|
|
CENTER ON JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE |
|
||
| www.cjcj.org |
| Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 54 Dore Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 | Tel: (415) 621-5661 | Fax: (415) 621-5466 |
CONTACT: Daniel Macallair
E-mail: [dmacallair@cjcj.org]
Tel: (415) 621-5661 x310
A recent survey found that most adults believe that youth under the age of 18 account for a disproportionate amount of serious and violent crime in comparison to adults. The pervasive assumption that today's youths are more violent than past generations is leading to the gradual abandonment of a separate juvenile justice system. Instead, public policy efforts are underway to reduce or eliminate special distinctions for youths suspected of criminal behavior. These efforts are manifested in the growing number of states seeking to facilitate adult court transfers for youths who commit various categories of person and property crimes. In the past 6 years, 43 states have instituted legislation facilitating the transfer of youths to adult court.
To examine the theory of growing criminality among today's youths, this study analyzes youth and adult crime rates in California from 1975 - 1998. If today's generation of youths have higher criminal propensities, their crime rates should be higher than youth crime rates of previous decades. In addition, if youth are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of crime, their arrest rates should be higher than adult age groups.
II. Literature review
Criminologist have long assumed that crime rates are directly related to demographics. For example, conservative theorist James Q. Wilson (1975) states, "a critical mass of younger persons... creates an explosive increase in the amount of crime." This assumption was the premise of recent studies by such individuals as Princeton University Professor of Politics John DiIulio, Northeastern University School of Criminal Justice Dean (and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics consultant) James Alan Fox, and U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, which warned of a "coming teenage crime storm" resulting from the rising youth population and greater crime tendencies of modern youth.
Despite this popular consensus, these demographic crime theories proved unreliable. DiIulio, for example, projected 300,000 more "adolescent superpredators" (who "will do what comes naturally: murder, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, deal deadly drugs and get high") by the year 2005. He later drastically revised the estimate downward to 30,000 when it was pointed out that most of the population growth would be infants and young children. In a nation of 1.7 million yearly reported violent offenses and 12 million yearly reported property felonies, a growth of 30,000 was not particularly dramatic. Nor was the hypothetical prospect of 30,000 more teenage offenders impressive in a nation that arrested 1 million more adults ages 30-49 in 1995 than in 1975.
Similarly, Fox forecast in 1995 that the number of teenage murderers would more than double by the year 2005. His method was a straight-line extension of the rate of growth in teen murders from its low point in 1985 (1,500) to its peak in 1994 (3,800) multiplied by the age 14-17 population growth projected over the next decade.
Fox predicted 4,400 murderers ages 14-17 in 1996, 5,500 by 1998, and 8,500 by 2005. After 1995 FBI figures showed a decline in murder arrests among 14-17 year-olds, Fox revised his forecast downward. Table 1 compares Fox's maximum and minimum projections with actual FBI figures through 1998. Within two years of its issuance, Fox's minimum projection was already 80% too high.
| Year | Minimum forecast | Maximum forecast | Real number |
| 1996 | 3,700 | 4,400 | 2,900 |
| 1998 | 3,900 | 5,500 | 2,100 |
| 2005 | 4,200 | 8,500 | -- |
Fox also used the demographic method in his 1978 Forecasting Crime, which predicted trends for the 1980s and 1990s based on the proportion of nonwhite males ages 14-21 and the consumer price index. Fox predicted violent crime rates would decline from 1981 to a low in 1992, then rise, while property crime rates would level off through 1985, then rise rapidly. Later FBI reports showed that trends for both violent and property crime went the opposite directions than Fox predicted: violent crime rates rose sharply from 1985 to 1992, then declined while property crime rates fell sharply in the early 1980s, then increased until 1991, then fell sharply.
Two major sources made opposite predictions about crime but received little attention. In 1996, California's Task Force to Review Juvenile Crime and the Juvenile Justice Response issued its Final Report. The juvenile felony and misdemeanor rates it reported are presented below, with 1998 figures not then available appended:
"The arrest statistics are not reflective of the concern expressed by some about juvenile crime," the Task Force concluded. "In fact, the data show a marked decline in both the number of total juvenile arrests and arrest rates since the early 1970s."
| Year | Total | Felony | Misdemeanor |
| 1964 | 3,808 | 1,730 | 2,078 |
| 1969 | 5,406 | 3,324 | 2,082 |
| 1974 | 9,313 | 4,173 | 5,140 |
| 1979 | 8,653 | 3,319 | 5,334 |
| 1984 | 6,333 | 2,237 | 4,096 |
| 1989 | 7,008 | 2,897 | 4,111 |
| 1994 | 6,550 | 2,621 | 3,929 |
| 1998 | 6,111 | 2,021 | 4,090 |
Not only were juvenile arrest rates lower in the late 1990s than at any time in the previous 25 years, those juveniles who were arrested were being charged with less serious offenses: 38% were charged with felonies in 1979 and 33% were charged with a felony in 1998. The Task Force expressed concern about the growth in violent crime by youths from 1985 to the early 1990s. Otherwise, its surprising finding that 1990s youth did not represent a uniquely criminal generation (especially for felonies) appeared to have no impact on either crime policies or the media image of youth crime.
A particularly misleading tactic in current depictions of youth crime is to pick only the years that show the result the author wants to show. Fox and DiIulio, as well as popular media portrayals, typically compare the highest year to the lowest year for whatever index of juvenile crime is highlighted. The Task Force minimizes such bias by simply choosing every fifth year backward from 1994. A better way to include all data in a succinct presentation while minimizing the anomalies any one year can cause is to combine several years into blocks. For example, the 1978-98 time period for which consistent violent crime arrest data by age is available divides into seven three-year blocks (Table 3). Note that when an objective presentation is made, youths show either lesser increases (when 1996-98 is compared to periods before 1990) or larger decreases in violent crime rates than adults in nearly all periods. The only exception is when 1987-89 is used as the base year for age 13-17. Thus, those who claim a unique increase in youth crime would use 1987-89 as the base, while those who want to show youth violent crime rates improving relative to adults could use any of the other six time periods. This indicates that youth violent crime rates have been improving relative to adult violent crime rates over the past two decades.
Average violent crime arrest rate
| 10-12 | 13-17 | 18-29 | 30-49 | 50+ | |
| 1978-80 | 87.6 | 778.8 | 822.5 | 287.8 | 45.1 |
| 1981-83 | 86.8 | 667.1 | 782.3 | 297.7 | 44.0 |
| 1984-86 | 79.3 | 549.6 | 765.1 | 335.1 | 49.6 |
| 1987-89 | 91.5 | 679.6 | 964.4 | 495.3 | 67.5 |
| 1990-92 | 108.4 | 1014.1 | 1154.9 | 546.7 | 69.9 |
| 1993-95 | 98.6 | 999.3 | 1156.6 | 584.3 | 72.6 |
| 1996-98 | 97.3 | 876.4 | 1117.2 | 579.2 | 83.6 |
| Change, 1996-98 versus: | |||||
| 1978-80 | 11.1% | 12.5% | 35.8% | 101.2% | 85.5% |
| 1981-83 | 12.1% | 31.4% | 42.8% | 94.5% | 89.9% |
| 1984-86 | 22.7% | 59.5% | 46.0% | 72.8% | 68.6% |
| 1987-89 | 6.3% | 29.0% | 15.8% | 16.9% | 23.9% |
| 1990-92 | -10.2% | -13.6% | -3.3% | 5.9% | 19.6% |
| 1993-95 | -1.3% | -12.3% | -3.4% | -0.9% | 15.3% |
Another source that refutes popular assumptions is the November 1997 Juvenile Justice Bulletin by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention that found between 1980 to 1996:
The largest increase in violent crime arrests in the adult population was for persons in their thirties (up 64%) [compared to an increase of 49% among youths].. For juveniles and young adults, the property crime arrest rate changed little between 1980 and 1996, while the arrest rates for persons in their thirties and forties increased an average of nearly 50%.
Arrest rates per 100,000 population by age are used as the crime trend measures. Other measures include clearance data, which is collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). FBI "clearance" data indicates that adults commit more crimes per offender, indicating they evade arrest longer than juveniles, perhaps due to greater experience in avoiding detection. For example, juveniles comprised 16.7% of violent crime arrests in 1998 but only 12.1% of violent crimes cleared by an arrest. For this reason, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention argues that arrests overstate juvenile crime. Arrest rates may overstate crime by Nonwhite youth in particular, since Nonwhites are subjected to greater police scrutiny and more often arrested in groups. Further, changes in laws and policing procedures affect arrest rates over time. This report does not compare felony rates prior to 1977 with those after because of California's 1976 law changing possession of small amounts of marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor. Similarly, new laws mandating arrests for domestic violence contributed to higher adult arrest rates from 1986 to the present, and another law changing simple burglary from a misdemeanor to a felony probably boosted juvenile felony totals. Since the definitions of major offenses, such as homicide, violent felonies, and most property felonies, has remained consistent, arrest rates may reflect real trends.
IV. Results
Criminal arrest trends are shown for three categories: all felonies, violent felonies, and homicide. Four age groups are analyzed: 10-17 (the CJSC's definition of "youth"), 18-29 (young adult), 30-49 (Baby Boomer), and 50-69 (older adult). Offenses by children under age 10 and adults over age 69 are included in their proximate age categories. The tables used to produce the figures are shown in the Appendix tables.
Felony arrest. Figure 1 and Appendix Table 1 show felony trends by age category from 1978 through 1998. The trends shown in Figure 1 are stark. From 1978 to 1998, teenagers show a major decline, young adults a minor increase, and adults 30 and older major increases in felony arrests. The result is that while a teenager was three times more likely to be arrested for a felony than an adult of aged 30-49 in the late 1970s, today the two have equal arrest odds. This dramatic change shows up for every type of felony crime: violent, property, drug, and other major offenses.
The greater adult felony increase applies to all races and both sexes (see Appendix Tables 5, 6). Whites show the most peculiar pattern -- the biggest felony decline among youths, the biggest felony increase among parent-age adults, of any group (a pattern that holds for Whites of both sexes). Teenage girls show a decline while adult women show a major increase. Further, while White youth show a sharp, steady decrease in felony arrest, Black, Latino, and Asian youths show cycles. Different population groups display sharply different rates of felony arrest, as the left axis scales show.
Violent felony arrest. Violent crime rates have increased among all California age groups (Figure 2 and Appendix Table 2). Youths show the smallest increase, young adults a moderate increase, and adults 30 and older major increases.
Unlike other felonies, the violent crime increase among adults is at least partially explainable by increased domestic violence arrests. Sixty percent of domestic violence arrests are of adults 30 and older. From 1988 to 1998 (the period covered by the CJSC's latest report), arrests of persons ages 30 and older for domestic violence increased by 17,000, a period in which all felony violence arrests in this age group rose by 14,000. Since some domestic violence arrests would be misdemeanors, and since the "real" level of domestic violence at any given time cannot be ascertained, it is not clear how much the increase in violent felony arrests among adults is due to better policing and how much represents a real increase in violence. Since property felony and other felony arrest rates also rose for adults, there is clearly increased criminality in older age groups.
For both sexes and all racial groups except Asians, violent arrests among adults age 30-49 have risen so rapidly that parents now have odds similar to those of their teenagers (see Appendix Tables 7, 8). Again, Whites show the strangest pattern -- youth violence rates remain stable while adult violence rates rise faster than any other group. Violent crime arrests among Black youth are actually somewhat lower than in the 1970s.
Homicide arrest. California youth homicide arrest rates show huge cycles which wind up with about the same rates in the late 1990s as in the 1970s. Meanwhile, homicide arrests among adults 25 and older dropped by 50% over the last 20 to 25 years (see Appendix Tables 3, 9, 10).
However, as Figure 3 shows, racial/ethnic differences in rates and trends are so large that it is meaningless to talk of "youth homicide" as if it represented a coherent phenomenon. Among White teenagers, murder rates and trends resemble those of adults. The White teenage homicide rate is about 50% lower today than in the mid-1970s. However, murder rates among Black, Latino, and Asian youth show large cycles and sharp increases in the 1980s and early 1990s. Finally, girls of the 1990s display lower murder arrest rates than in the 1970s.
Are tomorrow's kids more criminal? Figure 4 and Appendix Table 4 show the trends in felony and violent crime arrest for children under age 13, tomorrow's adolescents and young adults. Arrests are divided by the population age 10-12 for each year from the first available to the latest.
Over the last two decades, violent crime among children 12 and younger rose slightly, though less than for any older age group (see Table 3). Felony rates declined at a faster rate than for any older age group. While not definitively predictive, this pattern indicates that California's post-1975 development -- the younger the age group, the more optimistic its crime trends have been -- also applies to the next generation.
Children's homicide rates are too low to present on a year-to-year basis. Dividing the period into three-year blocks, the murder arrest rate for children 12 and younger was 0.23 per 100,000 (age 10-12) in 1996-98, the lowest three-year period in at least 20 years and 35% below the rate of the first three years,1978-80 (0.35). Children show the same cyclical pattern as older groups, with rises in arrests in the late 1980s and early 1990s followed by a decline, though at much lower levels.
In sum, crime by children today is less frequent and less serious than 20 years ago. Of the 68,200 children arrested for an offense in 1978-80, 34.9% were for felonies. Of the 56,700 children arrested in 1996-98 in a much larger child population, 30.6% were for felonies.
Homicide and other violent crime arrests increased sharply among juveniles from a low in 1984 to a 1991 peak. However, the popular claim that this increase in juvenile homicide and violent crime, signaled a more violent teenage generation is not supported. The murder and violent crime trends of that period represented a periodic cycle that was not sustained. Of particular significance, these cyclical variations were not driven by demographics since the 1980s and 1990s homicide and violent crime increases occurred as California,s teenage population was declining. Further, the declining violent crimes rates during the middle and late 1990s occurred while the teenage population was rising by more than half a million.
The popular claim that the rising teenage population means more crime and violence is a myth. The overwhelming evidence contained in this study dispels pervasive beliefs about the scope and degree of youth crime. The current crime trends among youths indicates declining crime rates into the next century. At minimum, the striking revelations of this analysis indicates a need for policy makers and the media to reexamine popular assumptions about youth crime and suggests a need to reconsider current trends in youth crime policies.
Bureau of the Census, Social and Economic Characteristics, California, 1990, Table 158. Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce.
California Criminal Justice Statistics Center, California Criminal Justice Profiles, Statewide, 1978-98 , Tables 18 and 19. Sacramento: California Department of Justice.
California Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Crime & Delinquency in California, 1975-98, Table 33. Sacramento: California Department of Justice.
Center for Health Statistics, Microcomputer Injury Surveillance System, 1985-98, Sacramento: Department of Health Services.
Demographic Research Unit, Population Estimates. Sacramento: California Department of Finance (www.dof.ca.gov).
DiIulio J.J. Jr., Moral Poverty, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 16, 1995.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1996-98, Tables 28, 38. Washington: US Department of Justice.
Fox, James Alan, Trends in Juvenile Violence, 1996, 1997 update, Figure 15. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 1997.
Sources for Table 1: Fox, James Alan. Trends in Juvenile Violence, 1996, 1997 update. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 1997, Figure 15. FBI, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1996-98. Washington: US Dept. of Justice, Table 38.
Source for Table 2: Trask, Grover C. et al. California Task Force to Review Juvenile Crime and the Juvenile Justice System Response, Final Report, September 1996, Table 2, Page 20. 1998 added by authors using same criteria as the Task Force.
Sources for Table 3: California Criminal Justice Statistics Center, California Criminal Justice Profiles, Statewide, 1978-98 , Tables 18 and 19. Demographic Research Unit, Population Estimates. Sacramento: California Department of Finance (www.dof.ca.gov).
Sources for Figures 1 through 4: California Criminal Justice Statistics Center, California Criminal Justice Profiles, Statewide, 1978-98, Tables 18 and 19. Crime & Delinquency in California, 1975-98, Table 33. Sacramento: California Department of Justice. Demographic Research Unit, Population Estimates. Sacramento: California Department of Finance (www.dof.ca.gov). Page 8
| This site and its contents © 2002 Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice |