Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Alternative Measures of Crime in Criminology, Schemes and Mind Maps of Law

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

2021/2022

Available from 09/13/2023

sjakeyzzz
sjakeyzzz 🇵🇭

3 documents

1 / 6

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Alternative Measures of Crime
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.
Self-Report Studies
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..
Short and Nye (1957)
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:
1.
very often
2.
several times
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download Alternative Measures of Crime in Criminology and more Schemes and Mind Maps Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Alternative Measures of Crime

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.

Self-Report Studies

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..

Short and Nye (1957)

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:

  1. very often
  2. several times
  1. once or twice
  2. no Of the 23 rule violations included in the inventory, seven were selected to com- prise a delinquency scale. But, the high-school-aged respondents were being asked to recall events that had occurred as long as 10 years earlier, and to indicate approxi- mately how often they had engaged in such behavior. Furthermore, the response categories did not allow the researchers to differentiate adequately between habitual and infrequent “delinquents.”

HIGHLIGHT 3.4 Continued

  1. been drunk in a public place?
  2. stolen (or tried to steal) things worth between $5 and $50?
  3. stolen (or tried to steal) something at school, such as someone’s coat from a classroom, locker, or cafeteria, or a book from the library?
  4. broken into a building or vehicle (or tried to break in) to steal something or just to look around?
  5. begged for money or things from strangers?
  6. skipped classes without an excuse?
  7. failed to return extra change that a cashier gave you by mistake?
  8. been suspended from school?
  9. made obscene telephone calls, such as calling someone and saying dirty things? Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (1989). Table 3.109, pp. 330-331. The self-report instrument included two separate response sets. Respondents inter- viewed during January and February were instructed to indicate how many times in the past year (“from Christmas a year ago to the Christmas just past”) they had committed each specified offense. If the individual indicated 10 or more times, this was followed with a validity check; respondents were asked whether the behavior was done:
  10. once a month
  11. once every 2-3 weeks
  12. once a week
  13. 2-3 times a week
  14. once a day
  15. 2-3 times a day Agreement between the two responses could then be checked, and when this was done, a high level of accord was found. The advantage of instructing the youths to answer for the interval between Christmases is that Christmas usually is a salient event that permits the time period to be more clearly identified than would be true if asked about the past year. Furthermore, this time frame enables comparisons to be made between the UCR annual data and self-report results. Frequency counts allow researchers to examine repeat violators. At the low end of the frequency scale, no differences were found between subgroups (e.g., social class, age, and race). Among high-frequency offenders (those identified as engaging in patterned delinquent behavior); however, differences by race and social class were discovered: lower-class youths and African-Americans appeared more frequently in the high-frequency offender group than whites and middle-class youths (Elliott & Ageton, 1980). Highlighting the importance of replication (i.e., repetition of a previ-

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).

Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of

Delinquency

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 Project on Human Development in Chicago

Neighborhoods (PHDCN)

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