U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

National 

Report Series 

 December 2011 

Juvenile Arrests 2009 

Charles Puzzanchera and Benjamin Adams 

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 is sues. 

Together, the National Report 

and this series provide a 

baseline of facts for juvenile 

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

A Message From OJJDP 

This bulletin, which draws on data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, 

summarizes crimes known to the police and juvenile arrests made during the 2009 reporting 

year. The authors use the UCR data to characterize the extent and nature of juvenile crime 

that comes to the attention of the justice system. This information also serves as a benchmark for juvenile justice professionals and other concerned citizens who wish to assess 

America’s progress in reducing juvenile delinquency. 

Contrary to the popular perception that juvenile crime is on the rise, the data reported in this 

bulletin tell a different story. As detailed in these pages, juvenile arrests for violent offenses 

declined 10% between 2008 and 2009, and overall juvenile arrests fell 9% during that same 

period. Between 1994—when the Violent Crime Index arrest rates for juveniles hit a historic 

high—and 2009, the rate fell nearly 50% to its lowest level since at least 1980. Arrest rates 

for nearly every offense category for both male and female and white and minority youth 

were down in 2009. 

Although such trends are encouraging, they should not lead to a misplaced sense of complacency. Juvenile crime and violence continue to plague many communities across the country. 

During the first decade of the 21st century (2000–2009), juvenile arrests for robbery rose 

15%, and arrests for murder were unchanged. Clearly, our work is not finished. 

OJJDP hopes that the information that this bulletin provides will inform our efforts to prevent 

and combat juvenile delinquency for the sake of our children and our nation. 

Jeff Slowikowski 

Acting 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: 

Q	 Number of Index crimes reported to 

law enforcement (see sidebar). 

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

Q	 Age, sex, and race of arrestees. 

Q	 Proportion of reported Index crimes 

cleared by arrest and the proportion of 

these Index crimes cleared by the 

arrest of persons younger than 18. 

Q	 Police dispositions of juvenile arrests. 

Q	 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, “juvenile” refers to persons younger 

than age 18. In 2009, this definition was at odds with 

the legal definition of juveniles in 13 states—10 

states where all 17-year-olds are defined as adults 

and 3 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 33,900 arrests of young people 

for weapons law violations in 2009, it 

means that a weapons law violation was 

the most serious charge in these 33,900 

arrests. An unknown number of additional 

arrests in 2009 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 less serious crimes, 

such as shoplifting, theft from motor 

vehicles, and bicycle theft, all of 

which are included in the larcenytheft 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 11% 15% 

Property Crime Index 15 24 

Murder 5 9 

Forcible rape 11 14 

Robbery 15 25 

Aggravated assault 10 12 

Burglary 15 25 

Larceny-theft 18 24 

Motor vehicle theft 15 24 

Arson 35 44 

Data source: Crime in the United States 2009, 

(Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

2010), 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. There is an exception, 

however. Each CIUS report includes one 

table that presents national estimates of 

arrests for 29 offense categories (in recent years, these estimates have been 

presented in table 29). In short, CIUS 

does not include national estimates for 

any subpopulation groups. 

For nearly 2 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. However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

(BJS) recently 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, 1980–2009, 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 15,241 murders were 

reported to law enforcement agencies 

in 2009, or 5.0 murders for every 

100,000 U.S. residents. The murder 

rate was essentially constant between 

1999 (the year with the fewest murders 

in the past three decades) and 2008. 

Prior to 1999, the last year in which the 

murder rate was less than 6.0 was 1966. 

Of all murder victims in 2009, 89% (or 

13,710 victims) were 18 years old or 

older. The other 1,530 murder victims 

were younger than age 18 (i.e., juveniles). The number of juveniles murdered in 2009 was 4% more than the 

average number of juveniles murdered 

in the prior 5-year period and 39% 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 33%. 

Of all juveniles murdered in 2009, 36% 

were younger than age 5, 67% were 

male, and 49% were white. Of all juveniles murdered in 2009, 28% of male 

victims, 53% of female victims, 41% 

of white victims, and 32% of black 

victims were younger than age 5. 

In 2008, 67% of all murder victims 

were killed with a firearm. Adults were 

more likely to be killed with a firearm 

(69%) than were juveniles (51%). 

However, the involvement of a firearm 

depended greatly on the age of the juvenile victim. In 2009, 18% of murdered juveniles younger than age 13 

were killed with a firearm, compared 

with 80% of murdered juveniles age 13 

or older. The most common method of 

murdering children younger than age 5 

was by physical assault: in 48% of 

these murders, the offenders’ only 

weapons were their hands and/or feet, 

compared with only 3% of juvenile victims age 13 or older and 4% of adult 

victims. 

December 2011 3 
Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. made 1.9 


million arrests of persons under age 18 in 2009
 

The number of arrests of juveniles in 2009 was 17% fewer than the number of arrests in 2000 

2009 

estimated number 

of juvenile arrests 

Percent of total juvenile arrests Percent change 

Most serious offense Female 

Younger 

than 15 White 

2000– 

2009 

2005– 

2009 

2008– 

2009 

Total 1,906,600 30% 27% 66% –17% –11% –9% 

Violent Crime Index 85,890 18 26 47 –13 –10 –10 

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 1,170 7 9 40 0 –7 –7 

Forcible rape 3,100 2 32 65 –30 –22 –6 

Robbery 31,700 10 18 31 15 9 –10 

Aggravated assault 49,900 25 30 56 –24 –19 –11 

Property Crime Index 417,700 38 28 64 –19 0 –4 

Burglary 74,800 11 27 61 –21 –4 –10 

Larceny-theft 317,700 45 28 65 –12 8 –1 

Motor vehicle theft 19,900 17 20 54 –61 –47 –20 

Arson 5,300 13 59 77 –37 –33 –17 

Nonindex 

Other assaults 219,700 34 37 59 –6 –12 –5 

Forgery and counterfeiting 2,100 30 13 67 –66 –49 –17 

Fraud 6,200 35 17 62 –62 –21 –15 

Embezzlement 600 42 7 64 –68 –47 –52 

Stolen property (buying, receiving, 

possessing) 18,700 19 22 55 –28 –16 –10 

Vandalism 90,500 14 39 79 –20 –13 –15 

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 33,900 10 31 61 –7 –25 –15 

Prostitution and commercialized vice 1,400 78 12 40 –4 –16 –8 

Sex offense (except forcible rape and 

prostitution) 13,400 11 48 71 –23 –21 –7 

Drug abuse violations 170,300 16 16 72 –14 –12 –5 

Gambling 1,800 3 11 7 67 –13 9 

Offenses against the family and children 4,500 36 28 74 –49 –21 –22 

Driving under the influence 13,500 25 2 92 –37 –25 –15 

Liquor laws 110,300 39 9 89 –15 –11 –15 

Drunkenness 13,800 25 12 88 –37 –13 –11 

Disorderly conduct 170,100 33 36 57 6 –17 –10 

Vagrancy 2,700 28 24 72 –24 –29 –32 

All other offenses (except traffic) 323,300 26 23 69 –17 –12 –10 

Suspicion (not included in totals) 200 22 27 42 –82 –61 –20 

Curfew and loitering 112,600 31 25 61 –27 –20 –15 

Runaways 93,400 55 31 65 –34 –14 –14 

Q In 2009, there were an estimated 317,700 juvenile arrests for larceny-theft. Between 2000 and 2009, the number of such arrests fell by 

12%. 

Q All four offenses that make up the Violent Crime Index decreased in the last year: murder (down 7%), rape (6%), robbery (10%), and 

aggravated assault (11%). 

Q In 2009, females accounted for 18% of juvenile Violent Crime Index arrests, 38% of juvenile Property Crime Index arrests, and 45% of 

juvenile larceny-theft arrests. 

Q 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 2009 (26% and 28%, respectively). 

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, released 9/22/11]. 

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

arrests in 2009 was the lowest in two decades 

Juvenile arrests for 

violence declined in 

2009 for the third 

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 3 years. Given that the number of arrests in 2004 was less than in any year 

since 1987, the number of juvenile Violent 

Crime Index arrests in 2009 was still relatively low. In fact, the number of juvenile 

violent crime arrests in 2009 was less 

than any year in the 1990s, and 14% less 

than the number of such arrests in 2006. 

The number of juvenile arrests in 2009 for 

forcible rape was less than in any year 

since at least 1980, and the number of juvenile aggravated assault arrests in 2009 

was less than in any year since 1987. In 

contrast, after also falling to a relatively 

low level in 2004, juvenile arrests for murder increased each year from 2005 to 

2007, then declined 12% by 2009. However, juvenile arrests for robbery increased 43% from 2002 through 2008, 

then declined 10% by 2009. 

Between 2000 and 2009, the number of 

arrests in most offense categories declined for juveniles but increased for 

adults: 

Percent change 

in arrests 

Most serious 2000–2009 

offense Juvenile Adult 

Violent Crime Index –13% –6% 

Murder 0 –7 

Forcible rape –30 –21 

Robbery 15 21 

Aggravated assault –24 –10 

Property Crime Index –19 19 

Burglary –21 15 

Larceny-theft –12 27 

Motor vehicle theft –61 –37 

Simple assault –6 2 

Weapons law violations –7 8 

Drug abuse violations –14 8 

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

Analysis Tool [online, released 9/22/11]. 

Juvenile property crime 

arrests declined in 2009 

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 2009, the number of juvenile 

Property Crime Index arrests fell 4%, returning to the 2007 level. Between 2008 

and 2009, there were declines in juvenile 

arrests for individual property offenses: 

burglary (10%), larceny-theft (1%), motor 

vehicle theft (20%), and arson (17%). 

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 2009, 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, 67% were referred to juvenile 

court, and 9% were referred directly to 

criminal court. The others were referred 

to a welfare agency or to another police 

agency. 

In 2009, the proportion of juvenile arrests sent to juvenile court in cities with 

a population of more than 250,000 was 

the same as the proportion sent to juvenile court in smaller cities (67% each). 

Data source: Crime in the United States 2009 (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010), 

table 68. 

December 2011 5 
Female and minority proportions of juvenile arrests 


increased for many offenses between 2000 and 2009
 

In 2009, females 

accounted for 30% 

of juvenile arrests 

Law enforcement agencies made 578,500 

arrests of females younger than age 18 in 

2009. From 2000 through 2009, arrests 

of juvenile females decreased less than 

male arrests in several offense categories 

(e.g., aggravated assault, vandalism, and 

drug abuse violations); in some categories (e.g., simple assault, larceny-theft, 

and disorderly conduct), female arrests 

increased while male arrests decreased. 

Percent change in 

juvenile arrests 

Most serious 2000–2009

offense Female Male 

Violent Crime Index –13% –13% 

Robbery 26 14 

Aggravated assault –20 –26 

Simple assault 4 –11 

Property Crime Index 3 –28 

Burglary –21 –22 

Larceny-theft 9 –25 

Motor vehicle theft –60 –61 

Vandalism –13 –21 

Weapons –8 –7 

Drug abuse violations –7 –15 

Liquor law violations 5 –24 

Driving under influence –9 –42 

Disorderly conduct 25 –2 

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

Analysis Tool [online, released 9/22/11]. 

Gender differences also occurred in the 

assault arrest trends for adults. Between 

2000 and 2009, adult male arrests for aggravated assault fell 12% while female arrests fell 1%. Similarly, adult male arrests 

for simple assault fell 2% between 2000 

and 2009 while adult female arrests rose 

17%. 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 2000 

and 2009, the number of larceny-theft arrests of juvenile females grew 9% while 

juvenile male arrests declined 25%, and 

adult female arrests grew more than adult 

male arrests (54% and 12%, respectively). For Property Crime Index offenses, 

juvenile arrests declined for males and 

increased for females between 2000 and 

2009, and adult arrests increased less for 

males (6%) than for females (49%). 

Juvenile arrests 

disproportionately 

involved minorities 

The racial composition of the U.S. juvenile 

population ages 10–17 in 2009 was 77% 

white, 16% black, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian. Most juveniles of Hispanic ethnicity were included 

in the white racial category. Of all juvenile 

arrests for violent crimes in 2009, 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 2009 

Murder 58% 

Forcible rape 33 

Robbery 67 

Aggravated assault 42 

Simple assault 39 

Burglary 37 

Larceny-theft 32 

Motor vehicle theft 43 

Weapons 37 

Drug abuse violations 25 

Vandalism 19 

Liquor laws 6 

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

Analysis Tool [online, released 9/22/11]. 

One in nine violent crimes cleared was attributed to juveniles 

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 2009, 17% of Property Crime Index 

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

juvenile. This was 1 percentage point 

less than the level in 2008; the level in 

2009 was the lowest 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 2000. 

6 National Report Series Bulletin 
In 2009, juveniles were involved in about 1 in 10 arrests for murder and about 1 in 4 arrests for robbery, 

burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and disorderly conduct 

Juvenile arrests as a percentage of total arrests 

Most serious offense 

All 

persons Males Females Whites Blacks 

American 

Indians Asians 

Total 13% 12% 15% 12% 14% 11% 15% 

Violent Crime Index 15 15 14 12 20 10 15 

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 9 10 7 8 11 8 8 

Forcible rape 15 14 21 14 15 10 12 

Robbery 25 26 21 18 30 15 30 

Aggravated assault 12 11 13 10 15 9 12 

Property Crime Index 24 24 24 23 27 22 32 

Burglary 25 26 19 23 30 26 26 

Larceny-theft 24 23 25 23 26 22 32 

Motor vehicle theft 24 25 23 21 29 29 25 

Arson 44 46 34 45 40 48 53 

Nonindex 

Other assaults 17 15 22 15 20 12 15 

Forgery and counterfeiting 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 

Fraud 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 

Embezzlement 3 4 3 3 4 1 5 

Stolen property (buying, receiving, 

possessing) 18 18 16 15 22 17 19 

Vandalism 33 35 25 35 28 25 36 

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 20 20 26 21 19 22 27 

Prostitution and commercialized vice 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 

Sex offense (except forcible rape and 

prostitution) 17 17 21 17 19 13 17 

Drug abuse violations 10 11 9 11 8 15 16 

Gambling 17 19 4 4 23 0 3 

Offenses against the family and children 4 3 6 4 3 3 3 

Driving under the influence 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

Liquor laws 19 17 26 21 10 19 19 

Drunkenness 2 2 4 2 1 3 3 

Disorderly conduct 26 24 32 23 32 16 26 

Vagrancy 8 7 11 11 5 2 8 

All other offenses (except traffic) 9 8 10 9 8 7 12 

Suspicion (not included in totals) 11 12 9 11 12 0 14 

Q Juvenile females accounted for more than one-fifth (22%) of all simple assault arrests involving females in 2009, while male juveniles 

accounted for 15% of all simple assault arrests involving males. 

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

Q Overall, in 2009, 12% of white arrests and 14% 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., arson, 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, released 9/22/11]. 

December 2011 7 
The juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate reached 

a historic low in 2009 

Violent crime arrest 

Following a 12% decline since 2006, the 2009 Violent Crime Index rate rates declined after 1994 reached its lowest level since at least 1980 

Between 1980 and 1987, the juvenile 

Violent Crime Index arrest rate (i.e., the 500 number of arrests per 100,000 juveniles 

in the population) was essentially con­ 400 

stant. After these years of stability, the 

rate grew by nearly 70% in the 7-year 300 

period between 1987 and 1994. This 

rapid growth led to speculation about 200 

changes in the nature of juvenile offenders—concerns that spurred state legisla- 100 

tors to pass laws that facilitated an 

0 increase in the flow of youth into the adult 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 

justice system. After 1994, however, the Year 

violent crime arrest rate fell. Between 

1994 and 2009, the rate fell nearly 50% Violent Crime Index arrest rate trends by gender and race 

to its lowest level since at least 1980. 

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

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

Violent Crime Index 

Female violent crime 

arrest rates remain 

relatively high 400 

600 

800 

1,000 

In 1980, the juvenile male violent crime 

arrest rate was 8 times greater than the 

female rate. By 2009, the male rate was 

81 0 

200 

85 89 93 97 

Year 

01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 

Year 

01 05 09 

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

Male 

Female 

0 

40 

80 

120 

160 

Female 

2,000 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 in800 creased 60%, while the female rate increased 132%. By 2009, the male rate 400 

had dropped to 19% below its 1980 level, 0 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 

while the female violent crime arrest rate Year Year 

was still 57% above its 1980 level. 

Q The Violent Crime Index arrest rate in 2009 for black juveniles was 5 times the rate for white 

juveniles, 6 times the rate for American Indian juveniles, and 13 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 

Black 

White 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

White 

Amer. Indian 

Asian 

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 2009 for all racial groups: Asian (65%), American Indian (52%), white (48%), and black (48%) 

youth. 

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

relatively constant during the 2000s 

The 2009 murder arrest 


rate was the lowest 


since 2004 


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 2009 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 number of such arrests for all of the 

past decade. 

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 

65% since their respective peaks so that, 

by 2009, 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 about 8-to-1 in 1994, reflecting 

the greater increase in the black rate over 

this period—the white rate increased 53% 

while the black rate increased more than 

Following a 10% decline in the previous 2 years, the 2009 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 

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09
 

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 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year Year
 

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

Black 

White 

7
 

6
 

60
 

50
 

5
 40
 

4
 

30
 3
 

20
 2
 

10
 1
 

0
 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year Year
 

0 

White 

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.) 

170%. Since their 1994 peak, both rates constant while the rate for black youth 

fell through 2000, with the black rate increased 10%. As a result, the black-tofalling considerably more. During the past white ratio of juvenile arrest rates for 

decade, the white rate remained relatively murder in 2009 approached 7-to-1. 

December 2011 9 
The juvenile arrest rate for forcible rape in 2009 

was half its 1991 peak 

The 2009 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 

2009 that was 58% below the 1991 peak. 

In fact, the 3,100 estimated juvenile arrests for forcible rape in 2009 were the 

fewest such arrests in at least three 

decades. 

Juveniles accounted for 15% of all forcible rape arrests reported in 2009. More 

than two-thirds (68%) 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 74% by 2009. In contrast to 

the rate for whites, the forcible rape arrest 

rate for black juveniles in 2009 was less 

than half 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 

2009, the rate declined 50%, returning to 

the level where it began 30 years earlier, 

just 1% above its 1980 level. By 2009, the 

black-to-white ratio of juvenile arrest rates 

for forcible rape was less than 3-to-1, 

compared to 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 2009 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Forcible rape 

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 

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 

Male 

Female 

1.0 

40 0.8 

30 0.6 

20 0.4 

10 0.2 

0 0 

Female 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 

Year Year 

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

80 

Black 

White 

25 

20 60 

15
 

40
 

10
 

20 5 

0 0 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 

Year Year 

White 

Amer. Indian 

Asian 

Q Black youth accounted for one-third of all juvenile arrests for forcible rape in 2009, and white 

youth accounted for nearly two-thirds (65%). 

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 increased 

since a 2002 low 

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 46%). Despite the decline over 


the previous year (down 9%), the rate in 


2009 was 32% 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 (45% for males 

and 54% for females). Despite the decline 

over the previous year, the rates for both 

groups in 2009 were well 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 2009 were 

above the 2004 level for American Indian 

youth (57%), black youth (38%), and 

white youth (17%) and slightly below the 

2004 level for Asian youth (2%). 

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
 

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09
 

Year
 

Robbery arrest rate trends by gender and race 

Robbery 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

350
 

300
 

250
 

200
 

150
 

100
 

50
 

0
 

Male 

Female 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

35
 

30
 

25
 

20
 

15
 

10
 

5
 

0
 

Female 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

800
 

600
 

400
 

200
 

0
 

Black 

White 

Year 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

100
 

80
 

60
 

40
 

20
 

0
 

White 

Amer. 

Indian 

Asian 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year Year
 

Q The racial disparity in juvenile arrest rates for robbery was quite large in 2009. Specifically, 

the rate for black youth was 10 times the rate for white youth, 12 times the rate for American 

Indian youth, and 16 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 2011 11 
The 2009 juvenile arrest rate for aggravated assault 

was at its lowest since the mid-1980s 

The juvenile aggravated On average, the juvenile arrest rate for aggravated assault declined 4% assault arrest rate fell each year since 1994 46% since its 1994 peak 

The juvenile arrest rate for aggravated as­ 300 

sault doubled between 1980 and 1994 

and then fell substantially and consistently 250 

through 2009, down 46% from its 1994 200 peak. As a result of this decline, the rate 

in 2009 returned to the level of the mid- 150 

1980s, resting at a rate 18% 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 2009 above the levels of the 1980s. 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 

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 

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 mid­ 200 

1990s for males while the female rate 

100 

increased by more than 170%. Since the 0 

mid-1990s peak, the rates for both groups 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09

Year Year 

declined through 2009, but the relative 

Male 

Female 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

Female 

decline was greater for males (48%) than 

for females (31%). As a result, in 2009, 

the juvenile male arrest rate was just 4% 

above its 1980 level, and the female rate 

was 91% above its 1980 rate. The disproportionate increase in female arrest rates 

for aggravated assault compared with 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 

Year	 Year male rates indicates that factors that impinged differently on females and males Q 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 2009, 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 

for all racial groups since the mid 1990s, 

rates in 2009 for white and black youth 

The period from 1980 through 1994 saw (126%), white (97%), and American Indi­ remained above their 1980 levels. 

substantial increases in aggravated an (73%). Although rates have declined 

12 National Report Series Bulletin 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

Black 

White 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

White 

Amer. Indian 

Asian 
The juvenile arrest rate for property crimes in 2009 

was just half of its peak 

After 1994, juvenile 

property crime arrest 

rates fell continuously 

for more than a decade 

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 historic low in 

2006, down 53% from its 1988 peak. This 

nearly two-decade decline was followed 

by an 11% increase over the next 2 years, 

and then a 3% decline between 2008 and 

2009. As a result, juveniles were far less 

likely to be arrested for property crimes in 

2009 than they were 30 years earlier. 

Female property crime 

arrest rates increased 

each year since 2006 

In 1980, the juvenile male arrest rate for 

Property Crime Index offenses was 4 

times the female rate; by 2009, the male 

rate was about 60% above the female 

rate. These two rates converged in large 

part because the female rate increased 

26% since 2006 whereas the male rate 

declined 2%. 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. 

Despite recent increases for all racial 

groups, the Property Crime Index arrest 

rates in 2009 were far below their 1994 

level for Asian (62% below the 1994 

level), American Indian (57%), white 

(52%), and black juveniles (41%). In the 

30 years from 1980 to 2009, the black 

The juvenile Property Crime Index arrest rate fell 3% between 2008 and 

2009, reversing the increase that began in 2006 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
 

3,000
 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 

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
 

200
 

0
 

1,000 

0 

Female 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 

Year Year 

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

5,000 

Black 

White 

3,000 

4,000 2,500

2,000 3,000 

1,500 

2,000 1,000 

1,000 500 

0 0 

White 

Amer. Indian 

Asian 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 

Year Year 

Q In 2009, for every 100,000 youth in the United States ages 10–17, there were 1,272 arrests 

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

larceny-theft, which in 2009 contributed 76% 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.) 

youth arrest rate for property crimes aver- smaller than the black-white disparity in 

aged twice the white youth rate, much juvenile arrest rates for violent crimes. 

December 2011 13 
The juvenile arrest rate for burglary has stabilized 

after nearly three decades of decline 

Juvenile arrests for 

burglary fell more 

than adult arrests 

In 2009, the juvenile arrest rate for burglary reached its lowest point in the past 

30 years, one-third of its 1980 level. This 

large fall in juvenile burglary arrests from 

1980 through 2009 was not replicated in 

the adult statistics. For example, between 

2000 and 2009, the number of juvenile 

burglary arrests fell 21% while adult burglary arrests increased 15%. In 1980, 

45% of all burglary arrests were arrests of 

a juvenile; in 2009, reflecting the greater 

decline in juvenile arrests, just 25% of 

burglary arrests were juvenile arrests. 

Juvenile female arrest 

rates for burglary 

declined less than 

male rates 

The substantial decline in the juvenile burglary arrest rate was primarily the result 

of a decline in juvenile male arrests. In 

1980, 6% of juveniles arrested for burglary were female; by 2009, 11% were female. Between 1980 and 2009, the male 

rate fell 71% while the female rate 

dropped 43%. The rate for males reached 

a low point in 2005, increased through 

2008 (8%), and then fell 9% in 2009 to its 

lowest level since at least 1980. For females, the rate also increased (16%) between 2005 and 2008 and then fell (13%) 

in 2009. 

White rates continued to fall 

as black rates increased in 

recent years 

Between 1980 and 2009, the juvenile burglary arrest rate declined for all racial 

groups: 86% for Asians, 79% for American Indians, 73% for whites, and 60% for 

Unique in the set of property crime offenses, the juvenile arrest rate for 


burglary declined almost consistently and fell 69% between 1980 and 2009
 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
 

800
 

700
 

600
 

500
 

400
 

300
 

200
 

100
 

0
 

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09
 

Year
 

Burglary arrest rate trends by gender and race 

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

1,400 

Male 

Female 

100
 

1,200
 80
 

1,000
 

800
 60
 

600
 40
 

400
 

20
 200
 

0
 0 

Female 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year Year
 

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

Black 

White 

700
 

1,200
 

1,400 

600
 

1,000
 500
 

800
 400
 

600
 300
 

400
 200
 

200
 100
 

0
 0 

White 

Amer. Indian 

Asian 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year Year
 

Q The gender disparity in juvenile burglary arrest rates has diminished over the past 30 years. 

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

2009, 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.) 

Burglary 

blacks. As a result, rates for Asian, Ameri- 30-year period in 2004, the burglary arcan Indian, and white youth in 2009 were rest rate for black juveniles increased 29% 


at their lowest levels of the 30-year peri- through 2009.
 

od. Since falling to its lowest level of the 


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

larceny-theft remain low 

Juvenile larceny-theft 

rates fell dramatically 

in the late 1990s 

The juvenile arrest rate for larceny-theft 

generally increased between 1980 and the 

mid-1990s and then fell 51% between 

1994 and 2006, reaching its lowest point 

since 1980. This decline reversed in 2007, 

as the juvenile arrest rate for larceny-theft 

increased 19% between 2006 and 2009. 

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 2009, this 

proportion had grown to 45%. Although 

larceny-theft arrest rates dropped for male 

and female juveniles in the late 1990s, the 

prior increases for females resulted in 

their 2006 rate being just 9% below their 

1980 rate, whereas the 2006 rate for 

males was 54% below their 1980 rate. 

These decade-long declines were followed 

by larger relative increases for females 

(33%) than males (9%) over the next 3 

years. 

Larceny-theft rates for 

all racial groups reached 

historic lows in 2006 

The decline in the juvenile arrest rate for 

larceny-theft between 1994 and 2006 was 

similar in each of the four racial groups: 

63% for Asians, 59% for American Indians, 52% for whites, and 50% for blacks. 

However, arrest rates for larceny-theft 

increased for all racial groups between 

2006 and 2009: 31% for blacks, 21% for 

The longstanding decline in the juvenile arrest rate for larceny-theft 

reversed between 2006 and 2009, as the rate increased 19% 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

1,800 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 

Year 

Larceny-theft arrest rate trends by gender and race 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 2,500 

Male 

Female 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

2,000 

1,500 

600 

1,000 

400 

500 200
 

0
 0 

Female 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 

Year Year 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 3,000 

Black 

White 

2,000 

2,500 1,600 

2,000 1,200 

1,500 

800 1,000 

500 400 

0 0 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 

Year Year 

White 

Amer. Indian 

Asian 

Q 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 2009, 1 in 6 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.) 

Larceny-theft 

American Indians, 17% for Asians, and greater than the white juvenile rate, equiv13% for whites. In 2009, the black juve- alent to the 1982 peak in black-white disnile larceny-theft arrest rate was 2.3 times parity for larceny-theft. 

December 2011 15 
The motor vehicle theft arrest rate for juveniles was 


at a 30-year low in 2009
 

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 1999. In 2009, the juvenile arrest rate for motor vehicle theft was lower 

than in any year in the 30-year period, 

82% below its peak level. This large decline in juvenile arrests outpaced declines 

in adult statistics. Between 2000 and 

2009, the number of juvenile motor vehicle theft arrests fell 61%, and adult motor 

vehicle theft arrests decreased 37%. 

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 2009, the male and female rates 

reached their lowest level in the past 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 2009, motor vehicle theft arrest 

rates were at or near their lowest level 

since at least 1980 for all race groups. 

Between 1989 and 2009, the juvenile arrest rate for motor vehicle theft fell 


82%, so that the rate in 2009 was at its lowest level since 1980
 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
 

350
 

300
 

250
 

200
 

150
 

100
 

50
 

0
 

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09
 

Year
 

Motor vehicle theft 

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 

Male 

Female 

100
 

600
 

700
 

80
 

500
 

400
 60
 

300
 40
 

200
 

20
 100
 

0
 0
 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year Year
 

Female 

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

Black 

White 

350
 

300
 

1,000 

800
 

250
 

600
 200
 

150
 400
 

100
 

200
 50
 

0
 0
 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year Year
 

White Amer. Indian 

Asian 

Q 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 
Nearly half of all persons arrested for arson in 2009 


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

Arson is the criminal 

act with the largest 

proportion of juvenile 

arrestees 

In 2009, 44% of all arson arrests were arrests of juveniles, and most of these juvenile arrests (59%) involved youth younger 

than 15. In comparison, 24% of all larcenytheft arrests in 2009 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 30 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 54% through 

2009. 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 (55% 

and 51%, respectively). However, because 

of the greater increase in the female rate, 

these declines left the female rate in 2009 

18% below its 1980 level, and the male 

rate was 37% 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 2009, 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 were essenFollowing a 32% decline between 2006 and 2009, the juvenile arrest rate 

for arson in 2009 reached a historic low 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

35
 

30
 

25
 

20
 

15
 

10
 

5
 

0
 

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09
 

Year
 

Arson 

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 

60
 10


50
 8
 

40
 6
 

30
 

4
 

20
 

2
 10
 

0
 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year Year
 

0 

Female 

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

Black 

White 

50
 40


40
 30
 

30
 

20
 

20
 

10
 10
 

0
 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year Year
 

0 

White 

Amer. Indian 

Asian 

Q Between 1980 and 2009, 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 30-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.) 

tially equal for most years between 1980 however, both groups ended the 30-year 


and 1992. After 1992, the black period at their lowest rates. 


rate rose to slightly above the white rate; 


December 2011 17 
The juvenile arrest rate for simple assault in 2009 

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 2006. Following the decline over 

the past 3 years, the 2009 rate was 13% 

below the 1997 peak. Unlike the trend for 

simple assault, the juvenile aggravated assault arrest rate declined steadily between 

1994 and 2009, falling 46%. 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 2009, 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 17% in 2009. 

Growth in the female 

arrest rate for simple 

assault outpaced the 

male rate 

As with aggravated assault, between 1980 

and 2009, the increase in the juvenile female arrest rate for simple assault far outpaced the increase in the male rate (295% 

vs. 100%). As a result, the female proportion of juvenile arrests for simple assault 

grew from 21% to 34%. During that period, simple assault arrest rates increased 

substantially for white (123%), black 

(160%), and American Indian (98%) 

youth, with rates for Asian youth declining 

3% over the 30-year period. These increases were greater than the corresponding increases in aggravated assault rates. 

The juvenile arrest rate for simple assault declined for the third 

consecutive year—down 9% since 2006 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17 

800
 

700
 

600
 

500
 

400
 

300
 

200
 

100
 

0 

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 

Year 

Other (simple) assault 

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 

600 

1,000 

1,200 

500
 

800
 400
 

600
 300
 

400
 200
 

200
 100
 

0
 0 

Female 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 

Year Year 

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 

White 

Amer. Indian 

Asian 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 

Year Year 

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

2009 (by 10% and 8%, respectively). 

Q In 2009, the ratio of simple to aggravated assault arrests of juveniles varied across gender 

and racial groups: male (3.8-to-1), female (6.1-to-1), white (4.7-to-1), black (4.1-to-1), 

American Indian (4.4-to-1), and Asian (4.0-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 to 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 2009 was 

half its 1994 peak 

Between 1980 and 1994, the juvenile arrest rate for weapons law violations increased more than 146%. Then the rate 

fell substantially, so that by 2002 the rate 

was just 22% more than the 1980 level. 

However, between 2002 and 2006, the juvenile weapons arrest rate grew 34% and 

then fell 26% through 2009. As a result, 

the rate in 2009 was 20% above the 1980 

level and 51% 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 


(52% for males and 31% for females), increased through 2006 and then fell 


through 2009. 


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 1983 and the peak year 

was the greatest for American Indian juveniles (273%), followed by Asians (213%), 

blacks (179%), and whites (134%). 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 

2009. Despite recent declines, the 2009 

arrest rates were still moderately above 

their 1980 levels for male (14%) and 

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


consecutive year, falling 26% since 2006
 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
 

250
 

200
 

150
 

100
 

50
 

0
 

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09
 

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 

Male 

Female 

35
 

30
 

300
 

400
 

25
 

20
 

200
 15
 

10
 100
 

5
 

0 0

Female 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year Year
 

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

Black 

White 

500
 200


400
 160


300
 120


200
 80


100
 40


0
 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year Year
 

0 

White 

Amer. Indian 

Asian 

Q 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 2009, 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.) 

white (10%) juveniles, and substantially actually below their 1980 levels for 


above their 1980 levels for female (123%) American Indian and Asian youth (by 18% 


and black (49%) juveniles. In 2009, arrest and 39%, respectively).
 

rates for weapons law violations were 


December 2011 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 24% 

between 1997 and 2009, but the 2009 

rate was 81% 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 2009, 

the drug abuse arrest rate for males declined 26% from its 1996 peak, whereas 

the rate for females was just 9% below its 

1996 level. For both groups, the arrest 

rates in 2009 were considerably above the 

rates in 1980 (47% for males and 38% 

for females). Between 1980 and 2009, the 

juvenile drug arrest rate for whites peaked 

in 1997 and then remained relatively constant through 2009 (down 15%). 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 2009
 

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
 

700
 

600
 

500
 

400
 

300
 

200
 

100
 

0
 

81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09
 

Year
 

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 

Male 

Female 

1,400 250


1,200 200
 

1,000
 

150
 800
 

600
 100
 

400
 

50
 200
 

0
 0
 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

Year Year
 

Female 

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

1,600 600
 

500
 

1,200
 

400
 

800
 300
 

200
 

400
 

100
 

0 0
 

81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 09
 

White 

Amer. Indian 

Asian 

Year Year 

Q 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. 

Q Despite recent declines, rates for all racial groups in 2009 remained well above their 1980 


rates: white (32%), black (140%), American Indian (78%), and Asian (24%).
 

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.) 

Drug abuse 

Black 

White 

and then fell 40% by 2002. Despite a re- 2006—the rate fell 22% through 2009 


cent increase—15% between 2002 and and was 46% less than the 1996 peak. 


20 National Report Series Bulletin 
In 2009, about one-fourth of the 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 

2009 were California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, and Pennsylvania 

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% 274 102 159 684 103 Missouri 93% 286 85 183 1,034 103 

Alabama 78 158 86 60 466 31 Montana 93 127 11 109 645 14 

Alaska 98 259 48 203 466 50 Nebraska 89 159 60 84 1,172 78 

Arizona 99 189 52 131 684 55 Nevada 96 361 158 192 995 134 

Arkansas 85 133 24 95 601 54 New Hampshire 88 75 15 58 889 12 

California 99 372 153 208 466 174 New Jersey 98 312 159 141 417 147 

Colorado 90 176 44 113 431 102 New Mexico 76 253 18 221 800 122 

Connecticut 100 310 87 214 1,061 77 New York 55 239 107 124 440 60 

Delaware 100 553 194 329 1,609 152 North Carolina 74 266 102 153 803 175 

Dist. of Columbia 0 NA NA NA NA NA North Dakota 95 95 8 60 717 47 

Florida 100 407 148 245 838 82 Ohio 70 145 86 46 768 62 

Georgia 69 286 87 186 705 140 Oklahoma 96 174 46 113 333 74 

Hawaii 89 222 104 102 858 29 Oregon 94 150 46 97 493 60 

Idaho 98 117 6 96 635 78 Pennsylvania 94 373 140 213 605 103 

Illinois 23 924 405 475 1,415 291 Rhode Island 97 191 97 78 688 167 

Indiana 73 231 66 159 959 58 South Carolina 96 241 64 161 722 118 

Iowa 92 235 36 190 783 38 South Dakota 83 77 6 60 692 90 

Kansas 64 145 25 105 584 51 Tennessee 78 313 99 193 1,111 130 

Kentucky 53 176 80 86 455 40 Texas 98 174 57 105 828 51 

Louisiana 54 627 87 518 1,170 95 Utah 99 105 22 65 675 112 

Maine 100 57 14 27 699 37 Vermont 97 73 8 51 424 25 

Maryland 100 537 293 228 1,149 179 Virginia 95 103 39 57 594 52 

Massachusetts 93 291 79 206 410 39 Washington 73 240 89 129 752 100 

Michigan 96 200 63 124 393 68 West Virginia 51 63 20 36 368 23 

Minnesota 97 187 67 117 614 114 Wisconsin 95 245 88 130 591 195 

Mississippi 55 136 75 52 889 130 Wyoming 99 85 0 65 1,203 63 

NA = Arrest counts were not available for this state in the 

FBI’s Crime in the United States 2009. 

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 2009 (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, 2010) tables 5 and 69, and population data 

from the National Center for Health Statistics’ Estimates 

of the July 1, 2000–July 1, 2009, United States Resident 

Population From the Vintage 2009 Postcensal Series by Year, 

County, Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin [machinereadable data files available online at www.cdc.gov/nchs/ 

nvss/bridged_race.htm, released 7/23/10]. 

0 to 150 (15 states) 

150 to 225 (12 states) 

225 to 350 (15 states) 

350 or above (7 states) 

Data not available (2 states) 

2009 Violent Crime 

Index arrests per 100,000 

juveniles ages 10–17 

DC 

December 2011 21 
High juvenile property crime arrest rates in 2009 did
 

not necessarily mean high violent crime arrest rates
 

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

in 2009 were Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 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% 1,336 249 1,008 63 269 Missouri 93% 1,918 305 1,483 111 302 

Alabama 78 951 193 729 24 59 Montana 93 1,681 74 1,483 104 418 

Alaska 98 1,390 110 1,167 74 179 Nebraska 89 2,153 176 1,878 67 680 

Arizona 99 1,542 194 1,267 64 481 Nevada 96 1,690 298 1,318 53 557 

Arkansas 85 1,258 217 1,013 24 121 New Hampshire 88 940 127 762 30 308 

California 99 1,065 342 633 74 341 New Jersey 98 911 170 698 24 278 

Colorado 90 1,660 178 1,381 68 340 New Mexico 76 1,589 170 1,328 66 194 

Connecticut 100 1,082 152 862 57 212 New York 55 1,079 183 841 44 339 

Delaware 100 1,824 317 1,428 47 369 North Carolina 74 1,439 398 997 29 235 

Dist. of Columbia 0 NA NA NA NA NA North Dakota 95 2,115 181 1,775 149 477 

Florida 100 1,851 503 1,244 94 129 Ohio 70 1,001 180 758 48 216 

Georgia 69 1,441 314 1,030 88 115 Oklahoma 96 1,482 224 1,187 41 120 

Hawaii 89 1,598 122 1,364 100 316 Oregon 94 1,683 175 1,421 49 410 

Idaho 98 1,664 205 1,374 52 307 Pennsylvania 94 988 151 761 53 320 

Illinois 23 1,732 350 978 398 464 Rhode Island 97 1,108 202 829 38 344 

Indiana 73 1,574 245 1,239 74 193 South Carolina 96 1,176 248 889 29 169 

Iowa 92 1,751 228 1,450 58 487 South Dakota 83 1,960 114 1,771 64 306 

Kansas 64 1,198 126 1,017 39 199 Tennessee 78 1,480 285 1,120 63 274 

Kentucky 53 1,112 209 858 33 79 Texas 98 1,198 186 969 34 195 

Louisiana 54 1,749 328 1,346 61 208 Utah 99 1,961 116 1,781 44 515 

Maine 100 1,478 251 1,144 59 368 Vermont 97 599 132 413 39 194 

Maryland 100 1,834 308 1,323 158 272 Virginia 95 869 127 703 24 157 

Massachusetts 93 556 115 417 18 133 Washington 73 1,517 243 1,181 67 333 

Michigan 96 1,022 165 781 66 104 West Virginia 51 707 68 602 34 100 

Minnesota 97 1,894 167 1,653 53 314 Wisconsin 95 2,429 282 2,044 88 600 

Mississippi 55 1,582 421 1,123 22 126 Wyoming 99 1,813 128 1,577 90 426 

NA = Arrest counts were not available for this state in the 

FBI’s Crime in the United States 2009. 

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 2009 (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, 2010) tables 5 and 69, and population data 

from the National Center for Health Statistics’ Estimates 

of the July 1, 2000–July 1, 2009, United States Resident 

Population From the Vintage 2009 Postcensal Series by Year, 

County, Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin [machinereadable data files available online at www.cdc.gov/nchs/ 

nvss/bridged_race.htm, released 7/23/10]. 

0 to 1,200 (18 states) 

1,200 to 1,600 (13 states) 

1,600 to 2,000 (15 states) 

2,000 or above (3 states) 

Data not available (2 states) 

2009 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, 

released 9/22/11]; 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 [machine-readable data files available online 

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

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

data for 2000–2009 from the National 

Center for Health Statistics (prepared 

under a collaborative arrangement with 

the U.S. Census Bureau), Estimates of the 

July 1, 2000–July 1, 2009, United States 

Resident Population From the Vintage 

2009 Postcensal Series by Year, County, 

Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin [machine-readable data files available online 

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

htm, released 7/23/10]. 

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 2009 for offense definitions.) The proportion of the U.S. population covered by these reporting agencies 

ranged from 63% to 94% between 1980 

and 2009, with 2009 coverage of 80%. 

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. 

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 (80%) 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 2011 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 236477 

Acknowledgments 

This bulletin was written by Charles 

Puzzanchera, Senior Research 

Associate, and Benjamin Adams, 

Research Associate, with assistance 

from Melissa Sickmund, Ph.D., Chief of 

Systems Research, at the National 

Center for Juvenile Justice, with funds 

provided by OJJDP to support the 

National Juvenile Justice Data Analysis 

Project. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, specifically 

Howard Snyder, Ph.D., BJS Statistician. 

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 authors and do not 

necessarily represent the official position or 

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of 

Justice. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention is a component of the Office of 

Justice 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.