U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

April 2003

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.ncjrs.org

J. Robert Flores, Administrator

A Message From OJJDP

The depiction of justice as a 

blind-folded figure holding a set of

scales illustrates our belief that fair

treatment—regardless of race—is

integral to the very concept of justice

in the United States. What role, if

any, does racial bias play in our 

juvenile justice system? 

Although a broad array of research

over the past half century has explored the degree to which race impacts the juvenile justice system, the

results are mixed. Some studies have

found evidence of racial bias, while

others have found that race is not a

significant factor.

Such diverse findings have contributed to correspondingly distinct

perspectives on the present state

of juvenile justice. Some observers

claim that the juvenile justice system

is biased against minority offenders,

while others argue that in general

the system treats all offenders in

an equitable manner.

The authors of this Bulletin focus on

a somewhat neglected area of research, i.e., the role that race plays

in police decisionmaking. Using

statistics from the FBI’s National

Incident-Based Reporting System,

they compare arrest probabilities of

white and nonwhite juveniles for violent crimes. Their investigation finds

no direct evidence that an offender’s

race affects police decisions to take

juveniles into custody in such incidents. Thus, it sheds light on one critical question about race and justice

and reminds us that others remain

to be answered.

of the five Wisconsin counties studied.

In these counties, no race-related differences in decisionmaking were apparent

after the initial intake decision—youth

were treated similarly at all decision

stages, regardless of race. In Milwaukee,

the largest metropolitan county in the

state, African American youth were overrepresented (relative to their share of the

total juvenile population) at all stages of

processing; however, race (i.e., being

African American) did not account for

these differences. Factors that predicted

whether a youth would be held in secure

confinement included severity of the

offense, prior secure confinement, and

whether a youth was on state probation;

race was not a significant factor. However,

a Michigan study (Wordes, Bynum, and

Corley, 1994) did find that minority youth

were more likely than white youth to be

detained in a secure facility. As the researchers note, “Across all analysis,

youth who were African American or

Latino were consistently more likely to

be placed in secure detention. This was

observed in the detention practices of

both the police and the courts” (p. 162).

These two studies illustrate the differences in research findings on the effects

of race in juvenile justice decisionmaking. The Wisconsin study found no significant effects at all, but the Michigan study

Race as a Factor in 

Juvenile Arrests

Carl E. Pope and Howard N. Snyder

Race-related issues are a major concern

in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. This Bulletin focuses on a specific

aspect of that concern within the juvenile

justice system: the effects of race on police decisions to take juvenile offenders

into custody. 

The Bulletin begins with background information, including a brief review of the research literature to date. It then analyzes

recent data from the Federal Bureau of

Investigation’s (FBI’s) National IncidentBased Reporting System (NIBRS) for evidence of racial bias in juvenile arrests

for violent crimes. Overall, the analysis

reveals no direct evidence that such bias

exists.

Background

A wide array of literature has been published over the past 50 years dealing with

the degree to which race affects juvenile

justice decisionmaking. Research findings

tend to be contradictory, in that some

studies find evidence of racial bias and

others do not. This inconsistency is not

surprising because different studies have

used different designs, timeframes, and

jurisdictions.

For example, one study (Pope et al., 1996)

found that race, per se, did not affect outcomes of juvenile justice processing in four
2

perspective is correct? This is a difficult

question to answer, and the truth may

never be known with absolute certainty.

There is research evidence to support

both perspectives (see Lovell and Pope,

1991), and the answer may well be a combination of the two, depending on where

and how the research is conducted. 

Traditionally, research on race and juvenile

justice has focused on four major decision

points in the juvenile justice system—

intake, detention, adjudication, and disposition. It is perhaps not surprising that few

research studies have focused on police

encounters with juveniles. These encounters are rather difficult to measure, as

they tend to be low-visibility events that

take place spontaneously on the streets.

However, studies that have examined

such encounters have generally found

that police decisionmaking does contribute to minority overrepresentation in

the juvenile justice system. This is simply

an observation that, within their scope

of responsibility, police decide when to

arrest and when not to arrest, and to the

extent that this decisionmaking process

results in the arrest of African American

youth at a higher rate than white youth,

it contributes to overrepresentation.

Without more information, though, it is

impossible to say whether that overrepresentation is the result of police bias or

differential behavior.

Thus, while some researchers have suggested racial bias as a possible explanation for these disparities (Conley, 1994,

Pope et al., 1996; Sealock and Simpson,

1998; Bynum, Wordes, and Corley, 1993;

Hartstone and Richetelli, 1995; Bridges

et al., 1993; Austin, Dimas, and Steinhardt,

1991), past studies have paid little attention to the underlying objective factors

that contribute to the street-level decisions

in question, leaving a gap in the knowledge

about racial bias in juvenile arrests. The

next section analyzes recent FBI data with

a view toward filling that gap.

Analysis of Statistical

Evidence

The Data

Traditionally, the aggregate reported crime

and arrest statistics of the FBI’s Uniform

Crime Reporting Program could not be

used to assess relative probabilities of

arrest (e.g., whether minority juveniles

are more likely than nonminorities to be

arrested for similar offenses). The FBI’s

did find significant effects with regard to

secure detention. Again, this is not surprising given the fact that juvenile justice

is “fragmented” (i.e., many different systems rather than a single, uniform system) and what occurs in one jurisdiction

may well not be the same as what occurs

in another. 

Despite the lack of consensus in findings,

these two studies and other research

(Pope, 1994) underscore the fact that the

issue of race is central to the administration of justice in this country. Two fundamentally different perspectives on the

issue have emerged.

Some observers argue that the justice

system is biased against minority offenders (the race-related selection bias perspective). With regard to juvenile justice,

these observers often point to the fact

that African American youth are more

likely to be arrested than other youth. In

1997, for example, 44 percent of juvenile

arrests for violent crimes involved African

American youth, although African Americans represented only 15 percent of the

national juvenile population at the time

(Snyder, 1998). In 1997, minorities accounted for 67 percent of juveniles committed to public facilities nationwide—

nearly twice their representation in the

juvenile population (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). In addition, national data

show that minority juvenile offenders are

more likely than white non-Hispanic offenders to be placed in public (rather

than private) custodial facilities (Snyder

and Sickmund, 1999).

Other observers argue that, although there

are some exceptions, overall the justice

system is fair and treats offenders similarly regardless of their race or ethnicity

(Wilbanks, 1987). These observers usually

note that, unfortunately, minority youth

are committing most of the crime and are

thus “doing most of the time.” They point

to crime-generating conditions such as underemployment, poverty, lack of opportunity, family dysfunction, and other structural

factors (see, for example, McCord, 1997;

Pope, 1999). Snyder and Sickmund (1999)

note that minority youth may be overrepresented within the juvenile justice system

because of behavioral and legal factors

(e.g., more extensive offense histories)—

what can be called the behavioral-legal

perspective. 

Thus, one perspective focuses on the operation of juvenile justice systems while

the other focuses on the behavior of individual juveniles who commit crime. Which

aggregate data provided demographic

information on arrestees but not on all

reported offenders; therefore, the data

could not be used to determine what proportion of all minority offenders known to

law enforcement were eventually arrested. 

In the late 1980s, the FBI proposed, and

supported the development of, a new

standard for reporting crime and arrest

statistics, the National Incident-Based

Reporting System. Through NIBRS, the

FBI asks law enforcement agencies to

record a substantial amount of information on each reported crime and each

arrest. For example, when an aggravated

assault is reported to a law enforcement

agency, the agency is asked for the following information:

◆ Age, sex, and race of the victim(s).

◆ Offense(s) involved.

◆ Date and time of the incident.

◆ Type of place where the incident

occurred.

◆ Each victim’s level of injury.

◆ Weapon(s) used, if any.

◆ Victim’s perception of the demographics of the offender(s), including age,

sex, and race.

◆ Victim-offender relationship(s).

◆ Demographics of arrestee(s), determined when an arrest occurs.

◆ Date of each arrest.

Researchers can examine NIBRS data on

the types of incidents likely to involve

victim-offender interaction, determine

the victim’s perception of the offender in

each incident, study which incidents resulted in arrests, and then compare, for

example, the arrest probabilities of white

and nonwhite juvenile offenders for similar crimes. More generally, researchers

can determine which crime incident characteristics increase the likelihood that an

arrest will be made and whether, for juvenile offenders, race is one of these

characteristics.

The data for this study come from the

1997 and 1998 NIBRS master files, which

were compiled and distributed by the

FBI. These files contain information on all

incidents that occurred in certified jurisdictions1 during each of these calendar

1 A law enforcement agency’s data are certified once

they have met the FBI’s strict reporting standards.

These standards require that all reported data fall

within the valid coding values for each data element.
3

of offenders possessed a firearm, knife,

club, or other nonpersonal weapon during

the crime. Most juvenile offenders (60.7

percent) victimized other juveniles. About

equal proportions of offenders victimized

males (53.0 percent) and females (47.0 percent). A greater proportion of offenders victimized acquaintances (68.0 percent) than

years and all arrests resulting from these

incidents that occurred as of December

31 of the following year. The data were

available from law enforcement agencies in 17 states (Colorado, Connecticut,

Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,

South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,

Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia). Incidents selected for this study were those

in which the most serious offense was

murder, a violent sex offense, robbery,

aggravated assault, simple assault, or

intimidation—all incidents involving

victim-offender contact. For each offender

in each incident, a record was prepared

containing the victim’s perception of the

offender’s demographics and the details

of the incident. 

Although it cannot be claimed that the

sample of law enforcement agencies represented by the NIBRS data is nationally

representative, the data did yield a large

sample of 141,786 juvenile offenders (i.e.,

offenders who were identified by their victims as younger than age 18). From this

initial sample, 27 percent were excluded

from the analysis because at least one of

the key characteristics listed in the previous column was missing. A comparison

of records that were excluded from the

analysis with those that were included in

it found no substantial differences in victim, offender, place, injury, or weapon

attributes. The final base for the analysis,

after incomplete records were excluded,

contained information for 102,905 juvenile

offenders.

Analysis and Results

The NIBRS data provide a profile of the

characteristics of violent crimes that

were reported to law enforcement agencies and that victims attributed to juvenile offenders. For most offenders (59.8

percent), simple assault was the most

serious charge in the recorded incident.

Far less common were aggravated assault

(18.9 percent), intimidation (9.2 percent),

violent sex offenses (7.7 percent), robbery (4.0 percent), kidnapping/abduction

(0.4 percent), and murder/nonnegligent

manslaughter (0.1 percent).

As shown in table 1, most offenders (81.8

percent) committed their crime against a

lone victim, and most (63.2 percent) committed their crime alone. Most (74.9 percent) committed their crime inside a

structure. About one-fifth (18.2 percent)

Table 1: Incident Characteristics of Violent Crimes by Juvenile Offenders

Offenders (%)

All White Nonwhite

Offense Characteristic (n=102,905) (n=71,246) (n=31,659)

Was offender arrested?

No 65.8 64.1 69.6

Yes 34.2 35.9 30.4

Number of victims

One 81.8 82.8 79.8

More than one 18.2 17.2 20.2

Number of offenders

One 63.2 67.1 54.4

More than one 36.8 32.9 45.6

Location of incident

Outdoors 25.1 21.7 32.8

Indoors 74.9 78.3 67.2

Most serious weapon

Personal 81.8 84.0 77.0

Nonpersonal 18.2 16.0 23.0

Victim age

Juvenile 60.7 62.1 57.6

Adult 39.3 37.9 42.4

Victim sex

Female 47.0 46.8 47.6

Male 53.0 53.2 52.4

Victim race

White 77.4 96.7 34.0

Nonwhite 22.6 3.3 66.0

Was victim injured?

No 53.8 53.9 53.6

Yes 46.2 46.1 46.4

Was offender a family member?

No 78.3 76.2 82.8

Yes 21.7 23.8 17.2

Was offender an acquaintance?

No 32.0 31.4 33.3

Yes 68.0 68.6 66.7

Was offender a stranger?

No 84.6 87.9 77.2

Yes 15.4 12.1 22.8

Offender sex

Female 26.8 26.5 27.7

Male 73.2 73.5 72.3

Offender race

White 69.2

Nonwhite 30.8
4

family members (21.7 percent) or strangers (15.4 percent).2 About one-half of the

offenders (46.2 percent) injured their victims during the incident. In this sample,

most offenders were male (73.2 percent)

and most were white (69.2 percent). 

Overall, for the crime incidents covered

in this analysis, white juveniles were significantly more likely to be arrested than

nonwhite (i.e., primarily African American)

juveniles.3 Based on victims’ perceptions,

69.2 percent of all juvenile offenders were

white; however, 72.7 percent of all juvenile offenders arrested were white. Law

enforcement agencies arrested 34.2 percent of all juvenile offenders reported to

them, 35.9 percent of all white juvenile

offenders reported to them, and 30.4 percent of all nonwhite juvenile offenders

reported to them.

The arrest proportions for white and nonwhite juvenile offenders noted above are

based on a simple cross-tabular comparison that does not take into account any

differences in the characteristics of incidents involving white and nonwhite offenders. Some of the disparity in arrest

proportions may be accounted for by

such differences (see table 1). Compared

with nonwhite juvenile offenders, white

juvenile offenders were:

◆ Less likely to have multiple victims

(17.2 percent of white offenders versus

20.2 percent of nonwhite offenders).

◆ More likely to act alone (67.1 percent

of white offenders versus 54.4 percent

of nonwhite offenders).

◆ More likely to commit crimes indoors

(78.3 percent of white offenders versus

67.2 percent of nonwhite offenders).

◆ Less likely to possess a nonpersonal

weapon, such as a firearm, knife, or

club (16.0 percent of white offenders

versus 23.0 percent of nonwhite

offenders).

◆ Less likely to offend against adults

(37.9 percent of white offenders versus

42.4 percent of nonwhite offenders).

◆ Equally likely to offend against females

(46.8 percent of white offenders and

47.6 percent of nonwhite offenders).

◆ Less likely to offend against members

of another race (3.3 percent of white

offenders versus 34.0 percent of nonwhite offenders).

◆ Equally likely to injure victims (46.1

percent of white offenders and 46.4

percent of nonwhite offenders).4

◆ More likely to commit crimes against

family members (23.8 percent of white

offenders versus 17.2 percent of nonwhite offenders), about equally likely

to commit crimes against acquaintances (68.6 percent of white offenders

and 66.7 percent of nonwhite offenders),

but less likely to commit crimes

against strangers (12.1 percent of

white offenders versus 22.8 percent

of nonwhite offenders).

Because incidents involving white offenders differed from those involving nonwhite offenders in several respects, a

simple cross-tabular comparison of differential arrest likelihoods for white and

nonwhite offenders may distort the actual

influence of an offender’s race on arrest

likelihood. Therefore, a logistic regression

analysis was performed to study the effect of offender race while controlling for

other incident characteristics. (Logistic

regression analysis results are presented

in table 2 and are discussed below. See

“How the Data Were Analyzed,” page 6,

for an explanation of methodology and

terminology, including how the arrest

“odds ratios” in the table relate to the

text discussion of arrest odds.)

Overriding the finding of the simple crosstabular analysis, the logistic regression

analysis found no difference in the likelihood of arrest for white and nonwhite

juvenile offenders (see table 2). However,

as shown in table 2, several other incident

characteristics substantially affected the

likelihood of arrest. For example, the

odds of an offender being arrested in a

multiple-victim incident were about 41

percent greater than the odds of arrest

in a single-victim incident. If more than

one offender was involved, arrest odds

decreased 85 percent. If a victim was

injured, arrest odds increased 53 percent.

If the victim was a member of the offender’s family, the odds of arrest increased

54 percent (compared with the odds if the

victim was a stranger). The odds of arrest

increased if the victim was an adult (29

percent), a male (5 percent), or white (24

percent). The odds of arrest for a male

offender were about 6 percent greater

than the odds for a female offender.

Logistic regression equations were developed separately for white and nonwhite

juvenile offenders to determine whether

incident characteristics affecting likelihood

of arrest differed for these two groups (see

table 2). The incident characteristics that

significantly increased the odds of arrest

for violent crimes were largely the same

for white and nonwhite offenders, with one

important difference: victim race was correlated with arrest probability for nonwhite juvenile offenders but not for white

offenders. A nonwhite juvenile offender

was more likely to be arrested if the victim

was white than if the victim was nonwhite.

The possible correlation between offender

race and arrest was further explored by

developing separate logistic regression

equations for each of the 11 NIBRS states

that reported at least 1,000 juvenile violent

crime offenders. In eight states, white and

nonwhite offenders had an equal likelihood

of arrest; in two states, nonwhite offenders

were more likely to be arrested; and in one

state, white offenders were more likely to

be arrested.

Arrest bias was also explored by conducting separate logistic regression analyses

for five crimes: aggravated assault, intimidation, robbery, simple assault, and violent sexual assault. The offender’s race

was not significantly correlated with the

likelihood of arrest for intimidation or

violent sexual assault. The offender’s race

was significantly correlated with the likelihood of arrest for the other three crimes

(aggravated assault, robbery, and simple

assault), but the effect was that white

offenders were more likely to be arrested

than nonwhite offenders.

4 However, injuries by nonwhite offenders were more

likely to be serious than were those by white offenders (7.9 percent versus 4.0 percent).

2 The victim-offender relationship proportions add to

more than 100 percent because some offenders victimized more than one person in the incident and

sometimes these multiple victims fell into different

relationship categories.

3 NIBRS distinguishes four racial groups: white, African

American, Native American, and Asian/Pacific Islander.

In this NIBRS sample, very few offenders were classified as Native American or Asian/Pacific Islander.
5

Table 2: Logistic Regression To Predict Arrest of Violent Juvenile Offenders

All Offenders White Offenders Nonwhite Offenders

(n=102,905) (n=71,246) (n=31,659)

Dichotomized Percent Odds Percent Odds Percent Odds

Independent Variable† Arrested‡ Ratio Arrested‡ Ratio Arrested‡ Ratio

Number of victims 1.4076** 1.4049** 1.4019**

One (0) 33.7 35.5 29.6

More than one (1) 36.3 37.7 33.5

Number of offenders 0.5418** 0.5051** 0.6292**

One (0) 38.9 40.5 34.5

More than one (1) 26.0 26.3 25.4

Location of incident 1.1679** 1.1922** 1.1307**

Outdoors (0) 28.1 29.7 25.6

Indoors (1) 36.2 37.5 32.7

Most serious weapon 1.2910** 1.3704** 1.1587**

Personal (0) 33.2 34.7 29.5

Nonpersonal (1) 38.5 41.8 33.4

Victim age 1.2915** 1.2796** 1.3322**

Juvenile (0) 30.3 31.9 26.5

Adult (1) 40.1 42.3 35.6

Victim sex 1.0505** 1.0513** 1.0380ns

Female (0) 34.8 36.4 31.1

Male (1) 33.6 35.3 29.7

Victim race 0.8036** 0.9577ns 0.7359*

White (0) 35.5 36.0 32.6

Nonwhite (1) 29.5 31.5 29.2

Was victim injured? 1.5322** 1.6545** 1.2788**

No (0) 30.5 31.3 28.7

Yes (1) 38.4 41.2 32.3

Was victim a family member? 1.5409** 1.4761** 1.7550**

No (0) 30.6 31.9 27.8

Yes (1) 47.0 48.4 42.5

Was victim an acquaintance? 0.9542* 0.9213* 1.0299ns

No (0) 41.5 44.4 35.3

Yes (1) 30.7 31.9 27.9

Offender sex 1.0614** 1.0884** 0.9966ns

Female (0) 33.3 34.8 30.2

Male (1) 34.5 36.2 30.4

Offender race 0.9617ns

White (0) 35.9

Nonwhite (1) 30.4

Note: For explanation of terminology, see “How the Data Were Analyzed” (page 6).

† The assigned value code is given in parentheses.

‡ “Percent arrested” is a simple percentage of the sample, with no attempt to control for the variations of incident characteristics between 

“value 0” and “value 1” conditions.

* p ≤ .05.

** p ≤ .001.

ns = not significant.
6

Summary and Discussion

Overall, the NIBRS data offer no evidence

to support the hypothesis that police are

more likely to arrest nonwhite juvenile

offenders than white juvenile offenders,

once other incident attributes are taken

into consideration. This holds true when

the data are analyzed in the aggregate

(i.e., for all states and crimes combined),

at the state level, and within each crime

category. In fact, there is some evidence

to support the conclusion that once a violent crime is reported to or witnessed by

police, the likelihood of arrest is greater

for white juvenile offenders than for nonwhite juvenile offenders. The data do indicate, however, an indirect bias effect in

the arrest of nonwhite juveniles in that

they are more likely to be arrested when

the victim is white than when the victim

is nonwhite.

At one level, then, these data clearly show

that police decisions to arrest youth for

violent crimes are not affected by the

youth’s race. In the 17 states examined,

no significant differences were found with

regard to arrest decisions for white and

nonwhite youth. Overall, crimes against

white victims were more likely to result in

arrest than were crimes against nonwhite

victims. 

A limitation of this study is that it summarizes the general arrest patterns of law

enforcement agencies in 17 states that

reported NIBRS data to the FBI in 1997

and 1998. Obviously, one cannot make

generalizations beyond the data. Overall

patterns might differ if other states were

included in the sample. Additionally, different patterns might be found if analyses

focused on individual communities within

the sample.

How the Data Were Analyzed

conditions with the odds of it occurring under an almost

identical set of conditions. Odds represent a comparison

of the probability of the event occurring to the probability

of it not occurring. For example, in this study, 34.2 percent

of all juvenile offenders reported by victims were arrested

and 65.8 percent were not. Therefore, the odds of being

arrested are 0.5198 (34.2 percent/65.8 percent). Stated in

the reverse, the odds of not being arrested are 1.9240

(65.8 percent/34.2 percent). The simplest verbal summary

is to say the juvenile offenders have odds of about 2 to 1

of not being arrested. If analysis finds that the odds of an

event occurring in two slightly different situations are statistically different, then the difference between the two situations can be said to significantly affect the odds of the

event occurring. For mathematical reasons, it is impossible

to determine the true odds of arrest in two slightly different

situations. However, logistic regression can test whether

the average of the fraction formed by the ratio of the two

odds (i.e., the odds ratio) across all situations is significantly different from 1. Mathematically, an odds ratio is

always positive and can either be greater than 1 or less

than 1, depending on which condition is considered to be

in the numerator of the ratio.

Two examples may help to clarify how to interpret the findings of a logistic regression. In this study, the odds ratio of

arrest in multiple-victim compared with single-victim violent

crimes is 1.4076. This ratio is statistically greater than 1 and

can be read to imply that the odds of arrest in multiplevictim crimes average 40.76 percent greater than the odds

of arrest in single-victim crimes. (Note that this is not a

40.76-percent greater probability of arrest but a 40.76-

percent greater odds of arrest.) Another finding from this

study is a significant odds ratio of 0.5418 when comparing

arrest odds for multiple-offender incidents with arrest odds

for single-offender incidents. If this odds ratio were calculated comparing single-offender incidents with multipleoffender incidents, it would be 1.8457 (i.e., the reciprocal

of 0.5418, or 1/[0.5418] = 1.8457). To simplify interpretation, therefore, this odds ratio of 0.5418 is thought of as a

ratio of 1.8457 and is said to indicate that being a lone

offender increases the odds of arrest an average of 84.57

percent across all possible incident situations.

Once the final sample of incident-based juvenile offender

records was identified, statistical relations among various

incident characteristics (independent variables) and

arrest (dependent variable) were analyzed. The characteristics analyzed included number of victims and offenders, victim demographics, offender demographics (as

perceived by the victims), location, weapon, injury, and

victim-offender relationship. (If an incident involved more

than one victim, the analysis used the characteristics of

the first-listed victim.) For purposes of the analysis, the

variables were dichotomized (i.e., expressed as a choice

between two possibilities, with value codes of either 0 or

1 assigned to each possibility), as follows:

◆ Number of victims: 0 = One; 1 = More than one.

◆ Number of offenders: 0 = One; 1 = More than one.

◆ Location of incident: 0 = Outdoors (e.g., roads and

streets); 1 = Indoors (e.g., residences and schools).

◆ Most serious weapon: 0 = Personal (hands, feet);

1 = Nonpersonal (firearms, knives, clubs, etc.).

◆ Victim age: 0 = Juvenile; 1 = Adult.

◆ Victim sex: 0 = Female; 1 = Male.

◆ Victim race: 0 = White; 1 = Nonwhite.

◆ Victim injured? 0 = No; 1 = Yes.

◆ Victim a member of offender’s family? 0 = No; 1 = Yes.

◆ Victim an acquaintance of offender? 0 = No; 1 = Yes.

◆ Victim a stranger to offender? 0 = No; 1 = Yes.

◆ Offender sex: 0 = Female; 1 = Male.

◆ Offender race: 0 = White; 1 = Nonwhite.

◆ Offender arrested? 0 = No; 1 = Yes.

The technique used to analyze these data—logistic

regression—makes it possible to determine how each of

the incident characteristics affects the probability that a

juvenile offender will be arrested. Logistic regression compares the odds of an event occurring under one set of
7

The possibility of racial bias in juvenile

arrests is an important issue. The analyses reported in this Bulletin, regardless

of their limitations, reveal no direct evidence that such bias exists in police arrests of juveniles for serious (and some

nonserious) violent crimes. 

References

Austin, J., Dimas, J., and Steinhardt, D. 1991.

The Overrepresentation of Minority Youth in

California’s Secure Facilities. Prepared for the

California Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice

and the California Office of Criminal Justice

Planning. San Francisco, CA: National Council

on Crime and Delinquency.

Bridges, G., Conley, D., Biretta, G., and Eigen, R.

1993. Racial Disproportionality in the Juvenile

Justice System. Report to the Department of

Social and Health Service, State of Washington,

Olympia, WA.

Bynum, T.C., Wordes, M., and Corley, J.C. 1993.

Disproportionate Representation in Juvenile

Justice in Michigan: Examining the Influence of

Race and Gender. Technical Report prepared

for the Michigan Committee on Juvenile

Justice, East Lansing, MI.

Conley, D.J. 1994. Adding color to a black and

white picture: Using qualitative data to explain

disproportionality in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31(2):135–148.

Hartstone, E., and Richetelli, D. 1995. An Assessment of Minority Overrepresentation in Connecticut’s Juvenile Justice System. Hartford, CT:

Spectrum Associates.

Lovell, R., and Pope, C.E. 1991. Discrimination

or no discrimination: A methodological critique

of the evidence. Critical Criminologist 3(2):1–2,

11, 14.

McCord, J., ed. 1997. Violence and Childhood in

the Inner City. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Pope, C.E. 1994. Racial disparities in the juvenile justice system. Overcrowded Times: Solving

the Prison Problem 5(6):1, 5–7.

Pope, C.E. 1999. Crime and violence, popular

misconceptions of. In Violence in America: An

Encyclopedia, edited by R. Gottesman. New

York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Pope, C.E., Lovell, R., Stojkovic, S., and Rose, H.

1996. Minority Overrepresentation: Phase II

Study Final Report. Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin

Office of Justice Assistance, Governor’s Commission on Juvenile Justice.

Sealock, M.D., and Simpson, S.S. 1998. Unraveling bias in arrest decisions: The role of

juvenile offender type-scripts. Justice Quarterly 15(3):427–457.

Snyder, H.N. 1998. Juvenile Arrests 1997. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile

Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Wilbanks, W. 1987. The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/

Cole Publishing Company.

Wordes, M., Bynum, T.C., and Corley, C.J. 1994.

Locking up youth: The impact of race on

detention decisions. Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency 31(2):149–165.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number 99–JN–FX–K002 from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. This grant was provided to

the National Center for Juvenile Justice in support of its National Juvenile Justice Data

Analysis Project.

It’s Fast

Want to know more about the issues

in this publication or related information?

Log on to ojjdp.ncjrs.org:

➤ Browse titles alphabetically or

by topic.

➤ Discover the latest OJJDP releases.

➤ Subscribe to OJJDP’s listserv 

JUVJUST and the electronic 

newsletter JUSTINFO.

➤ Link to the NCJRS Abstracts Database

to search for publications of interest.

It’s Easy

It’s Free

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by Carl E. Pope, Ph.D., Professor in the Criminal Justice

Program at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, and Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D.,

Director of Systems Research at the National Center for Juvenile Justice. Some

information contained in this Bulletin was originally presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, CA, November 2000.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Bulletin NCJ 189180

*NCJ~189180*