U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

October 2001

Homicides of 

Children and Youth

David Finkelhor and Richard Ormrod

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is committed to

improving the justice system’s response to crimes against children. OJJDP recognizes

that children are at increased risk for crime victimization. Not only are children the victims of many of the same crimes that victimize adults, they are subject to other crimes,

like child abuse and neglect, that are specific to childhood. The impact of these crimes

on young victims can be devastating, and the violent or sexual victimization of children

can often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse. The purpose of

OJJDP’s Crimes Against Children Series is to improve and expand the Nation’s efforts

to better serve child victims by presenting the latest information about child victimization,

including analyses of crime victimization statistics, studies of child victims and their special needs, and descriptions of programs and approaches that address these needs. 

A Message From OJJDP

Homicides are always tragic, but our

sympathies are heightened when the

victim is a young child or adolescent.

Thus, the deaths of juveniles raise

understandable public concerns.

Unfortunately, research statistics seldom claim the broad audience of the

morning newspaper or the evening

news. This Bulletin, part of OJJDP’s

Crimes Against Children Series,

draws on FBI and other data to provide a statistical portrait of juvenile

homicide victimization.

Homicide is the only major cause of

childhood deaths that has increased

over the past three decades. In 1999,

some 1,800 juveniles, or 3 per

100,000 of the U.S. juvenile population, were homicide victims—a rate

substantially higher than those of

other developed countries. At the

same time, murders of juveniles are

infrequent in many areas of our

country. In 1997, 85 percent of

U.S. counties had no homicides of

juveniles.

The Bulletin offers detailed information about overall patterns and victim

age groups. Specific types of juvenile

homicide victimization are discussed

in further detail, including maltreatment homicides, abduction homicides, and school homicides.

Finally, initiatives designed to prevent

homicides of children and youth

(juveniles) are explored. Given the

unacceptable rate of such crimes,

much remains to be done.

Murders of children and youth, the ultimate form of juvenile victimization, have

received a great deal of deserved publicity

in recent years.1 Yet, while images of Polly

Klaas and student victims at Columbine

High School are vivid in the public’s mind,

statistics on juvenile murder victims are

not. Substantial misunderstandings exist

about the magnitude of and trends in juvenile homicide and the types of children at

risk of becoming victims of different types

of homicide.

This Bulletin gives a brief statistical portrait of various facets of child and youth

homicide victimization in the United

States. It draws heavily on homicide

data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Supplementary Homicide

Reports (SHRs), which are part of the

Bureau’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program; however, it also relies on a variety

of other studies and statistical sources.

Highlights of the findings presented in this

Bulletin include the following:

◆ In 1999, about 1,800 juveniles (a rate of

2.6 per 100,000) were victims of homicide in the United States. This rate is

substantially higher than that of any

other developed country.

◆ Homicides of juveniles in the United

States are unevenly distributed, both

geographically and demographically.

Rates are substantially higher for

African American juveniles and for

juveniles in certain jurisdictions. Yet,

85 percent of all U.S. counties had no

homicides of juveniles in 1997.

◆ Homicides of young children (age 5 and

younger), children in middle childhood

1 Strictly speaking, murder and homicide are not identical; however, in this Bulletin the terms are sometimes used interchangeably to improve readability.
2

urban areas than in rural and smaller 

urban areas. In 1997, 85 percent of all U.S.

counties did not have a single homicide of

a juvenile, while five highly urban counties (Chicago, IL; Detroit, MI; Los Angeles,

CA; New York, NY; and Philadelphia, PA)

accounted for one-fourth of all such victimizations nationwide (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). 

Geographic areas can be differentiated not

only by the rate at which juveniles are the

victims of homicide but also by the percentage of all homicides in the area that

involve a juvenile victim (see figure 3).

Thus, in some States with a low rate of

juvenile victim homicides, such as New

Hampshire and some other New England

States, juveniles actually constitute an

above-average percentage (more than

20 percent) of all homicide victims in the

State. However, in other low-rate States,

such as West Virginia, juveniles represent

less than 10 percent of all homicide victims. The grim combination of a high rate

of juvenile victim homicides and a high

causes of childhood mortality, accounting

for 1 out of 23 deaths of children and youth

younger than 18 (U.S. Census Bureau,

1998). More children 0–4 years of age in

the United States now die from homicide

than from infectious diseases or cancer,

and homicide claims the lives of more

teenagers in the United States than any

cause other than accidents (U.S. Census

Bureau, 1998). Since 1993, however, homicides of juveniles have joined the downward trend in homicides of adults that

began in 1991 (figure 1).

Juvenile homicide is one of the most unevenly distributed forms of child victimization. Certain groups and localities experience the overwhelming brunt of the

problem. 

Minority children and youth are disproportionately affected. For example, 52 percent

of juvenile victims of homicide are nonwhite (Snyder and Finnegan, 1998). Even

after a recent decline, the overall rate of

victimization for black juveniles (9.1 per

100,000) in 1997 dwarfed the rate for white

juveniles (1.8 per 100,000) (figure 2). The

victimization rate for Hispanic juveniles in

three States where data are available was

also quite high in 1997 (5.0 per 100,000).3

The uneven distribution is also geographic.

Some States have no juvenile homicides,

and some have rates that are twice the

national average (table 1). Homicides of

juveniles are much more common in large

(ages 6 to 11), and teenagers (ages 12

to 17)2 differ on a number of dimensions, suggesting that they should be

analyzed separately.

◆ Most homicides of young children are

committed by family members through

beatings or suffocation. Although victims include approximately equal numbers of boys and girls, offenders include a disproportionate number of

women. Homicides of young children

may be seriously undercounted.

◆ Middle childhood is a time when a

child’s homicide risk is relatively low.

Homicides of children in middle childhood show a mixed pattern. Some

result from child maltreatment and

others from the use of firearms. Some

are sexually motivated, and some are

committed as part of multiple-victim

family homicides.

◆ Homicides of teenagers, most of which

involve male victims killed by male offenders using firearms, rose dramatically in the late 1980s and early 1990s but

have declined sharply since 1993.

Overall Patterns

Overall, the statistics on murders of juveniles in the United States are grim and

alarming. According to FBI data, 1,789

persons under 18 were victims of homicide in 1999 (Fox and Zawitz, 2001). That

number—equal to a rate of 2.6 per 100,000

juveniles or more than 5 juveniles per

day—makes the United States first among

developed countries in homicides of juveniles (Krug, Dahlberg, and Powell, 1996).

In fact, the U.S. rate is 5 times higher than

the rate of the other 25 developed countries combined and nearly double the rate

of the country with the next highest rate.

The rate at which juveniles are murdered

in the United States is related to the Nation’s high overall homicide rate: 5.7

per 100,000 in 1999, 3 times higher than

the overall rate of any other developed

country (Fox and Zawitz, 2001).

Homicide is the only major cause of

childhood death that has increased in 

incidence during the past 30 years. While

deaths of children resulting from accidents, congenital defects, and infectious

diseases were falling, homicides of children were increasing. Homicide is now

ranked second or third, depending on the

specific age group, among the 3 leading

2 See discussion of victim age groups on page 3.

3 Homicide rates for Hispanic youth are based on data

from Arizona, California, and Texas—States that regularly report information on victim ethnicity (this item

is optional for the SHRs). Because of this limited reporting, the rates should not be considered nationally

representative. Furthermore, the location of the three

reporting States suggests the data are more likely to

be typical of juvenile victims of Mexican-American

background than of those of other Hispanic origin.

Figure 1: Homicide Rates for Juvenile and Adult Victims, 1980–97

’80 ’81 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’85 ’86 ’87 ’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97

Rate per 100,000 Persons

Adult victims (over 17 years)

Juvenile victims (0 to 17 years)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Year

Note: Rates were calculated by the Crimes against Children Research Center.

Source: Snyder and Finnegan, 1998.
3

percentage of juveniles among a State’s

homicide victims occurs in 11 States—

including California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, which contain 3 of the 5 large cities

identified above.

Such a broad summary of statistics on

homicides involving juvenile victims is

somewhat misleading in that it masks

the multifaceted nature of the problem.

Homicides of children and youth can take

many different forms, each of which involves different contributing factors and

calls for different prevention strategies.

A victim’s age is one important distinction. The relative risk and characteristics

of homicide victimization differ for juveniles of different ages. Homicides of children and youth can also be distinguished

by characteristics of the perpetrator and

certain contextual factors. This Bulletin

explores different facets of homicides of

juveniles, starting with important differences based on the age of the victim. The

following age groups are discussed in order of decreasing risk: teenagers, young

children, and children in middle childhood. The Bulletin also briefly describes

what is known about particular types of

homicides—such as child maltreatment

homicides and school homicides—that

Figure 2: Juvenile Victim Homicide Rates, by Victim Race and 

Ethnicity, 1990–97

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Rate per 100,000 Juveniles

(ages 0–17)

Black victims*

Hispanic victims**

White victims*

Year

Note: Rates were calculated by the Crimes against Children Research Center.

* Includes Hispanics within race.

** Three reporting States (Arizona, California, and Texas) only (see footnote 3, page 2); includes

Hispanics of any race.

Source: Homicide data for white victims and black victims from Snyder and Finnegan, 1998.

Homicide data for Hispanic victims from Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997.

Table 1: Homicides of Juveniles: Average State Rates per 100,000 

Juveniles Ages 0–17, 1996 and 1997

State Rate

Utah 1.9

Oregon 1.9

Vermont 1.7

Idaho 1.7

Iowa 1.4

West Virginia 1.2

Hawaii 1.2

Massachusetts 1.1

Delaware 1.1

Maine 1.0

New Hampshire 1.0

South Dakota 1.0

Wyoming 0.8

Montana 0

North Dakota 0

Kansas N/A

State Rate

Pennsylvania 2.9

Texas 2.8

Georgia 2.8

New York 2.8

North Carolina 2.7

Connecticut 2.7

Ohio 2.6

Wisconsin 2.6

Alabama 2.6

Indiana 2.6

Colorado 2.5

Florida 2.5

Kentucky 2.3

Rhode Island 2.3

New Jersey 2.3

Washington 2.3

Minnesota 2.0

State Rate

Nevada 6.2

Illinois 5.4

Louisiana 5.4

Maryland 5.1

Alaska 5.0

Mississippi 4.5

California 4.4

New Mexico 3.9

Missouri 3.7

Tennessee 3.6

Nebraska 3.6

Oklahoma 3.6

Arkansas 3.3

South Carolina 3.3

Virginia 3.1

Arizona 3.0

Michigan 3.0

Note: Homicide rates were calculated by the Crimes against Children Research Center.

Source: Snyder and Finnegan, 1998.

have been the focus of recent public

concern. The Bulletin ends with a discussion of policy initiatives that focus on preventing the homicide of juveniles.

Victim Age Groups

Teenagers

The murder of teenagers has received substantial publicity in recent years, in part

because of the rising number of teenage

victims between 1984 and 1993. The number of homicides involving teenage victims

increased nearly 158 percent during that

time (figure 4) and by 1993 reached a rate

29 percent higher than the Nation’s overall

rate (Fox and Zawitz, 2001). Even after declining from 1993 to 1997, the homicide

rate for teenagers remained about 10 percent higher than the average homicide

rate for all persons (Fox and Zawitz, 2001). 

The term “teenager,” as used in this Bulletin, refers to youth ages 12 to 17. Age 12

is the most useful point of demarcation for

examining homicide patterns and trends

across childhood because it is the age at

which rates begin to rise significantly (see

figure 5). It is also the age above which the

marked increase in the rate at which juveniles are murdered occurred in the late

1980s (see figure 4).

Compared with homicides of children

younger than 12, homicides of teenagers

more closely resemble and appear to be

an extension of homicides of adults. Like

homicides of adults, homicides of teenagers overwhelmingly involve a male victim (81 percent) (figure 6) killed by a male
4

offender (95 percent) (no figure) using a

firearm (86 percent) or a knife or other

object (10 percent) (figure 7). Unlike homicides of children under age 12, relatively

few homicides of teenagers (9 percent) are

committed by family members (figure 8).4

The percentage of homicide victims murdered by other youth is much larger for

teenagers (figure 9) than for victims

younger than 12. Nonetheless, two-thirds

of teenage homicide victims are killed by

adults. The murderers of teenagers are predominantly young (figure 9), but only a

minority are younger than 18.

The dramatic increase in the number of

teenagers murdered during the late 1980s

and early 1990s has been attributed to

various factors, including the rise in child

poverty, expansion of gang activity,

spread of crack cocaine and drug market

competition, and increased availability of

handguns. The growth in the number of

homicides of teens from 1984 to 1993 was

almost entirely in the category of firearm

homicides, which accounted for 85 percent of all homicides of teenagers during

that time (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999).

Some of the increase in teens’ gun use

during that period may have been connected to the drug trade and a perceived need

to protect valuable drugs and money. The

cycle of gun use accelerated as additional

youth acquired guns to protect themselves from other armed youth.

Although the number of teen homicide

victims rose dramatically in the late 1980s,

the increase was somewhat limited demographically and geographically, occurring

primarily in certain parts of urban communities. Available data confirm that the

increase did not affect all segments of the

population equally. In particular, data

show a disproportionate rise in the risk

of homicide for minority teens. Although

homicides of white teenagers almost

doubled (up 92 percent) from 1984 to

1993, homicides of minority teens more

than tripled during the same period (Snyder and Finnegan, 1998). The number of

African American teens murdered during

the period increased 233 percent (from

314 to 1,047), and the number of other

minority teens (i.e., Asian American,

Native American, and Pacific Islander)

increased 275 percent (from 12 to 45).

Rural areas were relatively unaffected by

the increase in the rate of homicides of

teens. Between the late 1980s and early

1990s, rates barely rose in towns with

Figure 3: Juvenile Victim Homicide Rate and Juveniles as a Percentage

of All Homicide Victims, by State, Average for 1996 and 1997

High rate, high percentage Low rate, high percentage Missing data

High rate, low percentage Low rate, low percentage

Note: “High” and “low” refer to rates or percentages that are above or below the national

average.

Source: Snyder and Finnegan, 1998.

Figure 4: Homicides of Juveniles, by Victim Age Group, 1980–97

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Teenagers (12–17 years)

Young children (0–5 years)

Number of Homicides

Children in middle childhood (6–11 years)

’80 ’81 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’85 ’86 ’87 ’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97

Year

Note: The Crimes against Children Research Center adjusted the homicide data by age group.

Source: Snyder and Finnegan, 1998.

populations smaller than 25,000 while

they more than doubled in cities with

populations larger than 250,000.

4 This percentage is calculated for each juvenile victim

age group rather than for all juvenile victims as shown

in figures 7 and 8.
5

After peaking in 1993, the number of homicides of teenagers dropped markedly (34

percent) by 1997 (Snyder and Finnegan,

1998), although it remained above the low

of the mid-1980s (figure 4). Decreases from

the peak in 1993 until 1997 were similar

for whites (33 percent), African Americans

(39 percent), and Hispanics (40 percent),5

meaning that the differential rates for

these groups persisted. In disturbing

contrast, however, the number of homicides of teens of other races (i.e., Asian

American, Native American, and Pacific

Islander) increased 51 percent during that

period. Homicide statistics for 1997 show

that gangs and drugs remained a part of

many killings of teens (gangs in 29 percent

and drugs in 6 percent of homicides)

(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997).

The role of firearms also remained important; during 1993 and 1997, more than 80

percent of homicides of teens involved the

use of a firearm. 

Young Children

Often eclipsed by the public’s concern

about the murder of teenagers is the fact

that young children (i.e., those age 5 and

younger)6 face an elevated risk of homicide, although under different conditions.

FBI data show 700 homicide victims under

age 6 in 1997 (a rate of 2.6 per 100,000)

(Snyder and Finnegan, 1998; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997). The homicide

rate for young children was for many years

equal to the rate for teens, before the latter’s recent rise. In spite of that rise, more

girls under age 6 were homicide victims

than girls ages 12 to 17 (320 versus 230)

and white children under age 6 were victims of homicide 75 percent as often as

white teens (1.8 per 100,000 and 2.4 per

100,000, respectively) in 1997 (figure 10).

Moreover, the actual homicide rate for

young children may be even higher than

available official statistics suggest. The

homicides of young children are among

the most difficult to document because

they so often resemble deaths resulting

from accidents and other causes. For example, a child who dies from SIDS (sudden

infant death syndrome) is difficult to distinguish from one who has been smothered, and a child who has been thrown or

intentionally dropped may have injuries

similar to those of one who died from an

accidental fall.

A team of experts carefully examined

the fatalities of children ages 0 to 4 that

occurred from 1983 through 1986 in the

State of Missouri. Using multiple information sources, the team found that the

true extent of child deaths that could be

considered homicides was largely underestimated. FBI homicide data for Missouri

had included only 39 percent of the fatalities that “definitely” resulted from maltreatment and 18 percent of fatalities that

“possibly or definitely” resulted from maltreatment (Ewigman, Kivlahan, and Land,

1993). Some analysts have estimated the

Figure 5: Juvenile Victim Homicide Rate, by Victim Age, 1997

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Rate per 100,000 Juveniles 

(ages 0–17)

16 17

Victim Age

Note: Rates were calculated by the Crimes against Children Research Center.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997.

Figure 6: Juvenile Victim Homicide Rate, by Victim Sex and Age, 1997

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Rate per 100,000 Juveniles 

(ages 0–17)

Males

Females

<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Victim Age

Note: Rates were calculated by the Crimes against Children Research Center.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997.

6 The authors use age 5 as the cutoff for defining a

“young child” because lifestyle changes occur when

universal school enrollment begins (usually at age 6). 

5 The decrease for Hispanics is based on data from

three States only, as noted earlier. Homicides of

Hispanic teenagers peaked in these States in 1995

(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997).
6

actual rate of homicides for young children

to be double the official rate (U.S. Advisory

Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).

Homicides of young children rose 38 percent between 1984 and 1993 (figure 4).

After remaining elevated for a number

of years, the number of such homicides

declined in 1997 (dropping about 16 percent from 1996). Much of the earlier increase was among children ages 0 to 1

and may have been an artifact of classification. Because of the difficulty of confirming homicide in the deaths of very young

children, many States established child

death review teams in the 1980s. The

greater scrutiny by such teams may have

elevated official child homicide rates without any true underlying increase in the

incidence of child homicides. In addition,

more than 23 States in recent years have

adopted “homicide by abuse” statutes that

make it easier for prosecutors to charge

offenders with homicide in child abuse

cases—even without proof of intent to kill.

This statutory change also could have produced some “artifactual” increase in the

rates at which children are murdered.

Two characteristics that particularly distinguish the homicides of young children

from those of other juvenile victims are

that homicides of young children are

committed primarily by family members

(71 percent) (figure 8) and by the common

(68 percent) use of “personal weapons”

(i.e., hands and feet) to batter, strangle,

or suffocate victims (figure 7) (see footnote 4, page 4). Also, young girls and

young boys are victims of homicide in

about equal proportions (46 percent and

54 percent, respectively), and although

male perpetrators somewhat outnumber

female perpetrators (58 percent and 42

percent, respectively) in homicides of

young children, females are involved in

these homicides more often than in homicides of victims of any other age (Federal

Bureau of Investigation, 1997).

Young children at the highest risk of homicide are those under age 1 (figure 5). Homicides of children in this group include a

certain number of infanticides (homicides

in which recently born children are killed

by relatives who do not want the child,

are ill equipped to care for the child, or

are suffering from a childbirth-related

psychiatric disturbance) (Resnick, 1970).

FBI homicide data do not identify infanticides as a distinct subgroup. Countries

such as Britain and Canada, by contrast,

Figure 7: Juvenile Victim Homicides, by Weapon Used and Victim 

Age Group, 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Percentage of All Homicides 

of Juveniles

Firearm Personal/asphyxiation

Knife/object Other/unknown

Victim Age

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997.

Figure 8: Juvenile Victim Homicide Rates, by Victim-Offender

Relationship and Victim Age, 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Family Acquaintance Stranger Unknown

Percentage of All Offenders in 

Homicides of Juveniles

<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Victim Age

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997.
7

have a special infanticide offense category,

and one Canadian study indicated that

60 percent of homicides of children under

6 months old qualified as infanticide (Silverman and Kennedy, 1988). In the United

States, FBI data do identify victims murdered during the first 6 days of life (victims

of what is sometimes called neonaticide),

and in 1997, there were about 70 such victims (Federal Bureau of Investigation,

1997). Two-thirds were murdered by mothers, one-half of whom were under age 20.

Fathers were responsible for about 1 out of

10 of these murders. The number of children murdered during the first 6 days of

life remained stable throughout the 1990s.

Children in Middle Childhood

Middle childhood, ages 6 to 11, seems to

be a time when children are relatively

immune from the risk of homicide. Although children in this age group can face

substantial violence, in the form of both

parental assaults at home and peer aggression in their school and neighborhood, relatively little of it is lethal. The

overall homicide rate of 0.6 per 100,000

for children in middle childhood is far

lower than that for juveniles of any other

age group (figure 5). The rate during this

period is even low for children in population subgroups, such as African Americans, that have high overall juvenile homicide rates. The homicide rate for children

in middle childhood is lower than that for

any other segment of the population, including the elderly. (The murder rate is

2.2 per 100,000 for those 65 and older.)

The homicide rate is probably low for

children in middle childhood because this

period is a time of transition. Children

ages 6 to 11 have outgrown some of the

characteristics that make very young children vulnerable to lethal force, but they

have not begun to engage in the activities

that drive up the homicide rate for adolescents. Thus, children in middle childhood

are less dependent and require less continual care than very young children.

They are also more self-sufficient and

possess a degree of socialization and verbal skills that younger children do not possess. These qualities make children in middle childhood less of a burden and less

potentially frustrating for their parents

and other adult caregivers, who are the

primary perpetrators of early childhood

homicide. Children in middle childhood

are also bigger and better able to hide

from, dodge the blows of, and get away

from angry parents than young children.

It takes more force and energy to inflict a

lethal injury on a child age 6 to 11 than

on a younger child. By the same token,

children in middle childhood are protected from some of the dangers that affect

adolescents. They are usually under adult

supervision and protection, and most

have not yet gained access to weapons,

drugs, and cars. Gang activity, while starting for some, has not yet become highly

dangerous. Children in middle childhood

are also less likely than adolescents to be

considered threats or viewed as candidates for involvement in crime by criminally minded adults or youth.

Children in middle childhood, however,

do get murdered. Their deaths appear to

Figure 9: Offender Age in Juvenile Victim Homicides, by Victim 

Age Group, 1997

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 50+

Percentage of Offenders for 

Each Victim Age Group

Teenagers (12–17 years)

Young children (0–5 years)

Children in middle childhood 

(6–11 years)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Offender Age

Note: This figure presents 3-year running averages of victim age groups.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997.

Figure 10: Juvenile Victim Homicide Rates, by Victim Race and

Age, 1997

0

10

20

30

40

<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Rate per 100,000 Juveniles 

(ages 0–17)

Black victims

White victims

5

15

25

35

Victim Age

Note: Homicide rates were calculated by the Crimes against Children Research Center.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997.
8

result from a mixture of causes, some related to the causes of homicides in early

childhood and some to the causes of homicides of adolescents. Because they are still

more physically and emotionally dependent than teenagers, children of middle

childhood (like young children) are killed

most often by family members (61 percent

of the perpetrators) (figure 8) (see footnote 4, page 4). Unlike cases involving

young children, however, these homicides

are not committed primarily by hand (figure 7). Approximately one-half (49 percent)

are committed with firearms. Moreover, reflecting their greater independence, children in middle childhood begin to fall

victim to homicides by strangers. One

out of eight homicide victims in this age

group is killed by a stranger, more than

three times the proportion for younger

children. Children in middle childhood,

especially the older ones, also begin to

experience the ravages of gang-related violence. Of all homicides of children ages 6

to 11 for which police listed a circumstance, 6 percent were listed as gang related. Those who kill children in middle

childhood are the oldest of all child killers,

with more than half (52 percent) older

than age 30 (figure 9).

Homicides of children in middle childhood also appear to stem from a variety

of other motives. For example, children of

this age are at risk of sexual homicides.

Some sex offenders are attracted to children in this age range and sometimes murder children to hide their crimes. A significant number of homicides of children ages

6 to 11 are negligent gun homicides, in

which youth and/or other family members

wield or misuse firearms that they believe

to be harmless or unloaded. Children in

middle childhood are also killed in the

course of crimes such as robberies or carjackings, in which children are unintended

victims. Family members sometimes murder children of this age in the course of

arson attacks or whole-family suicidehomicides. The diversity of homicides of

children of this age group makes them difficult to typify.

It is notable that homicides of children in

middle childhood did not show the same

consistently upward trend as other homicides of juveniles in the late 1980s and

early 1990s (figure 4). Most of the variations in their rates were only slight fluctuations in a relatively low base rate of

homicides. The lack of a consistent trend

for homicides of children in middle childhood is additional evidence that homicides

during this developmental period may be

a distinct phenomenon.

Types of Juvenile

Homicide Victimizations

In addition to categorizing homicides

of juveniles by the age of the victim, researchers often group such homicides by

features of the crime context and by perpetrator. The following sections describe

certain distinguishing characteristics of

these types of homicide.

Maltreatment Homicides

Child maltreatment homicides are committed by persons charged with the care of a

child, including parents and other family

members, babysitters, and friends who

have taken responsibility for the child. In

1997, FBI data showed that 27 percent of

all child victims of homicide (more than

500 children) were killed by a parent, stepparent, or other adult family member.

Other data reported by child protection

authorities showed 1,196 child maltreatment fatalities in 1997 (U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services, Children’s

Bureau, 1999). This difference reflects the

fact that many studies that report data

on child maltreatment fatalities (e.g.,

Ewigman, Kivlahan, and Land 1993; U.S.

Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995) include deaths other than

those officially recorded as homicides,

particularly deaths caused by neglect or

negligence. (Deaths caused by neglect

generally include situations in which a

child dies because parents or caretakers

failed to provide food or obviously needed

medical attention. Deaths caused by negligence, by contrast, involve parents or

caretakers who fail to provide basic supervision or precaution and a child who dies

in a clearly preventable accident, such as

falling after being left unattended at an

open window.) Approximately 42 percent

of deaths counted by child protection

authorities as child maltreatment fatalities

are classified as resulting from neglect or

negligence, 54 percent as resulting from

abuse, and 5 percent as resulting from

abuse and neglect (Wiese and Daro, 1995).

The vast majority of child maltreatment

fatalities (92 percent) involve children age

5 or younger. In like fashion, most (70 percent) of the deaths classified as homicides

for this age group result from maltreatment

(i.e., are committed by family caretakers)

(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997).

Child maltreatment fatalities most often

involve very young children, with 40 percent of victims under age 1, 18 percent

between ages 1 and 2, and 13 percent ages

2 or 3 (Wiese and Daro, 1995).

Two factors account for very young children’s unusually high risk of death in

cases of child maltreatment. First are the

considerable demands that children age 5

and younger impose on parents and other

caretakers. The complete dependence of

very young children (who can be needy,

impulsive, and not yet amenable to verbal

control) and the constant attention they

require can overwhelm some caretakers.

In fact, two of the most common triggers

of fatal child abuse are crying that will not

cease and toileting accidents (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect,

1995). Second, and perhaps most important, is that children of this age are small

and physically vulnerable. Unlike older

children, very young children can still be

easily picked up, shaken, or thrown. In

addition, a limited amount of physical

force inflicted on a very young child

can cause serious damage, and the immaturity of certain anatomical features (e.g.,

the relatively large size of the head and

weakness of the neck) means that very

young children are more likely than older

children to suffer fatal traumas as a result

of abuse. The significance of this physical

vulnerability is reflected in the fact that

fatal child abuse is more concentrated

among very young children than nonfatal

child abuse. The major cause of death in

child abuse cases involving very young

children is cerebral trauma (U.S. Advisory

Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).

Child maltreatment fatalities are more

common in conditions of poverty and in

families marked by divorce or paternal

absence. Child maltreatment fatality rates

are also disproportionately high among

African Americans (Levine, Freeman, and

Compaan, 1994). Drug use is a factor in 29

percent of child maltreatment fatalities.

Several studies show that boys and girls

are at approximately equal risk of fatal

abuse, but boys are at slightly higher risk

of fatal neglect (Levine, Freeman, and

Compaan, 1994). Young boys, who often

are more active and aggressive than girls,

are possibly more difficult to supervise or

regarded by their parents as needing less

care and supervision (Margolin, 1990). It is

interesting that male caretakers are responsible for a disproportionate number of child

abuse fatalities and female caretakers (who

spend more time caring for young children)

are responsible for a greater proportion of

child neglect fatalities (Levine, Freeman,

and Compaan, 1994). Inadequate preparation for assuming a caretaking role with

young children may cause men to have

lower levels of tolerance for crying, soiling, and disobedience.
9

Tragically, a significant percentage of child

maltreatment fatalities—24 to 45 percent

in various studies (Levine, Freeman, and

Compaan, 1994; Wiese and Daro, 1995)—

occur in families already known to child

protective authorities because of some

family or childcare problem they had been

having. In as many as one in eight child

maltreatment fatalities, the case was currently active (Levine, Freeman, and Compaan, 1994). This statistic raises the hope

that many child maltreatment deaths

could be prevented through proper

intervention.

Unfortunately, the more than 1,000 child

maltreatment fatalities that occur each

year need to be placed in the context of

more than 1 million cases of child abuse

and neglect substantiated by child welfare

authorities every year. Some observers

doubt that the subgroup of cases that

result in death could ever be reliably detected from the larger pool—in part because fatalities are comparatively rare and

in part because so many of the factors that

contribute to an actual death are unpredictable (U.S. Advisory Board on Child

Abuse and Neglect, 1995). Other observers, however, have noted that there is

an important subgroup of child maltreatment fatalities that occur in families with

a long and serious history of child maltreatment and parental incompetence.

These observers believe that better research and more aggressive child welfare

intervention might save a substantial number of lives.

Multiple-Victim Family

Homicides

One of the grisliest kinds of family homicide occurs when a family member kills

multiple kin or even whole families, including children and youth. In 1997, 6 percent of homicides of children and youth

(approximately 115) were committed as

part of multiple-victim family murders in

which a family member killed a juvenile

along with other victims (Federal Bureau

of Investigation, 1997). Three-quarters of

the juvenile victims in such crimes were

under age 12. Victims included approximately equal numbers of boys and girls.

In 59 percent of cases, only two family

members (two juveniles or one juvenile

and one adult) were killed; in 41 percent

of cases, three or more family members

were killed. In 57 percent of cases, the

juvenile victim died along with an adult

victim. Fathers and stepfathers were responsible for most multiple-victim family

homicides in 1997 (60 percent), and perpetrators tended to use firearms. Compared with typical victims of juvenile

homicides, those in multiple-victim family

homicides are more likely to be white,

but their geographic distribution is not

markedly different. Consistent with the

general downward trend in juvenile homicide, the number of victims of multiplevictim family homicides has been declining somewhat in recent years, down from

a high of 130 in 1993. Studies of special

samples of such cases show that they are

associated particularly with an offender’s

separation from an intimate partner and/

or mental illness (depression and psychosis, but not personality disorders)

(Cooper and Eaves, 1996; Rosenbaum,

1990). Perpetrators commit suicide in

as many as 40 percent of these cases.

Homicides by Females

In general, women kill much less frequently than men. However, one-quarter of the

victims in killings by women are juveniles.

Women are responsible for 43 percent of

the deaths of children under age 12 who

are killed by identifiable persons, a percentage that has been relatively stable

since the 1980s (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997). Women overwhelmingly kill

very young children (75 percent of their

juvenile victims are under age 6) and members of their family (79 percent). Thus,

women who kill are heavily concentrated

in child maltreatment homicides and infanticides. Consistent with these types of

crimes, women are more likely than men

to use their hands and feet as weapons

(54 percent versus 22 percent). Women

are less likely than men to use a firearm to

kill a child (17 percent versus 63 percent).

Interestingly, 20 percent of the homicides

of children committed by female offenders

involve an additional offender, almost

always a male accomplice (Federal Bureau

of Investigation, 1997). Women who kill

children are more likely to be labeled

mentally ill than men who kill children

and are somewhat more likely to commit

suicide (Silverman and Kennedy, 1988).

Researchers also have highlighted differences between young, unmarried females

who commit infanticide (often by suffocation or strangulation) and older, married

females who beat children to death in

child maltreatment homicides (Silverman

and Kennedy, 1988).

Homicides by Strangers and

Unidentified Offenders

Parents naturally worry about the threat

of homicide posed to their children by

strangers with malevolent intent. Accurately evaluating the threat posed by

strangers is difficult because often the

identity of the perpetrator in homicides

of juveniles is not known. About 11 percent of those who murder juveniles are

officially classified as strangers, but an

additional 29 percent are unidentified

(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997).

Most of the unidentified offenders are

generally believed to be strangers (in

part because homicides committed by

strangers are considered more difficult

to solve). Moreover, the distribution of

most crime characteristics in cases with

unidentified offenders is more similar to

that for victims killed by strangers than

for those killed by nonstrangers (table 2).

Thus, depending on the percentage of

unidentified offenders included, somewhere between 11 and 40 percent of

homicides of juveniles are committed

by strangers. 

Homicides of juveniles by strangers and

homicides of juveniles by unidentified

offenders involve a disproportionate percentage of teenage victims (87 and 81 percent, respectively), male victims (84 and

80 percent), victims killed with firearms

(92 and 82 percent), and gang-related circumstances (about a third in both cases).

However, compared with teenage victims,

the numbers of children under the age

of 12 killed by strangers (3 percent) and

unidentified offenders (13 percent) are

relatively small (see figure 8, page 6, and

footnote 4, page 4). Moreover, some of

these unidentified offenders are probably family members or acquaintances of

young child victims.

Abduction Homicides

Child and youth abductions that end in

homicide are another peril that has

alarmed large numbers of children and

their families in the wake of highly publicized tragedies. Unfortunately, FBI data do

not include information on abduction as a

homicide circumstance. In 1988, a reanalysis of FBI data suggested that the maximum number of such abduction homicides was 43 to 147 each year (Finkelhor,

Hotaling, and Sedlak, 1990).

Two large, multiyear, multistate samples

of homicide abductions of juveniles have

allowed researchers to sketch the characteristics of victims and offenders in this
10

type of case (Boudreaux, Lord, and Dutra,

1999; Hanfland, Keppel, and Weis, 1997).

Although many highly publicized homicide abductions have involved preteen

children (such as Adam Walsh), the majority involve teenagers. Teenage girls were

found to be at the highest risk, and the

motive in more than two-thirds of homicide abduction cases examined in the

studies was sexual. Fifty-three percent of

the offenders were strangers, and 39 percent were acquaintances. Virtually all

offenders were males, and the great majority were under age 30. Eighty-five percent

were unmarried or divorced, and 50 percent were unemployed at the time of the

crime. In 58 percent of the homicide

abductions, offenders made contact with

their victim within one-quarter of a mile

of the victim’s home, and in 54 percent of

such cases, the murder occurred within

one-quarter of a mile of the site of initial

contact (Hanfland, Keppel, and Weis,

1997). Strangulation and stabbing were

much more common in these abduction

homicides than in other types of murders

of juveniles.

Homicides by Youth

A number of high-profile incidents in the

1990s highlighted the problem of youth

killing other youth. In 1997, about onefourth of offenders (of those whose ages

were known) in murder cases involving

juvenile victims were themselves juveniles (virtually all teenagers). The phenomenon of juveniles killing other juveniles increased dramatically during the

1980s and early 1990s (900 victims in 1994

compared with 400 in 1980) and then

declined (about 500 victims in 1997). The

predominant pattern in these killings is

for teenagers to kill other teens (84 percent of victims in 1997 were teens versus

16 percent preteens) who are acquaintances (68 percent) by using a firearm

(74 percent) (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997). A small percentage of the

youth who killed other youth in 1997

(7 percent) were teen parents who killed

their young children in infanticides or

child maltreatment homicides.

School Homicides

The 1999 tragedy in Littleton, CO, brought

public attention to the killing of children

in schools. Media reports have created

the impression that such killings are more

commonplace than they actually are. Unfortunately, FBI statistics do not categorize episodes of homicide by place of

occurrence. However, statistics on school

homicides are available in the 2000 Annual Report on School Safety (U.S. Departments of Justice and Education, 2000),

which describes findings from the SchoolAssociated Violent Deaths Study.

The School-Associated Violent Deaths

Study, conducted by the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, indicates

that less than 1 percent of the children

nationwide who were murdered in the

first half of the 1998–99 school year (July

1, 1998, to December 31, 1998) were victims of school-associated murders (i.e.,

murders that occurred on school property, at a school-sponsored event, or on

the way to or from school or a schoolsponsored event). The total number of

school-associated violent death incidents

declined from a high of 49 during the

1995–96 school year to 34 during the complete 1998–99 school year (July 1, 1998,

to June 30, 1999). The 34 incidents in the

1998–99 school year resulted in 50 schoolassociated violent deaths (students and

nonstudents), of which 38 were homicides,

9 were suicides, 2 were killings of adults by

a law enforcement officer in the course of

duty, and 1 was an unintentional shooting.

Since the 1992–93 school year, there has

been at least one multiple-victim school

homicide event each year except for the

1993–94 school year; the number declined

from six events in 1997–98 to two in

1998–99.

Available data do not suggest that schools

are particularly risky places for homicide

victimization, nor do they show that

schools are becoming increasingly risky.

Rather, it seems that a rash of multiplevictim school homicides occurred from

1997 to 1999, of which the Littleton episode was one. The numbers, however, are

too small to be labeled a trend.

Table 2: Case Characteristics in Homicides of Juveniles Committed by

Strangers, Unidentified Offenders, and Identified Nonstrangers

Type of Offender

Unidentified Identified

Characteristic Stranger (%) Offenders (%) Nonstranger (%)

Victim Age Group 100 100 100

0–5 years 7 14 47

6–11 years 6 5 10

12–17 years 87 81 43

Victim Sex 100 100 100

Male 84 80 63

Female 16 20 37

Victim Race 100 100 100

White 50 33 54

Black 44 62 41

Native American 1 0 2

Asian American/ 

Pacific Islander 5 5 3

Weapon 100 100 100

Firearm 92 82 44

Knife/object 6 7 12

Personal/asphyxiation 2 5 36

Other/unknown 0 6 8

Circumstance 100 100 100

Sex offense 1 1 2

Robbery 15 9 2

Drug violation 1 8 3

Gang killing 36 32 9

Other 47 50 84

Note: Data was gathered from 1,790 homicides, including 189 (11%) committed by strangers, 515

(29%) committed by unidentified offenders, and 1,086 (60%) committed by identified nonstrangers.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997.
11

Prevention Initiatives

In recent years, concern about homicides

of juveniles has prompted a number of

policy initiatives, many of which have

been targeted at preventing youth from

killing other youth. Such efforts include

laws that criminalize firearm possession

by minors, call for prosecution of minors

as adults in criminal court, or hold adults

responsible when minors gain access to

firearms. OJJDP-sponsored programs

include the Comprehensive Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders; the Comprehensive Gang

Model; victim-offender mediation; conflict

resolution training; and the Partnerships

To Reduce Juvenile Gun Violence program. These coordinated community initiatives seek to control gang activity, stop

the flow of guns to juveniles, improve

supervision of delinquent youth, counsel

victims of violence, and teach alternatives

to violence. A specific example of such an

initiative is the Partnerships To Reduce

Juvenile Gun Violence site in Oakland, CA,

a major component of which is a program

called Caught in the Crossfire. This hospitalbased intervention provides bedside counseling to juvenile victims of gun violence to

prevent future retaliation by the victim or

the victim’s friends and family members.

Many of these victims and their family

members are known to be involved with

guns and are referred to the partnership’s

intervention programs. Similar coordinated

community programs have been credited

with reducing the rate at which teens were

murdered in other places, such as Boston,

MA (Kennedy, 1998). More information

on these initiatives and other OJJDP programs is available on the OJJDP Web site at

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

Other initiatives have focused on the homicides of younger children. Child death

review teams (consisting of experts with

medical, social services, or law enforcement backgrounds) have been established

in almost all States to review suspicious

deaths of children, identify possible homicides, and make recommendations for prevention. Statutes have been crafted to facilitate the prosecution of child maltreatment

deaths as homicides, removing the need

to prove intent to kill. Child abandonment

laws, sometimes called “Baby Moses”

statutes, have also been passed in a number of States to prevent newborn abandonment and infanticide by allowing for

voluntary, anonymous relinquishment

of unwanted infants (Sneeringer, 2000).

Mandatory minimum sentencing has been

enacted in some States to deter homicides

and confine more of those who commit

them. In an effort to prevent child deaths,

law enforcement agencies in some jurisdictions have established protocols for

providing a more rapid response to child

abductions. In some States, child protection investigations provide for greater

police involvement or are turned over to

law enforcement authorities to improve

safety and protect children in high-risk

situations (Wilson, Vincent, and Lake,

1996).

Preventing homicides of children and

youth continues to be an active item on

the policy agenda of national, State, and

local authorities. However, not all policy

initiatives reflect the complex and varied

nature of the problem, as illustrated in

information presented in this Bulletin.

The extent and complexity of the problem

and the fact that the juvenile homicide

rate in the United States continues to be

substantially higher than in other modern

democracies suggest that much remains

to be done.

References

Boudreaux, M.C., Lord, W.D., and Dutra, R.L.

1999. Child abduction: Aged-based analysis of

offender, victim, and offense characteristics in

550 cases of alleged child disappearance.

Journal of Forensic Sciences 44(3):539–553.

Cooper, M., and Eaves, D. 1996. Suicide following homicide in the family. Violence and Victims

11(2):99–112.

Ewigman, B., Kivlahan, C., and Land, G. 1993.

The Missouri child fatality study: Underreporting of maltreatment fatalities among children

younger than five years of age, 1983 through

1986. Pediatrics 91(2):330–337.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997. Uniform

Crime Reporting Program Data: U.S. Supplementary Homicide Reports 1980–1997. Computer file.

Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for

Political and Social Research.

Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G.T., and Sedlak, A. 1990.

Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway

Children in America: First Report. Washington,

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

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Fox, J.A., and Zawitz, M.W. 2001. Homicide

Trends in the United States. Retrieved April

2001 from the World Wide Web: www.ojp.

usdoj.gov/bjs/. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hanfland, K.A., Keppel, R.D., and Weis, J.G.

1997. Case Management for Missing Children

Homicide Investigation. Olympia, WA: Attorney

General of Washington.

Kennedy, D. 1998. Crime prevention as crime

deterrence. In What Can the Federal Government

Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?, edited by the National Institute of Justice,

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

Government Printing Office, pp. 55–58.

Krug, E.G., Dahlberg, L.L., and Powell, K.E. 1996.

Childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm

deaths: An international comparison. World

Health Statistics Quarterly 19(3/4):230–235.

Levine, M., Freeman, J., and Compaan, C. 1994.

Maltreatment-related fatalities: Issues of policy

and prevention. Law & Policy 16(4):449–471.

Margolin, L. 1990. Fatal child neglect. Child

Welfare LXIX(4):309–319.

Resnick, P.J. 1970. Murder of the newborn: A

psychiatric review of neonaticide. American

Journal of Psychiatry 126(10):1414–1420.

Rosenbaum, M. 1990. The role of depression

in couples involved in murder-suicide and

homicide. American Journal of Psychiatry

147(8):1036–1039.

Silverman, R.A., and Kennedy, L.W. 1988.

Women who kill their children. Violence and

Victims 3(2):113–127.

Sneeringer, J. 2000. “Baby Moses” laws seek to

save children’s lives by keeping mothers anonymous. USLaw.Com. Retrieved May 4, 2001, from

the World Wide Web: www.uslaw.com/ library/

article/usl1031BabyMoses.html.

Snyder, H.N., and Finnegan, T.A. 1998. Easy

Access to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide

Reports: 1980–1997. Data presentation and

analysis package. Pittsburgh, PA: National

Center for Juvenile Justice.

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

Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report.

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

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and

Neglect. 1995. A Nation’s Shame: Fatal Child

Abuse and Neglect in the United States. A report

of the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and

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

Health and Human Services.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1998. Statistical Abstract of

the United States, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, p. 102.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Children’s Bureau. 1999. Child Maltreatment

1997: Reports From the States to the National

Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department

of Education. 2000. 2000 Annual Report on

School Safety. Report. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice and U.S. Department of

Education.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin NCJ 187239

Wiese, D., and Daro, D. 1995. Current Trends in

Child Abuse Reporting and Fatalities: The Results

of the 1994 Annual Fifty State Survey. Working

Paper 808. Chicago, IL: The National Committee

to Prevent Child Abuse.

Wilson, C., Vincent, P., and Lake, E. 1996. An

Examination of Organizational Structure and

Programmatic Reform in Public Child Protective

Services. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by David Finkelhor, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, and

Director, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire;

and Richard Ormrod, Ph.D., Research Professor, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire. John Humphrey, Ph.D., Professor of

Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, provided background

research and editorial review in the preparation of this Bulletin.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number 98–JN–FX–0012 from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

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.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP

and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5600 (fax)

E-mail: tellncjrs@ncjrs.org