The Extent of Delinquency in the United States

Author(s): Negley K. Teeters and David Matza

Source: The Journal of Negro Education , Summer, 1959, Vol. 28, No. 3, Juvenile
Delinquency Among Negroes in the United States (Summer, 1959), pp. 200-213
Published by: Journal of Negro Education

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2293101

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Negro
Education

This content downloaded from

14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHAPTER II
THE EXTENT OF DELINQUENCY IN THE UNITED STATES
NEGLEY K. TEETERS AND DAVID MATZA
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Temple University
During this year when preparations
are being made for the Sixth White
House Conference on Children and
Youth, it is not out of place, in as-
saying the extent of delinquency, to
quote from the third conference held
in 1930: "There exists no accurate
statement as to the amount of delin-
quency in this country, nor whether
it is increasing or decreasing." And
again: "There is no accurate concep-
tion as to what actually constitutes de-
linquency."' These same words might
well be stated at the White House Con-
ference in 1960.
The term "juvenile delinquency"
does not appear in the literature until
1823 when a New York philanthropic
society changed its name from the
Society for the Prevention of Pauper-
ism to the Society for the Reformation
of Juvenile Delinquents. But there
can be little doubt that there have al-
ways been juvenile delinquents. But
as to "how many" we cannot know.
They were referred to through the
years as "wayward,' "depraved," "un-
fortunate," "wild," "headstrong,"
"willful," or "handicapped." The first
special institutions for delinquents in
this country were the early Houses
of Refuge established in New York
in 1824, in Boston, in 1826, and in
Philadelphia in 1828. The first in-
'The Delinquent Child, New York: Cen-
tury, 1932, p. 23.
200
This content downloaded from
14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
stitution in the world for the treatment;
of delinquent youth was the Hospice
of San Michael in Rome in 1704.
It has always been difficult-even
impossible-to compute the extent of
delinquency. It has always been pop-
ular for each generation to believe its
children were the worst, the most law--
less, and the most unruly. Sir Walter
Scott, writing in 1812, deplored the-
insecurity of Edinburgh where groups
of boys between 12 and 20 scoured the
streets at night and knocked down and,
robbed all who came in their way. In
an article in the Atlantic Monthly for-
December, 1926 and bearing the in-
triguing title "The Habit of Going to
the Devil," Archer Butler Hulbert
presents an array of diatribes against
youth, as culled from the press during
the early part of the nineteenth cen--
tury. He found that in 1827 "a glance
at our country and its moral conditions.
fills the mind with alarming apprehen-
sion; the moral desolation and flood
tides of wickedness threaten to sweep
away not only the blessings of religion,
but the boasted freedom of our repub-
lican institutions as well." In 1828 he
found: "No virtuous public sentiment:
frowns down upon the criminal to
shame him into secrecy" and a year
later, "And what of our youth? The
lamentable extent of dishonesty, fraud,
and other wickedness among our boys,.
and girls shocks the nation." He found.
 THE EXTENT OF DELINQUENCY 201

that in 1831, "Half the number of per-
sons actually convicted of crime are
youths who have not yet reached the
age of discretion (how familiar that
sounds in 1959)." He further finds
that in 1830 "The army of youthful
criminals from the slums are aug-
mented by children abandoned by the
shiftless of the working classes, by
families wrecked by living beyond their
means, and by wayward unfortunates
from reputable families. Large num-
bers of these youngsters belong to or-
ganized gangs of thieves and cut-
throats . . . Of 256 convicts in the
Massachusetts State Prison, forty-five
were thieves at 16 and 127, had at
that age, become habitual drinkers."
A century later, in 1930, we find
the oft-quoted statement of the
ersham Commission of the prison pop-
ulation of that year-54.8 per cent
had been less than 21 years of age
when convicted. In 1938 Harrison &
Grant, in their startling study of young
offenders in New York City, stated
that of those persons arrested for less-
er offenses, minors were responsible
for only 4.5 per cent of the total,
whereas of the more serious crimes,
the arrest rates of those under 21 were
many times higher.3
Almost twenty years ago we found
the following sober analysis of youth-
ful delinquency and crime to substan-
tiate the findings of Harrison & Grant;
it could well have been written in 1959:
Youthful offenders are an es-
pecially serious factor in the crime
problem. Young people between 15
and 21 constitute only 13 per cent
of the population above 15, but
their share in the total amount of
serious crime committed far ex-
ceeds their proportionate represen-
tation. They are responsible for
approximately 26 per cent of the
robberies and thefts; they consti-
tute some 40 per cent of our ap-
prehended burglars and nearly half
of our automobile thieves. Boys
from 17 to 21 are arrested for ma-
jor crimes in greater numbers than
persons of any other four year
Wick-
group. They come into court, not
for petty offenses but for serious
crimes, twice as often as adults of
35 and 39; three times as often as
those of 45 and 49; five times as.
often as men of 50 to 59. Nineteen
year olds offend more frequently
than persons of any other age, with
18 year olds next. Moreover, the
proportion of youths less than 21
in the whole number arrested, has
increased 15 per cent during the
past three years; 108,857 not yet:
old enough to vote were arrested
and fingerprinted last year.'

It was the startling data presented
in this work that galvanized into mo-
tion the American Law Institute to
draw up the Youth Correction Author-
ity Model Act of 1940 which subse-
quently was adopted in modified form
in California and a few other states.
Such was the situation as reported in
1940.
Before analyzing the extent of de-
linquency, let us set down some data
from the Uniform Crime Reports for
1957. Taking the serious categories of

4Digested in the Prison Journal, April-

2The Atlantic Monthly, 138: 804-6, De- July, 1940, pp. 57-8, from a pamphlet The,
cember, 1926. American Law Institute. See also, Thorsten
'Leonard V. Harrison & Pryor M. Grant, Sellin, "The Criminality of Youth," Phila--
Youth In the Toils. New York: Macmillan, delphia: The American Law Institute, Oc-
1939, pp. 44-45. tober, 1940.

This content downloaded from

14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
202 THE JOURNAL OF NEGRO EDUCATION

crime we find that arrests for all burglaries reported, only 31.3 per cent
crimes reported (by the police in 1,473
were cleared by arrest; and that of each
cities of over 2,500 representing a pop-
ten burglaries reported no one knows
ulation of 40,176,369 based on the who committed seven of them; and of
1950 census) 19.3 per cent were of per-
the vast number arrested, the majority
szons under 21 years of age. Of the ar-were youth. He continues:
rests for the serious categories, 14.5 per
Their youthful recklessness and
cent of all for homicides were of those
inexperience in crime make it rela-
under 2 1; 44.7 per cent of the r-ob- tively easy to apprehend them. The
beries; 16.9 per cent for all aggravated professional criminal is more dif-
assaults; 44.1 per cent for the rapes; ficult to detect and apprehend. And
it is reasonable to assume that he is
68.0 per cent of all the burglaries; 62.4
responsible for a large percentage
per cent of all larcenies; and 80.6 per
of our unsolved crimes. At any
cent of all auto thefts. rate, the Attorney General's flat
statement that over half of the
At first glance and without interpre-
burglaries were attributable to
tation this is indeed an alarming pic- youth was little more than an
ture. But like all statistics, they do opinion-an opinion that may be
need considerable interpretation. We far from the truth.
quote in this connection, the former Further along in his article Mr.
F.B.I. affiliate and presently operating Peterson adds this startling remark:
Director of the Chicago Crime Commis-
"During the five year period from
sion, Mr. Virgil Peterson: 19447 through 1951 over a million bur-
A few years ago the Attorney glaries were reported to the police in
General of the United States - . . about 2,200 cities . . . No one knows
informed the people: "I have been who committed over 800,000 of them."
asked to bring you the facts and
But the bulk of those arrested were
the figures, the tragic evidence of
youth under 21 years of age. The
juvenile crime . . . Here are some
- . . . of the figures chargeable to same can be stated of practically all
some of our youth . . . 51 per cent categories. The monetary value of
of all burglaries, over half of them; articles stolen by youth is generally
36 per cent of all robberies . . ." Na-
quite small. Lumped into these "bur-
turally; these figures given by the
highest law enforcement official of glaries" are thefts of hub caps or tire
the land were widely quoted in the gauges from filling stations, or other
press, over the radio, from speakers' obj ects of trifling value. It is im-
platforms, and by crime prevention portant to note that the Federal Bu-
groups. Actually, the figures were reau of Investigation's definitions of
based only on the available finger-
robbery and burglary include "at-
print cards of persons arrested and
charged with burglary and robbery tempts" as well as the actual com-
-a small sample from a huge army mission of these acts. The arrest rate
of burglars and robbers.' also includes many instances of mis-

Mr. Peterson points out that of all
5Atlantic Monthly, "Crime Does Pay."
pp. 38-42, Fe 1953.
taken identity at the scene of the
crime.
In order to present a picture of

This content downloaded from

14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EXTENT OF DELINQUENCY 203

national delinquency trendsTABLE betweenI

1940 and 1957 it is necessary to use JUVENILE DELINQUENCY CASES

a number of different sources of in- (AGES 10-17) 1940-1952

JUVENILE COURT STATISTICS*
formation.6 The reason for this is
that prior to 1952 it is not possible to Year Per Cent Child Population
convert Uniform Crime Report data (1940 as 100) of United States
into rates since there is no base popu- Per Cent

lation reported. Therefore, we shall (1940 as 100)

infer the trends between 1940 and 1952 1940 100 100
from the Juvenile Court Statistics.,
1941 112 99
While this may be questioned, there
1942 125 98
seems to be good reason to believe
1943 172 97
there is considerable similarity between
the direction or changes indicated by 1944 165 96

both collecting systems. As I. Rich- 1945 172 95

ard Perlman of the Children's Bureau, 1946 148 94

states: 1947 131 93

We find that despite the fact that 1948 128 93

neither of these series (Juvenile 1949 135 92
Court Cases and Police Arrest data
1950 141 91
from the Uniform Crime Reports
between 1938 and 1947) represents 1951 149 93
a completely accurate measurement 1952 165 95
of juvenile delinquency and despite
the differences in the unit of count, *Herbert A. Block and Frank T. Flynn,
the extent of coverage and geo- Delinquency, The Juvenile Offender in Ameri-
ca Today. New York: Random House, 1956,
graphical representation, neverthe- p. 27.

less there is remarkable similarity TABLE II

between the direction of changes in-
INCREASE IN DELINQUENCY RATES
dicated by the two lines. Both in-
BETWEEN 1952 AND 1956*
creased shhrply from 1942 to 1943,
both decreased between 1943 and
Year Per Cent
1944, both increased again in 1945
(1952 as 100)
to the ten year peak and both
showed sharp decreases in 1946 and 1952 100.0
1947.?
1953 107.7
If Perlman is right we are able to
1954 111.6
increase greatly the length of time
1955 121.3
subsumed by our descriptive series.
1956 147.9
Table I below shows the increase in
juvenile delinquency rates between *Rates computed from Uniform Crime Re-
port data using estimated number of children
1940 and 1952 as indicated by the Ju- (0-18) in reporting areas as base population.
venile Court Statistics. Table II
shows the increase in juvenile delin-

Figures for 1958 will not be availablequency rates between 1952 and 1956
until autumn, 1959. as supplied by the Uniform Crime Re-
7"The Meaning of Juvenile Delinquency ports.
Statistics," Federal Probation, pp. 63-67.

This content downloaded from

14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TABLE III*

DELINQUENCY RATES PER 100,000: USING THE UNIFORM CRIME

ESTIMATES OF REPRESENTED POPULATION AS THE BASE POPU
1952-1957

Offense 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1

Criminal Homicide ...................... . .37 .36 .3

a) Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter .22 .24
b) Manslaughter by Negligence . ..15 .12 .1
Robbery .................................. . 5.45 5.68 5.91 6
Aggravated Assault . . .2.75 3.43 3.37 4.1
Other Assault . . .6.91 9.63 10.48 12.02 1
Burglary (B&E) . . .46.56 48.77 50.61 56.02
Larceny-Theft . . .62.95 73.46 83.09 92.72 1
Auto-Theft . . .27.05 29.36 30.22 34.99 4
Embezzlement and Fraud . . . .83 1.16 .78
Stolen Property: buying, receiving, etc 1.41 1.83 2.1
Forgery and Counterfeiting . . . 1.04 1.27 1.18
Rape . ................ . ....... 1.27 1.75 1.51 1.9
Prostitution and Commercialized Vice .63 .63
Other Sex Offenses . . ................. 5.22 6.16 7.56
Narcotic Drug Laws .......... ........... .41 .63 .4
Weapons: carrying, possessing, etc ... 3.07 4.15 4.6
Offenses Against Family and Children 2.95 3.30
Liquor Laws ..4.62 7.71 9.45 10.06 13
Driving while Intoxicated . .92 1.04 .93 1.2
Disorderly Conduct . . .43.26 42.93 42.67 47.5
Drunkenness . . .11.71 12.33 12.00 13.33 1
Vagrancy . . .7.25 8.32 6.99 6.56 8.9
Gambling . . .1.12 1.22 .92 .96 1.
Suspicion . . . 24.41 31.08 23.60 27.78 3
All Other Offenses . . ......... 106.78 105.91 120.26 131.

Total ................................ 368.95 402.10 423.54 468.

*These rates have been computed from data appearing In the Uniform Crime Reports, 1952-1957.

This content downloaded from

14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EXTENT OF DELINQUENCY 205

We may infer from Tables I and II
the following tendencies: A gradual
increase between 1940 and 1942, a
marked increase in delinquency begin-
ning in 1943 and lasting through 1945
with a slight dip in 1944, a gradual
decrease beginning in 1946 and con-
tinuing through 1948, a gradual in-
crease from 1949 to 1951, a more
marked increase between 1951 and
1952, a continuing gradual increase
from 1952 to 1954, and finally another
marked increase beginning in 1955
and lasting at least until 1957. Ex-
cept for the period 1946 to 1948 and
except for a slight dip in a high pla-
teau in 1944, the picture revealed by
official national statistics is one of con-
tinuous increase, sometimes gradual,
sometimes rather rapid.
For the years between 1952 and
1957, we have computed delinquency
rates by specific offense categories in
order to obtain a more concise under-
standing of trends during this period.
In Table III we present the delin-
quency rates per 100,000 persons using

TABLE IV

DELINQUENCY RATES PER 100,000: USING THE ESTIMATED POPULATION O

IN THE POPULATION REPRESENTED IN THE UNIFORM CRIME REPORT

% of
Offense 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 56-52

Criminal Homicide .......... 1.11 1.08 1.01 1.10 1.48 133

a) Murder and Nonnegligent
Manslaughter .No........ .66 .71 .58 .64 .97 147
b) Manslaughter by
Negligence.......... .45 .37 .43 .46 .51 113
Robbery .16.26 16.77 17.16 18.74 18.71 115
Aggravated Assault .8.20 10.12 9.78 11.81 13.70 167
Other Assaults .20.63 28.42 30.42 34.32 38.64 187
Burglary .139.02 144.01 146.93 159.96 173.95 125
Larceny-Theft .187.96 216.91 241.25 264.77 323.01 172
Auto-Theft .80.76 86.69 87.74 99.90 129.42 160
Embezzlement and Fraud 2.48 3.42 2.27 2.04 2.16 87
Stolen Property: buying,
receiving, etc. . Y 4.21 5.40 6.09 6.09 17.46 415
Forgery and Counterfeiting 3.11 3.75 3.43 3.44 4.04 130
Rape .3.80 5.17 4.39 5.68 5.84 154
Prostitution and Com-
mercialized Vice .1.89 1.86 1.41 1.52 1.05 56
Other Sex Offenses .15.59 18.20 21.95 18.95 21.11 135
Narcotic Drug Laws .1.23 1.86 1.20 1.70 2.03 165
Weapons: carrying;
possessing, etc .9.17 12.25 13.34 16.40 19.55 213
Offenses Against Family
and Children .8.81 9.74 11.92 6.85 1.79 20
Liquor Laws .13.80 22.76 24.73 28.72 39.81 288
Driving While Intoxicated 2.75 3.08 2.69 3.46 4.39 160
Disorderly Conduct .129.18 126.77 123.85 135.83 176.83 137
Drunkenness .34.97 36.42 34.85 38.06 44.96 129
Vagrancy .21.66 24.56 20.29 18.72 25.69 119
Gambling .................... 3.34 3.59 2.66 2.75 3.58 107
Suspicion ...... . . 72.88 91.76 68.51 79.53 110.19 151
All Other Offenses ...... .... 318.84 312.74 349.16 376.33 450.17 141
Total .................... 1101.66 1187.33 1229.72 1336.67 1629.55 148

This content downloaded from

14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
206 THE JOURNAL OF NEGRO EDUCATION

the number of persons in the Popula- artifacts of data-collecting methods;

tions represented in the Uniform Crime and finally that the official statistics
Reports as the base population. In overrate the increase but that there
Table IV we present the delinquency has been some real increase.
rates per 100,000 children (0-18) us-
The official description of delinquen-
ing the estimated number of children
cy trends is not readily accepted by
in the Populations represented in the
the academician. The point of depiar-
Uniform Crime Reports as a base pop-
ulation.8 We see in Tables III and IV TABLE V

that there is considerable variation by CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES BY AMOUNT

OF INCREASE: 1952-1956
offense in the shifting delinquency
rates experienced during this period. (ESTIMATED YOUTHFUL POPULATION USED
AS BASE POPULATION)
In a few offenses, Embezzlement and
RATIO OF 1956 RATES TO 1952 RATES
Fraud, Prostitution and Offenses
Against the Family, we observe de- HIGH INCREASE OFFENSES
creasing rates of delinquency. These, (160 and
above)
however, are the exceptions. In all
other offense categories we see varyingReceiving Stolen Property 415
Liquor Laws 288
degrees of increase in the delinquency Weapons 213
rates. In Table V, we have classified Other Assaults 187
Larceny 172
the offenses according to the magnitudeAggravated Assault 167
of the increase. Narcotics 165

Tihis series of tables represents the MEDIUM INCREASE OFFENSES

(Between
basis upon which we shall continue in
136 & 160)
this paper. The problem is obviously
one of interpretation. What do the Auto-Theft 160
Driving while Intoxicated 160
figures tell us? Rape 154
Suspicion 151
The fundamental question is whether Murder and Manslaughter 147
All Other Offenses 141
this increase in delinquency is appar- Disorderly Conduct 137
ent or real. There are three positions
that may be taken in attempting to LOW INCREASE OFFENSES
(Between
come to any conclusion: First, that the 100 & 139)
data accurately reflect a real increase;
Other Sex Offenses 135
second, that the increases are due to Forgery and Counterfeiting 130
Drunkenness 129
Burglary 125
'The base population in Table III is the Vagrancy 119
number of persons residing in the cities Robbery 115
included in the Uniform Crime Reports as Murder by Negligence 113
of the 1950 Census. The base populations Gambling 107
for Table IV were computed by first cor-
recting the total populations for increases DECREASE OFFENSES
that had taken place since 1950, and then (Below 100)
applying the proportion of children for each
year to the corrected total population. We Embezzlement and Fraud 87
are indebted to the Population Reference Prostitution and Vice 56
Bureau for the estimates of total population Offenses Against Family 20
(1950-1958) and the estimates of youthful
population (1950-1956).

This content downloaded from

14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EXTENT OF DELINQUENCY 207
ture for the theoretical criminologists
has been the insistence that the official
increase represents, not a reflection of
real increases, but rather they are due
to a number of diverse artifacts inher-
ent in the subtle processes involved in
the collection of the data.
The academicians-who may be re-
ferred to here as skeptics-possess an
antipathy to "alarmist" tendencies in
the interpretation of delinquency sta-
tisitics; furthermore, they are con-
cerned with distortions and error usual-
ly inherent in any system of collecting
information.
The strength of the "alarmist" point
of view exists, for the most part, out-
side the university. It is found most
frequently among spokesmen of mass
media, law-enforcement officials, serious
citizens, and practitioners who are face
to face with the delinquent, especially
juvenile court jurists. The public has
aligned itself with this "alarmist"
point of view, especially since its
"common-sense" impression of the
problem supports it. Thus, it is not sur-
prising that many informed and most
uninformed Americans are disturbed
by the "rising tide" of juvenile delin-
quency during the past twenty years.
The academic intellectual finds it im-
possible to accept the obviousness of
the "common-sense" approach. His
skepticism sometimes manifests itself
in a rather charming-even if irritat-
ing-"hide-ebound conservatism." Yet,
the reluctance to accept new ideas is
simply a form of skepticism that is
necessary in any scientific endeavor.
Scholars or academicians are, by defi-
nition, endowed, rightly or wrongly,
with a near-monopoly of expertness.
This content downloaded from
14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Thus they are in the intellectually im-
possible situation of being the judges
and the judged. Therefore, we must
bend over backward to be certain that
we consider carefully the "alarmist"
point of view, precisely because our
first impulse is to dismiss it. More im-
portant, we must sometimes supply
the opposition point of view with the
sophistication that it, unfortunately, so
often lacks. In reality, the "alarm-
ists" are not the best spokesmen for
their own position. They often lack
the technical skills necessary to support
their position and thus become vulner-
able to those trained in the arts of
logic, argumentation and scientific
methodology.
There are a number of methods used
by the "skeptics" in minimizing the
apparent increases in delinquency.
One is the thesis of the "expanding
denominator" which contends that the
growth of child population offsets the
increase in delinquency rates. Em-
pirically this argument has some valid-
ity but not too much. Thus, if we
compare Table III with Table IV we
see that the delinquency rate of 1956
was 54 per cent higher than that of
1952 if we do not take into consider-
ation the expanding youthful popula-
tion for that period; but if we do take
the growth into consideration we find
the increase in delinquency about 48
per cent. Thus, while we may contend
that the "expanding denominator" may
reduce the clause for alarm, it by no
means completely disarms the vocal
proponents of common sense.
The second argument of the skep-
tics is more sophisticated. It may well
be asserted that the legal definition of
208 THE JOURNAL OF NEGRO EDUCATION

What empirical
delinquency throughout the nation has evidence is there
that the changes
become less precise, more confused andin methods of law-
vague. Stated another way, there is enforcement are responsible for the
more delinquency because more and alleged increase in delinquency? The
more overt acts-as well as covert- available evidence leads us to believe
are being defined or considered delin- that some, but by no means all, can be
quent. In addition, too, more and more explained by these changes. For in-
minors are being counted for the same stance, if we examine the data be-
act, e.g., "57 youths charged with tween 1952 and 1956, there is little
homicide" with one murder tabulated; evidence that the bulk of the increase
"20 youths charged with carrying fire- can be attributed to vague and diffuse
arms" when only one of the group definitions. This is admittedly a short
possessed a pistol. The skeptics con- period of time but it is a period within
which the data seem roughly compar-
tend that it is official policy in adimin-
istering justice that has changed rath- able and it is, furthermore, a period
er than the actual content and sub- during which a significant increase in
stance of juvenile behavior. We should delinquency rates took place.
also add that quite frequently it is
In Table V above, we divided the
the same child who is arrested over
various offense categories into (a)
and over again and thus increases the
High Increase Offenses; (b) Medium
delinquency rate.
Increase Offenses; (c) Low Increase
This argument is often coupled with Offenses, and (d) Decrease Offenses.
the assertion that norms in urban com- The four best examples of vaguely de-
munities become increasingly formal- fined offenses which appear in the Uni-
ized. This results in certain types of form Crime Reports are "Suspicion,"
youthful behavior being officially dealt "Disorderly Conduct," "Vagrancy" and
with rather than being handled through "All Other Offenses." Three of these
unofficial or informal forces of control are "Medium Increase" offenses. This
such as parents, storekeepers, and means that the rates of increase for
neighbors. In many cities, the agents these offense categories was about the
of formal control usually have a pen- same as that for total delinquency.
chant for "recording" and "bookkeep- The fourth, "Vagrancy," was a "Low
ing" and "referring" which usually re- Increase" offense. The vaguely defined
sults in an almost insatiable hoarding offenses, therefore, contributed slightly
of a wide variety of records and sta- less than their share to the increases
tisties. The norms of bureaucratic that had taken place in delinquency
management therefore impel the re- within this five year period.
cording of many trivial deviant acts
rather than of disposing of sudh cases Another factor involves wider defini-
on a personal and in-formal level. Thus, nitions of delinquency related to tech-
in many of our large cities, we find nological innovations. Traffic viola-
records of cases labeled with the vague tions and the casual sale and use of
nomenclature, '"adjusted" or "unoffi- guns are examples of anti-social be-
cially handled." havior which parents and grandparents

This content downloaded from

14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EXTENT OF DELINQUENCY 209

TABLE VI In discussing improved methods of

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN DELINQUENCY
RATES BETWEEN 1952 AND 1956
Total Delinquency vs. Diffusely Defined
Offense Categories
collecting statistics, it must be remem-
bered that every additional reporting
area brings with it not only an addi-
tional number of recorded delinquents

Total Delinquency 48% (the numerator) but also an increase

in the base population (the denomina-
Suspicion 51%
tor). With each increase in the nu-
All Other Offenses 41%
merator, there is an increase in the de-
Disorderly Conduct 37%
nominator. The question is whether
Vagrancy 19% the increase in the denominator is pro-
portionate or disproportionate to in-
of modern youth could not have easily creases in the numerator.
committed. Therefore, in some states
Let us assume that City X reports
-Utah for example-traffic offenses
for the first time in 1954. If its rate of
,comprise more than half of all delin-
delinquency has been higher through
,quencies. In the period between 1954
the years than the average of cities re-
,and 1956, traffic violations in Utah con-
porting prior to 1954, then all previous
zstituted 58.4 per cent of all delinquen-
rates were underestimated because
cies. In that state traffic violations
City X, a high delinquency city, was
-rose from 1 per 1,000 of school age
not included in previous compilations.
children in 1935 to 40 per 1,000 in
On the other hand if City X has tradi-
1955. It must be pointed out, how-
tionally been a low delinquency area
ever, that in Utah, conventional de-
then all previous rates have been over-
-linquency followed the national pat-
estimated because it was not included
tern. For example, out of each 1,000
in previous compilations. The answer
school age children, there were 12 de-
to our question, therefore, depends on
linquents in 1935, 18 in 1940, 41 in
whether or not the cities that have
1943, 27 in 1945, 16 in 1950 and 30
only recently begun to report are rela-
in 1955.?
tively high or low delinquency areas.
A final argument used by the skep- One may suggest that generally the
tics pertains to the improvements in larger cities tend to report first and
techniques of apprehending and re- smaller communities later. If delin-
cording delinquents. We have more quency is more concentrated in the
delinquents simply because we are bet- large cities, as sociologists have tra-
ter able to capture and count them. ditionally held, then it may well be
Such improvements have taken place that we have overestimated the na-
but it is doubtful that a significant tional rates of delinquency in the past
proportion of increased rates can be and therefore underrated the differ-
-attributed to these improvements. ences between the rates of from 1940
to 1956.
'Biennial Report of the Director, Bu-
reau of Services for Children, State De- While all of the above is quite con-
partment of Public Welfare, Utah, Juvenile
Courts, Ja 1, 1954 to Je 30, 1956. jectural, it can be stated that a major

This content downloaded from

14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
210 THE JOURNAL OF NEGRO EDUCATION
innovation in reporting that took place
in 1953 was coupled with an increase
that was rather "average" in all re-
spects. We see in Table VII below
that the Uniform Crime Reports in
1952 were based on data compiled
from 232 cities with population over
25,000. Starting in 1953, there are
a great many cities reporting, ranging
from 1,174 in 1953 to a maximum of
1,551 in 1956 (all over 2,500). The
increase in delinquency rates between
1952 and 1953, the year of the major
innovation in the number and type of
cities included in the compilation, was
7.7 per cent. Between 1953 and 1954
the increase was 3.9 per cent. Be-
tween 1954 and 1955 there was a 9.7
per cent increase. Between 1955 and
1956 there was a 26.6 per cent in-
crease. Thus it would seem that there
is no striking relationship between ma-
jor changes in the system of data-gath-
ering and the official increases in de-
linquency.
TABLE VII
POPULATION REPRESENTED IN UNIFORM
CRIME REPORTS 1952-57
1952 23,344,305 (232 cities over 25,000)
1953 37,255,808 (1174 cities over 2,500)
1954 38,642,183 (1389 cities over 2,500)
1955 41,792,800 (1477 cities over 2,500)
1956 41,219,052 (1551 cities over 2,500)
1957 40,176,369 (1473 cities over 2,500)
There remains the question of im-
proved methods of apprehension.
Once again our belief is that we can-
not attribute much of the increase to
this, important though it may be. If
we did make this contention, we would
be obliged to answer some knotty ques-
This content downloaded from
14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
tions as, for example, how account for
the decreased rates between 1946 and
1948? Was there a decrease in police
effectiveness during those years? If
there are any years during which a
realistic decrease in police effectiveness
might be assumed, it would be the war-
time period 1942 through 1945 when
there was a critical manpower short-
age; yet in this period we find an ex-
tremely high rate of delinquency. The
inescapable fact is that delinquency
rates are highly fluctuating in charac-
ter, whereas there is every reason to
assume that methods of apprehension
and police efficiency have constantly
improved. We do not intend to dis-
miss completely the role played by in-
creasing police effectiveness in artifici-
ally raising the official rates. We
merely wish to point out that its im-
portance can, like all other phases of
the problem, be overemphasized.
Thus far our position has been some-
where between that of the "alarmist"
and the "skeptic." For the years be-
tween 1940 and 1957 our belief is
that although the official statistics per-
haps overrate the increase in the de-
linquency rates, there has, neverthe-
less, been some real increase. How-
ever, we do not believe that one may
assume lower and lower rates for
years previous to 1940.
As we stated above, delinquency
rates are highly fluctuating. They are
not stable, nor theoretically should we
expect them to be. Juveniles by their
nature should be expected to respond
quickly to abrupt changes in the social
structure. Delinquency rates should
be diagnostic of various forms of
social disorganization and social re-
 THE EXTENT OF DELINQUENCY 211
construction. This means that unless
we adhere to the fashionable but super-
ficial view that modern times are de-
cadent and that some unspecified era
in past history is the repository of all
things good, there is reason to suppose
that delinquency rates were high in
other periods-perhaps as high as
those currently experienced. The
early years of nineteenth century Eng-
land immediately come to mind.
We argued earlier that there is
nothing drastically new about the con-
tent or substance of delinquency. It
has always been a feature of human
existence-a part of the "backwash"
of our culture. But one may ask, is
it not true that there is a great deal
more delinquency among modern
youth? The answer depends a good
deal on how far back one wishes to go
for comparisons. It is often assumed
that if the present rates are really
higher than those of let us say, 1935,
then they are ipso facto higher than
the rates experienced in all years prior
to 1935. There takes place, uncon-
sciously to be sure, that curious rever-
sal of the "evolutionary" mentality,
the mentality of the "golden age."
Just as the gloomy demographers of
the thirties erred in extrapolating
short-run tendencies into the future,
so a disgruntled and neo-traditionalist
public errs in simply extrapolating
short-run tendencies back into the dark
and unknown recesses of history.
There is one obvious reason why
both predictions of the future and as-
sessments of the past can be treated
in so cavalier a fashion. We know
little that is measurable about either.
It is highly probable that the rates
This content downloaded from
14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
of delinquency of the late fifties seem
dramatically high only because we
have been forced by the data to choose
a slice of history that accidentally be-
gins with relatively low rates and cul-
minates in relatively high rates. The
fact that we happen to be "cheek to
jowl" with them gives us no little con-
cern. Put another way, the delin-
quency rates of today (the late fifties)
may be "very high" only when we
compare them to the "very low" rates
of the late thirties.
We may see some scant evidence for
this point if we turn to scattered local
statistics that go back beyond the
middle thirties. Table VIII shows
the number of delinquency complaints
and the rates for Cuyahoga County,
Ohio for the years between 1918 and
1957. The city of Cleveland is located
within Cuyahoga County.10
We may make two inferences from
this table. First, the pattern of fluc-
tuation between 1932 and 1957 is
roughly similar to that experienced by
the nation as a whole. Second, and
more important, we note that the rates
in Cleveland and the rest of the county
were twice as high in the period dur-
ing and after World War I than the
rates experienced during the early and
late fifties. The delinquency rate was
65.9 per 1,000 children (12-17) in
1918, 63.2 in 1919 and 52.0 in 1920.
In 1925 the rate was 41.5; in 1932
10We are indebted to Mr. John J. Alden,
Chief of Probation Services for the Ju-
venile Court of Cuyahoga County, Cleve-
land, Ohio, for these very interesting sta-
tistics. Population based on resident births
(uncorrected for deaths, in-migration, out-
migration). Source: A Sheet-a-Week, pre-
pared by Howard Whipple Green, Mr S
1953.
212 THE JOURNAL OF NEGRO EDUCATION

TABLE VIII

NUTMBER OF DELINQUENCY COMPLAINTS AND DELINQUENCY RATES

FOR THE YEARS 1918-1957

CIA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

C.) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .

-D 4-.

Do~~~~
; = ~~~o x) E 0uUd
ct U)CU

~~.4H O~~u ~ D

1918 89,138 3434 2505 5939 5877 65.9

1919 98,387 3502 2433 5935 5901 63.2

1920 96,108 3108 1911 5019 5000 52.0

1921 100,160 2495 1298 3793 3785 37.8
1922 104,117 2433 1018 3451 3436 33.0
1923 108,410 2546 1434 3980 3963 36.6
1924 110,051 2379 1804 4183 4163 37.8

1925 110,943 2519 2129 4648 4G602 41.5

1926 113,119 2622 2144 4766 4736 41.9
1927 115,795 2675 1883 4558 4548 39.3
1928 117,940 2142 1770 3912 3858 32.7
1929 122,462 2564 2124 4688 4683 38.2

1930 128,396 2562 3078 5640 5637 43.9

1931 134,653 2560 3259 5819 5816 43.2
1932 138,134 2232 2708 4940 4939 35.8
1933 140,580 2082 2566 4648 4648 33.1
1934 143,129 2204 2479 4683 4676 32.7

I 35 141,605 2I13 206() 4173 4169 29.4

1936 140,292 1910 1939 3849 3847 27.4
1937 139,541 2101 1763 3864 3864 27.7
1938 140,269 1713 1466 3179 3179 22.7
1939 139,228 1595 1324 2919 2919 21.0

1940 137,183 1674 1388 3062 3059 22.3

1941 135,411 1790 1376 3166 3138 23.2
1942 131,559 1814 1428 3242 3123 23.7
1943 127,695 2244 2032 4276 4047 31.7
1944 122,926 2036 1685 3721 3546 28.9
1945 117,543 2323 1945 4268 4077 34.7

1946 111,250 1740 2053 3793 3-166 28.5

1947 106,565 1534 2125 3659 2804 26.3
1948 102,674 1470 2140 3610 2761 26.9
1949 98,833 1321 2370 3691 2579 26.1

1950 97,04 1256 2275 3531 2458 25.2

1951 98,644 1671 2979 4650 2852 28.9
1952 100,437 1609 3753 5362 3213 32.0
1953 103,420 1687 4027 5714 3395 32.8
1954 109,326 1645 3867 5512 3305 30.2
1955 118,257 1807 4324 6131 3511 29.7
1956 126,493 2275 5089 7364 4090 32.3
1957 130,705 2467 5968 8435 4385 33.5

This content downloaded from

14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE EXTENT OF DELINQUENCY 213

it was 35.8; in 1939 it was 21; in
1943 it was 31.7; in 1945 it was 34.7;
in 1950 it was 25.2; and in 1957 it
was 33.5.
What was the rate before World
War I? We do not know. We can
say, however, that despite the better
reporting, despite the better detection,
the delinquency rates of at least one
large metropolitan area were twice as
high in World War I than in World
War II. Of course, this does not
prove too much, if anything. We have
no idea how typical the experience of
this one large urban county is. We
cite it in order to suggest the intrigu-
ing possibility that the extent of de-
linquency, as well as its character, was
just as serious, if not more so, in the
dark and unknown recesses of history.
We are indebted to the Temple Univer-
sity Faculty Research Committee for finan-
cial aid in preparing this article.

This content downloaded from

14.139.236.18 on Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:18:45 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms