U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

National 

Report Series

December 2014

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. 

Juvenile Arrests 2012
 

Charles Puzzanchera 

A Message From OJJDP 

This bulletin provides an overview of the nation’s juvenile crime problem by analyzing arrest 

data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. 

Because this bulletin is produced annually, it is a useful tool for juvenile justice practitioners, 

researchers, policymakers, and others who seek to prevent, intervene in, and respond to juvenile delinquency. Specifically, the cumulative data can reveal shifts in juvenile offending 

patterns; signal any disparities in how youth of different races, genders, and circumstances 

are treated; and highlight areas where treatment and services can be improved. 

Over the past decade, we have seen a significant drop in juvenile arrest rates nationwide. In 

fact, trends since 1980 reveal that arrest rates in 2012 for all crime index offense categories 

were at historic low levels. The number of juvenile arrests dropped 10 percent between 2011 

and 2012 and has dropped 37 percent since 2003, which is very encouraging. 

Even so, accumulating evidence points to the detrimental effects on healthy adolescent development that system involvement and confinement impose. As a result, many state and local 

juvenile justice agencies are striving to implement more developmentally based and traumainformed legislation, policies, and practices to keep juveniles out of the juvenile justice system in the first place. 

It is OJJDP’s hope that the information provided in this bulletin will guide the reform efforts 

to significantly reduce the rate of juvenile arrests over time, ensure more fair and appropriate 

services for system-involved juveniles, and secure better long-term prospects for these 

youth, their families, and their communities. 

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
 

What do arrest statistics 

count? 

Findings in this bulletin are drawn from 

data that local law enforcement agencies 

across the country report to the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Uniform 

Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. To 

properly interpret the material presented, 

the reader needs a clear understanding of 

what arrest 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.

In this bulletin, “juvenile” refers to persons younger

an age 18. In 2012, this definition was at odds with 

e legal definition of juveniles in 12 states—10 

ates where all 17-year-olds are defined as adults, 

th

th

st

and 2 states where all 16- and 17-year-olds are 

defined as adults. 

 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 24,700 arrests of young people 

for weapons law violations in 2012, it 

means that a weapons law violation was 

the most serious charge in these 24,700 

arrests. An unknown number of additional 

arrests in 2012 included a weapons 

charge as a lesser offense. 

How do arrest statistics 

differ from clearance 

statistics? 

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. 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. 

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 14,830 murders were reported to law enforcement agencies in 

2012, or 4.7 murders for every 100,000 

U.S. residents. The murder rate was 

essentially constant between 1999 and 

2006 and then fell 17% through 2012, 

reaching its lowest level since at least 

1980. 

Of all murder victims in 2012, 91% (or 

13,540 victims) were 18 years old or 

older. The other 1,290 murder victims 

were younger than age 18 (i.e., juveniles). The number of juvenile murder 

victims declined annually since 2008, 

falling 26% during that 5-year period. 

By 2012, the number of juvenile murder victims was 55% less than the peak 

year of 1993, when an estimated 2,880 

juveniles were murdered. During the 

same 2008–2012 period, the estimated 

number of adult murder victims fell 7%. 

Of all juveniles murdered in 2012, 37% 

were younger than age 5, 67% were 

male, and 51% were white. Of all juveniles murdered in 2012, 32% of male 

victims, 47% of female victims, 43% of 

white victims, and 29% of black victims were younger than age 5. 

In 2012, 69% of all murder victims 

were killed with a firearm. Adults were 

more likely to be killed with a firearm 

(71%) than were juveniles (51%). 

However, the involvement of a firearm 

depended greatly on the age of the juvenile victim. In 2012, 22% 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. 

2 National Report Series Bulletin 
In 2012, law enforcement agencies in the U.S. made 


over 1.3 million arrests of persons under age 18
 

The number of arrests of juveniles in 2012 was 37% fewer than the number of arrests in 2003 

2012 Percent of total juvenile arrests Percent change 

estimated number Younger 2003– 2008– 2011– 

Most serious offense 

Total

of juvenile arrests 

 1,319,700 

Female than 15 White 

29% 28% 65% 

2012 2012 2012 

–37% –34% –10% 

Violent Crime Index 61,070 19 28 46 –33 –36 –10 

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 720 9 11 46 –43 –42 –14 

Forcible rape 2,500 2 37 64 –39 –24 –10 

Robbery 21,500 10 20 29 –15 –39 –10 

Aggravated assault 36,300 26 33 55 –40 –35 –11 

Property Crime Index 295,400 35 29 61 –36 –32 –12 

Burglary 53,800 12 28 59 –36 –36 –13 

Larceny-theft 224,200 42 29 61 –30 –30 –12 

Motor vehicle theft 13,100 16 21 57 –71 –47 –7 

Arson 4,400 15 59 72 –46 –33 –11 

Nonindex 

Other (simple) assaults 173,100 37 39 59 –28 –25 –9 

Forgery and counterfeiting 1,400 30 14 67 –69 –44 –9 

Fraud 4,700 32 18 56 –36 –35 –10 

Embezzlement 400 39 7 63 –61 –65 6 

Stolen property (buying, receiving, 

possessing) 12,900 16 23 52 –47 –38 –3 

Vandalism 59,900 16 39 75 –43 –44 –12 

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 24,700 10 34 60 –37 –38 –13 

Prostitution and commercialized vice 800 76 7 40 –44 –46 –19 

Sex offense (except forcible rape and 

prostitution) 12,400 10 50 71 –32 –14 –1 

Drug abuse violations 140,000 17 17 74 –29 –22 –6 

Gambling 1,000 6 10 10 –44 –41 –2 

Offenses against the family and children 3,300 38 32 68 –51 –42 –6 

Driving under the influence 9,400 26 2 92 –55 –41 –7 

Liquor laws 77,800 40 10 88 –42 –40 –12 

Drunkenness 9,900 28 12 87 –43 –36 –14 

Disorderly conduct 120,100 35 38 55 –38 –36 –14 

Vagrancy 1,400 22 26 62 –30 –64 –22 

All other offenses (except traffic) 239,600 27 24 68 –37 –33 –10 

Suspicion (not included in totals) 300 27 34 73 –79 25 141 

Curfew and loitering 70,200 29 28 57 –49 –47 –9 

n All four offenses that make up the Violent Crime Index decreased considerably between 2008 and 2012: murder (–42%), rape (–24%), 

robbery (–39%), and aggravated assault (–35%). 

n In 2012, there were an estimated 224,200 juvenile arrests for larceny-theft. More than 4 of every 10 (42%) of these arrests involved 

females, 29% involved youth younger than age 15, and 61% involved white youth. 

n Youth younger than age 15 accounted for more than half (59%) of all juvenile arrests for arson in 2012 and nearly 40% of juvenile 

arrests for simple assault, vandalism, and disorderly conduct. 

n Females accounted for 9% of juvenile arrests for murder but one-fourth (26%) of juvenile arrests for aggravated assault and 37% of 

juvenile arrests for simple assault. 

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 10/14/14]. 

December 2014 3 
 

Juvenile arrests for violent crime declined for the 

6th consecutive year 

Juvenile arrests for 

violent crimes fell 36% 

in the past 5 years 

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 and then declined each year 

through 2012. As a result, the number of 

juvenile violent crime arrests in 2012 was 

less than any of the previous 33 years and 

24% less than the previous low point in 

1984. 

In fact, juvenile arrests for all violent 

crimes reached historically low levels in 

2012. Following a 39% decline since 

2008, the number of juvenile robbery arrests in 2012 was at its lowest level since 

1980. Similarly, the number of juvenile arrests for forcible rape fell 40% in the past 

10 years to reach its lowest level of the 

1980–2012 period. After falling to a relatively low level in 2004, juvenile arrests 

for murder increased through 2007 and 

then declined 46% by 2012 to reach the 

lowest level in three decades. The number 

of juvenile arrests for aggravated assault 

was cut in half between 1994 and 2012, 

also reaching its lowest level since at least 

1980. 

Between 2003 and 2012, the number of 

arrests in all offense categories declined 

for juveniles and the relative decline for 

juveniles exceeded that of adults. 

Percent change 

in arrests 

Most serious 2003–2012 

offense Juvenile Adult 

Violent Crime Index –33% –9%

Murder –43 –13

Forcible rape –39 –30

Robbery –15 0 

Aggravated assault –40 –9

Property Crime Index –36 18 

Burglary –36 11 

Larceny-theft –30 29 

Motor vehicle theft –71 –49

Simple assault –28 2 

Weapons law violations –37 –3

Drug abuse violations –29 –5

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

Analysis Tool [online, retrieved 10/14/14]. 

Juvenile property crime 

arrests declined for the 

fourth straight year 

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 was 

cut in half, reaching its lowest level since 

at least 1980. This decline was interrupted 

briefly as the number of juvenile Property 

Crime Index arrests increased in 2007 and 

2008. By 2012, the number of juvenile 

Property Crime Index arrests fell 32%, 

reaching its lowest level since at least 

1980. Between 2008 and 2012, juvenile 

arrests declined for individual property 

offenses: burglary (36%), larceny-theft 

(30%), motor vehicle theft (47%), and 

arson (33%). As a result, juvenile arrests 

for all Property Crime Index offenses in 

2012 were at their lowest levels since at 

least 1980. 

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 2012, 22% 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. 

Data source: Crime in the United States 2012 (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013), 

table 68. 

4 National Report Series Bulletin 
In 2012, 1 in 5 juvenile violent crime arrests involved 

females and more than half involved minority youth 

Females accounted for 

29% of juvenile arrests 

in 2012 

Law enforcement agencies made 383,600 

arrests of females younger than age 18 in 

2012. From 2003 through 2012, arrests 

of juvenile females decreased less than 

male arrests in several offense categories 

(e.g., aggravated and simple assault, 

larceny-theft, vandalism, liquor law violations, and disorderly conduct). 

Percent change in 

juvenile arrests 

Most serious 2003–2012

offense Female Male 

Violent Crime Index –31% –34%

Robbery –2 –16

Aggravated assault –35 –42

Simple assault –19 –32

Property Crime Index –29 –39

Burglary –36 –36

Larceny-theft –26 –33

Motor vehicle theft –73 –70

Vandalism –35 –45

Weapons –45 –36

Drug abuse violations –26

Liquor law violations –34

Driving under influence –43 

Disorderly conduct –29

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

Analysis Tool [online, retrieved 10/14/14]. 

Gender differences also occurred in the 

assault arrest trends for adults. Between 

2003 and 2012, adult male arrests for aggravated assault fell 12% while female arrests increased 1%. Similarly, adult male 

arrests for simple assault fell 3% between 

2003 and 2012 while adult female arrests 

rose 20%. 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 

2003 and 2012, the number of larcenytheft arrests of juvenile females fell 26% 

while juvenile male arrests declined 33%, 

and adult female arrests grew more than 

adult male arrests (55% and 14%, respectively). For Property Crime Index offenses, 

juvenile arrests declined more for males 

than for females between 2003 and 2012, 

and adult arrests increased less for males 

(5%) than for females (48%). 

Juvenile arrests 

disproportionately 

involved minorities 

The racial composition of the U.S. juvenile 

population ages 10–17 in 2012 was 76% 

white, 17% black, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2% American Indian. Most juveniles of Hispanic ethnicity were included 

in the white racial category. More than half 

(52%) of all juvenile arrests for violent 

crimes in 2012 involved black youth, 46% 

involved white youth, 1% involved Asian 

youth, and 1% involved American Indian 

youth. For property crime arrests, the proportions were 61% white youth, 36% 

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 2012 

Murder 52% 

Forcible rape 33 

Robbery 69 

Aggravated assault 43 

Simple assault 39 

Burglary 39 

Larceny-theft 35 

Motor vehicle theft 40 

Weapons 37 

Drug abuse violations 23 

Vandalism 23 

Liquor laws 7 

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

Analysis Tool [online, retrieved 10/14/14]. 

December 2014 5 

–30

–46

–58

–42

In 2012, juveniles were involved in about 1 in 14 arrests for murder 

and about 1 in 5 arrests for robbery, burglary, and motor vehicle theft 

Juvenile arrests as a percentage 

of total arrests 

Most serious offense All Male Female White Black 

Total 10% 10% 11% 10% 12% 

Violent Crime Index 12 12 11 9 16 

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 7 7 5 6 7 

Forcible rape 14 14 22 14 14 

Robbery 21 21 16 14 26 

Aggravated assault 9 9 11 8 12 

Property Crime Index 18 19 17 16 22 

Burglary 19 20 14 17 24 

Larceny-theft 17 18 17 16 21 

Motor vehicle theft 19 20 16 17 25 

Arson 38 39 32 38 41 

Nonindex 

Other (simple) assaults 14 13 19 13 18 

Vandalism 26 28 21 27 24 

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 17 16 19 17 15 

Drug abuse violations 9 9 8 10 7 

Data source: Analysis of Snyder, H., and Mulako-Wantota, J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Arrest Data 

Analysis Tool [online, retrieved 10/14/14]. 
 

n

The juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate declined 

for the 4th consecutive year 

Violent crime arrest 

rates reached a new 

historic low in 2012 

The juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest 

rate (i.e., the number of arrests per 

100,000 juveniles in the population) was 

essentially constant through the late 

1980s and then increased sharply through 

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. Since the 1994 peak, however, the juvenile violent crime arrest rate 

generally declined each year since the 

mid-1990s. Following the past 4 consecutive years of decline, the rate in 2012 was 

63% below the 1994 peak, resting at its 

lowest level since at least 1980. 

Declines in violent crime 

arrest rates were evident 

across gender and racial 

groups 

Male juvenile violent crime arrest rates exceed the rates for females. For example, 

during the 1980s, the male violent crime 

arrest rate was nearly 8 times greater than 

the female rate. However, by 2012, the 

male rate was only 4 times greater. This 

convergence of male and female arrest 

rates is due to the large relative increase 

in the female rate. Between 1980 and 

1994, the male rate increased 60% while 

the female rate more than doubled. By 

2012, the male rate was 65% below its 

1994 peak and at its lowest level in at 

least three decades. Although the female 

rate also declined since the mid-1990s 

(down 52%), the rate in 2012 was 16% 

above its 1983 low point. 

With few exceptions, violent crime arrest 

rates have declined for all racial groups for 

The juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate fell 35% between 2008 and 

2012 

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 12 

Year 

Violent 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 

1,000 

Male 

Female 

160 

800 120 

600 

80 

400 

40 200 

0 0 

80 84 88 92 96 00 04 08 12 80 84 88 92 96 00 04 08 12 

Year Year 

Female 

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

1,600 

Black 

White 

350 

300 

1,200 250 

200 800 

150 

100 400 

50 

0 0 

Amer. Indian 

White 

Asian 

80 84 88 92 96 00 04 08 12 80 84 88 92 96 00 04 08 12 

Year Year 

The Violent Crime Index arrest rate declined considerably for all racial subgroups in the last 

10 years. The relative decline between 2003 and 2012 was greatest for Asian youth (44%), 

followed by American Indian (41%), white (39%), and black (23%) youth. 

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

Census Bureau. (See arrest rate data source note on page 11 for details.) 

nearly two decades. In fact, violent crime for white, black, and American Indian 

arrest rates for each racial group declined youth were at their lowest level since at 

64% or more since the mid-1990s. As a least 1980, and rates for Asian youth were 

result of these declines, the rates in 2012 near their lowest level. 

6 National Report Series Bulletin 
Juvenile property crime arrest rates have fallen 

almost steadily since the mid-1990s 

Property crime arrest 

rates fell in each of the 

past 4 years 

After years of relative stability between 

1980 and the mid-1990s, the juvenile 

Property Crime Index arrest rate began 

a decline that continued annually until 

reaching a then-historic low in 2006, 

down 54% from its 1988 peak. This nearly two-decade decline was interrupted by 

a slight increase over the next 2 years, 

followed by a 31% decline between 2008 

and 2012. As a result, juveniles were less 

likely to be arrested for property crimes in 

2012 than at any point in the past 33 

years. 

Male property crime 

arrest rates declined 

more than female rates 

The male property crime arrest rate has 

generally declined each year since the late 

1980s. In the 10 years since 2003, the 

male rate fell 37%, reaching its lowest 

level in at least three decades. In comparison, the decline in the female rate began 

nearly 10 years after that for males, and 

the relative decline was less for females 

(down 27% since 2003). Unlike the pattern for males, the female rate varied considerably in the past 10 years. However, 

after 3 consecutive years of decline, in 

2012 the female rate reached its lowest 

point since at least 1980. 

Property crime arrest 

rates declined for all 

racial groups 

Similar to the pattern for violent crime, 

property crime arrest rates have declined 

for all racial groups for nearly two decades. As a result, in 2012 the rates for 

youth in each racial group except for 

Asian were at their lowest level since at 

Since 2008, juvenile Property Crime Index arrest rates fell 20% or more for

all demographic groups

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10−17 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Property Crime Index 

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 

Year 

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 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0
 

80 84 88 92 96 00 04
 

Year
 

Male 

Female 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10−17 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0
 

80 84 88 92 96 00 04
 

Year
 

Black 

White 

Female 

08 

08 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

12 80 84 88 92 96 00 04 

Year 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10−17 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

12 80 84 88 92 96 00 04 

Year 

08 12 

08 12 

Amer. Indian 

White 

Asian 

n Larceny-theft accounted for 76% of all juvenile Property Crime Index arrests in 2012. As 

such, the trends in Property Crime Index arrest rates largely reflect the trends in larcenytheft. 

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

Census Bureau. (See arrest rate data source note on page 11 for details.) 

December 2014 7 

least 1980, and rates for Asian youth 

were near their lowest level. The decline 

over the past 10 years was greatest for 

 

American Indian youth (47%), followed 

by Asian (43%), white (40%), and black 

(17%) youth. 
 

In 2012, juvenile arrest rates for all components of 


the Violent Crime Index were at their lowest levels
 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10−17 

Murder 

80 84 88 92 96 00 04 08 12 

Year 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10−17 

80 84 88 92 96 

Year 

00 04 08 12 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10−17 

80 84 88 92 96 

Year 

00 04 08 12 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10−17 

80 84 88 92 96 

Year 

00 04 08 12 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Forcible rape 

0 

40 

80 

120 

160 

200 

Robbery 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

Aggravated assault 

Murder 

n After reaching a peak in 1993, the juvenile arrest rate for murder declined 

substantially through 2000 (down 72%), falling below 4.0 (per 100,000 

juveniles) for the first time in at least two decades. The juvenile murder 

arrest rate was less than 3.0 in the past 2 years. 

n Compared with the previous 20 years, the juvenile murder arrest rate between 2000 and 2012 was historically low and relatively stable. In fact, 

the number of juvenile arrests for murder in 1993 (the peak year for juvenile murder arrests) exceeded the combined total number of such arrests 

in the past 4 years.

Forcible rape 

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

annually from its 1991 peak, falling 66% through 2012. The 2,500 estimated juvenile arrests for forcible rape in 2012 were the fewest such 

arrests in at least three decades. 

n Juveniles accounted for 14% of all forcible rape arrests reported in 2012. 

Nearly two-thirds (63%) of these juvenile arrests involved youth ages 

15–17. Similarly, white youth accounted for 64% of juvenile arrests for 

forcible rape in 2012. Males accounted for the overwhelming majority 

(98%) of juvenile arrests for forcible rape. 

Robbery 

n Similar to other violent crimes, the juvenile robbery arrest rate declined 

steadily from the mid-1990s into the early 2000s. However, unlike the 

other violent crimes, the robbery rate increased between 2004 and 2008. 

The rate has declined each of the past 4 years (down 38%), resting in 

2012 at its lowest point of the 33-year period. 

n Juvenile robbery arrest rates declined for all gender and racial subgroups 

since 2008: 38% for males, 32% for females, 41% for whites, 35% for 

blacks, 24% for Asians, and 8% for American Indians. Rates in 2012 

were at historic lows for males and white youth. 

Aggravated assault 

n After doubling between 1980 and 1994, the juvenile arrest rate for aggravated assault fell substantially and consistently through 2012, down 62% 

from its 1994 peak. As a result of this decline, the rate in 2012 reached 

its lowest point since at least 1980 and was 15% below the previous low 

point in 1983. 

n Aggravated assault rates declined for males and females and all racial 

groups since the mid-1990s. In fact, in 2012 the rates were at their lowest level of the 1980–2012 period for males and for white, black, and 

American Indian youth. 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau. (See arrest rate data source note on page 11 for 

details.) 

8 National Report Series Bulletin 
In 2012, juvenile arrest rates for all offenses in the 

Property Crime Index reached historic lows 

Burglary 

n Unlike the pattern for other property crimes, a steady decline marked 

the trend in the juvenile arrest rate for burglary during the 1980– 

2012 period. The rate in 2012 reached its lowest level of the 33-year 

period, which was 78% below the level in 1980. 

n This large decline in juvenile burglary arrests was not reflected in the 

adult statistics. For example, between 2000 and 2012, the number of 

juvenile burglary arrests fell 44%, while adult burglary arrests 

increased 12%. As a result of this decline, only one-fifth (19%) of all 

burglary arrests in 2012 were juvenile arrests, compared with onethird in 2000. 

Larceny-theft 

n With few exceptions, the juvenile larceny-theft arrest rate declined 

annually over the past two decades, falling 60% since the mid-1990s. 

Following 4 years of decline (down 29% since 2008), in 2012 the 

juvenile arrest rate for larceny-theft was at its lowest level in more 

than three decades and 16% below the previous low point in 2006. 

n In 2012, three-fourths (76%) of all juvenile arrests for Property 

Crime Index offenses were for larceny-theft. As such, juvenile 

Property Crime Index arrest trends largely reflect the pattern of 

larceny-theft arrests (which is dominated by shoplifting—the most 

common larceny-theft offense). 

Motor vehicle theft 

n After reaching a peak in 1989, the juvenile arrest rate for motor 

vehicle theft declined annually for more than 20 years. By 2012, 

the rate was 89% below the 1989 peak. 

n This large decline in motor vehicle arrests was greater for juveniles 

than adults. For both groups, motor vehicle arrests reached a peak 

in 1989; since that time, the number of juvenile arrests for motor 

vehicle theft declined 86%, while adult arrests decreased 59%. 

n In 2012, most (79%) juvenile arrests for motor vehicle theft involved 

youth ages 15–17. 

Arson 

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

for arson 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 63% between 1994 and 2012. 

n Arson is the criminal act with the largest proportion of juvenile 

arrestees—38% in 2012—and most juvenile arrests (59%) involved 

youth younger than 15. In comparison, the juvenile proportion for 

larceny-theft was 17%, and 29% of those involved youth younger 

than 15. 

800 

700 

500 

600 

400 

100 

200 

300 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10−17 

Burglary 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10−17 

80 

0 

84 88 92 96 

Year 

00 04 08 12 

1,800 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Larceny−theft 

80 84 88 92 96 00 

Year 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10−17 

04 08 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

80 

0 

84 88 92 96 00 04 08 12 

Year 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10−17 

Motor vehicle theft 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

80 

Arson 

84 88 92 96 00 04 08 12 

Year 

12 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau. (See arrest rate data source note on page 11 for 

details.) 

December 2014 9 
In 11 states, juvenile arrest rates for both violent 


and property crime were above the U.S. average
 

Among states with at least minimally adequate reporting (above 74%), those with high juvenile violent crime 

arrest rates in 2012 were Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee 

10 National Report Series Bulletin 

Arrests of juveniles under age 18 Arrests of juveniles under age 18 

2012 per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17, 2012 2012 per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17, 2012 

Reporting Violent Property Reporting Violent Property 

population Crime Crime Drug population Crime Crime Drug 

State coverage Index Index abuse Weapon State coverage Index Index abuse Weapon 

U.S. total 84% 187 914 417 72 Missouri 93% 187 1,259 468 61 

Alabama 2 57 698 286 11 Montana 94 113 1,535 406 15 

Alaska 64 246 1,485 622 50 Nebraska 91 115 1,711 719 57 

Arizona 91 152 1,109 653 34 Nevada 100 243 941 405 40 

Arkansas 85 143 1,001 328 44 New Hampshire 88 54 650 543 0 

California 98 225 669 253 123 New Jersey 97 199 523 526 80 

Colorado 91 111 1,108 611 65 New Mexico 85 202 1,278 644 78 

Connecticut 94 162 599 211 45 New York 55 218 1,024 485 56 

Delaware 100 389 1,245 546 73 North Carolina 90 162 969 319 138 

District of Columbia 0 NA NA NA NA North Dakota 98 89 1,343 501 37 

Florida 100 263 1,264 480 56 Ohio 62 100 703 252 43 

Georgia 89 169 927 302 61 Oklahoma 94 130 958 354 49 

Hawaii 11 248 826 880 67 Oregon 93 133 1,215 699 45 

Idaho 99 87 1,198 549 70 Pennsylvania 96 303 770 387 90 

Illinois 22 751 1,395 1,337 291 Rhode Island 99 128 735 407 130 

Indiana 64 160 981 387 45 South Carolina 87 146 911 516 87 

Iowa 88 183 1,347 403 49 South Dakota 90 87 1,495 1,043 60 

Kansas 72 112 809 369 23 Tennessee 91 281 949 431 85 

Kentucky 96 91 562 166 20 Texas 97 121 785 471 29 

Louisiana 50 445 1,385 477 90 Utah 98 76 1,328 492 85 

Maine 100 54 1,133 412 26 Vermont 89 70 391 239 17 

Maryland 91 295 1,100 617 102 Virginia 100 74 620 337 41 

Massachusetts 92 177 305 84 28 Washington 75 163 1,039 399 60 

Michigan 93 135 658 274 53 West Virginia 73 57 323 138 10 

Minnesota 87 114 1,267 525 47 Wisconsin 94 234 1,793 648 143 

Mississippi 51 63 1,004 377 64 Wyoming 90 51 1,264 1,122 66 

NA = Arrest counts were not available for the District of Columbia or Hawaii in the FBI’s Crime in the United States 2012. 

Notes: Arrest rates for jurisdictions with less than complete reporting may not be representative of the entire state. 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. 

Data source: Analysis of arrest data from Crime in the United States 2012 (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013) tables 5 and 69, and population data 

from the National Center for Health Statistics’ Vintage 2013 Postcensal Estimates of the Resident Population of the United States (April 1, 2010, July 1, 2010–July 1, 

2013), by Year, County, Single-Year of Age (0, 1, 2, . . . , 85 Years and Over), Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex [machine-readable data files available online at 

www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm, as of 6/26/14]. 
 

 

 

 

Notes
 

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 10/14/14]; population data for 

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

U.S. Population Estimates by Age, Sex, 

Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 1999 

[machine-readable data files available online, released 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 2010–2012 from the National 

Center for Health Statistics (prepared 

under a collaborative arrangement with 

the U.S. Census Bureau), Vintage 2013 

Postcensal Estimates of the Resident Population of the United States (April 1, 2010, 

July 1, 2010–July 1, 2013), by Year, 

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

85 Years and Over), Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex [machine-readable 

data files available online at www.cdc.gov/ 

nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm, as of 

6/26/14, following release by the U.S. 

Census Bureau of the unbridged vintage 

2013 postcensal estimates by 5-year age 

group on 6/26/14]. 

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 

data for the calendar year. (See Crime in 

the United States 2012 for offense definitions.) The proportion of the U.S. population covered by these reporting agencies 

ranged from 72% to 86% between 1980 

and 2012, with 2012 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 table on page 10 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. 

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. 

December 2014 11 
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

8660 Cherry Lane

Laurel, MD 20707-4651

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP/GPO

PERMIT NO. G – 26

National Report Series Bulletin NCJ 248513

 

 

*NCJ~248513*
 

Acknowledgments

This bulletin was written by Charles 

Puzzanchera, Senior Research 

Associate, at the National Center for 

Juvenile Justice, with funds provided by 

OJJDP to support the National Juvenile 

Justice Data Analysis Program. 

This bulletin was prepared under grant number 

2013–MU–FX–0005 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 Programs, which also includes the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics; the National Institute of 

Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime; and 

the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and 

Tracking.