Download - Gender and Race Differences in Delinquent Careers

Gender and Race Differences in Delinquent Careers by Randall G. Shelden, Ph.D. and Meda Chesney-Lind, Ph.D.

Abstract Studies of delinquent careers have often

tracked only male offenders, and have almost always failed to explore the interaction of race and gender in delinquency. This study tracks a cohort of youth whose first re&wal to juvenile court was in 1980, and explores the mle played by both race and gender in oflcial delinquent ca- teem. Findings reveal that both race and gender play a signlficant mle in oflcial delinquency. Lookingfirst atfemale delinquency, this research fin& that white and nonwhite females do not difler significantly in the types of oflenses they commit. Moreover: if girls are “chmnic ” delinquents, their ofenses are most ofren trivial rather than serious. with males, racial differences emerge in both seriousness and chmnic nature of delinquency. Nonwhite males in this cohort are more likely to be referEd for personal offenses and less likely to be referred forpublic order and victimless offenses. Nonwhite males are also signrfcantly more likely to become tecidivists,

and to have more seriously delinquent careers. This article discusses the implications of these

cfindings, particularly with reference to the “convergence theory ” of delinquency, which suggests that race plays a stmnger mle than gender in female delinquency. Finally, the article considers the policy implications of the current range of definitions of “chmnic ” delinquency.

The past few decades have witnessed considerable interest in delinquent “careers,” which are typically defined based on the extent of one’s involvement in delinquent activity over a period of time. The definition is normally based upon official data, such as arrests or court referrals. Because of this growing interest, an impressive number of longitudinal studies have examined levels of delinquency in various birth cohorts, generally using contact with police or courts as measures of delinquent activity (Visher and Roth, 1986). Relatively few research efforts, however, have included a comparison between the careers of male and female delinquents; and fewer still

Randall G. Shelden currently holds the rank of professor in the Criminal Justice Department at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. He served as the chair of this department for six years (1985-1991). He also served as president of the Western Society of Criminology (1991). His interests and research experience center around the issues ofjuvenile delinquency and juvenile justice. He is the author of over 15 journal articles and 20 papers presented at profession meetings, in addition to four articles in edited readers and two books. His most recent book, written with the co-author of this article, is Girls, Delinquency and the Juvenile Justice System (Wadsworth). This book recently was given the Michael J. Hindelang Award for the “outstanding contribution tocriminology, 1992.” Currentlyhe is preparingabook- length manuscript on the topic of gangs.

Meda Chesney-Lind, Ph.D. is Director of Women’s Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. She is also president of the Western Society of Criminology and vice president-elect of the American Society. The author of over fifty monographs and papers on the subject of women and crime, she has just finished the first comprehensive book on female delinquency to be published in the United States since the nineteen fifties. Girls, Delinquency and Juvenile Justice (BrooksKole), written with Randall G. Shelden, was recently awarded the American Society of Criminology’s Michael J. Hindelang Award for the “outstanding contribution to criminology, 1992.” She has also received the Paul Tappan Award for “outstanding contributions to the field of criminology” from the Western Society of Criminology.

1993 I Juvenile & Family Court Journal 73

Gender and Race Diflerences in Delinquent Careers

have made comparisons based on race and gender. ’

In fact, some of the most influential studies in this area have focused exclusively on males. These studies include the Cambridge Study in Delinquency, which tracked 41 1 boys from about age 10 to age 25 (West, 1969; West and Farrington, 1973,1977; West, 1982). Others include Robins and Wish (1977), who focused on 223 black males born between 1930 and 1934 in St. Louis; Polk, et al. (1981), who examined a 1964 cohort of all male high school sophomores in the Pacific Northwest; and the orignal Philadelphia birth cohort study, which also excluded females (Wolfgang, Figlio and Sellin, 1972; Tracy, Wolfgang, and Figlio, 1990).

Even fewer studies have combined the vari- ables of gender and race. Some longitudinal studies have included females, and a few have also examined racial differences in delinquent careers of boys and girls. These studies reveal the necessity of considering these two important di- mensions of delinquency simultaneously, as well the problems associated with studying racial differences in delinquency, without attention to gender.2

Previous Research on Gender and Racial Differences

Longitudinal studies that considered the role of gender in delinquency have revealed not only that adolescent males are more actively involved in delinquent behavior than females (in terms of the number and seriousness of offenses that bring them to official attention), but also that males’ “careers’ ’ continue longer than those of females.

In one of the most comprehensive of these studies, Tracy, Wolfgang and Fig1 io (1 985) examined the arrest records of all youths who were born in Philadelphia in 1958 and who resided there between their 10th and 17th birthdays. This study involved the arrest records of 28,338 youths. The researchers found that whereas 32.8% of the males had at least one police contact before their 18th birthday, only 14.1% of the females had at least one such contact. As measured by the number of arrests, male delinquency was also more serious. The male offense rate overall was

four times greater than the female rate, but the ratio was almost 9: 1 for index (as defined by the annual FBI Uniform Crime Reports, which includes the offenses of homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson) offenses and 14:l for violent index offenses (homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery). Girls were also one and a half times more likely to be “one-time delinquents,, (Tracy, Wolfgang, and Figlio, 1985:6).

Other studies use data from the National Survey of Health and Development (Mulligan et al., 1963; Douglas et al., 1966; Wadsworth, 1979), which followed up 5,362 children drawn from a cohort born between March 3 and March 9, 1946 in England, Wales and Scotland. These studies found lower arrest rates for both boys and girls than was the case in Philadelphia cohort; 1 8% of the males but only 3% of the females were “convicted or cautioned by the police” by their 18th birthday. The national survey also followed both male and female offenders into their adult years. Wadsworth reports (1 979: 103) that by age 21, only2%ofthegirls,comparedto 15.3%ofthe boys, had an adult arrest.

Some years later, Ouston (1 984), using alater inner-city London birth cohort (1959-60), found figures closer to those of the Philadelphia researchers -- 29% of the males and 6% of the females had arrest records. Shannon (1 982) gives us a sense of changes in delinquent careers over time by using arrest data from three birth cohorts in Racine, Wisconsin. In the 1942 cohort, 4 1 .O% of the males and 8.7% of the females had at least one arrest before their 18th birthday; in the 1949 cohort 47.3% and 15.1% showed at least one arrest by the age of 18; in the 1955 cohort, the figures were 44.1% and 22.2%.

What does the research tell us about male- female differences according to race? Fortu- nately we now have some results fiom the second Philadelphia birth cohort studies, in addition to several other studies. These studies (to be reviewed below) reveal many important racial differences when comparing male and female delinquency. Rates of involvement in delinquent activity (as measured by both official and self-report data) show black males with the highest level of delinquency, followed by white males, black females, and white females.

74 Juvenile & Family Court Journal I 1993

Randall G. Shelden, Ph. D., et al.

Some studies indicate a rate of involvement for black females very close to that for white males. For instance, Tracy, Wolfgang and Figlio (1 985) found that 18.5% of the black females in a 1958 Philadelphia birth cohort had at least one arrest priortoage 18, compared with22.7%ofthe white males. In contrast, only about 9% of the white females had at least one arrest. They also noted that 6% of the black females had at least one arrest for an index crime, compared to 8.9% ofthe white males. For non-index offenses, the ages were 15.7% and 19.9% respectively.

Data from this most recent Philadelphia birth cohort have also been used in two unpublished dissertations (Facella, 1983; Otten, 1985), and these dissertations present a slightly different picture of gender and race similarities and differences. One of the most interesting findings from the two dissertations was that among both white and nonwhite females, running away from home and a category called “missing person’ ’ consti- tuted almost one-half of all their offenses (46.3% for white females, 46.5% of the nonwhite females). Both white males and females were proportionately much more likely than their nonwhite counterparts to be arrested for victimless and public order offenses, such as drug offensesand publicdisturbances(Otten, 1985: 105- 106). Finally, there were differences between white and nonwhite females concerning delinquent careers. Among the nonwhite females, 8.1% were “chronic recidivists” (five or more arrests, for any offense), compared to 4.9% of the white females (Facella, 1983:218-219).

Self-report studies shed additional light on this subject. For instance, Jensen and Eve (1 976) reported that 2% of the black females committed a theft of $50 or more, compared to 1% of the white females. For auto theft, however, there was no difference with 4% ofeach group reporting the offense. In their self-report study, Hindelang, Hirschi and Weis (1981) found (1) that black females were much more likely than white females to admit ever committing a theft of $50 or more, auto theft, aggravated assault or robbery, but (2) that black and white girls were about equally involved in burglary. For two major offenses (robbery and aggravated assault), there was virtually no difference between the age of black females and white males who reported

committing these offenses. A self-report study by Cernkovich and

Giordano (1 979) demonstrated several statistically significant differences in the types of delinquent behavior admitted by white and nonwhite girls. Among the acts most commonly committed by nonwhite girls were: attacking someone with fists, using a weapon to attack someone, engaging in gang fights, extortion, and carrying a weapon. The acts most commonly committed by white girls included: disobeying or defiing parents, drinking alcohol, using hard drugs, selling marijuana, selling hard drugs, DUI, property destruc- tion (under $1 0), theft of car parts and disturbing the peace. The overall rate of participation in various delinquent and status offenses was slightly higher for white girls (1 6.9% of the sample) than for nonwhite girls (14.5% of the sample). In this study, nonwhite girls appear to be more likely to engage in personal crimes, and white girls are more likely to be involved in drug- or alcohol- related offenses (some very serious) and status offenses. Additionally, and perhaps more impor- tantly, the study found no significant differences for 50% of the acts surveyed. In other words, white females engage in more delinquent activity, but much ofthisisafunction oftheir higher levels of involvement in drug-related offenses and some statusoffenses(Cernkovich and Giordano, 1979).

Examining the race/gender interaction, this study found more similarities within racial groups than within gender groups (Cernkovich and Giordano, 1979: 143). In other words, in the types and frequency of their delinquency, white girls were closer to white males than to nonwhite grls. Again, though, the authors stress that the pattern of delinquency was almost identical for all four groups, and that significant differences appeared primarily on the basis ofthe frequency of involvement.3

The National Youth Survey (NYS) also reviewed racial differences in female delinquency (Ageton, 1983). Its findings, too, suggest the r d g e n d e r issues complexity. First, NYS researchers discovered no racial differences between 1976 and 1980 when delinquent behavior as a whole was considered. Blacks tended to report more violent offenses, but there was a marked decline in both incidence (the percentage committing at least one offense) and prevalence



(the total number of offenses committed over time) in girls’ commission of such offenses. Fre- quency of thefi increased for whites and de- creased for blacks during this period, showing a 2: 1 white-to-black ratio. Moreover, the racial differential was strong in 1976 but not in 1980. Indeed, while black girls always displayed the higher scores, the white: black ratio dropped from 1.4 in 1979 to almost 1.1 in 1980 (Ageton, 1983577). In following a specific cohort ofgirls over time, the study also found that black girls initially reported greater involvement in theft offenses, but that white girls surpassed black girls by the middle ofthe study years on almost all theft Items.

The association of race with assault-type offenses is also slight with “the over-riding trend for decreasing or relatively stable involvement in assaultive crimes” as both black and white girls matured (Ageton, 1983565). Also, while the proportions ofblacks involved in these offenses is generally higher, whitegirls are significantly more likely to report the hitting of parents.

Another study raises cautions about racial differences in female delinquency, particularly violent delinquency. h u b and McDermott (1 985) examined 1973-1 981 national victimization data for personal crimes, looking for trends in crimes committed by young black women. They were specifically interested in any evidence of what they called the “convergence theory” of black male and female offending -- the notion that the big differences between white male and white female delinquency are not found between black male and female delinquents. Their findings did not support this notion.

Despite much fluctuation during the years Laub and McDermott studied, the highest personal crime rates were consistently for black males, followed by white males. White females had the lowest personal crime rates for all years; black females had a higher rate than white males onlyfor 1973. Theratesforblackfemalesdropped significantly between 1973 and 1977, but have since risen steadily. In contrast, white female rates have changed very little, ranging from a low of 1,062 in 1975 to a high of 1,359 in 1979. The rate for white males rose after 1975, and those of black males after 1977, following a period of significant decrease from 1973 to 1977.


Laub and McDermott also discovered considerable differences in rates for specific personal offenses: rape, robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, and personal larceny. The highest rates for both black and white girls and for white boys were found in the simple assault category; the highest rate for black males was in the robbery category; and the lowest rate was found in the personal larceny group. Over time, the data showed the greatest convergence between black and whitegrlsconcemingassault, nottheficrimes. Divergence from the male pattern was clear: white females were not involved in more delinquent behavior, while white males were involved in more delinquency. Among blacks, the decline in female delinquency was steeper than the decline in male delinquency.

Laub and McDermott concluded that there is a convergence occurring in delinquency, a convergence of white and nonwhite female delinquency. The convergence is explained largely by a substantial decline in black-female offending for the nine-year period they examined compared with stability in white female offending. Accord- ing to this study, black girls commit more personal crimes than do white girls, but even here there was considerable variation within offense categories and the gap is narrowing.

In summary, then, race differences in girls’ offending are not as marked as some might ex- pect. Especially questionable are notions that black girls are.far more delinquent than their white counterparts, and that their delinquency is far more “masculine” in content. In fact, although some differences exist between black and white girls in delinquency content, the differences tend to be less marked as the girls mature. More to the point, black girls, like their white counterparts, are still quite likely to be arrested for traditionally female offenses.

The “Chronic” Delinquent Another concept that has emerged out of

attempts to study delinquent careers is the notion of the “chronic delinquent.’’ The Philadelphia birth cohort study found, for example, that “chronic” delinquents, although a minority of the delinquent population, were responsible for over half of all the offenses committed. In other

Randall G. Shelden, Ph.D., et 01.

words, a relatively small group (1 8%) of youths disproportionately contributed to the delinquency problem. Several other researchers (see, e.g., Tracy, Wolfgang & Figlio, 1985; Shannon, 1982; West & Farrington, 1973; Dunford & Elliott, 1984) have since published studies which focused on the “chronic delinquent.” These studies essentially have reached results very similar to the longitudinal studies reviewed above. Also, law enforcement agencies all over the country have devised special programs aimed at intensive concentration on these “chronics,” the most popular of which is the SHOD1 program (Seri- ous Habitual mender Identification Program), initiated by the Ofice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in 1983 (Pinder and Wells, 1986).

A careful review of these studies reveals little apparent consensus about what constitutes a “chronic” delinquent. Wolfgang and his associ- ates distinguished among three major types of delinquents, all based upon police “contacts” (rather than arrests): (1) one-time offender (only one contact), (2) nonchronic recidivist (from 2 to 4 contacts), and (3) chronic recidivists ( 5 or more contacts). On the other hand, the Cambridge study of delinquent careers begun by West and Farrington (1977) used the term “persisting recidivist,” which the study defined as youths with two convictions prior to their 19th birthday and with one or more during the next five years (West, 1982: 16).

A California Department of Youth Authority publication( 1982)distinguished among fivetypes of delinquents based on the seriousness of their offenses and the number of arrests. These types were: chronic violent-aggressive, chronic violent-economic, chronic property, chronic unclas- sified and nonchronics. The number of arrests used to define each type varied a great deal (e.g., chronic violent aggressive youth needed only one arrest for murder, rape, manslaughter, or assault to quali@, while the chronic property needed two or more arrest for crimes like burglary, fraud and grand theft to qualie), The Finckenauer, Fiore and Joppich study (1 982) defined the chronic delinquent as one having five or more arrests, as did the Hamparian et al. study (1 985). Most other studies have given either vague definitions or none at all (see, e.g., Petersiliq Greenwood and

Lavin, 1978; Murray and Cox, 1979; Pindur and Wells, 1986). For all practical purposes, most of these definitions fail to consider the variability of delinquent behavior and how such variation may depend upon such factors as race and gender.

The Present Study This study examines gender and racial differ-

ences in the delinquent careers of a cohort of youth first referred to juvenile court in 1980, and traces the cohort through the end of 1987 (when the data collection was completed). The referral history was examined up until their 18th birthday, at which time a youth is considered an adult in Nevada and thus not within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The cohort began as a random sample (N=lOOO) of all juveniles referred to the Clark County Juvenile Court (Las Vegas). The sample represents about one-third of the total number of referrals for this year (2,89S).‘ Those cases referred for abuse and neglect (N=137) were eliminated fiom the current study since these are nondelinquent offense^.^ Data on the characteristics of the youth in the sample were extracted from official records maintained by the

This study also attempted to develop a typol- ogy of delinquent “careers” that is more sensi- tive to differences in the types ofdelinquency that boys and girls typically exhibit. The group was divided into the following categories: (1) the ‘‘onetime offender” (defined as a youth who was referred to juvenile court only once); (2)the nonchronic recidivist (a youth with between two and four referrals to juvenile court) and, (3) the “chronic delinquent” (a youth with five or more referrals to juvenile court).

Such a definition of “chronic delinquent” seemed overly broad. In reviewing the literature, it appeared that even chronic delinquents (especially those included in the Wolfgang study) committed a wide variety of offenses, some serious, but most rather minor in nature. Also, it does not make sense to group together youths with five or more referrals for such crimes as robbery, burglary, assault and the like with youths with an equal number of referrals for such offenses as petty larceny, disturbing the peace, and status offenses. Therefore, it was decided to further


Gender and Race Differences in Delinquent Careers

White and nonwhite males (1 2.6) p. <.01 White males and females (25.1) p. <.001

1 Nonwhite males and females .(11.3) p. C.01 I

subdivide the chronic offenders into two major types: (1) chronic serious and (2) chronic nuisance.

The chronic serious offenders included youths charged with the most serious offenses (e.g., robbery, rape, assault, burglary, grand larceny, etc.). The chronic nuisance offenders were those whose offenses were mostly status offenses, petty larceny, disturbances, drug and/or alcohol possession, etc. In other words, while the first group might be seen as the stereotypcally “dangerous” delinquent, the second group would be considered by most as more of a “nuisance” than a serious threat to the health and safety of the community (see Rossenheim, 1976:180 for a discussion of the “nuisance” offender). Place- ment into one or the other category was based upon the following criteria: if 50% or more of all the charges against a youth throughout his or her career were personal offenses (e.g., as rape, assault, weapons, robbery) major property offenses (e.g., burglary, grand larceny) or drug sales, or if at least 20% of all charges were felonies, this

youth was classified as a “chronic serious” offender. All other youths with five or more referrals were defined as “chronic nuisance” offenders (Shelden, 1989).

Findings The findings from this research will be pre-

sented in two parts, each representing a different unit of analysis. First, there will be a focus on “career” differences (i.e., with “career” as the unit ofanalysis). Second, there will be afocus on aggregate offense differences as they relate to race and gender (i.e., with “offenses” as the unit of analysis).

To begin with, the overall racial and gender breakdown is as follows. Of the 863 youths who first appeared in the juvenile court for a delinquent or a status offense, almost one-half (49.7%) were white males (N=429), while 23.1% were white females (N=l99). About a fifth (20.4%) werenonwhite males(N=l76), and 6.8% (N=59) were nonwhite females.’

Table 1. Delinquent Careers: A Summary

MALE FEMALE Career Type White Nonwhite Total White Nonwhite Total

One-time 45.9% 36.9% 43.3% 60.8% 59.3% 60.5% Nonchronic Recidivist 37.3 35.2 36.7 31.7 23.7 29.8 Chronic Serious 7.7 16.5 10.2 0 5.1 1.2 Chronic Nuisance 9.1 11.4 9.3 7.5 11.9 8.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(429) (176) (605) (199) (59) (258)

Chi square relationships (chi square scores are in parentheses in this and all subsequent table!

18 Juvenile & Family Court Journal / 1993

Randall G. Shelden, Ph.D., et al.

Career TVpe

Table 2. Delinquent Careers (chronics combined).

One-time Nonchronic Recidivist Chronic Total

Chi square relationships:

White and nonwhite males White males and females

Male White Nonwhite Total

45.9% 36.9% 43.3% 37.3 35.2 36.7 16.8 27.8 20.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

(429) (176) (605)

Female White Nonwhite Total

60.8% 59.3% 48.4% 31.7 23.7 29.8 7.5 16.9 9.7

100.0 100.0 100.0

(199) (59) (258)

(10.3) p. <.01 (21.7) p. <.001

Nonwhite males and females (9.3) p. <.01 Nonwhite males and white females (33.4) p. <.001

Expressing this distribution in rates per 1,000 youth in Clark County (Las Vegas) reveals that what might be called the referral rate for nonwhite males was 40.1 -- about double that for white males, who had a rate of 20.8. Nonwhite females ranked third with a referral rate of 14.1 , while white females had the lowest rate -- 9.9. This rank order of these rates reflects a gender/ race pattern not unlike that seen in previous studies examining race and gender differences in the frequency of delinquency.

Turning to an examination of career patterns, Tables 1 and 2 show significant differences according to both race and gender. Table 1 shows considerable race differences between the males, with nonwhite boys about twice as likely as white boys to be chronic serious offenders and only slightly more likely to be chronic nuisances offenders. In fact, the majority of male chronics were within the serious category. White males were also far more likely than nonwhite males to be classified as one-time offenders. Additionally, there were significant differences between white malesand white females (this relationship had the

highest chi square score), in addition to nonwhite males and nonwhite females.

Among the females, well over half were one- time offenders, but there were a total of only 25 chronics among the girls(9.7%). The majority of these, however, were nuisance offenders(88%).

These tables reveal significant differences between the types of delinquent careers observed in males and females of both races. Differences were also seen between white and nonwhite males. Significantly, no such differences were observed in a comparison of the delinquent careers of white and nonwhite girls.

Finally, nonwhite females and white males differ significantly, as do nonwhite males and white females. White females are almost twice as likely to have had only one referral. Nonwhite males clearly dominate in the chronic offender category.

Table 2 merges the two types of chronic offenders since there were so few female chronic offenders. Thiscomparison revealsthat nonwhite males are about one and one-half times as likely

1993 I Juvenile C? Family Court Journal 79


Career Length (yrs) Nonwhite

Table 3. Career Length, by Gender and Race.

One or less More than one, but less than three Three or more Total

Male Female White Nonwhite White

57.2% 48.9% 67.7% 64.4%

13.8 12.5 10.1 11.9 29.0 38.6 22.3 23.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(428) (176) (198) (59)

Chi square relationships: White males and white females (6.2) p. <.05 Males and females total (11.2) p. <.01

as white males to have chronic delinquent careers. Although nonwhite femalesaremore likely to be chronics as white females, the difference is not statistically significant.

racial groups, with girls in both groups more likely to have less chronic careers; this difference

is particularly pronounced in the white group. As in Table 1, nonwhite males and white females show the most significant difference (with the highest chi square scorewithin this table), whereas

suchdifferences- Significant differences are observed within white males and nonwhite females do not show

Table 3 illustrates the relationship between

Table 4. Age First Referred, by Gender and Race.

Male Female Age 1st Ref. White Nonwhite Total White Nonwhite Total

Under 12 12-14 15-17 Total

10.7% 10.8% 10.8% 7.6% 13.6% 8.9% 33.6 41.5 35.9 40.4 32.2 38.5 55.6 47.7 53.3 52.0 54.2 52.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(428) (176) (604) (198) (59) (257)

Chi square relationships: (none are significant)



the length ofone’s “career” and both gender and age at which a youth was first referred to the race.* As shown here, only one relationship was juvenile court, and the youth’s gender and race. significant, namely, that between white males and No significant differences were found, although white females. Without considering race, males nonwhite girls are slightly more likely to have and females differ significantly, with males being begun at an earlier age than any of the others. almost twice as likely aS females t0 have a Weer previous re%+& h a show, the age first lasting five or more years (14.0% vs. 7.8%). referred to court (or arrested) predicts the extent

Table 4 shows the relationship between the ofone’s delinquent career (Wolfgang et al., 1972;

Table 5. Age 1st Referred by Length of Career (years) by Race and Gender.

Age 1st Ref. One

Under 12 6.5% 12-14 22.4 15-17 71.0 Total 100.0

(245)

Age 1st Ref. One

Under 12 12-14 15-17 Total

7.0% 29.1 64.0

100.0

(86)

whites

Length of Career Male

Two 3+ One

1.7% 23.4% 4.5% 28.8 58.1 32.1 69.5 18.5 63.4

100.0 100.0 100.0

(59) (124) (134)

Nonwhites Male Length of Career Two 3+ One

4.5% 17.6% 7.9% 27.3 61.8 23.7 68.2 20.6 68.4

100.0 100.0 100.0

(22) (68) (38)

Chi square relationships: Age 1 st by length of career (total = 17 1.4, p. <.001):

white males (1 01.6) p. <.001 white females (29.7) p. <.001 nonwhite males (33.1) p. <.001 nonwhite females (1 2.4) p. <.05

Female

Two

5.0% 45.0 50.0

100.0

(20)

Female

Two

14.3% 28.6 57.1

100.0

(7)

3+

18.2% 63.6 18.2

100.0

(44)

3+

28.6% 57.1 14.3

100.0

(14)


Gender and Race Dif/erences in Delinquent Careers

Table 6. Age 1st Referred by Career Type by Race and Gender.

Whites

Male Female Career Type

Age 1st Ref. One Nonchr Chr One Nonchr Chr

Under 12 6.6% 11.9% 19.7% 5.0% 7.9% 21.4% 12-14 24.5 37.7 49.3 32.5 50.8 64.3 15-17 68.9 50.3 31.0 62.5 41.3 14.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(196) (159) (71) (120) (63 ) (14)

Nonwhites

Male Female Career Type

Age 1st Ref. One Nonchr Chr One Nonchr Chr Under 12 9.2% 3.2% 22.4% 8.6% 28.6% 10.0% 12-14 32.3 40.3 55.1 25.7 14.3 80.0 15-17 58.5 56.5 22.4 65.7 57.1 10.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(65) (62) (49) (35) (14) (10)


Age 1st referred by career type (total = 76.0, p. C.001): White males (42.2) p. <.001 White females (18.1) p. <.01 Nonwhite males (22.3) p. C.01 Nonwhite females (16.5) p. <.01 Males total (54.5) p. <.001 Females total (25.1) p. <.001 White females (18.1) p. <.01

Age 1 st referred by length of career (3 or more years only) by white males and white females and by nonwhite males and nonwhite females: ns



Table 7. Adult Records, by Gender and Race.

Adult Record

None Misdemeanor Felony Total



68.1% 62.5% 66.4% 17.2 8.5 14.7 14.7 29.0 18.8

100.0 100.0 100.0

(429) (176) (605)

White and nonwhite males (19.1) White males and females (1 6.4)

Nonwhite males and white females (30.2) Nonwhite males and females (8.0)

Female White Nonwhite

83.4% 78.0% 9.0 11.9 7.5 10.2

100.0 100.0

(199) (59)

p. C.001 p. <.001 p. <.05

p. <.001

Total

71.1% 9.7 8.1

100.0

(258)

Tracy et al., 1985; Shannon, 1982). As noted in Table 5 the age first referred has a significant relationship with the length of one’s career (chi square = 17 1.4). However, this relationship ap- pears to hold regardless of race or gender, although the relationship is strongest among white males (as indicated by the extremely high chi square score). However, this relationship does not vary when controlling for gender and race. For instance, when considering the career length of three or more years, white males, white females, nonwhite males and nonwhite females have a similar percentage distribution.

Similarly, when comparing the age first referred and the type of delinquent career, significant relationship exists(chi square= 76.0). Again, as with length of career, the relationship remains the same when controlling for race and gender. In other words, regardless of race or gender, the earlier the age one is first referred to juvenile court, the longer will be one’s wee r (whether this is measured by years or number of referrals).

A check of local police arrest records

revealed that the majority of these youths did not become involved with the adult criminal justice system in the Las Vegas area (see Table 7). Looking first at the role played by race, white males were about twice as likely as nonwhite males to have a misdemeanor record, while nonwhite maleswere about twice as likely to have a felony record. Again, no such differences were seen in the female group. Gender clearly does play arole in differentiating delinquent and criminal careers, however. Both white and nonwhite maleswere more likely to become adult criminals than their female counterparts. White males were almosttwiceaslikelyaswhitefemales tohaveany record at all; and nonwhite males were about three times as likely as their female counterparts to have a felony record.

Comparing nonwhite females with white males, we find no significant differences. How- ever, when comparing nonwhite males and white females, the differences are striking. Nonwhite males are about four times more likely to have been arrested for a felony as an adult.

At this juncture we will move to a different 1993 I Juvenile & Family Court Journal 83

Gender and Race Dvferences in Delinquent Careers

Table 8. Distribution of Offenses, by Gender and Race.

Offenses*

Personal Serious Prop. Minor Prop.


7.6% 17.5% 10.9?! 17.2 17.3 17.2 21.8 23 .O 22.2

status 15.3 13.0 14.6 Public OrderNictimless 30.2 20.8 27.0 Other 8.0 8.3 8.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 (1658) (836) (2494)

Female White Nonwhite

6.5% 4.7% 5.2 9.9

28.1 34.4

29.4 26.6 22.0 17.2 8.8 7.3

100.0 100.0

(477) (192)

Total

6.0% 6.6

29.9

28.6 20.6

8.4 100.0

(669)

* Offense categories are defined as follows: personal (rape, robbery, assault, weapons); serious property (burglary, grand larceny, motor vehicle theft, stolen property); minor property (petty larceny, vandalism, etc.); status (runnaway, incorrigible, truancy, etc.); public order/victimless (drug and alcohol possession and sales, disturbances, DUI, etc.); other (mostly violation of court orders, such as probation and parole violations).

Chi square relationships: Male whites and nonwhite males (70.5) p. c.001 White males and white females (9 1.4) p. c.001 Nonwhite males and nonwhite females (50.2) p. c.001

unit of analysis and examine offense patterns of the individuals in this study. (It is important to note that the data examined here do not reflect actual behavior; but only specific charges brought against these youth.) The distribution of the offenses charged for this group is shown in Table 8. This table presents a tabulation of all the charges against each youth during the course of their career. Since more than one charge can be included with one referral to court, the total number of charges is far larger than the number of youths in the sample.

What is perhaps most striking about this distribution is the relatively trivial nature of the offenses which are bringing youth to the juvenile 84 Juvenile h Family Court Journal I 1993

court in Clark County. For the sample as a whole, the modal offense categories were public order offenses, minor property offenses, and status offenses.

The relationship between gender and race, on the one hand, and the nature of these referrals, on the other, is also striking. Referrals for males were more than twice as likely to be for personal crimes and serious crimes against property. Fe- male referrals, in contrast, were twice as likely to be for status offenses.

Examining racial differences, we find that nonwhite males are far more likely to be referred for personal crimes, while white males are more


likely to be referred for status offenses, and Vic- timlesdpublic order offenses. For females, the race differences are far less marked, and some- what surprising. White girls were slightly more likely to be referred for personal crimes, while nonwhites are more likely to be referred for property crimes of both the minor and serious type. However, unlike the comparison between white and nonwhite males, the differencesbetween white and nonwhite female referral patterns were not statistically significant.

Considering both gender and race, we find that the referrals of nonwhite females differ significantly from those of white males. White males are more likely to have been referred for personal offenses, serious property offenses and public order/victimless offenses, whereas nonwhite females are more likely to have been referred for minor property offenses and status offenses. Nonwhite males and white females differ in exactly the same manner, except that they are about equally as likely to have been referred for public order/victimless offenses.

Table 8 also reveals even more significant differences within racial categories. Comparing the charges that bring white boys and girls to court, statistically significant differences are noted. In the nonwhite group, which is largely composed of blacks, the differences between male and female referrals are also significant.

White males and white females are about equally as likely to be referred for a personal crime, whereas nonwhite males are about four times as likely as nonwhite females to be referred for this type of charge. White males are about three times as likely as white females to be referred for serious property crimes, while white

females are more likely to be referred for minor property crimes. Also, white females are about twice as likely as white males to be referred for status offenses. White males are more likely than white females to be referred for victimless and public order offenses, and are about equally as likely to be referred for other reasons.

The differences between the referral patterns of nonwhite males and females essentially paral- lel the patterns found in the white group, except in the case of serious property offenses where the differences are not as great (1 6.9% for nonwhite males and 9.3% for nonwhite females).

Finally, as shown in Table 9, the average number of offenses varies by both race and gender. As shown here, nonwhite males averaged almost 5 offenses to lead in this category. White females averaged just over two.

A closer look at the differences in these referral patterns is presented in Table 10. Here the four major offense categories, excluding the “other” category, are partitioned into more detailed offenses. Turning first to personal offenses, the most significant differences are seen between white males and white females. The bulk of the white female personal offenses are within the “other” category. With few exceptions, these offenses are those typically found within the “other assaults” category used by the uniform crime reporting system (which includes mostly fights with other youth involving few injuries), while this is less the case with white males. An examination of the distribution of offenses bringing white and nonwhite males to court reveals virtually no differences. There are too few referrals involving nonwhite females within this category to make any meaningful statistical judg-

Table 9. Average Number of Offenses During Career, by Race and Gender.

Nonwhite males 4.75 White males 3.86 Nonwhite females 3.25 White females 2.40 White males and nonwhite females (4 1.6) p. <.001

1993 J Juvenile Q Family Court Journal 85


Table 10. Distribution within Offense Categories, by Gender & Race.

Offense Types

Personal* Index Weapons Other Total

Pr0p*** Petty Lar. Bwlary Grand Lar. Stolen Prop. Other Total

Public Order/ Victimless*** Drugs Alcohol Disturbances Other Total

Status* * * * Runaway Unmanageable Curfew Truancy Total

White

27.0% 22.2 50.8

100.0 (1 26)

29.2 22.8 13.5 7.9

26.0 100.0 (646)

15.4 21.0 17.8 45.8

100.0 (500)

18.1 22.0 49.6 10.2

100.0 (254)

Male Nonwhite

39.0% 23.3 37.7

100.0 (146)

33.5 23.4 9.5

10.1 23.4

100.0 (33 7)

23.6 8.6

26.4 41.4

100.0 (1 74)

7.3 19.3 60.5 12.8

100.0 ( 109)

Chi square relationships: * White males and white females Nonwhite males and white females White males and nonwhite males

White males and white females Nonwhite males and nonwhite females Nonwhite males and white females White males and nonwhite females

White and nonwhite females White males and white females Nonwhite males and white females White males and nonwhite males White males and white females Nonwhite males and white females Nonwhite females and white males

** White and nonwhite females

*** White and nonwhite males

*****

Total

33.4% 22.8 43.8

100.0 (272)

31.1 23 .O 12.1 8.6

25.1 100.0 (983)

17.5 17.8 20.0 44.7

100.0 (674)

14.9 21.2 52.9 11.0

100.0 (363)

(10.7) (19.4) (7.0) (10.5) (80.6) (28.0) (54.4) (41.5) (20.6) (13.0) (21.9) (21.4) (8.0) (36.6) (5 1.3) (13.7)

white

6.4% 9.7

83.9 100.0

(3 1)

66.7 6.9 5.7 3.1

17.6 100.0 (159)

32.4 24.8 8.6

34.3 100.0 (105)

36.4 32.9 20.7 10.0

100.0 (140)

Female Nonwhite

11.1% 33.3 55.9

100.0 (9)

58.8 2.3 7.1

12.9 18.8

100.0 (85)

12.1 9.1

15.1 63.7

100.0 (33)

33.3 35.3 25.5 5.9

100.0 ( 5 1)

p. <.01 p. c.001 p. <.05 p. <.05 p. C.001 p. <.001 p. <.001 p. <.001 p. <.001 p. c.01 p. <.001 p. <.001 p. <.05 p. <.001 p. <.001 p. <.001

Total

7.5% 15.0 77.5

100.0 (40)

63.9 5.3 6.1 6.6

18.0 100.0 (244)

27.5 21.0 10.1 41.4

100.0 (138)

35.6 33.5 22.0

8.9 100.0 (191)


Randall G. Shelden, Ph. D.. et al.

ments. Turning to referrals for property offenses, it is

clear that the majority ofgirls referred, regardless of race, involve petty larceny (which is mostly shoplifting), whereas male referrals are much more likely to involve burglary and grand larceny. There are, though, significant differences between white and nonwhite females; white girls are more likely than nonwhite girls to be referred for burglary, while the reverse is true for receiving stolen property. Comparing the referrals of nonwhite and white males, there are no significant differences in the distribution of property offenses.

Within racial categories and across gender lines, statistically significant differences arealso found in referrals involving white males and white females, with male referrals involving a far wider range of property offenses. Essentially the same pattern is found in the referrals of nonwhite boys and nonwhite girls. Further, significant differences are found when comparing the referral patterns of nonwhite males and white females and white males versus nonwhite females.

Referrals for victimless and public order offenses show several significant differences within and between gender and racial categories. First, referrals ofwhite and nonwhite males differ, with nonwhite malesmore likely to be referred to court on drug charges (mostly possession of marijuana) and public disturbances, while white males are more likely to be referred for alcohol-related offenses (most of these are simple possession of alcohol, usually beer or wine). The referrals of white and nonwhite females also differ significantly, but in different ways than was seen in the male group. Here, white girls are more likely to be referred for drug and alcohol-related offenses. Nonwhite girls are more likely to be referred for disturbances and other public order offenses (mostly loitering, resisting arrest, prostitution, obstructing a police officer, etc.). Further, referral rates of white males and white females differ in significant ways, with females most likely to be referred for drug and alcohol offenses and males for disturbances and other victimledpublic order offenses. Finally, the referrals of nonwhite males and white females differ in significant ways, with white females more likely to be referred for drug and alcohol offenses, while

nonwhite males are more likely to have been referred on disturbance charges.

Perhaps the most noteworthy differences can be found within the status offense category. Here significant differences are seen between the referrals of white and nonwhite males and between malesand femalesof both races. Examining male referral patterns, whites are more likely to be referred for running away, while nonwhites are more likely to be referred for truancy charges. No such difference is seen between the referrals of white and nonwhite girls for status offenses, but both differ significantly from their male counterparts. Girlsare muchmore likely to be referred for running away and being unmanageable, whereas boys are much more likely to be referred for curfew violations.

Conclusion An analysis of the “careers” of 863 youths

first referred to the Clark County Juvenile Court in 1980 indicates that the role of gender and race is delinquency is complex and significant. Turn- ing first to a consideration of female delinquency and delinquent careers, it is clear that the most significant finding in this study is the lack of racial difference observed when examining females alone.

White and nonwhite females do not differ significantly in the types of offenses for which they are referred. The groups are equally likely to be referred for a personal crime, a minor property crime (especially petty larceny), or for a status offense. Where there is a racial difference observed, it is that white females are much more likely to be referred for drug and alcohol offenses, while nonwhite females are more likely to be referred for other types of public order offenses. Similarities are also observed in the area of status offenses, which account for roughly a quarter of all girls’ offenses resulting in referral to juvenile court.

With the males, however, racial differences emerge in both the type and chronic nature of delinquency. Nonwhite males are more likely to be referred for personal offenses and lesslikely to be referred for public order and victimless offenses. Within this grouping, whites tend to be referred for alcohol offenses and nonwhites have


Gender and Race DiJJerences in Delinquent Careers

a slight edge for drug offenses. There are fewer racial differences observed in the property offense distributions.

The role played by race on male delinquency is also seen in the types of delinquent careers observed. Nonwhitemales are significantly more likely to become recidivists, especially chronic serious offenders. Nonwhite males were also more likely than their white counterparts to have an adult record, especially a felony arrest record.

Persistent differences do emerge when considering both gender and race. Basically, girls tend to have different and less serious delinquent careers than their male counterparts regardless of race. Race plays a strong role in differentiating delinquency between white and nonwhite males. No such dramatic differences were observed among the girls in this cohort. This finding calls into question the notion that some researchers have called the “convergencehypothesis,” which suggests that black girls are more masculine in their delinquency than white girls. At least inso- far as referrals to juvenile court are concerned, this study indicates that there is far more similar- ity than difference in female delinquency.

Turning to the notion of the chronic delinquent, it would behoove researchers and practi- tioners alike to consider a more careful definition of the term “chronic. ” This research has shown significant differences between the chronic serious and chronic nuisance offenders. Chronic nuisance offenders are far more likely to be females, and their offense pattern involves status and minor property crimes. Delinquent careers that involve chronic commission of serious offenses are essentially a male phenomenon, and the pattern ofoffenses clearly a cause for concern. If the definition of the concept “chronic” delinquent is used to separate out youth for special treatment, or if it is to be used in the shaping of public policy, it should be clarified to better capture the actual nature of juvenile offending.

Authors’ Addresses Professor Randall G. Shelden Criminal Justice Dept. University of Nevada-Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Las Vegas, NV 891 54

88 Juvenile h Family Court Journal I 1993

and Meda Chesney-Lind, Ph.D., Director Women’s Studies University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, HI 96822

References Ageton, S. (1983), “The Dynamics of Female

Delinquency, 1976- 1980,” Criminology

Barnett, A., Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., and Farrington, D. (1 992), “Not All Criminal Career Modelshe Equally Valid,” Crimi- nology 30: 133-140.

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J.A., and Visher, C.A. (eds.) (1 986), Criminal Careers and “Career ” Criminals. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

CaliforniaDepartment of Youth Authority (1 982), Early Identijication of the Chmnic Delin- quent. Sacramento: Dept. of Youth Au-

Cernkovich, S. and Giordano, P.C. (1979), “A Comparative Analysis of Male and Fe- male Delinquency,” Sociological Quar- terly 20: 131-145.

------ (1 992), “School Bonding, Race, and Delin- quency,” Criminology 30: 261-291.

Douglas, J.W., Ross, J.M., Hammond, W.A., and Mulligan, D. (1 966), “Delinquency and Social Class,” British Journal of Crimi- nology 6: 294-302.

Dunford, F. and Elliott, D. (1 984), “IdentifLing Career Offenders Using Self-Report Data, ” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 2 1 ; 57-86.

Edwards, A. (1 973), “Sex and Area Variations in Delinquency Rates in an English City,” British Journal of Criminology 1 3 : 12 1 - 137.

Elliott, D., Ageton, S., Huizinga, D., Knowles, B.A. and Canter, R.J. (1983), The Preva- lence andlncidence ofDelinquent Behav- ior: 1976-1980. Boulder, Colo.: Behav- ioral Research Institute.

21: 555-584.

thority.


Facella, C. A. ( 1 983), Female Delinquency in A Birth Cohort. Ph.D Dissertation, Univer- sity of Pennsylvania.

Finckenauer, J. O., Fiore, B. A,, and Joppich, G.L. (1 982), The Chmnic Juvenile Oflender Project: Final Report. Newark: Rutgers School of Criminal Justice.

Gottfredson, M. and Hirschi, T. (1987), “The Methodological Adequacy of Longitudi- nal Research on Crime,” Criminology

Greenberg, D.F. (1 992), “Comparing Criminal Career Models,” Criminology 30: 14 1 - 148.

Hamperian, D., Davis, J.M., Jacobson, J.M., and McGraw, R.E. (1 984), The Young Crimi- nal Years of the Molent Few. Cleveland: Federation for Community Planning.

Hindelang, M.J., Hirschi, T. and Weis, J. (1981), Measuring Delinquency. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Jensen, G. and Eve, R. (1 976), “Sex Differences in Delinquency,” Criminology 13: 427- 448.

Land, K.C. (1992), “Models of Criminal Ca- reers: Some Suggestions for Moving Beyond the Current Debate,” Criminol-

Laub,J.andMcDermott,M.J. (1985), “AnAnaly- sis of Serious Crime by Young Black Women,” Criminology 23: 8 1-98.

Lee, F.R. (1 992), “For Gold Earrings and Protec- tion, More Girls Take the Road to Vio- lence,” New York limes. November 25: Al, B7.

Miller, B.A., Downs, W.R. and Gondoli, D.M. (1987), “Delinquency, Childhood Vio- lence, and the Development of Alcohol- ism in Women.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Montreal, Canada (No- vember).

Mulligan, D.G., Douglas, J.W., Hammond, W., and Tizard, J. (1 963), “Delinquency and Symptoms of Maladjustment,” Pmceed- ings of the Row1 Society ofMedicine 56:

25: 581-614.

ogy 30: 149-155.

1083-1 086.

Murray, C.A. and Cox, L.A. Jr. (1 979), Bepnd Pmbation: Juvenile Corrections and the Chmnic Delinquent. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Otten, L.A. (1 989, A Comparison of Male and Female Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Dissertaion, University of Pennslyvania.

Ouston, J. (1984), “Delinquency, Family Back- ground, and Educational Attainment,’’ British Journal of Criminology 24: 2-26.

Petersilia, J., Greenwood, P.W. and Lavin, M. (1 978), Criminal Careers of Habitual Felons. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Dept. of Justice.

Pindur, W. and Wells, D.K. (1986), “Chronic Serious Juvenile Offenders,” Juvenile and Family Court Joumal37: 27-30.

Polk, K., Alder, C., Basemore, G., Blake, G., Cardray, S. and Coventry, G. (1 974), Be- coming Adult: An Analysis of Matura- tional Development f i m Age I6 to 30. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Deptartment of Health and Human Services.

Robins, L.N. and Wish, E. ( 1 977), “Childhood Deviance as a Developmental Process: A Study of 223 Urban Black Men From Birth to 1 8,” Social Forces 56: 448-473.

Rosenbaum, J. (1 987), “Family Dysfunction and Female Delinquency,” Crime and Delin- quency 3 5 : 3 1 -44.

Rossenheim, M.K. (1 976), “Notes on Helping: Normalizing Juvenile Nuisances,” So- cial Service Review 20: l 44- l 65.

Santiago, D. (1992), “Random Victims of Vengence Show Teen Crime Has a New Face,” Philadelphia Inquirer: February 23: A l .

Sellin, T. (1 958), “Recidivism and Maturation,” National Pmbation and Pamle Associa- tion Journal 4: 241-250.

Shannon, L.W. (1 982), Assessing the Rehtion- ships of Adult Criminal Careers to Juve- nile Careers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice.

Shelden, R.G. (1 989), ‘ “T‘h e Chronic Delinquent: Some Clarifications of avague Concept,” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 40: 37-44.



Tracy, P.E., Wolfgang, M.E. and Figlio, R.M. (1985), Delinquency in lko Birth Co- horts: Executive Summaty Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Juvenile Jus- tice and Delinquency Prevention.

--I---- ( 1 990), Delinquency Careers in lko Birth Cohorts. New York: Plenum Press.

Wadsworth, M. (19791, Roots of Delinquency: Infancy, Adolescence and Crime. New York: Barnes and Noble.

West, D.J. ( 1 969), Present Conduct and Future Delinquency London: Heinemann.

------- (1 982), Delinquency: Its Roots, Catvers and Prospects. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

_------ and Farrington, D.P. (1973), Who Be- comes Delinquent? London: Heinemann.

-------- ( 1 977), The Delinquent Way oflife. Lon- don: Heinemann.

Wolfgang, M.E., Figlio, R.M. and Sellin, T. ( 1 972), Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: Universtiy of Chicago Press.

Notes

‘There has beer considerable controversy over both the relative merits of longitudinal verses cross-sectional research (see, e.g.. Gottfradson and Hirschi, 1987) and cvcn competing models of criminal “carctrs.” Concerning the latter. scc the almost incompra hensible “debate” among several criminologists in a recent issue of Criminology. which, in our opinion, adds more confusion than clarification (Barnett et al., 1992; Greenberg, 1992; Land, 1992).

The importance of including race is more than merely a narrow academic concern. There has been considerable press reporting of an alleged increase in violence committed by young black females. See, for instance, articlesappearing in theNewYorkTimes(Lct, 1991)and the Philadelphia Inquimr (Santiago, 1992).

’In a recent issue ofCriminology, thew two authorsexplored the interaction among race. gender, school bonding and delinquency and found some important differences. See Chernkovich and Giordano (1 992).

‘The year I980 was selected because we wanted to make certain that most had reached adulthood by the time the study began (1 987) but had not yet reached the age of 24, which was the age when the juvenile court records were sealed and required a court order to view. As it turned out, all but just a handhl had reached adulthood and only a few were past the age of 24 (these were excluded from analysis).

’Juvenile court referrals were used as the source of the data for severalreasons. First, inClarkCountythepolicedepartmcntdocsnot have a specialized “juvenile bureau” wheneven ifa youth isarrested he/she might be sent home or be the recipient of some sort of “station adjustment.” Rather, if a youth under the age of 18 is suspected of having committed a crime, he or she is either arrested and brought to the juvenile court’s intake division and booked (which counts as a “referral” to this juvenile court) or they are given a “misdemeanor citation,” which, similar to a tr&c citation, requires an appearance in the juvenile court on or before a certain date (which also counts as a referral). In other words, for all practical purposes a “referral” to


juvenile court is the equivalent to an “arrest.” Sccond, as already noted. few longitudinal studies have relied on juvenile court referrals and fewer still have followad-up court referrals beyond the juvenile years. Third, the juvenilecourt datn were simply more readily available and easier to pcccss.

6From a computer at this court a list of 1,000 names was drawn randomly from a printout of all juveniles whose first referral was in 1980. The data for this study was originated from the following sources. The major source consisted of data contained on a computer screen within theRecords Divisionofthiscourt. Thescdatawere found specifically on three screens: (1 ) Personul History, which contained such information as date of birth, birth place. race, sex, address. with whom the subject lived (e.g., both natural parents, mother only, stepparents, etc.), school attended and whether or not the subject was in fact attending (including whether or not the individual had dropped out of school); (2) Family H l s b v , which contained a list of siblings who have been referred to the court; (3) meme History, containing informationfor every referral to court, including all of the offenses charged, whether or not the youth was detained. whether or not a petition wasfiled foracourtappcarance, andthefinalcourtdis~ition. Through the use of the offense history file it was possible to tabulate the number of times a youth was referred to court, the number of petitions filed, the number of times the youth was detained, and the number of commitments.

On another computer within this court, one could access local adult rtcords. One of the court workers assisted in checking these records for each youth in the sample. Adult rtcords for each youth was operationalid as follows: (1) none, (2) misdemeanor arrest only, (3) felony arrest, (4) drug amst (since all drug offenses are felonies in Nevada - including possession of marijuana - it was decided to separatethcse fromother felonies, since simpledrug possession in most states is not a felony). Time did not permit a detailed examination of how extensive these adult records are, nor whether or not one moved and hadan adult record in another state. Therefore, most ofthe analysis focuses on the juvenile record, since it is impossible to know who moved out of state. This is always a problem.

’Most of the nonwhites in this sample were Blacks (74% of the malesand71./ofthefemales). Thetotal numberof“otherraces” was too small for calculating any meaningful statistics.

T h e concept “length of career” was measured by identifying how old a youth was on his or her last referral to court and subtracting 60m this the age when they were first referred to court.

Download - Gender and Race Differences in Delinquent Careers

Top Related