about the causes of delinquency and the best way to respond play critical roles in the politics of juvenile justice. Unfortunately, the politics of policy development do not always produce responses to delinquency that help youths or their families, nor do they always lead to safer communities.

Finally, the chapter examined the social control function of juvenile justice and noted the benefits of social control for children and others. However, it also noted that social control has a darker side. For example, in efforts to exert social control over children, individuals and institu- tions, including those in juvenile justice, have too often relied on abuse. Thus, it is important to recognize the potential for abuse that is associated with social control and to ensure that those involved in juvenile justice act in ways that meet the needs of children and their communities.

keY ConCepTs

bind over: A legal process whereby a juvenile is sent to adult court for trial. certification: A legal process whereby a juvenile is sent to adult court for trial. CHINS: Children in need of supervision; see PINS. comparative juvenile justice: The examination of juvenile justice history and practice in one country or culture by comparing it with the history and practice of juvenile justice in another country or culture. delinquency: Behaviors that fall within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and result in processing by official juvenile justice agents. discretion: The authority to exercise judgment. doli incapax: Not capable of criminal intention or malice; unable to formulate criminal intent (mens rea); not able, due to lack of maturity, to know right from wrong; not crimi- nally responsible. etiology: The study of causation. jurisdiction: A geographic area subject to a particular law or court and in which particular law enforcement agencies and individuals have legal authority.

14 chapTer 1 The context of Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

juvenile: A youth who falls within an age range specified by state law. The age range varies from state to state. juvenile justice ideology: A set of ideas about the causes of juvenile crime and what should be done about it. labeling: Defining and responding to a youth as a delinquent. Labeling can lead to stigmati- zation, lost opportunities, and additional delinquent behavior. mens rea: Criminal intent. PINS: Persons in need of supervision; children who engage in status offenses. remand: A legal process whereby a juvenile is sent to adult court for trial. social control: The efforts of individuals, groups, or institutions to regulate behavior and ensure conformity to social rules, expectations, or laws. status offenses: Acts that are considered illegal when committed by a minor but not when committed by an adult (e.g., running away, school truancy, and failure to obey parents’ directions). transfer: A legal process whereby a juvenile is sent to adult court for trial. waiver: A legal process whereby a juvenile is sent to adult court for trial.

revIew QuesTIons

1. What are the potential benefits of comparing juvenile justice history and practice in the United States with the history and practice of juvenile justice in other countries or cultures?

2. What are the two broad categories of behaviors that fall within the legal definitions of delinquency?

3. What are the shortcomings of legal definitions of delinquency? 4. How common is delinquent behavior in the United States? 5. How could labeling a youth as a delinquent affect his or her future behavior? 6. Are all juvenile offenders alike? Cite evidence to support your view. 7. What is the definition of a juvenile from a legal perspective? 8. What are the problems associated with using an age criterion to define a juvenile? 9. Define waiver, which is also known as transfer, remand, bind over, and certification.

10. Is there a juvenile justice “system?” Provide support for your view. 11. According to state statutes, what are the two primary functions of the juvenile courts? 12. Identify the factors that lead to variation and conflict in juvenile justice practices. 13. How do public perceptions of the delinquency problem affect responses to juvenile crime? 14. What role does politics play in juvenile justice? 15. What are the potential benefits and problems associated with efforts to exert social control

in juvenile justice?

addITIonal readIngs

Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2010). The cycle of juvenile justice (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Gilbert, J. (1986). A cycle of outrage: America’s response to the juvenile delinquent in the 1950s. New York: Oxford University Press.

additional readings 15

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Krisberg, B. (2005). Juvenile justice: Redeeming our children. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwartz, I. M. (1989). (In)justice for juveniles: Rethinking the best interests of the child. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

noTes

1. Platt, A. M. (1977). The child savers: The invention of delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

2. Dammer, H. R., & Albanese, J. S. (2011). Comparative criminal justice systems (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, p. 5.

3. Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs. New York: The Free Press.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010, June 4). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59(SS–5).

5. Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 420–424.

6. Frazier, C. (1976). Theoretical approaches to deviance: An evaluation. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

7. Chambliss, W. J. (1973). The Saints and the Roughnecks. Society, 11, 341–355. 8. Frazier, 1976. 9. Bodwitch, C. (1993). Getting rid of troublemakers: High school disciplinary procedures

and the production of dropouts. Social Problems, 40, 493–509. 10. Schwartz, R. D., & Skolnick, J. H. (1964). Two studies of legal stigma. In H. S. Becker

(Ed.), The other side: Perspectives on deviance. New York: The Free Press; Buikhuisen, W., & Dijksterhuis, P. H. (1971). Delinquency and stigmatization. British Journal of Criminol- ogy, 11, 186.

11. Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 4, 1287–1318.

12. National Minority Advisory Council on Criminal Justice. (1981). The inequality of justice. Washington, DC: Author.

13. DeJong, C., & Jackson, K. (1998). Putting race into context: Race, juvenile justice process- ing, and urbanization. Justice Quarterly, 15, 487–504.

14. Lemert, E. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

15. Cavan, R. S., & Ferdinand, T. N. (1975). Juvenile delinquency (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.

16. Birckhead, T. R. (2008). North Carolina, juvenile court jurisdiction, and the resistance to reform. North Carolina Law Review, 86, 1443–1500; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention. (2011). Statistical Briefing Book. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp .gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04101.asp?qaDate=2009. Note: Connecticut changed its law; see Birckhead, 2008.

17. Birckhead, 2008. 18. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2011).

16 chapTer 1 The context of Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04101.asp?qaDate=2009

19. Kohlberg, L. (1987). Child psychology and childhood education: A cognitive- developmental view. New York: Longman. This resource provides an example of the developmental perspective.

20. Kohlberg, 1987. 21. Bartol, C. (1991). Criminal behavior: A psychosocial approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall. 22. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH:

Anderson. 23. Hoffman, M. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological

Bulletin, 84, 712–722; Morash, M. (1983). An explanation of juvenile delinquency: The integration of moral-reasoning theory and sociological knowledge. In W. S. Laufer and J. M. Day (Eds.), Personality, theory, moral development, and criminal behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

24. Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational psychology: A cognitive approach. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

25. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

26. Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2010). The cycle of juvenile justice (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

27. Gilbert, J. (1986). A cycle of outrage: America’s reaction to the juvenile delinquent in the 1950s. New York: Oxford University Press.

28. Krisberg, B., Schwartz, I., Litsky, P., & Austin, J. (1986). The watershed of juvenile justice reform. Crime and Delinquency, 32, 5–38.

29. Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). State juvenile responses to violent juvenile crime: 1996–97 update. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

30. Moon, M. M., Sundt, J., Cullen, F., & Wright, J. (2000). Is child saving dead? Public sup- port for juvenile rehabilitation. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 38–60.

Notes 17

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter ObjeCtives After studying this chapter, you should be able to

• explain the differences between official and unofficial data

• Describe the different types of official data sources on juvenile delinquency

• Describe the picture of delinquency presented by each of the official data sources

• Describe the shortcomings of official data

• Describe the different types of unofficial data sources on juvenile delinquency

• Describe the insights provided by and the weaknesses of unofficial data sources

• explain why official and unofficial data sources are needed to develop a comprehensive view of delinquency

• Describe the extent of juvenile delinquency in the United states

• Describe trends in juvenile case processing over the past 20 years

Chapter OUtline introduction

Official Data sources

Unofficial Data sources

legal issues

Chapter summary

Key Concepts

review Questions

additional readings

notes

Measuring the Extent of Juvenile Delinquency

chapter

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ introduction

Previously, we examined a variety of conceptual issues important for understanding the opera- tion of juvenile justice in the United States. In addition, it was indicated that public perceptions of juvenile crime and politics influence juvenile justice operations. However, the perceptions of juvenile crime and juvenile justice held by the public and policy makers are not always based on knowledge about the actual levels of delinquency or the actual operation of juvenile justice agencies. To close the gap between perception and reality, it is important to consider several questions: How extensive is juvenile offending in the United States? How many youths are arrested and become involved in the juvenile justice process each year? To what degree, if at all, has the level of youths’ involvement in juvenile justice changed over time? What types of offenses do juveniles typically commit? Unfortunately, there are no simple answers to all of these questions. Moreover, the answers arrived at will depend on which data sources and measures are used to investigate the questions. To assist readers in developing an understanding of the extent of youths’ involvement in juvenile justice in the United States, this chapter explores various data sources that can help us answer questions about juvenile crime and juvenile justice involvement. It also examines trends in juvenile offending and how the processing of juvenile offenders has changed over time. In addition, comparisons of delinquency in the United States and other industrialized countries are presented. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the questions addressed by different data sources and measures, as well as the suitability of various data sources for answering different questions about delinquency and juvenile justice involvement in the United States.

■ Official Data sources

There are two types of data on juvenile delinquency: data derived from official sources and data derived from other sources. These data are collected by different agencies and individuals using different methodologies, and they often present different pictures of the extent of delinquency as well as youths who engage in delinquent behavior. Official data are collected by juvenile justice agencies, such as law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts, and various correctional programs that handle juveniles. These data may include information

such as the name, age, gender, race, psychological adjustment, and offense history of youths involved with juvenile justice agencies as well as informa- tion on their family background, school history, and other types of information. These data help policy makers and practitioners understand the number and characteristics of youths processed by juve- nile justice agencies and the offenses they commit. They are also used in making decisions about indi- vidual cases.

the Uniform Crime report

The most well-publicized source of official data on delinquency is the FBI’s Uniform crime report (Ucr), which compiles data from more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies and represents approximately 97% of the population of the United States.

official data Information on

juvenile delinquency collected by formal

juvenile justice agen- cies, such as police

agencies, juvenile courts, and juvenile detention and cor- rectional facilities.

Uniform crime report (Ucr)

The most compre- hensive compilation

of known crimes and arrests. The

report is published each year by the

Federal Bureau of Investigation under

the title Crime in the United States.

Photo © Monkey Business Images/ShutterStock, Inc.

20 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

F Y i the UCr FOCUses On the inCiDenCe OF arrests

arrest data contained in the Ucr refer to the incidence of arrests (the frequency of arrests) rather than the prevalence of arrests (the number of individual persons who are arrested). For instance, an individual may be arrested several or more times in one year. each of these arrests may be counted in the Ucr.

The UCR separates crimes into two broad categories: Part I (or Crime Index) offenses and Part II crimes. Part I crimes are further separated into Crime Index violent offenses (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and Crime Index property offenses (burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson). (Note: In this chapter, all mentions of violent offenses refer to violent offenses as defined by the UCR Crime Index. Likewise, all mentions of property offenses refer to the offenses defined by the UCR Crime Index.) Part II crimes consist of all offenses (except traffic violations) that are not Index offenses. Also, the UCR contains three basic types of arrest data: (1) the number (frequency) and kinds of offenses that are known to the police, (2) the frequency of arrests for different kinds of offenses, and (3) data on the characteristics of offenders, such as their gender, race, age, and whether they live in large or small metropolitan areas or more rural areas.1 Because the UCR contains information on arrests by age group, it is an important source of information on juvenile crime and the responses of law enforcement agencies to the illegal behaviors of youths.

According to UCR data, juvenile crime represents a significant problem in the United States. In 2010, there were more than 1.2 million arrests of persons younger than 18 years. How- ever, as shown in Table 2-1, at least 81% of those arrests were for nonviolent offenses.2 Indeed, 60% of all arrests of persons younger than 18 years were for nonassaultive Part II offenses. Approximately 6% of all arrests of persons younger than 18 years were for status offenses, such as curfew violations and loitering.3

Although most arrests of persons younger than 18 years were for nonviolent crimes, offenses against people still account for a substantial portion of all youth arrests. For example, in 2010, approximately 18% of arrests of persons under age 18 involved an offense against a person, although the majority of these were simple assaults. Moreover, persons younger than 18 years accounted for 20.3% of all Crime Index arrests, 13.7% of all arrests for Index violent offenses, and 22.5% of all arrests for Index property offenses.4 These percentages take on added significance when one considers that persons between the ages of 10 and 17 years (inclusive) account for only about 11% of the total U.S. population.5 Thus, youths are slightly overrepresented with respect to arrests for violent offenses; their overrepresentation in arrest data is much greater when property offense arrests are considered.

Although youths are overrepresented in arrests for Index offenses (this is also true for a number of Part II offenses), it is worth noting that when all arrests for street crimes are examined for 2010, persons under age 18 accounted for only 12.6% of those arrests (both Part I and Part II arrests). Indeed, it is worth noting that the percentage of all arrests attributed to persons under age 18 has been declining in recent years—from 15.8% in 2004 to 12.6% in 2010. Thus, there is no evidence that the crime problem in the United States is primarily a product of youths’ behaviors.

status offense An act that is considered a crime or legal violation when committed by a juvenile but not by an adult (e.g., running away from home, incorrigible behavior, failure to attend school, and failure to obey school rules).

Official Data Sources 21

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y jUveniles are respOnsible FOr MOst OF the viOlent CriMe in the UniteD states

Myth—Juveniles are responsible for much of the violent crime in the United States. reality—although people between the ages of 10 and 17 years were slightly overrepresented in arrests for Index violent offenses in 2010, they accounted for only 13.7% of all arrests for serious violent crimes that year.

TablE 2-1 arrests of persons Under 18 Years of age by Crime type, 2010

Crime type n percentage of total

Index offenses 349,444 27.1

Index violent offenses 59,093 4.6

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 784 <0.1

Forcible rape 2,198 0.2

robbery 21,110 1.6

aggravated assault 35,001 2.7

Index property offenses 290,351 22.5

Burglary 51,298 4.0

Larceny-theft 223,207 17.3

Motor vehicle theft 12,268 1.0

arson 3,578 0.3

Part II offenses 939,171 72.9

Other assaults (including offenses against family and children) 166,352 12.9

Forgery and counterfeiting, fraud, embezzlement 6,248 0.5

Buying, receiving, possessing stolen property 11,608 0.9

Vandalism 60,591 4.7

carrying, possessing weapons 24,518 1.9

Prostitution and commercialized vice 804 <0.1

Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) 10,147 0.8

Drug abuse violations 132,921 10.3

Gambling 1,040 <0.1

Driving under the influence 9,352 0.8

Liquor law violations 75,889 5.9

Drunkenness, disorderly conduct 131,306 10.2

curfew and loitering 73,897 5.7

Other 234,498 18.2

total arrests 1,288,615 100.0 Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Source: Data from FBI (2010), crime in the United States 2010, table 38. retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s./2010 /crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tb138.xls.

22 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s./2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tb138.xls

F Y i the DevelOpMent OF nibrs

the first Ucr for the United States was published in 1930. Since that time, the Ucr has undergone significant changes. calls for more comprehensive changes in the Ucr program by the 1980s resulted in the development of the National Incident-Based reporting System (NIBrS). the NIBrS is intended to provide more comprehen- sive information (i.e., about the offense, victim, offender, and types and value of property involved) on each incident and arrest in 22 offense categories that are called Group a offenses. In addition, there are 11 Group B offense categories for which only arrest data are provided. consequently, NIBrS provides more detailed crime information than that provided by traditional Ucr data.6 By 2010, the FBI had certified 38 state programs for NIBrS participation, 8 states had tested the NIBrS, and 5 states were planning on developing their NIBrS capability.7

F Y i aCCessing Fbi Data

to access Ucr data collected by the FBI, go to http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats. to access population data needed to construct juvenile arrest rates, go to http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/asp /profile_selection.asp.

juvenile arrest trends

Although there were noticeable peaks in juvenile arrests during the late 1970s and early 1980s and then again in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the number of arrests of youths younger than age 18 years has been trending down since the mid-1990s (see Figure 2-1(a)). Similar downward trends in juvenile arrests for Index property and Index violent offenses are also evident since the mid-1990s (see Figures 2-1(b) and 2-1(c)).

Of particular concern to many policy makers, juvenile justice practitioners, researchers, and members of the public in recent years has been juveniles’ involvement in violent crime. Indeed, the number of arrests of persons younger than age 18 years for Index violent offenses increased by 48% from 1989 to 1994. However, as we noted above, juvenile arrests for violent crimes began to decline in 1995, and this general decline continued until 2004. Since that time, juvenile arrests for violent offenses have fluctuated, but they have shown no evidence of a sustained upward trend.8

population effects on juvenile arrest trends

The number of arrests of persons younger than age 18 years is a rough indicator of the total number of juvenile crimes committed. The number of juvenile crimes committed, however, is partially determined by the size of the juvenile population. In other words, as the size of the juvenile population (i.e., potential juvenile offenders) increases, so does the absolute level of juvenile crime (assuming the rate of juvenile crime remains constant). In fact, it has been estimated that changes in the age structure of the population may account for as much as 40% of the changes in the arrest rate.9 Although the actual strength of the relationship between levels of juvenile crime and the size of the juvenile population is a matter of debate, population size does have some effect on levels of delinquency. Consequently, another important indica- tor of juvenile crime is the juvenile arrest rate. An examination of the juvenile arrest rate is important because it takes into consideration the size of the juvenile population.

arrest rate The number of arrests adjusted for the size of the population; often reported as arrests per 100,000 youths age 10–17 years in the population.

Official Data Sources 23

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/asp/profile_selection.asp

FigUre 2-1(a) Number of Juvenile arrests, 1975-2010 Source: Data from FBI, Crime in the United States, Years 1975–2010, Washington, Dc: US Department of Justice.

FigUre 2-1(b) Number of Juvenile Index Property arrests, 1975–2010 Source: Data from FBI, Crime in the United States, Years 1975–2010, Washington, Dc: US Department of Justice.

900,000

19 75

19 76

19 77

19 78

19 79

19 80

19 81

19 82

19 83

19 84

19 85

19 86

19 87

19 88

19 89

19 90

19 91

19 92

19 93

19 94

19 95

19 96

19 97

Year

N um

be r

of J

uv en

ile A

rr es

ts , U

.S .

19 98

19 99

20 00

20 01

20 02

20 03

20 04

20 05

20 06

20 07

20 08

20 09

20 10

1,200,000

1,500,000

1,800,000

2,100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

19 75

19 76

19 77

19 78

19 79

19 80

19 81

19 82

19 83

19 84

19 85

19 86

19 87

19 88

19 89

19 90

19 91

19 92

19 93

Year

N um

be r

of J

uv en

ile In

de x

Pr op

er ty

A rr

es ts

, U .S

19 94

19 95

19 96

19 97

19 98

19 99

20 00

20 01

20 02

20 03

20 04

20 05

20 06

20 07

20 08

20 09

20 10

24 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Because the age ranges of youths who come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court vary from state to state, juvenile arrest rates are typically calculated by using the number of arrests of persons between the ages of 10 and 17 years taken from the UCR (youths younger than 10 years are rarely arrested relative to older youths) and dividing that number by popula- tion figures taken from census data.

juvenile arrest rate trends

An examination of juvenile arrest rate trends since 1975 indicates a pattern similar to that indicated by arrest trends. Although juvenile arrests rates vary some from year to year, juvenile crime has remained rather stable over time. For example, an examination of Figure 2-2(a) reveals an increase in juvenile arrest rates beginning in the late 1980s and continuing through the mid-1990s, followed by a steady decline until 2004, followed by several years of increasing rates, then several years of decreasing rates. However, the juvenile arrest rate in 2010 was still below the arrest rates recorded during the late 1970s and 1980s.10 Thus, there is no evidence of a continuing increase in juvenile crime over time as measured by arrest rates.

A similar conclusion can be drawn by examining Index violent and Index property offense arrest rates. As Figure 2-2(a) indicates, arrest rates for persons younger than age 18 years were quite stable during the late 1970s and through the late 1980s. The violent offense arrest rate for juveniles, however, while remaining remarkably stable during most of the 1980s, increased by more than 60% between 1988 and 1994.11 Indeed, this increase in arrests for violent offenses between the late 1980s and the mid-1990s was the primary driving force for the increase in overall juvenile arrests during that period. However, as Figure 2-2(b) indicates, Index violent arrest rates for juveniles declined substantially between the mid-1990s and 2004, after which time it has been relatively stable. Like the overall juvenile arrest rate, the property offense

FigUre 2-1(c) Number of Juvenile Violent Index arrests, 1975–2010 Source: Data from FBI, Crime in the United States, Years 1975–2010, Washington, Dc: US Department of Justice.

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

19 75

19 76

19 77

19 78

19 79

19 80

19 81

19 82

19 83

19 84

19 85

19 86

19 87

19 88

19 89

19 90

19 91

19 92

19 93

Year

N um

be r

of J

uv en

ile In

de x

Vi ol

en t

A rr

es ts

, U .S

19 94

19 95

19 96

19 97

19 98

19 99

20 00

20 01

20 02

20 03

20 04

20 05

20 06

20 07

20 08

20 09

20 10

Official Data Sources 25

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

FigUre 2-2(a) Juvenile arrest rate per 100,000 (ages 10–17), 1975–2010 Source: Data from FBI, Crime in the United States, Years 1975–2010, Washington, Dc: US Department of Justice.

FigUre 2-2(b) Juvenile Index Violent arrest rate per 100,000 (ages 10–17), 1975–2012 Source: Data from FBI, Crime in the United States, Years 1975–2010, Washington, Dc: US Department of Justice.

2,000.00

3,000.00

4,000.00

5,000.00

6,000.00

7,000.00

8,000.00

19 75

19 76

19 77

19 78

19 79

19 80

19 81

19 82

19 83

19 84

19 85

19 86

19 87

19 88

19 89

19 90

19 91

19 92

19 93

Year

Ju ve

ni le

A rr

es t

R at

e pe

r 10

0, 00

19 94

19 95

19 96

19 97

19 98

19 99

20 00

20 01

20 02

20 03

20 04

20 05

20 06

20 07

20 08

20 09

20 10

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

19 75

19 85

19 84

19 83

19 82

19 81

19 80

19 79

19 78

19 77

19 76

19 89

19 88

19 87

19 86

19 90

19 91

19 92

19 93

Year

Ju ve

ni le

V io

le nt

A rr

es t

R at

e pe

r 10

0, 00

19 94

19 95

19 96

19 97

19 98

19 99

20 00

20 01

20 02

20 03

20 04

20 05

20 06

20 07

20 08

20 09

20 10

26 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

arrest rate for juveniles remained quite stable between 1980 and the mid-1990s, at which time it began to decline, as Figure 2-2(c) shows.

F Y i jUvenile arrest rate

the juvenile arrest rate per 100,000 juveniles is calculated as follows:

Number of juvenile arrests Total juvenile population

100,00× 00 juvenile arrest rate per 100,000 juveniles=

the race and gender of arrested juveniles

In addition to information about numbers of arrests, the UCR also provides information on the racial and gender characteristics of persons who are arrested. According to 2010 UCR data, whites accounted for approximately 66% of the arrests of persons younger than age 18 years. Whites also represented approximately 64% of those younger than age 18 years who were arrested for Index property offenses and approximately 48% of those arrested for Index violent crimes. In contrast, African American youths accounted for 31% of all arrests, about 33% of Index property arrests, and almost 51% of Index violent arrests. Other racial groups accounted for the remainder of juvenile arrests.12 However, although white youths accounted for the majority of juvenile arrests, African American youths were arrested in disproportionate numbers, because they account for only about 17% of the juvenile population between ages 10 and 17 years.13

FigUre 2-2(c) Juvenile Index Property arrest rate per 100,000 (ages 10–17), 1975–2010 Source: Data from FBI, Crime in the United States, Years 1975–2010, Washington, Dc: US Department of Justice.

500.00

1,000.00

1,500.00

2,000.00

2,500.00

19 75

19 76

19 77

19 78

19 79

19 80

19 81

19 82

19 83

19 84

19 85

19 86

19 87

19 88

19 89

19 90

19 91

19 92

19 93

Year

Ju ve

ni le

P ro

pe rt

y A

rr es

t R

at e

pe r

10 0,

00 0

19 94

19 95

19 96

19 97

19 98

19 99

20 00

20 01

20 02

20 03

20 04

20 05

20 06

20 07

20 08

20 09

20 10

Official Data Sources 27

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

The UCR data further indicate that juvenile lawbreaking is predominately the domain of males. For example, 2010 UCR data indicate that males accounted for approximately 71% of all arrests of persons younger than age 18 years. Males accounted for about 82% of persons younger than 18 years arrested for Index violent offenses and approximately 62% of those younger than age 18 years arrested for Index property crimes.14

F Y i jUvenile CriMe trenDs

an examination of both arrest trends and arrest rate trends in Figures 2-1(a) and 2-2(a) reveals similar patterns, that indicate that, overall, juvenile crime has not become significantly more problematic over time, despite what many people may believe.

F Y i hiDDen jUvenile CriMe

the amount of juvenile crime that goes unreported—the dark figure of juvenile crime—is not known; however, it appears that well over half of all juvenile offenses are not reported to the authorities. For instance, findings from the National Youth Survey (NYS), a large-scale self-report study; the Ucr; and other sources indicate that only about 24% of juveniles who commit offenses for which they could be arrested are actually taken into custody by the police.15 Moreover, the probability that an individual will be arrested for serious offenses is estimated to be only 2 in 100.16

dark figure of juvenile crime The amount of

juvenile crime that is not reported.

problems with Using arrest Data as an indicator of juvenile Crime

Although police arrests of juveniles constitute an important indicator of the extent of juvenile crime, there are a number of problems with using official data as a measure of delinquency. First, many juvenile offenses do not come to the attention of the police. Because crimes known to the police are usually reported by citizens, the ability or willingness of citizens to make complaints influences the number of crimes included in the UCR. Moreover, a vari- ety of factors affect the ability and willingness of citizens to report crimes to the police. For example, some offenses go undetected, which prevents them from being reported. Moreover, the seriousness of the offense, the relationship between the offender and the victim, fear of possible reprisals by the offender, the belief that nothing will be done to the offender, embar- rassment, and the involvement of the complainant in criminal behavior he or she wants to keep from the police are factors that can influence a citizen’s willingness to report his or her victimization.17 As a result, many offenses do not come to the attention of law enforcement agencies.

Second, several factors influence the accuracy and completeness of the data that are col- lected and published in the UCR. For example, police must decide if a particular behavior technically qualifies as an offense. This decision can be influenced by political pressures to reduce or inflate crime rates, the quality of the interaction between the police and the offender (e.g., whether the offender is hostile toward the police), and the style of policing employed in a particular jurisdiction (e.g., the extent to which the police use a more legalistic and formal style of policing that encourages them to make arrests or a more preventive style that encour- ages the informal processing of cases when possible).18 These factors can lead to variability across jurisdictions regarding the extent to which behaviors are actually recorded as crimes, thus making comparisons across jurisdictions difficult. In addition, factors such as political pressure and changes in the style of policing can result in changes in arrest data over time that do not accurately reflect real changes in the level of crime. For example, pressure exerted

28 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

by a powerful interest group can lead to police crackdowns on particular types of behaviors (e.g., truancy and prostitution). This, in turn, will be reflected in an increase in the numbers of arrests for those behaviors even though their actual incidence did not change. Also, in the UCR data, not all offenses are counted when multiple offenses occur. Only the most serious offense is reported, except when arson is also involved (an act of arson is always counted, even if it is not the most serious offense).19

Third, arrest data say as much about the actions of the police as about the extent of crime. Because police departments make decisions to focus their attention on certain types of criminal activity (i.e., the types of offenses contained in the UCR) and these criminal activities more often occur in particular communities (i.e., lower-class neighborhoods), certain actions (e.g., robbery, vandalism, larceny, and curfew violations) are more likely to cause a response and the people in those communities (i.e., poor people and minorities) are more likely to be seen as criminals and arrested.

F Y i pOliCe DisCretiOn

It is important to note that police discretion plays an important role in determining whether a particular act is recorded as a crime. Moreover, police decision making is influenced by a variety of factors.

police discretion The authority of police to make their own judgments about which crimes or delinquent acts are subject to inves- tigation and which juveniles are subject to arrest.

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y prObleMs with the UCr

Myth—the Ucr contains a comprehensive listing of crimes that are committed in the United States. reality—although the media, political leaders, and policy makers often use the Ucr as a primary source of national, state, and local crime data, it suffers from several shortcomings as a source of data on juvenile crime. For example, (1) it omits a sizable amount of crime that is never reported to the police; (2) it contains only limited data on the characteristics of people arrested; and (3) a number of factors influence the accuracy of the data that are recorded.

Using Clearance Data to Understand juvenile Crime

Although arrest data provide important insights on juvenile crime, they suffer from one impor- tant limitation—they overestimate juveniles’ involvement in criminal activity. This occurs because juvenile offending is more likely to involve other persons, often juveniles, than crimes committed by adults.20 As a result, juvenile offenses are more likely than adult offenses to involve multiple arrests, even though some of those arrested are not knowing or willing par- ticipants in criminal activity.

Another way to understand the extent to which juveniles are involved in crime, which provides a more accurate estimate of juvenile involvement in offending, is to examine clearance data. An offense is cleared when at least one person is arrested for the offense, charged with an offense, or turned over to the court for prosecution. In the case of juveniles, a clearance also occurs when a youth is cited to appear in juvenile court or before other juvenile authorities, even when a physical arrest has not taken place. In addition, “exceptional clearances” occur in situations where the offender dies, the victim refuses to cooperate in the prosecution of the case, or the offender is denied extradition and is prosecuted in another jurisdiction.21 Of the Crime Index offenses cleared by law enforcement in 2010, persons younger than age 18 years accounted for slightly more than 10% of violent crime clearances and approximately 16% of property crime clearances.22 These percentages are lower (particularly for property offenses) than the arrest percentages presented earlier for Index violent and Index property offenses.

Official Data Sources 29

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

However, it is likely that these data also overestimate juvenile involvement in crime because crimes like robbery often result in multiple juvenile arrests.23

Trends in the proportion of violent crimes attributed to juveniles present an overall pic- ture that is similar to that portrayed by arrest data. The percentages of crimes cleared by the arrest of a person under age 18 for violent and property offenses have been decreasing since 1995. For violent offenses, the percentage of clearances attributable to juveniles decreased from 14% in 1995 to 10.2% in 2010. For property offenses, the percentage of clearances as a result of the arrest of a juvenile declined from 25% to 15.9%.24 An examination of clearance data, like arrest data, indicates that juvenile crime has remained quite stable over time and has been declining in recent years.

C O M pa r at i v e F O C U s

comparing crimes in different countries is difficult because definitions of crimes vary by country. For example, in Germany, assault is defined as a violent crime only when a weapon is used.25 Moreover, countries vary in terms of their political, social, and economic development, which also complicates cross-country comparisons.26 however, comparisons of juvenile crime in the United States and some other developed countries indicates that the rate of violent juvenile crime in the United States appears considerably higher.27 Indeed, the juvenile homicide rate in the United States was almost twice the rate in Japan in 2000, and the robbery rate was nearly three times the Japanese rate.28 however, some property crime rates, particularly burglary, are higher in countries like canada, england, Wales, and the Netherlands.29

the Uses of Official Data

As noted, official data on juvenile delinquency, such as UCR arrest statistics, are used regularly by politicians, juvenile justice policy makers, and the media in their efforts to understand juve- nile crime. Moreover, because much of what the public knows about juvenile crime comes from the media, politicians, and policy makers, these data play a critical role in educating the public about the nature and extent of delinquency. For example, newspapers and television news departments regularly analyze and report UCR data on juvenile arrests. Of course, the media also rely on the findings of researchers who study juvenile crime, but these researchers often depend on official data as well. Researchers investigating police responses to juvenile offending rely on official arrest data to determine how many youths are arrested by the police, the basic demographic characteristics of those youths, and the types of offenses for which youths are arrested. Similarly, researchers interested in the way youths are dealt with by juvenile courts and correctional institutions rely on official court and corrections data. In addition, official arrest data have been used in countless studies that have explored the etiology of delinquency and the effectiveness of various types of juvenile justice programs.

■ Unofficial Data sources

Besides official data sources, there are several other important sources of unofficial data on juvenile crime developed by researchers not connected to formal juvenile justice agencies (i.e., police, juvenile courts, and juvenile detention and corrections facili- ties). Among the main types of unofficial data are self-report studies of delinquency, cohort studies, developmental studies, observational studies, and victimization studies. Each of these sources is dis- cussed in the following sections.

etiology The study of

causation.

unofficial data Information col-

lected by researchers not connected with

formal juvenile justice agencies (i.e.,

police agencies, juvenile courts,

30 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

self-report studies

As the name implies, a self-report study asks people to report on their own behavior. A primary advantage of the self-report method is that it can elicit information on offenses not known to the police. Consequently, it allows researchers to better understand the dark figure of juvenile crime. Another advantage is that a variety of data important to understanding delinquency (e.g., income, education, quality of life, work, family life, and peer group affiliations) can be collected. Unlike the UCR and other official sources of data, self-report studies have been con- ducted by a variety of researchers unaffiliated with formal juvenile justice agencies. Moreover, some long-term self-report studies have provided important information on changes in juve- nile delinquency over time. A good example of an ongoing self-report study is the Monitoring the Future study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan’s Institute of Social Research (ISR).30 This study, which began in 1975, collects a variety of data on the attitudes and behaviors of a national sample of high school seniors.

As one might expect, self-report studies indicate that youths engage in considerably more illegal behavior than is indicated by official data. Particularly when offenses such as school truancy, alcohol consumption, using a false ID, petty larceny, and vandalism are examined, delinquency is normal behavior. Self-report studies generally indicate that most youths do not engage in serious criminal activity, a finding that mirrors the picture of delinquency presented in the official data sources. Nevertheless, some self-report studies show that a sizable percentage of juveniles is involved in serious offenses. For example, according to the Monitoring the Future study, in 2010, almost 13% of high school seniors indicated that during the preceding year they had hurt someone badly enough to require a doctor’s attention, approximately 11% indicated that they had stolen something worth more than $50, and approximately 12% reported that they were in a serious fight at work or school during the year.31 In another ongoing large-scale study of high school students conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2009, approximately 18% of respondents indicated that they had carried a weapon at least once in the 30 days prior to the survey, and almost 32% reported that they had engaged in a physical fight one or more times in the previous 12 months.32

Although self-report studies reveal that delinquency is a pervasive phenomenon in the United States, they do not indicate that juvenile crime is getting worse. There are short-term fluctuations in youths’ self-reported delinquency, but an examination of long-term trends in delinquent behavior indicates that it has remained quite stable over time.33 For instance, an examination of data collected as part of the Monitoring the Future study between 1990 and 2010 indicates that no clearly identifiable trends were evident for most offenses. To the extent that trends can be discerned in the data, they tend to be toward less involvement in delinquency.

Another important self-report study is the National Youth Survey (NYS), an ongoing study that began in 1976 and is conducted by researchers at the University of Colorado’s Behavioral Research Institute. The NYS is a panel study, which means that a sample of youths (now adults) is surveyed each year over a number of years. Panel studies are valuable because they allow researchers to examine changes in young people’s behaviors and attitudes over time and into adulthood.

The NYS indicates that youths engage in a range of criminal activity, although most are involved in minor offenses. It also reveals that the frequency of offending and the kinds of offenses youths commit change over time. Youths’ illegal behaviors tend to increase in severity as they reach their late teens and move into their early adult years, but offending decreases after that period. Younger juveniles tend to engage mostly in status offenses, whereas older youths engage in more property and personal offenses.34

Analysis of the NYS has also produced some important findings regarding the rela- tionships among race, social class, and delinquency. One finding of considerable interest, reported by Delbert Elliott and Suzanne Ageton, is that the levels of offending for African

self-report study A study in which subjects are asked to report their involve- ment in illegal behavior.

panel study A study that involves the examination of the same select group over time.

Unofficial Data Sources 31

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

American youths and white youths are similar. Although the researchers found that African American youths reported slightly more involvement in serious crimes, the size of the dif- ference was not as great as indicated by arrest data.35 This suggests that the disparity in the arrest levels of white and African American youths is, in part, a reflection of the actions of police agencies. Unfortunately, nationwide data on the relationship between race and delinquency for other racial and ethnic groups do not exist. For example, Latinos and Asian Americans are diverse groups that have distinct cultures that have not been carefully exam- ined in national-level studies of delinquency. What is known about delinquency among some ethnic groups, however, is that it may be contrary to what some believe. Indeed, research on immigrants suggests that recent immigrants have lower rates of crime than persons born in the United States.36

The relationship between social class and delinquency found in the NYS is also of consid- erable interest. In one important study using NYS data, Delbert Elliott and David Huizinga found that the prevalence of delinquency did not differ among social classes when all types of offenses were considered. In other words, the proportion of middle-class and lower-class youths who engaged in delinquency was similar. However, when the researchers examined different types of offenses, they discovered significant class differences. Middle-class youths had the highest rates of involvement in offenses such as stealing from their families, cheating on tests, cutting classes, disorderly conduct, lying about their age, and drunkenness. Lower- class youths had higher rates of involvement in more serious offenses, such as felony assault and robbery. Indeed, it was the existence of a larger group of high-rate offenders in the lower class that was primarily responsible for the relationship between social class and delinquency.37

Although most studies that have examined the relationship between social class and delinquency support the findings of the NYS, there are exceptions.38 Moreover, some research indicates that exposure to persistent poverty is a significant predictor of delinquency.39 Most research, however, tends to support the hypothesis that social class is related to serious delin- quency and that living in persistent poverty increases a youth’s chances of offending.

Self-report studies have also examined the relationship between gender and delinquent behavior. Overall, these studies indicate that females engage in considerably more delin- quency than is indicated by arrest data, which suggests a possible gender bias in juvenile justice. Nevertheless, females engage in less delinquency than males and tend to be involved in less serious types of delinquency, although differences in delinquent behavior between males and females are much smaller when minor offenses are examined.40

A very important point to note regarding recent self-report research is that it produces an overall picture of delinquency that is similar to that painted by official data. Although the extent of delinquency depicted in self-report research is considerably greater than is depicted in arrest data, the pattern of delinquency is similar. However, despite improvements in recent self-report studies, there are several problems with self-report studies that should be noted. First, there is no standard reporting format used in self-report studies. Consequently, it is difficult to compare different studies. It is particularly difficult to compare older self-report studies with more recent studies because older studies focused exclusively on less serious types of delinquent behavior and employed less sophisticated methodologies, raising questions about the accuracy of the results obtained. Second, although newer self-report studies include more serious offenses, they still do not cover all types of serious delinquency. Thus, the full range of delinquent behaviors is not covered. Third, there is some doubt as to whether present studies have been able to capture a completely representative sample of youths to study. Self-report studies that rely on school populations miss students who are not in school or who have dropped out. Even studies that do not sample from school populations may fail to include some youths. For instance, research conducted by Stephen Cernkovich, Peggy Giordano, and Meredith Pugh indicated that institutionalized chronic offenders have not been adequately

32 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

represented in self-report studies.41 Regardless of these problems, however, self-report studies are a good way to (1) estimate the dark figure of juvenile delinquency, (2) determine the extent of delinquency using more representative samples, and (3) examine factors that are believed to be related to delinquent behavior.

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y selF-repOrt stUDies prOviDe valUable Data

Myth—Self-report studies are not reliable because youths are unwilling to be truthful about their behavior. reality—efforts to examine the validity of the self-report studies indicate that, although there is some error in self-report studies, the self-report method is a valid method of measuring delinquent behavior.42

Cohort studies

A cohort study is designed to examine specific subpopulations over a period of time. Several important cohort studies have been published since the 1970s, and these provide an important picture of delinquency in the juvenile population. Several of these studies were conducted by Marvin Wolfgang and his associates at the University of Pennsylvania. One of the best known of these studies was published in 1972 by Wolfgang, Robert Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin under the title Delinquency in a Birth Cohort, and it has had a profound influence on many people’s thinking about delinquency.43

Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin studied a cohort of 9,945 males who were born in Philadelphia in 1945 and resided there until 1963, when they became age 18 years. For each youth, the researchers collected information on formal police contacts from police records. In addition, they collected information from public, private, and parochial (Catholic) school records on academic achievement, IQ, types of schools attended, school and residential changes, and highest grade completed. They also determined each youth’s socioeconomic status based on the youth’s place of residence.

The results of this study were important, not only because of the valuable insights provided, but also because of the policy responses the results suggested. Of the 9,945 cohort subjects, 35% had at least one formal contact with the police. Among white youths, 28.6% had some official police contact, whereas 50.2% of nonwhite cohort members had at least one official police contact. Among higher socioeconomic status (SeS) youths, 26.5% had at least one official police contact, compared with 46% of the lower SES youths. Indeed, the results indicated that race and SES were the two most important variables related to official police contact, and that school-associated variables were related to delinquency. Consequently, the researchers noted that a number of variables related to delinquency seemed indicative of what they referred to as a “disadvantaged position.” For example, they reported that the nonwhite youth who has official police contact is “likely to belong to the lower socioeconomic group, experience a greater number of school and residential moves (that is, be subject to the disrupting forces of intra-city mobility more than the nondelinquent) and have the lowest average grade completed, the lowest achievement level, and the lowest IQ score.”44 Moreover, their analysis revealed that nonwhite and lower SES youths were more likely to be arrested than white and more affluent youths, and they found that youths who had police contact at an early age often had lengthy delinquent careers. They also found evidence of offense escalation in instances when youths repeated an offense, which was greatest when youths had committed injury offenses.45 In concluding their book, Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin noted that the juvenile justice system did an adequate job isolating the serious juvenile offender, but those who received more “punitive” responses (fines, institutional placement, and probation) were more likely to reoffend and to commit more serious offenses than youths who received less severe responses.46

cohort study A study in which some specific group (e.g., those born during a certain year in a particular geographic location) is studied over a period of time.

socioeconomic status (SeS) A person’s posi- tion in a stratified society based on criteria such as place of residence, family income, educational background, and employment history.

Unofficial Data Sources 33

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

CriTiCal Thinking QuEsTion

What do comparison of arrest data, self-report data, and findings of cohort studies sug- gest about the existence social class or racial bias in the juvenile justice process?

The findings that received the most attention, however, concerned what Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin termed the “chronic offender.” The researchers divided the cohort into three groups: nonoffenders, one-time offenders, and recidivists. Of those youths who had an official police contact, 46% were one-time offenders and 54% were recidivists. Moreover, the recidivists were more likely to be in a “disadvantaged position” compared with other cohort members and to commit more serious offenses. The researchers categorized the recidivists into two additional groups: (1) those who had more than one police contact but less than five, whom they labeled “nonchronic recidivists,” and (2) those who had five or more contacts, whom they labeled “chronic recidivists.” Of the cohort, 1,235 youths (35.6% of all delinquents, or 12.4% of the entire cohort) were nonchronic recidivists. Chronic recidivists numbered 627 youths (18% of all delinquents, or 6% of the total cohort). Although the chronic offenders made up only 6% of the cohort, they accounted for a disproportionate share of the offenses attributed to the entire cohort, including serious offenses. For example, chronic offenders accounted for more than half (51.9%) of all offenses attributed to the cohort. Even more striking was their involvement in serious criminality. This 6% of the cohort accounted for 71% of the homicides, 73% of the rapes, 82% of the robberies, and 69% of the aggravated assaults attributed to the cohort.47 Moreover, evidence of offense specialization was found for chronic offenders, although not for occasional delinquents, and this tendency increased as the number of offenses increased.48

Finally, Wolfgang and his associates found that nonwhite and low SES youths were more likely to be treated more harshly by juvenile justice agencies than white and higher SES youths, even when controlling for offense seriousness and prior record. Moreover, they discovered that juvenile justice responses to chronic offenders had little positive effect on their recidivism. Indeed, juvenile justice responses such as fines, probation, and incarceration did not reduce recidivism.

In a subsequent study published in 1987, Wolfgang, Figlio, and Terence Thornberry examined a 10% sample (N = 975) of the 1945 cohort from the time the cohort members were age 18 years until they turned age 30 years in order to examine the criminal involvement of members beyond their juvenile years.49 The researchers supplemented Philadelphia police records with FBI data and conducted personal interviews with 58.2% of the follow-up sample in order to collect self-report and attitudinal data. The results of this study indicated that 47% of the sample had a recorded police contact by age 30 years. Also, as found in the original study, being nonwhite and being poor were strongly related to having an arrest record. The researchers also classified the offenders into three groups: (1) juvenile offenders, (2) adult offenders, and (3) persistent offenders (those who were both juvenile and adult offenders). Their analyses indicated that persistent offenders were more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds and have extensive delinquency histories. Similar to their original findings, most offenses committed by adults were non-Index offenses; however, unlike the earlier findings, adult offenses tended to become more serious over time. Indeed, the most serious offenses were more likely to be committed by persistent offenders.

Of course, it is possible that the findings of the 1945 cohort study conducted by Wolfgang and his associates were not representative of other cohorts. Consequently, replications of this study are needed to determine the extent to which its findings might be generalized to other populations. In 1977, this effort began, and its culmination was the publication of Delinquency in Two Birth Cohorts in 1985 and Delinquency Careers in Two Birth Cohorts in 1990.50 In these publications, Wolfgang, Figlio, and Paul Tracy examined a cohort of all youths (males and

recidivist A person who

continues to com- mit crimes despite

efforts to rehabilitate or deter him or her.

34 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

females) who were born in Philadelphia in 1958 and resided there at least from their 10th to their 18th birthdays (a total of 27,160 youths). Again, data on police contacts were gathered as well as information from public and private school records. Finally, cohort members were assigned a socioeconomic status position derived from an analysis of census data. Analyses of the 1958 cohort data revealed that race and socioeconomic status were again related to delinquency, although the relationships were not as strong as they were in the 1945 cohort. Again, being in a disadvantaged position—indicated by being nonwhite, possessing low SES, experiencing residential instability, doing poorly in school, and failing to graduate from high school—was found to be related to delinquency. And again, chronic offenders were found to account for a disproportionate share of criminal involvement, including involvement in serious offending. In the 1958 cohort, chronic offenders made up 7.5% of the entire cohort and 23% of the delinquents. However, they accounted for 61% of all offenses attributed to the cohort, including 61% of the homicides, 75% of the rapes, 65% of the aggravated assaults, and 66% of the offenses that resulted in injury. Moreover, a greater percentage of serious offenses were committed by the 1958 cohort.51

Also, because information was collected on females, data on female contacts with the police were available. The data indicated that males were far more likely than females to have a police contact by age 18 years. Of cohort males, 32.8% had such contacts, compared with only 14.1% of females. Moreover, male contacts were more likely to involve serious offenses. Indeed, the overall male-to-female offense ratio was 4:1, but it was 9:1 for Crime Index offenses and 14:1 for violent Crime Index offenses. The data also indicated that nonwhite females were more likely to be arrested than white females and to be given more serious dispositions, such as probation and institutionalization by the juvenile court. Finally, an analysis of the dispositions of offenders found that, although differences existed in the processing of nonwhite offenders and white offenders, these differences were not as strongly related to race and socioeconomic status as they had been for youths born in 1945. Moreover, court responses to the juvenile offenders appeared to be more effective in the 1958 cohort.52

The disproportionate involvement in criminality of a small population of chronic offenders has been noted by other researchers as well. For instance, Lyle Shannon examined three cohorts of youths born in Racine, Wisconsin, in 1942, 1949, and 1955. In each case, he uncovered the existence of a chronic offender population.53 According to Shannon, less than 25% of each cohort’s male subjects had five or more nontraffic offenses. Nevertheless, this group accounted for 77–83% of the police contacts involving males. Moreover, 8–14% of the subjects in each cohort accounted for all of the serious felony offenses. According to Shannon, approximately 5% of each cohort was responsible for the majority of all offenses committed by the cohort and was also responsible for about 75% of all felonies committed by cohort members.

A cohort study conducted at Ohio State University called the Dangerous Offender Project focused on the violent juvenile offender. In this study, Donna Hamparian and her associates examined a cohort of 1,138 youths who were born in Franklin County (Columbus), Ohio, between 1956 and 1960 and who had been arrested for at least one violent offense before age 18 years.54 Rather than discovering a large number of violence-prone youths, the researchers found that only about 2% of the juveniles in Columbus had been arrested for a violent offense. Moreover, although youths in the cohort averaged about four arrests during their juvenile years, few youths were involved in repetitive acts of violence.

Two federally funded studies in the 1980s produced findings similar to those reported by Hamparian. In one of these studies, more than 340,000 case records submitted to the National Juvenile Court Archive by courts in 12 states revealed that 6% of the juveniles referred to juve- nile courts in those states for a law violation in 1984 were referred for a violent offense. More- over, the researchers found that nonwhite and male juveniles were more likely to be referred to courts for violent offenses.55 In the second study, staff at the National Center for Juvenile

Unofficial Data Sources 35

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Justice examined the court careers of more than 69,000 juveniles dealt with by the Maricopa County (Phoenix) juvenile court. As in other studies, the researchers found that only 5% of the youths referred to the juvenile court were referred for a violent offense and less than 1% had more than one violent court referral in their career. However, although violent offenders were the least common type of juvenile offender, these juveniles were the most likely to return to court charged with a violent offense, and this finding was true for both males and females.56

Cohort studies have produced valuable information about youth crime and delinquent offenders. In fact, the attention they have focused on chronic and violent offenders has led to a number of policy proposals intended to better control this population, often through incarceration or transfer to adult courts for trial. Although important, such studies suffer from some weaknesses, notably their reliance on official data to measure delinquency. Indeed, research conducted by Dunford Franklyn and Delbert Elliott as part of the National Youth Survey found that a substantial amount of serious delinquency goes undetected by the police. In their study, only about 24% of serious career offenders reported that they had never been arrested, which suggests that reliance on official data leads to an underestimation of the size of the chronic offender population.57 Nevertheless, trends in self-report data provide no support for the contention that serious or violent juvenile crime has substantially increased over time.58

Developmental studies

In recent years, other researchers have built upon and added to our understanding of the chronic and violent offender as well as our understanding of youths’ patterns of offending over time. One such approach that aids our understanding of these phenomena is found in developmental criminology. Developmental criminology is essentially concerned with changes in individual and group patterns in offending over time and understanding factors that influence these patterns. One developmental approach to understanding juvenile crime is being devel- oped by Terrie Moffitt. According to Moffitt, a small group of individuals engages in various types of antisocial behavior (e.g., biting and hitting when they are age 4 years, shoplifting at age 10 years, selling drugs at age 16 years, robbery at age 22 years, and child abuse at age 30 years) throughout their lives. She refers to these individuals as life-course-persistent offenders. Because these antisocial behaviors begin early in the life course, Moffit argues that they are influenced by various neuropsychological factors that affect children’s behavioral development, temperament, cognitive abilities, or all three. In addition, she maintains that these youths are also at greater risk of being exposed to environments that increase the likelihood of antisocial behaviors.59 Thus, from Moffitt’s point of view, life-course-persistent offending is influenced by a variety of neuropsychological and environmental factors that lead to the onset of antisocial behavior and help maintain the behavior over the life course.

Most youths who engage in delinquency, however, are not life-course-persistent offend- ers. According to Moffitt, the great majority of youths who engage in delinquent behavior are adolescence-limited offenders. These individuals’ antisocial behavior is short in duration and is restricted to adolescence. Among this population, delinquent behavior can begin and end abruptly, the types and seriousness of offenses can change over time, and youths’ behavior can vary in different situations. For example, these youths may engage in sporadic delinquent acts with friends, but conform to rules at home and school. According to Moffitt, the delin- quency exhibited by adolescence-limited offenders is a product of social mimicry in which adolescence-limited youths model the behaviors of their life-course-persistent peers. For adolescence-limited youths, delinquent behavior can be seen as a way of exerting autonomy, taking risks, and demonstrating their maturity. As these youths mature and they take on jobs and other social responsibilities, however, their involvement in delinquency declines because antisocial behavior becomes less rewarding.60

developmental criminology

An area of crimi- nology concerned

with changes in individual and group patterns in offending

over time, and understanding the

factors that influence these patterns.

36 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Developmental studies such as those developed by Moffitt and others suggest that certain types of interventions for juvenile offenders are necessary. From the developmental perspec- tive, interventions with some youths should begin early, and they should be developmentally appropriate.

Observational studies

An important observational study done by William Chambliss examined two groups of boys: the Saints, a group of middle-class males, and the Roughnecks, a group of lower-class males.61 The study showed that the “outsider” status of the Roughnecks operated to reinforce a conception of them as boys headed for trouble, whereas the middle-class background of the Saints led authorities to see them as bright youths “sowing their wild oats.” As a result, the Roughnecks were more likely than the Saints to be formally processed by the authorities. Such studies are important because they remind us that societal perceptions play a critical role in determining which youths become clients of the juvenile justice process.

Another important observational study was done by Herman and Julia Schwendinger and was published in their highly regarded book Adolescent Subcultures and Delinquency.62 The Schwendingers’ work is based on more than four years of participant observation of peer groups in both working-class and middle-class communities in southern California (not to mention the many years they spent developing a theoretical understanding of delinquency). Through their research, the Schwendingers were able to elaborate on what they argued was a critical shortcoming of many theories of delinquency—the inability to explain the substantial amount of middle-class delinquency documented by self-report studies as well as the extensive lower-class delinquency more likely to be reflected in official data.

Rather than relying on social class as a starting point for understanding delinquency, the Schwendingers focus on adolescent peer groups (see Box 2-1). According to the Schwending- ers, the particular form of capitalist development that occurred in the United States has pro- duced a large variety of adolescent social types, peer networks, and status groups that compose what is often referred to as “youth culture.” As the Schwendingers note, youth culture actually comprises various subcultures and peer networks that cut across social class lines. These subcultures are reflected in various “social types” that have their own distinct designations, such as “intellectuals,” “hodads,” “greasers,” “homeboys,” “socialites,” “preppies,” “athletes,” and others, which are distinguished by distinctive dress and linguistic patterns that are char- acteristic of these groups. Moreover, they note that some of these adolescent peer networks encourage delinquency among their members and can be categorized as falling into different “stradoms” comprising distinctive social types. The Schwendingers’ research reveals that youths who belong to these stradoms are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors than youths who do not belong, regardless of their social class. For example, they note that “intellectuals” are the least delinquent youths in a peer society, whereas members of “streetcorner” stra- doms are the most delinquent. They also note that as stradoms mature, the types of delinquency committed by their members change.

Participant observation is a very time-consuming form of research, and participant observation studies, like other studies, can have weaknesses. It is possible, for example, that research results gleaned from observing youths in one locality may not be easily generalized to youths living somewhere else or during a different period. However, because participant observers spend a considerable amount of time with their subjects, they are in a position to

observational study A study in which the researcher observes and collects data on subjects in a field setting.

onkey Business Im ages/ShutterStock, Inc.

Unofficial Data Sources 37

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

b O x 2 - 1 inTErviEw: hErMan anD Julia sChwEnDingEr

Q: Both of you have backgrounds in social work. In what ways has this influenced your study of delinquency? a: From the very beginning of our social work careers, we worked with adolescents and delinquent gangs in

high-crime areas. herman’s own childhood and adolescence involved gang activity in a poverty-stricken New York city community, and his earliest assignments as a social group worker included fieldwork with street gangs. In her first social work position, Julia also worked with children and teens in a poor, high-crime community. Our research evolved from questions raised by our social work experience. In fact, herman, for instance, originally attended UcLa as a part-time student to acquire knowledge that he could use as an administrator of a youth program that served delinquents as well as nondelinquents.

Q: What led to your interest in studying crime and delinquency? a: herman’s initial UcLa experience highlighted the lack of fundamental information about delinquent groups,

and his interest in developing such knowledge was strongly encouraged by sympathetic faculty. Julia’s doctoral dissertation on rape went hand in hand with her work in founding the first anti-rape group in the country.

Q: I know that herman has a background in math and quantitative analysis, but he has also spent a lot of time observing youth groups. how important are qualitative methods in understanding youth behaviors?

a: Qualitative work has been crucial for developing some of our most important theoretical ideas. also, our recent work indicates that ethnographic observations combined with quantitative methods (e.g., field experiments and network analysis) can produce much more rapid advances than traditional surveys and interviews for the study of delinquency.

Q: how has this observational work informed our understanding of youth behavior? a: We believe that our work will have considerable impact when a new generation of criminologists abandons

armchair theorizing and gets out in the field. Unfortunately, today too many are stuck with “social control” and “delinquency subculture” theories that emphasize personality abnormalities and ignore the variety of adolescent subcultures in our society. Subcultures composed of jocks, preppies, homeboys, metalbangers, freaks, brains, etc., exhibit different forms and degrees of misconduct. But even the most delinquent subculture cannot be attributed to pathological traits of leaders, early childhood disorders, or the social incapacities of the members at large.

Q: What are some of the problems that you encountered in doing observational research? a: Observational research has problems that are never encountered by researchers who ride around in patrol

cars or spend time devising survey questionnaires. One has to deal with boredom from hanging around at all hours listening to teen gossip and small talk; creating trusting relationships and guaranteeing trust; staving off manipulation and being used by conflicting groups or individuals; trying to deal with ethical questions due to knowledge about crimes that have occurred and that will occur; and developing an aware- ness of and techniques to ensure personal safety.

Q: What else would you like to tell students interested in fieldwork? a: Despite the myriad problems related to participant observation, we had a lot of fun. We formed warm

friendships (and sometimes became “role models”), which have been maintained to this day with some of our “subjects” and their subsequent families.

herman Schwendinger. Psychology, ccNY; MSW, columbia; PhD, Sociology, UcLa. Julia Schwendinger. Sociology, Queens college; MSW, columbia; PhD, criminology, University of california,

Berkeley.

Source: h. Schwendinger (personal communication, June 15, 2004).

38 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

learn things about the subjects’ behaviors and attitudes that cannot be easily learned through other research methods.

victimization studies

Another valuable source of information about juvenile offending is the victimization study, which involves the collection of data from crime victims through victim surveys or interviews. These studies allow researchers to gather a range of information about the experiences of crime victims, such as the level of victimization within the population, relationships between offend- ers and victims, circumstances surrounding the victimization (e.g., where the victimization occurred and the victim’s possible contribution to the victimization), and characteristics of victims and offenders. Victimization studies also can help researchers understand the dark figure of crime. The most important sources of data on youth victimizations are the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), a large-scale national survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice; the U.S. Census Bureau; and the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence.

Although victimization studies are not good sources of data on youths’ offending, some, such as the NCVS, can be used to assess offending rates for certain violent offenses because the data for these offenses contain estimates of the offender’s age. As might be expected, levels of offending based on victimization data are considerably higher than those found in UCR data. In a study of trends in violent offending based on NCVS data, James Lynch found that offend- ing rate estimates calculated from NCVS data were 9 to 15 times greater than those based on the UCR. However, he also found that the general trends in violent offending seen in NCVS data are similar to those revealed in the UCR.63 Like the UCR data, NCVS data indicate that there has been a decline in violent offending among juveniles since the mid-1990s.64

Although victimization data can provide some important insights on levels of violent juvenile offending, they are even more valuable in aiding our understanding of youths’ vic- timization experiences. Overall, NCVS data indicate that violent and property crime victim- ization has been declining since the early 1990s. However, victimization studies indicate that youths have high rates of victimization compared with other groups. For example, between 1993 and 2003, persons age 12 to 17 years were more than 2.5 times more likely than adults to be victims of violent offenses. In addition, some groups of teenagers (i.e., males, older teens, and those living in urban areas) have higher rates of violent crime victimization than others.65 Moreover, the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) indicates that almost 39% of youths reported at least one incidence of direct violent victimization during the preceding year. Among those who reported at least one incidence of direct victimization, almost two-thirds (64.5%) reported more than one type of violent victimization, and more than 1 in 10 (10.9%) reported experiencing five or more instances of exposure to different forms of violence. This research also indicates that exposure to even one instance of violent victimization increases a child’s risk of exposure to other types of violence and that certain youths—boys, older children, those from moderate SES backgrounds, African Americans, and those residing in single-parent, stepparent, and other adult caregiver families—are more likely to suffer multiple forms of violent victimization.66

The NCVS also provides information about teenage victimization, including information on the relationship between offenders and victims and on the location and time of offenses. According to the NCVS, most teens are victimized by people they are at least acquainted with, and a sizable percentage of victimizations involve offenders who are well known to the victim; for instance, between 1993 and 2003 among teens age 12 to 14 years, the victim knew the perpetrator in 61% of reported victimizations, and for youths age 15 to 17 years, the victim knew the offender 47% of the time.67 Moreover, a sizable amount of teenage victimization occurs at school. In 2006, students between age 12 and 18 years reported 1.7 million nonfatal

victimization study A study that focuses on the crime victim- ization experiences of subjects.

Unofficial Data Sources 39

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

victimizations at school.68 However, the peak times for violent victimization of youths is from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on school days, although it tends to be later (between noon and midnight) on nonschool days and during the summer.69

Although victimization studies are a rich source of information about crime, they are limited in their ability to describe the extent of delinquency for several reasons. Many crimes involve no contact between victim and offender; consequently, the age of the offender is unknown. Also, when there is personal contact, the victim may be unable to provide an accu- rate description of the offender or even determine the offender’s age. Some youths simply look older than their actual age, whereas some adults look younger than they are. Despite these limitations, victim data constitute an important source of information on youths’ experiences with crime.

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y teens have high viCtiMizatiOn rates

Myth—Many people feel that the elderly are the most common victims of crime. reality—teenagers are more likely to be crime victims than the elderly. For example, the average annual rate of violent crimes experienced by persons age 12–15 years in 2004 and 2005 was 46.9 per 1,000, compared with only 2.3 per 1,000 for persons age 65 years and older.70

F Y i sChOOl viCtiMizatiOn

Violent deaths at school are rare events. During the 2006–2007 school year, there were 27 homicides of students at school. this represented about one homicide for every 1.6 million students. In contrast, nonfatal victimizations of youths are common in schools. For example, students from age 12 to 18 years were more likely to be the victims of theft at school than away from school. Nevertheless, the percentage of youths reporting victimization at school declined from 10% in 1995 to 4% in 2007.71

■ legal issues

the Use of arrest Data versus Conviction Data

The presumption of innocence is an accepted common law principle in the United States. Any person arrested must be formally charged, arraigned, tried, and convicted beyond a reasonable doubt before he or she can be considered guilty. Therefore, arrest data, such as the informa- tion found in the UCR and other formal and informal data, may not accurately reflect the extent of adult or juvenile crime. Being arrested for an alleged offense does not mean one is guilty. In fact, a person can be arrested even though he or she has not committed an offense. Nevertheless, arrest data are often used as measures of juvenile crime because juvenile courts have varying rules of confidentiality regarding juvenile conviction records, which makes such records difficult to examine in many jurisdictions. Furthermore, police departments generally have fewer confidentiality requirements, a condition that makes arrest data more accessible and contributes to their use as a measure of juvenile crime.

Confidentiality for juveniles

As long as there have been juvenile courts, there has been debate concerning the confidentiality of juvenile court records and proceedings. As with many legal debates, both sides of the issue have good points to make. On the side favoring the confidentiality of juvenile proceedings and

40 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

records is the argument that the fundamental reason for the establishment of juvenile courts was to allow the mistakes and indiscretions of children to be dealt with away from public scrutiny so that the emphasis could be on rehabilitation, not stigmatization.

Advocates on the other side of the issue contend that allowing juvenile courts to operate outside the scrutiny of the public has led to abuses that have harmed more children than con- fidentiality has helped. They also point out that society has a legitimate interest in protecting itself from dangerous individuals, be they juveniles or adults, and no dangerous person should be allowed to use confidentiality to avoid public scrutiny or appropriate consequences. Indeed, this argument has gained more weight as the public has grown increasingly concerned with the perceived rise in serious juvenile crime.

Another unintended consequence of confidentiality and closed courtrooms is that it prevents the public from seeing the difficult cases that the courts handle and the societal problems represented in juvenile court cases. Not only does this lead people to downplay the seriousness and legitimacy of juvenile courts, but it also allows some people to ignore social trends and problems that are apparent to court personnel. Unfortunately, “out of sight, out of mind” seems to apply to much of what happens in the juvenile justice process. For an excel- lent discussion of these public policy conflicts and balance, see People v. Smith, 437 Mich 293, 470 NW2d 70, 78 (1991), in which it is stated, “The purpose of the court rule, and of similar rules or statutes in other jurisdictions, is to prevent a juvenile record from becoming an obstacle to educational, social, or employment opportunities. When, however, a juvenile offender appears in court again as an adult, his juvenile offense record may be considered in imposing sentence. The law contemplates a differentiation in sentencing between first-time offenders and recidivists, juvenile or adult.”72

Legal Issues 41

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter sUMMarY

Taken together, official and unofficial sources of delinquency data provide valuable insights regarding delinquency and responses to delinquency in the United States. These data sources indicate that delinquency is widespread in our society and consists of a wide range of behav- iors, from serious crimes against persons to failure to obey one’s parents. They also indicate that lower-class youths, particularly youths exposed to persistent poverty, are at greater risk of serious delinquency and that delinquency, particularly serious delinquency, is more likely to be committed by males. Yet most delinquency, whether committed by males or females, involves minor offenses and does not come to the attention of the authorities. Furthermore, none of the data sources suggest that juvenile crime has gotten appreciably worse over the last 20 years. Taken together, various data sources indicate that, overall, juvenile crime has remained stable or declined in recent years. Still, there is some indication that rates of violent juvenile crime in the United States may be higher than in many other developed countries, although levels of property crime may be higher in some other developed countries than in the United States.

Data on youths’ victimization indicates that children experience high rates of victim- ization. Moreover, a substantial percentage of youths experience multiple forms of violent victimization each year. Also, among teens, although a good deal of property victimization occurs at school, the period between the end of school and dinnertime is the peak time for violent victimization of this age group.

Clearly, official and unofficial data sources provide a more comprehensive view of juve- nile crime than one gets from the media, which present a distorted view of juvenile crime. However, no single data source provides a comprehensive picture of delinquency. Moreover, each method of measuring delinquency and juvenile justice processing possesses some weak- nesses. Consequently, caution needs to be exercised by those who use each of the data sources in formulating policy responses to the delinquency problem.

Which data source is best, and which method of measuring delinquency or the process- ing of juvenile offenders should one rely on? Perhaps the best answer to this question is to say that it depends on the question to be addressed. For example, if the object is to discover the number of juvenile arrests and the characteristics of those arrested, the UCR arrest data would be most helpful. In contrast, someone interested in understanding the dark figure of delinquency and exploring a variety of factors related to delinquency would find self-report data to be more helpful. Indeed, the various sources of data on juvenile crime are probably best viewed as complementary—each tells something about the phenomena of juvenile crime and the processing of juvenile offenders.

kEy ConCEpTs

arrest rate: The number of arrests adjusted for the size of the population; often reported as arrests per 100,000 youths ages 10–17 years in the population. cohort study: A study in which some specific group (e.g., those born during a certain year in a particular geographic location) is studied over a period of time. dark figure of juvenile crime: The amount of juvenile crime that is not reported. developmental criminology: An area of criminology concerned with changes in individual and group patterns in offending over time, and understanding the factors that influence these patterns. etiology: The study of causation.

42 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

observational study: A study in which the researcher observes and collects data on subjects in a field setting. official data: Information on juvenile delinquency collected by formal juvenile justice agencies, such as police agencies, juvenile courts, and juvenile detention and correctional facilities. panel study: A study that involves the examination of the same select group over time. police discretion: The authority of police to make their own judgments about which crimes or delinquent acts are subject to investigation and which juveniles are subject to arrest. recidivist: A person who continues to commit crimes despite efforts to rehabilitate or deter him or her. self-report study: A study in which subjects are asked to report their involvement in illegal behavior. socioeconomic status (SES): A person’s position in a stratified society based on criteria such as place of residence, family income, educational background, and employment history. status offense: An act that is considered a crime or legal violation when committed by a juvenile but not by an adult (e.g., running away from home, incorrigible behavior, failure to attend school, and failure to obey school rules). Uniform Crime Report (UCR): The most comprehensive compilation of known crimes and arrests. The report is published each year by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the title Crime in the United States. unofficial data: Information collected by researchers not connected with formal juvenile justice agencies (i.e., police agencies, juvenile courts, and correctional institutions). victimization study: A study that focuses on the crime victimization experiences of subjects.

rEviEw QuEsTions

1. What is the distinction between official and unofficial sources of data on delinquency? 2. What types of data are contained in the UCR? 3. How much of a problem is juvenile crime, according to UCR arrest data? 4. Why is it important to consider arrest rate trends when attempting to examine juvenile

crime trends? 5. What does the examination of juvenile arrest rate trends tell us about juvenile crime over

the past 20 years? 6. What problems are associated with using UCR arrest data as an indicator of juvenile crime? 7. What are the primary uses of official data? 8. What should one consider when comparing juvenile crime data from different countries? 9. Does the United States have more or less juvenile crime than other countries?

10. What is the picture of delinquency presented by self-report studies? 11. What are potential problems associated with self-report studies? 12. What are the major findings of cohort studies of delinquency? 13. What insights have developmental criminology provided about juvenile offending and

its treatment?

review Questions 43

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

14. What are the major findings of the observational studies of delinquency conducted by William Chambliss and by Herman and Julia Schwendinger?

15. In what ways are observational studies superior to official data sources for learning about delinquency?

16. What do victimization studies tell us about juvenile crime and youth victimization?

aDDiTional rEaDings

Agnew, R., & Brezina, T. (2012). Juvenile delinquency. Causes and control (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Chambliss, W. J. (1973). The Saints and the Roughnecks. Society, 11, 341–355.

Elliott, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self- reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95–110.

Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lauritsen, J. L. (2003). How families and communities influence youth victimization. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention.

Lynch, J. P. (2002). Trends in juvenile violent offending: An analysis of victim survey data. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.

Schwendinger, H., & Schwendinger, J. S. (1985). Adolescent subcultures and delinquency. New York: Praeger.

noTEs

1. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). Crime in the United States 2010. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010 /persons-arrested.

2. This percentage includes arrests for carrying and possessing weapons. If these offenses are excluded from the calculations, the percentage of arrests for nonviolent offenses increases to 82.5%.

3. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012. 4. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012. 5. Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A., & Kang, W. (2011). Easy access to juvenile populations: 1990–

2010. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/asp/profile_display.asp. 6. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). NIBRS general FAQs. Retrieved from http://www

.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/nibrs_faqs. 7. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). About the uniform crime reporting (UCR) program.

Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the -u.s.-2010/aboutucrmain.

44 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/nibrs_faqs

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/aboutucrmain

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/persons-arrested

8. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1975–2010). Crime in the United States. See years 1975– 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

9. Steffensmeir, D. (1987). Is the crime rate really falling? An “aging” U.S. population and its effect on the nation’s crime rate, 1980–1984. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin- quency, 24, 23–48.

10. Also see Cook, P. J., & Laub, J. H. (1986). The (surprising) stability of youth crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 265–277; Osgood, D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1989). Time trends and age trends in arrests and self-reported illegal behavior. Criminology, 27, 389–417.

11. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

12. See Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). Crime in the United States 2010. Table 43b. Available at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the -u.s.-2010/tables/table-43.

13. Puzzanchera, Sladky, & Kang, 2011. 14. See Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). Crime in the United States 2010. Tables 39

and 40. Available at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in -the-u.s.-2010/persons-arrested.

15. Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1987). Juvenile offenders: Prevalence, offender incidence, and arrest rates by race. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 206–223.

16. Elliott, D. S. (1995). Lies, damn lies, and arrest statistics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Boston.

17. O’Brien, R. M. (1995). Crime and victimization data. In J. F. Sheley (Ed.), Criminology: A contemporary handbook (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

18. O’Brien, 1995. 19. O’Brien, 1995. 20. Snyder & Sickmund, 2006. 21. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). Offenses cleared. Crime in the United States 2010.

Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the -u.s.-2010/clearances.

22. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). Table 28. Number of offenses cleared by arrest or exceptional means. Crime in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about -us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl28.xls.

23. Snyder & Sickmund, 2006. 24. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). Years 1995–2010. Crime in the United States.

Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr#ucr_cius. 25. National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2001). Juvenile crime, juvenile justice.

(J. McCord, C. Widom, & N. Crowell, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 26. Ren, X., & Friday, P. C. (2006). Different legal traditions and patterns of delinquency. In

P. C. Friday & X. Ren (Eds.), Delinquency and juvenile justice systems in the non-Western world. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

27. National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2001. 28. Elrod, P., & Yokoyama, M. (2006). Juvenile justice in Japan. In P. C. Friday & X. Ren (Eds.),

Delinquency and juvenile justice systems in the non-Western world. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Notes 45

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-43

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/persons-arrested

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl28.xls

29. National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2001. 30. Bachman, J. G., Johnston, L. D., & O’Malley, P. M. (2010). Monitoring the future. Ann

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. 31. Bachman, Johnston, & O’Malley, 2010. 32. Eaton, D. K., et al. (2010, June 4). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2009.

MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 59. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss /ss5905.pdf.

33. See Osgood, D. W., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1989). Time trends and age trends in arrests and self-reported delinquent behavior. Criminology, 27, 389–417. See Monitoring the Future, reference volumes available at http://monitoringthefuture.org /pubs.html#refvols.

34. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., Knowles, B., & Canton, R. (1983). The prevalence and inci- dence of delinquent behavior: 1976–1980. National Youth Survey Report 26. Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute.

35. Elliott, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95–110.

36. See Sampson, R. J. (2008). Rethinking crime and immigration. Contexts, 7, 28–33. 37. Elliott, D. S., & Huizinga, D. (1983). Social class and delinquent behavior in a national

youth panel: 1976–1980. Criminology, 21, 149–177. 38. Weis, J. G. (1987). Social class and crime. In M. Gottfredson and T. Hirschi (Eds.), Positive

Criminology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 39. Farnworth, M., Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M., & Lizotte, A. J. (1994). Measurement in the

study of class and delinquency: Integrating theory and research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 32–61; Jarjoura, G. R., Triplett, R. A., & Brinker, G. P. (2002). Growing up poor: Examining the link between persistent childhood poverty and delin- quency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 159–187.

40. Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2004) Girls, delinquency and juvenile justice (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.

41. Cernkovich, S., Giordano, P., & Pugh, M. (1985). Chronic offenders: The missing cases in self-report delinquency research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 705–732.

42. Hindelang, M., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; Thornberry, T., & Krohn, M. (n.d.). The self report method for measuring delinquency and crime. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_4/04b.pdf.

43. Wolfgang, M., Figlio, R., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

44. Tracy, P. E., Wolfgang, M., & Figlio, R. (1985). Delinquency in two birth cohorts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972, p. 246.

45. Tracy, P. E., Wolfgang, M., & Figlio, R. (1990). Delinquency careers in two birth cohorts. New York: Plenum Press.

46. Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972, p. 252. 47. Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972. 48. Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1990. 49. Wolfgang, M. E., Thornberry, T., & Figlio, R. (1987). From boy to man, from delinquency

to crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 50. Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1985; Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1990.

46 chaPter 2 Measuring the extent of Juvenile Delinquency

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5905.pdf

http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs.html#refvols

51. Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1985. 52. Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1990. 53. Shannon, L. (1982). Assessing the relationship of adult criminal careers to juvenile careers:

A summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 54. Hamparian, D. M., Dinitz, S., & Schuster, R. (1978). The violent few. Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books. 55. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1989). The juvenile court’s response

to violent crime. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Update on Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

56. Snyder, H. (1988). Court careers of juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

57. Franklyn, D., & Elliott, D. (1984). Identifying career offenders using self-report data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21, 57–86.

58. Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive frame- work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. This resource provides a review of research on this topic.

59. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.

60. Moffitt, 1993. 61. Chambliss, W. J. (1973). The Saints and the Roughnecks. Society, 11, 341–355. 62. Schwendinger, H., & Schwendinger, J. S. (1985). Adolescent subcultures and delinquency.

New York: Praeger. 63. Lynch, J. P. (2002). Trends in juvenile violent offending: An analysis of victim survey

data. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

64. Lynch, 2002; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006. 65. Baum, K. (2005). Juvenile victimization and offending: 1993–2003. Bureau of Justice

Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 66. Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Hamby, S., & Ormrod, R. (2011, October). Polyvictimization:

Children’s exposure to multiple types of violence, crime, and abuse. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

67. Snyder & Sickmund, 2006. 68. Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., Baum, K., & Snyder, T. D. (2009). Indicators of school crime and safety:

2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. 69. Snyder & Sickmund, 2006. 70. Catalano, S. M. (2006) Criminal victimization, 2005. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 71. Dinkes et al., 2009. 72. People v. Smith, 437 Mich 293, 470 NW2d 70, 78 (1991).

Notes 47

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

9781449667603_FM

Title

9781449667603_CH1

1 The Context of Juvenile Justice: Defining Basic Concepts and Examining Public Perceptions of Juvenile Crime

Introduction
Defining Delinquency
Defining Juveniles: The Legal Perspective
The Juvenile Justice System
Public Perceptions of Delinquency and the Politics of Juvenile Justice
Juvenile Justice as an Institution of Social Control
Chapter Summary
Key Concepts
Review Questions
Additional Readings
Notes

9781449667603_CH2

2 Measuring the Extent of Juvenile Delinquency

Introduction
Official Data Sources
Unofficial Data Sources
Legal Issues
Chapter Summary
Key Concepts
Review Questions
Additional Readings
Notes