U.S. Depar tment of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

National 

Report Series 

 December 2013 

Juvenile Arrests 2010 

Charles Puzzanchera 

A Message From OJJDP 

This bulletin is part of the 

Juvenile Offenders and 

Victims National Report Series. 

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. 

This bulletin uses data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting 

program to summarize juvenile crime in the United States. Overall, in 2010, juveniles were 

arrested about 21% less often than in 2001. In fact, the number of juveniles arrested for violent crimes was at its lowest in at least 30 years, showing a 12% reduction between 2009 

and 2010 and continuing a 4-year decline. The rate for overall juvenile arrests also fell 9% 

between 2009 and 2010. 

A comparison of juveniles with adults in 2010 indicates that juveniles made up a relatively 

small proportion of all arrests—about 1 in 10 arrests for murder; about 1 in 4 for robbery, 

burglary, and disorderly conduct; and about 1 in 5 arrests for larceny-theft and motor vehicle 

theft. Even when arrest rates rose for juvenile offending, the rates were still low when compared with rates in the late 1990s and early 2000s. 

As in past years, however, youth who are members of minority groups were overrepresented 

in the arrest data, calling for continued work to alleviate their disproportionate contact with 

the juvenile justice system. For example, the racial disparity in juvenile arrest rates for robbery was most pronounced for black youth, who were arrested at 10 times the rate for white 

youth in 2010. 

OJJDP remains committed to supporting research, programs, and initiatives to combat juvenile delinquency and to promote positive youth outcomes. Should our children come into 

contact with the juvenile justice system, however, the contact should be rare, fair, and beneficial to them. 

Robert L. Listenbee 

Administrator 

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.gov
Most information about law enforcement’s response 


to juvenile crime comes from the FBI’s UCR Program
 

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 younger than 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. 

* In this bulletin, the term “juvenile” refers to persons younger than age 18. In 2010, this definition 

was at odds with the legal definition of juveniles in 13 

states—11 states where all 17-year-olds are defined 

as adults, and 2 states where all 16- and 17-year-olds 

are defined as adults. 

What do arrest statistics 

count? 

To interpret the material in this bulletin 

properly, the reader needs a clear understanding of what these statistics count. 

Arrest statistics report the number of arrests that law enforcement agencies made 

in a given year—not the number of individuals arrested nor the number of crimes 

committed. The number of arrests is not 

the same as the number of people arrested because an unknown number of individuals are arrested more than once 

during the year. Nor do arrest statistics 

represent the number of crimes that arrested individuals commit because a series of crimes that one person commits 

may culminate in a single arrest, and a 

single crime may result in the arrest of 

more than one person. This latter situation, where many arrests result from one 

crime, is relatively common in juvenile 

law-violating behavior because juveniles 

are more likely than adults to commit 

crimes in groups. For this reason, one 

should not use arrest statistics to indicate 

the relative proportions of crime that juveniles and adults commit. Arrest statistics are most appropriately a measure of 

entry into the justice system. 

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 weapon would be reported to the FBI 

as an arrest for aggravated assault. 

Therefore, when arrest statistics show 

that law enforcement agencies made an 

estimated 31,400 arrests of young people 

for weapons law violations in 2010, it 

means that a weapons law violation was 

the most serious charge in these 31,400 

arrests. An unknown number of additional 

arrests in 2010 included a weapons 

charge as a lesser offense. 

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. 

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 to be less serious 

crimes, such as shoplifting, theft 

from motor vehicles, and bicycle 

theft, all of which are included in the 

larceny-theft category. 

2 National Report Series Bulletin 
What do clearance 

statistics count? 

Clearance statistics measure the proportion of reported crimes that were cleared 

(or “closed”) by either arrest or other, exceptional means (such as the death of the 

offender or unwillingness of the victim to 

cooperate). A single arrest may result in 

many clearances. For example, 1 arrest 

could clear 10 burglaries if the person 

was charged with committing all 10 

crimes. Or multiple arrests may result in a 

single clearance if a group of offenders 

committed the crime. For those interested 

in juvenile justice issues, the FBI also reports the proportion of clearances that involved only offenders younger than age 

18. This statistic is a better indicator of 

the proportion of crime that this age 

group commits than is the proportion of 

arrests, although there are some concerns 

that even the clearance statistic overestimates the proportion of crimes that 

juveniles commit. 

Percent 

involving 

Most serious juveniles 

offense Clearance Arrest 

Violent Crime Index 10% 14% 

Property Crime Index 16 22 

Murder 5 9 

Forcible rape 11 14 

Robbery 14 24 

Aggravated assault 9 11 

Burglary 14 23 

Larceny-theft 17 22 

Motor vehicle theft 13 22 

Arson 34 40 

Data source: Crime in the United States 2010 

(Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

2011), tables 28 and 38. 

Research has shown that juvenile offenders are more easily apprehended than 

adult offenders; thus, the juvenile proportion of clearances probably overestimates 

juveniles’ responsibility for crime. To add 

to the difficulty in interpreting clearance 

statistics, the FBI’s reporting guidelines 

require that clearances involving both juvenile and adult offenders be classified 

as clearances for crimes that adults 

commit. Because the juvenile clearance 

proportions include only those clearances 

in which no adults were involved, they underestimate juvenile involvement in crime. 

Although these data do not present a definitive picture of juvenile involvement in 

crime, they are the closest measure generally available of the proportion of crime 

known to law enforcement that is attributed to persons younger than age 18. 

How are national 

estimates of arrests 

calculated? 

The FBI’s Crime in the United States 

(CIUS) report presents a detailed snapshot of crime and arrests voluntarily reported by local law enforcement agencies. 

Some agencies report data for a full calendar year, other agencies are “partial 

reporters” (i.e., their reported data cover 

less than 12 months), and some agencies 

do not report at all. Data from 12-month 

reporting agencies form the basis of the 

tables presented in the annual CIUS report. 

As such, CIUS presents a sample-based 

portrait of arrests that law enforcement 

agencies report. Although the CIUS report 

includes one table that presents national 

estimates of arrests for 29 offense categories for the current data year, it does 

not include national estimates for any 

subpopulation groups. 

For nearly two decades, the National Center for Juvenile Justice developed national 

estimates of juvenile arrests based on 

data presented in CIUS; these estimates 

have been the basis of the Juvenile Arrests series since its inception in the 

1990s. In 2009, however, the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics (BJS) developed a new 

process that supplants the estimation 

procedure used in prior versions of this 

bulletin. The method that BJS uses takes 

advantage of more complete sample data 

reported to the FBI from local law enforcement agencies. To learn more about the 

BJS estimation process, see Arrest in the 

United States, 1980–2010, which is available from the BJS Web site (bjs.gov). 

Crime in the United States 

reports data on murder victims 

Each Crime in the United States report 

presents estimates of the number of 

crimes reported to law enforcement 

agencies. Although many crimes are 

never reported to law enforcement, 

murder is one crime that is nearly 

always reported. 

An estimated 14,750 murders were 

reported to law enforcement agencies 

in 2010, or 4.8 murders for every 

100,000 U.S. residents. The murder 

rate was essentially constant between 

1999 and 2008, and then fell in 2010 to 

its lowest level since at least 1980. 

Of all murder victims in 2010, 90% (or 

13,280 victims) were 18 years old or 

older. The other 1,470 murder victims 

were younger than age 18 (i.e., juveniles). The number of juveniles murdered in 2010 was 14% less than the 

average number of juveniles murdered 

in the prior 5-year period and 49% less 

than the peak year of 1993, when an 

estimated 2,880 juveniles were murdered. During the same prior 5-year 

period, the estimated number of adult 

murder victims fell 10%. 

Of all juveniles murdered in 2010, 39% 

were younger than age 5, 70% were 

male, and 48% were white. Of all juveniles murdered in 2010, 32% of male 

victims, 56% of female victims, 50% 

of white victims, and 29% of black 

victims were younger than age 5. 

In 2010, 68% of all murder victims 

were killed with a firearm. Adults were 

more likely to be killed with a firearm 

(70%) than were juveniles (49%). 

However, the involvement of a firearm 

depended greatly on the age of the juvenile victim. In 2010, 15% of murdered juveniles younger than age 13 

were killed with a firearm, compared 

with 82% of murdered juveniles age 13 

or older. The most common method of 

murdering children younger than age 5 

was by physical assault: in 46% of 

these murders, the offenders’ only 

weapons were their hands and/or feet, 

compared with only 1% of juvenile victims age 13 or older and 4% of adult 

victims. 

December 2013 3 
Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. made 1.6 


million arrests of persons under age 18 in 2010
 

The number of arrests of juveniles in 2010 was 21% fewer than the number of arrests in 2001 

2010 

estimated number 

of juvenile arrests 

Percent of total juvenile arrests Percent change 

Most serious offense Female 

Younger 

than 15 White 

2001– 

2010 

2006– 

2010 

2009– 

2010 

Total 1,642,600 29% 27% 66% –21% –22% –9% 

Violent Crime Index 75,900 18 27 47 –22 –24 –12 

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 1,000 10 9 43 –20 –21 –14 

Forcible rape 2,900 2 33 63 –37 –20 –8 

Robbery 27,200 10 19 31 3 –22 –14 

Aggravated assault 44,800 25 31 56 –31 –26 –10 

Property Crime Index 366,600 38 28 64 –25 –9 –12 

Burglary 65,200 11 27 62 –27 –22 –13 

Larceny-theft 281,100 45 28 65 –18 2 –12 

Motor vehicle theft 15,800 16 20 55 –67 –54 –21 

Arson 4,600 13 58 75 –52 –44 –15 

Nonindex 

Other (simple) assaults 210,200 35 38 60 –13 –16 –4 

Forgery and counterfeiting 1,700 27 12 67 –71 –52 –21 

Fraud 5,800 34 16 59 –58 –23 –6 

Embezzlement 400 41 5 63 –77 –68 –27 

Stolen property (buying, receiving, 

possessing) 14,600 16 22 56 –43 –31 –22 

Vandalism 77,100 15 39 78 –27 –34 –15 

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 31,400 11 33 62 –15 –33 –7 

Prostitution and commercialized vice 1,000 82 11 38 –29 –33 –23 

Sex offense (except forcible rape and 

prostitution) 13,000 10 48 72 –30 –19 –4 

Drug abuse violations 170,600 16 18 74 –15 –13 0 

Gambling 1,400 3 11 8 31 –37 –24 

Offenses against the family and children 3,800 35 32 72 –58 –30 –15 

Driving under the influence 12,000 25 2 91 –42 –40 –11 

Liquor laws 94,700 39 10 88 –13 –32 –14 

Drunkenness 12,700 27 12 89 –38 –22 –8 

Disorderly conduct 155,900 34 37 58 –6 –25 –8 

Vagrancy 2,100 23 28 76 –22 –57 –22 

All other offenses (except traffic) 296,800 26 23 69 –22 –23 –8 

Suspicion (not included in totals) 100 23 26 68 –89 –70 –40 

Curfew and loitering 94,800 30 25 59 –34 –38 –16 

 In 2010, there were an estimated 170,600 juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations. Between 2001 and 2010, the number of such 

arrests fell by 15%. 

 All four offenses that make up the Violent Crime Index decreased between 2009 and 2010: murder (down 14%), rape (8%), robbery 

(14%), and aggravated assault (10%). 

 In 2010, females accounted for 18% of juvenile Violent Crime Index arrests, 38% of juvenile Property Crime Index arrests, and 45% of 

juvenile larceny-theft arrests. 

 Youth younger than age 15 accounted for more than one-fourth of all juvenile arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses and Property 

Crime Index offenses in 2010 (27% and 28%, respectively). 

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. The FBI stopped reporting runaway offenses as of 2010. 

Data source: Analysis of Snyder, H., and Mulako-Wantota, J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Arrest Data Analysis Tool [online, retrieved 11/8/12]. 

4 National Report Series Bulletin 
The number of juvenile Violent Crime Index offense 


arrests in 2010 was the lowest since at least 1980
 

Juvenile arrests for 

violence declined in 

2010 for the fourth 

consecutive year 

The FBI assesses trends in violent crimes 

by monitoring four offenses that law enforcement agencies nationwide consistently report. These four crimes—murder 

and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible 

rape, robbery, and aggravated assault— 

form the Violent Crime Index. 

Following 10 years of declines between 

1994 and 2004, juvenile arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses increased from 

2004 to 2006, then declined in each of the 

next 4 years. In fact, the number of juvenile violent crime arrests in 2010 was less 

than any of the prior 30 years, and 6% 

less than the previous low point in 1984. 

The number of juvenile arrests in 2010 for 

forcible rape was less than in any year 

since at least 1980, and the number of juvenile aggravated assault arrests in 2010 

was at the lowest level in over 20 years. 

After falling to a relatively low level in 

2004, juvenile arrests for murder increased each year from 2005 to 2007, 

then declined 24% by 2010 to reach the 

lowest level in 3 decades. However, juvenile arrests for robbery increased 43% 

from 2002 through 2009, then declined 

21% by 2010, resulting in a rate 11% 

above the 2002 low point. 

Between 2001 and 2010, the number of 

arrests in most offense categories declined for juveniles but increased in several offense categories for adults: 

Percent change 

in arrests 

Most serious 2001–2010 

offense Juvenile Adult 

Violent Crime Index –22% –10% 

Murder –20 –18 

Forcible rape –37 –24 

Robbery 3 4 

Aggravated assault –31 –12 

Property Crime Index –25 13 

Burglary –27 11 

Larceny-theft –18 21 

Motor vehicle theft –67 –44 

Simple assault –13 1 

Weapons law violations –15 –1 

Drug abuse violations –15 6 

Data source: Analysis of Snyder, H., and MulakoWantota, J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Arrest Data 

Analysis Tool [online, retrieved 11/8/12]. 

Juvenile property crime 

arrests declined in 2010 

As with violent crime, the FBI assesses 

trends in the volume of property crimes 

by monitoring four offenses that law 

enforcement agencies nationwide 

consistently report. These four crimes, 

which form the Property Crime Index, are 

burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle 

theft, and arson. 

For the period 1980–1994, during which 

juvenile violent crime arrests increased 

substantially, juvenile property crime arrests remained relatively constant. After 

this long period of relative stability, juvenile property crime arrests began to fall. 

Between 1994 and 2006, the number of 

juvenile Property Crime Index arrests fell 

by half to their lowest level since at least 

1980. This long decline was interrupted 

briefly as the number of juvenile Property 

Crime Index arrests increased in 2007 and 

2008. By 2010, the number of juvenile 

Property Crime Index arrests fell 16%, 

reaching its lowest level since at least 

1980. Between 2008 and 2010, juvenile 

arrests declined for individual property 

offenses: burglary (22%), larceny-theft 

(13%), motor vehicle theft (37%), and 

arson (30%). Juvenile arrests for burglary, motor vehicle theft, and arson in 

2010 were at their lowest levels for the 

31-year period. 

Most arrested juveniles were referred to court 

In most states, some persons younger 

than age 18 are, because of their age or 

by statutory exclusion, under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. 

For arrested persons younger than age 

18 and under the original jurisdiction of 

their state’s juvenile justice system, the 

FBI’s UCR Program monitors what happens as a result of the arrest. This is 

the only instance in the UCR Program 

in which the statistics on arrests coincide with state variations in the legal 

definition of a juvenile. 

In 2010, 23% of arrests involving youth 

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

were handled within law enforcement 

agencies and the youth were released, 

68% were referred to juvenile court, 

and 8% were referred directly to criminal court. The others were referred to a 

welfare agency or to another police 

agency. The proportion of juvenile arrests sent to juvenile court in cities with 

a population of more than 250,000 was 

less than the proportion sent to juvenile 

court in smaller cities (64% vs. 68%). 

Data source: Crime in the United States 2010 (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011), 

table 68. 

December 2013 5 
Female and minority proportions of juvenile arrests 


increased for many offenses between 2001 and 2010
 

In 2010, females 

accounted for 29% 

of juvenile arrests 

Law enforcement agencies made 480,000 

arrests of females younger than age 18 in 

2010. From 2001 through 2010, arrests 

of juvenile females decreased less than 

male arrests in several offense categories 

(e.g., aggravated assault, simple assault, 

larceny-theft, vandalism, drug abuse violations, and driving under the influence). 

Percent change in 

juvenile arrests 

Most serious 2001–2010

offense Female Male 

Violent Crime Index –22% –22% 

Robbery 13 2 

Aggravated assault –27 –33 

Simple assault –3 –17 

Property Crime Index –9 –32 

Burglary –29 –27 

Larceny-theft –4 –27 

Motor vehicle theft –69 –67 

Vandalism –17 –28 

Weapons –17 –15 

Drug abuse violations –9 –16 

Liquor law violations 6 –21 

Driving under influence –19 –47 

Disorderly conduct 10 –12 

Data source: Analysis of Snyder, H., and MulakoWantota, J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Arrest Data 

Analysis Tool [online, retrieved 11/8/12]. 

Gender differences also occurred in the 

assault arrest trends for adults. Between 

2001 and 2010, adult male arrests for aggravated assault fell 15% while female arrests were virtually unchanged. Similarly, 

adult male arrests for simple assault fell 

4% between 2001 and 2010 while adult 

female arrests rose 18%. Therefore, the 

female proportion of arrests grew for both 

types of assault. It is likely that the disproportionate growth in female assault arrests over this period was related to 

factors that affected both juveniles and 

adults. 

Gender differences in arrest trends also 

increased the proportion of arrests involving females in other offense categories for 

both juveniles and adults. Between 2001 

and 2010, the number of larceny-theft 

arrests of juvenile females fell 4% while 

juvenile male arrests declined 27%, and 

adult female arrests grew more than adult 

male arrests (47% and 7%, respectively). 

For Property Crime Index offenses, juvenile arrests declined more for males than 

for females between 2001 and 2010, and 

adult arrests increased less for males 

(1%) than for females (42%). 

Juvenile arrests 

disproportionately 

involved minorities 

The racial composition of the U.S. juvenile 

population ages 10–17 in 2010 was 76% 

white, 17% black, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian. Most juveniles of Hispanic ethnicity were included 

in the white racial category. Of all juvenile 

One in nine violent crimes cleared was attributed to juveniles 

arrests for violent crimes in 2010, 47% 

involved white youth, 51% involved black 

youth, 1% involved Asian youth, and 1% 

involved American Indian youth. For property crime arrests, the proportions were 

64% white youth, 33% black youth, 2% 

Asian youth, and 1% American Indian 

youth. Black youth were overrepresented 

in juvenile arrests. 

Black proportion 

Most serious of juvenile arrests 

offense in 2010 

Murder 56% 

Forcible rape 36 

Robbery 67 

Aggravated assault 41 

Simple assault 38 

Burglary 36 

Larceny-theft 32 

Motor vehicle theft 42 

Weapons 36 

Drug abuse violations 24 

Vandalism 20 

Liquor laws 7 

Data source: Analysis of Snyder, H., and MulakoWantota, J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Arrest Data 

Analysis Tool [online, retrieved 11/8/12]. 

The relative responsibility of juveniles 

and adults for crime is difficult to determine. Law enforcement agencies are 

more likely to clear (or “close”) crimes 

that juveniles commit than those that 

adults commit. Thus, law enforcement 

records may overestimate juvenile responsibility for crime. 

Data on crimes cleared or closed by arrest or exceptional means show that 

the proportion of violent crimes cleared 

and attributed to juveniles has been 

rather constant in recent years, holding 

at about 12% over the past 10 years. 

Specifically, the proportions of both 

forcible rapes and aggravated assaults 

attributed to juveniles fluctuated 

between 10% and 12% over this period, while the proportion of murders 

ranged between 5% and 6% and the 

proportion of robberies ranged between 

14% and 16%. 

In 2010, 16% of Property Crime Index 

offenses cleared by arrest or exceptional means were cleared by the arrest of a 

juvenile. This was the lowest level since 

at least the mid-1960s. For comparison, 

the proportion of Property Crime Index 

offenses that law enforcement attributed to juveniles was 28% in 1980 and 

22% in both 1990 and 2001. 

6 National Report Series Bulletin 
In 2010, juveniles were involved in about 1 in 10 arrests for murder; about 1 in 4 arrests for robbery, 

burglary, and disorderly conduct; and about 1 in 5 arrests for larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft 

Juvenile arrests as a percentage of total arrests 

Most serious offense 

All 

persons Males Females Whites Blacks 

American 

Indians Asians 

Total 12% 11% 14% 11% 13% 10% 14% 

Violent Crime Index 14 14 13 11 18 9 12 

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 9 9 8 8 10 4 7 

Forcible rape 14 14 29 14 16 9 7 

Robbery 24 25 19 18 29 16 26 

Aggravated assault 11 11 12 10 14 9 9 

Property Crime Index 22 22 23 21 26 21 29 

Burglary 23 23 17 21 27 21 26 

Larceny-theft 22 21 23 21 25 20 30 

Motor vehicle theft 22 22 20 19 28 25 20 

Arson 40 42 31 40 40 40 52 

Nonindex 

Other assaults 16 14 21 15 20 11 15 

Forgery and counterfeiting 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 

Fraud 3 3 2 3 4 4 4 

Embezzlement 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 

Stolen property (buying, receiving, 

possessing) 15 16 13 13 20 14 17 

Vandalism 30 32 24 32 26 23 31 

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 20 19 25 21 18 21 25 

Prostitution and commercialized vice 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 

Sex offense (except forcible rape and 

prostitution) 18 17 23 17 20 10 18 

Drug abuse violations 10 11 9 12 8 16 14 

Gambling 14 15 5 4 18 10 3 

Offenses against the family and children 3 3 5 4 3 5 3 

Driving under the influence 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

Liquor laws 18 16 25 20 11 17 19 

Drunkenness 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 

Disorderly conduct 25 23 31 23 30 15 24 

Vagrancy 7 6 8 9 4 1 7 

All other offenses (except traffic) 8 8 9 8 7 6 11 

Suspicion (not included in totals) 11 11 11 12 10 0 14 

 Juvenile females accounted for more than one-fifth (21%) of all simple assault arrests involving females in 2010, while male juveniles 

accounted for 14% of all simple assault arrests involving males. 

 On average, juveniles accounted for 9% of all murder arrests during the 2000s, compared with 14% during the 1990s. 

 Overall, in 2010, 11% of white arrests and 13% of black arrests involved a person younger than age 18. However, for some offenses, 

juveniles were involved in a greater proportion of black arrests than white arrests (e.g., robbery, burglary, and disorderly conduct). For 

other offenses, juvenile involvement was greater in white arrests than black arrests (e.g., vandalism, and liquor law violations). 

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. 

Data source: Analysis of Snyder, H., and Mulako-Wantota, J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Arrest Data Analysis Tool [online, retrieved 11/8/12]. 

December 2013 7 
The juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate reached 

a historic low in 2010 

Violent crime arrest 

Following a 23% decline since 2006, the 2010 Violent Crime Index arrest rates declined after 1994 rate reached its lowest level since at least 1980 

Between 1980 and 1987, the juvenile 

Violent Crime Index arrest rate (i.e., the 

number of arrests per 100,000 juveniles 

in the population) was essentially constant. After these years of stability, the 

rate grew by nearly 70% in the 7-year 

period between 1987 and 1994. This rapid 

growth led to 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 youth into the adult justice 

system. After 1994, however, the violent 

crime arrest rate fell. Between 1994 and 

2010, the rate fell 55% to its lowest level 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Violent Crime Index 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 

Year 

Violent Crime Index arrest rate trends by gender and race 

since at least 1980. 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

1,000 

Female violent crime 800 

arrest rates remain 600 

relatively high 400 

200 In 1980, the juvenile male violent crime 

0 arrest rate was 8 times greater than the 80 85 

female rate. By 2010, the male rate was 

90 95 

Year 

Male 

Female 

00 

just 4 times greater. This convergence of Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

male and female arrest rates is due to the 1,600

large relative increase in the female rate. 1,200 

Between 1980 and 1994, the male rate in­ 800 

creased 60%, while the female rate in400 creased 132%. By 2010, the male rate 

had dropped to 31% below its 1980 level, 0 

80 while the female violent crime arrest rate 

was still 36% above its 1980 level. 

85 90 

Black 

White 

95 00 

Year 

05 

05 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

160 

120 

Female 80
 

40
 

0
 

10 80 85 90 95 

Year 

00 05 10 

10 80 85 90 95 00 05 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

Year 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

Amer. Indian 

White 

Asian 

10 

 The Violent Crime Index arrest rate in 2010 for black juveniles was 5 times the rate for white 

juveniles, 6 times the rate for American Indian juveniles, and 15 times the rate for Asian

Arrest rates declined for juveniles. 

all racial groups since 	 Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) the mid-1990s 

All racial groups experienced large increases in their juvenile violent crime arrest rates in the late 1980s and early 

1990s. Following their mid-1990s peak, 

the rates declined through 2010 for all racial groups: Asian (75%), American Indian (65%), black (57%), and white (54%) 

youth. 

8 National Report Series Bulletin 
The juvenile arrest rate for murder has remained 

relatively constant during the 2000s 

The 2010 murder arrest 


rate was the lowest 


since at least 1980 


Between the mid-1980s and the peak in 

1993, the juvenile arrest rate for murder 

more than doubled. Since the 1993 peak, 

however, the rate fell substantially through 

2000, resting at a level that essentially remained constant for the entire decade. 

Compared with the prior 20 years, the juvenile murder arrest rate between 2000 

and 2010 has been historically low and 

relatively stable. In fact, the number of juvenile arrests for murder in the 4-year period from 1992 through 1995 exceeded 

the total number of such arrests since 

2000. 

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 

1994 at 62% above its 1980 level, whereas the male rate peaked in 1993 at 123% 

above the 1980 rate. Both fell more than 

58% since their respective peaks so that, 

by 2010, both arrest rates were substantially below their levels of the early 1980s. 

The juvenile murder 

arrest rate pattern was 

linked to the arrests of 

black juveniles 

The black-to-white ratio of juvenile arrest 

rates for murder grew from about 4-to-1 

in 1980 to nearly 9-to-1 in 1993, reflecting the greater increase in the black rate 

over this period—the white rate increased 

47% while the black rate tripled. Since the 

Following a 23% decline since 2007, the 2010 juvenile murder arrest rate 

was well below the levels reached during the 1990s 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

14
 

12
 

10
 

8
 

6
 

4
 

2
 

0
 

Murder 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10
 

Year
 

Murder arrest rate trends by gender and race 

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

25
 

Male 

Female 

1.6 

20
 

1.2
 

15
 

0.8 

10
 

0.4 5
 

0 0 

Female 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 

Year Year 

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


60
 

Black 

White 

7
 

6
 

5
 

50
 

40
 

4
 

30
 3
 

20
 2
 

10
 1
 

0
 0 

White 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 

Year Year
 

Note: Murder arrest rates for American Indian youth and Asian youth are not presented because the small number 

of arrests and small population sizes produce unstable rate trends. 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) 

1993 peak, both rates fell through 2000, the black-to-white ratio of juvenile arrest 


with the black rate falling considerably rates for murder in 2010 approached 


more. During the past decade, the rates 6-to-1. 


remained relatively constant. As a result, 


December 2013 9 
The juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape in 2010 

was one third its 1991 peak 

The 2010 rape arrest 

rate was at its lowest 

level in three decades 

Between 1980 and the peak in 1991, the 

juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape increased 50%. 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, resting at a level in 

2010 that was 62% below the 1991 peak. 

In fact, the 2,900 estimated juvenile arrests for forcible rape in 2010 were the 

fewest such arrests in at least three 

decades. 

Juveniles accounted for 14% of all forcible rape arrests reported in 2010. Twothirds (67%) of these juvenile arrests 

involved youth ages 15–17. Not surprisingly, males accounted for the overwhelming majority (98%) of juvenile arrests for 

forcible rape. 

Rape arrest rates 

declined more for black 

youth than white youth 

since 1991 

For black juveniles, the substantial decline 

in the arrest rate for forcible rape began in 

the late 1980s. The rate peaked in 1987 

and then fell 75% by 2010. In contrast to 

the rate for whites, the forcible rape arrest 

rate for black juveniles in 2010 was less 

than one-third the rate in 1980. For white 

juveniles, the arrest rate for forcible rape 

nearly doubled between 1980 and 1991, 

when it reached its peak. Between 1991 

and 2010, the rate declined 55%, resting 

at its lowest level in at least 31 years. By 

2010, the black-to-white ratio of juvenile 

arrest rates for forcible rape was less than 

3-to-1, compared with a ratio of 7-to-1 in 

the early 1980s. 

With few exceptions, the juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape dropped 

annually from 1991 through 2010 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

24 

20 

16 

12 

8 

4 

0 

Forcible rape 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 

Year 

Forcible rape arrest rate trends by gender and race 

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

50 1.0 

20 

30 

40 

Male 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

Female 

80 

0 

10 

85 90 95 00 

Year 

Female 

05 10 80 

0 

0.2 

85 90 95 

Year 

00 05 10 

80 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

25 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

0 

20 

40 

60 Black 

White 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 Amer. Indian 

Asian 

White 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

Year Year 

 Black youth accounted for more than one-third (36%) of all juvenile arrests for forcible rape 

in 2010, and white youth accounted for nearly two-thirds (63%). 

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 Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) 

10 National Report Series Bulletin 
The juvenile arrest rate for robbery declined 

substantially after its mid-1990s peak 

The juvenile arrest rate 

for robbery declined in 

the past 2 years 

The juvenile arrest rate for robbery declined for most of the 1980s and then increased steadily to a peak in 1994. By 


2002, the rate fell 60% from the 1994 


peak and then increased yet again through 


2008 (up 43%). Despite the decline since 


2008 (down 22%), the rate in 2010 was 


11% above its low point in 2002.
 

Arrest rate trends by 

gender and race parallel 

the overall robbery 

arrest rate pattern 

Across gender and race subgroups, robbery arrest rates decreased through the 

late 1980s and climbed to a peak in the 

mid-1990s. By 2002, the rate for males 

and females had fallen to their lowest 

level since at least 1980. Following these 

declines, the rates for both groups increased through 2008 (42% for males 

and 51% for females). Despite the decline 

over the previous 2 years, the rates for 

both groups in 2010 were above their 

2002 low point. 

The trends in arrest rates within racial 

groups were similar over the past three 

decades. For each racial group, the juvenile robbery arrest rate fell by more than 

50% between the mid-1990s and the early 

2000s. Juvenile robbery arrest rates increased for all but Asian youth since 

2004. As a result, rates in 2010 were 

above the 2004 level for American Indian 

youth (21%), black youth (15%), and 

white youth (1%) and below the 2004 

level for Asian youth (26%). 

The juvenile arrest rate for robbery reached a historically low level in 

2002, 60% below the 1994 peak 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

200
 

160
 

120
 

80
 

40
 

0
 

Robbery 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10
 

Year
 

Robbery arrest rate trends by gender and race 

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

Male 

Female 

350
 35


300
 30


250
 25


200
 20


150
 15


100
 10


50
 5


0
 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 

Year Year
 

0 

Female 

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


800
 

Black 

White 

100
 

80
 600
 

60
 

400
 

40
 

200
 20
 

0 0 

Amer. Indian 

White 

Asian 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 

Year Year
 

 The racial disparity in juvenile arrest rates for robbery was quite large in 2010. Specifically, 

the rate for black youth was 10 times the rate for white youth, 15 times the rate for American 

Indian youth, and 19 times the rate for Asian youth. 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) 

December 2013 11 
The 2010 juvenile arrest rate for aggravated assault 

was at its lowest since the early 1980s 

The juvenile aggravated On average, the juvenile arrest rate for aggravated assault declined 5% assault arrest rate fell each year since 1994 53% since its 1994 peak 

The juvenile arrest rate for aggravated as­ 300 

sault doubled between 1980 and 1994 

250 and then fell substantially and consistently 

through 2010, down 53% from its 1994 200 

peak. As a result of this decline, the rate 

in 2010 returned to the level of the early 150 

1980s, resting at a rate just 3% above the 

100 1983 low point. However, of the four Violent Crime Index offenses, only aggravat­ 50 

ed assault had a juvenile arrest rate in 

0 2010 above the levels of the 1980s. 

Year 

The rate for females 

Aggravated assault arrest rate trends by gender and race increased more and 

declined less than Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

Aggravated assault 

the male rate 	 500 

400 

The juvenile arrest rate for aggravated as­ 300 

sault doubled between 1980 and the mid200 

1990s for males, while the female rate 100 

increased by more than 170%. Since the 0 mid-1990s peak, the rates for both groups 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

Year Year declined through 2010, but the relative 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 decline was greater for males (57%) than 800 250

for females (40%). As a result, in 2010, Amer. Indian 

200 600 the juvenile male arrest rate was 10% Black 

150 below its 1980 level, and the female rate 	 400 White

100 was 68% above its 1980 level. The dispro- White 200 50 Asian portionate increase in female arrest rates 

0 0 for aggravated assault compared with 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

male rates indicates that factors that im­ Year Year

pinged differently on females and males  The black-white disparity in aggravated assault arrest rates peaked in 1988, when the black affected the rates. One possible explana­ rate was more than 4 times the white rate; by 2010, this black-white ratio was a little more 

tion may be found in policy changes over than 3-to-1. 

this period that encouraged arrests in domestic violence incidents. Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) 

Aggravated assault 

arrest rates fell for all 

four racial groups assault arrest rates for juveniles in each 

racial group: black (149% increase), Asian 

racial groups since the mid 1990s, so 

much so that rates in 2010 were at their 

The period from 1980 through 1994 saw (126%), white (97%), and American Indi­ lowest levels since the early 1980s. 

substantial increases in aggravated an (73%). Rates have declined for all 

12 National Report Series Bulletin 

Male 

Female 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

Female 
The juvenile arrest rate for property crimes in 2010 

was at its lowest point since at least 1980 

Juvenile property crime The juvenile Property Crime Index arrest rate fell 15% between 2008 and arrest rates have fallen 2010, erasing the increase between 2006 and 2008 almost continuously 

since 1994 Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

Between 1980 and 1994, the juvenile arrest rate for Property Crime Index offenses varied little, always remaining within 

10% of the average for the period. After 

years of relative stability, the juvenile 

Property Crime Index arrest rate began a 

decline in the mid-1990s that continued 

annually until reaching a then-historic low 

in 2006, down 54% from its 1988 peak. 

This nearly two-decade decline was followed by a 10% increase over the next 2 

years, and then a 15% decline between 

2008 and 2010. As a result, juveniles 

were far less likely to be arrested for 

property crimes in 2010 than they were 

30 years earlier. 

Female property crime 

arrest rates increased 

since 2006 

In 1980, the juvenile male arrest rate for 

Property Crime Index offenses was 4 

times the female rate; by 2010, the male 

rate was about 60% above the female 

rate. These two rates converged in large 

part because the female rate increased 

25% between 2006 and 2009, whereas 

the male rate declined 3%. The stark differences in the male and female trends 

suggest several possibilities, including 

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

female offenders. 

The Property Crime Index arrest rates in 

2010 were at their lowest level in 31 years 

for white, American Indian, and Asian 

youth, while the rate for black youth in 

2010 was just 2% above its 2006 low 

point. In the 31 years from 1980 to 2010, 

the black youth arrest rate for property 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 

Year 

Property Crime Index 

Property Crime Index arrest rate trends by gender and race 

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

4,000 

Male 

Female 

1,400 

1,200 

3,000 1,000 

800 

2,000 600 

400 1,000 

200 

0 0 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

Year Year 

Female 

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

5,000 

Black 

White 

3,000 

2,500 4,000 

2,000 3,000 

1,500 

2,000 1,000 

1,000 500 

0 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

Year Year 

0 

Amer. Indian 

White 

Asian 

 In 2010, for every 100,000 youth in the United States ages 10–17, there were 1,084 arrests 

of juveniles for Property Crime Index offenses. The Property Crime Index is dominated by 

larceny-theft, which in 2010 contributed 77% 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 Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) 

crimes averaged twice the white youth disparity in juvenile arrest rates for 

rate, much smaller than the black-white violent crimes. 

December 2013 13 
The juvenile arrest rate for burglary in 2010 was at 

its lowest rate since at least 1980 

Juvenile arrests for 

Unique in the set of property crime offenses, the juvenile arrest rate for burglary fell more burglary declined almost consistently and fell 74% between 1980 and 2010 than adult arrests 

In 2010, the juvenile arrest rate for bur­ 800 

glary reached its lowest point in the past 700 

31 years, nearly one-quarter of its 1980 

level. This large fall in juvenile burglary 600 

arrests from 1980 through 2010 was not 500 

replicated in the adult statistics. For exam- 400 

ple, in the 10 years between 2001 and 300 

2010, the number of juvenile burglary ar- 200 

rests fell 27%, while adult burglary arrests 

increased 11%. In 1980, 45% of all bur- 100 

glary arrests were arrests of a juvenile; in 0 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 

2010, reflecting the greater decline in ju- Year 

venile arrests, just 23% of burglary arrests were juvenile arrests. Burglary arrest rate trends by gender and race 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

Burglary 

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

Juvenile female arrest 1,400 

1,200 rates for burglary 1,000 

declined less than 800 

male rates 600 

400 

The substantial decline in the juvenile bur- 200 

0 

glary arrest rate was primarily the result 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

Year Year of a decline in juvenile male arrests. In 

Male 

Female 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Female 

1980, 6% of juveniles arrested for burglary were female; by 2010, 11% were female. Between 1980 and 2010, the male 

rate fell 75%, while the female rate 

dropped 52%. As a result of these declines, both rates in 2010 were at their 

lowest level since 1980. 

Juvenile burglary arrest rates 

fell for all racial groups 

Between 1980 and 2010, the juvenile burglary arrest rate declined for all racial 

groups: 88% for Asians and American 

Indians, 76% for whites, and 67% for 

blacks. As a result, rates for Asian, American Indian, and white youth in 2010 were 

at their lowest levels of the 31-year period 

and the rate for black youth was 7% 

above its 2004 low point. 

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

1,400 

Black 

White 

700 

1,200 600

1,000 500

800 400

300
 

400
 

600 

200
 

200
 100 

0 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

Year Year 

0 

Amer. Indian 

White 

Asian 

 The gender disparity in juvenile burglary arrest rates has diminished over the past 31 years. 

In 1980, the juvenile male arrest rate for burglary was more than 14 times the female rate; in 

2010, the male rate was 7 times the female rate. 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) 

14 National Report Series Bulletin 
Despite recent growth, juvenile arrest rates for 

larceny-theft remain low 

The 2010 juvenile 

larceny-theft rate was 

about half the rates of 

the 1980s and 1990s 

The juvenile arrest rate for larceny-theft 

generally increased between 1980 and the 

mid-1990s and then fell 52% between 

1994 and 2006, reaching its lowest point 

since 1980. This decline reversed as the 

juvenile arrest rate for larceny-theft increased 4% between 2006 and 2010. Despite this increase, the overall decline in 

arrests for a high-volume offense translated into significantly fewer juveniles 

charged with property crimes entering the 

justice system. 

The female proportion 

of larceny-theft arrests 

has grown 

In 1980, 26% of juveniles arrested for 

larceny-theft were female; by 2010, this 

proportion had grown to 45%. Although 

larceny-theft arrest rates dropped for male 

and female juveniles in the late 1990s and 

early 2000s, the prior increases for females resulted in their 2006 rate being 

just 11% below their 1980 rate, whereas 

the 2006 rate for males was 55% below 

their 1980 rate. By 2010, the rate for 

males reached its lowest point since at 

least 1980, while the female rate was 16% 

above its 2006 low point. 

The decline in the juvenile arrest rate for 

larceny-theft between 1994 and 2006 was 

similar in each of the four racial groups: 

66% each for Asians and American Indians, 53% for whites, and 52% for blacks. 

Since 2006, the black juvenile larcenytheft arrest rate increased 15%, while the 

rates for other racial groups remained 

about the same. In 2010, the black 

The recent increase in the juvenile arrest rate for larceny-theft reversed in 

2010, as the rate fell 11% from the previous year 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

1,800 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 

Year 

Larceny-theft 

Larceny-theft arrest rate trends by gender and race 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

Year 

Male 

Female 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

Year 

Black 

White 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

Female 

0 

400 

800 

1,200 

1,600 

2,000 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

Amer. Indian 

White 

Asian 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 

Year Year 

 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 2010, 1 in 5 juvenile arrests was for larceny-theft. 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) 

juvenile larceny-theft arrest rate was 2.3 equivalent to the 1982 peak in black-white 

times greater than the white juvenile rate, disparity for larceny-theft. 

December 2013 15 

10 
The motor vehicle theft arrest rate for juveniles was 


at a 31-year low in 2010
 

The juvenile arrest rate 


for motor vehicle theft 


peaked in 1989
 

The juvenile arrest rate for motor vehicle 

theft more than doubled between 1983 

and 1989, up 141%. After the 1989 peak, 

the juvenile arrest rate for motor vehicle 

theft declined steadily, erasing its prior 

growth by the early 2000s. In 2010, the 

juvenile arrest rate for motor vehicle theft 

was lower than in any year in the 31-year 

period, 86% below its peak level. This 

large decline in juvenile arrests outpaced 

declines in adult statistics. In the 10-year 

period between 2001 and 2010, the number of juvenile motor vehicle theft arrests 

fell 67%, and adult motor vehicle theft 

arrests decreased 44%. 

Male and female juvenile arrest rates for 

motor vehicle theft displayed generally 

similar trends in the 1980s and 1990s, 

first increasing and then decreasing. 

However, the male rate peaked in 1989, 

but the female rate did not peak until 

1994. With a longer period of decline 

than the female rate, the male rate in 

1999 fell to within 1% of its 1983 level, 

but the female rate was still 66% above 

this low point. By 2010, the male and 

female rates reached their lowest level 

in over three decades. 

From 1983 to their peak years, arrest 

rates for motor vehicle theft nearly doubled for white juveniles (peak year 1990) 

and Asian juveniles (peak year 1988), increased nearly 150% for American Indian 

juveniles (peak year 1989), and more than 

tripled for black juveniles (peak year 

1989). By 2010, motor vehicle theft arrest 

rates were at their lowest level since at 

least 1980 for all race groups. 

Between 1989 and 2010, the juvenile arrest rate for motor vehicle theft fell 


86%, so that the rate in 2010 was at its lowest level since 1980
 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
 

350
 

300
 

250
 

200
 

150
 

100
 

50
 

0
 

Motor vehicle theft 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10
 

Year
 

Motor vehicle theft arrest rate trends by gender and race 

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


700
 

Male 

Female 

100
 

600
 80
 

500
 

60
 400
 

300
 40
 

200
 20
 

100
 

0
 0
 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 

Female 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 

Year 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 


1,000
 

800
 

600
 

400
 

200
 

0
 

Black 

White 

Year 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

350
 

300
 

250
 

200
 

150
 

100
 

50
 

0
 

Amer. Indian White 

Asian 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 

Year Year
 

 The juvenile arrest rate trends for motor vehicle theft differed from those for the other highvolume 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. 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) 

16 National Report Series Bulletin 
Forty percent of all persons arrested for arson in 2010
 

were younger than 18; 1 in 4 was younger than 15
 

Arson is the criminal 

act with the largest 

proportion of juvenile 

arrestees 

In 2010, 40% of all arson arrests were arrests of juveniles, and most of these juvenile arrests (58%) involved youth younger 

than 15. In comparison, 22% of all larcenytheft arrests in 2010 involved juveniles, 

but only 28% of these juvenile arrests involved youth younger than 15. 

Trends in juvenile arson 

arrests paralleled that of 

violent crime 

The pattern of stability, growth, and decline in the juvenile arrest rate for arson in 

the past 31 years was similar in magnitude and character to the trend in juvenile 

violent crime arrest rates. After years of 

stability, the juvenile arrest rate for arson 

increased more than 50% between 1987 

and 1994 before falling 60% through 

2010. During the period of increase, the 

female rate increased abruptly between 

1991 and 1994 (up 66%). During the period of decline after 1994, the male and female rates declined proportionally (63% 

and 59%, respectively). However, because 

of the greater increase in the female rate, 

these declines left the female rate in 2010 

32% below its 1980 level, and the male 

rate was 48% below its 1980 level. 

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. Between 1980 and 2010, on average, the black rate was 5% greater than 

the white rate for arson, but the violent 

crime arrest rate for black juveniles was 

5 times the white rate. For white juveniles 

and black juveniles, arson arrest rates 

Following a 42% decline between 2006 and 2010, the juvenile arrest rate 

for arson in 2010 reached a historic low 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

Arson 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10
 

Year
 

Arson arrest rate trends by gender and race 

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

Male 

Female 

10
 

50
 

60
 

8
 

40
 6
 

30
 

4
 

20
 

2
 10
 

0
 0
 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 

Female 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 

Year
 Year 

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


50
 

Black 

White 

40
 

40
 30
 

30
 

20
 

20
 

10
 10
 

0
 0 

Amer. Indian 

White 

Asian 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 

Year Year
 

 Between 1980 and 2010, the arson arrest rate for Asian juveniles stayed within a limited 

range and was substantially below the rate for other races, averaging less than 30% of the 

white rate over the 31-year period. 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) 

were essentially equal for most years be- rate; however, both groups ended the 31­

tween 1980 and 1992. After 1992, the year period at their lowest rates. 


black rate rose to slightly above the white 


December 2013 17 
The juvenile arrest rate for simple assault in 2010 

was more than twice the 1980 rate 

Simple assault is the 

most common of all 

crimes against persons 

The juvenile arrest rate for simple assault 

increased 176% between 1980 and 1997, 

declined through 2002, then rose again 

through 2004. Following the decline since 

2004, the 2010 rate was 19% below the 

1997 peak. Unlike the trend for simple assault, the juvenile aggravated assault arrest rate declined steadily between 1994 

and 2010, falling 53%. As a result of 

these divergent trends, a greater percentage of assaults that law enforcement handled in recent years has been for less 

serious offenses. In 1980, there were 2 

juvenile arrests for simple assault for 

every 1 juvenile arrest for aggravated assault; by 2010, this ratio had grown to 4­

to-1—with most of this growth occurring 

after the mid-1990s. The large increase in 

the juvenile arrest rate for simple assault 

was paralleled by a similar increase in the 

adult rate, so that the juvenile proportion 

of all simple assault arrests was 18% in 

1980 and 16% in 2010. 

Growth in the female 

arrest rate for simple 

assault outpaced the 

male rate 

As with aggravated assault, between 1980 

and 2010, the increase in the juvenile female arrest rate for simple assault far outpaced the increase in the male rate (278% 

vs. 83%). As a result, the female proportion of juvenile arrests for simple assault 

grew from 21% to 35%. During that period, simple assault arrest rates increased 

substantially for black (131%), white 

(114%), and American Indian (38%) 

youth, with rates for Asian youth declining 

15% over the 31-year period. These increases were greater than the corresponding increases in aggravated assault rates. 

The juvenile arrest rate for simple assault has declined steadily since 

2004—down 15% over that period 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

800 

Other (simple) assault 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 

Year 

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

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

Male 

Female 

1,200 500

1,000 400
 

800
 300
 

600
 

200
 400 

100 200 

0 0 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

Year Year 

Female 

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

2,000 

Black 

White 

800 

1,600 600 

1,200 

400 

800 

200 400 

0 0

Amer. Indian 

White 

Asian 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

Year Year 

 Juvenile male and female simple assault arrest rates declined similarly between 2006 and 

2010 (by 16% and 10%, respectively). 

 In 2010, the ratio of simple to aggravated assault arrests of juveniles varied across gender 

and racial groups: male (4.0-to-1), female (6.7-to-1), white (5.0-to-1), black (4.3-to-1), 

American Indian (4.2-to-1), and Asian (5.0-to-1). 

Note: 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 they handle the incident. 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) 

18 National Report Series Bulletin 
Juvenile arrest rate trends for weapons law violations 

generally paralleled trends for violent crimes 

The juvenile weapons 

arrest rate in 2010 was 

half its 1994 peak 

Between 1980 and 1994, the juvenile 

arrest rate for weapons law violations 

increased 146%. Then the rate fell substantially, so that by 2002 the rate was 

just 21% more than the 1980 level. However, between 2002 and 2006, the juvenile 

weapons arrest rate grew 32% and then 

fell 32% through 2010. As a result, the 

rate in 2010 was 8% above the 1980 level 

and 56% below its 1994 peak. It must be 

remembered that these statistics do not 

reflect all arrests for weapons offenses. 

An unknown number of other arrests for 

more serious crimes also involved a 

weapons offense as a secondary charge, 

but the FBI’s arrest statistics classify such 

arrests by their most serious charge and 

not the weapons offense. 

Between 1980 and 1994, the arrest rate 

for weapons law violations increased proportionally more for females (256%) than 

for males (139%). After reaching a peak 

in 1994, both rates declined through 2002 

(53% for males and 32% for females), 

increased through 2006, and then fell 

through 2010. 

Arrest rates for weapons law violations 

peaked in 1993 for black juveniles, in 

1994 for white and Asian juveniles, and 

in 1995 for American Indian juveniles. 

The increase between 1980 and the peak 

year was the greatest for black juveniles 

(215%), followed by whites (126%), 

Asians (104%), and American Indians 

(83%). Similar to trends for males and 

females, the rates for all racial groups 

dropped quickly after their peaks, grew 

between 2002 and 2006, and fell again 

between 2006 and 2010. Despite recent 

declines, the 2010 arrest rates were still 

slightly above their 1980 levels for male 

The juvenile arrest rate for weapons law violations declined for the fourth 

consecutive year, falling 32% since 2006 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

240 

200 

160 

120 

80 

40 

0 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 

Year 

Weapons 

Weapons law violation arrest rate trends by gender and race 

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

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

Year Year 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

Year 

Male 

Female 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

Year 

Black 

White 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

Female 

0 

40 

80 

120 

160 

200 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

Amer. Indian 

White 

Asian 

 The disproportionate increase in the female rate narrowed the gender disparity in weapons 

law violation arrest rates. In 1980, the male rate was 16 times the female rate; in 2010, the 

male rate was about 8 times the female rate. 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) 

(2%) and white (3%) juveniles, and sub- violations were actually below their 1980 

stantially above their 1980 levels for fe- levels for American Indian and Asian 

male (109%) and black (27%) juveniles. youth (by 49% and 50%, respectively). 

In 2010, arrest rates for weapons law 

December 2013 19 
The juvenile drug arrest rate more than doubled 


between 1991 and 1997 but has since declined
 

Racial disparity in drug 

arrests increased in the 

1980s and early 1990s 

The annual juvenile arrest rates for drug 

abuse violations (a category that includes 

both drug possession and drug sales) 

varied within a limited range in the 1980s. 

A closer look at juvenile drug arrest rates 

finds sharp racial differences. The drug 

abuse violation arrest rate for white juveniles generally declined between 1980 and 

1991, while the black rate soared. The 

white rate fell 54%, compared with a 

190% increase for blacks. In 1980, the 

white and black arrest rates were essentially equal, with black youth involved in 

14% of all juvenile drug arrests. By 1991, 

the black rate was nearly 6 times the 

white rate, and black youth were involved 

in 52% of all juvenile drug arrests. 

Drug arrests soared for 


all youth between 1991 


and 1997 


Between 1991 and 1997, the juvenile arrest rate for drug abuse violations increased 138%. The rate declined 26% 

between 1997 and 2010, but the 2010 

rate was 76% more than the 1991 rate. 

After a period of substantial growth 

through the 1990s, the male juvenile arrest rate for drug abuse violations generally declined after 1996, while the female 

rate remained relatively stable. By 2010, 

the drug abuse arrest rate for males declined 29% from its 1996 peak, whereas 

the rate for females was just 7% below its 

1996 level. For both groups, the arrest 

rates in 2010 were considerably above the 

rates in 1980 (41% for both males and females). Between 1980 and 2010, the juvenile drug arrest rate for whites peaked in 

1997 and then remained relatively constant through 2010 (down 14%). In contrast, the rate for blacks peaked in 1996 

After a period of substantial growth through the 1990s, the juvenile arrest 


rate for drug abuse violations generally declined through 2010
 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
 

700
 

600
 

500
 

400
 

300
 

200
 

100
 

0
 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10
 

Year
 

Drug abuse 

Drug abuse violation arrest rate trends by gender and race 

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

1,200 

Male 

Female 

250
 

1,000
 200
 

800
 150
 

600
 

100
 400
 

200
 50
 

0
 0
 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 

Female 

Year
 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 


1,600
 

1,200
 

800
 

400
 

0
 

Black 

White 

Year 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

600
 

500
 

400
 

300
 

200
 

100
 

0
 

Amer. Indian 

White 

Asian 

80 85 90 95 00 05 10 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
 

Year Year
 

 The trend in juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations among blacks was different from the 

trends for other racial groups. Whereas the arrest rate for other races generally declined 

throughout the 1980s, the rate for black juveniles increased substantially during this period. 

 Despite recent declines, rates for all racial groups in 2010 remained above their 1980 rates: 

white (34%), black (115%), American Indian (49%), and Asian (9%). 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and population data from the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note on page 23 for details.) 

and then fell 41% by 2002. Despite a re- 2006—the rate fell 22% through 2010 


cent increase—15% between 2002 and and was 52% less than the 1996 peak. 


20 National Report Series Bulletin 
In 2010, more than one-fourth of states had a juvenile
 

violent crime arrest rate above the national average
 

Among states with at least minimally adequate reporting, those with high juvenile violent crime arrest rates in 

2010 were California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee 

Arrests of juveniles under age 18 

per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

Arrests of juveniles under age 18 

per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

State 

Reporting 

population 

coverage 

Violent 

Crime 

Index Robbery 

Aggrav. 

assault 

Other 

assault Weapon State 

Reporting 

population 

coverage 

Violent 

Crime 

Index Robbery 

Aggrav. 

assault 

Other 

assault Weapon 

U.S. total 84% 225 81 132 619 92 Missouri 93% 222 68 142 901 70 

Alabama 72 80 27 48 229 19 Montana 87 120 16 97 647 23 

Alaska 99 248 50 192 539 35 Nebraska 90 109 42 50 1,081 86 

Arizona 90 182 41 133 635 49 Nevada 89 300 112 180 944 105 

Arkansas 74 130 23 96 612 49 New Hampshire 87 93 23 62 940 17 

California 96 304 123 172 417 162 New Jersey 98 243 114 119 326 118 

Colorado 89 156 31 111 409 90 New Mexico 88 240 22 200 854 120 

Connecticut 95 212 75 126 1,007 66 New York 50 221 90 121 494 58 

Delaware 100 368 117 230 1,287 127 North Carolina 83 211 73 122 850 172 

Dist. of Columbia 0 NA NA NA NA NA North Dakota 90 92 9 58 636 22 

Florida 100 343 110 218 759 67 Ohio 74 111 60 41 669 54 

Georgia 81 192 65 117 618 104 Oklahoma 99 149 34 104 293 65 

Hawaii 89 217 108 96 778 18 Oregon 87 147 47 93 469 55 

Idaho 94 93 10 72 628 77 Pennsylvania 97 355 135 202 619 99 

Illinois 23 815 379 411 1,247 275 Rhode Island 99 198 69 110 684 145 

Indiana 59 143 32 105 607 50 South Carolina 95 186 48 124 692 114 

Iowa 88 203 23 171 785 40 South Dakota 78 109 10 90 679 97 

Kansas 69 149 20 115 541 37 Tennessee 78 383 100 268 1,052 120 

Kentucky 70 125 62 53 326 33 Texas 99 146 46 90 737 40 

Louisiana 58 503 72 408 1,105 82 Utah 97 90 18 56 609 99 

Maine 100 55 15 34 688 44 Vermont 87 66 0 40 340 9 

Maryland 83 522 261 249 1,303 185 Virginia 98 112 47 58 622 53 

Massachusetts 94 259 52 200 384 35 Washington 78 211 77 118 681 92 

Michigan 94 179 63 104 387 63 West Virginia 80 59 11 44 248 8 

Minnesota 100 160 54 104 574 92 Wisconsin 89 237 103 106 502 153 

Mississippi 53 119 71 34 748 125 Wyoming 99 96 16 77 1,080 82 

NA = Arrest counts were not available for the District of 

Columbia in the FBI’s Crime in the United States 2010. 

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 23. Detail may 

not add to totals because of rounding. 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from Crime in the United 

States 2010 (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

2011) tables 5 and 69, and population data from the National 

Center for Health Statistics’ Postcensal Estimates of the 

Resident Population of the United States for July 1, 2010–July 

1, 2011, by Year, County, Single-Year of Age (0, 1, 2, . . ., 85 

Years and Over), Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex 

(Vintage 2011) [machine-readable data files available online at 

www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm, as of 7/18/12]. 

0 to 125 (15 states) 

125 to 200 (14 states) 

200 to 300 (13 states) 

300 or above (7 states) 

Data not available (2 states) 

2010 Violent Crime 

Index arrests per 100,000 

juveniles ages 10–17 

DC 

December 2013 21 
High juvenile violent crime arrest rates in 2010 did 

not necessarily mean high property crime arrest rates 

Among states with at least minimally adequate reporting, those with high juvenile property crime arrest rates 

in 2010 were Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin 

Arrests of juveniles under age 18 

per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

Arrests of juveniles under age 18 

per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

State 

Reporting 

population 

coverage 

Property 

Crime 

Index Burglary 

Larcenytheft 

Motor 

vehicle 

theft Vandalism State 

Reporting 

population 

coverage 

Property 

Crime 

Index Burglary 

Larcenytheft 

Motor 

vehicle 

theft Vandalism 

U.S. total 84% 1,084 192 832 47 13 Missouri 93% 1,537 219 1,254 53 12 

Alabama 72 495 69 412 12 2 Montana 87 1,570 90 1,374 84 22 

Alaska 99 1,329 170 1,063 72 24 Nebraska 90 1,920 146 1,700 57 17 

Arizona 90 1,426 190 1,176 44 17 Nevada 89 1,492 215 1,235 28 14 

Arkansas 74 984 174 790 14 6 New Hampshire 87 825 97 691 21 17 

California 96 922 293 560 56 13 New Jersey 98 736 119 585 16 16 

Colorado 89 1,424 121 1,228 52 24 New Mexico 88 1,488 169 1,241 56 23 

Connecticut 95 849 131 663 40 15 New York 50 1,084 194 833 47 10 

Delaware 100 1,452 299 1,098 44 12 North Carolina 83 1,177 321 818 25 14 

Dist. of Columbia 0 NA NA NA NA NA North Dakota 90 1,693 116 1,490 80 7 

Florida 100 1,530 426 1,023 74 8 Ohio 74 771 138 595 29 9 

Georgia 81 1,200 244 891 56 9 Oklahoma 99 1,167 190 924 23 29 

Hawaii 89 1,284 87 1,129 55 13 Oregon 87 1,635 157 1,387 48 42 

Idaho 94 1,456 198 1,197 38 23 Pennsylvania 97 874 135 671 49 19 

Illinois 23 1,449 307 808 330 5 Rhode Island 99 901 217 617 37 30 

Indiana 59 1,198 138 1,013 40 7 South Carolina 95 1,110 212 865 29 4 

Iowa 88 1,616 241 1,305 47 23 South Dakota 78 1,818 110 1,646 53 9 

Kansas 69 976 110 807 44 15 Tennessee 78 1,352 276 995 63 18 

Kentucky 70 754 162 565 20 7 Texas 99 1,049 161 854 28 6 

Louisiana 58 1,517 299 1,156 51 11 Utah 97 1,748 96 1,610 31 11 

Maine 100 1,346 267 991 54 34 Vermont 87 469 107 312 33 17 

Maryland 83 1,697 287 1,251 127 32 Virginia 98 763 101 621 26 14 

Massachusetts 94 449 98 319 21 11 Washington 78 1,201 202 934 49 16 

Michigan 94 880 151 662 54 13 West Virginia 80 346 39 288 15 4 

Minnesota 100 1,507 137 1,312 40 17 Wisconsin 89 1,904 222 1,607 63 12 

Mississippi 53 1,350 367 941 36 7 Wyoming 99 1,636 197 1,378 47 14 

NA = Arrest counts were not available for the District of 

Columbia in the FBI’s Crime in the United States 2010. 

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 23. Detail may 

not add to totals because of rounding. 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from Crime in the 

United States 2010 (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, 2011) tables 5 and 69, and population data 

from the National Center for Health Statistics’ Postcensal 

Estimates of the Resident Population of the United States for 

July 1, 2010–July 1, 2011, by Year, County, Single-Year of Age 

(0, 1, 2, . . ., 85 Years and Over), Bridged Race, Hispanic 

Origin, and Sex (Vintage 2011) [machine-readable data files 

available online at www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm, 

as of 7/18/12]. 

0 to 1,000 (16 states) 

1,000 to 1,400 (13 states) 

1,400 to 1,800 (17 states) 

1,800 or above (3 states) 

Data not available (2 states) 

2010 Property Crime 

Index arrests per 100,000 

juveniles ages 10–17 

DC 

22 National Report Series Bulletin 
Notes 

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 factors noted, however, comparisons should be made with caution. 

Arrest rate data source 

Analysis of arrest data from Snyder, H., 

and Mulako-Wantota, J., Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, Arrest Data Analysis Tool 

[available online at www.bjs.gov/index. 

cfm?ty=datool&surl=/arrests/index.cfm, 

retrieved 11/8/12]; population data for 

1980–1989 from the U.S. Census Bureau, 

U.S. Pop u la tion Es ti mates by Age, Sex, 

Race, and His pan ic Origin: 1980 to 1999 

[machine-readable data files available online, re leased 4/11/00]; population data 

for 1990–1999 from the National Center 

for Health Statistics (prepared by the U.S. 

Census Bureau with support from the National Cancer Institute), Bridged-Race Intercensal Estimates of the July 1, 1990– 

July 1, 1999, United States Resident Population by County, Single-Year of Age, 

Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin [machinereadable data files available online at 

www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race. 

htm, released 7/26/04]; population data 

for 2000–2009 from the National Center 

for Health Statistics (prepared under a 

collaborative arrangement with the U.S. 

Census Bureau), Intercensal Estimates 

of the Resident Population of the United 

States for July 1, 2000–July 1, 2009, 

by Year, County, Single-Year of Age (0, 

1, 2, . . ., 85 Years and Over), Bridged 

Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex [machinereadable data files available online at 

www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race. 

htm, as of 10/26/12, following release by 

the U.S. Census Bureau of the revised unbridged intercensal estimates by 5-year age 

group on 10/9/12]; and population data for 

2010 from the National Center for Health 

Statistics (prepared under a collaborative 

arrangement with the U.S. Census Bureau), 

Postcensal Estimates of the Resident Population of the United States for July 1, 

2010–July 1, 2011, by Year, County, 

Single-Year of Age (0, 1, 2, . . ., 85 Years 

and Over), Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, 

and Sex (Vintage 2011) [machine-readable 

data files available online at www.cdc.gov/ 

nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm, as of 

7/18/12, following release by the U.S. 

Census Bureau of the unbridged vintage 

2011 postcensal estimates by 5-year age 

group on 5/17/12]. 

Data coverage 

FBI arrest data in this bulletin are counts 

of arrests detailed by age of arrestee and 

offense categories from all law enforcement agencies that reported complete 

Visit OJJDP’s Statistical 

Briefing Book for more 

information on juvenile arrests 

OJJDP’s online Statistical Briefing 

Book (SBB) offers access to a wealth 

of information about juvenile crime 

and victimization and about youth involved in the juvenile justice system. 

Visit the “Law Enforcement and Juvenile Crime” section of the SBB at 

ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/faqs.asp for 

more information about juvenile arrest rate trends detailed by offense, 

gender, and race, including a spreadsheet of all juvenile arrest rates used 

in this bulletin. 

data for the calendar year. (See Crime in 

the United States 2010 for offense definitions.) The proportion of the U.S. population covered by these reporting agencies 

ranged from 63% to 94% between 1980 

and 2010, with 2010 coverage of 81%. 

Estimates of the number of persons in 

each age group in the reporting agencies’ 

resident populations assume that the resident population age profiles are like the 

nation’s. Reporting agencies’ total populations were multiplied by the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s most current estimate of the 

proportion of the U.S. population for each 

age group. 

The reporting coverage for the total United 

States (84%) in the tables on pages 21 

and 22 includes all states reporting arrests of persons younger than age 18. 

This is greater than the coverage in the 

rest of the bulletin (81%) for various reasons. For example, a state may provide 

arrest counts of persons younger than 

age 18 but not provide the age detail required to support other subpopulation 

estimates. 

December 2013 23 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

PRESORTED STANDARD
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

DOJ/OJJDP
 

PERMIT NO. G–91
 

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

National Report Series Bulletin NCJ 242770 

Acknowledgments 

This bulletin was written by Charles 

Puzzanchera, Senior Research 

Associate, with assistance from Melissa 

Sickmund, Ph.D., Director, at the 

National Center for Juvenile Justice, 

with funds provided by OJJDP to support the National Juvenile Justice Data 

Analysis Project. 

This bulletin was prepared under cooperative 

agreement number 2010–MU–FX–K058 from the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP), 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. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention is a component of the Office of 

Justice Pro grams, which also includes the 

Bu reau of Jus tice As sis tance; the Bu reau of 

Jus tice Sta tis tics; the National In sti tute of 

Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime; and 

the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and 

Tracking.