12921, 6(51 AMPrintPage 1 of 62httpscontent.ashford.e

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 1 of
62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=
ch01…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-
ceadc733ab34&np=cover
1Juvenile Delinquency:
Background and
Measurement
ncognet0/Getty Images
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish
the following objectives:
Explain the complexity of defining juvenile
delinquency.
Summarize the different types of juvenile
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 2 of

During the summer of 1999, 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick was
staying with a friend of her mother. The friend's
12-year-old son, Lionel Tate, and Tiffany were playing while
Lionel's mother was in another part of the home.
Two hours later, Lionel told his mother that Tiffany had stopped
breathing. Lionel indicated that they were
playing a wrestling game. He admitted that he had had the little
girl in a headlock and her head had hit the
table. Tiffany later died of her injuries. The autopsy indicated
that Tiffany's injuries included a lacerated
spleen, fractured rib cage and skull, and damage to her liver
(Canedy, 2001).
Lionel Tate became the youngest person in U.S. history to be
sentenced to life in prison without the possibility
of parole. Eventually the case was overturned, allowing him to
serve three years in prison; however, he
continued to have trouble with the law and currently resides in
prison on an armed robbery conviction. The
case of Lionel Tate captured national attention not only because
of the nature of the crime but also because of
the young age of the defendant.
Although violent crime among juveniles is cause for serious
concern, other forms of delinquency, such as drug
and alcohol use among teens, can be equally concerning. In fact,
the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) asserts that alcohol and drug use among teens
is a significant public health issue. The CDC
monitors drug and alcohol use among teenagers with a national
school-based survey (visit
http://www.cdc.gov/yrbsshttp://www.cdc.gov/yrbss
(http://www.cdc.gov/yrbss) (http://www.cdc.gov/yrbss) for
more information). According to the survey, in

2017, 29.8% of high school students reported having at least
one drink during the last 30 days before the
survey, 19.8% of students reported using marijuana one or more
times during the 30 days before the survey,
and 6.2% had sniffed glue, breathed the contents of aerosol
spray cans, or inhaled paints or sprays to get high
one or more times during their life (Kann et al., 2018).
delinquency.
Describe how states attempt to define juvenile
delinquency in relation to age.
Evaluate the rates of delinquency and the three
primary techniques for measuring delinquency.
Analyze the benefits of using the three crime
measurements together.
http://www.cdc.gov/yrbss
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 3 of
Defining and measuring deviant
behavior among juveniles is more
difficult than it might seem.

Flirt/SuperStock
1.1 Introduction
Youth involvement in violent crime is often the subject of
intense
media coverage. The Tate case illustrates that children can and
do
commit violent criminal acts. While this case illustrates that
juveniles
are capable of murder, this type of crime is rare compared to
other
types of crimes. If we examine arrest statistics, we see that
although
682 juveniles were arrested for murder in 2016, this number is
lower
than that for any other violent crime category (Federal Bureau
of
Investigation [FBI], 2017). As a point of comparison, more than
147,000 youth were arrested for property crimes in 2016 (FBI,
2017).
This comparison is not to suggest that property crime is
comparable
to violent crime, particularly murder; however, it does illustrate
that
an arrest made for a violent crime is a rare event.
People generally agree that a juvenile's violent acts should be
considered criminal. However, defining and measuring deviant
behavior among juveniles is more difficult than it might seem.
For
example, if a youth drinks alcohol at a weekend party with
friends
and does not get caught, is the behavior criminal? It certainly
could
be argued that underage drinking with friends is wrong,

regardless of
police action. However, if a youth is given a glass of wine at
the
family dinner table, does this behavior also represent juvenile
delinquency? The context in which the behavior occurs might
alter
our perspective.
We may see binge drinking at an unsupervised party differently
than
we see consuming a small amount of alcohol in the context of a
family gathering, even though underage drinking is illegal.
Similarly,
the reasons behind certain behaviors may change our view.
Consider a youth who skips school to escape
chronic bullying or who runs away from home to escape sexual
abuse. Truancy is against the law, but should
the underlying cause for the behavior be considered when
determining whether to involve the criminal justice
system?
As we will see throughout this chapter, juvenile delinquency,
which typically refers to the criminal activities
of a minor child, is a complex phenomenon. The complexity can
be seen in several examples. First, although
the age at which a youth is considered a juvenile delinquent is
18 according to federal law, the age varies at the
state level. Second, the types of offenses committed by
juveniles vary dramatically, and controversy surrounds
how different types of offenses should be handled within the
justice system. Finally, there are various ways to
measure delinquency and each comes to slightly different
conclusions about the extent and impact of crime.
The complexity surrounding juvenile delinquency should not be
interpreted to mean that studying the concept
is unproductive or cannot inform public policy. Instead,

researchers and practitioners must appreciate and
develop theories and policies that account for this complexity.
Let's begin by examining the complications and
controversies that arise when trying to define juvenile
delinquency.
High School Counselor
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 4 of
High school counselors must wear a number of hats. Youth
who are truant or drop out of school are far more likely to be
involved in the juvenile justice system.
1. What are the benefits of having at-risk youth meet with a
high school counselor?
2. What are some other ways counselors could work with
at-risk youth beyond what was mentioned in the video?
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 5 of

1.2 What Qualifies as Juvenile Delinquency?
Defining precisely the types of behavior that should warrant
involvement in the juvenile justice system is
complicated. For example, although murder is clearly a crime
that would invoke court involvement, other
forms of delinquency are less clear. Crimes committed by
juveniles range from minor violations like
vandalism and truancy to more serious crimes like rape and
robbery. Should individuals who engage in less
serious forms of delinquency be subjected to the same arrest
and court processing as those who commit more
serious crime? Understanding this issue requires us to examine
a brief history of the concept of juvenile
delinquency in the United States.
Those born in the 1980s and later have known only a juvenile
justice system oriented toward punishment.
Historically the juvenile justice system was oriented toward
rehabilitation and care of delinquent youth (see
Chapter 2). Rehabilitation or reformation is the foundation
behind parens patria, one of the core concepts of
the system. ParensParens patria patria (Latin for "parent of the
nation") refers to the court's focus on the welfare of the
juvenile. The court's parenting role becomes particularly
important in cases in which a juvenile is a victim of
abuse or neglect.
The juvenile court assumes jurisdiction over behaviors that are
illegal only for juveniles. These types of crimes
are referred to as status offenses and include delinquent acts
such as truancy, running away, and violating
curfew. Status offenses are considered fairly minor forms of
delinquency and in some states may qualify for
particular types of services, such as diversion or educational
classes, rather than incarceration. For example,

some states offer seminars both for youth who engage in chronic
truancy and for their parents. The classes
might discuss the impact of skipping school on the youth's
financial and emotional well-being.
Although the juvenile justice system had long distinguished
between delinquent offenses (more serious), abuse
and neglect cases (serious but nondelinquent), and status
offenses (less serious), it was not until the 1960s that
criminal justice reformers questioned how the system should
handle each. At the time, the concern was less
about whether the system should be more punitive in its
handling of delinquent cases than it was about
whether the system could be having a negative impact on status
offenders and abuse and neglect cases. The
controversy surrounding status offenses became particularly
important as research suggested that the system's
response could influence a youth's chance of becoming involved
in more serious delinquency in the future
(Raley, 1995). In other words, could the juvenile justice system
be doing more harm than good?
The treatment of status offenders was addressed as a primary
issue in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974. One of the four core protections of this
act is the Deinstitutionalization of Status
Offenders, which recommends that all juveniles classified as
status offenders not be held for any period of
time in a detention facility (Holden & Kapler, 1995). The
recommendation regarding the treatment of status
offenders was based on several concerns. First, although status
offenses are less serious forms of delinquency,
they could result in severe sanctions, such as
institutionalization. Second, studies find that status offenders,
particularly girls who run away from home, may be doing so to
escape an abusive home life. These girls are

often detained and treated as criminals rather than victims of
abuse. Finally, studies also find that placing these
youth under the control of the system actually increases their
risk for future criminal behavior (Chesney-Lind
& Pasko, 2004; Holman & Ziedenberg, 2007; Sherman, 2005).
To reduce these potential negative impacts, some observers
argue that the system should develop labels,
guidelines, and even separate criminal codes for status
offenders and juveniles who offend as a result of abuse
or neglect. In terms of labels, the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP) have long argued that
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 6 of
Underage drinking is a delinquent-
type status offense.
Fuse/Thinkstock
status offenders should be labeled as unruly children to reduce
the
use of the "offender" label (Krisberg & Austin, 1978). More
recently,
the IACP and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation
began a partnership to create innovative policies for handling
youth.
As a result of this collaboration, jurisdictions across the country

have
been able to reduce referrals to the juvenile court for status
offenses
(Bahney, Daugirda, Firman, Kurash, & Phudy, 2014). Some
states
classify a juvenile who commit status offenses as a person in
need of
supervision (PINS), a youth in need of supervision (YINS), a
juvenile in need of supervision (JINS), or a child in need of
supervision (CINS). Still other states limit the types of charges
that
can be classified as a status offense. For example, North
Carolina
developed five categories of status offenders (Governor's Crime
Commission, 2012):
Undisciplined-type status offender: a juvenile who has
committed an undisciplined-type status offense (e.g.,
truancy, has run away, has been disobedient)
Delinquent-type status offender: a juvenile who has
committed a curfew, alcohol, tobacco, or motor vehicle
offense that is not a crime for adults (e.g., buying tobacco
under age 18, consuming alcohol under age 21)
Nonoffender: a juvenile who is under juvenile court
jurisdiction for reasons of delinquency, neglect, or abuse
Civil-type offender: a juvenile who is under delinquency
court jurisdiction for an infraction that is civil in nature (e.g.,
noncriminal traffic or fish and game violations)
Alien juvenile: a noncitizen juvenile under age 18 who is not
charged with any offense
A concern regarding status offenders that is not addressed by
these types of labels and guidelines, however, is
how to deal with chronic status offenders or those who commit
multiple status offenses (see Chapter 4).

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 7 of
1.3 Who Is a Juvenile Delinquent?
One of the challenges of understanding the juvenile justice
system is that the system itself is, in fact, not
systematic. This is particularly true when it comes to defining
who qualifies as a juvenile. The U.S. juvenile
justice system is comprised of 51 different entities—one for the
federal system and one for each state—and
who qualifies as a juvenile differs from state to state. A juvenile
delinquent is a minor who commits a criminal
act. But at what age is someone considered a minor?
The federal government considers a minor to be under the age
of 18. Should everyone in the country who is
under the age of 18 be considered a minor? Conversely, is there
an age at which someone is too young to form
criminal intent and should therefore be exempt from criminal
prosecution? Age ambiguity, or uncertainty
regarding the age of entry into the juvenile justice system, can
be seen by how juvenile delinquent status is
defined differently in different states. In Texas, the definition
of a juvenile delinquent is a child between the
ages of 10 and 17. However, in Massachusetts, the age is
between 7 and 16 years (Hockenberry &
Puzzanchera, 2018).
If we look state by state, we see considerable variation in both

the upper and lower age limits for who is
considered a juvenile. The upper age limit in each state is
referred to as the age of jurisdiction, or the age that
dictates whether the juvenile court or the adult court system has
authority over a case. Most states consider a
juvenile to be any person under the age of 18 (see Table 1.1).
Support for raising the age of jurisdiction has increased over the
past several years as research questioning the
effectiveness of transferring youth to adult court has increased.
In 2013, both Illinois and Massachusetts raised
the age of jurisdiction from 16 to 17, with New Hampshire
following suit in 2015. In 2017, New York voters
passed legislation to raise the age of jurisdiction from 15 to 18
(starting in fiscal year 2018), and North
Carolina raised the age of jurisdiction for nonviolent crimes to
age 18 (effective December 1, 2019).
Table 1.1: Upper age of jurisdiction in delinquency matters by
state/jurisdiction
Age State/jurisdiction
16 Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina,
Texas, Wisconsin
17 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina*, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,

Wyoming
*Effective December 2019
From "Figure: Delinquency upper age, 2016," in Statistical
briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 2017,
Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b
b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e
= 2 0 1 6 & t e x t = n o & m a p l i n k = l i n k 2h t t p s : / / w
w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s
/ q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 & t e x t = n o & m a
p l i n k = l i n k 2
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t
u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 &
t e x t = n o & m a p l i n k = l i n k 2 )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j
j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4
1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 & t e x t = n o & m a p l i n k
= l i n k 2 )
Some states also set a minimum age of jurisdiction for youth to
be involved with the juvenile justice system
(see Table 1.2). North Carolina allows the lowest minimum age
of jurisdiction, meaning that youth as young as
6 years old are subject to the juvenile court system. The
minimum age of jurisdiction is 7 years in Connecticut,
Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York. It is 8 years in
Arizona and 10 years in 11 other states. If a youth
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04102.asp?
qaDate=2016&text=no&maplink=link2
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 8 of

below these ages commits a delinquent act, it would likely be
handled informally by the police department and
family. Youth under the age of jurisdiction are considered too
young to understand that their behavior is
criminal.
Table 1.2: Minimum age of jurisdiction in delinquency matters,
by state
Age State
6 North Carolina
7 Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York
8 Arizona
10 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas,
Vermont, Wisconsin
From "Figure: Delinquency lower age, 2016," in Statistical
briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 2017,
Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b
b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e
= 2 0 1 6h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t
r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0
1 6
u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 )(
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u

re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 )
Not surprisingly, the maximum age of jurisdiction varies by
state as well. The maximum age of jurisdiction
refers to the oldest age at which a juvenile can be retained in
the juvenile system. The majority of states
consider the age of 20 as the maximum age of jurisdiction (see
Table 1.3). So, for example, if a youth is
convicted at age 14 for a crime in Ohio and is sentenced to
serve time in a juvenile institution, he can be kept
under supervision by the juvenile justice system until he is 20
years old. A few states will allow youth as old
as 24 to remain in the juvenile justice system, and some will
allow youth to remain as long as their sentence
dictates.
Table 1.3: Maximum age of jurisdiction in delinquency matters,
by state/jurisdiction
Age State/jurisdiction
18 Oklahoma, Texas
19 Alaska, Connecticut, Mississippi, North Dakota
20 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada*, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wyoming
21 Vermont

22 Kansas
24 California, Montana, Oregon, Wisconsin
— Colorado**, Hawaii**, New Jersey**
Note: Extended jurisdiction may be restricted to certain
offenses or juveniles.
*Until the full sentence has been served for sex offenders
**Until the full sentence has been served
qaDate=2016
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 9 of
From "Figure: Jurisdictional boundaries," in Statistical briefing
book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
2017, Retrieved
from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u
c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 6 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1
6h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u
re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 6 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6
u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 6 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 )(
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u
re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 6 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 )
qaDate=2016

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 10 of
1.4 How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?
National crime statistics offer a fairly complicated portrait of
juvenile offending and victimization. The
statistics can sometimes be confusing and contradictory. Let's
consider the following facts:
Over 850,000 juveniles were arrested in 2016. This number
represents a 58% decrease since 2007
(FBI, 2016).
Prevalence of marijuana use and inhalants increased
significantly in 2017, although still below peak
levels (Johnston, Miech, O'Malley, Bachman, Schulenberg, &
Patrick, 2018).
Studies show that the rate of violent victimization among
juveniles between the ages of 12 and 17
declined to an all-time low in 2015 (U.S. Department of Justice,
2017).
In recent years, the percentage of arrests has grown for girls
more than for boys, although boys
represent 92% of all juvenile arrests (Puzzanchera & Ehrmann,
2018).
Up to 60% of U.S. children are exposed to violence, crime, or
abuse in their homes, schools, and
communities (Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, Hamby, & Kracke,
2009).

After reading these statistics, you may not feel you have any
better understanding of juvenile crime than you
did before. If so, you are not alone. Crime statistics can be a
puzzling array of percentages, rates, and trends.
These statistics, and the headlines that accompany them, can
lead to confusion regarding how much
delinquency occurs each year. This confusion regarding crime
was illustrated in a mid-1990s study of college
students. Researchers asked participants to indicate the number
of murders that occurred in the United States
in the previous year. Nearly half of the students indicated that
the number was as high as 250,000. In reality,
the number of homicides typically hovers around less than
20,000 annually, with 1,700 of those involving
juveniles (VanDiver & Giacopassi, 1997). Clearly these
students were misinformed, but studies suggest that
overall the public often overestimates the amount of crime that
occurs each year (Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004).
One reason for this overestimation is that our views and
attitudes are influenced by our personal experiences
and by the information we take in about the world around us.
This phenomenon is referred to as the
availability heuristic, which is the tendency to believe in the
probability of an event based on how easily an
example can be recalled (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).
Regarding violent crime, information may come from
a person's experience (e.g., knowing someone who was robbed
by a delinquent youth), but more often it comes
from the news media's excessive coverage of violent crime
(Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004).
There are several other reasons why understanding crime
statistics can be difficult. First, crime statistics can be
very contextual. For example, arrest statistics can be influenced
by numerous factors, one of which is

organizational practices within police departments. When a
police department decides to crack down on a
particular type of crime, such as drug use, the arrests for drug-
related crimes may increase even though the
crimes themselves have not increased. Second, although we
often examine crime statistics from an annual
perspective (e.g., the percentage of crime in 2018), crime tends
to fluctuate naturally between years.
Sometimes the fluctuation turns into a trend (e.g., the crime rate
has decreased significantly between 2010 and
2018); other times the fluctuation represents an anomaly or an
unusual year. Finally, we use multiple
techniques to measure delinquency, and each technique has its
own strengths and weaknesses. In particular, the
juvenile justice field relies on three primary sources for
collecting crime data: arrests, self-report surveys, and
victimization surveys. Let's take a look at these three sources
and their strengths and weaknesses.
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 11 of
Arrest Results and Trends
When the news media discuss the increase or decrease in the
crime rate, they are most often referring to
changes in the number of arrests or the arrest rate. The arrest
statistics for both juveniles and adults is most
commonly derived from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR),
whose data are published annually by the FBI.

The UCR program began in the late 1920s and collects
information from police departments across the
country. In the 1940s, law enforcement agencies from nearly
400 cities provided information on arrests in their
jurisdictions. By the 1960s, every state provided crime statistics
for the UCR. Today, crime statistics included
in the UCR are collected by approximately 17,000 different
city, county, tribal, and state police agencies
across the country. Even crime that occurs on university and
college campuses can be part of these crime
statistics (FBI, 2004). The statistics account for crimes known
to police and arrests made by law enforcement
agencies.
The UCR collects arrest data on what are known as Part I and
Part II offenses. The Part I offenses, also known
as index crimes, include homicide, rape, arson, motor vehicle
theft, larceny, robbery, and burglary. They are
singled out because of their seriousness, frequency, and
likelihood of being reported. The Part II offenses
include a broader range of offenses, such as simple assault,
forgery, and embezzlement. The annual report
published by the FBI focuses on Part I offenses. Both types of
offenses are listed in Table 1.4. Several crime
categories have been added to the UCR since the 1960s. For
example, police agencies began reporting officers
killed in the line of duty in 1960, arson was categorized as a
Part I offense in 1982, and hate crimes were
added in 1990 (FBI, 2004).
Table 1.4: Part I and II offenses
Part I offenses Part II offenses
Murder and nonnegligent homicide
Rape

Robbery
Aggravated assault
Burglary
Larceny/theft
Motor vehicle theft
Arson
Other assaults
Fraud
Embezzlement
Stolen property
Weapons
Prostitution
Sex offenses (except rape)
Drug abuse violations
Runaways
Gambling
Forgery and counterfeiting
Offenses against family and children
Driving under the influence
Liquor laws
Drunkenness
Disorderly conduct
Vagrancy
Suspicion
Curfew & loitering
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 12 of
62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sec tions=

All other offenses (except trafficking)
The data collected for the UCR program include three different
categories:
Crimes known to police: Data include crimes reported by
victims or witnesses, or those discovered by
police. These crimes may or may not be referred to the court
system for formal charges.
Crimes cleared by arrest: Data include the number of offenses
cleared by an arrest. Cleared refers to
whether the crime was considered "solved" by the police.
Crimes cleared by an arrest do not
necessarily indicate the number of people arrested. For
example, the arrest of one person may "clear"
a number of crimes committed by that one person. Regardless of
the number of people involved, an
arrest must have occurred and the case referred to court.
Number of persons arrested for Part I and Part II offenses: Data
include the number of persons
arrested for Part I and Part II offenses in any given year. The
statistics are collected by age, race,
gender, and location.
The data collected result in three annual publications and two
semiannual publications. The three annual
publications are Crime in the United States, Hate Crime
Statistics, and Law Enforcement Officers Killed and
Assaulted. The two semiannual publications provide statistics
every six months and report changes since the
last reporting period. All of these can be accessed from the
FBI's website at www.fbi.gov (http://www.fbi.gov) .
What the UCR Reveals About Crime
By examining the data included in the UCR, we can get a sense
of who is committing what types of crime. For

example, the FBI classifies a juvenile as anyone under the age
of 18, regardless of how juvenile is defined by
each state. In addition, the UCR does not report circumstances
in which youth are brought into custody for
their own protection, such as in abuse and neglect cases.
Further, comparing the amount of crime committed
by juveniles relative to adults, we find that juveniles contribute
significantly to the overall crime rate.
Specifically, Figure 1.1 shows that, in 2016, just under 14% of
property crimes and 10% of violent crimes
were committed by juveniles (FBI, 2017).
Figure 1.1: Percentage of crime committed by those under 18,
2016
Of the total crime committed in the United States in 2016,
juveniles committed almost 14% of
all property crimes and 10% of all violent crimes.
http://www.fbi.gov/
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 13 of
From "Table 20: Arrests by age, 2016," in Crime in the United
States, by Federal Bureau of Investigation
Uniform Crime Report, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / u c r.
f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n
-h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s / 2 0
1 6 / c r i m e - i n -
t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e -

2 0t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l
e - 2 0 ( h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u
. s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n - t h e - ( h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g
o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n - t h e -
u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e - 2 0 )u
. s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e - 2 0 )
Table 1.5 breaks down the arrests of juveniles in 2016 by
charge and age, indicating that more than 680,000
juveniles were arrested during that year. Of those juveniles,
slightly over 41,000 were arrested for violent
offenses (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery,
and aggravated assault), and more than
147,000 were arrested for property offenses (burglary,
larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson). A few
other pieces of data are notable: just over 31,000 youth were
arrested for vandalism, over 78,000 for drug
abuse violations, and just over 27,000 for curfew and loitering
violations. We also see some patterns regarding
age, suggesting that older youth are arrested more frequently
than younger youth. For example, the crimes
committed by youth under age 15 make up only 28%, or less
than a third, of all juvenile arrests in 2016.
Table 1.5: Arrests by charge and age, 2016
Offense
charged
Total
under
18
Under
10 10–12 13–14 15 16 17

TOTAL 681,701 4,902 42,347 143,326 127,828 164,010
199,288
Violent crime 41,335 198 2,543 8,565 7,860 10,175 11,994
Murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter
682 0 5 55 93 198 331
Rape 2,952 30 331 829 514 561 687
Robbery 15,339 20 368 2,510 3,123 4,367 4,951
Aggravated assault 22,362 148 1,839 5,171 4,130 5,049 6,025
Property crime 147,350 783 8,512 31,661 29,385 36,501 40,508
Burglary 25,513 193 1,596 5,857 5,243 6,117 6,507
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-
2016/topic-pages/tables/table-20
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 14 of
Larceny/theft 107,287 476 6,207 22,638 20,954 26,589 30,423
Motor vehicle theft 12,520 15 295 2,514 2,837 3,519 3,340

Arson 2,030 99 414 652 351 276 238
Vandalism 31,181 534 3,253 8,737 5,663 6,457 6,537
Weapons: carrying, possessing,
etc.
15,452 203 1,377 3,220 2,734 3,551 4,367
Drug abuse violations 78,330 91 1,737 10,239 12,096 20,639
33,528
Liquor laws 29,073 9 267 2,782 4,404 8,044 13,567
Drunkenness 3,805 14 35 406 521 907 1,922
Disorderly conduct 52,315 498 4,964 14,487 10,521 11,221
10,624
Suspicion 74 0 6 18 14 19 17
Curfew and loitering law
violations
27,152 135 1,615 6,046 6,186 7,288 5,882
Adapted from Crime in the United States, by Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o
v / c r i m e - i n - t h e -h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m
e - i n - t h e -
u . s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c -
p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e - 2 0u . s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n
- t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e
- 2 0 ( h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u .
s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - ( h
t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s / 2 0 1

6 / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c -
p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e - 2 0 )p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l
e - 2 0 )
What do these numbers tell us about juvenile crime? To begin,
they tell us that violent crimes, while important
to study, do not represent the majority of crimes committed by
juveniles each year. Rather, drug abuse
violations and property violations make up the bulk of juvenile
crime. Similarly, the overall crime rate among
those aged 18 and under has dropped significantly. This type of
data could be used to counteract public fears
that youth have become more violent over the past decade
(Gramlich, 2018; NPR, 2016). Similarly, although
status offenses such as curfew and loitering violations involved
a fair number of juveniles (just over 27,000) in
2016, they have decreased over time (see Figure 1.6). Could this
decrease reflect policies implemented since
the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders protection was
recommended in the mid-1970s to address the
justice system's reach into the lives of juveniles?
Understanding crime statistics also requires an appreciation of
how crime rates vary across time. Examining
rates across time allows us to see whether any potential patterns
or trends are emerging, which can, for
instance, inform legislation or departmental policy. For
example, the rate of delinquency peaked in the mid-
1990s and since then has declined significantly (see Figure 1.2).
In particular, it began to decline in 1995,
became fairly stable from 2005 to 2008, and then declined
significantly until 2016. In fact, juvenile crime rates
are the lowest they have been since the get-tough movement of
the 1980s, when the system began
implementing policies that led to an increase in arrests. When
we examine trends by crime type, we see similar

trends. For example, violent crime rates declined steeply from
1995 to 2000, before leveling off and then
declining again steeply until 2012 (see Figure 1.3). Compare
this trajectory to that of property crime, which
declined more gradually from 1995 to 2016 (see Figure 1.4).
Figure 1.2: Delinquency rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17,
1980–
2016
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-
2016/topic-pages/tables/table-20
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 15 of
Delinquency rates peaked in 1995 at around 8,200 juveniles,
declined steadily after that, and
eventually leveled off at around 5,900 in 2005 before dropping
dramatically to around 2,500 in
2016.
From "Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race," by
National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017,
Retrieved from h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b
/ c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l sh t t p : / / w w w. o
j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1
6 . x l s
( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e
x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o
v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )

Figure 1.3: Violent crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17,
1980–
2012*
Violent crime rates peaked in 1995 at just under 500 juveniles,
declined steadily after that, and
eventually leveled off below 300 in 2005 before dropping again
to around 180 in 2012.
*Data after 2012 is not available.
6 . x l s
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 16 of
Figure 1.4: Property crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–
17,
1980–2016

Property crime rates consistently declined from 1995 to 2016.
6 . x l s
Declines are also seen with drug abuse violations and status
offenses. Drug violations rose dramatically,
peaking in the mid-1990s. They have declined slowly since then
(see Figure 1.5).
When we examine three types of status offenses—liquor law,
runaway, and curfew violations—we see similar
trends (see Figure 1.6). Examining trends in this way tells us
that the decline in juvenile crime has been a
consistent trend over a period of years that varies only slightly
by offense type. This type of information could
inform, say, statewide approaches to allocating law enforcement
resources. For example, if the arrest rates for
arson were increasing steadily over time while rates for all
other offenses were decreasing, a state might
devote a greater percentage of its resources to exploring why
more juveniles were committing arson each year.
Figure 1.5: Drug violation crime rates per 100,000 persons ages
10–
17, 1980–2016
Drug violations saw a rapid increase from just under 300 in

1990 to nearly 700 in 1995. Since
then, violation rates have declined slowly to around 295 in the
year 2016.
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 17 of
6 . x l s
Figure 1.6: Status offense rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17,
1980–2016*
Liquor law violations peaked in 1990 at just under 600, while
both runaway and curfew and
loitering offenses peaked in 1995 at around 800 and 500,
respectively. All three rates declined
throughout the 2000s, with both liquor and curfew and loitering
violations at nearly 100 by
2016. Runaway offenses peaked in 1995 and then fell rapidly
until 2000, after which they
leveled off until 2009.

*Data after 2012 is not available.
6 . x l s
Finally, if we examine differences by gender, Figures 1.7 and
1.8 indicate that boys commit substantially more
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 18 of
offenses than girls. Despite this difference, crime rates for both
genders followed about the same trajectory
over time, peaking in the 1990s and then leveling off.
Figure 1.7: Crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17 by
gender,
1980–2016
Between 1980 and 2008, boys committed substantially more

offenses than girls did. However,
although the rates of crime committed by both boys and girls
peaked in the 1990s, the rate of
crimes committed by boys has dropped at a more substantial
rate since then.
6 . x l s
Figure 1.8: Crime rates for violent offenses only by gender,
1980–
2012*
From 1980 to 2012, boys committed violent offenses
significantly more often than girls.
However, the decline in the rate of crimes committed by girls
was much less substantial after a
peak in the 1990s.
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 19 of

*Data after 2012 are not available.
6 . x l s
Although the UCR is a useful tool for determining trends, it has
both strengths and weaknesses as a measure of
crime.
Strengths of the UCR
The UCR is a popular and widely used measure of crime.
Arguably, it is more useful for examining trends
among adults than juveniles; however, the data available on
youth are also important. The UCR has several
strengths:
The longevity of the program is notable. The UCR program has
been in existence longer than any
other program of its kind. The amount of data collected through
this program over such a long period
of time allows us to examine crime trends from a more
historical perspective that provides us with a
bigger picture view of crime and crime trends.
The data collection is national in scope. The UCR coverage area
includes 17,000 police departments
from every state in the nation. So not only are we able to
examine rates and trends, but we also are
able to examine how crime may vary by area.
The source of the data included in the UCR appears to be a

valid measure of serious crime (Gove,
Hughes, & Geerken, 1985). The UCR collects data on crimes
that are serious enough to warrant a call
to the police, such as murder, motor vehicle theft, robbery, or
burglary. So, for example, if we want to
examine crimes known to the police, we know that the UCR
includes data on crimes for which a
victim or loved one would be more likely to contact law
enforcement for help.
Weaknesses of the UCR
At the same time, the UCR is criticized on a number of grounds:
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 20 of
A key criticism is that the UCR collects data only on reported
crimes, and not all crimes are reported
to the police. Reasons for not reporting vary but often include
reluctance on the part of the victim to
report to police because the crime may not seem serious enough,
because of feelings that the police
may not help them, or because they think the incident is a
private matter (Gove et al., 1985). The
UCR program also employs a reporting requirement referred to
as the hierarchy rule. According to
this rule, even when a person has committed multiple crimes,
police report only the most serious
crimes that person has committed. The FBI provides guidelines

on which offenses are the most
serious, but the exclusion of any crimes means that the UCR
does not capture all crime committed.
The crime measure reflected in the UCR may be biased by law
enforcement practices. For example,
not everyone reports that a crime has occurred. In addition,
arrests may be more likely in areas
targeted for enforcement. If enforcement occurs in lower-
income areas more frequently than in others,
low-income residents may be disproportionately represented in
the UCR statistics.
The UCR does not tap into why a person may have committed a
crime or why a crime may have
occurred. Although police agencies collect basic information on
the person arrested (e.g., age, race,
gender), they do not collect other incident-level data (e.g.,
relationship between victim and offender,
alcohol or drug use). Understanding the person's motivation for
the crime is difficult to discern
without additional information (Farrington, 1994; Gove et al.,
1985).
Supplementing the UCR
In the late 1970s, law enforcement agencies suggested
supplementing the UCR program with additional data
and crime categories for several reasons. First, the law
enforcement community's proficiency in collecting data
had increased. Second, the UCR does not provide the details
necessary to fully understand trends in crime.
Finally, the hierarchy rule is concerning to those who believe
the UCR does not provide an accurate picture of
the amount of crime occurring in the United States each year
(Maxfield, 1999).
In response to law enforcement's suggestions, a new incident-
based data collection system, the National

Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), was approved in
1988. This data collection system is meant to
collect data on every incident and arrest throughout the United
States. Although participating states began
collecting data for NIBRS in the late 1980s, implementation of
the program nationwide has been fairly slow.
Currently, approximately 6,000 law enforcement agencies,
representing only about 25% of the U.S.
population, provide data to the FBI on an annual basis. Given
this low response rate, the FBI continues to rely
on UCR statistics when publishing its annual report on crime in
the United States.
The accompanying Spotlight feature lists the offense categories
included in the NIBRS.
Spotlight: The National Incident-Based Reporting System
The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
supplements the UCR system by providing
incident-level data on crimes reported to the police. The NIBRS
greatly expands the types of crimes
reported by law enforcement officials to the FBI. It asks police
agencies to collect information on
incidents involving victims younger than 12 as well as
victimizations that occur with individuals,
households, and businesses.
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 21 of

The NIBRS categorizes crimes into Group A offenses and Group
B offenses. Police departments are
instructed to collect detailed information on the 22 Group A
categories. Only arrest data are collected
on the 11 Group B offenses.
Group A Offense Categories
Arson homicide offenses
Assault offenses
Bribery
Burglary/breaking and entering
Counterfeiting/forgery
Destruction/ vandalism of property
Drug/narcotic offenses
Embezzlement
Extortion/blackmail
Fraud offenses
Gambling offenses
Kidnapping/abduction
Larceny/theft offenses
Motor vehicle theft
Obscene material
Prostitution offenses
Robbery
Sex offenses, forcible
Sex offenses, nonforcible
Stolen property
Weapon law violations
Group B Offense Categories
Bad checks
Curfew/loitering/vagrancy violations
Disorderly conduct

Driving under the influence
Drunkenness
Family offenses, nonviolent
Liquor law violations
Peeping Tom offenses
Runaways
Trespass of real property
All other offenses
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 22 of
President George W. Bush takes part in a
Charles Dharapak/Associated Press
Self-Report Surveys
A self-report survey is a data-gathering tool that asks
participants to report on their own thoughts, behaviors,
and experiences. Since the 1950s, self-report surveys have been
used in crime reporting and research to
address two particular weakness of the UCR. First, the
information collected as part of the UCR program is
not sufficient to explain why a crime may have occurred.
Criminological theories (see Chapter 3) are designed
to explain the motivation for crime or the factors that may
influence a person's decision to commit a crime. By
using UCR data, a researcher can identify that a certain number
of arrests occurred among males, or in the
summer months, or in a particular geographic region. However,

the same researcher cannot say why a man in
Texas may have committed a crime in July. Second, the UCR
measures only crimes reported to or discovered
by the police. Some researchers argue that the UCR captures
only 10% of the crime that occurs each year,
whereas others put the figure at a more conservative estimate of
50% (Biederman & Lynch, 1991; Klaus,
2004). Regardless of the extent, it is an agreed-upon fact that
police are not aware of every crime committed.
The number of unreported crimes or crimes undiscovered by
police is referred to as the dark figure of crime.
Self-report surveys about crime are able to address these
weaknesses of the UCR by asking participants a
range of questions about their behavior. For example, a self-
report survey about delinquent behavior might ask
participants whether they have engaged in delinquency and to
provide details regarding the offenses. Self-
report surveys can be fairly wide-ranging. For example, a
survey can be administered almost anywhere (e.g.,
schools, prisons, community gatherings) and in many ways
(e.g., face-to-face, by mail or phone) and cover a
variety of topics (e.g., involvement with cheating, exposure to
violence, or attitudes toward punishment).
Self-report surveys became popular for a couple of reasons.
First, survey results indicated that some of the
assumptions about who commits crime were incorrect. For
example, the UCR indicates that disadvantaged
neighborhoods have higher arrest rates. Self-report studies
showed that people from a wide variety of
socioeconomic backgrounds commit crime (Short & Nye, 1958).
Second, researchers began to use self-report
surveys to examine why people commit crime. For example, we
know that various factors can influence
criminal behavior. Self-report surveys allow us to disentangle

which factors are particularly important. Risk
factors such as family relationships, school environments, and
the influence of peers were discovered primarily
through the use of self-report surveys. The results of these types
of studies led to a dramatic increase in new
ideas and theories to explain juvenile delinquency (Thornberry
& Krohn, 2000).
Although self-report surveys can give a broader picture of
delinquency, survey information is often collected among
fairly limited groups of people. For example, often the
people completing a survey live in a particular area (e.g.,
a survey of youth in Denver, Colorado) or are members of
a particular demographic (e.g., high school students in a
rural area). To address this issue, Delbert Elliott and
colleagues (Elliott & Huizinga, 1983) developed the
National Youth Survey (NYS) in the mid-1970s to
measure juvenile delinquency. The first NYS was a
longitudinal household study of 1,700 adolescents. The
crime categories measured included all but homicide from
the UCR Part I offenses and 60% of the Part II offenses.
In addition, the survey questions tapped social issues and
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 23 of
meeting on the Monitoring the Future Study on
Teen Drug Use, Tuesday, December 11, 2007, in
the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in
Washington.

attitudes. The results of the NYS produced results similar
to those of local and regional surveys. In particular, the
results confirmed that youth from various socioeconomic
backgrounds were committing crimes. The results also
confirmed that many of the crimes reported by the youth
were not coming to the attention of the police (Elliott &
Huizinga, 1983).
Another frequently used survey of crime and youth is called the
Monitoring the Future survey (Johnston et
al., 2018). The Monitoring the Future survey is a national
survey on drug and alcohol use that began in the
1970s and has since been conducted annually. Each year
approximately 50,000 students in the 8th, 10th, and
12th grades are asked about their exposure to, attitudes about,
and access to drugs and alcohol. The
accompanying Spotlight feature provides more details about this
survey.
Spotlight: Monitoring the Future Survey
The Monitoring the Future survey was developed in 1975 and is
facilitated by the University of
Michigan's Institute for Social Research. It is a nationally
representative survey of adolescents that asks
participants about their involvement with and opinions about
drugs and alcohol. Initially conducted
only with high school seniors, the survey sample was extended
to 10th graders and 8th graders
beginning in 1991. An additional survey is sent to those
participating in the 12th-grade sample for
longitudinal follow-up. On average, 50,000 students from across
the country participate in the survey
each year.

The questions asked in the Monitoring the Future survey fall
into four general categories:
Drug and Alcohol Use
"How many occasions (if any) have you used [x substance] in
your lifetime?"
the last 12 months?"
the last 30 days?"
Alcohol Use
For alcohol use, the questions regarding drug and alcohol use
are used as well as a similar set of
questions asking participants how often they have been drunk in
their lifetime, in the last 12 months,
and in the last 30 days. In addition, participants are asked,
"How many times in the last week have you
had five or more drinks?"
Perceptions of Risk
Based on a five-point scale (no risk, slight risk, moderate risk,
great risk, and "can't say, drug
unfamiliar"), participants are asked to rate the degree to which
consuming alcohol and various drugs is
risky: "How much do you think people risk harming themselves
(physically or in other ways), if they . .
.?"
Disapproval of Use
Participants are asked to rate their level of disapproval with
using drugs and alcohol: "Do YOU

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 24 of
disapprove of people doing each of the following?"
Perceptions of Availability
Based on a five-point scale (probably impossible, very difficult,
fairly difficult, fairly easy, and very
easy), participants are asked how easily they could obtain
various drugs and alcohol: "How difficult do
you think it would be for you to get each of the following types
of drugs, if you wanted some?" For 8th
and 10th graders, the option "can't say, drug unfamiliar" is
added to the questionnaire.
We see some interesting trends when we use the Monitoring the
Future survey to examine reported drug use
among U.S. adolescents. Recall that the UCR told us that
juvenile drug offenses in the United States peaked in
the mid-1990s and then leveled off, albeit less dramatically than
other types of offenses. Figure 1.9 uses
Monitoring the Future data to illustrate that in 2016 alcohol was
the substance used most among students in
the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades, with higher rates of use among
older youth. When it comes to drug use, the
figure shows us that youth were more likely to use marijuana
than other illicit drugs. However, nearly 20% of
high school seniors indicated that they had used an illicit drug

other than marijuana in their lifetime.
Figure 1.9: Lifetime use of drugs and alcohol among juveniles,
2016
From "Table 5: Trends in lifetime prevalence of use of various
drugs in grades 8, 10, and 12," in Monitoring
the Future national survey results on drug use: 1975–2017:
Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use, by
L. D. Johnston, R. A. Miech, P. M. O'Malley, J. G. Bachman, J.
E. Schulenberg, and M. E. Patrick, 2018,
Retrieved from h t t p : / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg
/ p u b s / m o n o g r a p h s / m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d
fh t t p : / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o
n o g r a p h s / m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d f
( h t t p : / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o
n o g r a p h s / m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d f ) ( h t t p : /
/ m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r a p
h s / m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d f ) . L i c e n s e dL i c e
n s e d u n d e r u n d e r C C - B Y C C - B Y 4 . 0 4 . 0
( h t t p s : / / c re a t i v e c o m m o n s . o rg / l i c e n s e s / b
y / 4 . 0 / ) ( h t t p s : / / c re a t i v e c o m m o n s . o rg / l i c
e n s e s / b y / 4 . 0 / ) .
http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-
overview2017.pdf
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 25 of

As we do with the UCR data, we should also use the Monitoring
the Future data to examine the trends over
time to see whether the 2016 statistics are part of a trend or are
an anomaly. Figure 1.10 indicates that drug and
alcohol use among adolescents overall has been declining over
time, with the greatest decline in the use of
alcohol. The data tell us that the decline is a long-term trend.
Figure 1.10: Lifetime use of drugs among juveniles, 1991–2017
From "Table 1: Trends in lifetime prevalence of use of various
drugs for grades 8, 10, and 12 combined," in
Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use:
1975–2017: Overview, key findings on adolescent
drug use, by L. D. Johnston, R. A. Miech, P. M. O'Malley, J. G.
Bachman, J. E. Schulenberg, and M. E.
Patrick, 2018, Retrieved from h t t p : / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e
f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r a p h s / m t f -h t t p : / /
m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r a p
h s / m t f -
o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d fo v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d f ( h t t p
: / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r
a p h s / m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d f ) ( h t t p : / / m o
n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r a p h s /
m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d f ) . L i c e n s e dL i c e n s
e d
u n d e ru n d e r C C - B Y C C - B Y 4 . 0 4 . 0 ( h t t p s : / / c
re a t i v e c o m m o n s . o rg / l i c e n s e s / b y / 4 . 0 / ) (
h t t p s : / / c re a t i v e c o m m o n s . o rg / l i c e n s e s / b
y / 4 . 0 / ) .
Information like that shown in Figures 1.9 and 1.10 can be
useful in several ways, such as helping to assess the
effect of law enforcement that targets drug use or reconsidering
ways to restrict sales of alcohol to minors.

Strengths of Self-Report Surveys
Much like the UCR, self-report surveys have their strengths and
weaknesses. The self-report method is very
useful for criminological theory development. A self-report
survey can include virtually any type of question
about a variety of subjects. The survey can ask participants
various questions about family, neighborhoods,
peers, teachers, and thoughts about the crime. Through this
method, the researcher can ask participants why
they chose to (or not to) engage in the behavior. For example, if
surveying youth about binge drinking, the
survey can not only ask them whether they engaged in binge
drinking in the last 30 days, but it may also ask
the participant who they drank with (e.g., peers), in what
environment (e.g., home, school, community), and at
what time of day (e.g., evenings, weekends). The results can
lead to a better understanding of the individual
and environmental factors that come into play when someone
engages in delinquency.
In addition, self-report survey results allow us to expose and
understand the dark figure of crime. Crimes that
are underreported to the police are equally important to
understanding delinquency. Several areas of inquiry
http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-
overview2017.pdf
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 26 of

become important in this regard. In particular, it begs the
question whether law enforcement agencies are
likely to target certain areas more than others. Not that targeted
enforcement is an automatic indication of
discrimination but that targeted enforcement has consequences.
Those consequences include the lack of
enforcement in other areas. Researchers find that the UCR is a
valid measure of serious crime, but if less
serious crime, say recreational drug use, is not as likely to
result in a call to the police, then crime rates as
measured by the UCR do little to help us understand the extent
of drug use among teens. Examining only drug
possession arrests clearly misses a tremendous number of
people who use drugs but are not detected by the
police. Recognizing this issue allows us to understand the limits
of the UCR and better contextualize the
results. Self-report surveys provide insight into delinquent
behavior that the UCR cannot.
Although early self-report surveys were criticized for being too
limited in scale (e.g., just a few questions were
asked) and population (e.g., high school students), current
surveys continue to improve and are considered a
reliable and valid measure for a range of offense types
(Thornberry & Krohn, 2000).
Weaknesses of Self-Report Surveys
Although improvements in the self-report method continue,
several weaknesses remain. For example, although
a few national surveys are available (e.g., Monitoring the
Future), the measures are not comparable to the
UCR in terms of its scope. For example, with UCR data we can
make comparisons between cities, states, and
regions. Even the national self-report surveys are unable to
provide these types of data. Although national

surveys do exist, the measures are not comparable to the UCR
and do not consistently provide comparisons by
year and across populations. For example, some of the most
popular self-report surveys are with high school
students. However, surveying high school students misses
important target populations: those who drop out of
school or who are chronically truant and may not be in school at
the time the survey is administered.
The self-report method can be influenced by the participants
themselves. For example, recall is an important
issue for self-report surveys. People may have difficulty
recalling certain events, particularly when exploring
the factors that may have motivated someone to commit a crime.
Another area of concern is deception.
Juveniles may over- or underreport certain offenses for various
reasons. For example, some juveniles may
exaggerate their involvement in drugs and alcohol in order to be
seen desirably by their peers. Others may not
report delinquency out of embarrassment or fear of being
caught.
Victimization Data
The third most common way to measure crime is through
victimization surveys, which supplement what is
known about crime from the UCR and self-report surveys by
asking victims to report whether they have been
victimized. The most commonly utilized data source on victims
is the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS). The NCVS is collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and
provides a national portrait of victimization
experienced each year.
As seen in the accompanying Spotlight feature, the NCVS
mirrors many of the crime categories of the UCR. If

individuals indicate that they (or someone in the household)
experienced victimization, they are asked to
report details of the crime. The victimization data include
situational characteristics, such as month, time, and
location; victim characteristics, such as age, race, and
relationship with the offender; and impact of the
victimization, such as loss of money and property. The survey
also asks victims whether they reported the
victimization to the police and whether they felt targeted due to
personal factors such as religion, race, or
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 27 of
sexual orientation.
Spotlight: National Crime Victimization Survey
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) began in
1973 under the name National Crime
Survey. The survey was redesigned and changed names to its
current moniker in the early 1990s. The
NCVS samples households twice a year. Only those who are 12
and older can participate as
respondents. Each household is interviewed on seven separate
occasions. In 2016, the sample covered
135,000 households and approximately 225,000 people.
The NCVS measures both crimes that happen to individuals
(personal and property) and crimes that

occur to other members living at the residence (household). The
survey includes all the Part I UCR
offenses except for murder and arson.
Victimization Categories
Rape and sexual assault
Robbery
Aggravated and simple assault
Purse snatching and pickpocketing
Burglary
Theft
Motor vehicle theft
Identity theft
Vandalism
Respondents are asked to report details about victimization.
Questions include the following:
Whether the respondent was the victim of a crime
How many times in the last six months the respondent was the
victim of a crime
The month, time, and location of the victimization
Whether the respondent knew the person(s) who victimized him
or her
Whether the incident was reported to police
The extent of damage or whether there was a loss of money,
property, or other items
Whether the respondent felt targeted due to his or her race,
religion, ethnic background,
disability, gender, or sexual orientation
Whether the respondent felt targeted in the ways mentioned
above due to the people with
whom he or she associated
These questions help us understand criminal acts from the

victim's perspective, which helps us to better
understand the nature and consequence of crime.
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 28 of
There are differences between the types of data collected
through this survey and the data collected through
the UCR. Two important differences include the age cutoff (the
youngest age captured in the NCVS is 12) and
the types of crimes recorded. By asking victims to report
experiences with crime, we are able to understand
details about the commission of the crime, the relationships
between victims and offenders, and even the
impact of the crimes.
Like self-reports, victimization data should also tap into the
dark figure of crime and allow us to examine
instances of delinquency that may not have come to attention of
the police. Even further, if the victim did not
report the incident to the police, it allows us to examine why
the victim may have chosen not to do so.
The NCVS can be administered to anyone 12 years or older who
resides in the household. If we examine these
results we see that the pattern is similar to the UCR. For
example, Figure 1.11 shows that the rate of reported
victimization is also declining. The Bureau of Justice Statistics
published a report in 2005 that pulled out only
youth ages 12–17 to illustrate additional details about juvenile

victimization. For example, in terms of the
victim and offender relationship, Figure 1.12 illustrates that
52% knew their victimizer, followed by 37% who
indicated that the offender was a stranger. Finally, when
examining the location of the victimization, 43% of
victimizations occurring during this time happened at school
(see Figure 1.13).
Figure 1.11: Rate of violent victimizations among juveniles per
1,000,
1980–2015
From "Victimizations per 1,000 juveniles ages 12–17," in
OJJDP statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / v i c t i m s
/ q a 0 2 5 0 1 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 5h t t p s : / / w w w . o
j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / v i c t i m s / q a 0 2 5 0 1 . a s p ?
q a D a t e = 2 0 1 5
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / v i c t i m
s / q a 0 2 5 0 1 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 5 )( h t t p s : / / w w
w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / v i c t i m s / q a 0 2 5 0 1 . a
s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 5 )
Figure 1.12: Relationship between victim and offender
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/victims/qa02501.asp?qaDate=20
15
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 29 of

Adapted from Juvenile victimization and offending, 1993–2003,
by K. Baum, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau
of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 1.13: Most common locations of violent crime incidents
Adapted from Juvenile victimization and offending, 1993–2003,
by K. Baum, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau
of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
We can see from these results that victimization surveys help us
understand the crime puzzle even further. By
examining victimization in terms of characteristics,
relationships, and location we can understand the
circumstances in which victimization is likely to occur.
Understanding the circumstances and issues of child
victims is very important, as is the relationship between
victimization and delinquency. For example, statistics
show that abused or maltreated children are at significant risk
for later delinquency. Maltreatment can include
physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Studies estimate that
nearly half of children who become delinquents
report childhood abuse or neglect (Teague, Mazerolle, Legosz,
& Sanderson, 2008).
The NCVS is not the only victimization survey in existence.
Like self-report surveys, researchers can use
victimization surveys with a variety of populations. For
example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys
incarcerated youth each year to examine their experiences with
victimization in institutional settings. As with
self-report surveys, researchers can tailor questions to tap into a
variety of circumstances. Because the

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 30 of
victimization surveys are methodologically similar to self-
report surveys, they share many of the same
strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths of Victimization Surveys
The first strength is the level of detail victimization surveys
provide. The NCVS includes detailed information
about victims that allows for more informed policy creation
regarding how best to prevent crime and similar
victimization in the future. Similarly, details of the incident
such as location, time of day, and the victim-
offender relationship help inform the general public on how to
protect themselves against victimization.
Unlike self-report surveys, the NCVS measures serious crimes
on an annual basis and closely parallels the
UCR. In 1992, it was revamped to improve reporting of such
things as non-stranger crimes and rape. Finally,
the NCVS employs a national sample and annual statistics for
year-by-year comparisons.
Weaknesses of Victimization Surveys
However, like self-report surveys, there are some weaknesses
with this approach. People may forget the exact
details of their victimization, which could lead to misleading or
erroneous reporting. In addition, people may
answer in socially desirable ways to either exaggerate or not tell
the truth (Gove et al., 1985). Bias can also be
an issue with victimization surveys. The NCVS can be quite

extensive and take up a significant amount of
time to fill out completely. Consequently, there is concern that
people will underreport victimization during the
later phases of the survey to avoid the lengthy questionnaire
(Sykes & Cullen, 1992).
Another weakness with this type of survey is the population
sampled. The NCVS is a national sample of
households; however, it is not feasible to break down the data
by state or city because the sample is not drawn
to represent each city or state, although region comparisons are
feasible in some circumstances.
The most important weakness for understanding juvenile
delinquency is the age cutoff for the NCVS. The
NCVS asks only about victimization experiences among those
12 and older. The survey may be
underrepresenting juveniles if they are not the respondent or do
not wish to talk about victimization due to
embarrassment. The juvenile may be fearful of discussing
victimization in the home if the perpetrator of the
abuse (e.g., caregiver or sibling) is present in the home.
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 31 of
1.5 Measuring Crime: Putting It All Into Perspective
Given that all three measures of crime have both strengths and
weakness, the question becomes which do we

use and when? The short answer is all three. If we wish to
examine serious crime such as homicide, the UCR
is likely our best measure. If we wish to examine drug and
alcohol use among teens, we are better off using
self-report surveys. Finally, if we wish to examine the victim-
offender relationship more clearly, we are better
off using victimization surveys. In other words, each measure
can help us understand a different facet of
crime. However, there remain benefits and disadvantages of
comparing the three measures when trying to
understand delinquency.
The benefits of using all three measures include the following:
The UCR and the NCVS cover many of the same types of crime.
Studies have also found that the two
measures are comparable with regard to burglary and robbery
(Gove et al., 1985; Lauritsen &
Schaum, 1998). As such, these two measures tend to validate
each other, which makes them useful in
examining crime trends.
Both the NCVS and self-report surveys find that the UCR is
underestimating the amount of crime
occurring each year (Kirk, 2006; Wells & Rankin, 1995). This
revelation is important for
understanding the relationship between socioeconomic status
and delinquency. As such, the findings
should remind us to be cautious of the latest headlines regarding
arrest rates.
Victimization and self-report data help identify risk factors for
delinquency such as peers, family, and
school performance. The more we know of victims of crime and
how victims experience crime, the
more we can do to help prevent crime in the first place and also
help those who have suffered a
traumatic experience.

Combining the measures provides additional details on the
characteristics of offenders and victims—
in particular, why victims may not report crime and how
situational factors influence victimization.
However, there are also reasons to be cautious when combining
the three measures of crime:
The UCR and NCVS may not be directly comparable because
they use different samples and work
with different time spans.
The UCR and NCVS report rates in different metrics—the UCR
is a rate per 100,000 persons, and the
NCVS is a rate per 1,000 persons.
Self-report surveys often focus on minor crimes, making direct
comparisons to the UCR or NCVS
difficult.
Overall, what do these measures tell us about juvenile
delinquency? First, all three agree that the juvenile
crime (and victimization) rate has declined significantly over
the past decade. Second, all three measures show
differences by gender, race, region, and crime type, although all
show similar rates of decline. Finally, the
three measures have been able to identify certain risk factors
that are known to be strong and consistent
predictors of crime.
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 32 of

Summary of Learning Objectives
Explain the complexity of defining juvenile delinquency.
Juvenile delinquency is a complex phenomenon. Defining who
is a juvenile and what behaviors
represent juvenile delinquency can vary by state.
National statistics can provide us with an understanding of the
rates of delinquency over time.
Summarize the different types of juvenile delinquency.
Juvenile delinquency refers to unlawful acts of a minor child.
The juvenile court assumes jurisdiction over behaviors that are
illegal only for juveniles. These types
of crimes are referred to as status offenses and include
delinquent acts such as truancy, running away,
and violating curfew.
Describe how states attempt to define juvenile delinquency in
relation to age.
The upper age of jurisdiction refers to the age that dictates
whether a youth's case is handled by the
juvenile court or the adult court system. The majority of the
states consider anyone 17 years or
younger as under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court system.
The minimum age of jurisdiction refers to the youngest age at
which a youth can be sent to the
juvenile court system. The majority of states consider 10 years
of age as the youngest, although North
Carolina sets the age at 6 years old.
Evaluate the rates of delinquency and the three primary
techniques for measuring delinquency.

National crime statistics offer a fairly complicated portrait of
juvenile offending and victimization.
The statistics can sometimes be confusing and contradictory and
must be analyzed closely with an
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of how we
measure delinquency.
The three measures of juvenile crime include arrest data, self-
report surveys, and victimization
surveys.
The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) is the primary source of
arrest data. The UCR is collected
annually by police departments all across the United States and
provides a solid measure of serious
crime among juveniles.
Self-report surveys have been popular for several decades and
allow researchers to examine crime
from various angles. Self-report surveys have evolved over time
and are a meaningful way to collect
crime data, particularly minor offenses not collected by the
UCR.
The National Crime Victimization Survey is the primary source
of victimization data. Similar to the
UCR, the NCVS is published annually and provides a national
portrait of victimization.
The results of the three measures show that crime and
victimization have declined significantly during
the past decade.
Analyze the benefits of using the three crime measurements
together.
All three measures of crime have strengths and weaknesses.
Combining the three measures gives us a
deeper understanding of crime.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 33 of
62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.54 39.18.1?sections=
The three measures of crime show congruence when analyzing
trends over time.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Do you think the federal government should mandate that all
states agree upon the age at which
someone is considered a minor? Discuss the problems with this
approach.
2. Do you believe status offenses should be illegal? Do you
think they should be handled by the juvenile
justice system or an alternative system?
3. If you were interested in studying rape, which measure of
crime would you use?
4. Why do you think boys are overrepresented in the system?
Key Terms
Click on each key term to see the definition.
age ambiguity
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sect
ions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo
ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/s
ections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/
sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b

ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.
1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18
.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove
r#)
Uncertainty surrounding the age of entry into the juvenile
justice system.
age of jurisdiction
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sect
ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.
r#)
The age that dictates whether the juvenile court or the adult
court system has authority over a case.
availability heuristic

r#)
The phenomenon that our view and attitudes are influenced by
the world and information around us. The
tendency to believe in the probability of an event based on how
easily an example can be recalled.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/co
ver/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.543
9.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b
1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sect
ions/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johns
on.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.54
39.18.1/sections/cover#
ver/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.543
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnso n.5439.18.1/sect
1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sec tions/cover/books/

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 34 of
dark figure of crime
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sect
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18. 1/
r#)
Refers to crimes not brought to the attention of the police.
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders

r#)
The statute that protects status offenders and recommends that
all juveniles classified as status offenders not be
held for any period of time in a detention facility.
juvenile delinquency
r#)
Unlawful activities of a minor child.
Monitoring the Future survey
ections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18. 1/sections/cover/bo
r#)
A national youth crime survey on alcohol and drug use.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
ver/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.543

Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnso n.5439.18.1/sect
1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sec tions/cover/books/
ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.
1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint
Page 35 of
r#)

The most common victimization survey; collected yearly by the
U.S. Census Bureau.
National Youth Survey (NYS)
r#)
A self-report survey that measures juvenile delinquency using
all the crime categories from the UCR Part I
with the exception of homicide offenses and 60% of the Part II
offenses; the survey questions also dig into
social issues and attitudes.
parensparens patria patria
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sect
r#)

(Latin for "parent of the nation") Refers to the court's parenting
role that focuses on the welfare of the juvenile.
self-report surveys
r#)
Data-gathering tools that ask participants about their criminal
behavior.
status offenses
r#)
Behaviors that are illegal for juveniles but would be legal for
adults.
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)

12921, 6(51 AMPrintPage 1 of 62httpscontent.ashford.e

12921, 6(51 AMPrintPage 1 of 62httpscontent.ashford.e

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from ChantellPantoja184

More from ChantellPantoja184 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

12921, 6(51 AMPrintPage 1 of 62httpscontent.ashford.e