



Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Alternative measures of crime in the United States, focusing on self-report studies and the history of self-report data. It also covers the Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency, the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, and the International Self-Report Study. information on the methodology, data collection, and findings of these studies.
Typology: Schemes and Mind Maps
1 / 6
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
The UCR have been the primary source of crime statistics in the United States for more than 70 years, but there has been a continuous search for alternative and better measures. Two other data sources that rely upon surveys to obtain data on criminal behavior have been developed. Self-report studies request individuals to indicate the type and amount of criminal behavior in which they have engaged.
The history of Self-Report Data (SRD) has been one of methodological improve- ments. Self-report studies generally have relied upon responses from juveniles and have been influential in the development of theories explaining the etiology (causes) of delinquency. The labeling perspective, for instance (see Chapter 9), was largely influenced by early self-report studies. Likewise, integrated theoretical models and developmental criminology (discussed in Chapter 10) are also tied closely to SRD. Early self-report studies were conducted by Austin Porterfield (1946) and by James Wallerstein and Clement Wyle (1947). It was not until the work of Short and Nye (1957), however, that self-report measures received serious attention..
James F. Short, Jr. and F. Ivan Nye’s pioneering work revealed a totally different image of the juvenile delinquent and the extent of delinquency than official records had portrayed. Two different samples of adolescents completed questionnaires: one consisted of youth enrolled in the ninth through twelfth grades in three schools in the state of Washington, while the other was comprised of institutionalized delinquents. Responses to 23 questions inquiring about rule and law violations showed little dif- ference between the two groups. The finding that parents’ socioeconomic background and the quality of family life were not related to delinquency was of special signifi- cance. This finding contradicted a “truism” about the causes of delinquency: that it is caused by poverty and/or by broken homes. There were several methodological problems with the Short-Nye scale. The respondents had been requested to identify all those rules and regulations that they had broken since beginning grade school. Response categories were:
HIGHLIGHT 3.4 Continued
ous study to test the reliability of the initial findings), a subsequent analysis utilizing data from the first five years of the NYS (1977-1981) found that once social class was controlled, differences by race disappeared (Huizinga & Elliott, 1987).
In 1986, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the U.S. Department of Justice awarded funds to three research projects to utilize self-report data to examine the causes and correlates of delinquency in high-risk neighborhoods. All three used a core of SRD items that represent a refinement of the NYS items. Two of the projects (Huizinga et al., 1991; Loeber et al., 1991) included children as young as seven in the samples. Prior self-report studies, as noted above, had focused almost exclusively on junior and senior high school youth. Inclusion of the younger cohorts allows for a better determination of early life experiences associated with delinquent or problem behavior. Another methodological issue was the time interval between data collection points. Two of the studies (Loeber et al., 1991; Thornberry et al., 1991) conducted interviews every six months, while the Huizinga et al. research adhered to an annual schedule. The three projects submitted a three-volume report to OJJDP in 1994 (Huizinga et al., 1994b). The project staffs have provided contributions to the understanding of a number of topics including gang behavior (Bjerregard & Smith, 1993; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Thorn- berry et al., 1993, 2003), gun ownership (Lizotte et al., 1994, 2000; Bjerregard & Lizotte, 1995), victimization (Esbensen & Huizinga, 1991; Esbensen et al., 1999), consequences of arrest (Huizinga and Henry, 2007), and risk factors and resiliency (Huizinga et al., 1994a; Loeber et al., 1995; Thornberry et al., 1995; Kelley et al., 1997; Thornberry et al., 2000).
The National Institute of Justice and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation have collaborated on an ambitious research endeavor (Farrington et al., 1986; Tonry et al., 1991; Earls & Reiss, 1993). Beginning in 1988, teams of researchers worked on development of a research design and data collection instruments. After six years of planning, the project implemented the research design in 1994 and began col- lecting data in 1995. A probability sample of 80 Chicago neighborhoods was selected for the longitudinal study. During the first wave of interviews, 6,234 children from seven cohorts (ages 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years) were surveyed. Eighty-four percent were successfully re-interviewed during the second wave of data collection in 1997-1998. In addition to the longitudinal study, the PHDCN includes a community survey in which community residents in each of Chicago’s 343 neighborhoods are interviewed. Observa- tional studies were also conducted from 1996 through 2000. This project included many