New York SAC Juvenile Arrest Data Quality in New York State s Incident Based Reporting System Final Report

Transcription

1 New York SAC Juvenile Arrest Data Quality in New York State s Incident Based Reporting System Final Report Submitted to Justice Research and Statistics Association By Stacey Bederka, Research Specialist 2 NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services Office of Justice Research and Performance Theresa Salo Deputy Commissioner and SAC Director James A. Gilmer Principal Investigator and Chief of Crime Research and Analysis May 25, 2011

2

3 Overview Following a competitive application process, JRSA awarded a research grant to the New York SAC in March The purpose of the research award was to support New York s study of the quality of juvenile arrest data reported by police agencies through the NYS Incident-Based Reporting (IBR) system. In 2008, an analysis examining several years of juvenile arrest data found reported arrests were decreasing in non-nyc counties. The New York SAC conducted a brief telephone survey of nineteen police agencies that showed significant changes in reported arrests over the past several years. The brief telephone survey sought to determine how agencies defined a juvenile arrest, how arrests were reported to DCJS, who handled juvenile arrest reporting, and if the arrest counts in DCJS data system matched the arrest numbers recorded in local police own data systems/reporting logs. The phone interviews identified two issues. First, many police departments did not fully understand the FBI s Uniform Crime Reporting definition of a juvenile arrest, and thus were not correctly reporting juvenile crime and arrests to DCJS. Secondly, because the definition of a juvenile arrest varied widely, there were many jurisdictional differences in handling and reporting juvenile arrests to DCJS. These variations in reporting brought juvenile arrest data reliability and validity into question and made juvenile arrest data comparisons between departments impossible. The research conducted with this funding award proved to be timely as the New York SAC is providing research and analysis to support policymakers efforts to reform the State s juvenile justice system. Acknowledgment The Juvenile Arrest Data Quality Project was possible through funds awarded by Justice Research and Statistics Association under Agreement Number NY The New York SAC recognizes the following researchers who worked together to complete this project: Principal Investigator James Gilmer, Stacey Bederka, Matthew Fetzer, and Allen Wong. NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 1 Office of Justice Research and Performance

4 Introduction The New York SAC utilized federal funds awarded by JRSA to examine anomalies in juvenile delinquent arrest reports submitted by agencies participating in the Incident-Based Reporting (IBR) Program. In New York State, juvenile delinquents are youth ages 7-15 years who committed a criminal offense as defined by the FBI s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Handbook. UCR juvenile arrest reports track criminal activity occurring statewide. While UCR and IBR participation is voluntary, most police departments participate with the reporting programs as a way to develop accurate arrest statistics needed for resource allocation, to justify department budgets, and for use in grant funding applications when requesting State and federal assistance for local programs. Juvenile arrest information is key to the design and measurement of interventions aimed at reducing disproportionate minority contact (DMC) and implementing the Youth Violence Reduction (YVR) programs, which is an evidence-based program administered by DCJS with support from the State s Juvenile Justice Advisory Group. Reported juvenile arrests in non-new York City counties has declined significantly since 2000 when 28,042 juvenile arrests were reported as compared to 15,912 juvenile arrests reported in 2008, a 44 percent decrease. Since IBR data is computerized and includes greater detail than UCR data, the New York SAC focused on IBR agencies to investigate the decline in juvenile arrests. For some agencies, the switch from UCR to IBR systems resulted in a major drop in juvenile arrest reports, which contributed to the overall decline in reported arrests. This study focused on what was being reported as a juvenile arrest and how juveniles committing UCR offenses were handled. The New York SAC found great variation in the handling of juveniles and the subsequent formal and informal actions by law enforcement. Background of IBR at DCJS Designed in the early 1990s, the New York State Incident-Based Reporting (IBR) program mirrors the National IBRS program. In 2009, 233 police agencies were enrolled in IBR, and collectively these agencies reported nearly 30% of the serious (Part 1) crime in the state outside of New York City. The New York IBR program is managed by the Office of Justice Research and Performance (OJRP), which houses the State s Statistical Analysis Center. The reporting NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 2 Office of Justice Research and Performance

5 program captures offense data based on the New York Penal Law code. IBR data are compiled with UCR data submitted by non-ibr users to develop monthly statewide summary crime statistics for state and local law enforcement agencies, criminal justice policymakers, and for submission to the FBI. Local law enforcement agencies submit IBR data to OJRP, where it is processed and aggregated for summary crime reporting. OJRP then analyzes this data and provides feedback to local law enforcement agencies through a series of monthly reports. Currently, the measure of juvenile criminal activity is based solely on juvenile arrests reported through UCR and IBR. Since only some crimes are cleared by arrest, this measure underestimates the extent of juvenile crime. The IBR reporting system allows for the input of contacts with juveniles for criminal activity (incidents), as well as arrests for these contacts. A more accurate measure of criminal activity would include all offenses known to have been committed by juveniles, including both those cleared by arrest and those not resulting in an arrest. Since IBR collects information on both criminal incidents and arrests, it is a more appropriate source on which to base estimates of juvenile criminal involvement. Methodology The Juvenile Arrest Data Quality Project included two parts: a quantitative analysis of IBR agencies juvenile arrest counts to determine which agencies appeared to have significant changes in reported arrests over time and qualitative interviews of 29 police agencies that appeared to have significant inconsistencies in juvenile arrest counts. Telephone survey In 2008, prior to the SAC project, a trend analysis of reported juvenile arrests over several years indicated a large decrease in reported juvenile arrests across the state in non-nyc counties. SAC staff needed to determine if this drop was due to an actual decline in juvenile crime or issues related to the reporting of juvenile arrests. SAC staff conducted preliminary telephone interviews of 19 selected law enforcement agencies in the state to determine whether data quality issues existed regarding juvenile arrest data (telephone interview in the appendix). Agencies throughout the state were selected based on population, crime volume, and NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 3 Office of Justice Research and Performance

6 geographical location. SAC staff created a short interview to determine how agencies were defining a juvenile arrest, how arrests were reported to DCJS, who handles the reporting of juvenile arrests, and if the arrest numbers in DCJS data system matched the arrest numbers the police agencies had in their own data systems/reporting logs. The results of the phone interviews identified two major issues that SAC staff needed to address. First, the FBI s UCR definition of a juvenile arrest had to be clarified for NYS police agencies. Second, SAC staff needed to do more analysis on reported juvenile arrests to determine what agencies were reporting as arrests and if reporting problems were contributing to the decline in juvenile arrests. Quantitative Methodology The first part of the SAC project examined reported juvenile arrest data to determine which agencies had anomalies over time. IBR data quality was examined by comparing the number of juvenile arrests from UCR data to the number of juvenile arrests reported after agencies had switched to the IBR system. SAC researchers reviewed data from all 233 IBR agencies and found 29 agencies that exhibited validity and reliability problems. These agencies were selected for further data quality analysis, which involved examining trends of juvenile arrests pre- and post-ibr implementation and more closely analyzing reported arrests in The first stage of analysis involved studying trends in juvenile arrest data pre- and post- IBR implementation. In addition to overall counts, juvenile arrests in 2008 for the 29 interview agencies were analyzed by offense type and juvenile arrestee demographics (age, race/ethnicity, and gender). Arrests of 16 and 17 year-olds for the 29 interview agencies reported through IBR were also compared to fingerprintable arrests recorded on the NYS computerized criminal history records system (CCH). As noted above, not all juvenile criminal activity (incidents) will result in an arrest. An additional IBR measure for juvenile crime is the number of incidents not cleared by arrest as compared to those cleared by arrest. IBR incident data were analyzed for 2008 for the 29 interview agencies by the type of offense reported and the age of the suspected offender. NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 4 Office of Justice Research and Performance

7 Qualitative Methodology The second part of this project was the on-site interviews at local police departments. Where validity and reliability issues were discovered, SAC staff conducted on-site reviews of the agency s juvenile record-keeping system and interviews with juvenile detectives/officers and records department staff between October 2009 and February SAC staff designed a field interview questionnaire (see Appendix) to gather procedural information on how juvenile arrests are handled by police agencies. The survey questions focused on the agency s working definition of juvenile arrest, the use of informal processing of juveniles, which juvenile contacts are entered in the IBR system as an arrest, who has discretion to arrest juveniles, and who enters juvenile arrest data into the IBR system. The questionnaire also included scenarios of different criminal incidents to determine how police personnel would handle different events. During the visits, SAC researchers provided training and assistance to department officers and staff to modify juvenile record-keeping practices and improve IBR data quality. Results Preliminary Telephone survey Between October and December of 2008, SAC researchers conducted telephone interviews with juvenile officers and detectives in 19 police agencies throughout the state. These agencies, and some of their interview responses, are listed in Table 1. As can be seen in the table, responses varied between agencies. Thirteen agencies considered a juvenile under arrest upon being taken into custody, while the remaining six only reported a juvenile arrest when the youth was formally charged with a crime. This lack of consistency in reporting juvenile arrests, led DCJS to create a memo clarifying the FBI s UCR definition of a juvenile arrest. UCR Arrest Definition DCJS staff concluded that the FBI s UCR definition of juvenile arrest needed to be clarified to police agencies to ensure a standard interpretation of the definition. The federal UCR program asks law enforcement agencies to count a juvenile arrest when the circumstances are such that if the individual were an adult, an arrest would have been counted. This definition NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 5 Office of Justice Research and Performance

8 makes no reference to criteria of the police response that are routinely quantifiable, such as taking the juvenile into custody, issuing an appearance ticket, or filing a report that is entered in the department s records management system. Consequently, it was not surprising that the survey of selected departments found substantial variation between the UCR definition and what many departments considered to be a juvenile arrest in terms of their policy and procedures. The New York SAC, with assistance from the New York City Police Department, other DCJS Offices, and local police departments, clarified the definition of a juvenile arrest for reporting purposes. This memo, included in the Appendix, was integrated into the NYS Crime Reporting Manual and sent to all reporting agencies statewide. For UCR reporting purposes, a juvenile arrest must be counted when a police officer has probable cause to believe that a youth has committed a UCR offense and is either taken into custody, or issued an appearance ticket. Taken into custody means that the juvenile is no longer free to leave, regardless of whether he or she is handcuffed, placed in a police vehicle, or brought to a police station. By extension this would include cases in which a juvenile is a) taken directly to Family Court or secure detention, b) given an appearance ticket, or c) warned and released without further action. The key factor for counting an arrest is police intervention where there is probable cause to believe that the juvenile has engaged in behavior that constitutes a UCR offense. All instances where a UCR offense was believed to have been committed should be counted as an arrest. Quantitative Analysis The first stage of the quantitative analysis involved studying trends in juvenile arrest data pre- and post- IBR implementation. Temporal analysis was used to identify police agencies that demonstrated significant changes in juvenile arrests following the switch to IBR, which resulted in 29 agencies that appeared to have reporting inconsistencies. Reported UCR and IBR arrests for juveniles are in Table 27. For UCR, all offenses (felonies, misdemeanors, violations, and runaways) are added together for a monthly arrest total. This monthly total is deceptive because juveniles can only be arrested for misdemeanor and felony offenses, yet violations and other non-arrestable offenses are often counted as arrests in UCR data entry. Since the majority of crimes that are counted for arrests in the IBR system are misdemeanors and felonies, a table of UCR arrest data was calculated to exclude the majority of non-arrestable offenses (data excluded UCR offense NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 6 Office of Justice Research and Performance

9 categories of Liquor Violations, Disorderly Conduct, Public Intoxication, Loitering, All Other Offenses, and Runaways). A comparison of UCR misdemeanor and felony arrests for pre-ibr implementation and post-implementation IBR data gives a better example of how the agencies reporting changed from UCR to IBR. Similar patterns for reported arrests occur in both tables, but the change is often less exaggerated in the misdemeanor and felony arrests table (Table 28). Data Issues at Individual Agencies In addition to overall counts, juvenile arrests for the 29 interview agencies were analyzed by offense type and juvenile arrestee demographics (age, race/ethnicity, and gender) for 2008 from the IBR system. For 2008, six agencies (Niagara County Sheriff, Scotia Village PD, Potsdam Village PD, Canandaigua City PD, Stony Point Town PD, and Harrison Town PD) did not report any juvenile arrest data to DCJS. For Niagara County Sheriff, Scotia Village PD, and Potsdam Village PD, there was a miscommunication within the department about how juvenile data should be put into the IBR system for correct reporting to DCJS. Canandaigua and Stony Point were not putting juvenile data into the IBR system due to concerns that DCJS was receiving confidential information on the juveniles. These five agencies have fixed their problems and will report juvenile arrests in the future. Harrison Town and Yorktown Town have the same IBR system vendor (SunGaurd) and it appears there may be a problem when these agencies are sending their data to DCJS. DCJS is working to fix this error. Of the 23 agencies that did report juvenile arrest data, six reported fewer than 10 arrests. Cortland County Sheriff reported six arrests in 2008, but stated they averaged around 30 arrests per year. Cortland County Sheriff had inconsistent data over time, which may be due to a miscommunication between deputies and records staff as to what should be counted as an arrest. Dunkirk reported three arrests in 2008, but stated they averaged arrests per year. Dunkirk changed their records computer software in 2007 and have had numerous problems with it, but are working on fixing the errors. Newark reported inconsistent juvenile arrests between 1998 and 2008, ranging from reporting arrests , two arrests in 2005 and 2006, 33 arrests in 2007, and back down to six arrests in Newark indicated they only report formal arrests where a juvenile was sent onto court or probation. Yorktown reported five arrests in 2008 and their reporting has been inconsistent. Prior to starting IBR they were reporting an NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 7 Office of Justice Research and Performance

10 average of arrests per year. The juvenile detective confirmed they are averaging around arrests per year and the records department was correctly entering data in their IBR system. There may be a problem with the SunGuard system in reporting juvenile arrests to DCJS - DCJS is addressing the problem. Cortland County Sheriff, Dunkirk, Newark, and Yorktown are excluded from quantitative analysis due to reporting errors. Walton started using IBR reporting in July of 2007 and reported six arrests in 2008, but in prior years they had reported arrests in UCR. However, UCR reporting included violations and other non-arrestable offenses. Walton confirmed that they average around 10 misdemeanor and felony offense per year, and are reporting all criminal activity for felony offenses and at least 75% of misdemeanor offenses. Waterloo also began IBR reporting in 2007 and reported nine arrests for They had reported UCR offenses. Waterloo confirmed that they averaged less than 20 arrests per year, and prior to using IBR were reporting nonarrestable offenses to UCR. Walton and Waterloo are included because the reported arrest numbers were confirmed by the police agencies. IBR Reported Arrests for Juveniles 15 Years Old and Under The following analyses include all reported IBR offenses for the interviewed agencies that reported relatively reliable juvenile arrests for 2008 (19 agencies). The majority of arrests were of 14 and 15 year-olds (average of 30% and 36%, respectively) (Table 2). Males accounted for an average of 72% of arrests and females were an average of 28% (Table 2). Of juvenile arrests in 2008, 41% were white, 46% were black, and 9% were Hispanic (Table 3). Part 1 arrests (violent and property crimes) accounted for 52% of all juvenile arrests (Table 4). Arrests for violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault) were 9% of all juvenile arrests and property crime arrests (burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson) were 43% of all juvenile arrests. Larceny represented the most arrests, which was 34% of all juvenile arrests. Simple assault (14%), criminal mischief (13%), and burglary (9%) were the next most prevalent crimes for which juveniles were arrested in the sample. Blacks represented 46% of all juvenile arrests, 63% of violent crime arrests, 49% of property arrests, and 39% of Part 2 arrests (Table 5). Whites represented 41% of juvenile arrests, 23% of violent crime arrests, 35% of property arrests, and 48% of Part 2 arrests. Hispanics NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 8 Office of Justice Research and Performance

11 accounted for 9% of all juvenile arrests, 9% of violent crime arrests, 11% of property arrests, and 8% of Part 2 arrests. Males had more arrests than females in each offense category. Males were 85% of violent crime arrests, 67% of property crime arrests, and 75% of Part 2 arrests. Fourteen and fifteen year-olds accounted for the most arrests in each category as compared to other ages. When an IBR participating agency closes a reported incident with an arrest of a juvenile, a release status is reported for each arrestee. The release status provides information on what type of police action was taken against the arrestee after he/she was identified as the offender. New York State IBR has three release statuses: Diverted to Counseling/Treatment Program, Handled within the Department, and Referred to Criminal Court, Juvenile/Family Court or Probation Intake (Table 6). Of the youth diverted to counseling and treatment programs, 70% were white, 16% were black, and 14% were Hispanic (Table 7). Of youth handled within the department, 45% were white, 41% were black, and 8% were Hispanic. Of the youth referred to criminal or juvenile family court or probation intake, 36% were white, 50% were black, and 10% were Hispanic. Males and females and similar percentages across release statuses. CCH vs. IBR Arrests of 16 to 17 Year-olds In New York State, unlike most other states, persons aged 16 years and over are considered adults and are processed in the adult criminal justice system. However, since most states count 16 and 17 year-olds as juveniles, arrest data for these ages are also presented. Arrests of 16 and 17 year-olds for the 29 interview agencies reported through IBR were compared to fingerprintable arrests recorded on the criminal history records system (CCH) for The total reported arrests for 16 and 17 years olds are reported in Table 8 for IBR and CCH. One of the main reasons for differences between the systems is that offenders may not be fingerprinted for violations (disorderly conduct, liquor law violations, loitering, etc.), so these crimes will not show up in the CCH database but may be present in the IBR database. Thus, agencies should have more IBR arrests than CCH arrests. The final column (IBR CCH Difference) subtracted the CCH arrests from IBR (a negative number indicates that CCH had more arrests than IBR). Agencies with more CCH than IBR arrests may have IBR reporting issues. NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 9 Office of Justice Research and Performance

12 In one agency (Albany), there were more reported arrests of males in CCH than IBR, and four agencies (Albany, Brighton, Mount Vernon, and Niagara County Sheriff) that reported more arrests of females in CCH than IBR (Table 9). In two agencies (Poughkeepsie City and Yorktown), there were more reported arrests of whites in CCH than IBR, two agencies (Albany and Yorktown) reported more arrests of blacks in CCH than IBR, and seven agencies (Albany, Cortland County Sheriff, Mount Vernon, Niagara County Sheriff, Poughkeepsie Town, Spring Valley, and Stony Point) reported more arrests of Hispanics in CCH than IBR (Table 10). There were also differences in the types of reported offenses between IBR and CCH. The differences between arrests for Part 1 offenses (Violent and Property arrests) were much smaller than the difference in arrests for Part 2 offenses (Table 11). The differences in Part 2 arrests were much larger, in part due to the fact that offenders are not fingerprinted and recorded in the CCH system for violations, such as liquor law violations, disorderly conduct, all other offenses and unknown offenses, but these offenses would be reported in IBR. Incidents Not Cleared by Arrest for Juveniles 15 Years Old and Under An additional IBR measure for juvenile crime is the number of incidents not cleared by arrest compared to those that resulted in an arrest. IBR data for 2008 were analyzed for the 29 interview agencies. All 29 agencies reported incidents that involved juveniles 15 years old and under. However, Stony Point only reported one incident in IBR although in the interview they stated that had more (they have not been putting juvenile data into the IBR system) and are excluded from analyses below. Data are presented in terms of the number of juveniles involved in incidents (rather than number of incidents, since more than one juvenile may be involved in a single incident). There were 4,843 juveniles reported in IBR incidents. The majority of juveniles contacted by police were 14 and 15 years old (Table 12). Males were 73% of juveniles involved in reported incidents and females were 26% of juveniles (Table 13). Of juveniles involved in incidents, 47% were white, 40% were black, and 8% were Hispanic (Table 14). Part 1 index crimes (violent and property crimes) accounted for 39% of incidents, of which 7% were violent crimes and 32% were property crimes (Table 15). Of the Part 1 crimes, larceny was 25% of all NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 10 Office of Justice Research and Performance

13 incidents. Part 2 crimes represented 61% of incidents, with simple assault accounting for 19% and criminal mischief was 15%. Of the 4,843 juveniles that were involved in incidents in 2008, an average of 55% were not arrested (Table 16). Sixty percent of whites contacted by police for an incident were not arrested, while 51% of blacks were not arrested and 48% of Hispanics were not arrested. Of those not arrested, 51% were white, 37% were black, and 7% were Hispanic (Table 17). Of those arrested, 42% were white, 44% were black, and 9% were Hispanic. Fifty-six percent of males contacted by police for a crime were not arrested, and 54% females were not arrested (Table 18). Of those not arrested, 74% were male and 25% were female (Table 19). Of those arrested, 73% were male and 27% were female. Incidents Not Cleared by Arrest for Youth 16 to 17 Years Old All 29 agencies also reported incidents that involved youth ages 16 to 17 years. Data are presented in terms of the number of youth involved in incidents (rather than number of incidents, since more than one juvenile may be involved in a single incident). There were 5,543 youth ages 16 and 17 years old involved in incidents reported in IBR. Males were 73% of youth involved in reported incidents and females were 27% of juveniles (Table 20). Of 16 to 17 year-olds involved in incidents, 51% were white, 37% were black, and 7% were Hispanic (Table 21). Part 1 crimes (violent and property) accounted for 34% of incidents, of which 8% were violent crimes and 26% were property crimes (Table 22). Of the Part 1 crimes, larceny was 20% of all incidents. Part 2 crimes represented 66% of incidents, with simple assault accounting for 17%, criminal mischief was 9%, and possession of marijuana was 8%. Of the 5, to 17 year-olds that were involved in incidents in 2008, 40% were not arrested, which is a smaller percentage than for juveniles (15 year-olds and under). Forty percent of whites contacted by police for an incident were not arrested, 39% of blacks were not arrested, and 31% of Hispanics were not arrested (Table 23). Another way of looking at the data, of those not arrested, 51% were white, 37% were black, and 6% were Hispanic (Table 24). Of those arrested, 51% were white, 37% were black, and 9% were Hispanic. Thirty-nine percent of males, 39% were not arrested, and 42% of females were not arrested (Table 25). Of those not arrested, NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 11 Office of Justice Research and Performance

14 71% were male and 28% were female (Table 26). Of those arrested, 74% were male and 26% were female. On-Site Department Interviews and Review of Juvenile Records System From the quantitative analysis, 29 agencies were identified that had reporting inconsistencies that warranted further qualitative analysis. SAC staff traveled to these agencies between October 2009 and March 2010 to interview juvenile officers, detectives, and records staff. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of juvenile involvement in criminal activity throughout the state, an interview questionnaire was created to examine how juveniles who committed a crime were handled by the departments and how arrest records were being reported. Through the interview process, SAC staff determined what types of cases were often handled informally, which were referred for further juvenile justice processing, and how criminal offenses by juveniles were reported to DCJS through IBR. In addition to collecting information on juvenile policy and procedure, SAC staff examined the agencies IBR reporting system and interviewed records staff to determine the cause of juvenile arrest reporting inconsistencies. The Albany Police Department was interviewed first and served as a pilot site for researchers to test the collection of relevant data outlined by the questionnaire and obtain suggestions from the Department s staff for changes to the survey. The questionnaire began with a review of the FBI s UCR definition for reporting a juvenile arrest. Officers were reminded that a juvenile arrest must be counted each time a juvenile comes into contact with police for committing a crime and the police officer has probable cause to believe the juvenile committed the crime. Many police personnel were not familiar with NYS guidelines for reporting criminal activity. The interview questionnaire collected information on five areas of juvenile arrest processing: formal policies for handling juveniles who have committed a crime, incidents and crimes being recorded as a juvenile arrest in the IBR system, juvenile arrest decision-making among law enforcement personnel, juvenile arrest and IBR reporting tendencies, and the reporting of criminal incidents and arrests. NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 12 Office of Justice Research and Performance

15 A final section of the interview included open-ended questions regarding police responses to hypothetical situations involving possible juvenile criminal activity. Formal Policies for Handling Juveniles who have Committed a Crime All 29 IBR agencies used a formal, written policy for handling juveniles who committed a UCR offense and all agencies included a definition of arrest in the policy document. Thirteen agencies indicated that a juvenile was considered arrested when taken into custody and no longer free to leave. The remaining 16 agencies only counted a juvenile arrest when the youth was formally charged with a UCR offense. In other words, less than half of the interview agencies were collecting data on juvenile criminal activity, as requested by the FBI. IBR Juvenile Incidents and Arrests Reporting of offenses/incidents and arrests by law enforcement agencies to DCJS and the FBI is voluntary; however, most agencies comply to be eligible for state and federal government grant funds. Since the FBI suggests a working definition of a juvenile arrest, rather than mandating compliance, agencies differ on what is reported as a juvenile arrest. Not all criminal offenses/incidents are reported as arrests in the IBR reporting system. Eighteen agencies stated they always counted an arrest when a juvenile was taken into custody for committing a felony offense. Agencies often noted lack of victim cooperation as the main reason for not arresting a juvenile for a felony offense; these were the agencies that were reporting only formal arrests (appearance tickets and further processing into the system), and not all criminal activity. Nine agencies indicated they would always record an arrest in the IBR system for misdemeanor offenses. Agencies noted lack of victim cooperation or minor first time offenses as reasons for not arresting a juvenile for a misdemeanor offense. Ten agencies reported using diversion programs for juveniles who had committed a crime. In lieu of a youth receiving an appearance ticket and going to probation intake, police sometimes use law enforcement- or community-sponsored diversion programs. Upon successful completion of the program, the youth will not proceed further into the juvenile justice system. However, program failure will result in referral to probation intake or family court for further NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 13 Office of Justice Research and Performance

16 processing. Seven of the 10 agencies that used diversion programs still counted the criminal offense in their IBR system for reporting purposes, even though the youth was not sent further into the system. Juvenile Arrest Decisions within Police Departments Across departments, inconsistencies in juvenile arrest reporting may stem from who actually arrests juveniles. Eighteen departments allow patrol officers to take juveniles into custody and decide if the juvenile will get an appearance ticket. For 14 of these agencies, it is often the juvenile detective who makes a final decision on the processing of juvenile arrests. Eight agencies require that only juvenile detectives arrest juveniles - if a patrol officer came into contact with a juvenile who had committed a crime, that officer would have to refer the case to the juvenile detective. Two departments authorized both patrol and juvenile detectives to arrest juveniles. Three agencies without juvenile detectives allowed patrol officers to make juvenile arrest decisions, while complex cases were forwarded to detectives or other supervisors for assistance. Juvenile Incident and Arrest Reporting in the IBR System Another possible reason for juvenile arrest reporting inconsistencies may be due to who is recording juvenile arrest information and who is entering the data into the IBR system. Fifteen departments indicated that either the arresting officer or the juvenile department entered the arrest information into the IBR database, while in four agencies the police officers/detectives would complete a paper arrest report and records staff would enter the data. In the remaining 10 agencies, police officers, detectives, and records staff all had a part in entering juvenile arrest data into the IBR system. In agencies where multiple people are entering data or reading from paper reports, there are likely to be more errors in reporting the data. Criminal Incidents Reported Agencies were asked to estimate the number of criminal incidents that occur which are not scored as arrests. Unless an agency counted all criminal incidents as arrest, most agencies provided only vague estimates. Four agencies counted all juvenile criminal incidents as juvenile NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 14 Office of Justice Research and Performance

17 arrests in the IBR system. Fifteen agencies noted recording most of their criminal incidents as arrests, while, seven indicated at least half of their criminal incidents were reported as arrests. Two agencies (Stony Point and Canandaigua), due to the above noted issues, did not report any juvenile arrests in their IBR system. Hypothetical Scenarios of Criminal Incidents The survey s final section posed six hypothetical scenarios involving a possible juvenile criminal incident to determine how police would respond to each incident. The first scenario involved petit larceny in which a 10 year-old stole a pack of bubble gum. Ten agencies said they would count this as a juvenile arrest, while 14 agencies said it would depend of whether or not the victim wanted to pursue the matter. Five agencies said they would never count this scenario as a juvenile arrest. The second scenario involved grand larceny, where a 13 year-old stole a laptop computer worth $1,500. Nineteen agencies responded they would always count this as a juvenile arrest, while the remaining 10 said it depended on the victim s desire to pursue the matter. The third scenario involved assault, where a 14 year is punched by another 14 year-old. Six agencies said they would always count this as a juvenile arrest, while the remaining 23 agencies said it depended on the extent of the victim s injuries. If the victim required professional medical care or a hospital visit or if a weapon was involved, all of the agencies would count this as a juvenile arrest. In the fourth scenario involving possession of marijuana, only one agency said they would count this as a juvenile arrest; the remaining 28 agencies stated this was a violation and juveniles could not be arrested for violations. An arrest would occur if the amount of marijuana was enough for the possession to count as a misdemeanor. In the fifth scenario, involving possession of a weapon where a 15 year-old has possession of a BB gun, 15 agencies said they would always count this as a juvenile arrest, while eight agencies said it would depend on the juvenile s intent while holding the gun. The remaining six agencies said they would never count this as a juvenile arrest, unless the juvenile caused injury with the weapon. NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 15 Office of Justice Research and Performance

18 The final scenario involved a domestic violence assault, where a 12 year-old boy punched his mother in the face. Fourteen agencies said they would always count this as a juvenile arrest because it was a domestic assault, while the remaining 15 agencies stated an arrest would depend on the extent of the mother s injuries. Summary A major objective of these interviews was to gain insight into how juvenile incidents and arrests were being recorded and reported to DCJS through IBR. The interviews revealed much variation throughout juvenile policies, arrest practices, and reporting practices. While the agencies differed on what they were reporting as a juvenile arrest, each agency had a specific written policy for handling juveniles. The difference between agencies in what they consider and report as a juvenile arrest creates problems when trying to compare juvenile arrests between departments because the agencies are measuring different things (appearance tickets vs. all criminal activity). SAC staff determined at least three key issues may be creating inconsistencies among agencies juvenile arrest numbers. One is the lack of a statewide mandatory standard definition for juvenile arrest. Submitting UCR and IBR arrest data to the FBI is voluntary, so there are no strict requirements as to what each police department must report. The FBI provides guidelines, but it is up to the police department to follow them. Most interviewed agencies wanted to become compliant with DCJS guidelines for reporting arrests because of the relationship between reporting accurate arrest data and eligibility to receive grant funding. They also wanted their data to accurately reflect their community and its need for crime reduction programs. However, certain agencies were unwilling to change their reporting practices regardless of NYS guidelines or ties to grant funding. The second issue concerns confusion among officers about the difference between reporting criminal activity in IBR and the actual formal processing of a juvenile. Many agencies were reluctant to record juvenile criminal activity in the IBR system if the juvenile was not formally arrested. While some agencies were reporting all criminal activity regardless of formal processing, some agencies were not comfortable reporting a criminal incident if the youth was not formally arrested. SAC staff explained that IBR is a numbers-only reporting system and NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 16 Office of Justice Research and Performance

19 DCJS does not get confidential information. After the interviews, many of the agencies had either agreed to start reporting all criminal activity or had indicated a likelihood they would try. Additionally, many agencies noted that the available options in IBR were limited either the juvenile was arrested or was not arrested. It was suggested by many police personnel that a third option of committed UCR offense, not arrested would be helpful. This would allow the police to report that a criminal offense had occurred but would allow the police to accurately record the criminal incident without reporting an arrest that did not occur. The final issue causing problems with reporting juvenile arrests dealt with operator- and software-errors when using the IBR system. One software program was not accurately transmitting data to DCJS, even though the agencies were inputting their data correctly. For other agencies, insufficient training about the software program and reporting requirements led officers to not input all needed data elements. SAC staff helped teach officers how to use the system. The variations found through the interviews illustrate a lack of consistency in both juvenile arrest practices and IBR reporting. These variations indicate a need to address and standardize juvenile arrest practices throughout the state. A statewide survey of all law enforcement agencies policies and procedures for juvenile arrest would be helpful for both program training and research efforts. Such a survey could be used to create a database that has information on agencies reporting practices pertaining to juvenile criminal activity and arrest reports, what type of data is being sent to DCJS, and which agencies may need training on the correct reporting of all juvenile criminal activity. This database would also allow analysts to compare agencies that are reporting similar data. The survey of IBR agencies also identified an overwhelming need to provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement personnel, especially on the handling of juveniles and how to report juvenile criminal activity and arrests. NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 17 Office of Justice Research and Performance

20 Appendix 2008 Preliminary Telephone Interview Juvenile Arrest Processing and Reporting Telephone Interview Reporting Handling of Juveniles involved in a crime : 1) Does your agency have a formal, written policy for handling juvenile who have committed a crime? a) If yes, what is it? b) If no, what are the accepted practices your agency follows? c) At what point would you consider a juvenile under arrest? Does your agency have a formal, written definition for juvenile arrest? d) Are being arrested and taken into custody the same thing? i) If no, under what circumstances would your agency consider a juvenile taken into custody? e) Under what circumstances is a juvenile formally charged with a crime/offense? Is being formally charged different from being arrested? f) Is there a separate incident/arrest reporting form for juveniles? g) Do you fill out an arrest report for juveniles who were given an official warning and released? 2) What juvenile contacts are reported to UCR/IBR as an arrest? (i.e. only formal arrests, or other contacts also) a) Do you report juveniles who were diverted and not given a probation appearance ticket as an arrest? (includes official warn and release youth committed a crime and could have been arrested, but officer warns and releases) b) Do you report juveniles who committed a crime, were taken into custody, but not formally charged with a crime? c) Do all juvenile arrest reports get sent to the records unit for reporting to DCJS as juvenile arrests? Are there juvenile arrests reports that don t get sent to the records unit? 3) How are juvenile arrests reported to UCR/IBR? a) Do you have a computer system or are the reports written by hand? b) Who enters the data into the computer or into the data report? c) Is the juvenile data kept separate from the adult data (in computer system or files)? 4) Do you report violations in your UCR/IBR report? UCR has violations listed as juvenile arrests, but juveniles cannot be arrested for a violation (such as disorderly conduct and loitering). Do you count violations as arrests? Processing Juveniles: 5) Does your agency have a specific procedure for officers dealing with juvenile contacts? a) Do patrol officers arrest the juvenile and make further decisions about diversion or referral or are juvenile cases sent to the juvenile unit/officer/detective to determine if the juvenile will be arrested? b) Are all juveniles suspected of committing a crime brought to the police department for questioning, statements, and arrest? NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 18 Office of Justice Research and Performance

21 c) Does your agency have formal written instructions on which juveniles get diversion, referral, or detention? d) Are cases dealt with differently for different offense levels? Is the arrest process different? i) If yes, how so? 6) Does your agency use diversion for juveniles who are arrested, instead of giving the juvenile an appearance ticket for probation? a) If yes, please explain the diversion process does your agency have a formal diversion process? i) Who makes the decision to divert a juvenile? ii) Is the juvenile monitored after diversion, with updates noted in the case file? iii) What are the criteria for diversion what types of case get diversion? iv) Does your agency refer juveniles to community agencies for services? v) What types of diversion are offered/used (oral warning, community program, meeting with police, counseling, drug treatment, recreational program)? 7) Departments vary on their use of fingerprinting and photographing of juveniles, with some fingerprinting and photographing all arrestees, and others only doing it for certain offenses? What is your department s policy on fingerprinting and photographing juveniles that are arrested? (Note: FCA requires fingerprinting and photographing of all juveniles that are 11 yrs and over charged with an A/B felony or 13 yrs and over and charged with an A/B/C felony) 8) The FBI requires that all instances of juvenile criminal activity be reported, including instances where a juvenile committed a crime and was not arrested (warn and release) but could have been arrested if it were an adult. a) How difficult would it be to change current reporting practices to correspond with FBI reporting guidelines? Arrest Numbers: Individual questions for each county about arrest numbers if inconsistent. Make individual questions based on arrest chart prior to interview NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 19 Office of Justice Research and Performance

22 Introduction to the Interview Field Interview Juvenile Arrest Processing and Reporting Field Interview We are here to learn about the processes and procedures your agency uses to handle juveniles who have committed a UCR offense. Recent research at DCJS found that reported juvenile arrest data are much less consistent than adult arrest data. For 2002 to 2007, non-nyc juvenile arrest rates have decreased about 31%, while non-nyc adult arrest rates during that time period decreased only 6%. Telephone interviews with selected agencies throughout New York State revealed that agencies use different policies and procedures when arresting juveniles and reporting those arrests to DCJS. For example, some agencies report all criminal incidents, while other agencies only report arrests that result in an appearance ticket for Family Court (Probation Intake). These different reporting practices distort the picture of juvenile criminal activity in NYS. To reduce reporting differences and create a clearer picture of juvenile criminal activity, New York State, with help from the FBI, has recently provided a clarification of the FBI s UCR and IBR definitions of juvenile arrest for reporting purposes. This clarification to the definition is as follows: For UCR reporting purposes a juvenile arrest must be counted when a police officer has probable cause to believe that a youth more than 7 and less than 18 years of age has committed a UCR offense and is either: taken into custody, or issued an appearance ticket. The term taken into custody means that the juvenile is no longer free to leave, regardless of whether he or she is handcuffed, placed in a police vehicle, or brought to a police station. By extension this would include cases in which a juvenile is a) taken directly to Family Court or secure detention, b) given an appearance ticket, or c) warned and released without further action. The key factor for counting an arrest is police intervention where there is probable cause to believe that the juvenile has engaged in behavior that constitutes a UCR offense. All instances where a UCR offense was believed to have been committed should be counted as an arrest" if the juvenile was taken into custody, issued an appearance ticket, or warned and released without further action for that UCR offense. Police contact with a juvenile where no UCR offense was believed to be committed should not be counted as an arrest. The reporting criteria defined by the FBI are designed to capture the criminal activity of juveniles, and are not intended to track court or formal arrest actions. NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 20 Office of Justice Research and Performance

23 Throughout the interview, when thinking about juvenile arrests, please use the above definition. An arrest for UCR reporting purposes is defined as criminal activity. It s important to remember that UCR is used to track criminal activity and not only formal arrests and cases that get sent onto court. UCR arrests are records of offenses committed; they do not count the physical act of arresting and charging someone. DCJS is interviewing police agencies that are using IBR reporting systems that had significant changes when switching from UCR to IBR. We are interested in learning if arrest reporting practices changed when an agency switched from UCR to IBR. We are also interested in determining how juvenile criminal incidents are being handled and reported to DCJS, especially in cases where a UCR offense is reported, but the juvenile is not arrested. In this interview we will discuss your agency s policy and procedures for handling a juvenile who has committed a UCR offense, starting from the first police contact to the final outcome of that incident in the police department. Your department switched to IBR in. Have there been any changes in how juvenile offenses are recorded in your department or how they are reported to DCJS as compared to when you were reporting using UCR? Are incidents being recorded in the RMS in the same manner they were being recorded and counted for UCR reporting? Reporting Handling of Juveniles involved in a UCR offense (UCR offense): 1) Does your agency have a formal, written policy for handling juveniles who have committed a UCR offense? a) If yes, what is it? Could I have a copy? b) If no, what are the accepted practices your agency follows? c) At what point would you consider a juvenile under arrest? Does your agency have a formal, written definition for juvenile arrest? d) Are being arrested and taken into custody the same thing? i) If no, under what circumstances would your agency consider a juvenile taken into custody but not arrested? e) Are being arrested and charged with a UCR offense the same thing? f) If an officer determines that a UCR offense has been committed, and the officer has probable cause to believe that he or she knows the juvenile who committed the offense, in which of the following actions does your agency record a juvenile arrest event? i) 1. Taking the juvenile into custody and transporting the juvenile to the police department? ii) 2. Taking the juvenile into custody and transporting the juvenile to Family Court? iii) 3. Taking the juvenile into custody and transporting the juvenile to a secure facility? iv) 4. Issuing an appearance ticket? v) 5. Releasing the juvenile without taking him or her into custody but issuing a warning? NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 21 Office of Justice Research and Performance