homicides of children and youth

7/31/2019 Homicides of Children and Youth

1/12

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

October 2001

Homicides ofChildren and Youth

David Finkelhor and Richard Ormrod

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is committed to

improving the justice systems response to crimes against children. OJJDP recognizes

that children are at increased risk for crime victimization. Not only are children the vic-

tims of many of the same crimes that victimize adults, they are subject to other crimes,

like child abuse and neglect, that are specific to childhood. The impact of these crimes

on young victims can be devastating, and the violent or sexual victimization of children

can often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse. The purpose of

OJJDPs Crimes Against Children Series is to improve and expand the Nations efforts

to better serve child victims by presenting the latest information about child victimization,

including analyses of crime victimization statistics, studies of child victims and their spe-

cial needs, and descriptions of programs and approaches that address these needs.

A Message From OJJDP

Homicides are always tragic, but our

sympathies are heightened when thevictim is a young child or adolescent.Thus, the deaths of juveniles raiseunderstandable public concerns.

Unfortunately, research statistics sel-dom claim the broad audience of themorning newspaper or the eveningnews. This Bulletin, part of OJJDPsCrimes Against Children Series,draws on FBI and other data to pro-vide a statistical portrait of juvenilehomicide victimization.

Homicide is the only major cause ofchildhood deaths that has increased

over the past three decades. In 1999,some 1,800 juveniles, or 3 per100,000 of the U.S. juvenile popula-tion, were homicide victimsa ratesubstantially higher than those ofother developed countries. At thesame time, murders of juveniles areinfrequent in many areas of ourcountry. In 1997, 85 percent ofU.S. counties had no homicides ofjuveniles.

The Bulletin offers detailed informa-tion about overall patterns and victimage groups. Specific types of juvenilehomicide victimization are discussed

in further detail, including maltreat-ment homicides, abduction homi-cides, and school homicides.

Finally, initiatives designed to preventhomicides of children and youth(juveniles) are explored. Given theunacceptable rate of such crimes,much remains to be done.

Murders of children and youth, the ulti-mate form of juvenile victimization, havereceived a great deal of deserved publicityin recent years.1 Yet, while images of PollyKlaas and student victims at ColumbineHigh School are vivid in the publics mind,statistics on juvenile murder victims arenot. Substantial misunderstandings existabout the magnitude of and trends in juve-nile homicide and the types of children atrisk of becoming victims of different types

of homicide.This Bulletin gives a brief statistical por-trait of various facets of child and youthhomicide victimization in the UnitedStates. It draws heavily on homicidedata from the Federal Bureau of Investi-gations (FBIs) Supplementary Homicide

Reports (SHRs), which are part of theBureaus Uniform Crime Reporting Pro-gram; however, it also relies on a varietyof other studies and statistical sources.

Highlights of the findings presented in thisBulletin include the following:

x In 1999, about 1,800 juveniles (a rate of2.6 per 100,000) were victims of homi-cide in the United States. This rate issubstantially higher than that of any

other developed country.x Homicides of juveniles in the United

States are unevenly distributed, bothgeographically and demographically.Rates are substantially higher forAfrican American juveniles and forjuveniles in certain jurisdictions. Yet,85 percent of all U.S. counties had nohomicides of juveniles in 1997.

x Homicides of young children (age 5 andyounger), children in middle childhood

1 Strictly speaking, murder and homicide are not iden-

tical; however, in this Bulletin the terms are some-

times used interchangeably to improve readability.


2/12

2

urban areas than in rural and smallerurban areas. In 1997, 85 percent of all U.counties did not have a single homicide oa juvenile, while five highly urban coun-ties (Chicago, IL; Detroit, MI; Los AngelesCA; New York, NY; and Philadelphia, PA)accounted for one-fourth of all such vic-

timizations nationwide (Snyder and Sick-mund, 1999).

Geographic areas can be differentiated nonly by the rate at which juveniles are thvictims of homicide but also by the per-centage of all homicides in the area thatinvolve a juvenile victim (see figure 3).Thus, in some States with a low rate ofjuvenile victim homicides, such as NewHampshire and some other New EnglandStates, juveniles actually constitute anabove-average percentage (more than20 percent) of all homicide victims in theState. However, in other low-rate States,

such as West Virginia, juveniles represenless than 10 percent of all homicide vic-tims. The grim combination of a high rateof juvenile victim homicides and a high

causes of childhood mortality, accountingfor 1 out of 23 deaths of children and youthyounger than 18 (U.S. Census Bureau,1998). More children 04 years of age inthe United States now die from homicidethan from infectious diseases or cancer,and homicide claims the lives of more

teenagers in the United States than anycause other than accidents (U.S. CensusBureau, 1998). Since 1993, however, homi-cides of juveniles have joined the down-ward trend in homicides of adults thatbegan in 1991 (figure 1).

Juvenile homicide is one of the most un-evenly distributed forms of child victim-ization. Certain groups and localities ex-perience the overwhelming brunt of theproblem.

Minority children and youth are dispropor-tionately affected. For example, 52 percentof juvenile victims of homicide are non-white (Snyder and Finnegan, 1998). Evenafter a recent decline, the overall rate ofvictimization for black juveniles (9.1 per100,000) in 1997 dwarfed the rate for whitejuveniles (1.8 per 100,000) (figure 2). Thevictimization rate for Hispanic juveniles inthree States where data are available wasalso quite high in 1997 (5.0 per 100,000).3

The uneven distribution is also geographic.Some States have no juvenile homicides,and some have rates that are twice thenational average (table 1). Homicides ofjuveniles are much more common in large

(ages 6 to 11), and teenagers (ages 12to 17)2 differ on a number of dimen-sions, suggesting that they should beanalyzed separately.

x Most homicides of young children arecommitted by family members throughbeatings or suffocation. Although vic-

tims include approximately equal num-bers of boys and girls, offenders in-clude a disproportionate number ofwomen. Homicides of young childrenmay be seriously undercounted.

x Middle childhood is a time when achilds homicide risk is relatively low.Homicides of children in middle child-hood show a mixed pattern. Someresult from child maltreatment andothers from the use of firearms. Someare sexually motivated, and some arecommitted as part of multiple-victimfamily homicides.

x Homicides of teenagers, most of whichinvolve male victims killed by male of-fenders using firearms, rose dramatical-ly in the late 1980s and early 1990s buthave declined sharply since 1993.

Overall PatternsOverall, the statistics on murders of juve-niles in the United States are grim andalarming. According to FBI data, 1,789persons under 18 were victims of homi-cide in 1999 (Fox and Zawitz, 2001). Thatnumberequal to a rate of 2.6 per 100,000

juveniles or more than 5 juveniles perdaymakes the United States first amongdeveloped countries in homicides of juve-niles (Krug, Dahlberg, and Powell, 1996).In fact, the U.S. rate is 5 times higher thanthe rate of the other 25 developed coun-tries combined and nearly double the rateof the country with the next highest rate.The rate at which juveniles are murderedin the United States is related to the Na-tions high overall homicide rate: 5.7per 100,000 in 1999, 3 times higher thanthe overall rate of any other developedcountry (Fox and Zawitz, 2001).

Homicide is the only major cause ofchildhood death that has increased inincidence during the past 30 years. Whiledeaths of children resulting from acci-dents, congenital defects, and infectiousdiseases were falling, homicides of chil-dren were increasing. Homicide is nowranked second or third, depending on thespecific age group, among the 3 leading

2 See discussion of victim age groups on page 3.

3 Homicide rates for Hispanic youth are based on da

from Arizona, California, and TexasStates that regu

larly report information on victim ethnicity (this item

is optional for the SHRs). Because of this limited re-

porting, the rates should not be considered national

representative. Furthermore, the location of the thre

reporting States suggests the data are more likely to

be typical of juvenile victims of Mexican-American

background than of those of other Hispanic origin.

Figure 1: Homicide Rates for Juvenile and Adult Victims, 198097

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Rate

per100,0

00Persons

Adult victims (over 17 years)

Juvenile victims (0 to 17 years)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Year

Note: Rates were calculated by the Crimes against Children Research Center.

Source: Snyder and Finnegan, 1998.


3/12

3

percentage of juveniles among a Stateshomicide victims occurs in 11 Statesincluding California, Illinois, and Pennsyl-vania, which contain 3 of the 5 large citiesidentified above.

Such a broad summary of statistics onhomicides involving juvenile victims issomewhat misleading in that it masksthe multifaceted nature of the problem.Homicides of children and youth can takemany different forms, each of which in-volves different contributing factors andcalls for different prevention strategies.A victims age is one important distinc-tion. The relative risk and characteristicsof homicide victimization differ for juve-niles of different ages. Homicides of chil-dren and youth can also be distinguishedby characteristics of the perpetrator and

certain contextual factors. This Bulletinexplores different facets of homicides ofjuveniles, starting with important differ-ences based on the age of the victim. Thefollowing age groups are discussed in or-der of decreasing risk: teenagers, youngchildren, and children in middle child-hood. The Bulletin also briefly describeswhat is known about particular types ofhomicidessuch as child maltreatmenthomicides and school homicidesthat

Figure 2: Juvenile Victim Homicide Rates, by Victim Race andEthnicity, 199097

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Rateper100,0

00Juveniles

(ages017)

Black victims*

Hispanic victims**

White victims*

Year

Note: Rates were calculated by the Crimes against Children Research Center.

* Includes Hispanics within race.

** Three reporting States (Arizona, California, and Texas) only (see footnote 3, page 2); includesHispanics of any race.

Source: Homicide data for white victims and black victims from Snyder and Finnegan, 1998.Homicide data for Hispanic victims from Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997.

Table 1: Homicides of Juveniles: Average State Rates per 100,000

Juveniles Ages 017, 1996 and 1997

State Rate

Utah 1.9Oregon 1.9Vermont 1.7Idaho 1.7Iowa 1.4West Virginia 1.2Hawaii 1.2Massachusetts 1.1Delaware 1.1Maine 1.0New Hampshire 1.0South Dakota 1.0Wyoming 0.8Montana 0North Dakota 0Kansas N/A

State Rate

Pennsylvania 2.9Texas 2.8Georgia 2.8New York 2.8North Carolina 2.7Connecticut 2.7Ohio 2.6Wisconsin 2.6Alabama 2.6Indiana 2.6Colorado 2.5Florida 2.5Kentucky 2.3Rhode Island 2.3New Jersey 2.3Washington 2.3Minnesota 2.0

State Rate

Nevada 6.2Illinois 5.4Louisiana 5.4Maryland 5.1Alaska 5.0Mississippi 4.5California 4.4New Mexico 3.9Missouri 3.7Tennessee 3.6Nebraska 3.6Oklahoma 3.6Arkansas 3.3South Carolina 3.3Virginia 3.1Arizona 3.0Michigan 3.0

Note: Homicide rates were calculated by the Crimes against Children Research Center.


have been the focus of recent publicconcern. The Bulletin ends with a discus-sion of policy initiatives that focus on pre-venting the homicide of juveniles.

Victim Age Groups

Teenagers

The murder of teenagers has received substantial publicity in recent years, in partbecause of the rising number of teenagevictims between 1984 and 1993. The number of homicides involving teenage victimincreased nearly 158 percent during thattime (figure 4) and by 1993 reached a rate29 percent higher than the Nations overarate (Fox and Zawitz, 2001). Even after declining from 1993 to 1997, the homiciderate for teenagers remained about 10 percent higher than the average homiciderate for all persons (Fox and Zawitz, 2001

The term teenager, as used in this Bul-letin, refers to youth ages 12 to 17. Age 12is the most useful point of demarcation foexamining homicide patterns and trendsacross childhood because it is the age atwhich rates begin to rise significantly (sefigure 5). It is also the age above which thmarked increase in the rate at which juveniles are murdered occurred in the late1980s (see figure 4).

Compared with homicides of childrenyounger than 12, homicides of teenagersmore closely resemble and appear to bean extension of homicides of adults. Likehomicides of adults, homicides of teen-agers overwhelmingly involve a male vic-tim (81 percent) (figure 6) killed by a ma


4/12

4

offender (95 percent) (no figure) using afirearm (86 percent) or a knife or otherobject (10 percent) (figure 7). Unlike homi-cides of children under age 12, relativelyfew homicides of teenagers (9 percent) arecommitted by family members (figure 8).4

The percentage of homicide victims mur-

dered by other youth is much larger forteenagers (figure 9) than for victimsyounger than 12. Nonetheless, two-thirdsof teenage homicide victims are killed byadults. The murderers of teenagers are pre-dominantly young (figure 9), but only aminority are younger than 18.

The dramatic increase in the number ofteenagers murdered during the late 1980sand early 1990s has been attributed tovarious factors, including the rise in childpoverty, expansion of gang activity,spread of crack cocaine and drug marketcompetition, and increased availability of

handguns. The growth in the number ofhomicides of teens from 1984 to 1993 wasalmost entirely in the category of firearmhomicides, which accounted for 85 per-cent of all homicides of teenagers duringthat time (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999).Some of the increase in teens gun useduring that period may have been connect-ed to the drug trade and a perceived needto protect valuable drugs and money. Thecycle of gun use accelerated as additionalyouth acquired guns to protect them-selves from other armed youth.

Although the number of teen homicide

victims rose dramatically in the late 1980s,the increase was somewhat limited demo-graphically and geographically, occurringprimarily in certain parts of urban com-munities. Available data confirm that theincrease did not affect all segments of thepopulation equally. In particular, datashow a disproportionate rise in the riskof homicide for minority teens. Althoughhomicides of white teenagers almostdoubled (up 92 percent) from 1984 to1993, homicides of minority teens morethan tripled during the same period (Sny-der and Finnegan, 1998). The number ofAfrican American teens murdered during

the period increased 233 percent (from314 to 1,047), and the number of otherminority teens (i.e., Asian American,Native American, and Pacific Islander)increased 275 percent (from 12 to 45).Rural areas were relatively unaffected by

the increase in the rate of homicides ofteens. Between the late 1980s and early1990s, rates barely rose in towns with

Figure 3: Juvenile Victim Homicide Rate and Juveniles as a Percentageof All Homicide Victims, by State, Average for 1996 and 1997

Missing dataLow rate, high percentageHigh rate, high percentage

Low rate, low percentageHigh rate, low percentage

Note: High and low refer to rates or percentages that are above or below the nationalaverage.


Figure 4: Homicides of Juveniles, by Victim Age Group, 198097

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Teenagers (1217 years)

Young children (05 years)

Children in middle childhood (611 years)NumberofHomicides

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Year

Note: The Crimes against Children Research Center adjusted the homicide data by age group.


populations smaller than 25,000 whilethey more than doubled in cities withpopulations larger than 250,000.

4 This percentage is calculated for each juvenile victim

age group rather than for all juvenile victims as shown

in figures 7 and 8.


5/12

5

After peaking in 1993, the number of homi-cides of teenagers dropped markedly (34percent) by 1997 (Snyder and Finnegan,1998), although it remained above the lowof the mid-1980s (figure 4). Decreases fromthe peak in 1993 until 1997 were similarfor whites (33 percent), African Americans(39 percent), and Hispanics (40 percent),5

meaning that the differential rates forthese groups persisted. In disturbing

contrast, however, the number of homi-cides of teens of other races (i.e., AsianAmerican, Native American, and PacificIslander) increased 51 percent during thatperiod. Homicide statistics for 1997 show

that gangs and drugs remained a part ofmany killings of teens (gangs in 29 percenand drugs in 6 percent of homicides)(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997).The role of firearms also remained impor-tant; during 1993 and 1997, more than 80percent of homicides of teens involved th

use of a firearm.

Young Children

Often eclipsed by the publics concernabout the murder of teenagers is the factthat young children (i.e., those age 5 andyounger)6 face an elevated risk of homi-cide, although under different conditionsFBI data show 700 homicide victims undeage 6 in 1997 (a rate of 2.6 per 100,000)(Snyder and Finnegan, 1998; Federal Bu-reau of Investigation, 1997). The homiciderate for young children was for many yeaequal to the rate for teens, before the lat-

ters recent rise. In spite of that rise, moregirls under age 6 were homicide victimsthan girls ages 12 to 17 (320 versus 230)and white children under age 6 were vic-tims of homicide 75 percent as often aswhite teens (1.8 per 100,000 and 2.4 per100,000, respectively) in 1997 (figure 10).

Moreover, the actual homicide rate foryoung children may be even higher thanavailable official statistics suggest. Thehomicides of young children are amongthe most difficult to document becausethey so often resemble deaths resultingfrom accidents and other causes. For ex-

ample, a child who dies from SIDS (suddeinfant death syndrome) is difficult to dis-tinguish from one who has been smoth-ered, and a child who has been thrown ointentionally dropped may have injuriessimilar to those of one who died from anaccidental fall.

A team of experts carefully examinedthe fatalities of children ages 0 to 4 thatoccurred from 1983 through 1986 in theState of Missouri. Using multiple informa-tion sources, the team found that thetrue extent of child deaths that could beconsidered homicides was largely undere

timated. FBI homicide data for Missourihad included only 39 percent of the fatali-ties that definitely resulted from mal-treatment and 18 percent of fatalities thatpossibly or definitely resulted from maltreatment (Ewigman, Kivlahan, and Land,1993). Some analysts have estimated the

Figure 5: Juvenile Victim Homicide Rate, by Victim Age, 1997

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


6/12

6

actual rate of homicides for young childrento be double the official rate (U.S. AdvisoryBoard on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).

Homicides of young children rose 38 per-cent between 1984 and 1993 (figure 4).After remaining elevated for a numberof years, the number of such homicidesdeclined in 1997 (dropping about 16 per-cent from 1996). Much of the earlier in-crease was among children ages 0 to 1and may have been an artifact of classifi-cation. Because of the difficulty of confirm-ing homicide in the deaths of very youngchildren, many States established childdeath review teams in the 1980s. Thegreater scrutiny by such teams may haveelevated official child homicide rates with-out any true underlying increase in theincidence of child homicides. In addition,more than 23 States in recent years haveadopted homicide by abuse statutes that

make it easier for prosecutors to chargeoffenders with homicide in child abusecaseseven without proof of intent to kill.This statutory change also could have pro-duced some artifactual increase in therates at which children are murdered.

Two characteristics that particularly dis-tinguish the homicides of young childrenfrom those of other juvenile victims arethat homicides of young children arecommitted primarily by family members(71 percent) (figure 8) and by the common(68 percent) use of personal weapons(i.e., hands and feet) to batter, strangle,

or suffocate victims (figure 7) (see foot-note 4, page 4). Also, young girls andyoung boys are victims of homicide inabout equal proportions (46 percent and54 percent, respectively), and althoughmale perpetrators somewhat outnumberfemale perpetrators (58 percent and 42percent, respectively) in homicides ofyoung children, females are involved inthese homicides more often than in homi-cides of victims of any other age (FederalBureau of Investigation, 1997).

Young children at the highest risk of homi-cide are those under age 1 (figure 5). Homi-

cides of children in this group include acertain number of infanticides (homicidesin which recently born children are killedby relatives who do not want the child,are ill equipped to care for the child, orare suffering from a childbirth-relatedpsychiatric disturbance) (Resnick, 1970).FBI homicide data do not identify infanti-cides as a distinct subgroup. Countriessuch as Britain and Canada, by contrast,

Figure 7: Juvenile Victim Homicides, by Weapon Used and VictimAge Group, 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


7/12

7

have a special infanticide offense category,and one Canadian study indicated that60 percent of homicides of children under6 months old qualified as infanticide (Sil-verman and Kennedy, 1988). In the UnitedStates, FBI data do identify victims mur-dered during the first 6 days of life (victimsof what is sometimes called neonaticide),

and in 1997, there were about 70 such vic-tims (Federal Bureau of Investigation,1997). Two-thirds were murdered by moth-ers, one-half of whom were under age 20.Fathers were responsible for about 1 out of10 of these murders. The number of chil-dren murdered during the first 6 days oflife remained stable throughout the 1990s.

Children in Middle Childhoo

Middle childhood, ages 6 to 11, seems tobe a time when children are relativelyimmune from the risk of homicide. Al-though children in this age group can facsubstantial violence, in the form of bothparental assaults at home and peer ag-

gression in their school and neighbor-hood, relatively little of it is lethal. Theoverall homicide rate of 0.6 per 100,000for children in middle childhood is farlower than that for juveniles of any otherage group (figure 5). The rate during thisperiod is even low for children in population subgroups, such as African Ameri-cans, that have high overall juvenile homcide rates. The homicide rate for childrein middle childhood is lower than that foany other segment of the population, in-cluding the elderly. (The murder rate is2.2 per 100,000 for those 65 and older.)

The homicide rate is probably low forchildren in middle childhood because thperiod is a time of transition. Childrenages 6 to 11 have outgrown some of thecharacteristics that make very young chidren vulnerable to lethal force, but theyhave not begun to engage in the activitiethat drive up the homicide rate for adolecents. Thus, children in middle childhooare less dependent and require less con-tinual care than very young children.They are also more self-sufficient andpossess a degree of socialization and ver-bal skills that younger children do not po

sess. These qualities make children in midle childhood less of a burden and lesspotentially frustrating for their parentsand other adult caregivers, who are theprimary perpetrators of early childhoodhomicide. Children in middle childhoodare also bigger and better able to hidefrom, dodge the blows of, and get awayfrom angry parents than young children.It takes more force and energy to inflict alethal injury on a child age 6 to 11 thanon a younger child. By the same token,children in middle childhood are protected from some of the dangers that affectadolescents. They are usually under adu

supervision and protection, and mosthave not yet gained access to weapons,drugs, and cars. Gang activity, while staring for some, has not yet become highlydangerous. Children in middle childhoodare also less likely than adolescents to bconsidered threats or viewed as candi-dates for involvement in crime by crimi-nally minded adults or youth.

Children in middle childhood, however,do get murdered. Their deaths appear to

Figure 9: Offender Age in Juvenile Victim Homicides, by VictimAge Group, 1997

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 50+

PercentageofOffendersfor

EachVictimA

geGroup

Teenagers (1217 years)

Young children (05 years)

Children in middle childhood(611 years)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Offender Age

Note: This figure presents 3-year running averages of victim age groups.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997.

Figure 10: Juvenile Victim Homicide Rates, by Victim Race and

Age, 1997

0

10

20

30

40


8/12

8

result from a mixture of causes, some re-lated to the causes of homicides in earlychildhood and some to the causes of homi-cides of adolescents. Because they are stillmore physically and emotionally depend-ent than teenagers, children of middlechildhood (like young children) are killed

most often by family members (61 percentof the perpetrators) (figure 8) (see foot-note 4, page 4). Unlike cases involvingyoung children, however, these homicidesare not committed primarily by hand (fig-ure 7). Approximately one-half (49 percent)are committed with firearms. Moreover, re-flecting their greater independence, chil-dren in middle childhood begin to fallvictim to homicides by strangers. Oneout of eight homicide victims in this agegroup is killed by a stranger, more thanthree times the proportion for youngerchildren. Children in middle childhood,especially the older ones, also begin to

experience the ravages of gang-related vio-lence. Of all homicides of children ages 6to 11 for which police listed a circum-stance, 6 percent were listed as gang re-lated. Those who kill children in middlechildhood are the oldest of all child killers,with more than half (52 percent) olderthan age 30 (figure 9).

Homicides of children in middle child-hood also appear to stem from a varietyof other motives. For example, children ofthis age are at risk of sexual homicides.Some sex offenders are attracted to chil-dren in this age range and sometimes mur-

der children to hide their crimes. A signifi-cant number of homicides of children ages6 to 11 are negligent gun homicides, inwhich youth and/or other family memberswield or misuse firearms that they believeto be harmless or unloaded. Children inmiddle childhood are also killed in thecourse of crimes such as robberies or car-jackings, in which children are unintendedvictims. Family members sometimes mur-der children of this age in the course ofarson attacks or whole-family suicide-homicides. The diversity of homicides ofchildren of this age group makes them dif-

ficult to typify.It is notable that homicides of children inmiddle childhood did not show the sameconsistently upward trend as other homi-cides of juveniles in the late 1980s andearly 1990s (figure 4). Most of the varia-tions in their rates were only slight fluc-tuations in a relatively low base rate ofhomicides. The lack of a consistent trendfor homicides of children in middle child-hood is additional evidence that homicidesduring this developmental period may bea distinct phenomenon.

Types of JuvenileHomicide VictimizationsIn addition to categorizing homicidesof juveniles by the age of the victim, re-searchers often group such homicides byfeatures of the crime context and by per-

petrator. The following sections describecertain distinguishing characteristics ofthese types of homicide.

Maltreatment Homicides

Child maltreatment homicides are commit-ted by persons charged with the care of achild, including parents and other familymembers, babysitters, and friends whohave taken responsibility for the child. In1997, FBI data showed that 27 percent ofall child victims of homicide (more than500 children) were killed by a parent, step-parent, or other adult family member.

Other data reported by child protectionauthorities showed 1,196 child maltreat-ment fatalities in 1997 (U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, ChildrensBureau, 1999). This difference reflects thefact that many studies that report dataon child maltreatment fatalities (e.g.,Ewigman, Kivlahan, and Land 1993; U.S.Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Ne-glect, 1995) include deaths other thanthose officially recorded as homicides,particularly deaths caused by neglect ornegligence. (Deaths caused by neglectgenerally include situations in which achild dies because parents or caretakers

failed to provide food or obviously neededmedical attention. Deaths caused by negli-gence, by contrast, involve parents orcaretakers who fail to provide basic super-vision or precaution and a child who diesin a clearly preventable accident, such asfalling after being left unattended at anopen window.) Approximately 42 percentof deaths counted by child protectionauthorities as child maltreatment fatalitiesare classified as resulting from neglect ornegligence, 54 percent as resulting fromabuse, and 5 percent as resulting fromabuse and neglect (Wiese and Daro, 1995).

The vast majority of child maltreatmentfatalities (92 percent) involve children age5 or younger. In like fashion, most (70 per-cent) of the deaths classified as homicidesfor this age group result from maltreatment(i.e., are committed by family caretakers)(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997).Child maltreatment fatalities most ofteninvolve very young children, with 40 per-cent of victims under age 1, 18 percentbetween ages 1 and 2, and 13 percent ages2 or 3 (Wiese and Daro, 1995).

Two factors account for very young chil-drens unusually high risk of death incases of child maltreatment. First are theconsiderable demands that children age and younger impose on parents and othecaretakers. The complete dependence ofvery young children (who can be needy,

impulsive, and not yet amenable to verbacontrol) and the constant attention theyrequire can overwhelm some caretakers.In fact, two of the most common triggersof fatal child abuse are crying that will nocease and toileting accidents (U.S. Ad-visory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect1995). Second, and perhaps most impor-tant, is that children of this age are smalland physically vulnerable. Unlike olderchildren, very young children can still beeasily picked up, shaken, or thrown. Inaddition, a limited amount of physicalforce inflicted on a very young childcan cause serious damage, and the imma

turity of certain anatomical features (e.g.the relatively large size of the head andweakness of the neck) means that veryyoung children are more likely than olderchildren to suffer fatal traumas as a resultof abuse. The significance of this physicalvulnerability is reflected in the fact thatfatal child abuse is more concentratedamong very young children than nonfatalchild abuse. The major cause of death inchild abuse cases involving very youngchildren is cerebral trauma (U.S. AdvisoryBoard on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).

Child maltreatment fatalities are more

common in conditions of poverty and infamilies marked by divorce or paternalabsence. Child maltreatment fatality ratesare also disproportionately high amongAfrican Americans (Levine, Freeman, andCompaan, 1994). Drug use is a factor in 2percent of child maltreatment fatalities.Several studies show that boys and girlsare at approximately equal risk of fatalabuse, but boys are at slightly higher riskof fatal neglect (Levine, Freeman, andCompaan, 1994). Young boys, who oftenare more active and aggressive than girlsare possibly more difficult to supervise o

regarded by their parents as needing lesscare and supervision (Margolin, 1990). It isinteresting that male caretakers are responsible for a disproportionate number of childabuse fatalities and female caretakers (whospend more time caring for young children)are responsible for a greater proportion ofchild neglect fatalities (Levine, Freeman,and Compaan, 1994). Inadequate preparation for assuming a caretaking role withyoung children may cause men to havelower levels of tolerance for crying, soil-ing, and disobedience.


9/12

9

Tragically, a significant percentage of childmaltreatment fatalities24 to 45 percentin various studies (Levine, Freeman, andCompaan, 1994; Wiese and Daro, 1995)occur in families already known to childprotective authorities because of somefamily or childcare problem they had been

having. In as many as one in eight childmaltreatment fatalities, the case was cur-rently active (Levine, Freeman, and Com-paan, 1994). This statistic raises the hopethat many child maltreatment deathscould be prevented through properintervention.

Unfortunately, the more than 1,000 childmaltreatment fatalities that occur eachyear need to be placed in the context ofmore than 1 million cases of child abuseand neglect substantiated by child welfareauthorities every year. Some observersdoubt that the subgroup of cases that

result in death could ever be reliably de-tected from the larger poolin part be-cause fatalities are comparatively rare andin part because so many of the factors thatcontribute to an actual death are unpre-dictable (U.S. Advisory Board on ChildAbuse and Neglect, 1995). Other obser-vers, however, have noted that there isan important subgroup of child maltreat-ment fatalities that occur in families witha long and serious history of child mal-treatment and parental incompetence.These observers believe that better re-search and more aggressive child welfareintervention might save a substantial num-

ber of lives.

Multiple-Victim FamilyHomicides

One of the grisliest kinds of family homi-cide occurs when a family member killsmultiple kin or even whole families, in-cluding children and youth. In 1997, 6 per-cent of homicides of children and youth(approximately 115) were committed aspart of multiple-victim family murders inwhich a family member killed a juvenilealong with other victims (Federal Bureauof Investigation, 1997). Three-quarters ofthe juvenile victims in such crimes wereunder age 12. Victims included approx-imately equal numbers of boys and girls.In 59 percent of cases, only two familymembers (two juveniles or one juvenileand one adult) were killed; in 41 percentof cases, three or more family memberswere killed. In 57 percent of cases, thejuvenile victim died along with an adult

victim. Fathers and stepfathers were re-sponsible for most multiple-victim familyhomicides in 1997 (60 percent), and per-petrators tended to use firearms. Com-pared with typical victims of juvenilehomicides, those in multiple-victim familyhomicides are more likely to be white,

but their geographic distribution is notmarkedly different. Consistent with thegeneral downward trend in juvenile homi-cide, the number of victims of multiple-victim family homicides has been declin-ing somewhat in recent years, down froma high of 130 in 1993. Studies of specialsamples of such cases show that they areassociated particularly with an offendersseparation from an intimate partner and/or mental illness (depression and psy-chosis, but not personality disorders)(Cooper and Eaves, 1996; Rosenbaum,1990). Perpetrators commit suicide inas many as 40 percent of these cases.

Homicides by Females

In general, women kill much less frequent-ly than men. However, one-quarter of thevictims in killings by women are juveniles.Women are responsible for 43 percent ofthe deaths of children under age 12 whoare killed by identifiable persons, a per-centage that has been relatively stablesince the 1980s (Federal Bureau of Investi-gation, 1997). Women overwhelmingly killvery young children (75 percent of theirjuvenile victims are under age 6) and mem-bers of their family (79 percent). Thus,

women who kill are heavily concentratedin child maltreatment homicides and infan-ticides. Consistent with these types ofcrimes, women are more likely than mento use their hands and feet as weapons(54 percent versus 22 percent). Womenare less likely than men to use a firearm tokill a child (17 percent versus 63 percent).Interestingly, 20 percent of the homicidesof children committed by female offendersinvolve an additional offender, almostalways a male accomplice (Federal Bureauof Investigation, 1997). Women who killchildren are more likely to be labeled

mentally ill than men who kill childrenand are somewhat more likely to commitsuicide (Silverman and Kennedy, 1988).Researchers also have highlighted differ-ences between young, unmarried femaleswho commit infanticide (often by suffoca-tion or strangulation) and older, marriedfemales who beat children to death inchild maltreatment homicides (Silvermanand Kennedy, 1988).

Homicides by Strangers andUnidentified Offenders

Parents naturally worry about the threatof homicide posed to their children bystrangers with malevolent intent. Accu-rately evaluating the threat posed bystrangers is difficult because often the

identity of the perpetrator in homicidesof juveniles is not known. About 11 per-cent of those who murder juveniles areofficially classified as strangers, but anadditional 29 percent are unidentified(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997).Most of the unidentified offenders aregenerally believed to be strangers (inpart because homicides committed bystrangers are considered more difficultto solve). Moreover, the distribution ofmost crime characteristics in cases withunidentified offenders is more similar tothat for victims killed by strangers than

for those killed by nonstrangers (table 2)Thus, depending on the percentage ofunidentified offenders included, some-where between 11 and 40 percent ofhomicides of juveniles are committedby strangers.

Homicides of juveniles by strangers andhomicides of juveniles by unidentifiedoffenders involve a disproportionate percentage of teenage victims (87 and 81 pecent, respectively), male victims (84 and80 percent), victims killed with firearms(92 and 82 percent), and gang-related circumstances (about a third in both cases

However, compared with teenage victimthe numbers of children under the ageof 12 killed by strangers (3 percent) andunidentified offenders (13 percent) arerelatively small (see figure 8, page 6, andfootnote 4, page 4). Moreover, some ofthese unidentified offenders are proba-bly family members or acquaintances ofyoung child victims.

Abduction Homicides

Child and youth abductions that end inhomicide are another peril that hasalarmed large numbers of children and

their families in the wake of highly publi-cized tragedies. Unfortunately, FBI data dnot include information on abduction as homicide circumstance. In 1988, a reanalsis of FBI data suggested that the maxi-mum number of such abduction homi-cides was 43 to 147 each year (Finkelhor,Hotaling, and Sedlak, 1990).

Two large, multiyear, multistate samplesof homicide abductions of juveniles haveallowed researchers to sketch the characteristics of victims and offenders in this


10/12

10

type of case (Boudreaux, Lord, and Dutra,1999; Hanfland, Keppel, and Weis, 1997).Although many highly publicized homi-cide abductions have involved preteenchildren (such as Adam Walsh), the major-ity involve teenagers. Teenage girls werefound to be at the highest risk, and the

motive in more than two-thirds of homi-cide abduction cases examined in thestudies was sexual. Fifty-three percent ofthe offenders were strangers, and 39 per-cent were acquaintances. Virtually alloffenders were males, and the great major-ity were under age 30. Eighty-five percentwere unmarried or divorced, and 50 per-cent were unemployed at the time of thecrime. In 58 percent of the homicideabductions, offenders made contact withtheir victim within one-quarter of a mileof the victims home, and in 54 percent ofsuch cases, the murder occurred withinone-quarter of a mile of the site of initial

contact (Hanfland, Keppel, and Weis,1997). Strangulation and stabbing weremuch more common in these abductionhomicides than in other types of murdersof juveniles.

Homicides by Youth

A number of high-profile incidents in the1990s highlighted the problem of youthkilling other youth. In 1997, about one-fourth of offenders (of those whose ageswere known) in murder cases involvingjuvenile victims were themselves juv-eniles (virtually all teenagers). The phe-

nomenon of juveniles killing other juve-niles increased dramatically during the1980s and early 1990s (900 victims in 1994compared with 400 in 1980) and thendeclined (about 500 victims in 1997). Thepredominant pattern in these killings isfor teenagers to kill other teens (84 per-cent of victims in 1997 were teens versus16 percent preteens) who are acquain-tances (68 percent) by using a firearm(74 percent) (Federal Bureau of Investi-gation, 1997). A small percentage of theyouth who killed other youth in 1997(7 percent) were teen parents who killed

their young children in infanticides orchild maltreatment homicides.

School Homicides

The 1999 tragedy in Littleton, CO, broughtpublic attention to the killing of childrenin schools. Media reports have createdthe impression that such killings are morecommonplace than they actually are. Un-fortunately, FBI statistics do not catego-rize episodes of homicide by place ofoccurrence. However, statistics on school

homicides are available in the 2000 An-nual Report on School Safety(U.S. Depart-ments of Justice and Education, 2000),which describes findings from the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study.

The School-Associated Violent DeathsStudy, conducted by the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention, indicatesthat less than 1 percent of the children

nationwide who were murdered in thefirst half of the 199899 school year (July1, 1998, to December 31, 1998) were vic-tims of school-associated murders (i.e.,murders that occurred on school proper-ty, at a school-sponsored event, or onthe way to or from school or a school-sponsored event). The total number ofschool-associated violent death incidentsdeclined from a high of 49 during the199596 school year to 34 during the com-plete 199899 school year (July 1, 1998,

to June 30, 1999). The 34 incidents in the199899 school year resulted in 50 schooassociated violent deaths (students andnonstudents), of which 38 were homicide9 were suicides, 2 were killings of adults ba law enforcement officer in the course ofduty, and 1 was an unintentional shootingSince the 199293 school year, there hasbeen at least one multiple-victim schoolhomicide event each year except for the199394 school year; the number declinedfrom six events in 199798 to two in199899.

Available data do not suggest that schooare particularly risky places for homicidevictimization, nor do they show thatschools are becoming increasingly risky.Rather, it seems that a rash of multiple-victim school homicides occurred from1997 to 1999, of which the Littleton epi-sode was one. The numbers, however, artoo small to be labeled a trend.

Table 2: Case Characteristics in Homicides of Juveniles Committed byStrangers, Unidentified Offenders, and Identified Nonstrangers

Type of Offender

Unidentified IdentifiedCharacteristic Stranger (%) Offenders (%) Nonstranger (%)

Victim Age Group 100 100 10005 years 7 14 47611 years 6 5 101217 years 87 81 43

Victim Sex 100 100 100Male 84 80 63Female 16 20 37

Victim Race 100 100 100White 50 33 54Black 44 62 41Native American 1 0 2Asian American/

Pacific Islander 5 5 3

Weapon 100 100 100Firearm 92 82 44Knife/object 6 7 12Personal/asphyxiation 2 5 36Other/unknown 0 6 8

Circumstance 100 100 100Sex offense 1 1 2Robbery 15 9 2Drug violation 1 8 3Gang killing 36 32 9Other 47 50 84

Note: Data was gathered from 1,790 homicides, including 189 (11%) committed by strangers, 515(29%) committed by unidentified offenders, and 1,086 (60%) committed by identified nonstrangers.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997.


11/12

11

Prevention InitiativesIn recent years, concern about homicidesof juveniles has prompted a number ofpolicy initiatives, many of which havebeen targeted at preventing youth fromkilling other youth. Such efforts includelaws that criminalize firearm possessionby minors, call for prosecution of minorsas adults in criminal court, or hold adultsresponsible when minors gain access tofirearms. OJJDP-sponsored programsinclude the Comprehensive Strategy forSerious, Violent, and Chronic JuvenileOffenders; the Comprehensive GangModel; victim-offender mediation; conflictresolution training; and the PartnershipsTo Reduce Juvenile Gun Violence pro-gram. These coordinated community ini-tiatives seek to control gang activity, stopthe flow of guns to juveniles, improvesupervision of delinquent youth, counsel

victims of violence, and teach alternativesto violence. A specific example of such aninitiative is the Partnerships To ReduceJuvenile Gun Violence site in Oakland, CA,a major component of which is a programcalled Caught in the Crossfire. This hospital-based intervention provides bedside coun-seling to juvenile victims of gun violence toprevent future retaliation by the victim orthe victims friends and family members.Many of these victims and their familymembers are known to be involved withguns and are referred to the partnershipsintervention programs. Similar coordinatedcommunity programs have been credited

with reducing the rate at which teens weremurdered in other places, such as Boston,MA (Kennedy, 1998). More informationon these initiatives and other OJJDP pro-grams is available on the OJJDP Web site atwww.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

Other initiatives have focused on the homi-cides of younger children. Child deathreview teams (consisting of experts withmedical, social services, or law enforce-ment backgrounds) have been establishedin almost all States to review suspiciousdeaths of children, identify possible homi-cides, and make recommendations for pre-

vention. Statutes have been crafted to facil-itate the prosecution of child maltreatmentdeaths as homicides, removing the needto prove intent to kill. Child abandonmentlaws, sometimes called Baby Mosesstatutes, have also been passed in a num-ber of States to prevent newborn aban-donment and infanticide by allowing forvoluntary, anonymous relinquishmentof unwanted infants (Sneeringer, 2000).Mandatory minimum sentencing has beenenacted in some States to deter homicides

and confine more of those who committhem. In an effort to prevent child deaths,law enforcement agencies in some juris-dictions have established protocols forproviding a more rapid response to childabductions. In some States, child protec-tion investigations provide for greater

police involvement or are turned over tolaw enforcement authorities to improvesafety and protect children in high-risksituations (Wilson, Vincent, and Lake,1996).

Preventing homicides of children andyouth continues to be an active item onthe policy agenda of national, State, andlocal authorities. However, not all policyinitiatives reflect the complex and variednature of the problem, as illustrated ininformation presented in this Bulletin.The extent and complexity of the problemand the fact that the juvenile homicide

rate in the United States continues to besubstantially higher than in other moderndemocracies suggest that much remainsto be done.

ReferencesBoudreaux, M.C., Lord, W.D., and Dutra, R.L.1999. Child abduction: Aged-based analysis ofoffender, victim, and offense characteristics in550 cases of alleged child disappearance.

Journal of Forensic Sciences 44(3):539553.

Cooper, M., and Eaves, D. 1996. Suicide follow-ing homicide in the family. Violence and Victims11(2):99112.

Ewigman, B., Kivlahan, C., and Land, G. 1993.The Missouri child fatality study: Underreport-ing of maltreatment fatalities among childrenyounger than five years of age, 1983 through1986.Pediatrics 91(2):330337.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997. UniformCrime Reporting Program Data: U.S. Supplemen-tary Homicide Reports 19801997. Computer file.Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium forPolitical and Social Research.

Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G.T., and Sedlak, A. 1990.Missing, Abducted, Runaway and ThrownawayChildren in America: First Report. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Fox, J.A., and Zawitz, M.W. 2001.HomicideTrends in the United States. Retrieved April2001 from the World Wide Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hanfland, K.A., Keppel, R.D., and Weis, J.G.1997. Case Management for Missing Children

Homicide Investigation. Olympia, WA: AttorneyGeneral of Washington.

Kennedy, D. 1998. Crime prevention as crimedeterrence. In What Can the Federal Governme

Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Commun-ities?, edited by the National Institute of JusticU.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: U.Government Printing Office, pp. 5558.

Krug, E.G., Dahlberg, L.L., and Powell, K.E. 199

Childhood homicide, suicide, and firearmdeaths: An international comparison. WorldHealth Statistics Quarterly19(3/4):230235.

Levine, M., Freeman, J., and Compaan, C. 1994Maltreatment-related fatalities: Issues of policyand prevention.Law & Policy16(4):449471.

Margolin, L. 1990. Fatal child neglect. ChildWelfare LXIX(4):309319.

Resnick, P.J. 1970. Murder of the newborn: Apsychiatric review of neonaticide.American

Journal of Psychiatry126(10):14141420.

Rosenbaum, M. 1990. The role of depressionin couples involved in murder-suicide andhomicide.American Journal of Psychiatry147(8):10361039.

Silverman, R.A., and Kennedy, L.W. 1988.Women who kill their children. Violence andVictims 3(2):113127.

Sneeringer, J. 2000. Baby Moses laws seek tosave childrens lives by keeping mothers anonymous. USLaw.Com. Retrieved May 4, 2001, fromthe World Wide Web: www.uslaw.com/ library/article/usl1031BabyMoses.html.

Snyder, H.N., and Finnegan, T.A. 1998.EasyAccess to the FBIs Supplementary HomicideReports: 19801997. Data presentation andanalysis package. Pittsburgh, PA: NationalCenter for Juvenile Justice.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999.JuvenileOffenders and Victims: 1999 National Report.Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse andNeglect. 1995.A Nations Shame: Fatal Child

Abuse and Neglect in the United States. A reporof the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse andNeglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1998.Statistical Abstract othe United States, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, p. 102.

U.S. Department of Health and Human ServiceChildrens Bureau. 1999. Child Maltreatment1997: Reports From the States to the NationalChild Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Departmenof Education. 2000. 2000 Annual Report on

School Safety. Report. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice and U.S. Department ofEducation.


12/12

PRESORTED STANDAR

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

NCJ 187239Bulletin

Wiese, D., and Daro, D. 1995. Current Trends inChild Abuse Reporting and Fatalities: The Resultsof the 1994 Annual Fifty State Survey. Working

Paper 808. Chicago, IL: The National Committeeto Prevent Child Abuse.

Wilson, C., Vincent, P., and Lake, E. 1996. AnExamination of Organizational Structure andProgrammatic Reform in Public Child ProtectiveServices. Olympia, WA: Washington State Insti-tute for Public Policy.

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by David Finkelhor, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, andDirector, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire;and Richard Ormrod, Ph.D., Research Professor, Crimes against Children Re-search Center, University of New Hampshire. John Humphrey, Ph.D., Professor ofSociology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, provided backgroundresearch and editorial review in the preparation of this Bulletin.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant num-

ber 98JNFX0012 from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. De-

partment 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 Delin-

quency Prevention is a component of the Of-

fice of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. Weencourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, andreprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDPand the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such ashow you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments andquestions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 208496000

8006388736

3015195600 (fax)

E-mail: [email protected]

homicides of children and youth

Documents