SUMMER 1996
The March 25, 1996, edition of U.S. News and World Report documents the escalating problem of juvenile crime and describes this issue as a potential "time bomb" for the 21st Century. The issue's articles enumerate a dramatic and exorbitant rate of growth in the level of juvenile violent crime over the course of the prior decade. Nationally, juvenile murder arrests have increased 150 percent since 1985, aggravated assault arrests have grown 97 percent, robbery arrests have expanded 57 percent, and arrests for weapon violations grew 103 percent. Reported drug use among high school seniors began to rise again during the early 1990's.
This increase in the level of juvenile violent crime has exerted a significant impact upon the nation's juvenile justice system. It has contributed to a trickle down effect in which each successive component of the system has been faced with expanding workloads and has been forced to adjust to these system pressures.
The nation's juvenile courts have undergone a radical transformation as a direct result of the increase in juvenile violent crime. Commenting on the excessively high juvenile crime period of 1988-1992, Snyder and Sickmund (1995) note that during this period juvenile courts witnessed a disproportionate increase in violent offense and weapon law violation cases. The volume of juvenile cases grew 26 percent during this brief period alone with juvenile court personnel being asked to handle not only more cases but also a different, and more violent, type of caseload.
Admissions to juvenile correctional facilities have also expanded as a result of the rise in juvenile violent crime. The number of juveniles confined in public institutions grew 18 percent from 1983 to 1991 (Maguire and Pastore, 1994).
Juvenile correctional personnel are also having to manage larger and often more violent offender populations. The average length of stay for these violent offenders is substantially longer, and consequently exacerbates numerous managerial burdens for the correctional facility and its personnel. Beyond the issue of overcrowding, staff must contend with heightened assaults, injuries, suicides and escape attempts. As a result of these potential operational problems, more institutions are starting to intensify both internal facility and perimeter security (Snyder and Sickmund, 1995).
These increasing trends and their negative consequences on the juvenile justice system, foreshadow an even greater explosion of juvenile crime which is projected to hit the nation during the first decade of the 21st Century. Igniting this projected increase is a predicted rise in the sheer number of juveniles, with demographers estimating a 31 percent increase in the juvenile population by 2010 (Gest and Pope, 1996).
This SystemStats briefly examines historical trends in North Carolina's juvenile justice system and forecasts near term juvenile crime and system activity trends. Data on juvenile violent crime, weapons and drug arrests, intake complaints, delinquency petitions, adjudicatory hearings, and training school admissions are presented. This will depict an overview or profile of North Carolina's juvenile justice system, and its workload, since the early 1980's. Projections derived from these statistics are offered in an attempt to detect the extent to which this predicted national "time bomb" will explode here in North Carolina and to display the potential effects that this may exert on the state's juvenile justice system.
The number of 10 to 15 year olds in North Carolina declined a slight seven percent between 1981 and 1994. However, as Figure 1 reveals, state demographers predict that this population will grow nineteen percent from 537,024 teens in 1994 to 637,777 in 2010 (Tillman, 1996). As depicted, this growth has already begun and will steadily increase with the number of 10 to 15 year olds surpassing 600,000 by the year 2000.
An examination of the arrest data for each violent offense indicates that aggravated assault arrests expanded 203 percent, climbing from 266 in 1981 to 805 in 1994. Arrests increased 174 percent from 1985 to 1994. Between 1987 and 1994 aggravated assault arrests consistently grew by an average of 20 percent per year. The number of arrests could surpass the 1,000 mark next year, escalate to around 1,725 by 2005, and eventually exceed 2,000 by 2010. If the trend persists, this would equate to an average annual growth of 10.5 percent between 1994 and 2000 and an average of 5.5 percent between 2000 and 2010. The number of projected arrests for 2010 will be 157 percent higher than the number in 1994, and 678 percent more than the number in 1981.
Robbery arrests have more than doubled since 1981 with the number of juveniles arrested in 1994 (238) being 122 percent greater than the number arrested in 1981 (107). The most significant portion of this increase can be attributed to the past decade in which robbery arrests averaged an annual increase of 29 percent. Adult robbery arrests also grew substantially during the past decade. However, unlike the trend for adults, the juvenile trend has not leveled off or declined in the past three years. Assuming that this upward trend continues, it is possible that nearly 500 juvenile robbery arrests will be recorded in 2010. This is 105 percent more than those recorded in 1994 and 355 percent higher than those for 1981.
Juvenile rape arrests expanded 87 percent from 1981 to 1994, with the actual number of arrests jumping from 24 to 45. Rape arrests have grown 28 percent since 1985. The greatest number occurred in 1990 when 50 teens were arrested for this offense. Projections suggest that by the year 2010 the number of rape arrests will grow 64 percent over the number reported in 1994, and 208 percent over the number recorded in 1981.
Murder arrests increased 40 percent, with 10 juveniles being arrested in 1981 and 14 in 1994. Murder arrests grew 180 percent from 1985 to 1994, with an average annual increase of 20 percent during this period. The greatest number of murder arrests occurred in 1993, when 29 juveniles were arrested for this offense. While the total number of murders perpetrated by juvenile offenders remains relatively low in comparison to other violent offenses, projections indicate that as many as 53 teens could be arrested for this offense in 2010. Despite this low number this would represent a substantial 278 percent increase over the number arrested in 1994 and a shocking 430 percent increase over the number arrested in 1981.
Tremendous growth also occurred for one of the most common juvenile offenses - simple assault. The number of simple assault arrests in 1994 (2,529) exceeded the number in 1981 (426) by 494 percent. Arrests for this offense grew 257 percent from 1985 and 1994, and expanded an average of 43 percent per year between 1987 to 1994. Based on these arrest statistics, an estimated 3,382 juveniles could be arrested for simple assault in the year 2000. Nearly 4,500 arrests could take place by 2005 and approximately 5,400 teens could be arrested in 2010. This would equate to a 113 percent increase over the number arrested in 1994, and an astounding 1,167 percent increase over the number arrested in 1981.
Two frequently proposed explanations for the rapid escalation in juvenile violent crime arrests over the last decade are the rising involvement of teens in the drug trade and the increasing accessibility and availability of firearms within this population. As Figures 3 and 4 reveal, the number of juveniles arrested for drug and weapon law violations grew enormously between 1981 and 1994.
The number of drug arrests in 1994 (657) outpaced the number reported in 1981 (333) by 97 percent. Generally, drug arrests declined from 1981 to 1987,grew gradually between 1988 and 1990, and experienced a massive growth spurt of 129 percent from 1991 to 1994. If this growth rate persists into the next decade, an estimated 775 drug arrests could be recorded in 2000, with the 1,000-arrest mark being exceeded by 2005. By 2010, close to 1,200 juveniles could be arrested for drug law violations, an 81 percent increase over the number arrested in 1994, and 256 percent higher than the number arrested in 1981.
Arrests for weapon law violations grew from 62 in 1981 to 619 in 1994 (898%). Juvenile arrests for this violation swelled 484 percent between 1985 and 1994, with the number of arrests moving upward from 106 to 619. The arrest trend has displayed a strong linear increase since 1987, growing an average of 76 percent per year.
Assuming this rate of growth continues, it is possible that approximately 825 teens will be arrested for some form of a weapons violation in the year 2000. Arrests could break the 1,000 mark by 2003 and exceed 1,100 by 2005. Projections indicate that more than 1,300 juveniles could be arrested in 2010. Compared with arrests in previous years, this would be a 121 percent increase over the number arrested in 1994, and an exorbitant 2,106 percent increase over the number of 1981 juvenile weapon arrests.
The following section will delineate actual and projected trends for each of the major contact points of the juvenile judicial system. The number of intake complaints which were initiated in fiscal year 1994-1995 (43,781) was 136 percent higher than the number issued in fiscal year 1982-1983 (18,520). Intake complaints have increased 51.5 percent in the past seven years alone. If the relationship between juvenile arrests and the filing of intake complaints persists, an estimated 92,850 complaints could be filed in fiscal year 2009-2010. This would represent an increase of 112 percent over the number filed in 1994-1995, and an increase of 401 percent over the number filed in 1982-1983 (Refer to Figure 5).
Figure 6 documents a corresponding increase in the number of delinquency petitions which have been filed since fiscal year 1982-1983. Since this fiscal year, the number of filings has grown from 12,283 to 26,820 in fiscal year 1994-1995 (118%). Filings have demonstrated a consistent rate of growth during this period, with the number of petitions doubling during the past decade. An estimated 50,331 petitions could be filed in fiscal year 2009-2010. This would equate to an 88 percent increase over the number filed in 1994-1995, and an alarming 309 percent jump over the number filed in 1982-1983.
The number of children appearing before the juvenile court for the first time grew from 8,190 in fiscal year 1982-1983 to 15,136 in 1994-1995 (85%). This number escalated 27 percent in the last four years alone. If current trends continue, a projected 26,633 children will make an initial appearance before the court in fiscal year 2009-2010. This projection is 76 percent greater than the number of new children appearing in 1994-1995 and a significant 225 percent greater than the number in 1982-1983.
The number of delinquency hearings expanded considerably since the early 1980's, with the number of 1994-1995 hearings (27,036) exceeding the number conducted in 1982-1983 (13,012) by 108 percent. Since 1987-1988 this number has grown by an average of 10 percent per year. Figure 7 demonstrates projected growth in the number of delinquency hearings, with the possibility of as many as 49,150 hearings in 2009-2010. If this projection remains valid, the number of hearings held in that fiscal year would surpass the number held in 1994-1995 by 82 percent and grossly exceed the number conducted in 1982-1983 by 278 percent.
The number of teens receiving aftercare and probation supervision grew from 10,591 in fiscal year 1982-1983 to 16,991 in 1994-1995 (60%). Despite a slight decline in the late 1980's, the number of supervised teens has grown 18 percent since fiscal year 1990-1991. If this recent growth continues, an estimated 23,011 children may be under some form of aftercare and probation in fiscal year 2009-2010. This number would be 35 percent greater than the number supervised in 1994-1995, and 117 percent more than the number receiving aftercare and probation services in 1982-1983.
Figure 8 presents historical and projected trends in admissions to the state's five training schools. The number of admissions in fiscal year 1994-1995 (1,027) was 54 percent higher when compared to the number admitted in fiscal year 1982-1983 (666). Projections indicate that an estimated 1,340 youthful offenders could be admitted in 2009-2010. If current admission patterns and trends persist, this would represent a 30 percent increase over the number admitted in 1994-1995 and a 101 percent rise over the number admitted in fiscal year 1982-1983. Currently it costs an estimated $46,000 per year to house one juvenile in a state facility. Based on this figure, it would cost 61.6 million dollars to adequately manage the projected number of admissions in fiscal year 2009-2010.
Arrests of juvenile violent offenders on a statewide basis have increased significantly since 1981, with a large percentage of this growth occurring within the last five to seven years. Drug and weapon arrests also grew tremendously during this period, and may be the primary influencing factors for the dramatic increase in the severity and prevalence of juvenile violence during this period. This increase in juvenile violence, and the rising number of arrests, have directly affected North Carolina's entire juvenile justice system. This problem has produced concurrent strains on the courts and correctional components in a manner very similar to the national trends.
Surprisingly, the total number of kids in the at-risk juvenile offender age group of 10 to 15 was in the midst of declining or "bottoming out" during this period of heightened juvenile violence. This population trend is now reversing itself in North Carolina with the number of at-risk juveniles beginning to climb again. Projections suggest that this growth will continue at least through the year 2005. Unfortunately, as this population grows the probability of increasing juvenile violence and arrests for violent offenses are projected to significantly surpass the high numbers recorded in the past five to seven years. Projections indicate that increasing arrests for violent offenses will significantly impact upon the courts and correctional agencies producing increased caseloads and detainee populations. If current trends continue, North Carolina's entire juvenile justice system will inevitably suffer from the "fallout" of the predicted national explosion of juvenile violence.
Operational, policy, and legislative issues surrounding this impending wave of juvenile violence must be addressed and attacked proactively within a system's perspective. System wide discussion and planning are needed to ascertain if current law enforcement, juvenile court, and juvenile detention services are capable of handling a predicted increase of this magnitude. What, if any, changes will need to be incorporated into these agencies' operational procedures, budgets, and facilities in order to better equip them for the future? The possibility of introducing new legislation, or of modifying the existing juvenile code, should be thoroughly debated to contain, or at least properly manage, the predicted explosion of juvenile violence.
As part of this proactive approach, primary prevention and early intervention efforts should be intensified. Existing successful programs should be expanded and new programs that offer innovative and promising techniques should be started. Policies and programs that successfully divert juveniles from the system should be evaluated and, if necessary, modified to handle a larger volume of clients.
These recommendations, as well as others, are more thoroughly outlined in Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan. This plan explains eight specific objectives, provides an overview of effective practices, and offers suggestions that can be adopted by local communities and applied to their specific juvenile crime problem areas. Policy makers and practitioners should be encouraged to scrutinize and discuss the plan's eight objectives.
Comprehensive and specific local action plans should be formulated and implemented using the following objectives as a point of departure.
In response to the predicted juvenile crime wave, and the potential negative consequences that this could produce for the state's juvenile justice system, the Governor's Crime Commission convened a special two day planning session in June of 1996. Commission members were assigned to one of five ad hoc sub committees following a cross training type of selection. Members were specifically assigned to subcommittees which addressed issues and problems that they did not deal with as a part of their normal occupational roles. For example law enforcement officials may have been placed on subcommittees dealing with early intervention or treatment. Treatment specialists may have been assigned to subcommittees which were tasked with addressing enforcement or legislative issues. This tactic proved to be highly successful and extremely conducive to creativity and innovative thinking. Members were able to view the issues from a new and fresh perspective which in turn fostered a true system wide planning effort. These subcommittees were: 1) Primary Prevention, 2) Intervention, 3) Systems Reorganization and Long Range Planning, 4) Juvenile Code Revision, and 5) Treatment and Rehabilitation. In order to prepare the state's juvenile justice system for the 21st century, the ad hoc subcommittees are recommending the following points to the Governor's Crime Commission for adoption, endorsement, or further study.
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1996 (March). Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan. Washington, D.C: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Gest, T., & Pope, V. 1996 (March 25). Crime time bomb. U.S. News and World Report.
Maguire, K., & Pastore, A. (Eds.,) Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1994. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, USGPO.
Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Tillman, Bill. State Demographer. personal conversation, March, 1996.
U.S. News and World Report. 1996 (March 25).
| James B. Hunt, Jr. Governor | Richard H. Moore Secretary |
| Linda W. Hayes Chair, Governor's Crime Commission | David Jones Acting Executive Director |
| Renee Hoffman Acting Director Public Affairs | James Klopovic Acting Director, Criminal Justice Analysis Center |
| Author Douglas Yearwood Social Research Associate | Scott Peters Social Research Associate |
| Charlene Coppersmith Data Analyst | Richard Hayes Social Research Associate |