Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 107–129 | Cite as

Examining the Divergence Across Self-report and Official Data Sources on Inferences About the Adolescent Life-course of Crime

  • David S. KirkEmail author
Original paper

Abstract

Both self-report and official crime data have known limitations, leading to the critical question as to whether inferences about the adolescent life-course of crime are different across these data sources. Using both official and self-report arrest data on a sample of subjects drawn from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) longitudinal cohort study, this paper examines the extent to which individual age-arrest curves are comparable across these data sources. Particular attention is given to examining whether criminal career dimensions, namely participation, frequency of arrest, age of onset, and continuity in behavior, are similar across data sources. Additionally, this paper examines whether the key predictors of youth crime (e.g., family processes, peer influence, and neighborhood disadvantage) function similarly across measurement types. Findings reveal that a sizable number of youth self-report being arrested without having a corresponding official arrest record, and a sizable proportion of those youth with an official arrest record fail to self-report that they had been arrested. Despite significant differences across the two arrest measures on many criminal career dimensions, the effects of family supervision, parent–child conflict, and neighborhood disadvantage operate similarly across data types.

Keywords

PHDCN Self-report measures Official measures Criminal careers Life-course 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by Grant 2004-IJ-CX-0012 from the National Institute of Justice, by National Science Foundation grant SES-021551 to the National Consortium on Violence Research (NCOVR), and by the Henry A. Murray Dissertation Award from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University. The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods was conducted with support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the National Institute of Justice and the National Institute of Mental Health. I thank Robert Goerge and John Dilts for their assistance in obtaining and processing the official arrest data used in this study. I also thank Andrew Abbott, Wayne Osgood, Andrew Papachristos, Paul Rathouz, Rob Sampson, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Any findings or conclusions expressed are those solely of the author.

References

  1. Black D, Reiss AJ Jr (1970) Police control of juveniles. Am Soc Rev 35:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth JA, Visher CA (1986) Criminal careers and “career criminals”, vol I. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley RH, Corwyn RF, Caldwell BM, Whiteside-Mansell L, Wasserman GA, Mink IT (2000) Measuring the home environment of children in early adolescence. J Res Adolesc 10:247–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brame R, Bushway SD, Paternoster R, Thornberry TP (2005) Temporal linkages in violent and nonviolent criminal activity. J Quant Criminol 21:149–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browning CR, Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J (2004) Neighborhood context and racial differences in early adolescent sexual activity. Demography 41:697–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunford FW, Elliott DS (1984) Identifying career offenders using self-reported data. J Res Crime Delinq 21:57–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farrington DP, Jolliffe D, Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Hill KG, Kosterman R (2003) Comparing delinquency careers in court records and self-reports. Criminology 41:933–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Geerken MR (1994) Rap sheets in criminological research: considerations and caveats. J Quant Criminol 10:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glueck S, Glueck E (1950) Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Commonwealth Fund, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Hardt RH, Petersen-Hardt S (1977) On determining the quality of delinquency self-report method. J Res Crime Delinq 14:247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hindelang MJ, Hirschi T, Weis JG (1979) Correlates of delinquency: the illusion of discrepancy between self-report and official measures. Am Sociol Rev 44:996–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hindelang MJ, Hirschi T, Weis JG (1981) Measuring delinquency. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. Hirschi T (1969) Causes of delinquency. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Horton NJ, Fitzmaurice GM (2004) Regression analysis of multiple source and multiple informant data from complex survey samples. Stat Med 23:2911–2933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huizinga D, Elliott DS (1986) Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquent measures. J Quant Criminol 2:293–327Google Scholar
  16. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (2005) Comparing key parts of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1998 with the Previous Illinois Law. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Chicago. Retrieved March 15, 2005 (www.icjia.org/public).Google Scholar
  17. Kazemian L, Farrington DP (2005) Comparing the validity of prospective, retrospective, and official onset for different offending categories. J Quant Criminol 21:127–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuo M, Mohler B, Raudenbush SW, Earls FJ (2000) Assessing exposure to violence using multiple informants: application of hierarchical linear model. J Child Psychol Psychiat 41:1049–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laub JH, Sampson RJ (2003) Shared beginnings, divergent lives: delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Loeber R, Farrington DP, Petuchuk D (2003) Child delinquency: early intervention and prevention. Child Delinquency Bulletin Series, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M (1986) Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice, vol. 7. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  22. Maxfield MG, Weiler BL, Widom CS (2000) Comparing self-reports and official records of arrests. J Quant Criminol 16:87–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCord J (1978) A thirty-year follow-up of treatment effects. Am Psychol 33:284–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McNulty TL, Bellair PE (2003) Explaining racial and ethnic differences in serious adolescent violent behavior. Criminology 41:709–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moffitt TE (1993) Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychol Rev 100:674–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Rutter M, Silva PA (2001) Sex differences in antisocial behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  27. Myers SM (2002) Police encounters with juvenile suspects: explaining the use of authority and the provision of support, Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Nagin DS, Land KC (1993) Age, criminal careers, and population heterogeneity: specification and estimation of a nonparametric, mixed poisson model. Criminology 31:327–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2001). Juvenile crime, Juvenile justice. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Piquero AR, Farrington DP, Blumstein A (2003) The criminal career paradigm. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice, vol. 30. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  31. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A, Pickles A (2004) GLLAMM manual, U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  32. Sampson RJ, Laub JH (1993) Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  33. Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Raudenbush SW (2005) Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. Am J Publ Health 95:224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 227:918–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shaw C, McKay H (1942) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  36. Short JF Jr, Nye FI (1957) Reported behavior as a criterion of deviant behavior. Social Problems 5:207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Short JF Jr, Nye FI (1958) Extent of unrecorded juvenile delinquency: tentative conclusions. J Crim Law Criminol 49:296–302Google Scholar
  38. Straus M (1979) Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: the conflict tactics (CT) scales. J Marriage Family 41:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sutherland EH (1947) Principles of criminology, 4th edn. J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  40. Thornberry TP, Krohn MD (2000) Self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In: Duffee D (ed) Measurement and analysis of crime and justice. National Institute of Justice, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  41. Thornberry TP, Krohn MD (2003) Comparison of self-report and official data for measuring crime. In: National Research Council (ed) Measurement Issues in Criminal Justice Research: Workshop Summary, National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Warr M (1993) Age, peers, and delinquency. Criminology 31:17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilson WJ (1987) The truly disadvantaged: the inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolfgang ME, Figlio RM, Sellin T (1972) Delinquency in a birth cohort. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  45. Worden RE, Myers SM (1999) Police encounters with juvenile suspects, Report to the National Research Council’s Panel of Juvenile crime: prevention, treatment, and control. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations