1

JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN

in 1995, but they accounted for more

than half (55%) of the decline in these

arrests between 1994 and 1995.

◆ Less than one-half of 1% of all persons

ages 10 through 17 in the United States

were arrested for a Violent Crime Index

offense in 1995.

◆ Juvenile murder arrests declined 14%

between 1994 and 1995. The number of

juvenile arrests for murder in 1995 was

9% below the level in 1991, but still 90%

above the number of murder arrests in

1986.

◆ In contrast to violent crime, juvenile

Property Crime Index arrests showed no

change between 1991 and 1995. The declines in juvenile burglary arrests (11%)

and motor vehicle theft arrests (17%)

were offset by the 6% increase in juvenile

arrests for larceny-theft—the highest volume offense category for juveniles.

◆ Juveniles were involved in 13% of all

drug arrests in 1995. Between 1991 and

1995, juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations increased 138%.

◆ In 1995, 57% of arrests for running away

from home involved females and 44%

involved juveniles under age 15.

◆ Arrests of juveniles accounted for 14% of

all violent crimes cleared by arrest in

1995; more specifically, juveniles accounted for 9% of murders, 15% of forcible rapes, 20% of robberies, and 13% of

aggravated assaults cleared by arrest.

Juvenile Arrests 1995

Law enforcement agencies in the United

States made an estimated 2.7 million arrests

in 1995 of persons under age 18.* According

to the FBI, juveniles accounted for 18% of

all arrests. In 1995, for the first year in

nearly a decade, juvenile arrests for Violent

Crime Index Offenses—murder, forcible

rape, robbery, and aggravated assault—

declined 3%. Even with this decline, the

number of juvenile violent crime arrests in

1995 was 12% greater than the level in 1991

and 67% above the 1986 level. Similarly, all

adult age groups also experienced increases

in Violent Crime Index arrest rates between

the mid-1980’s and the mid-1990’s.

These findings are derived from data

reported annually by local law enforcement

agencies across the country to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

Based on these data, the FBI prepares its

annual Crime in the United States report,

which summarizes crimes known to the

police and arrests made during the reporting calendar year. This information is used

to characterize the extent and nature of juvenile crime that comes to the attention of

the justice system. Other recent findings

from the UCR Program are:

◆ Juveniles were involved in 32% of all

robbery arrests, 23% of weapon arrests,

and 15% of murder and aggravated assault arrests in 1995.

◆ Juveniles under age 15 were responsible

for 30% of juvenile violent crime arrests

From the Administrator

In a period when the Nation is

concerned about juvenile crime, it is

important that we have an accurate,

current, empirically based picture of

this problem. In October 1996, the

FBI released Crime in the United

States 1995, the most recent report

in a series dating back to the 1930’s.

Policymakers, researchers, and the

media rely on these annual reports to

quantify criminal justice activities and

trends.

This OJJDP Bulletin summarizes the

statistics on the arrests of youth

under age 18 found in Crime in the

United States 1995 and other data

flowing from the FBI’s Uniform Crime

Reporting Program. As readers will

see, the newest FBI arrest statistics

give us hope for the future. Juvenile

arrests for violent crime declined in

1995 for the first time in nearly a

decade. Most encouraging is that this

decline was greatest among younger

juveniles. This promising turnabout

should temper recent forecasts of an

epidemic of violent juvenile crime.

It is hoped that this Bulletin will

stimulate the search for solutions to

the problems that cause, and result

from, juvenile crime.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Shay Bilchik, Administrator February 1997

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Howard N. Snyder

* Throughout this Bulletin, persons under

age 18 are referred to as juveniles. See Notes

on page 12.
2

Decline in violent crime

arrests was greater for

younger juveniles

The decline in arrests for violent and

property crime between 1994 and 1995 was

greater for younger than for older juveniles.

Percent Change in

Arrests 1994–1995

Under Ages

Age 15 15 to 17

Total Crime Index -2% 3%

Violent Crime Index -5 -2

Murder -1 -16

Forcible rape -7 -2

Robbery -2 0

Aggravated assault -6 -2

Property Crime Index -4 0

Burglary -9 -3

Larceny-theft -1 3

Motor vehicle theft -14 -7

Arson -10 -3

Vandalism -11 -3

Weapons -16 -11

Drug abuse violations 20 17

Running away -5 0

Data source: Analysis of data from Crime in the

United States 1995, Table 36.

Juveniles under age 15 were responsible

for 30% of juvenile violent crime arrests in

1995, but they accounted for over half (55%)

of the decline in these arrests between 1994

and 1995. Younger juveniles accounted for

70% of the decline in juvenile robbery arrests, 62% of the decline in aggravated assault arrests, and 67% of the decline in

burglary arrests. All of the decline in juvenile property crime arrests between 1994

and 1995 can be attributed to younger juveniles.

Violent crime arrests

peaked with 18-yearolds

In 1995, 1.2% of juvenile violent crime

arrests involved persons under age 10. Violent crime arrests increased with each age

group between 10 and 17. In 1995, the number of violent crime arrests peaked with 18-

year-olds and declined thereafter.

In 1995, 2.2% of juvenile property crime

arrests involved persons under age 10. In

contrast to violent crime, property crime

arrests peaked in the 16-year-old age group

and then declined abruptly, with the number of property crime arrests of persons age

20 less than half the number for persons

age 16.

Arrests of juveniles for all violent crimes declined between 1994 and

1995, with murder arrests down 14%

1995 Percent of Total

Estimated Juvenile Arrests

Number of Under Percent Change

Offense Juvenile Arrests Female Age 15 1986–95 1991–95 1994–95

Total 2,745,000 26% 34% 30% 20% 1%

Crime Index total 885,100 24 40 15 2 -2

Violent Crime Index 147,700 15 30 67 12 -3

Murder & nonnegligent 3,300 6 14 90 -9 -14

 manslaughter

Forcible rape 5,500 2 37 -4 -12 -4

Robbery 55,500 9 28 63 18 -1

Aggravated assault 83,500 20 32 78 11 -3

Property Crime Index 737,400 26 42 8 0 -2

Burglary 135,800 10 39 -18 -11 -6

Larceny-theft 510,600 32 44 14 6 1

Motor vehicle theft 80,500 15 28 28 -17 -9

Arson 10,500 12 67 40 20 -8

Nonindex

Other assaults 215,700 28 41 111 36 3

Forgery & counterfeiting 8,800 35 13 2 10 0

Fraud 25,100 26 26 5 69 1

Embezzlement 1,300 42 10 47 9 23

Stolen property; buying, 42,800 12 28 20 -6 -2

receiving, possessing

Vandalism 139,600 11 47 25 5 -7

Weapons; carrying, 56,300 8 30 75 13 -12

possessing, etc.

Prostitution & 1,300 48 17 -50 -6 11

commercialized vice

Sex offense (except forcible 16,100 7 51 -4 -13 -8

rape & prostitution)

Drug abuse violations 189,800 13 17 115 138 18

Gambling 1,600 5 17 98 50 -8

Offenses against the 6,900 37 30 78 62 17

family & children

Driving under the influence 14,900 16 3 -49 -17 0

Liquor law violations 120,000 29 10 -18 -1 3

Drunkenness 20,600 16 15 -39 -1 12

Disorderly conduct 173,900 25 35 67 45 5

Vagrancy 3,500 11 21 15 29 -4

All other offenses 420,300 22 28 20 28 -1

(except traffic)

Suspicion 2,000 21 27 -26 -57 -6

Curfew & loitering 149,800 30 29 76 84 14

Running away 249,500 57 44 53 17 -2

◆ Even with the decline in juvenile violent crime arrests in 1995, the number of violent

crime arrests was still 12% greater than the 1991 level and 67% above the 1986 level.

◆ The number of juvenile arrests for murder in 1995 was 9% below the level in 1991 but

still 90% above the number of murder arrests in 1986.

◆ Females were involved in 15% of Violent Crime Index arrests, 26% of Property Crime

Index arrests, and 13% of drug abuse violation arrests in 1995.

◆ Between 1994 and 1995, the number of juvenile arrests fell in each of the following

offense categories: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor

vehicle theft, arson, vandalism, and weapons law violations.

Data source: Crime in the United States 1995, Tables 29, 32, 34, 36, and 38. Arrest estimates

were developed by the National Center for Juvenile Justice.
3

One in four juvenile

arrests in 1995 were

arrests of females

Law enforcement agencies made 702,000

arrests of females below the age of 18 in

1995. The female proportion of juvenile arrests has grown in recent years. In fact, increases in arrests between 1991 and 1995

were greater for juvenile females than juvenile males in most offense categories.

Percent Change

in Juvenile Arrests

1991–1995

Female Male

Violent Crime Index 34% 9%

Murder 18 -10

Forcible rape 3 -12

Robbery 24 17

Aggravated assault 39 6

Property Crime Index 17 -5

Burglary 3 -13

Larceny-theft 19 1

Motor vehicle theft 8 -20

Arson 70 15

Simple assault 56 30

Vandalism 33 2

Weapons 42 11

Drug abuse violations 176 133

Running away 17 15

Data source: Crime in the United States 1995,

Table 35.

Juvenile arrests

disproportionately

involved minorities

The racial composition of the juvenile

population in 1995 was 80% white, 15%

black, and 5% other races, with juveniles of

Hispanic ethnicity being classified as white.

In contrast to their proportion in the general

population, roughly equal numbers of violent crime arrests involved white and black

youth in 1995.

White Proportion of

Juvenile Arrests in 1995

Murder 39%

Forcible rape 54

Robbery 38

Aggravated assault 56

Burglary 73

Larceny-theft 70

Motor vehicle theft 58

Weapons 63

Drug abuse violations 64

Running away 77

Data source: Crime in the United States 1995,

Table 43.

Juveniles were involved in a much larger proportion of property crime

arrests than violent crime arrests in 1995

◆ Nearly one-third (32%) of all persons arrested for robbery in 1995 were under age 18,

substantially above the juvenile proportion of arrests for other violent crimes: forcible

rape (16%), murder (15%), and aggravated assault (15%).

◆ Most crime is committed by persons between ages 10 and 49. In fact, in 1995, 95% of

all arrests involved persons in this age range. Juveniles ages 10 through 17 made up

19% of this segment of the U.S. population. Compared to their proportion in the 10- to

49-year-old population, juveniles were disproportionately involved in arrests for arson,

vandalism, motor vehicle theft, burglary, larceny-theft, robbery, stolen property, disorderly conduct, weapons, and liquor law violation offenses.

Note: Running away from home and curfew violations are not presented in this figure because,

by definition, only juveniles can be arrested for these offenses.

Data source: Crime in the United States 1995, Table 38.
4

The Violent Crime

Index monitors

violence trends

The FBI assesses trends in the volume of

violent crimes by monitoring four offenses

that are consistently reported by law enforcement agencies nationwide and are pervasive in all geographical areas of the

country. These four crimes are murder and

nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape,

robbery, and aggravated assault. Other

crimes may be considered violent by their

nature or effect (e.g., kidnapping, extortion,

drug selling), but the four crimes that together form the Violent Crime Index have

traditionally been used as the Nation’s

barometer of violent crime.

Juvenile violent crime

arrest rates declined

for the first time since

1987

The juvenile violent crime arrest rate in

1988 was nearly identical to the rate in

1980; in fact, this rate had changed little

since the early 1970’s. However, between

1987 and 1994, the rate increased 71%. This

steady increase after years of stability focused national attention on the juvenile violent crime problem.

The most recent arrest and population

data show that in 1995 the juvenile violent

crime arrest rate declined 4% from the 1994

level and returned to the 1993 level. While

the 1995 rate was still 64% above the 1987

level, this drop in the juvenile violent crime

arrest rate represents the first variation in a

pattern of consistent increases dating back

to the late 1980’s.

Few juveniles are

arrested for a violent

crime

The juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest

rate tells us that in 1995 there were about

500 arrests for these violent crimes for every

100,000 youth in the United States between

10 and 17 years of age. If each of these

arrests involved a different juvenile (i.e., if

each juvenile arrested in 1995 for a Violent

Crime Index offense were arrested only

once that year—which is very unlikely),

then less than one-half of 1% of all persons

ages 10 through 17 in the United States

were arrested for a Violent Crime Index

offense in 1995.

The juvenile violent crime arrest rate held constant for more than a

decade, rose steadily from 1988 through 1994, then finally fell in 1995

Data source: Analysis of unpublished arrest data provided by the FBI and population estimates

from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P–25.

Between 1985 and 1995, violent crime arrest rates increased

substantially for all ages

◆ There were large increases between 1985 and 1995 in juvenile violent arrest rates,

with the rates for juveniles ages 14, 15, or 16 up more than 80%. The violent crime

arrest rate for 17-year-olds increased more than 70%.

◆ Large increases were also found in the adult age groups. The rate for 18-year-olds

increased about 80% and for 19-year-olds about 60%. The rate increases for persons

in their early 20’s averaged about 50% and for persons in their 30’s about 80%. Even

the rate for persons age 65 or above increased 28%.

◆ Increases in the overall violent crime arrest rates were driven by substantially larger

increases in arrests for aggravated assault.

Data source: Analysis of unpublished arrest data provided by the FBI and population estimates

from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P–25.
5

The juvenile arrest rate declined for all offenses within the Violent Crime Index between 1994 and 1995

Aggravated Assault

◆ The rate at which juveniles were arrested for aggravated assault

increased steadily between 1983 and 1994, up more than 120%.

◆ The aggravated assault arrest rate fell for the first time in more

than a decade in 1995, down 5%.

Murder

◆ The rate at which juveniles were arrested for murder increased

by nearly 170% between the low year of 1984 and the peak year

of 1993.

◆ The juvenile murder arrest rate declined in both 1994 and 1995,

with the 1995 rate 23% below the peak 1993 rate and at its lowest level in the 1990’s.

◆ Between 1994 and 1995, while cities experienced a 17% decline

in juvenile murder arrests, murder arrests of juveniles in suburban counties increased 6%.

Forcible Rape

◆ Since the mid-1980’s, the juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape

has fluctuated within a limited range.

◆ In 1995, the rate at which juveniles were arrested for forcible

rape was at its lowest point since 1983.

Robbery

◆ The juvenile arrest rate for robbery declined through most of the

1980’s, reaching a low point in 1988.

◆ Between 1988 and 1994, the rate at which juveniles were arrested for robbery increased about 70%, before declining slightly

in 1995.

◆ The increase from 1988 through 1994 follows nearly a decade of

declining rates, so that the 1995 robbery arrest rate was just

18% above the 1980 rate.

Data source: Analysis of unpublished arrest data provided by the FBI and population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current

Population Reports, Series P–25.
6

Juvenile arrests for

property crimes remain

stable

As with violent crime, the FBI assesses

trends in the volume of property crimes

by monitoring four offenses that are consistently reported by law enforcement agencies

nationwide and are pervasive in all geographical areas of the country. These four

crimes, which form the Property Crime

Index, are burglary, larceny-theft, motor

vehicle theft, and arson.

Since 1980, during a period when violent

crime arrests were rising dramatically, juvenile property crime arrest rates (as measured

by the Property Crime Index) remained constant. Therefore, juvenile arrests from 1980

through 1995 can be conceptualized as a

large, stable base of property arrests supporting a relatively small, but growing layer

of violent crime arrests.

Most arrested juveniles

are referred to court

In most States, some persons below the

age of 18 are, due to their age, or by statutory exclusion of certain offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction, under the jurisdiction

of the criminal justice system. For those persons under age 18 and under the original

jurisdiction of the State’s juvenile justice system, the UCR monitors what happens as a

result of the arrest. This is the only instance

in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program where the statistics on arrests coincide

with State variations in the legal definition

of a juvenile.

In 1995, 28% of arrests involving youth

who were eligible in their State for processing in the juvenile justice system were

handled within the law enforcement agency

and then released. About two in three were

referred to juvenile court, and 3% were referred directly to criminal court.

Since 1980, the proportion of arrests sent

to juvenile court has gradually increased,

from 58% in 1980 to 66% in 1995. Suburban

areas and rural counties in 1995 were less

likely than large cities to refer juvenile

arrests to juvenile court.

The stability of the juvenile arrest rate for property crime is in stark

contrast to recent increases in violent crime arrest rates

Regardless of the age of those arrested, property crime arrest rates

changed little between 1985 and 1995

Data source: Analysis of unpublished arrest data provided by the FBI and population estimates

from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P–25.

Data source: Analysis of unpublished arrest data provided by the FBI and population estimates

from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P–25.
7

In contrast to their combined trend, the components of the Property Crime Index display different juvenile

arrest rate trends between 1980 and 1995

Burglary

◆ Juvenile arrest rates for burglary declined consistently between 1980 and 1995, down more than 40% over this period.

◆ The decline in burglary arrests between 1986 and 1995 was

similar for juveniles and adults.

Larceny-Theft

◆ Due to their volume, larceny-theft arrests dominated the

Property Crime Index.

◆ Relative to other changes, the juvenile arrest rate for

larceny-theft remained constant between 1980 and 1995.

Over this time period, the rate changed, on average, less

than 1% per year.

Motor Vehicle Theft

◆ Juvenile arrests for motor vehicle theft soared between 1983

and 1990, with the rate up more than 130% over this period.

◆ Between 1990 and 1995, the juvenile arrest rate for motor

vehicle theft declined, down nearly 20%.

Arson

◆ During the 1980’s, the rate of juvenile arrests for arson remained constant.

◆ Between 1990 and 1994, the rate of juvenile arson arrests

increased 35%, then in 1995 declined 11% back to the 1993

level.

Data source: Analysis of unpublished arrest data provided by the FBI and population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current

Population Reports, Series P–25.
8

◆ The juvenile arrest rate for each of the three liquor offenses

declined between 1990 and 1995.

◆ Combined, the juvenile arrest rate for these alcohol offenses fell sharply (down more than 30%) between 1990

and 1993. This lower rate was maintained in 1994 and

1995.

Data source: Analysis of unpublished arrest data provided by the

FBI and population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census,

Current Population Reports, Series P–25.

◆ In 1995, 57% of arrests for running away from home involved a female and 44% involved a juvenile under age 15.

Data source: Analysis of unpublished arrest data provided by the

FBI and population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census,

Current Population Reports, Series P–25.

Juvenile arrests for weapons law violations

followed a pattern similar to murder arrests

◆ The juvenile drug abuse arrest rate declined substantially

from the mid-1970’s to the early 1980’s.

◆ Through the 1980’s and the early 1990’s the rate stayed

within a limited range.

Data source: Analysis of unpublished arrest data provided by the

FBI and population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census,

Current Population Reports, Series P–25.

After more than a decade of stability, the juvenile

arrest rate for drug abuse violations increased by

more than 50% between 1993 and 1995

◆ From 1987 through 1993, the juvenile arrest rate for weapons law violations more than doubled. Similar to the murder

arrest rate, the juvenile arrest rate for weapons law violations declined in both 1994 and 1995, with the weapons

arrest rate down 16% from 1993 to 1995.

Data source: Analysis of unpublished arrest data provided by the

FBI and population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census,

Current Population Reports, Series P–25.

Alcohol violations, which include liquor law

violations, drunkenness, and driving under the

influence, declined between 1990 and 1995

Between 1993 and 1994, the runaway arrest rate

increased by nearly one-third (32%), with the 1995

rate dropping only slightly

Running Away
9

For most crimes

reported to law

enforcement in 1995,

no one was arrested

When law enforcement agencies clear a

crime, they identify the individual(s) they

believe committed the act. Many crimes

are never reported to law enforcement, and

most crimes that are reported are never

cleared. Violent crimes are cleared more

often than property crimes. In 1995, law

enforcement agencies cleared 45% of all reported violent crimes, compared with 18%

of reported property crimes.

Murders were cleared more often than

any of the other Violent Index crimes. In

1995, 65% of murders were cleared by arrest,

compared with 56% of aggravated assaults,

51% of forcible rapes, and 25% of robberies.

In comparison, all Property Index offenses

had low clearance rates: larceny-theft (20%),

arson (16%), motor vehicle theft (14%), and

burglary (13%).

The juvenile share of

the violent crime

problem increased in

recent years

The relative responsibility of juveniles

for the U.S. crime problem is hard to determine. Studying the proportion of crimes

that are cleared by the arrest of juveniles

gives one estimate of the juvenile responsibility for crime.

The clearance data in the Crime in the

United States series imply that the proportion of violent crimes committed by juveniles is lower than many believe but has

increased in recent years. While the juvenile

proportion of the U.S. population remained

relatively constant, the juvenile responsibility for violent crime grew from 10% in 1980

to 14% in 1995 and increased for each of the

four components of the Violent Crime Index: murder (5% to 9%), forcible rape (10%

to 15%), robbery (12% to 20%), and aggravated assault (9% to 13%).

Similarly, the juvenile responsibility for

property crime increased from 23% in 1985

to 25% in 1995. Juvenile responsibility for

three of the four offenses within the Property Crime Index increased: larceny-theft

(24% to 26%), motor vehicle theft (19% to

24%), and arson (36% to 47%). The only Index crime for which juveniles appeared to

be less responsible in 1995 than in 1985 was

burglary (22% to 21%).

Based on clearance information, juveniles are responsible for a substantially smaller proportion of violent crimes than property crimes

◆ If the crimes cleared by law enforcement are representative of all crimes committed in

1995, then juveniles were responsible for 14% of all violent crimes and 25% of all

property crimes. If, however, juveniles were more easily apprehended than adults,

then the juvenile responsibility was less.

Data source: Compiled from Crime in the United States series for the years 1980 through 1995.

Based on the FBI’s clearance statistics for 1995, the relative responsibility of juveniles for violent and property crime was generally greater

in small cities than in large cities

City Population

Over 100,000 50,000 10,000

Offense All Cities 250,000 to 250,000 to 99,999 to 49,999

Violent Crime Index 14% 13% 14% 15% 16%

Murder 9 9 8 11 8

Forcible rape 13 12 12 13 16

Robbery 20 18 20 23 23

Aggravated assault 13 11 12 14 15

Property Crime Index 25 22 23 28 27

Burglary 21 17 18 22 24

Larceny-theft 26 22 24 29 28

Motor vehicle theft 24 27 22 24 21

Arson 49 45 48 52 54

Sample Coverage 80% 73% 90% 87% 82%

◆ Contrary to other Index offenses, 1995 clearance figures indicate that juveniles in

large cities were responsible for a greater proportion of the area’s motor vehicle thefts

(27%) than were juveniles in small cities (21%).

◆ The juvenile responsibility for violent crime in rural areas was less than in cities (11%

versus 14%). Similarly, juveniles in rural areas were less responsible than juveniles in

cities for their area’s property crime (21% versus 25%).

Data source: Analysis of data from Crime in the United States 1995, Table 28.
10

States with high rates of juvenile Property Crime Index arrests tend to have low Violent Crime Index arrest rates

Comparison Comparison

Arrest Rate With U.S. Rate Arrest Rate With U.S. Rate

Violent Property Violent Property Violent Property Violent Property

Percent Crime Crime Crime Crime Percent Crime Crime Crime Crime

State Reporting Index Index Index Index State Reporting Index Index Index Index

Total United States 75% 517 2,510 Missouri 59% 515 2,675 0% 7%

Alabama 97 236 1,085 -54% -57% Montana 0 NA NA NA NA

Alaska 82 414 3,649 -20 45 Nebraska 90 184 3,172 -64 26

Arizona 92 505 3,653 -2 46 Nevada 92 421 3,183 -18 27

Arkansas 100 286 1,843 -45 -27 New Hampshire 0 NA NA NA NA

California 98 787 2,287 52 -9 New Jersey 95 697 2,289 35 -9

Colorado 79 296 3,832 -43 53 New Mexico 27 NA NA NA NA

Connecticut 84 577 3,217 12 28 New York 87 979 1,634 89 -35

Delaware 4 NA NA NA NA North Carolina 97 413 1,884 -20 -25

Dist. of Columbia 100 1,418 2,038 175 -19 North Dakota 75 159 3,560 -69 42

Florida 100 799 3,450 55 37 Ohio 47 NA NA NA NA

Georgia 63 384 1,996 -26 -20 Oklahoma 99 380 2,842 -26 13

Hawaii 100 285 2,868 -45 14 Oregon 68 349 4,364 -32 74

Idaho 98 286 4,176 -45 66 Pennsylvania 13 NA NA NA NA

Illinois 0 NA NA NA NA Rhode Island 100 504 2,617 -2 4

Indiana 56 494 2,405 -4 -4 South Carolina 96 378 1,870 -27 -25

Iowa 88 273 1,829 -47 -27 South Dakota 63 305 4,337 -41 73

Kansas 0 NA NA NA NA Tennessee 32 NA NA NA NA

Kentucky 33 NA NA NA NA Texas 96 377 2,393 -27 -5

Louisiana 68 535 2,818 3 12 Utah 87 307 4,436 -41 77

Maine 65 143 3,237 -72 29 Vermont 51 30 395 -94 -84

Maryland 99 689 2,873 33 14 Virginia 99 267 2,002 -48 -20

Massachusetts 80 590 1,058 14 -58 Washington 66 426 4,177 -18 66

Michigan 84 387 1,744 -25 -31 West Virginia 100 80 1,049 -84 -58

Minnesota 96 409 3,507 -21 40 Wisconsin 99 427 4,976 -17 98

Mississippi 25 NA NA NA NA Wyoming 90 106 2,809 -79 12

◆ Of the 40 States with adequate coverage, the 5 with the highest Violent Crime Index arrest rates in 1995 were New York,

Florida, California, New Jersey, and Maryland.

◆ Of reporting States, Wisconsin, Utah, Oregon, South Dakota,

and Washington had the highest juvenile Property Crime Index arrest rates.

Arrest Rate = Arrests of persons under age 18 per 100,000 persons

ages 10–17.

Note: Rates were classified as “not available” when reporting

agencies represented less than 50% of the State population.

Data source: Analysis of data from Crime in the United States 1995,

Tables 5 and 69.

Technical Note

Arrest rates are calculated by dividing the number of youth arrests

made in the year by the number of

youth living in reporting jurisdictions.

While juvenile arrest rates reflect juvenile behavior, many other factors

can affect the size of these rates.

For example, jurisdictions that arrest

a relatively large number of nonresident juveniles would have a higher

arrest rate than a jurisdiction whose

resident youth behave in an identical

manner. Therefore, jurisdictions, especially small jurisdictions, that are

vacation destinations or that are centers for economic activity in a region

may have arrest rates that reflect

more than the behavior of their resident youth.

Other factors that influence the

magnitude of arrest rates in a given

area include the attitudes of its citizens toward crime, the policies of

the jurisdiction’s law enforcement

agencies, and the policies of other

components of the justice system.

Consequently, the comparison of juvenile arrest rates across States,

while informative, should be done

with caution.

In most States, not all law enforcement agencies report their arrest

data to the FBI. Rates for these

States are then necessarily based

on partial information. If the reporting

law enforcement agencies in these

States are not representative of the

entire State, then the rates will be

biased. Therefore, reported arrest

rates for States with less than

complete reporting may not be

accurate.
11

What do arrest statistics

count?

To interpret the material in this Bulletin properly, the reader must have a clear understanding of what these statistics count. The

arrest statistics report the number of arrests

made by law enforcement agencies in a particular year—not the number of individuals

arrested or the number of crimes committed.

The number of arrests is not equivalent to

the number of people arrested because an

unknown number of individuals are arrested

more than once in the year. Nor do arrest

statistics represent a count of crimes committed by the arrested individuals because a

series of crimes committed by one individual

may culminate in a single arrest or a single

crime may result in the arrests of more than

one person. This latter situation, many arrests resulting from one crime, is relatively

common in juvenile law-violating behavior

because juveniles are more likely than

adults to commit crimes in groups. This is

the primary reason why arrest statistics

should not be used to indicate the relative

proportion of crime committed by juveniles

and adults. Arrest statistics are most appropriately a measure of flow into the criminal

and juvenile justice systems.

Arrest statistics also have limitations in measuring the volume of arrests for a particular

offense. Under the UCR Program, the FBI

requires law enforcement agencies to classify an arrest by the most serious offense

charged in that arrest. For example, the

arrest of a youth charged with aggravated

assault and possession of a controlled substance would be reported to the FBI as an

arrest for aggravated assault. Therefore,

when arrest statistics show that law enforcement agencies made an estimated 189,800

arrests of young people for drug abuse violations in 1995, it means that a drug abuse

violation was the most serious charge in

these 189,800 arrests. An unknown number

of additional arrests in 1995 included a drug

charge as a lesser offense.

What do clearance statistics

count?

Clearance statistics measure the proportion

of reported crimes that were resolved by an

arrest or other, exceptional means (e.g.,

death of the offender, unwillingness of the

victim to cooperate). In 1995, the FBI reported that 13% of all burglaries reported to

law enforcement agencies were cleared by

arrest or other, exceptional means. This

does not mean that a person was convicted

in 13% of all burglary cases or even that a

person was referred to court in 13% of all

burglary cases. An unknown portion of the

arrests that clear a reported crime were

handled within the police department and

released. Another aspect of clearance statistics is that a single arrest may result in many

clearances. For example, 1 arrest could

clear 40 burglaries if the person was

charged with committing all 40 of these

crimes. Or multiple arrests may result in a

single clearance if the crime was committed

by a group of offenders.

For those interested in juvenile justice issues, the FBI also reports information on the

proportion of clearances that were cleared

by the arrest of persons under age 18. This

statistic is often used as an indicator of the

proportion of crime committed by this age

group, although there are some concerns

about this interpretation.

For example, the FBI reports that persons

under age 18 accounted for 22% of all burglaries that were cleared in 1995. If it can be

assumed that cleared burglaries have similar offender characteristics to those that

were not cleared, then it would be appropriate to conclude that persons under age 18

were responsible for 22% of all burglaries in

1995. However, the offender characteristics

of cleared and noncleared burglaries may

differ for a number of reasons. If, for example, juvenile burglars were more easily

apprehended than adult burglars, the proportion of burglaries cleared by the arrest of

persons under age 18 would overestimate

the juvenile responsibility for all burglaries.

To add to the difficulty in interpreting clearance statistics, the FBI’s reporting guidelines

require the clearance to be tied to the oldest

offender in the group if more than one person is arrested for a crime.

Given these and other factors, reported

clearance proportions may have some interpretation concerns, but they are the closest

measure available of the proportion of crime

committed by persons under age 18 and

should provide a barometer of the changing

contribution of persons under age 18 to the

Nation’s crime problems.

Across all crime types, juveniles account for a greater proportion of

arrests than of crimes cleared by arrest

Data source: Crime in the United States 1995, Tables 28 and 38.
12

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

Permit No. G–91

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by Howard

N. Snyder, Project Director of the

Juvenile Justice Statistics and Systems Development (SSD) Program.

The SSD Program is supported by

funds provided to the National Center

for Juvenile Justice by OJJDP.

Barbara Allen-Hagen is the OJJDP

Program Manager for this work.

The author gratefully acknowledges

the assistance provided by the FBI’s

Research and Analysis Division,

specifically, Yoshio Akiyama, Gilford

Gee, Victoria Major, and Sharon

Propheter.

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.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant

number 95–JN–FX–K008 from the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the author and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

NCJ 163813

Notes

Throughout this Bulletin, the term

juvenile refers to persons below the age of

18. This definition of the term is at odds

with the legal definition of juveniles in

1995 in 11 States, including 8 States where

all 17-year-olds are subject only to criminal

court jurisdiction (Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,

South Carolina, and Texas) and 3 States

where all 16- and 17-year-olds are subject

only to criminal court jurisdiction (Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina).

Therefore, this analysis of UCR data

overreports the true level of arrests of persons subject to juvenile court jurisdiction

because the FBI statistics do not take into

consideration the legal definition of a juvenile.

Arrest rates developed for this Bulletin

are based on unpublished data provided to

the author by the FBI and on published

population estimates from the U.S. Bureau

of the Census’ Current Population Reports.

The FBI data are counts of arrests within

age of arrestee and offense categories from

all law enforcement agencies that reported

complete data for the calendar year. The

proportion of the U.S. population covered

by these 12-month reporting agencies

ranged from 75% to 86% between 1980 and

1995.

Assuming that the reporting agencies

had a population profile similar to the

Nation’s, estimates were made of the number of persons in each age group in the resident population of the reporting agencies.

The resident population for a particular age

group in the reporting agencies was developed by multiplying the reporting agencies’

total populations by the U.S. Bureau of the

Census’ most current estimate of the proportion of the U.S. population in that age

group for that particular calendar year.

With these age-specific population estimates, age-specific arrest rates were calculated by dividing the number of arrests in

the offense category by the estimated number of persons in that age group residing in

the jurisdictions served by the agencies.

Related materials

Interested readers may obtain a copy of

Crime in the United States 1995 by contacting

the U.S. Government Printing Office or

their local Federal bookstore.

With funds from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP), the National Center for Juvenile

Justice (NCJJ) has prepared a user-friendly

software package that presents annual juvenile and adult arrest statistics for every

county and State in the United States for

the last 5 years. Easy Access to FBI Arrest

Statistics: 1990–1994 (and two other data

sets in the series) can be downloaded from

OJJDP’s home page: http://www.ncjrs.org/

ojjhome.htm. Copies can also be obtained

by calling NCJJ at 412–227–6950 or by writing to the National Center for Juvenile Justice, 710 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania, 15219–3000.