More than anything else, property crime defines traditional concepts of “the teenager.” Vandalism, shoplifting, burglary, joyriding, arson, petty theft … all senseless things “dumb kids” do that jeopardize their futures and immiserate everyone’s lives.The teenage shed-torcher, windshield smasher, petty klepto, spray-painter and thrill-seeker whose anti-social destruction defies decency and reason infuriates adults to our core. It is no wonder crime scholars immersed in that era disparage “teenage brains.”
In 1978, the first year California released comprehensive crime numbers by age, more than 130,000 youths were arrested for felony and misdemeanor property offenses. Back then, youths under age 18 accounted for a shocking 43% of all property offense arrests.
Now, that whole species of “teenagers” as we knew it seems to have vanished.
Property crime arrests of Californians under age 18, 1978-2018
Source: California Department of Justice, Open Justice
.
In 2018, California’s teenaged youth population ages 10-17 was 1.1 million larger than 40 years earlier, Yet, fewer than 10,000 youths were arrested for all felony and misdemeanor property offenses — a 95% decline in the rate of juvenile property arrests. Youths now account for just 8% of California’s property-crime arrests.
The most astonishing drop is among the youngest. From 1978 to 2018, felony and misdemeanor property arrests of Californians under age 12 plunged by 99%, from 10,419 to 116. This indicates the crime drop may persist as these preteens age.
Similar declines are occurring nationwide. In 1978, the FBI reported well over one million youths arrested for property offenses (allowing for differences in populations covered by national FBI reports). In 2018, around 180,000. The plunge in youthful property crime persisted as laws got tougher in the 1980s and more lenient in the 2010s.
Yet, we have no idea why such a positive trend is happening.
Property crime itself is not disappearing. In 2018, nearly 19,000 Californians ages 40-49 (the average age of parents of teens) were arrested for property felonies and misdemeanors, up from around 11,000 in 1978. The arrest rate for property offenses among 40-somethings is now higher than the teenage rate.
What does the near disappearance of adolescent property offenses tell us about these very uncertain times?
For one thing, it tells us how silly widely quoted theories by experts such as criminologist James Allen Fox and psychologists Jean Twenge and Elizabeth Cauffman have proven. The trends stunningly refute Twenge’s theory that “rising narcissism” is driving some new wave of youthful materialism and anti-sociality, Cauffman’s notion that teenagers do “incredibly stupid” things due to their undeveloped brains and Fox’s continued disparagement of teenagers as “temporary sociopaths.”
I have repeatedly argued for the best minds to innovate bold plans to match youths’ surprising improvements. Instead, we have no clue as to why so many young people are turning away from crime, guns and dropping out of school (or even a clear-headed awareness that such trends are occurring) while so many elders are turning to drugs, crime and authoritarian politics.
Plummeting property crime among teens is part of a larger cultural correction.
Given increased youthful poverty rates and student loan debt, one might think today’s teens would be stealing more just to get by. Are modern adolescents (unlike older ages) just vastly more clever at not getting caught? If so, teenagers’ brains must not be as dumb and impulsive as pop theorists claim.
It seems more likely that the plummet in teenage property crime is part of a larger cultural correction. A new generation of youth is forging a strikingly different path than their forebears. Today’s youth experiencing social and economic disadvantages are graduating and going to college in record numbers. A 2019 Pew survey of college undergraduates finds the proportion of students from impoverished backgrounds rose from 12% in 1996 to 20% in 2016.
Mike Males
The U.S. can emerge from current crises stronger than before.
Those youth who once put personal gain from stealing and pleasure in destruction above society’s interests now barely exist. The shift among younger millennials and Generation Z toward lower crime is an amazingly healthy development in times when greed and nihilism among leaders are openly tolerated, even celebrated.
The United States that will emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic and administration failures will be different from the past. How different, we can only imagine.
Never in our lifetimes have Americans needed more rigorous, farsighted analyses to rescue a divided society besieged by epic challenges. Environmental scientists and epidemiologists are stepping up to the times. Social science and crime authorities remain stuck in the past.
The justice field has terrific potential to contribute insights. The crises that don’t happen, the ones that mysteriously fix themselves, may not generate panics, headlines, funding or fame. But if the U.S. is to become a country where epidemics of drug abuse, gun violence, crime and disease don’t routinely soar out of control, they deserve just as much attention.
Mike Males is senior research fellow for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco. He is author of “Teenage Sex and Pregnancy: Modern Myths, Unsexy Realities.”
Pingback: Plausibility: This is your brain on lead | Rick Nevin
Interesting essay. I think another huge reason for declining juvenile crime rates is the dramatic shift in how youths socialize. In 1978, it was common for groups of teenagers to get together and just “hang out”. This would sometimes lead to mischief. In 2020, kids get together over the internet and are much less likely to roam around town together. Also, kids who are involved in extracurricular activities spend much more time in those activities than in the past. Youth sports have become all encompassing year round activities vs. just during a particular season. Of course, the kids involved in prosocial activities have never been the kids who are normally committing offenses. I think therefore the primary factor is kids who might commit offenses are far less likely to be out in the community where these offenses could occur.