DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03598.v1
title: Patterns of Juvenile Delinquency and Co-Offending in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1976-1994
title: Version 1

description: In an attempt to inform and advance the literature on co-offending, this study tracked through time the patterns of criminal behavior among a sample of offenders and their accomplices. This study consists of a random sample of 400 offenders selected from all official records of arrest (N=60,821) for offenders under age 18 in Philadelphia in 1987. Half of the offenders selected committed a crime alone and half committed a crime with an accomplice. Criminal history data from January 1976 to December 1994 were gathered for all offenders in the sample and their accomplices.
description: Juveniles who commit crimes typically commit them in the company of their peers. Although this basic fact has been regularly reported in the literature, research focuses almost exclusively on juvenile delinquents as individual actors. In an attempt to inform and advance the literature on co-offending, this study tracked through time the patterns of criminal behavior among a sample of offenders and their accomplices. This study sought to answer three main research questions: (1) How is co-offending related to the age of offenders? (2) How is co-offending related to recidivism? and (3) How is co-offending related to violence?
description: This study consists of a random sample of 400 offenders selected from all official records of arrest (N=60,821) for offenders under age 18 in Philadelphia in 1987. Half of the offenders selected committed a crime alone and half committed a crime with an accomplice. Criminal history data were gathered for all offenders in the sample and their accomplices. Relying on the 1987 crime as a point of reference, all crimes committed by offenders between January 1976 and December 1994 were reviewed to assure complete coverage of juvenile records. In addition, accomplices were traced for the 353 randomly selected offenders who had committed at least one co-offense. The principal investigator planned to use police tapes to match offenders to offenses, but the tapes were missing too much data. Instead, data were collected from court folders, which contained witness, complainant, police, and co-offender reports. A second source of data was rap sheets, which provided information about crimes processed by the adult court system.
description: Variables include the birth date of the offender, date of crime, most severe charge, number of offenders, offender's age at each crime, whether a violent crime was committed, dispositions, number of victims, demographic characteristics of oldest and youngest victims, criminal history of accomplices, number of juvenile and adult crimes committed after first co-offending crime, types of crimes committed after first co-offending crime, and the district in which the crime occurred. Demographic variables include the gender, race, and age of the offenders.
description: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
description: Presence of Common Scales: None.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Datasets: 
 
 DS1: Dataset
description: All juvenile offenders in Philadelphia in 1987. Smallest Geographic Unit: district
description: This study consists of a random sample of offenders selected from all official records of arrest (N=60,821) for offenders under age 18 in Philadelphia in 1987. A random number generator was used to select names of arrested juveniles until 200 offenders who committed a crime alone and 200 offenders who committed a crime with an accomplice had been identified. If an offender's court record could not be found for the listed offense or if the offender had been previously selected, another crime was drawn from the appropriate list, again using a random number generator, and that offender became part of the random sample. The first drawing of a person made that person ineligible for another selection. Thus, no person entered the pool through selection for both a crime committed alone and one committed with an accomplice.