Juvenile Homicide in the United States: Sizing Up the Problem and Moving Forward

Juvenile murder arrests in the United States increased dramatically from 1984 to 1993, leading experts to forecast an epidemic of continued violence. Juvenile arrests for murder from 1995 to 2019 are examined to assess whether this prediction was correct. Changes in the laws in response to juvenile violence and US Supreme Court cases that addressed constitutional limitations to the punishment of juvenile murderers are synthesized. The evolution of research on juvenile homicide offenders over the last two decades is highlighted. Recommendations about ways to move forward by using evidence-based practices to prevent juvenile violence and to reduce recidivism are discussed.

Nixon’s War

This chapter recounts how drug use became commonplace among the American middle-class once again over the course of the second half of the twentieth century. It discusses the federal crackdown in the Progressive era and Harry Anslinger's ensuing anti-drug crusade that made it easy to forget that Americans had ever before flirted with mind-altering substances. It also cites President Richard Nixon's announcement of his national attack on narcotics abuse on July 14, 1969 as a campaign promise he had to uphold after speaking in southern California's conservative Orange County in September 1968. The chapter elaborates how Nixon's announcement decried the explosion in drug use as a growing menace to the welfare of the United States, causing the surge juvenile arrests for drug possession between 1960 and 1967. It talks about how Nixon was convinced that illegal drug abuse in America had reached epidemic levels and blamed the surge on several sources, such as the sympathetic media coverage.

A Downward Spiral? Childhood Suspension and the Path to Juvenile Arrest

There is growing concern that suspensions trigger a ‘‘downward spiral,’’ redirecting children’s trajectories away from school success and toward police contact. The current study tests this possibility, analyzing whether and in what ways childhood suspensions increase children’s risk for juvenile arrests. Combining 15 years of data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study with contextual information on neighborhoods and schools, I find that suspensions disproportionately affect children already enduring considerable adversity. Even so, suspensions appear to redirect children’s trajectories, more than doubling their risk of arrest. Although suspended children experienced greater escalations in behavioral problems than their peers, post-suspension behavioral changes explained relatively little of the association between early suspension and later arrest. Instead, the most consequential way suspended children diverged from their peers was their heightened risk for repeated school sanction. Suspended children’s risk for repeated school removal explained 52 percent of the association between childhood suspension and juvenile arrest.

A School-to-Prison Pipeline? Exclusionary Discipline and the Production of Delinquency

There is growing concern that school discipline policies increase children’s risk of contact with the justice system, promoting a “school-to-prison pipeline.” Despite the popularity of this concern, the evidence of discipline’s impact on arrests remains limited in important ways. The current study leverages a unique combination of data sources to provide plausibly causal evidence that school suspensions mark a turning point in children’s lives, increasing their risk of later arrest. Combining fifteen years of data from the Fragile Families and Childhood Wellbeing Study with contextual data on neighborhoods and schools, I estimate that suspended children are two times more likely to experience an adolescent arrest than otherwise similar children. Although suspended children experienced significantly greater escalations in delinquency than their peers, post-suspension changes in behavior are unable to explain the association between childhood suspension and adolescent arrest. Instead, the data are consistent with a labeling theory of school sanctions, whereby suspended children face higher rates of subsequent discipline in ways that are largely unexplained by their reported behavior. At a time when juvenile arrests can permanently alter youth’s risks and opportunities, this study highlights an important mechanism by which schools shape inequality across the institutions that govern children’s lives.

Civil Citation

Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to assess potential variation across Florida’s counties of their implementation of civil citation and the outcomes associated with that implementation. Methods: Interrupted time-series analysis is used to determine whether the trends in juvenile arrests and the total delinquent population referred to the juvenile justice system (either through arrests or through civil citation) were significantly affected by the implementation of civil citation in each county. Results: There were immediate and gradual diversion effects of the civil citation program in a number of Florida’s counties. As a result, there is evidence of successful implementation with a few cases of net widening. Conclusions: While there was variation between counties in their implementation of civil citation, overall, Florida’s civil citation program was found to provide a diversion from arrest rather than a net-widening outcome. The study concludes with the identification of county-specific factors that characterized the local jurisdictions that were able to successfully overcome the major impediments associated with diversion and other reform programs’ implementation fidelity.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Police Handling of Juvenile Arrests

The overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority youth in early stages of juvenile justice processing remains a long-standing concern. The current study uses data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) to examine the effects of race and ethnicity on postarrest handling of juvenile cases by the police. Multilevel analyses controlling for extralegal and contextual factors found that disproportionate minority contact (DMC) was not observed for more severe charges, but Hispanic and minority youth facing less severe charges were more likely to be referred to authorities. Because even small disparities in postarrest handling may have a cumulative effect, the findings highlight the continuing need to better understand police officer behaviors and agency processes that result in DMC.