National 

Report Series

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

December 2001

Law Enforcement and

Juvenile Crime

Howard N. Snyder

This Bulletin is part of the 

Juvenile Offenders and

Victims National Report Series.

Published every 4 years, the

National Report offers a comprehensive statistical overview

of the problems of juvenile

crime, violence, and victimization and the response of the

juvenile justice system. During

each interim year, the Bulletins

in the National Report Series

provide access to the latest

information on juvenile arrests,

court cases, juveniles in custody, and other topics of interest. Each Bulletin in the series

highlights selected topics at

the forefront of juvenile justice

policymaking, giving readers

focused access to statistics on

some of the most critical issues. Together, the National

Report and this series provide

a baseline of facts for juvenile

justice professionals, policymakers, the media, and concerned citizens.

A Message From OJJDP

For young offenders, law enforcement is often the entry point into the juvenile justice system.

When a juvenile is apprehended for the first time for violating the law, it is the police officer

who determines the nature of the offender’s initial involvement with the justice system.

Law enforcement agencies track the volume and characteristics of crimes that are reported to

them. Since some crimes are never reported, however, and other crimes remain unsolved,

law enforcement data alone are generally insufficient to fully assess the community’s delinquency problem.

Law enforcement agencies, however, also report arrest statistics that can be used to monitor

the flow of juveniles into the justice system. These arrest statistics are the most frequently

cited source of information on juvenile crime trends.

This Bulletin describes the extent and characteristics of juvenile arrests. It provides arrest

rates for violent and property crimes, drug and weapon offenses, and violations of alcohol,

curfew, and loitering laws. Arrests and arrest trends for males and females and for diverse

racial groups are compared. The Bulletin also details the characteristics of the victims and the

perpetrators of homicides committed by juveniles. 

Using data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, this Bulletin offers the reader a

wealth of information on law enforcement and juvenile crime.
2 National Report Series Bulletin

Since the 1930s, police

agencies have reported

to the UCR Program

Each year, thousands of police agencies

voluntarily report the following data to the

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s)

Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program:

■ Number of Index crimes reported to

law enforcement (see sidebar).

■ Number of arrests and the most serious charge involved in each arrest.

■ Age, sex, and race of arrestees.

■ Proportion of reported Index crimes

cleared by arrest and the proportion

of these Index crimes cleared by the

arrest of persons under age 18.

■ Police dispositions of juvenile arrests.

■ Detailed victim, assailant, and circumstance information in murder cases.

What can the UCR arrest

data tell us about crime

and young people?

The UCR arrest data can provide estimates of the annual number of arrests of

juveniles* within specific offense categories. UCR data can also provide detail on

juvenile arrests by sex, race, and type of

location (urban, suburban, or rural area).

The data can be used to compare the

relative number of arrests of adults and

juveniles within offense categories, to

develop estimates of change in arrests

over various periods, and to monitor the

proportion of crimes cleared by arrests

of juveniles. 

What do UCR data

count?

UCR data document the number of

crimes reported to police, not the number committed. The UCR Program monitors the number of Index crimes that

come to the attention of law enforcement

agencies. Although this information is

useful in identifying trends in the volume

of reported crime, it is important to recognize that not all crimes are brought to

the attention of law enforcement. 

Crimes are more likely to be reported if

they involve a serious injury or a large

economic loss and if there is a desire to

have law enforcement involved in the

matter. Therefore, some crimes are more

likely to come to the attention of law enforcement than are others. For example,

the National Crime Victimization Survey

for 1998 found that victims reported 80%

of motor vehicle thefts to police, 63% of

robberies, 58% of aggravated assaults,

50% of burglaries, 41% of simple assaults, 32% of sexual assaults, and 29%

of thefts. Overall, victims reported to law

enforcement 46% of violent crimes and

36% of property crimes.

Changes in the proportion of crimes reported may, therefore, reflect more than

changes in the number of crimes actually

committed. They may also reflect changes

in the willingness of victims to report

crimes to law enforcement agencies.

Most information about law enforcement’s response

to juvenile crime comes from the FBI’s UCR Program

What are the Crime Indexes?

The designers of the UCR Program

wanted to create an index (similar in

concept to the Dow Jones Industrial

Average or the Consumer Price Index)

that would be sensitive to changes in

the volume and nature of reported

crime. They decided to incorporate specific offenses into the index based on

several factors: likelihood of being

reported, frequency of occurrence, pervasiveness in all geographical areas of

the country, and relative seriousness.

The Crime Index is divided into two

components: the Violent Crime Index

and the Property Crime Index:

Violent Crime Index—Includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter,

forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated

assault.

Property Crime Index—Includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle

theft, and arson.

Crime Index—Includes all eight

crimes in the Violent Crime Index and

Property Crime Index.

Although some violent crimes, such as

kidnapping and extortion, are excluded, the Violent Crime Index contains

what are generally considered to be

serious crimes. In contrast, a substantial proportion of the crimes in the

Property Crime Index are generally

considered less serious crimes, such

as shoplifting, theft from motor vehicles, and bicycle theft, all of which are

included in the larceny-theft category.

* In this Bulletin, “juvenile” refers to persons

under age 18. This definition is at odds with the

legal definition of juveniles in 1999 in 13 States—

10 States where all 17-year-olds are defined as

adults and 3 States where all 16- and 17-yearolds are defined as adults.
December 2001 3

UCR data document the number of arrests made, not the number of persons

arrested. A person can be arrested more

than once in a year. Each arrest is counted

separately in the UCR data. One arrest can

represent many crimes. If a person were

arrested for allegedly committing 40 burglaries, it would show up in the UCR data

as one arrest for burglary. Also, one crime

may result in multiple arrests. For example, three youth may be arrested for one

burglary. A single crime with multiple

arrests is more likely to occur with juveniles than with adult offenders because

juveniles are more likely than adults to

commit crimes in groups.

UCR arrest data reflect only the most

serious offense for which a person was

arrested. An arrest of a person for both

robbery and weapons possession would

appear in the UCR data as one robbery

arrest. The UCR data on number of

weapons arrests, therefore, reflect only

those arrests in which a weapons charge

was the most serious offense charged.

This aspect of the UCR counting rules

must be taken into consideration when

the data are used to analyze arrest

volume and trends for less serious

offenses.

Clearance data provide another perspective on law enforcement. A crime is

considered cleared if someone is charged

with the crime or if someone is believed

to have committed the crime but for

some reason (e.g., the death of the suspect, unwillingness of the victim to prosecute) an arrest cannot be made. If a

person is arrested and charged with

committing 40 burglaries, UCR records

40 burglary clearances. If three people

are arrested for robbing a liquor store,

UCR records one robbery cleared. 

Knowing both the number of crimes

reported and the number cleared in a

year makes it possible to compute the

proportion of crimes cleared in a year.

A much greater proportion of violent

crimes than property crimes are cleared. 

Percent of all

Most serious crimes cleared

offense in 1999

Violent Crime Index 50%

Murder 69

Forcible rape 49

Robbery 29

Aggravated assault 59

Property Crime Index 18

Burglary 14

Larceny-theft 19

Motor vehicle theft 15

Arson 17

UCR data capture the proportion of

crimes cleared by juvenile arrest. UCR

data also document the proportion of

cleared crimes that were cleared by the

arrest of persons under age 18. Assessments of the juvenile contribution to the

crime problem are often based on this

proportion. Clearance and arrest statistics

give very different pictures of the juvenile

contribution to crime. 

1999 juvenile

proportion

Most serious Crimes

offense Arrests cleared

Violent Crime Index 16% 12%

Murder 9 6

Forcible rape 17 12

Robbery 25 15

Aggravated assault 14 12

Property Crime Index 32 22

Burglary 33 19

Larceny-theft 31 23

Motor vehicle theft 35 19

Arson 54 49

How should juvenile

arrest and clearance

data be interpreted?

Considerations in interpreting UCR data

on juvenile arrests and clearances can be

demonstrated by attempting to answer a

typical question about juvenile crime: “In

1999, what proportion of all robberies

were committed by juveniles?” The UCR

data show that 25% of all persons arrested for robbery in 1999 were under age

18 and that 15% of all robberies cleared

in 1999 were cleared by the arrest of persons under age 18.

The key to reconciling the difference between the two percentages is the fact,

noted previously, that juveniles are more

likely than adults to commit crimes in

groups. If a police department cleared all

seven of its robberies in a year by arresting two juveniles for one incident and six

different adults for the other six incidents,

the juvenile proportion of persons arrested for robbery would be 25% (2 in 8),

and the juvenile proportion of robberies

cleared would be 14% (1 in 7). Arrest

percentages are offender-based; clearance percentages are offense-based.

Clearance data are a better choice than

arrest data for determining the juvenile

proportion of all robberies committed.

There are, however, questions about what

clearance figures actually represent. 

One question stems from the fact that a

crime cleared by the arrest of a juvenile

and the arrest of an adult is classified by

the FBI as an adult clearance. Therefore,

some cleared crimes involving juvenile

offenders are not counted in the proportion of crimes cleared by juvenile arrest,

a factor that makes the juvenile clearance

proportion an underestimate of juvenile

involvement in cleared crimes. 
4 National Report Series Bulletin

Another question is whether it is safe to

assume that characteristics of robberies

cleared are similar to characteristics of

robberies not cleared. For example, were

the 29% of robberies cleared in 1999 like

the 71% not cleared?

A study of more than 21,000 robberies in

7 States between 1991 and 1993 found

that robberies by juveniles were more

likely to result in arrest than were robberies by adults (Snyder, 1999). The

FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting

System (NIBRS) data from these States

gave the victim’s perception of the age of

the offender and indicated whether the

offender was arrested. This study found

that robberies by juveniles were 23%

more likely to result in arrest than were

robberies by adults. Therefore, the juvenile proportion of cleared robberies was

substantially greater than the proportion

of robberies actually committed by juveniles. Based on this finding, it appears

that UCR clearance percentages overestimate the juvenile responsibility for

crime because juvenile offenders are

more likely to be arrested. 

Arrest data and clearance data can be

used to explore different types of questions. Arrest data provide a rough estimate of how many juveniles entered the

justice system in a given year; but it must

be remembered that a particular individual may have been arrested more than

once during the year (and therefore

counted more than once), and that a particular arrest may have involved more

than one offense (with only the most

serious charge counted). Clearance data

are more useful than arrest data in estimating the proportion of crimes committed by juveniles, but evidence that juveniles are more likely than adults to be

arrested for their crimes indicates that

clearance percentages also exaggerate

juveniles’ actual share of crime.

However, and most important, the trends,

or changes, in arrest data are likely to

reflect actual changes in the number of

juveniles entering the juvenile justice system, whereas changes in clearance proportions can be used to monitor changes

in the relative responsibility of juveniles

for crime.

How accurate are the

UCR-based juvenile

arrest and clearance

trends?

Annually, the FBI generates national estimates of reported crimes for the 8 Index

offenses and national estimates of total

arrests in 29 offense categories. The

Bureau does not currently produce national estimates of juvenile arrests or

arrest rates (although it did produce

tables of juvenile arrest rates up through

the early 1990s). For those interested in

juvenile arrest trends, the FBI’s annual

Crime in the United States reports do

contain numerous tables showing juvenile arrest counts reported to the FBI by

that year’s contributing law enforcement

agencies.

Statisticians characterize these annual

samples as “opportunistic” samples—

that is, each sample contains data from

every agency that was willing and able to

report to the FBI in that year. The essential problem is that the sample is not scientifically determined; therefore, no one

can assume that the sample’s characteristics (e.g., juvenile arrest proportions,

juvenile arrest rates) are representative

of all the law enforcement agencies in

the U.S.

For example, let us assume that one sample contained a disproportionate number

of agencies from large metropolitan areas

or cities. If so, then the arrest tables in

Crime in the United States would present

a picture of juvenile arrests with a more

urban character than the U.S. as a whole.

This would mean, compared with the U.S.

overall, the data from the reporting sample would have a higher percentage of

violent crime arrests, a higher percentage

of juvenile arrests, higher rates of juvenile

arrests for violent crimes, and higher

percentages and rates of arrest for black

juveniles across offense categories.

In all, the quality of the juvenile arrest

rate trends derived from the sample data

reported in Crime in the United States is

dependent on the consistent representativeness of the annual reporting samples.

There are currently no assessments of

the representativeness of the annual samples. What is known is that the coverage

of the sample has changed substantially

in recent years. For 1999, law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over 63%

of the U.S. population contributed data

on arrests, a proportion lower than at any

time in the prior 20 years.

The traditional approach to the development of national estimates of juvenile

arrests (and clearances) is based on the

assumption that the reporting samples in

the Crime in the United States series are

nationally representative. The more this

assumption is violated, the less reliable are

the estimates. It is possible to adjust for

some of the known, or measurable, biases

in the samples, but this work has not been

done. Even if such adjustments were

made, the validity of the estimates would

still be in question because of the inherent

weaknesses of an opportunistic sample.

From a pragmatic standpoint, those who

wish to study arrest and clearance trends

are encouraged to turn to the FBI’s UCR

Program and its Crime in the United

States reports. This resource is the best

information available, even with its weaknesses. Users, however, should always be

aware of the potential biases in the data

and the potential effects of these biases.
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Murder victims of known juvenile offenders

Killed by juveniles with adults

Killed by two or more juveniles

Killed by lone juvenile

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Murder victims of known juvenile offenders

Acquaintance

Stranger

Family

Murders by juveniles fell in 1999 to their lowest level

since the mid-1980s

December 2001 5

Between 1980 and 1999, the proportion of murders by juveniles that

also involved adult offenders increased

■ In the peak year of 1994, 31% of the 2,320 murders that involved a juvenile

offender also involved an adult offender. Between 1984 and 1994, the number 

of murders involving only juvenile offenders increased by 150%, while murders

involving both juveniles and adults increased 300%.

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years 1980

through 1999 [machine-readable data files].

■ The overall growth and decline in the annual number of murders by juveniles

during this period were attributable to trends in murders of acquaintances and,

to a lesser extent, strangers.

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years 1980

through 1999 [machine-readable data files].

Between 1980 and 1999, the annual number of family members killed

by juveniles did not change

The exact number of

murders committed by

juveniles is difficult to

assess

Based on the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide

Report (SHR) data, 15,530 persons were

murdered in the U.S. in 1999—the lowest

number since 1969. Of these murders,

about 1,040 were determined by law enforcement to involve a juvenile offender;

however, the actual number is greater than

this. In 1999, the FBI had no information

on the offender(s) for about 5,630 reported murders (36% of the total). These may

have been murders for which no one was

arrested or the offender was otherwise not

identified, or they may have been cases for

which the local agency did not report complete information to the FBI. Regardless,

the number of murders committed by juveniles in 1999 was undoubtedly greater

than 1,040, but just how much greater is

difficult to determine. If it is assumed that

the involvement of juveniles in murders

without offender information is similar to

their involvement in murders with offender

information, then about 1,630 murders (or

11% of all murders) in 1999 had at least

one offender who was under the age of

18 at the time of the crime.

The 1,040 murders known to involve a

juvenile offender in 1999 involved about

1,280 juveniles and 540 adults. Of all

murders involving a juvenile offender,

32% also involved an adult and 9% involved another juvenile. In all, 41% of

all murders involving a juvenile in 1999

involved more than one person and 59%

involved a lone juvenile.
6 National Report Series Bulletin

Whom do juveniles kill?

Between 1980 and 1999, most victims of

murders involving juvenile offenders were

male (83%). Slightly more victims were

white (51%) than black (47%). In 27%

of murders by juveniles, the victim was

also a juvenile. Victims in 70% of murders by juveniles were killed with a firearm; 25% were murdered with another

type of weapon (e.g., knife, blunt object);

and 5% were murdered with hands or

feet. Of all victims killed by juveniles,

2% were parents, 12% were other family

members, 55% were acquaintances, and

31% were strangers.

Who are the juvenile

murderers?

Between 1980 and 1999, the large majority (93%) of known juvenile murder

offenders were male. More than half

(56%) were black. Of known juvenile

murder offenders, 42% were age 17,

29% were age 16, and 17% were age

15; 88% were age 15 or older.

Murders by the very

young are rare

Between 1980 and 1999, an annual average of about 35 juveniles age 12 or

younger were identified as participants

in murders—a figure that remained

essentially constant over the time period.

The majority of these young murder

offenders were male (83%), and half

(51%) were black. For young offenders,

the victim was more likely to be an

acquaintance (46%) than a family

member (37%) or a stranger (17%).

A firearm was involved in 53% of the

murders committed by these young

offenders.

Between 1980 and 1999, 1 in 4 victims killed by juvenile offenders

was age 16–19

■ The modal age for murder victims killed by juveniles was 17.

■ More than half (52%) of the victims murdered by juveniles were between ages

14 and 25.

■ Of all persons murdered by juvenile offenders, 9% were over age 50.

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years 1980

through 1999 [machine-readable data files].

Between 1980 and 1999, a juvenile offender participated in 47% of

the murders of 14-year-olds—the age group with the greatest proportion of juvenile-involved murders

■ Between 1980 and 1999, fewer than 10% of murder victims ages 23 through 76

were killed by a juvenile.

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years 1980

through 1999 [machine-readable data files].

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

Age of victim

Murder victims of known juvenile offenders, 1980–1999

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Age of victim

Percent of murder victims of known offenders

Killed by juveniles with adults

Killed by juveniles only

Killed by adults only
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Known juvenile murder offenders

Male

Female

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Known juvenile murder offenders

Other race

White

Black

December 2001 7

Boys and girls tend to

kill different types of

victims

Between 1980 and 1999, 55% of male

juvenile murder offenders killed an acquaintance, 37% killed a stranger, and

9% killed a family member. Compared

with males, female juvenile murder offenders were far more likely to kill family

members (39%) and less likely to kill

strangers (15%) or acquaintances

(46%).

Between 1980 and 1999, about 2% of

male offenders killed persons under age

6, while 21% of female offenders killed

young children. Because there were so

many more male offenders than female

offenders, however, roughly equal numbers of male and female juvenile offenders were involved in the murder of young

children. Annually between 1980 and

1999, 10% of male and 12% of female

juvenile offenders were involved in the

death of a person age 50 or older.

Males were far more likely than females

to kill with a firearm. Between 1980 and

1999, 72% of male juvenile murder offenders used a firearm, while 13% used a

knife. In contrast, 38% of female juvenile

murder offenders used a firearm, and

29% used a knife.

1 in 5 juvenile murder

offenders kills a person

of another race

Youth were most likely to kill persons

of their own race. Between 1980 and

1999, 82% of juvenile murder offenders

were involved in murders of persons of

their own race. Same-race killing was

most common for white youth (90%)

and less common for blacks (77%),

Asian/Pacific Islanders (59%), and

American Indians (45%).

Males—not females—drove the trends in murders by juveniles

between 1980 and 1999

■ Between 1980 and 1999, 93% of known juvenile murder offenders were male.

■ Throughout this period, females were never more than 13% of known juvenile

murder offenders. The 13% peak was in 1983.

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years 1980

through 1999 [machine-readable data files].

The numbers of white and black juvenile murder offenders were equal

between 1980 and 1986—a circumstance that did not occur again

until 1998

■ Between 1986 and 1994, the number of white juvenile murder offenders

increased 64%, compared with 185% for blacks.

■ By 1999, the numbers of white and black juvenile murder offenders had nearly

fallen back to their 1985 levels.

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years 1980

through 1999 [machine-readable data files].
8 National Report Series Bulletin

Overall, female offenders were more likely

than males to kill within their own race

(90% vs. 81%). Proportions of samerace murder victims were similar for

white male and female juvenile offenders

(90% and 91%, respectively) but differed

for black male and female offenders

(76% and 90%, respectively).

Between 1980 and 1999, 76% of black

juvenile murder offenders used a firearm

in their crimes. This proportion was lower

for Asian/Pacific Islander (71%), white

(62%), and American Indian (48%)

youth.

A greater proportion of white and American Indian youth killed family members

than did youth of other races: white

(16%), American Indian (16%), black

(7%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (7%).

Older juveniles are more

likely than younger 

juveniles to commit 

murders with others

Between 1980 and 1999, 50% of all juvenile murder offenders acted alone, while

20% committed their acts with other juveniles and 30% with adults. Older offenders were more likely than younger offenders to commit their acts with adults.

Percent of juvenile 

murder offenders

Age of Acted With With

offender alone juveniles adults

Total 50% 20% 30%

<12 79 13 8

12 69 20 12

13 57 26 17

14 50 27 23

15 48 25 27

16 49 22 29

17 50 16 34

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

The overall trend in murders by juveniles between 1980 and 1999 is

all firearm related

■ In 1983, the number of juveniles who killed with a firearm was roughly equal to

the number who killed using all other instruments (e.g., knives, clubs, fists, feet).

■ In the peak year of 1994, 81% of juvenile murder offenders killed with a firearm.

■ In 1999, 67% of juvenile murder offenders killed with a firearm.

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years 1980

through 1999 [machine-readable data files].

Firearm use increased between 1980 and 1994 for white, black, and

male juvenile murder offenders but not for females

■ Each year from 1980 to 1999, juvenile male murder offenders were more likely

than female offenders to use a firearm, with the gender disparity increasing in

the 1990s.

■ Each year from 1980 to 1999, black juvenile murder offenders were more likely

than white offenders to use a firearm.

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years 1980

through 1999 [machine-readable data files].

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Known juvenile murder offenders

Firearm

No firearm

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Year

Percent of known juvenile murder offenders

Male

Female

Firearm used

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Year

Black

White

Percent of known juvenile murder offenders 

Firearm used
December 2001 9

The most serious charge in almost half of all juvenile arrests in 1999 was one of the following offenses:

larceny-theft, simple assault, drug abuse violation, disorderly conduct, or curfew violation

Percent of total juvenile arrests

1999 juvenile Under American

Most serious offense charged arrest estimates Female age 15 White Black Indian Asian

Total 2,468,800 27% 32% 72% 25% 1% 2%

Violent Crime Index 103,900 17 33 57 41 1 2

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 1,400 8 12 47 49 2 2

Forcible rape 5,000 2 38 63 35 1 1

Robbery 28,000 9 26 43 54 1 2

Aggravated assault 69,600 22 36 62 35 1 2

Property Crime Index 541,500 29 39 69 27 1 2

Burglary 101,000 11 38 73 24 1 2

Larceny-theft 380,500 36 40 70 26 2 2

Motor vehicle theft 50,800 16 26 57 39 1 3

Arson 9,200 11 67 80 18 1 1

Other (simple) assaults 237,300 30 43 65 32 1 1

Forgery and counterfeiting 7,000 37 13 78 20 1 2

Fraud 13,100 29 22 57 41 1 2

Embezzlement 1,700 48 6 63 34 0 2

Stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing) 29,100 13 27 59 38 1 2

Vandalism 119,500 12 44 82 16 1 1

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 42,500 9 32 68 30 1 2

Prostitution and commercialized vice 1,300 54 14 58 40 1 2

Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) 16,600 8 51 73 26 1 1

Drug abuse violations 198,400 14 16 69 29 1 1

Gambling 1,200 4 11 16 81 0 2

Offenses against family and children 10,100 38 35 76 21 1 3

Driving under the influence 23,000 17 3 92 5 2 1

Liquor law violations 165,700 31 10 92 5 3 1

Drunkenness 21,700 20 13 91 8 1 1

Disorderly conduct 176,200 28 37 67 31 1 1

Vagrancy 2,400 19 20 75 23 2 1

All other offenses (except traffic) 434,100 25 28 74 23 1 2

Suspicion 1,900 22 29 72 27 0 1

Curfew and loitering law violations 170,000 30 28 72 25 1 1

Runaways 150,700 59 39 77 18 1 4

U.S. population ages 10–17 31,321,307 49 62 79 16 1 4

■ Although black youth accounted for 16% of the juvenile population in 1999, they were involved in 54% of juvenile arrests for

robbery and 49% of juvenile arrests for murder.

■ Females accounted for the majority of juvenile arrests for running away from home (59%) and prostitution (54%).

Notes: UCR data do not distinguish the ethnic group Hispanic; Hispanics may be of any race. In 1999, 91% of Hispanics ages 10–17 were classified

racially as white. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Data source: Analyses of data presented in the FBI’s Crime in the United States 1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000).

National estimates of juvenile arrests were developed using FBI estimates of total arrests and juvenile arrest proportions in the reporting sample.

Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. made 2.5

million arrests of persons under age 18 in 1999
10 National Report Series Bulletin

In 1999, approximately 1 in 6 arrests made by law

enforcement agencies involved a juvenile

Juveniles accounted for 33% of all burglary arrests in 1999, 25% of robbery arrests, 24% of weapons arrests,

9% of murder arrests, and 13% of drug arrests

Juvenile arrests as a percent of total arrests

All American

Most serious offense charged persons Males Females Whites Blacks Indians Asians

Total 17% 16% 22% 18% 15% 18% 26%

Violent Crime Index 16 16 17 16 17 17 21

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 9 10 6 10 9 15 17

Forcible rape 17 17 26 17 16 16 20

Robbery 25 26 22 25 25 30 36

Aggravated assault 14 14 16 14 14 15 18

Property Crime Index 32 33 32 34 28 38 43

Burglary 33 34 29 35 28 43 44

Larceny-theft 31 31 32 33 27 36 41

Motor vehicle theft 35 35 37 37 33 43 50

Arson 54 55 43 57 41 52 63

Other (simple) assaults 18 16 24 18 18 16 22

Forgery and counterfeiting 6 7 6 84 9 9

Fraud 4 4 2 34 5 8

Embezzlement 10 10 10 10 10 6 16

Stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing) 23 24 19 25 21 33 39

Vandalism 42 44 33 46 29 37 49

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 24 24 29 27 19 33 39

Prostitution and commercialized vice 1 2 1 11 2 1

Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) 18 18 19 17 21 11 14

Drug abuse violations 13 13 10 14 10 20 19

Gambling 12 13 4 6 15 17 5

Offenses against family and children 7 5 11 7 4 5 9

Driving under the influence 1 1 2 21 2 2

Liquor law violations 24 21 34 26 10 23 26

Drunkenness 3 3 5 42 2 5

Disorderly conduct 27 25 33 27 26 20 31

Vagrancy 8 8 8 11 4 4 11

All other offenses (except traffic) 11 11 14 13 8 9 16

■ In 1999, 95% of all arrests involved persons between the ages of 10 and 49. Persons ages 10–17 made up 20% of this segment of the population. Therefore, based on their representation in this population, juveniles were disproportionately involved in

arrests for arson, vandalism, motor vehicle theft, burglary, larceny-theft, disorderly conduct, robbery, and weapons law violations.

In contrast, juveniles were underrepresented in arrests for murder, aggravated assault, forcible rape, and drug abuse violations.

■ A greater proportion of female arrests involved a juvenile (22%) than did male arrests (16%). Juveniles were involved in a larger

proportion of female arrests than male arrests for liquor law violations (34% vs. 21%), disorderly conduct (33% vs. 25%), and

simple assaults (24% vs. 16%).

■ A greater proportion of white arrests involved a juvenile (18%) than did black arrests (15%). Juveniles accounted for a larger

proportion of white arrests than black arrests for vandalism (46% vs. 29%), burglary (35% vs. 28%), larceny-theft (33% vs.

27%), weapons law violations (27% vs. 19%), and liquor law violations (26% vs. 10%).

Data source: Adaptation of the FBI’s Crime in the United States 1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000).
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Violent Crime Index

Aggravated assault

Robbery

Murder

Female percent of juvenile arrests

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Property Crime Index

Larceny-theft

Motor vehicle theft

Burglary

Arson

Female percent of juvenile arrests

December 2001 11

The female percentage of juvenile arrests increased

over the last two decades in most offense categories

Between 1980 and 1999, the female percentage of juvenile violent

crime arrests increased, with the overall increase tied mainly to

aggravated assault arrests

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Crime in the United States reports for the years 1980 through

1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981 through 2000, respectively).

The female percentage of juvenile arrests increased between 1980

and 1999 for each of the four Property Crime Index offenses

Gender-specific factors

appear to influence 

juvenile arrest trends 

If juvenile males and juvenile females

were contributing equally to an arrest

trend, then the female proportion of juvenile arrests would remain constant. If,

however, the female proportion changes,

then the female trend is different from the

male trend—and a complete explanation

of juvenile arrest patterns (and, by inference, of juvenile crime trends) must

incorporate factors that affect males

and females differently.

For example, a major story of the last

decade was the rise and fall of juvenile

Violent Crime Index arrests. During this

period, the female percentage of juvenile

arrests for violent crimes grew almost

continuously—from 10% in 1980 to 17%

in 1999. Thus, between 1980 and 1999,

while both the male and female Violent

Crime Index arrest rates rose and then

fell, the female rate rose proportionately

more and then fell proportionately less

than the male rate. This implies that

gender-specific factors were influencing

these differential changes in male and

female violent crime arrest rates. 

Differential growth in

aggravated assault

arrests helps to explain

overall violence trends

Over the last two decades, the female

proportion of juvenile robbery arrests

increased marginally (from 7% in 1980

to 9% in 1999), while the female proportion of aggravated assault arrests grew

substantially (from 15% in 1980 to 22%

in 1999). Similarly, the female proportion

of simple assault arrests also increased

considerably (from 21% in 1980 to 30%

in 1999). If juvenile females were becoming more violent as compared with

males, it would seem reasonable that

their arrest percentage should have

increased disproportionately for both

robberies and assaults. But it was only

in assaults that the percentage increased

disproportionately.

A possible (though not the only) explanation for this phenomenon is the changing

response of law enforcement to domestic

violence. Domestic assaults represent a

larger proportion of female violence than
12 National Report Series Bulletin

male violence. Mandatory arrest laws for

domestic incidents, coupled with an increased willingness of citizens to report

these incidents to authorities and of law

enforcement to intervene, would yield 

a greater increase in female than male 

arrests for assault, while having no effect on robbery. Thus, policy and social

changes may have driven the consistent

increase in the female proportion of juvenile violent crime arrests over the last two

decades—a period when overall juvenile

violence first increased then declined.

Other patterns may give

clues to factors driving

female arrest trends

When male and female juvenile arrest

rate trends move together (increasing,

decreasing, or remaining the same), the

factors behind the overall juvenile arrest

rate trends appear to have no unique,

gender-specific component. One offense

for which this was true over the last two

decades (i.e., an offense for which the

female proportion held constant) was

running away from home.

Other arrest trends imply that genderspecific factors were at work. From

1980 through 1999, female arrest percentages increased for most offenses,

including assault, larceny-theft, vandalism, weapons law violations, liquor law

violations, and curfew and loitering

law violations. The female proportion

of juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations declined from 1980 through the

early 1990s and then increased through

the remainder of the 1990s. The only

other offense for which the female proportion of juvenile arrests dropped during the 1980s and 1990s was prostitution, falling from near 70% in the early

1980s to below 50% in the mid-1990s.

Between 1980 and 1999, the female proportion of juvenile arrests

increased for simple assault, vandalism, weapons, liquor law

violations, and curfew and loitering law violations

■ Although the raw numbers are relatively small, the female proportion of juvenile

arrests for prostitution and commercialized vice did drop substantially between

1980 and 1999.

■ Across the period, females represented the majority of juveniles arrested for

running away from home.

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Crime in the United States reports for the years 1980 through

1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981 through 2000, respectively).

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

Prostitution and

commercialized vice

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

Other (simple) assault

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

Vandalism

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

Weapons

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

20%

Year

Drug abuse

Female percent of juvenile arrests

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

Liquor law violations

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

Curfew and loitering

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Year

Female percent of juvenile arrests

Running away
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Violent Crime Index

December 2001 13

After a decade of substantial growth and decline, the 1999 juvenile

violent crime arrest rate returned to the level of the 1980s

Public policy in the last two decades was driven by

concerns about the rise in juvenile violence

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Year

White

Asian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Amer. Indian

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for details.]

Violent Crime Index arrest rate trends by gender and race

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

Year

Black

White

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Violent crime arrest rates

declined after 1994

Between 1980 and 1988, the juvenile

Violent Crime Index arrest rate was essentially constant. After these years of stability, the rate grew by more than 60% in the

6-year period between 1988 and 1994.

This unsettling and rapid growth triggered

speculation about changes in the nature

of juvenile offenders—concerns that

spurred State legislators to pass laws that

facilitated an increase in the flow of these

youth into the adult justice system. After

1994, however, the violent crime arrest

rate fell. In the 5 years between 1994 and

1999, the rate fell more than 50%, to just

about the average of the early 1980s. 

Female violent crime

arrest rates remain 

relatively high

In 1980, the juvenile male violent crime

arrest rate was eight times greater than

the female rate. By 1999, the male rate

was just four times greater. This convergence of male and female arrest rates is

due to the large relative increase in the

female rate. Between 1980 and 1994, the

male rate increased 50%, while the female

rate increased 117%. By 1999, the male

rate had dropped to 7% below its 1980

level, while the female violent crime arrest

rate was still 74% above its 1980 level.

Arrest rates declined for

all racial groups

All racial groups experienced large increases in their juvenile violent crime

arrest rates in the late 1980s and early

1990s, followed by declines through

1999. However, the fall was more precipitous for black juveniles. The black rate in

1999 was 25% below its 1980 level, while

the white and American Indian rates in

1999 were still about 30% above their

1980 levels. 
14 National Report Series Bulletin

The 1999 juvenile

murder arrest rate was

the lowest in 20 years

Between the mid-1980s and the peak in

1993, the juvenile arrest rate for murder

more than doubled. After 1993, the rate

fell continuously; by 1999, it was below

the rates of the early 1980s. Fewer juveniles were arrested for murder in 1999

than at any time in at least the prior 20

years.

Male arrests drove

murder arrest rate trends

During the 1980s and 1990s, the juvenile

male arrest rate for murder was, on average, about 13 times greater than the female rate. Both displayed generally similar

trends. The female arrest rate peaked in

1993 at 62% above its 1980 level, whereas the male rate peaked at 129% above

the 1980 rate. Both fell after 1993, so that

by 1999, both arrest rates were substantially below their levels of the early 1980s. 

The rise and fall of

juvenile murder arrest

rates were linked to the

arrests of black juveniles

The black-to-white ratio of juvenile arrest

rates for murder grew from about 5 to 1

in 1980 to 9 to 1 in 1993, reflecting the

greater increase in the black rate over

this period—the white rate increased

50% while the black rate increased more

than 200%. Both rates fell from 1993

through 1999, with the black rate falling

considerably more, so that in 1999, the

black-to-white arrest rate ratio was once

again 5 to 1 and both rates were at their

lowest levels in two decades.

The era of extraordinary rates of juvenile murder

arrests appears to have ended

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Year

Black

White

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

The juvenile arrest rate for murder in 1993 was three times greater

than the rate in 1999

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Murder

Murder arrest rate trends by gender and race

■ Over these two decades, the black juvenile arrest rate for murder increased and

then decreased more dramatically than did the arrest rates for other races.

■ By 1999, the murder arrest rates for both genders and all races of juveniles had

returned to the levels of the early 1980s.

Note: The annual murder arrest rates for American Indians fluctuate because of the small

number of arrests, but the average rate over the period is close to the white rate.

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for details.]

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Year

Asian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

White

Amer. Indian
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

5

10

15

20

25

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Forcible rape

December 2001 15

Forcible rape arrests indicate a decline in sexual

offenders entering the juvenile justice system

The juvenile arrest rate

for forcible rape in 1999

was near its lowest level

in two decades 

Between 1980 and the peak in 1991,

the juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape

increased 45%. This growth occurred

during a time when there were also

increases in arrest rates for aggravated

assault and murder. After 1991, the

forcible rape arrest rate gradually fell,

returning in 1999 to a rate near those

of the early 1980s.

Black rates fell while

white rates rose

In 1980, the black juvenile arrest rate for

forcible rape was more than seven times

the white rate; by 1999, this ratio had

fallen to less than 3 to 1. This was attributable to the 41% decline in the black rate

and 57% increase in the white rate over

this period.

Forcible rape is just one

aspect of violent sexual

assault

An analysis of violent sexual assault incidents using the 1991–96 data files from

the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System found that 45% of all violent

sexual assaults were forcible rapes, 42%

were forcible fondlings, 8% were forcible

sodomies, and 4% were sexual assaults

with an object (Snyder, 2000). In these

data, two-thirds of all victims of violent

sexual assaults were under age 18, and

half of these were under age 12. Juvenile

offenders assaulted 4% of adult victims

but 40% of victims under age 6.

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

5

10

15

20

25

Year

White

Asian

Amer. Indian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

The juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape declined throughout most of

the 1990s, with the rate falling far more for blacks than whites

Forcible rape arrest rate trends by gender and race

■ After 1993, the sharp decline in the black juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape

stands in stark contrast to the relative stability of the juvenile arrest rates of

other races.

Note: The annual rape arrest rates for American Indians fluctuate because of the small number of arrests, but the average rate over the period is close to the white rate.

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for details.]

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

10

20

30

40

50

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

20

40

60

80

100

Year

Black

White

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
16 National Report Series Bulletin

In 1999, juvenile arrest rates for robbery fell to their

lowest level in more than 20 years

The decline in robbery

arrests was interrupted

in the late 1980s

The juvenile arrest rate for robbery

declined steadily for most of the 1980s.

There was, however, an abrupt turnabout

in 1989. In the 6 years between 1988 and

1995, the juvenile robbery arrest rate

increased 70%, to a level nearly 20%

above the 1980 rate. Over this period,

the juvenile proportion of robbery arrests

increased from 22% to 32%. The decline

in the juvenile robbery arrest rate from

1995 to 1999 was even more abrupt.

During this 4-year period, the rate was

cut in half, falling to a point 20% below

the previous low point in 1988. 

Arrest rate trends by

gender and race parallel

the overall pattern

Throughout the 1980s, 7% of all juvenile

robbery arrests were arrests of females.

This proportion increased to 9% in the

1990s, reflecting the greater percentage

increase in the female arrest rate between

1988 and 1995 (109% for females vs.

66% for males). Between 1995 and 1999,

rates declined at similar proportions for

females and males (52% vs. 56%).

Black juveniles had far higher robbery

arrest rates than other juveniles throughout the 1980s and 1990s, although the

racial disparity decreased in the late

1990s. The trends in arrest rates within

racial groups, however, generally paralleled each other. Whatever caused these

large changes in juvenile robbery arrests

(and, by inference, juvenile robberies)

affected all races equally.

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Year

Black

White

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Robbery

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, similar trends were found in the

robbery arrest rates of juvenile males and females and of each racial

group

■ In 1980, the black juvenile arrest rate for robbery was 12 times the white rate; by

1999, this ratio had fallen to 6 to 1, reflecting the substantial decline in the black

rate in the latter part of the 1990s.

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for details.]

Robbery arrest rate trends by gender and race

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

20

40

60

80

100

Year

White

Asian

Amer. Indian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Aggravated assault

December 2001 17

Unlike trends for other violent crimes, juvenile arrest

rates for aggravated assault remained high in 1999

The 1999 juvenile arrest

rate for aggravated

assault was above

the mid-1980 levels

While the juvenile arrest rates for other

violent crimes fell to (or near) their lowest

levels in two decades in 1999, the juvenile

arrest rate for aggravated assault did not.

As with murder and robbery, the juvenile

arrest rate for aggravated assault grew

substantially between 1987 and 1994 (up

93%, 68%, and 79%, respectively). The

murder and robbery rates fell precipitously

between 1994 and 1999 (65% and 53%,

respectively); however, the aggravated

assault arrest rate fell just 24%. The large

declines in the murder and robbery arrest

rates wiped out all of their increases of the

late 1980s and early 1990s, dropping their

levels to at least a 20-year low. In contrast,

the relatively small decline in the aggravated assault arrest rate left the 1999 rate still

37% above the 1987 level.

Male and black rates

declined more than

female and white rates

From 1987 to 1999, aggravated assault

arrest rates for male and female juveniles

rose substantially and then fell. The female rate, however, rose more and then

fell far less than the male rate. As a result,

in 1999, the female arrest rate was almost

double its 1987 level, whereas the male

rate was just 25% greater. The arrest rate

rose more for whites than blacks between

1987 and 1994 (85% vs. 66%), then

fell substantially less for whites. Consequently, in 1999, the black juvenile arrest

rate was within 3% of the 1987 rate, but

the white rate was 61% greater.

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

50

100

150

200

250

Year

White

Asian

Amer. Indian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

For most years between 1980 and 1999, the juvenile arrest rate for

aggravated assault increased—most strikingly for young females

Aggravated assault arrest rate trends by gender and race

■ The disproportionate increase in female arrest rates for aggravated assault compared with male rates indicates that the rates were affected by factors that impinged differently on females and males. One possible explanation may be found

in policy changes over this period that encourage arrests in domestic violence

incidents (see discussion on pages 11–12).

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for details.]

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Year

Black

White

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

100

200

300

400

500

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
18 National Report Series Bulletin

Juveniles were less likely to be arrested for property

crimes in 1999 than they were 20 years earlier

Between 1980 and 1999, the juvenile arrest rate for Property Crime

Index offenses fell for all four races and for males, but not for females

After years of stability,

juvenile property crime

arrest rates fell in the

late 1990s

Between 1980 and 1997, the juvenile

arrest rate for Property Crime Index

offenses varied little, always remaining

within 10% of the average for the period.

However, 1998 and 1999 saw significant

declines in these arrests. By 1999, the

juvenile arrest rate had fallen to a point

28% below the average for 1980–97 and

was at its lowest level in at least 20 years.

This substantial decline in a high-volume

offense category meant that far fewer

juveniles charged with property offenses

were entering the juvenile justice system.

Female property crime

arrest rates increased

from 1980 to 1999

In 1980, the juvenile male arrest rate for

Property Crime Index offenses was four

times the female rate; by 1999, the male

rate was just twice the female rate. These

two rates converged because the male

rate declined 41% over this period while

the female rate increased 8%. The stark

differences in the male and female trends

point to several possibilities, including

gender-specific changes in these behaviors and/or an increased willingness to 

arrest female offenders.

The Property Crime Index arrest rate fell

equally for white and black juveniles in the

late 1990s, with drops of 35% for blacks

and 30% for whites from 1994 to 1999.

In the 20 years from 1980 to 1999, the

black arrest rate for property crimes remained consistently twice the white rate. 

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Year

White

Asian

Amer. Indian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Property Crime Index

Property Crime Index arrest rate trends by gender and race

■ The Property Crime Index includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft,

and arson. It is dominated by larceny-theft, which in 1999 contributed 70% of all

juvenile Property Crime Index arrests. Therefore, the trends in Property Crime

Index arrests largely reflect the trends in arrests for larceny-theft.

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for details.]

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Year

White

Black

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Burglary

December 2001 19

Juvenile arrest rates for burglary declined

substantially in the 1980s and 1990s

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Juvenile arrests for

burglary fell more than

adult arrests 

In 1980, 45% of all persons arrested for

burglary were under age 18. During the

1980s, juvenile burglary arrests fell 43%,

while adult arrests dropped just 4%. As a

result, in 1989, juveniles were involved in

just 32% of all burglary arrests. During the

1990s, burglary arrests dropped one-third

for both juveniles and adults. As a result of

these declines, juveniles were less than half

as likely to be arrested for burglary in 1999

than they were in 1980.

Compared with males,

the female arrest rate for

burglary remained high

The large decline in the juvenile burglary

arrest rate was primarily the result of a

decline in male arrests. In 1980, 6% of

juveniles arrested for burglary were female;

by 1999, 11% were female. Although burglary remained primarily a male behavior in

1999, the substantial decline in the male

arrest rate between 1980 and 1999 stands

in sharp contrast to the stability of the

female rate between 1983 and 1999. Over

this period, while the male rate fell 51%,

the female rate dropped just 12%.

Racial disparity in

juvenile burglary arrest

rates has diminished

In 1980, the black juvenile arrest rate for

burglary was 2.0 times the white rate; by

1999, the ratio had fallen to 1.7. Thus,

during this period, while both rates fell by

more than half, the black arrest rate fell

more than the white rate (65% vs. 58%).

■ In contrast to the declining male trend, the juvenile female arrest rate for burglary

was relatively stable over most of the 1980s and 1990s.

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for details.]

Unique among major offense categories tracked by the FBI’s UCR

Program, the juvenile arrest rate for burglary fell 60% between 1980

and 1999

Burglary arrest rate trends by gender and race

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

Year

Black

White

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

200

400

600

800

Year

White

Asian

Amer. Indian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
20 National Report Series Bulletin

Juvenile arrest rates for larceny-theft fell in 1999 to

a level lower than any since at least 1980

Juvenile larceny-theft

rates fell in the late 1990s

Larceny-theft is the unlawful taking

of property from the possession of another. This crime group includes such

offenses as shoplifting, bicycle theft, and

pickpocketing—or thefts without the use

of force, threat, or fraud. For juveniles, it

has been the most common type of crime:

in 1999, one in six juvenile arrests was for

larceny-theft. The stability of juvenile arrest

rates for larceny-theft over most of the last

two decades stands in stark contrast to the

large swings in arrest rates for other types

of crimes.

Between 1980 and 1997, the annual juvenile

arrest rates for larceny-theft stayed within

10% of the average rate for the period.

However, in 1998 and again in 1999, the

arrest rate dropped outside its traditional

levels, falling in 1999 to 22% below the

1980–97 average. This decline in arrests

for a high-volume offense translated into

a meaningfully smaller number of juveniles

entering the justice system charged with

property crimes in the late 1990s.

Declines were greater for

males than females and

blacks than whites

Although larceny-theft arrest rates dropped

for male and female juveniles in the late

1990s, the prior increases for females resulted in their 1999 rate being 11% above

their 1980 rate, whereas the 1999 rate for

males was 29% below their 1980 rate.

From 1980 to 1999, the ratio of black-towhite arrest rates dropped from 2.3 to 1.9,

reflecting a greater decline in the black rate

than in the white rate (30% vs. 16% decline).

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Year

Black

White

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Year

White

Asian

Amer. Indian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

■ In the 1990s, the juvenile male arrest rate for larceny-theft fell, while the female

rate grew and then fell to the levels observed at the beginning of the decade.

■ The black rate declined more than the white rate in the 1990s.

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for details.]

In contrast to the other major property crimes of burglary and motor

vehicle theft, the annual rates of juvenile arrests for larceny-theft

were relatively stable over most of the 1980s and 1990s

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Larceny-theft

Larceny-theft arrest rate trends by gender and race
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Motor vehicle theft

December 2001 21

The growth in juvenile motor vehicle theft arrest rates

that began in 1984 was erased by 1999

Juvenile arrest rates for

motor vehicle theft

soared in the 1980s

Juvenile arrest rates for motor vehicle theft

fell to a low point in 1983 for males and

females and for whites, blacks, and American Indians. (The Asian rate bottomed out

in 1984.) After 1983, and predating the

growth in juvenile arrests for violent crime,

the juvenile arrest rate for motor vehicle

theft increased each year through 1990,

when the rate was 138% above its 1983

level. In contrast, the juvenile arrest rate

for motor vehicle theft fell in the 1990s—

by 1999, it was near its 1983 low.

The juvenile arrest rate trends for motor

vehicle theft differed from those for the

other high-volume theft crimes of burglary and larceny-theft. In the 1980s and

1990s, the burglary arrest rate declined

consistently and the larceny-theft rate

remained relatively stable, but the motor

vehicle theft rate soared and then dropped

just as dramatically.

Male and female juvenile arrest rates for

motor vehicle theft displayed generally

similar trends in the 1980s and 1990s,

first increasing then decreasing. However,

the male rate peaked in 1990, whereas the

female rate did not peak until 1993. With

a longer period of decline than the female

rate, the male rate in 1999 fell to within

7% of its 1983 low, while the female rate

was still 76% above its low point.

The motor vehicle theft arrest rate for black

juveniles grew far more than the rate for

whites between 1983 and 1989 (254% vs.

86%). By 1999, the white rate had returned

to its 1983 low, but the black rate was 58%

greater than its 1983 level.

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

■ Although both the male and female arrest rates for motor vehicle theft peaked

and then declined between 1980 and 1999, the male peak preceded the female

peak by 3 years (1990 vs. 1993).

■ The relative growth and subsequent decline in the motor vehicle theft arrest rate

was far more pronounced for black juveniles than white juveniles.

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for detail.]

The juvenile arrest rate for motor vehicle theft in 1999 was half that

at the beginning of the decade

Motor vehicle theft arrest rate trends by gender and race

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

20

40

60

80

100

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Year

Black

White

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

100

200

300

400

Year

White

Asian

Amer. Indian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
22 National Report Series Bulletin

More than half of all persons arrested for arson in

1999 were under age 18, and 1 in 5 was under 13

Arson is the criminal act

with the largest proportion

of juvenile arrestees

In 1999, 54% of all persons arrested for

arson were juveniles. Arson is also the

criminal act with the largest percentage of

arrestees under the age of 13 (19%). In

comparison, 31% of all larceny-theft

arrests in 1999 involved juveniles, and 4%

involved juveniles under age 13. Young

persons are brought into the juvenile justice system in such high proportions for

the crime of arson in part because arson

is commonly considered an indicator of

serious emotional problems in youth.

The juvenile arrest rate

for arson grew 56% from

1987 to 1994, then fell

The pattern of stability, growth, and decline

in the juvenile arrest rate for arson in the

1980s and 1990s was similar in magnitude

and character to the trend in juvenile violent crime arrest rates. After years of stability, the rate increased more than 50% before falling and returning by 1999 to a level

similar to that before the increase. During

the period of increase, the female rate increased more than the male rate. During

the period of decline, the male and female

rates declined proportionally. However, because of the greater increase in the female

rate, these declines left the female rate in

1999 about 30% above its level in the early

1980s, while the male rate was just 15%

above its early 1980s levels. One major

distinction between violent crime and arson

arrest rates over this period was that white

and black rates were similar for arson but

not for violent crime (see page 13).

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Year

White

Asian

Amer. Indian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

■ From 1980 through 1992, white and black juvenile arrest rates for arson were

equal. After 1992, the black rate rose above the white rate.

■ The female juvenile arrest rate for arson increased abruptly between 1991 and

1994.

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for details.]

During the 1990s, the juvenile arrest rate for arson grew substantially

and then declined, resulting in a 1999 rate equal to the 1990 rate

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Arson

Arson arrest rate trends by gender and race

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

2

4

6

8

10

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

10

20

30

40

50

Year

Black

White

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Other (simple) assault

December 2001 23

Juvenile arrest rates for simple assault grew 

substantially through the 1980s and 1990s

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Simple assault is the

most common of all

crimes against persons

In 1999, there were nearly five juvenile

arrests for simple assault for every one

juvenile arrest for aggravated assault. In

contrast to aggravated assault, a simple

assault does not involve the use of a

weapon and does not result in serious

bodily harm to the victim. The lesser severity of simple assault makes the reporting of it to law enforcement less likely and

gives law enforcement more discretion in

how to handle the incident. 

The simple assault arrest

rate increased 150%

between 1980 and 1999

Unlike most violent crime arrest rates that

rose and then fell during the 1980s and

1990s, the juvenile arrest rate for simple

assault rose almost continuously from

1983 through 1996 and then maintained

this high level through 1999. The large

increase in the juvenile rate was paralleled

by a similar increase in the adult rate, so

that the juvenile proportion of all simple

assault arrests was 18% in both 1980 and

1999. As with aggravated assault, the increase in the juvenile female arrest rate for

simple assault over the 20-year period far

outpaced the increase in the male rate

(270% vs. 120%). As a result, between

1980 and 1999, the female proportion of

juvenile arrests for simple assault grew

from 21% to 30%. From 1980 to 1999,

simple assault arrest rates increased substantially for white (160%), black (133%),

and American Indian (185%) youth, with

rates for Asian youth also increasing but to

a smaller degree (39%).

■ In 1999, the ratio of simple to aggravated assault arrests of juveniles varied

among gender and racial groups: male (3.0 to 1), female (4.6 to 1), white 

(3.5 to 1), black (3.1 to 1), American Indian (3.8 to 1), and Asian (2.8 to 1).

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for details.]

Between 1980 and 1999, simple assault arrest rates for female,

male, white, black, and American Indian juveniles more than doubled

Other (simple) assault arrest rate trends by gender and race

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

100

200

300

400

500

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

Year

Black

White

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

200

400

600

800

Year

White

Asian

Amer. Indian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
24 National Report Series Bulletin

Juvenile arrest rate trends for weapons law violations

have paralleled trends for violent crimes

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Year

Black

White

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Juvenile weapons arrest

rates peaked in 1993

The juvenile arrest rate for weapons law

violations doubled between 1987 and

1993. In 1993, if it is assumed that each

arrest involved a different youth, then

about 1 of every 500 juveniles ages 10–17

in the population was arrested for at least

1 crime in which the most serious charge

was a weapons offense.

Other, more serious crimes also involved

the use of a firearm; however, the FBI’s

arrest statistics classified these arrests by

their most serious charge. An analysis of

1997 and 1998 data from the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System

finds that a firearm was present in 14% of

aggravated assaults and 28% of robberies

committed by juveniles. If these proportions are applied to the juvenile arrest

rates for robbery and aggravated assault,

and if again it is assumed that each juvenile is arrested just once in the year, then

about 1 of every 300 juveniles ages 10–17

(or 0.3%) was arrested for a weaponsinvolved crime in 1993. In 1999, the ratio

was 1 in 450 (0.2%).

Weapons arrests fell

substantially after 1993

The juvenile arrest rate for weapons law

violations dropped 38% between 1993

and 1999, to the lowest level in the 1990s.

Declines occurred in the rates for males,

females, and each racial group. The 1999

rates, however, were all still far above their

1980 levels, with increases as follows:

all juveniles (49%), male (43%), female

(152%), white (53%), black (50%),

American Indian (43%), and Asian (21%).

■ Between 1980 and the peak year of 1993, the juvenile arrest rate for weapons

law violations increased more for blacks (219%) than for whites (118%), Asians

(73%), or American Indians (50%)—and more for females (248%) than males

(137%).

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for details.]

Weapons law violation arrest rate trends by gender and race

From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, the juvenile arrest rate for

weapons law violations increased substantially in all segments of the

juvenile population

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Weapons

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

100

200

300

400

500

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

40

80

120

160

200

Year

White

Asian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Amer. Indian
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Drug abuse

December 2001 25

After more than a decade of relative stability, juvenile

drug arrest rates climbed 118% in 5 years

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

50

100

150

200

250

Year

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Year

White

Asian

Amer. Indian

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

The 1980s saw increased

racial disparity in drug

arrest rates

The annual juvenile arrest rates for drug

abuse violations (a category that includes

both drug possession and drug sale) varied within a limited range in the 1980s,

staying within 20% of the average for the

decade. This general consistency in drug

arrest rates contrasts with the large decline in self-reported use of marijuana and

other illicit drugs during the decade.

A closer look at juvenile drug arrest rates

finds sharp racial differences in the 1980s.

The white rate fell 32% over the period,

compared with a 249% increase for blacks.

In 1980, the white and black arrest rates

were essentially equal, with black youth

involved in 15% of all juvenile drug arrests.

By 1989, the black rate was five times the

white rate, and black youth were involved

in 49% of all juvenile drug arrests.

Drug arrests soared for

all youth between 1992

and 1997

In contrast to the 1980s, the overall juvenile drug arrest rate more than doubled

(118%) in the short period between 1992

and 1997. Increases were seen in the

rates for all subgroups: male (112%),

female (176%), white (187%), American

Indian (289%), and Asian (136%). Even

the black rate, which had increased dramatically in the 1980s, increased an additional 41% between 1992 and 1997.

Between 1997 and 1999, the juvenile

drug arrest rate fell marginally, with most

of the overall decline attributable to a

drop in arrests of black males.

■ The trend in juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations among blacks was different from the trends for other racial groups. While the arrest rate for other races

generally declined throughout the 1980s, the rate for black juveniles increased

substantially during this period.

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the FBI and population data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. [See arrest rate data source note on page 32 for details.]

Drug abuse violation arrest rate trends by gender and race

The surge in the juvenile arrest rate for drug abuse violations began

years after similar upturns in violent crime and weapons arrests

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Year

Male

Female

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

Year

Black

White

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
26 National Report Series Bulletin

Clearance proportions give insight into the relative

involvement of juveniles and adults in crime

Law enforcement tracks

the percentage of 

reported crimes cleared

The FBI data monitor the proportion of

cleared crimes that are cleared by the

arrest of only juveniles. This proportion,

however, provides only a rough estimate

of the percentage of known crimes that

were committed by juveniles.

As discussed earlier (see pages 3–4), a

crime cleared by the arrest of a juvenile

and the arrest of an adult is classified by

the FBI as an adult clearance. This means

that some cleared crimes with juvenile

offenders are not counted in the proportion

of crimes cleared by juvenile arrest—a factor that makes the juvenile clearance proportion an underestimate of juvenile involvement in cleared crimes. Research

shows, however, that juvenile crimes

are more likely than adult crimes to be

cleared—a factor that artificially inflates

the juvenile clearance proportions. Thus,

although the magnitude of the annual proportions of crimes cleared by juvenile

arrest may be inaccurate, the trends in

these proportions are reasonable indicators of changes in the relative involvement

of juveniles in various crimes.

Between 1980 and 1999,

the juvenile proportion

of Violent Crime Index

clearances increased

In the 1980s, between 8% and 11% of

all violent crimes cleared by law enforcement were cleared by juvenile arrest. In

the 1990s, juvenile involvement ranged

between 11% and 14%. This growth in

juvenile involvement was reflected in the

Clearance data for 1999 indicate that if all juvenile violent crime

ceased, the overall violent crime rate would fall 12%

■ Clearance data indicate that juvenile responsibility for violent crime peaked in

1994, when an estimated 14% of all violent crimes cleared by law enforcement

involved only juvenile offenders.

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Crime in the United States reports for the years 1980 through

1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981 through 2000, respectively).

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Percent of crimes cleared by juvenile arrests

Violent Crime Index

■ Over the period, 1 in every 4 to 5 property crimes cleared by law enforcement

was cleared by the arrest of a juvenile.

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Crime in the United States reports for the years 1980 through

1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981 through 2000, respectively).

Data on crimes known and cleared by law enforcement indicate that

the juvenile responsibility for property crime was relatively stable

over the 1980s and 1990s

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent of crimes cleared by juvenile arrests

Property Crime Index
Clearance statistics indicate that juvenile responsibility for each of

the violent offenses peaked in the mid-1990s and then fell

December 2001 27

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Year

Murder

Percent of crimes cleared by juvenile arrests

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

20%

24%

Year

Robbery

Percent of crimes cleared by juvenile arrests

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Year

Aggravated assault

Percent of crimes cleared by juvenile arrests

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Year

Burglary

Percent of crimes cleared by juvenile arrests

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Year

Larceny-theft

Percent of crimes cleared by juvenile arrests

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Year

Motor vehicle theft

Percent of crimes cleared by juvenile arrests

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Year

Arson

Percent of crimes cleared by juvenile arrests

greater increase in violent crime arrests

for juveniles (67%) than for adults (31%)

between 1986 and 1995.

Each of the four Violent Crime Index

offenses showed an increase in the juvenile proportion of crimes cleared. The

most notable growth was in murder clearances. From the early 1980s to 1994, the

proportion of murders cleared by juvenile

arrests grew from less than 5% to more

than 10%. The juvenile involvement in

murder, however, was less than in other

violent crimes. The juvenile proportion

of clearances also reached peak levels

during the mid-1990s for other Violent

Crime Index offenses: forcible rape in

1995 (15%), robbery in 1995 (20%),

and aggravated assault in 1994 (13%).

Between the mid-1990s and 1999, the

juvenile proportion of clearances fell to

12% for forcible rape and to 15% for robbery. In contrast, the juvenile proportion

of aggravated assault clearances changed

little after the mid-1990s. 

The juvenile proportion

of Property Crime 

Index clearances fell 

throughout the 1980s

In the 1980s, the juvenile proportion of

cleared Property Crime Index offenses

dropped from 28% to 20%. Although

there was an increase in the 1990s, the

juvenile proportion ended the decade at

the level at which it began (22%). The

crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and

motor vehicle theft all ended this 20-year

period with juvenile clearance proportions

near their lows for the period (19%, 23%,

and 19%, respectively). Only the crime

of arson ended the period with a substantially higher proportion of crimes cleared

by juvenile arrest. For arson, the juvenile

proportion of clearances grew from 35%

in the early 1980s to 49% in 1999.

Note: Arson clearance data were first reported in 1981.

Data source: Analysis of the FBI’s Crime in the United States reports for the years 1980 through

1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981 through 2000, respectively).

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

Year

Forcible rape

Percent of crimes cleared by juvenile arrests

Clearance data indicate that juvenile responsibility for burglary,

larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft was less in 1999 than in 1980
28 National Report Series Bulletin

In 1999, about two-thirds of the States had a juvenile

violent crime arrest rate below the national average

States with the lowest reported juvenile violent crime arrest rates in 1999 were Vermont, North Dakota, West

Virginia, Nebraska, and New Hampshire

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Reporting Violent Reporting Violent

population Crime Forcible Agg. population Crime Forcible Agg.

State coverage Index Murder rape Robbery assault State coverage Index Murder rape Robbery assault

United States 69% 366 5 17 99 246 Missouri 58% 312 7 18 102 186

Alabama 93 148 4 4 57 83 Montana 49 315 11 22 58 224

Alaska 90 279 6 27 58 188 Nebraska 92 119 2 10 46 61

Arizona 92 316 5 6 55 250 Nevada 97 288 6 15 126 142

Arkansas 95 228 6 15 49 158 New Hampshire 39 124 0 5 57 62

California 100 498 5 11 154 328 New Jersey 96 409 2 12 146 249

Colorado 62 300 7 48 55 190 New Mexico 57 357 6 15 33 304

Connecticut 95 339 2 16 82 239 New York 32 336 3 8 116 209

Delaware 100 766 0 91 185 490 North Carolina 88 334 7 8 85 234

Dist. of Columbia 0 NA NA NA NA NA North Dakota 74 92 2 9 12 70

Florida 100 672 5 23 164 479 Ohio 53 248 1 31 68 148

Georgia 31 188 5 13 40 129 Oklahoma 0 NA NA NA NA NA

Hawaii 88 220 2 13 96 108 Oregon 94 203 3 11 58 131

Idaho 86 196 0 14 13 169 Pennsylvania 77 422 4 20 133 265

Illinois 23 1,058 28 56 374 600 Rhode Island 100 246 4 17 85 140

Indiana 58 393 8 8 68 309 South Carolina 23 400 5 27 91 277

Iowa 81 267 1 13 31 222 South Dakota 71 167 1 16 21 128

Kansas 0 NA NA NA NA NA Tennessee 51 250 7 7 52 184

Kentucky 11 516 8 8 107 393 Texas 90 235 5 18 62 150

Louisiana 75 461 7 20 68 366 Utah 68 253 1 15 27 209

Maine 0 NA NA NA NA NA Vermont 81 60 0 18 0 42

Maryland 60 304 2 11 88 203 Virginia 68 191 4 7 59 120

Massachusetts 78 454 1 11 79 363 Washington 74 335 3 30 81 220

Michigan 82 195 6 19 44 127 West Virginia 52 95 0 2 17 76

Minnesota 85 275 1 30 65 179 Wisconsin 0 NA NA NA NA NA

Mississippi 40 189 8 23 72 86 Wyoming 98 146 0 8 13 125

NA = Arrest counts were not available for this

State in the FBI’s Crime in the United States 1999.

Notes: Arrest rates for jurisdictions with less than

complete reporting may not be representative of

the entire State. In the map, rates were classified

as “Data not available” when agencies with jurisdiction over more than 50% of their State’s population did not report. Readers should consult the

related technical note on page 32. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the

FBI’s Crime in the United States 1999 and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census’

Estimates of the population of States by age,

sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1999 [machinereadable data file].

1999 Violent Crime Index arrests

per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

0 to 200

200 to 300

300 to 400

400 or above

Data not available

District of Columbia
1998 Violent Crime Index arrests

per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

0 to 100

100 to 300

300 to 500

500 or above

Data not available

December 2001 29

Juvenile violent crime arrest rates varied considerably among counties within a State in 1998

Note: Rates were classified as “Data not available” when agencies with jurisdiction over more than 50% of their county’s population did not report.

Data source: Analysis of arrest estimates from the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program data

[United States]: County-level detailed arrest and offense data, 1998 [machine-readable data file] and population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the

Census’ Estimates of the population of counties by age and sex: 1990–1999 [machine-readable data files available online, released August 30, 2000].

In 1998, the national juvenile arrest rate

for offenses included in the Violent Crime

Index was 394 arrests of persons under

age 18 for every 100,000 persons ages

10–17 in the U.S. population. Just 10% of

the 3,141 counties in the U.S. reported a

juvenile violent crime arrest rate higher

High violent crime arrest rates are found in a

relatively small proportion of counties

than the national average. The highest rate

reported by a county was more than four

times the national rate. Six in ten reporting counties had rates less than half the

national average. Half of all reporting

counties had juvenile violent crime arrest

rates less than 137, and nearly one-fourth 

reported no violent crime arrests at all for

the year. However, the fact that high rates

of juvenile violent crime arrests are found

in counties with small populations and in

counties with large populations indicates

that high levels of juvenile violence can

occur in any community.
30 National Report Series Bulletin

The populous States of California, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia

reported juvenile Property Crime Index arrest rates below the national average in 1999

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

Reporting Property Motor Reporting Property Motor

population Crime Larceny- vehicle population Crime Larceny- vehicle

State coverage Index Burglary theft theft Arson State coverage Index Burglary theft theft Arson

United States 69% 1,844 348 1,291 177 28 Missouri 58% 2,273 314 1,665 258 37

Alabama 93 932 155 728 47 3 Montana 49 3,496 248 3,013 204 31

Alaska 90 2,302 415 1,644 233 11 Nebraska 92 2,716 254 2,269 130 63

Arizona 92 2,334 352 1,738 212 32 Nevada 97 2,526 524 1,709 257 37

Arkansas 95 1,573 317 1,185 64 8 New Hampshire 39 1,262 147 1,010 67 37

California 100 1,643 462 971 180 30 New Jersey 96 1,417 230 1,082 61 43

Colorado 62 2,874 314 2,249 263 49 New Mexico 57 1,973 217 1,664 82 9

Connecticut 95 1,445 223 1,069 136 17 New York 32 1,745 373 1,240 105 28

Delaware 100 2,002 423 1,418 120 41 North Carolina 88 1,717 411 1,190 86 29

Dist. of Columbia 0 NA NA NA NA NA North Dakota 74 2,154 292 1,578 272 12

Florida 100 2,713 643 1,756 294 19 Ohio 53 1,509 263 1,073 129 45

Georgia 31 1,603 319 1,170 98 15 Oklahoma 0 NA NA NA NA NA

Hawaii 88 2,076 338 1,513 216 9 Oregon 94 2,531 339 1,945 185 61

Idaho 86 2,546 365 1,999 144 38 Pennsylvania 77 1,425 251 921 216 37

Illinois 23 2,637 408 884 1,315 30 Rhode Island 100 1,570 298 1,029 210 33

Indiana 58 1,705 195 1,329 162 18 South Carolina 23 2,113 294 1,693 95 31

Iowa 81 1,998 261 1,603 104 31 South Dakota 71 2,375 359 1,871 100 46

Kansas 0 NA NA NA NA NA Tennessee 51 1,804 186 1,503 96 19

Kentucky 11 2,291 411 1,473 363 44 Texas 90 1,682 296 1,232 137 16

Louisiana 75 2,381 527 1,725 101 28 Utah 68 2,675 229 2,243 164 39

Maine 0 NA NA NA NA NA Vermont 81 796 211 515 64 7

Maryland 60 1,982 374 1,403 148 56 Virginia 68 1,469 229 1,060 142 38

Massachusetts 78 734 171 474 77 12 Washington 74 3,073 480 2,331 216 45

Michigan 82 1,108 158 845 87 18 West Virginia 52 999 137 756 95 11

Minnesota 85 2,381 266 1,825 255 34 Wisconsin 0 NA NA NA NA NA

Mississippi 40 2,095 466 1,484 130 15 Wyoming 98 2,455 224 2,108 117 6

States with high juvenile property crime arrest rates

in 1999 tended to have low violent crime arrest rates

NA = Arrest counts were not available for this

State in the FBI’s Crime in the United States 1999.

Notes: Arrest rates for jurisdictions with less than

complete reporting may not be representative of

the entire State. In the map, rates were classified

as “Data not available” when agencies with jurisdiction over more than 50% of their State’s population did not report. Readers should consult the

related technical note on page 32. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the

FBI’s Crime in the United States 1999 and population data from the Bureau of the Census’

Estimates of the population of States by age,

sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1999 [machinereadable data file].

1999 Property Crime Index arrests

per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

0 to 1,500

1,500 to 2,000

2,000 to 2,500

2,500 or above

Data not available

District of Columbia
1998 Property Crime Index arrests

per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17

0 to 1,000

1,000 to 2,000

2,000 to 3,000

3,000 or above

Data not available

December 2001 31

Note: Rates were classified as “Data not available” when agencies with jurisdiction over more than 50% of their county’s population did not report.

Data source: Analysis of arrest estimates from the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program data

[United States]: County-level detailed arrest and offense data, 1998 [machine-readable data file] and population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the

Census’ Estimates of the population of counties by age and sex: 1990–1999 [machine-readable data files available online, released August 30, 2000].

The Property Crime Index is dominated by

the high-volume crime category of larcenytheft. For juveniles, shoplifting is the most

common offense in this category. The Index also includes the crimes of home burglary, auto theft, and arson—all serious

crimes. Therefore, to assess the nature of

juvenile property crimes within a jurisdiction, one must consider the categories

individually. Nevertheless, since much

juvenile crime is property crime, juvenile

Property Crime Index arrest rates are a

good barometer of the flow of juveniles

into the juvenile justice system. In 1998,

the national juvenile property crime arrest

rate was 2,130. The highest rate reported

by a county was more than five times the

national rate. Nearly three-fourths of

reporting counties had rates below the

national average. Half of all reporting

counties had rates below 1,518.

Property Crime Index arrest rates are a barometer of

the flow of youth into the juvenile justice system 

In 1998, the counties with high Property Crime Index arrest rates did not necessarily have high Violent Crime

Index arrest rates
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

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

National Report Series Bulletin NCJ 191031

Technical note

Although juvenile arrest rates may largely

reflect juvenile behavior, many other factors

can affect the magnitude of these rates. Arrest

rates are calculated by dividing the number of

youth arrests made in the year by the number

of youth living in the jurisdiction. Therefore,

jurisdictions that arrest a relatively large number of nonresident juveniles would have a

higher arrest rate than jurisdictions where resident youth behave similarly. Jurisdictions

(especially small ones) that are vacation destinations or that are centers for economic

activity in a region may have arrest rates that

reflect the behavior of nonresident youth more

than that of resident youth.

Other factors that influence arrest rates in a

given area include the attitudes of citizens

toward crime, the policies of local law enforcement agencies, and the policies of other

components of the justice system. In many

areas, not all law enforcement agencies report

their arrest data to the FBI. Rates for such

areas are necessarily based on partial information and may not be accurate.

Comparisons of juvenile arrest rates across

jurisdictions can be informative. Because of

the factors noted, however, comparisons

should be made with caution.

Arrest rate data source 

Analysis of arrest data from unpublished FBI

reports for 1980 through 1997 and from

Crime in the United States reports for 1998

and 1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1999 and 2000, respectively);

population data from the U.S. Bureau of the

Census, U.S. Population Estimates by Age,

Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 1999

[machine-readable data files available online,

released April 11, 2000]. 

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by Howard N.

Snyder, Director of Systems Research at

the National Center for Juvenile Justice,

with funds provided by OJJDP to support

the Juvenile Justice Statistics and Systems Development Program (cooperative

agreement number 95–JN–FX–K008).

The author gratefully acknowledges the

assistance provided by the FBI’s Criminal

Justice Information Services Division,

specifically, Ken Candell and Maryvictoria Pyne. 

References

Snyder, H.N. 1999. The overrepresentation of

juvenile crime proportions in robbery clearance statistics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 15(2):151–161. 

Snyder, H.N. 2000. Sexual Assault of Young

Children as Reported to Law Enforcement:

Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics.

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

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau

of Justice Statistics.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the author 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.