Juvenile Justice An Introduction John

T. Whitehead
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/juvenile-justice-an-introduction-john-t-whitehead/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Juvenile Justice Sourcebook 2nd Edition Wesley T Church

Ii

https://textbookfull.com/product/juvenile-justice-sourcebook-2nd-
edition-wesley-t-church-ii/

An Introduction to Mathematics Alfred North Whitehead

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-mathematics-
alfred-north-whitehead/

The War on Kids How American Juvenile Justice Lost Its

Way Cara H. Drinan

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-war-on-kids-how-american-
juvenile-justice-lost-its-way-cara-h-drinan/

Regression Diagnostics: An Introduction 2nd Edition

John Fox

https://textbookfull.com/product/regression-diagnostics-an-
introduction-2nd-edition-john-fox/
An Introduction to Composite Materials 3rd Edition T.
W. Clyne

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-composite-
materials-3rd-edition-t-w-clyne/

Exploring Mathematics An Engaging Introduction to Proof

John Meier

https://textbookfull.com/product/exploring-mathematics-an-
engaging-introduction-to-proof-john-meier/

Girls and Juvenile Justice: Power, Status, and the

Social Construction of Delinquency 1st Edition Carla P.
Davis (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/girls-and-juvenile-justice-
power-status-and-the-social-construction-of-delinquency-1st-
edition-carla-p-davis-auth/

Python Programming An Introduction to Computer Science

John M. Zelle

https://textbookfull.com/product/python-programming-an-
introduction-to-computer-science-john-m-zelle/

An Introduction to English Legal History 5th Edition

John Baker

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-english-
legal-history-5th-edition-john-baker/
“The chief virtues of Juvenile Justice are its readability, comprehensive coverage, strong
organization, and design and layout. Graphically, it is superb . . . It covers topics such as
gangs and substance abuse in an engaging, even entertaining way, making it an
enjoyable read for students. The way it blends these topics with system components
(policing, courts, corrections) is refreshing.”

—Tim Matthews, Eastern Kentucky University

“I think this book is great. It provides a nice historical and theoretical perspective of the
field, which I think is important in any class, but it also walks the reader through the
juvenile court process. I also like it because it tackles tough issues like gangs and drugs.”

—Philip J. Verrecchia, York College of Pennsylvania

2
Juvenile Justice
Juvenile Justice: An Introduction, Ninth Edition, presents a comprehensive picture of juvenile
offending, delinquency theories, and the ways juvenile justice actors and agencies react to
delinquency. Whitehead and Lab offer evidence-based suggestions for successful interventions
and treatment and examine the prospects for rebalancing the model of juvenile court.

This new edition includes insightful analysis and the latest available statistics on juvenile
crime and victimization, drug use, court processing, and corrections. Recent developments
include the possible influence of biosocial factors on delinquency; use of social media both for
recruiting gang members and for combating gangs; new probation models; responses to
cyberbullying; the renewed emphasis on status offenses; the implications of drug legalization;
police shootings; and specialty courts for teens and those with mental illness. Chapter 12 has
been recast to cover specific information on prevention programs in addition to restorative
justice approaches.

Each chapter enhances student understanding with Key Terms, a “What You Need to Know”
section, and Discussion Questions. Links at key points in the text show students to get the
latest information.

John T. Whitehead is Professor Emeritus and former Chair in the Department of Criminal
Justice and Criminology at East Tennessee State University. He completed his M.A. at the
University of Notre Dame and earned his Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from the University at
Albany. He has published articles about corrections, probation, and the death penalty. He is
co-author of Report Writing for Criminal Justice Professionals and is currently working on an
ethics textbook.

Steven P. Lab is Professor of Criminal Justice at Bowling Green State University. He holds a
Ph.D. in Criminology from the Florida State University School of Criminology and Criminal
Justice. Lab is the author or co-author of five books, co-editor of one encyclopedia, and the
author of more than 50 articles or book chapters. He is a past editor of the Journal of Crime
and Justice. Lab has been a visiting professor at the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science of
the University College London and at Keele University in Staffordshire, England, as well as a
Visiting Fellow at Loughborough University (England) and a Research Consultant with the
Perpetuity Research Group at Leicester University (England). Lab is also a past president of
the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.

3
Juvenile Justice

An Introduction

Ninth Edition

John T. Whitehead Steven P. Lab

4
Ninth edition published
2018 by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2018 Taylor & Francis

The right of John T. Whitehead and Steven P. Lab to be identified as authors of this work has
been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,

and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

First edition published by Anderson Publishing, an imprint of Elsevier 1990 Eighth edition
published by Routledge 2015

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Whitehead, John T., author. | Lab, Steven P., author.

Title: Juvenile justice: an introduction / John T. Whitehead and
Steven P. Lab.
Description: Ninth edition. | New York, NY: Routledge, 2018. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017060647 (print) | LCCN 2018002927 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781351122474 (master) | ISBN 9780815358404 (hardback) |
ISBN 9780815358442 (pbk.)
Subjects: LCSH: Juvenile delinquency. | Juvenile justice, Administration
of. | Juvenile justice, Administration of—United States.
Classification: LCC HV9069 (ebook) | LCC HV9069 .W46 2018 (print) |
DDC 364.36—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017060647

ISBN: 978-0-8153-5840-4 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-8153-5844-2 (pbk)

5
ISBN: 978-1-351-12247-4 (ebk)

Typeset in Giovanni Book by Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon, UK

Visit the companion website: www.routledge.com/cw/whitehead

6
To Pat, Dan, and Tim
and
To Bryce, Madison, and Rylee

7
Contents
Preface
CHAPTER 1 Introduction: The Definition and Extent of Delinquency

Introduction
Defining Delinquency
Defining a Juvenile
The Extent of Delinquency
Summary

CHAPTER 2 The History of Juvenile Justice

Introduction
Property and Person
The Rise of Juvenile Institutions
The Establishment of the Juvenile Court
Benevolence or Self-Interest?
Juvenile Justice from 1920 to the 1960s
Changes Since the 1960s
Summary

CHAPTER 3 Explaining Delinquency: Biological and Psychological Approaches

Introduction
Theoretical Schools of Thought
Biological and Sociobiological Theories
Psychological Explanations
Summary

CHAPTER 4 Sociological Explanations of Delinquency

Introduction
The Ecological Perspective
Learning Theory
Subcultural Theories
Routine Activities and Rational Choice
Strain Theories
Social Control Theory
The Labeling Perspective
Integrative Explanations
The Impact of Theories on Juvenile Justice
Summary

8
CHAPTER 5 Gang Delinquency

Introduction
Gangs Defined
Early Gang Research
The Extent of Gang Membership
Characteristics of Gangs
Why Do Youths Join Gangs?
Gang Behavior
Do Gangs Cause Delinquency?
Intervention with Gangs
Summary

CHAPTER 6 Drugs and Delinquency

Introduction
Gauging the Extent of Drug Use
The Drugs-Delinquency Connection
Research on the Drugs-Delinquency Relationship
Interventions
Alternative Responses to Drug Use
Summary: The Response of the Juvenile Justice System

CHAPTER 7 Policing and Juveniles

Introduction
Statistics on Police Work with Juveniles
Professional Policing and Juveniles
Community or Problem-Solving Policing
Citizen Attitudes Toward Police
Recent Issues in Policing Concerning Juveniles
Police Effectiveness with Juvenile Crime
Summary

CHAPTER 8 The Juvenile Court Process

Introduction
Detention
Detention Alternatives
The Intake Decision
Processing Juveniles in Adult Criminal Court
Adjudication and Disposition
Summary

CHAPTER 9 Due Process and Juveniles

9
 Introduction
The Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Additional Supreme Court Rulings
Search and Seizure
Rights in School
Rights at Home and in the Community
Summary

CHAPTER 10 Institutional/Residential Interventions

Introduction
Institutional Corrections for Juveniles
State Training Schools
Program Effectiveness
Institutional Life
New Directions in Institutional Interventions
Summary

CHAPTER 11 Juvenile Probation and Community Corrections

Introduction
Probation
Aftercare
Supervision and Counseling
Current Trends in Community Supervision
Effectiveness of Juvenile Probation and Related Sanctions
Effective and Ineffective Treatment Interventions with Offenders
Continuing Concerns in Community Collections
Summary

CHAPTER 12 Prevention in Juvenile Justice

Introduction
Risk Factors and Prevention
Addressing Community Risk Factors
Parent Training
Preschool Programs
Skills Training
Resistance Skills Training
Anti-Bullying Prevention
Mentoring Programs
Conflict Management/Resolution
Multi-Component Programs
Restorative Justice
Summary

10
CHAPTER 13 The Victimization of Juveniles

Introduction
The Extent of Victimization
Explaining Juvenile Victimization
Responses to Victimization
The Role of Formal Social Control Agencies
Summary: The Need to Recognize the Victim

CHAPTER 14 Future Directions in Juvenile Justice

Introduction
Proposals for Reforming Juvenile Court
Broader Issues
Capital Punishment for Juveniles
Life Without Parole for Juveniles
Jurisdiction over Status Offenses
Conclusion

Glossary
Bibliography
Court Cases
Index

11
Preface
For this ninth edition of Juvenile Justice: An Introduction, we have updated materials. We
have included the latest available statistics on juvenile crime and victimization, drug use,
court processing, and corrections. Chapter 3 includes expanded sociobiological discussions of
delinquency, and Chapter 4 has added materials on integrative explanations of delinquency.
The gangs chapter provides updated information on the gang problem as well as on
responding to gangs and ganging in the community. The chapter on drugs notes research on
the effects of drug legalization in some states. The police chapter now includes a section on
police shootings, an issue that has received considerable media attention in the last few years.
The due process chapter includes the most recent Supreme Court case on juvenile life without
parole. The probation chapter discusses recent findings on a deterrence model (Project HOPE)
and the implications for juvenile probation. This edition includes a completely new chapter on
prevention efforts. The futures chapter has a section on the “smart on juvenile justice”
movement that focuses on risk assessment, evidence-based practices, and cost considerations.
The futures chapter also includes a section on raising the age of criminal court jurisdiction and
a discussion of charges of racism that some have raised about criminal and juvenile justice.

In summary, we have tried to present a book that offers a comprehensive picture of juvenile
offending, delinquency theories, and how juvenile justice actors and agencies react to
delinquency. But we have also tried to introduce students to the controversial issues that arise
as society attempts to prevent delinquency and to respond to delinquents in the most positive
ways possible. We would like students to be both knowledgeable and critical; to understand
how juvenile justice operates; and to be able to think about ways to improve what we have.
Our hope is that professors can use this text as a starting point to help students think more
deeply about the critical issues surrounding delinquency.

Each chapter has a section entitled “What You Need to Know.” This is a list that summarizes
key pieces of information. Along with the Key Terms list, this section should help students
focus on the key concepts and information in each chapter. We have also included website
information at key points in the text showing students where they can go to get the latest
information from such sources as the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

As with previous editions, there is instructional material that is available on the publisher’s
website for the book. There we have materials for both the instructor and the student. These
materials supplement the book and can be incorporated into regular class activities or can be
used by the individual for study and further exploration. Some of these materials are directed
specifically to the student, while others are for the instructor. We thank all of the people at
Routledge (Anderson Publishing) for their support and hard work, and those who reviewed
the book.

We are especially grateful to Ellen Boyne, Pam Chester, and Heather Snijdewind for their

12
excellent work in editing and producing the book, and to Mickey Braswell for his continuing
support.

JTW
SPL

13
CHAPTER 1
Introduction: The Definition and Extent of
Delinquency
What You Need to Know
■ Delinquency can be defined in terms of: criminal laws, just like for adults; status
offenses, which are applied only to youths; or sociological/criminological definitions,
which take on a specific meaning depending on the interests of the individual or group
studying delinquency.
■ Defining delinquency requires one to define who is a juvenile. Most states outline
minimum and maximum ages as well as exceptions in which the youth can be handled
as an adult.
■ Measures of delinquency include official records of the juvenile justice and criminal
justice system and self-report surveys.
■ According to the UCR, roughly 8.5 percent of all arrests are of youths under the age of
18, with 14 percent of all property arrests being of youths.
■ Court and correctional statistics also provide insight to the extent of delinquency,
although the magnitude of the problem appears much less due to the funneling effect
of system involvement.
■ Self-report measures reveal that virtually all youths offend, although this is true only
when status offenses are included. Otherwise, the results are remarkably similar to
official figures when serious crimes are considered.
■ Regardless of the measure used, the trend in delinquency has been one of large
increases since the 1960s with some leveling off and decreases since the late 1990s.

Key Terms

dark figure of crime

delinquency
Index crimes
juvenile
Monitoring the Future (MTF)
National Youth Survey (NYS)
offense rate
panel design
self-report measures
sexting
Short–Nye instrument

14
status offense
transfer
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)
waiver

Introduction

Discussions of the juvenile justice system cannot proceed without a clear understanding of the
behaviors that it is tasked to address. The juvenile court and the juvenile justice system are
relatively recent inventions, tracing their history back to the late 1800s. Prior to that time,
youths who broke the law were handled in the same system and in the same ways as adults.
“Delinquency” was born in the late 1800s when crime and misbehavior by youths were
redefined as separate and distinct from adult offenses, and new mechanisms of social control
were developed to address problem children.

Youthful offenders, who used to be seen as simply young “criminals,” have been transformed
into “delinquents.” The label of “delinquent,” however, represents a variety of different
behaviors and means different things at different places and points in time. It is important to
understand the diversity in definitions of delinquency in order to examine the workings of the
juvenile justice system adequately.

Defining Delinquency

As already noted, delinquency has a number of different meanings. These various

interpretations appear both in state statutes and criminological discussions of juvenile
behavior. State statutes typically offer two sets of definitions for delinquency—a criminal law
definition and a status offense definition. Beyond the codified legal definitions are
social/criminological definitions that are used in research on juvenile misconduct.

Criminal Law Definitions

A criminal law definition of delinquency delineates activity that is illegal regardless of the age
of the offender. “Delinquency” is simply a substitute label for criminal behavior by a juvenile.
The only distinction between being a delinquent and being a criminal is the age of the
individual.
Web Activity

You can go to your state’s statutes and look up the definitions of “delinquency,” “status
offense,” and “juvenile.”

15
Criminal law definitions of delinquency typically define a delinquent as someone who violates
the criminal laws of the jurisdiction (see Box 1.1). The key to these statutes is the idea that a
juvenile violated the criminal law. The fact that a juvenile committed the offense means that a
different label will be imposed (delinquent versus criminal) and a different system will handle
the individual (juvenile versus adult). A criminal law definition explicitly extends the criminal
statutes to the juvenile population.

Box 1.1 A Criminal Law Definition of Delinquency

“Delinquent child” includes any of the following:

Any child, except a juvenile traffic offender, who violates any law of this state or the
United States, or any ordinance of a political subdivision of the state, that would be an
offense if committed by an adult;
Any child who violates any lawful order of the court, including a child who violates a
court order regarding the child's adjudication as an unruly child for being an habitual
truant;
Any child who violates any lawful order of the court ...;
Any child who violates [prohibitions against purchasing or owning a firearm or
handgun (Section 2923.211)].

Source: Ohio Revised Code (2017). Section 2152.02. Available at

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2152.02.

Status Offense Definitions

Besides criminal actions that can be committed by a juvenile, there are other behaviors for
which only juveniles can be held accountable. This type of behavior is usually referred to as a
status offense because it is only illegal if it is committed by persons of a particular “status.”
Thus, juvenile status offenses represent acts that are illegal only for juveniles. Adults who take
part in these acts are not subject to sanctioning by the formal justice system.

While “status offender” is the most common term for those who violate these acts, a variety of
other names are applied to these individuals. Among the more common names are “unruly,”
“dependent,” and “incorrigible,” as well as acronyms such as PINS (person in need of
supervision) or CHINS (child in need of supervision). One common criticism of status offense
definitions is that they are ambiguous, and the language is so vague that they allow wide
latitude in interpreting what is and is not a violation (see Box 1.2). Such statutes allow the
juvenile justice system to intervene in the life of almost any youth.

16
 Box 1.2 A Status Offense Definition of Delinquency

Ohio Chapter 2151.022 defines an “unruly child” as:

Any child who does not submit to the reasonable control of the child's parents,
teachers, guardian, or custodian, by reason of being wayward or habitually
disobedient;
Any child who behaves in a manner as to injure or endanger the child's own health or
morals or the health or morals of others;
Any child who is an habitual truant from school;
Any child who violates a law . . . that is applicable only to a child.

Source: Ohio Revised Code (2017). Section 2152.02. Available at

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2152.02.

The behaviors outlined by status offense statutes make virtually any behavior of a juvenile
sanctionable by the state. The definitions are all-encompassing and have been criticized for
being overly broad (see, e.g., the
President’sCommissiononLawEnforcementandtheAdministrationofJustice,1967). Arguments
for eliminating such overly broad language have resulted in some courts ruling that the
statutory language, such as that referring to “leading an idle, dissolute, lewd, or immoral life,”
is unconstitutionally vague (Gonzalez v. Mailliard, 1971).

School-aged children are searched by a truancy task force in Richmond, Virginia, before being loaded into a van to be
processed at the truant center. Truancy is a status offense, as it is a behavior for which only juveniles can be held accountable.
CREDIT: AP Photo/ Richmond Times-Dispatch, Don Long

Actions that typically fall under the heading of status offenses include truancy; smoking;
drinking; curfew violations; disobeying the orders of parents, teachers, or other adults;
swearing; running away; and other acts that are allowable for adults. Most, if not all, juveniles
violate these statutes at one time or another. Normal youthful behavior includes many of these
activities. It is possible that all youths could be subjected to system intervention under these

17
types of “status” definitions.

Social/Criminological Definitions

The study of delinquency and juvenile justice often relies on definitions of delinquency that
do not conform precisely to the legal definitions of delinquent or status offenses. The
definition of delinquency often takes on a specific meaning depending on the interests of the
group or individual examining juvenile misconduct.

In one respect it is possible to define delinquency in terms of who is officially recognized as

such. Cloward and Ohlin (1960), for example, define delinquent acts as those “that officials
engaged in the administration of criminal justice select . . . from among many deviant acts, as
forms of behavior proscribed by the approved norms of society” (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960:2–3).
This means that the police, court officials, corrections officers, and others determine which
actions are to be considered delinquent when they decide to take action. This limits
delinquency to those actions that are handled by the justice system. Juvenile behavior that is
ignored by the system is not to be considered delinquent.

Most definitions of delinquency present juvenile behavior as either delinquent or

nondelinquent, with no middle ground. In reality, most individuals fall in between these
extremes, having violated some laws and conformed to others. Most juveniles are involved, to
varying degrees, in some form of delinquent behavior. Cavan and Ferdinand (1981) offer a
continuum of behavior that ranges from extreme delinquency on one end to extreme
“goodness” on the other (see Figure 1.1). The shape of the continuum, a bell curve, represents
the proportional distribution of juveniles along the continuum. It is assumed that the largest
group of youths would fall into the middle category of “normal conformity.” The left-hand
portion of the curve represent youths who run the risk of being apprehended and labeled
delinquent. Minor underconformity may include such acts as status and victimless offenses
while the delinquent contraculture category includes serious acts such as murder and rape and
suggests organized involvement in deviance. The right side of the curve represents individuals
who do not become involved in delinquency. Few juveniles appear in either of the
“contraculture” categories of extreme delinquent or extreme goodness.

Today, most criminological research considers delinquency in terms of Cavan and Ferdinand’s
continuum. It does not limit the researcher to a simple legal definition or an either/or
dichotomy. Instead, it allows the inspection of various types of delinquent activity as well as
activity that is highly over-conforming. Seen as a continuum, juvenile activity can be
subdivided into various parts and phases that change over time and can be compared to one
another.

18
FIGURE 1.1
Behavior Continuum
Source: Figure 2.1 from Juvenile Delinquency (4th ed.) by Ruth Shonle Cavan and Theodore N. Ferdinand. Copyright © 1981
by Ruth Shonle Cavan and Theodore N. Ferdinand. Reprinted by permission.

Defining a Juvenile

In every definition of delinquency there is an implicit assumption of what constitutes a

juvenile. Interestingly, the legal definition of a juvenile for juvenile court purposes varies
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This means that persons subject to the juvenile statutes in one
location may not be in another place. The majority of states (41) and the District of Columbia
recognize juveniles as individuals below the age of 18 (Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], 2017a). Seven states list the age of majority below age 17
and two states consider anyone under 16 as a juvenile. Under these ages the individual is
considered a juvenile and is handled in the juvenile justice system.
Web Activity
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Statistical Briefing Book provides
access to a wealth of data on juveniles, including juvenile justice jurisdiction. Investigate the
criteria for your state using that information (www.OJJDP.gov/ojstatbb) or go to your state’s
statutes for this information.

Besides setting an upper age for juvenile status, other factors influence whether an individual
can be handled in the juvenile justice system. Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia
set no lower age limit for being subject to juvenile justice intervention. Eleven states set age 10
as the minimum for jurisdiction, four set age seven, one sets age eight, and one sets age six. In
those states with a lower age level, any juvenile below the minimum age who exhibits deviant
behavior is simply returned to his or her parents or guardian for handling.

A second age consideration is the termination of the juvenile system’s intervention with an
individual. Most state statutes allow the juvenile system to continue supervision and
intervention with individuals who have passed the maximum age limit. Over two-thirds of the

19
states (35) set the maximum age at which juvenile court jurisdiction is relinquished at age 20.
Four states allow jurisdiction until age 24. Maintaining jurisdiction occurs mainly when that
person committed his or her act as a juvenile and/or is being handled as an extension of
intervention begun when he or she was a juvenile.

A final factor influencing juvenile court jurisdiction involves waiver or transfer provisions
that may send a youth to adult court. Waiver is a process by which an individual who is
legally a juvenile is sent to the adult criminal system for disposition and handling. The
minimum age for transfer varies from state to state, with 24 states and the District of
Columbia setting no minimum age. The most common minimum age set is 14. The varying
definitions of delinquency and the consideration of what age constitutes being a “juvenile”
have a major impact on any study of juvenile justice. The definitions alter the type of behavior
with which we are concerned, the practices and interventions used in the treatment of
delinquency, and the number of problems and youths subjected to intervention and study. It is
the effect of the definition of delinquency on the measurement of delinquency to which we
now turn.

The Extent of Delinquency

There are various ways to measure delinquency, each of which produces a different picture of
the delinquency problem. The different methods for measuring delinquency result in different
absolute levels of delinquency as well as different information on the offense, the offender,
and the victim. The two basic approaches to measuring delinquency are the use of official
records and the administration of self-report surveys.

Official Measures of Delinquency

Official measures of delinquency are based on the records of various justice system agencies.
Consequently, the level of delinquency reflects both the activity of juveniles and the activity
of the agency that is dealing with the youths. The degree of detail in the records also varies by
agency. The police, courts, and corrections each have different sets of priorities and mandates
under which they operate. As a result, the data compiled by the agencies differ from one
another. The following pages will consider data from each of these official sources.

Uniform Crime Reports

The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) provide information on the number of offenses coming
to the attention of the police, the number of arrests police make, and the number of referrals
by the police to the juvenile court. These data are collected yearly by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and provide information on 29 categories of offenses. These counts reflect
only crimes known to the police. Actions that are not reported to the police are not included in

20
the yearly crime figures. The UCR is composed of two offense subgroups. The first eight
offenses, Part I or Index crimes, include murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,
larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. All remaining offenses fall within the Part II category.
It is within the Part II offense category that status offenses like running away and curfew
violations appear. Extensive information, including demographic data on the victim and
offender (if known), circumstances of the offense, the use of a weapon, and the time and place
of the offense, is gathered for the Part I offenses. For Part II offenses, only information on
offenses for which a suspect has been arrested are tabulated.

Age Distribution. Due to the fact that only 46 percent of all violent crime and 19 percent of
all property crimes were cleared by an arrest in 2015, and this is limited to the Part I offenses,
little information is known about the offender in most crimes. (Table 1.1 provides data on
clearances involving persons under age 18 for the Part I crimes.) Some idea about the
participation of juveniles in delinquent/criminal behavior, however, can be gathered from an
inspection of those cases in which a youthful offender can be identified and/or arrested.

Table 1.1 Number of Offenses Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means

Source: Adapted by authors from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2017). Crime in the
United States, 2015. Available at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-
u.s.-2015. Table 1.2 presents arrest data for 2015. Roughly 8.3 million arrests were reported to
the FBI. Of these arrests, 709,333, or 8.5 percent of the total, were of juveniles under the age of
18.
Web Activity
Up-to-date and more extensive UCR data can be found at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-
u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016.

A closer inspection of the arrest data reveals the extent to which youths were involved in
serious offending. For the violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault,
youths comprised 10 percent of the total arrests. This represents almost 40,000 offenses. More
striking is the fact that youths were arrested for over 161,000 property offenses. This reflects
over 14 percent of all property offense arrests in 2015. Taken by themselves, these figures are
large. Youthful offenders are contributing more than their fair share to the level of arrests in
the nation.

Sex Distribution. The UCR routinely presents breakdowns of crime by sex of the offender.
UCR data for 2015 show that juvenile females made up roughly 23 percent of all juvenile
arrests, and 30 percent of female arrests were for Part I offenses. Over one-quarter of the

21
juvenile male arrests were for Part I crimes. A much greater percentage of males are arrested
for every Index offense category, as well as most Part II offenses. The only offense for which
females are more often arrested is prostitution.

Race Distribution. The UCR also provides information on the race of juvenile arrestees. Table
1.2 presents data on arrests for white, black, Native American, and Asian/Pacific Island
youths. White youths make up almost two-thirds of all arrestees (62.9 percent), and account
for roughly 47 percent of the Part I property crimes and 59 percent of the Part I personal
offenses. Black youths, however, are greatly overrepresented in the violent personal offenses
of murder and robbery. The overrepresentation of blacks in violent offenses (51 percent) is
even more dramatic in light of the fact that blacks comprise roughly 15 percent of the youthful
U.S. population (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2011).

An examination of individual Part I offenses provides a more detailed look at the data. While
a greater percentage of white youths commit every type of offense than do blacks, except for
murder and robbery, offending by black youths far surpasses their population representation
for all Part I offenses. Arrests of black youths also exceed that of white youths in the Part II
categories of stolen property offenses, prostitution and commercialized vice, and gambling.

Trends in Delinquency. The trend in youthful crime has changed in recent years. The change
in the number of violent offenses since 1988 appears in Figure 1.2. Arrests for both murder and
rape have remained relatively stable, while robbery and aggravated assault arrests increased
from 1988 to 1996, dropped

TABLE 1.2 Distribution of Juvenile Arrests, 2015

22
Source: Compiled by authors from Federal Bureau of Investigation (2017). Crime in the United States, 2015. Retrieved July 5,
2017 from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/persons-arrested/persons-arrested.

until 2004, rose until 2008, and dropped again over the following seven years. Data on
property crimes (see Figure 1.3) show general declines since 1988, except for a slight increase
in 2008 for both larceny and burglary. Similar trends are evident when considering the
offense rate (typically the number of offenses per 100,000), which eliminates the influence of
any changes in the number of potential offenders on the delinquency data. One thing that is
clear in both the raw number of arrests and the arrest rate figures is that official juvenile

FIGURE 1.2 Trend in Juvenile Violent Crime 1988–2015 Source: Constructed by authors from UCR data.

until 2004, rose until 2008, and dropped again over the following seven years. Data on
property crimes (see Figure 1.3) show general declines since 1988, except for a slight increase
in 2008 for both larceny and burglary. Similar trends are evident when considering the
offense rate (typically the number of offenses per 100,000), which eliminates the influence of
any changes in the number of potential offenders on the delinquency data. One thing that is
clear in both the raw number of arrests and the arrest rate figures is that official juvenile
offending is higher today than 40 years ago, although the recent trend has been toward lower

23
arrests.

FIGURE 1.3 Trend in Juvenile Property Crime, 1988–2015 Source: Constructed by authors from UCR data.

Box 1.3 Criticism of the UCR

Dark Figure of Offenses that are not reported to the police and therefore are not reflected in
Crime UCR data
Agencies do not have to report their figures to the UCR and can manipulate
Voluntary
the data that they do report
Limited Data available only on those offenders who are arrested; unable to know if
Offender Data those arrested are representative of all offenders
Focus on Counts offenses and not offenders; fails to consider the fact that one offender
Offenses can be responsible for multiple offenses
Changing
Changes in the legal definitions of crimes over time and jurisdictions makes
Crime
comparison of crime data difficult
Definitions
Data
There is a lack of knowledge on what impact changing methods for data
Collection
collection (such as from hand to computers) can have on the data reports
Techniques
System Bias Impact of system policies on data collection is not clear

A Critique of the UCR. The UCR is the longest running and most widely known and cited
method of collecting information on crime in the United States. It began in 1931 and has
continued on a yearly basis since that time. Despite this longevity and notoriety, the UCR has
a number of flaws that must be considered when using the data (see O’Brien, 1985). The most
frequent criticism is the fact that it reflects only those offenses known to the police. Many
individuals, for whatever reason, opt not to contact the police when they are a victim or a
witness to a crime. This failure to bring crimes to the attention of the police results in an
under-count of crime in the United States. The unreported crimes are typically referred to as

24
the dark figure of crime. In terms of juvenile behavior, the UCR focuses on more serious
offending, since that is the focus of police activity, and it fails to consider the vast array of
status offenses committed by youths (see Box 1.3).

A second concern with the UCR is that it is voluntary, and it relies on the individual agencies
to report their data accurately. Each agency tabulates and forwards its own data to the FBI.
Political and economic pressures have been known to influence the accuracy of counts
submitted to the UCR system. For example, changes in police procedure due to political
decisions can alter the amount of attention a police department pays to a certain form of
crime. Similarly, the simple reclassification of offenses from one category to another (i.e.,
listing “rapes” as “other sex offenses,” or “aggravated assaults” as “simple assaults”) can alter
the reported crime rates. Decisions like these can greatly alter the annual offense counts and
have an impact on trend data over time.

Another concern in using the UCR is the lack of information on offenders in much of the data.
UCR arrest data reflect only those offenders who were caught in the course of the crime or
ensuing investigation. The fact that less than 20 percent of all crimes are cleared by an arrest
means that little is known about the offenders in most crimes. It is possible that UCR figures
are distorted in terms of the age, race, and sex distribution of the total offending population.
The UCR provides no information about the offender in more than 80 percent of the crimes
committed each year.

Another serious problem entails the fact that the UCR counts offenses and not offenders. It
would be easy to claim that the number of offenders is equal to the number of reported
offenses, but unfortunately this would provide a highly inaccurate picture. Many offenders
commit more than one offense over a period of time. Alternatively, some individuals may
commit a single act (such as bank robbery) that legally constitutes more than one offense
(robbery, assault, and possibly kidnapping). These problems make it difficult to estimate the
number of offenders over any period of time using the UCR. The number of offenders is
clearly not equal to the number of offenses.

A variety of other concerns must be considered in using the UCR data. Among these is the
fact that legal definitions of crime change over time and vary from place to place. In addition,
the methods of data collection have changed over time (particularly from hand to computer
tabulation). A further concern is the fact that any selective enforcement of the law or bias in
making arrests can result in an overrepresentation of certain individuals (such as lower-class
youths) in the UCR figures.

The most problematic aspect of official police data for the study of delinquency is the
combined issues of the dark figure of crime and the failure to identify offenders in the vast
majority of all cases. It is due to these problems that alternative methods of unofficial crime
and delinquency data have been developed. Before turning to these types of data collection,
we will look at two additional official measures of delinquency.

Juvenile Court Statistics

25
Juvenile court data present a picture of the cases and the juveniles who reach the adjudication
stage of the system. The numbers of juveniles who appear in these records are smaller than
those found in police data. This is due primarily to the fact that most juveniles reach the court
through contact with the police who filter and screen cases. Relatively few youths are referred
to court directly by their families, schools, or other associates. At the same time, court data
offer more insight to status offending.

Table 1.3 presents data on delinquency cases in juvenile court. In 2014, almost 975,000 youths
reached the juvenile court for delinquent offenses.

TABLE 1.3 Number and Percent of Youths in Juvenile Court, 2014

Source: Compiled by authors from Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, W., and Puzzanchera (2017). This
translates into a rate of 31 out of every 1,000 youths. An additional 100,100 youths reached the
court for status offenses (a rate of roughly 3.2 per 1,000 youths). Information on type of
offense, sex, and race is also available in the court statistics. The most prevalent form of
offending is property crimes, followed by personal offenses and public order offenses (e.g.,
disorderly conduct and liquor law violations). Like the UCR data, males dominate throughout
the juvenile court statistics and account for at least two-thirds of all categories of offenses.
While white youths dominate in all categories of delinquent offenses (40 percent or more),
black youths are overrepresented relative to their proportion of the population.

The number of delinquency cases today far exceeds that of four decades ago (see Figure 1.4).
The number of property cases peaked in 1994–1996 and has generally fallen since that time.
The number of person, drug, and public order cases increased from 1960 to roughly 1996 and
generally remained steady until 2008, when they started to decline. While the number of
property cases in 2014 is almost 40,000 less than in 1985, the level of all other cases is still
higher than in 1985. Taking a longer time period into consideration, the number of cases in
2014 remains significantly higher than in 1960. In terms of sex, court numbers are dominated
by male youths (72 percent of all petitions). While the trend in delinquency caseloads has been
declining since 2005 for both males and females, the decline is more pronounced in the male
data. This is due mainly to the fact that the raw number of offenses for males is higher. There
has been a similar decline in delinquency cases for all racial groups over the past 10 years

26
(Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2017).

FIGURE 1.4 Trend in Delinquency Cases in Court by Offense Type

Source: Constructed by authors from OJJDP (2017a) OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Retrieved July 7, 2017 from
www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/qa06205.asp?qaDate=2014.

Juvenile Corrections Statistics

A third official source of information on juveniles coming into contact with the juvenile
justice system is records kept on juvenile correctional facilities. The U.S. Justice Department
routinely conducts a census of the population of juvenile facilities. As with juvenile court
statistics, the numbers of youths who appear in these statistics are smaller than the UCR and
court figures. Juvenile facilities rely heavily upon the juvenile court for their clients, and few
of the youths coming into contact with the court are sentenced to confinement. Therefore, the
figures found in data from juvenile facilities represent only a fraction of all the youths having
contact with the juvenile system.
Web Activity
Additional juvenile court statistics are available at:
www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbbezajcs/asp/selection.asp.

Table 1.4 presents data on youths in public and private juvenile facilities in 2015. The data in
the table represent an average one-day count, and the daily totals would vary around these
figures. Public facilities handled roughly 33,000 youths, and private institutions dealt with
over 15,000 youths on any one day (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2017). There are
no significant differences between types of facilities in terms of sex of juveniles held, while
private facilities handle a larger percentage of whites and a lower percentage of Hispanics and
other minority youths. Few differences appear in the reason for admission when comparing
public and private institutions. Each type of institution handles roughly the same proportion
of youths committing different types of offenses. The only significant difference appears in
status offenses. In terms of status offenses, 11 percent of the youths in private institutions are
there for these violations, compared with only 2 percent of the youths in public facilities

27
(Sickmund et al., 2017).

TABLE 1.4 Characteristics of Juveniles in Correctional Facilities: Average One-Day Count (and Percentages): 2015

Source: Compiled by authors from Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, W., and Puzzanchera (2017).

Not unlike UCR or court statistics, correctional figures show that most offenders are male.
Females make up roughly 15 percent of institutionalized youths. In terms of types of offenses,
males greatly outnumber females for every category except status offenses, where females
make up 38 percent of those in custody (Sickmund et al., 2017). The racial breakdown for
youths reveals that blacks are committed to a facility more often than any other group.
Indeed, 42 percent of all committed youths are black, followed by whites (31 percent),
Hispanics (22 percent), and all other racial/ethnic groups (Sickmund et al., 2017).

The trend in correctional figures is somewhat interesting. Figures indicate that the number of
incarcerated youths steadily increased from 1983 to 1999, with steady reductions since. The
one-day count of youths in public and private facilities increased from 80,091 in 1983 to 99,008
in 1993 (a 24 percent increase) to 120,563 in 1999 (a further 22 percent increase), although the
number decreased by 60 percent to 48,043 in 2015. The earlier increases may be due to the
increased violence and drug problems in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Recent moderation in
incarceration mirrors the reduction in arrest statistics.

Summary of Official Statistics

Each of the various official measures of delinquency presents a slightly different view of
juvenile offending. In terms of numbers of offenses, the UCR presents the most disturbing
picture due to the large numbers of offenses it reflects. In addition to the number of offenses,
the UCR provides detailed information on a variety of demographic and crime-related
characteristics. Unfortunately, as noted earlier, this source of data has a number of inherent
defects that limit its usefulness, in particular its reliance upon offenses known to the police.

Juvenile court statistics and correctional facility data also present a picture of juvenile
misconduct that is somewhat narrow. A large part of the problem with these figures lies in the
fact that they are greatly dependent on the productivity of the police. Most youths entering

28
the courts and institutions initiate their journey by way of police contact. Any failure at the
police level, therefore, carries over to these other counts. The increased levels of status
offenses in court and correctional data is one point at which discrepancies with the arrest data
appear. This is probably due to court referrals from sources other than the police. The
problems and differences do not make the information useless, though. Rather, the data can be
used to assess the workings of the institutions over time and provide insight into the juvenile
system. They cannot be used to portray the extent of the juvenile crime problem accurately.
Web Activity
Correctional data are available at www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp.

Self-Report Measures of Delinquency

Self-report measures attempt to gauge the level of delinquency by asking individuals to tell
of their participation in deviant activity. This approach has a number of advantages. First, it is
possible to measure both actions “known to the police” and those that are not known by
official agents of social control. Second, it becomes possible to gather information on all
offenders and not just those few who are arrested for an offense. Self-reports do not need an
arrest in order to have information on the perpetrator. Third, self-report surveys can ask a
variety of questions designed to elicit information useful in understanding why an individual
violates the law. Information routinely collected includes data on family background (such as
broken home, parental affection), economic status (occupation, income), education, attitudes
(toward school, family, or work), friends’ behavior, and others, as well as direct questions
about the individual’s behavior. This type of information is not available from most official
delinquency measures. For these and other reasons, self-report methods have proliferated in
recent years.

Box 1.4 Short and Nye Self-Reported Delinquency Items

Defied parents' authority*

"Run away" from home
Driven a car without a driver's license or permit*
Skipped school*
Had a fist fight with one person
Taken little things (worth less than $2) that did not belong to you*
Taken things of medium value ($2-$50)
Taken things of large value ($50)
School probation or expulsion
Used force (strong-arm methods) to get money from another person
Driven too fast or recklessly
Taken part in "gang fights"

29
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back