U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics 

September 2011, NCJ 234319

BJS
Patterns & Trends

Arrest in the United States, 1980-2009 
Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., BJS Statistician

----------------------------------------------------------
This file is text only without graphics and many of the
tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in
spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including
tables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJS
website at:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2203. 
-----------------------------------------------------------

Highlights

* The U.S. murder arrest rate in 2009 was about half of what
it was in the early 1980s. Over the 30-year period ending in
2009, the adult arrest rate for murder fell 57%, while
the juvenile arrest rate fell 44%.

* From 1980 to 2009, the black forcible rape arrest rate
declined 70%, while the white arrest rate fell 31%.

* In 1980 the male arrest rate for aggravated assault was 8
times greater than the female rate; by 2009 the male rate had
fallen to 4 times the female rate. This is because the
male arrest rate was about the same in 1980 and 2009, while
the female arrest rate doubled over the period.

* The burglary arrest rate declined substantially and rather
consistently between 1980 and 2009, falling 57% over the
30-year period. Over the same period, the male arrest rate
for burglary declined 61%, while the female rate remained
essentially constant.

* In 1980, juvenile arrests made up 38% of all larceny-theft
arrests; by 2009, this percentage had fallen to 24%. Over the
30-year period, the juvenile arrest rate for larceny-theft
declined 40%, while the adult arrest rate ended the period
near where it had begun.

* In 1980, 22% of all drug law violation arrests were for
drug sale or manufacture. This proportion peaked in 1991 at
36% and fell to 19% by 2009.

* Between 1980 and 2009, while the adult arrest rate for drug
possession or use grew 138%, the juvenile arrest rate
increased 33%. Similarly, from 1980 to 2009, the increase in
the arrest rate for drug sale or manufacture was greater for
adults (77%) than for juveniles (31%).

Introduction

This report presents newly developed national estimates of
arrests and arrest rates covering the 30-year period from
1980 to 2009, based on data from the FBI's Uniform Crime
Reporting Program (UCR). By reviewing trends over the 30
years, readers can develop a detailed understanding of
matters entering the criminal justice system in the
U.S. through arrest.

The UCR collects arrest data from participating state and
local law enforcement agencies. These agencies provide
monthly counts of their arrests (including citations and
summons) for criminal acts within several offense categories.
In Crime in the United States, 2009, the FBI estimated that
the state and local law enforcement agencies covered
by the UCR made 13,687,000 arrests in 2009. Statistics in
this report expand the FBI's set of published arrest
estimates to include estimates of arrests by age group, sex,
and race within many offense categories. These detailed
breakdowns of arrests and arrest trends provide a unique
understanding of the flow of individuals into the criminal
justice system over a long period of time. Within a single
offense category, arrest trends often differ substantially
for males and females, juveniles and adults, and racial
groups.

To interpret the arrest statistics presented in the report,
readers are encouraged to review the FBI's counting rules
discussed in the Methodology. This report uses arrest rates
rather than arrest counts to display 30-year trends, because
rates control for changes in the size of the reference
population over this time period. In addition, readers
should review graph legends before studying the graphs
because some arrest rates have been multiplied by a constant
to make the trends more visible. In the graph legends
throughout this report, American Indian/Alaskan Native is
abbreviated as AIAN, and Asian/Pacific Islander is
abbreviated as API.

In addition to this report, BJS has developed an online data
access tool that enables users to generate graphs and tables
of national trendsin arrests and arrest rates for a large set
of offenses and populationsubgroups. The online tool is
available on the BJS website. This tool will enable
policymakers, justice system professionals, advocates, the
media, researchers, students, and the public to produce the
specific information they need with little effort,
information that is often not readily available or that
cannot be found in any other resource.

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter

The UCR defines murder (and non-negligent manslaughter) as
the willful killing of one human being by another. It
excludes deaths caused by negligence, accidental deaths, and
justifiable homicides (i.e., the killing of a felon by a law
enforcement officer in the line of duty, or the killing of a
felon during the commission of a felony by a private
citizen).

The annual murder arrest rate declined substantially in the
U.S. between 1980 and 2009 (figure 1). The rate was
relatively high in 1980. Between 1980 and the early 1990s, it
fluctuated within a limited range, averaging 9 murder arrests
for every 100,000 U.S. residents. After reaching its highest
level in 1991, the arrest rate declined markedly. Between
1991 and 2000 the murder arrest rate fell 51%. After this
sharp decline, the murder arrest rate remained relatively
constant between 2000 and 2009, averaging less than 5
arrests per 100,000 U.S. residents.

Over the 30-year period, 89% of arrests for murder were male
arrests. he male arrest rate for murder, on average, was 8
times greater than the female arrest rate (figure 2). The
male and female murder arrest rate trends showed very similar
patterns from 1980 to 2009, each falling more than 50% over
the period.

The murder arrest trends for juveniles (persons under age 18)
were more volatile than the trends for adults (figure 3).
Between 1980 and 2009 the adult arrest rate for murder
declined gradually and rather consistently, ending the period
57% below its 1980 level. In sharp contrast to the adult
arrest trend, the juvenile arrest rate for murder increased
between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s. During the 10-year
period between 1984 and its peak in 1993, the juvenile arrest
rate for murder increased by 162%. After 1993 the juvenile
arrest rate fell substantially, and the increase seen between
1984 and 1993 was completely erased by 1999. The rate
continued to fall after 1999 so that by 2009 the juvenile
arrest rate for murder was at its lowest level in the 30-year
period, which was 44% below its 1980 level and 72% below its
peak in 1993. At their peak in 1993, juvenile arrests were
16% of all murder arrests in the U.S. In 2009,
juveniles were involved in 9% of all murder arrests.

Murder arrest rates and trends in these rates varied widely
among racial groups. Over the 30-year period, the black
arrest rate for murder averaged 7 times the white rate
(figure 4). The American Indian/Alaskan Native (AIAN) rate
averaged twice the white rate, while the Asian/Pacific
Islander (API) rate averaged half the white rate. Between
1980 and 2009, the white arrest rate gradually declined,
falling a total of 54%. In contrast, the black arrest rate
for murder declined in the early 1980s, and then increased
43% between 1984 and 1991 to reach its peak for the period.
Between 1991 and 2009, the black arrest rate for murder fell
sharply, declining a total of 65%. As a result, over the
entire period from 1980 to 2009, the black arrest rate for
murder declined 58%, similar to the overall decline in the
white rate.

Forcible rape

For UCR arrest statistics, forcible rape is defined as the
carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.
This definition includes rape, attempts to rape, and assaults
to rape, regardless of the age of the victim. Statutory
offenses (where no force is used and the victim is under age
of consent) are excluded. This definition of forcible rape is
limited to the act of sexual intercourse, or the penetration
of a female sexual organ (vagina) by a male sexual organ
(penis). This definition excludes other types of violent
sexual assault such as forcible sodomy, forcible sex with
an object, and forcible fondling. These three categories of
violent sexual assault are distinguished in the FBI's
National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Capturing
crimes reported in 2008 to law enforcement agencies with
jurisdiction over about a fourth of the U.S. resident
population, NIBRS showed that forcible rape as defined in the
UCR arrest statistics represented 40% of all violent sexual
assaults known to law enforcement.

Over 99% of arrests for forcible rape in the 30-year period
from 1980 through 2009 were male arrests. As a result, the
overall arrest rate trend for forcible rape mirrors the
30-year male arrest rate trend. The forcible rape arrest rate
was at its peak in the period from 1984 to 1991 (figure 5).
Between 1991 and 2009, it declined substantially and rather
consistently, falling a total of 56%. In 2009 the forcible
rape arrest rate was at its lowest level in at least 30
years.

Over the 30-year period the juvenile proportion of forcible
rape arrests held relatively constant, averaging 16% of all
forcible rape arrests annually and ranging from 14% to 17%
(figure 6). The juvenile and the adult arrest rates for
forcible rape followed a similar pattern over the 30-year
period. Both began in 1980 at relatively high levels and
ended in 2009 at their lowest levels in more than a
generation.

The decline in the forcible rape arrest rate was not similar
across racial groups (figure 7). In 1980 the numbers of
forcible rape arrests of whites and of blacks were nearly
equal, being 51% and 47% of all forcible rape arrests
respectively. In 1980, these counts translated into a black
forcible rape arrest rate that was 7 times greater than the
white arrest rate. From 1980 to 2009, the black forcible rape
arrest rate declined 70%, the AIAN rate declined 67%, and the
API rate declined 61%. In contrast, between 1980 and 2009 the
white arrest rate for forcible rape declined 31%. As a
result, by 2009 the black arrest rate for forcible rape had
fallen to 3 times the white arrest rate. In 2009, 66% of all
arrests for forcible rape involved whites and 31% involved
blacks.

The decline in the black arrest rate for forcible rape was
shared by black juveniles and black adults. Both of these
arrest rates fell about 70% between 1980 and 2009 (figure 8).
The white adult arrest rate also fell rather consistently
across this period, with a smaller overall decline of
35%. In contrast, the white juvenile arrest rate for forcible
rape spiked in the early 1990s and then declined. Between
1980 and 1991 the white juvenile arrest rate for forcible
rape increased 76%; after 1991 it declined so that by 2009 it
was 9% below its 1980 level.

Robbery

The UCR defines robbery as taking or attempting to take
anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a
person or persons, by force, threat of force, violence, or by
putting the victim in fear. From 1980 through 1996 the annual
robbery arrest rate stayed within a limited range, never
fluctuating by more than 10% from the average arrest rate of
the period (figure 9). The years 1997 and 1998 were
transition years; from 1996 to 1999 the robbery arrest rate
fell 33%. Between 1999 and 2009 the rate once again
stabilized within a limited range, never fluctuating by more
than 8% from the period average. The robbery arrest rate in
2009 was 40% below its peak level in 1991 and 12% above its
lowest level in the 30-year period in 2002.

Over the 30-year period, 91% of robbery arrests were male
arrests. On average, the male arrest rate for robbery was 11
times greater than the female arrest rate. However, the rates
converged between 1980 and 2009; the ratio fell from 14 males
to 1 female in 1980 to 8 to 1 in 2009 (figure 10). This
convergence was the result of large decline in the male
arrest rate coupled with a small increase in the female
arrest rate. Between 1980 and 2009, while the female rate
grew 9% over the period, the male arrest rate fell 40%. As a
result, the female proportion of robbery arrests grew from 7%
in 1980 to 12% in 2009.

Between 1980 and 2009, 26% of all robbery arrests were
juvenile arrests. This percentage ranged from a low of 22% in
1988 to a high of 32% in 1995 and closed the period in 2009
at 25% (figure 11). From 1980 through the mid-1990s the
juvenile arrest rate fluctuated more than the adult rate,
decreasing then increasing while the adult rate
stayed within a limited range. Between 1995 and 2009 the
juvenile and the adult arrest rates both fell. As a result,
over the 30-year period from 1980 to 2009, the arrest rates
for robbery declined substantially for both juveniles (down
40%) and adults (down 34%), and were near their lowest level
in 2009.

Over the 30-year period, an average of 40% of all arrests for
robbery were white arrests, 59% were black arrests, and the
remaining 1% were AIAN and API arrests. On average, the black
arrest rate for robbery was 10 times the white rate. The
black arrest rate was 10 times the white rate in 1980, rose
to 13 times the white rate in 1989, and then declined to 8
times the white rate in 2009. At the peak in 1989,
black arrests were 64% of all robbery arrests; in 2009 this
proportion declined to 55%, which was nearly its lowest level
in the 30-year period.

The disparity between black and white arrest rates lessened
over time because the decline in the black arrest rate was
greater than the decline in the white rate (figure 12). From
1980 to 2009, both the white and the black arrest rates for
robbery peaked around 1990 and declined to a relatively low
level in 2009. Between 1990 and 2009, the white arrest rate
for robbery fell 26% while the black rate fell 50%. The
absolute magnitude of these declines is important to
understand. Between 1990 and 2009, the white robbery arrest
rate (arrests per 100,000 persons in the racial group) fell
from 30 to 22. The black rate fell from 340 to 171.
In terms of absolute difference, the decrease in the black
robbery arrest rate was about 20 times the decrease in the
white rate.

Aggravated assault

The UCR defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by
one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe
or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is
accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to
produce death or great bodily harm. It excludes simple
assaults: crimes in which no to the victim. In the 30-year
period between 1980 and 2009, arrests for aggravated assault
peaked in 1995 (figure 13). From 1980 to 1995 the rate
increased 75% and then it declined; by 2009 it was just 12%
above its 1980 level.

Between 1980 and 2009, on average, female arrests made up 17%
of arrests for aggravated assault. This proportion increased
over the period, from 12% in 1980 to 22% in 2009 (figure 14).
The male arrest rate in 1980 was 8 times the female arrest
rate, and by 2009 it had fallen to 4 times the female rate.
Between 1980 and their peak year of 1995, arrest rates
increased significantly for both males (up 63%) and females
(up 150%), but the growth in the female rate was much
greater. Between 1995 and 2009, the arrest rate for
both males (down 40%) and females (down 19%) declined, but
the female rate declined less. As a result, the male arrest
rate for aggravated assault in 2009 was back at its 1980
level, while the female rate in 2009 was more than double its
1980 level.

Between 1980 and 2009, juvenile arrests made up an average of
14% of all aggravated assault arrests; this percentage ranged
from 12% to 16% over the period (figure 15). The general
pattern of arrest rate growth and decline was similar for
juveniles and adults; both peaked in the mid-1990s and
returned to near their 1980 levels by 2009. The arrest rate
for aggravated assault was higher for juveniles (up 93%) than
for adults (up 69%) between 1980 and 1995. It then declined
more for juveniles (down 45%) than for adults (down
35%) from 1995 to 2009. As a result, in 2009 the juvenile
arrests rates for aggravated assault (up 6%) and the adult
rate (up 10%) were both near but above their 1980 levels.

Over the 30-year period, on average, 61% of all arrests for
aggravated assault were white arrests, 37% were black
arrests, and the other 2% were AIAN and API arrests. On
average, the black arrest rate for aggravated assault was 4
times the white rate, although it grew to 5 times the white
rate in 1988 and fell back to 3 times the white rate in 2009
(figure 16).

The increase in the black arrest rate (54%) was greater than
the increase in the white rate (31%) between 1980 and 1988.
However, the white arrest rate increased more between 1988
and 1995, and both the white and the black rates in 1995 were
about 75% above their 1980 levels. Between 1995 and 2009 both
rates fell, but the black rate declined to a greater degree.
As a result, in 2009 the black arrest rate for aggravated
assault was 6% below its 1980 level (and at its lowest point
of the 30-year period), while the white arrest rate
was 21% above its 1980 level.

Simple assault

The UCR defines simple assault as an assault or attempted
assault that does not involve a weapon or no serious or
aggravated injury results to the victim. Stalking,
intimidation, coercion, and hazing are included in this
category of offense.

As with aggravated assault, the simple assault arrest rate
increased substantially from 1980 to the mid-1990s (figure
17). However, the growth in simple assault arrests was much
greater than the growth in aggravated assault arrests.
Between 1980 and 1995, while the aggravated assault arrest
rate increased 75%, the simple assault arrest rate increased
125%. From the mid-1990s through 2009, both the aggravated
and simple assault rates declined, but not to the same
degree. By 2009 the aggravated assault rate had fallen to 12%
above its 1980 level. In sharp contrast, the simple assault
arrest rate declined after the mid-1990s, but this decline
erased only a relatively small portion of the earlier
increase. In 2009, the simple assault arrest rate was double
what it had been in 1980. In 1980 there were 18 simple
assault arrests for every 10 aggravated assault arrests,
which gradually increased from 1980 to 2009. By 2009 there
were 31 simple assault arrests for every 10 aggravated
assault arrests.

The change in male and female arrest rates for simple assault
differed markedly over the 30-year period (figure 18). Both
grew substantially from their lows in 1980 to 1997, but the
growth in the female arrest rate (up 268%) was substantially
more than the growth in male arrest rate (up 116%). Between
1997 and 2009, while the male arrest rate declined, the
female rate remained relatively constant. In 2009 the
male arrest rate ended the 30-year period 69% above its 1980
level, while the 2009 female arrest rate was nearly four
times its 1980 level (an increase of 281%). In 1980, females
arrests for simple assault were 14% of all simple assault
arrests; by 2009 this proportion had grown to 26%. This
increase in the female involvement in simple assault arrests
was similar to the increased female involvement in aggravated
assault arrests.

The simple assault arrest rates grew substantially for both
juveniles (up 152%) and adults (up 133%) from the early 1980s
to their peaks in 1997 (figure 19). Between 1997 and 2009
both rates declined, erasing just a portion of the earlier
increase. In 2009, the adult rate was 93% above its 1980
level, and the juvenile rate was 115% above its 1980 level.
This large increase in both the juvenile and adult simple
assault arrest rates over the 30-year period contrasts
sharply with the aggravated assault arrest rates, which had
both returned to very near their 1980 levels by 2009.

Over the 30-year period the simple assault arrest trends were
very similar across racial groups (figure 20). The arrests
rates for each group peaked around 1997, with similar
increases between 1980 and 1997. After these large increases,
the period from 1997 through 2009 saw relatively moderate
declines, and all racial groups ended the period in 2009 with
simple assault arrest rates far above their 1980 levels. As a
result, the racial profile of simple assault arrests in 2009
(White increased 66%; blacks, 32%; AIAN, 1%; and API, 1%) was
very similar to the profile in 1980.

Burglary

The UCR defines burglary as unlawful entry into a structure
(home, apartment, barn, church, factory, garage, or school)
to commit a felony or a theft. Thefts from automobiles or
coin-operated machines (non-structures) and shoplifting from
commercial establishments (lawful entries) are classified
larceny-thefts, not burglaries. A larceny-theft may be an
element of a burglary (a person enters a home and steals
property), but an arrest for such crimes is classified as a
burglary using the UCR's hierarchy rule. The burglary arrest
rate declined substantially and rather 1980, 6% of all
burglary arrests were female arrests. By 2009, 15% of all
burglary arrests were female arrests (figure 22). A study of
the male and female arrest rate trends gives insight into
this changing proportion. From 1980 to 2009 the male arrest
rate for burglary declined substantially (falling 61%), while
the female rate remained relatively constant. As a result,
the female proportion of burglary arrests increased, even
though the female arrest rate for burglary did not.

Both the juvenile (down 72%) and the adult (down 44%) arrest
rates for burglary fell substantially between 1980 and 2009,
although juveniles showed a greater decline (figure 23). As a
result, the juvenile proportion of burglary arrests declined
from 45% in 1980 to 25% in 2009.

On average, from 1980 to 2009 the black arrest rate for
burglary was 3 times the white arrest rate, the AIAN arrest
rate was equal to the white rate, and the API arrest rate was
less than half the white rate (figure 24). Unlike for other
crimes, the black-to-white arrest rate ratio changed little
over the period. The burglary arrest rate trends for whites
and for blacks were very similar. Between 1980 and 2009 the
burglary arrest rates declined by more than half for whites
(56%) and for blacks (58%).

Larceny-theft

The UCR defines larceny-theft as unlawfully taking, carrying,
leading, or riding away with property from the possession or
constructive possession of another. Larceny-theft includes
shoplifting, bicycle theft, theft of motor vehicle parts and
accessories, pocketpicking, or the stealing of any property
or article that is not taken by force and violence or by
fraud. Embezzlement, confidence games, forgery, check fraud,
etc., are excluded. Motor vehicle theft is also excluded in
this arrest statistic.

The larceny-theft arrest rate increased 24% from 1980 to its
peak in 1989 (figure 25). It then declined, reaching its low
in 2006 at 44% below its 1989 peak. Between 2006 and 2009 the
arrest rate increased 20%. Yet even with this increase, the
2009 larceny-theft arrest rate was still 33% below its peak
rate in 1989 and 17% below its 1980 level.

The male arrest rate trend mirrored the overall larceny-theft
arrest rate trend, but the female arrest rate trend did not
(figure 26). Both the male and the female arrest rates for
larceny-theft increased between 1980 and 1989, and the
increase in the arrest rate was greater for females (up 32%)
than for males (up 21%). Both rates fell to their lows
in 2006, with the male arrest rate (down 50%) declining more
than the female rate (down 31%) declined between 1989 and
2006. Between 2006 and 2009 the female arrest rate for
larceny-theft increased substantially more (up 40%) than the
male rate increased (up 8%). With the female pattern of
greater increases and a smaller decline, the cumulative
effect from 1980 to 2009 was a 35% drop in the male arrest
rate for larceny-theft while the female arrest rate ended the
period 28% higher than it began. In 1980, 29% of all arrests
for larceny-theft were female arrests; by 2009 this
proportion had grown to 43%.

In 1980 juvenile arrests were 38% of all larceny-theft
arrests; by 2009, this proportion had fallen to 24% (figure
27). Between 1980 and 1997 the juvenile arrest rate for
larceny-theft remained relatively constant during a period in
which the adult arrest rate fluctuated. (The adult rate
increased 37% between 1980 and 1989, and then returned nearly
to its 1980 level.) Between 1997 and 2006, the arrest rates
for larceny-theft declined for both juveniles (down 47%) and
adults (down 26%).  After reaching their lows in 2006, both
rates increased from 2006 to 2009, with the adult rate (up
22%) increasing more than the juvenile rate (up 14%). As a
result, the juvenile arrest rate for larceny-theft
ended the 30-year period 40% below its 1980 level, while the
1980 and the 2009 adult arrest rates were similar.

In 2009, 68% of all arrests for larceny-theft were white
arrests, 29% were black arrests, and the remaining 3% were
AIAN and API arrests (figure 28). These proportions
translated into a black arrest rate for
larceny-theft in 2009 that was 2.5 times the white rate. This
proportion gradually declined from a level of 3.5 in the
early 1980s. The disparity between the white and black arrest
rates lessened because the black arrest rate declined more
(30%) than the white rate (11%) from 1980 to 2009. White and
black larceny-theft arrest rates both reached their
low points of the 30-year period in 2006 and increased
similarly in the period from 2006 to 2009.

Motor vehicle theft

The UCR defines motor vehicle theft as the theft or attempted
theft of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is self-propelled
and runs on a land surface and not on rails. Motorboats,
construction equipment, airplanes, and farming equipment are
specifically excluded from this category. Thefts of these
items would be larceny-thefts.

In the 30-year period the arrest rate for motor vehicle theft
peaked in 1989, as it did for larceny-theft (figure 29).
Between its relative low level in 1983 and its peak in 1989,
the motor vehicle theft arrest rate increased 81%. After 1989
the arrest rate generally declined, with some years of
stability from the late-1990s to the mid-2000s.
By 2009, the motor vehicle theft arrest rate fell 71% from
its peak in 1989 to its lowest level in the 30-year period,
and to a level less than half of what it was in 1980.

From 1980 to 2009, the relative involvement of females in
motor vehicle theft arrests increased (figure 30). In 1980,
9% of motor vehicle theft arrests were female arrests; by
2009 this proportion had increased to 18%. This change
occurred due to the larger decline in male arrests over the
period. Between 1980 and 1989 both the male and the female
arrest rates for motor vehicle theft increased, although
the increase in the arrest rate was greater for females (up
79%) than for males (up 49%). From 1989 to 2005, while the
male arrest rate declined 51%, the female arrest rate for
motor vehicle theft remained relatively constant (down 6%).
From 2005 to 2009, rates for both males (up 47%) and females
(down 46%) declined similarly. Overall, between 1980 and 2009
the male arrest rate for motor vehicle theft dropped 61%,
while the female rate fell 9%. In 2009 the male arrest
rate for motor vehicle theft was well below its level 30
years earlier, while the female arrest rates in 1980 and 2009
were similar.

The juvenile portion of motor vehicle theft arrests declined
substantially between 1980 and 2009 (figure 31). In 1980, 45%
of all arrests for motor vehicle theft were juvenile arrests;
by 2009 this proportion had fallen to 24%. The juvenile and
the adult arrest rate trends for motor vehicle theft followed
a similar overall pattern over the 30-year period, although
the changes in the juvenile arrest rate were more dramatic.
From 1983 to their peak in 1989, both arrest rates increased,
but the increase in the rate was greater for juveniles
(122%) than for adults (62%). From 1989 to 2009, both rates
declined substantially; the adult rate declined 64%, and the
juvenile rate declined 82%. In 2009, both the juvenile and
the adult arrest rates for motor vehicle theft were at their
lowest levels in the 30-year period; however, because the
juvenile rate (down 73%) declined more than the adult rate
(down 43%) did between 1980 and 2009, the juvenile
portion of all motor vehicle theft arrests was cut nearly in
half.

In 2009, 61% of motor vehicle theft arrests were white
arrests, 36% were black arrests, and the other 3% were AIAN
and API arrests (figure 32). The motor vehicle theft arrest
rate for each race was at its lowest level in the 30-year
period in 2009. The white and black arrest rates both peaked
in 1989. The period from 1989 to 2009 saw large declines in
both the white (down 68%) and black (down 77%) arrest rates.
Throughout this period the black arrest rate for motor
vehicle theft averaged four times the white arrest rate.

Weapon law violations

The UCR defines weapon law violations as violations of laws
or ordinances that prohibit the manufacture, sale, purchase,
transportation, possession, concealment, or use of firearms,
cutting instruments, explosives, incendiary devices, or other
deadly weapons. Attempts to violate these laws are included.

The UCR's hierarchy rule classifies an arrest into this
category only when the weapon law violation is the most
serious charge in the arrest. Arrests for murder with a
firearm, rape with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, aggravated
assault with a weapon, or carjacking with a gun (even though
these crimes involve a weapon) would not be classified as a
weapon law violation arrest in the UCR arrest statistics.

The arrest rate for weapon law violations increased 38%
between 1980 and 1993 (figure 33). The arrest rate then fell
from its 1993 peak, and by 2000 it reached a level 23% below
that of 1980. While the arrest rate increased moderately in
the middle of the following decade, it never returned to the
level of 1980. It reached its lowest level of the 30-year
period in 2009, 46% below its peak in 1993 and 26% below its
1980 level.

On average, from 1980 through 2009, 92% of all weapon law
violation arrests were male arrests, with little year-to-year
change (figure 34). While the male arrest rate for weapon law
violations was an average of 12 times greater than the female
arrest rate, the male and female arrest rate trends roughly
paralleled each other over the period. Both increased after
1980, peaked in the mid- 1990s, and declined so that by 2009
the male and female arrest rates for weapon law violations
were at their lowest levels in 30 years.

Over the 30-year period 20% of all weapon law violation
arrests were juvenile arrests (figure 35). The annual
proportion varied from 14% to 24%. While the adult arrest
rate grew 22% between 1980 and 1993, the juvenile rate
increase was 5 times greater (up 120%). Between 1993 and 2009
both rates declined. The adult rate fell so significantly
that it ended the period in 2009 at 34% below its 1980 level.
The decline in the juvenile arrest rate for weapon law
violations erased almost all of its earlier increase, ending
the 30- year period 10% above its 1980 level.

In 2009, 58% of weapon law violation arrests were white
arrests, 41% were black arrests and the remaining arrests
were AIAN and API arrests (figure 36). These percentages
translated into a black arrest rate that was 4 times greater
than the white rate in 2009. This ratio remained relatively
constant throughout the period, except for the years from the
late-1980s to the mid-1990s. During this time, the black
arrest rate for weapon law violations increased more than
the white arrest rate did, resulting in a ratio of 5 black
arrests to 1 white arrest. In 2009 the weapon law violation
arrest rate for each racial group was at or near its lowest
level in the 30-year period.

Drug abuse violations

The UCR defines drug abuse violations as violations of laws
that prohibit the production, importation, distribution,
possession, or use of certain controlled substances
(marijuana, opium, and cocaine and their derivatives, and
synthetic narcotics). The UCR divides drug abuse violation
arrests into two general categories: (1) possession or use,
and (2) sale or manufacture. From 1980 to 2009, both the
number and the relative proportion of these two drug arrest
categories changed substantially. It is important to view the
two types of arrests both separately and in relation to each
other to understand the pattern of drug arrests in the U.S.

Overall, between 1980 and 2009, the arrest rate for drug
possession or use more than doubled in the U.S. (figure 37).
This arrest rate increased substantially in the 1980s, up 89%
between 1980 and 1989. It declined over the next two years
and then resumed its gradual increase, reaching its peak for
the 30-year period in 2006, 162% above its 1980 level. Then
the rate declined between 2006 and 2009, resulting in an
overall increase of 122% from 1980 to 2009.

From 1980 to 1989, the increase in the arrest rate for drug
sale or manufacture (210%) was twice as great as the increase
in the rate for drug possession or use (89%) (figure 41).
While the drug possession or use arrest rate continued to
increase, the drug sale or manufacture arrest rate was nearly
cut in half (down 43% over the next 20 years). As a result,
the drug sale or manufacture arrest rate in 2009 was 77%
above its 1980.  The differing arrest rate trends can be seen
in the changing proportion of all drug abuse violation
arrests that were for drug sale or manufacture.

In 1980, 22% of all drug abuse violation arrests were for
drug sale or manufacture. This proportion reached its peak in
1991 at 36%. As the arrests for drug sale or manufacture fell
and arrests for drug possession or use increased, the
proportion of drug sale or manufacture arrests declined to
19% in 2009. About 4 of 5 drug abuse violation arrests in the
U.S. in 2009 were for drug possession or use.

In 1980, 13% of all arrests for drug possession or use were
female arrests (figure 38). This proportion increased to 19%
in 2009. Both the male and female arrest rate trends for drug
possession or use generally mirrored the overall trend
described above; however, between 1980 and 2009, while the
male arrest rate doubled (up 104%), the female arrest rate
for drug possession or use tripled (up 225%).

In 1980, 14% of all arrests for drug sale/manufacture were
female arrests (figure 42). This proportion increased to 17%
in 2009. Both the male and female arrest rates for drug sale
or manufacture doubled between 1980 and 1989, with increases
of 205% and 237%. Over the next 20 years, both rates
declined, although the female rate fell less. As a result,
the male arrest rate for drug sale or manufacture in 2009 was
68% above its 1980 level, while the female rate was 123%
above its 1980 level.

Juvenile and adult arrest trends for drug possession or use
differed over the 30-year period (figure 39). Between 1980
and 1989 the adult arrest rate for drug possession or use
doubled (up 113%), while the juvenile arrest rate fell (down
25%). Both rates fell in the next two years and then
rose substantially. Between 1991 and 1997 the adult arrest
rate increased 63%, while the juvenile arrest rate for drug
possession or use increased a remarkable 250%. In 1980, 21%
of all drug possession or use arrests were juvenile arrests;
by 1991 this proportion had fallen to 7%. Although the
juvenile proportion of arrests increased to 14% in 1997, it
was still far from its 1980 level. The growth the overall
arrest rate for drug possession or use between the late 1990s
and the peak in 2006 was due in an increase in adult arrests;
the juvenile arrest rate did not increase during
this period. Overall, between 1980 and 2009, while the
juvenile arrest rate for drug possession or use grew 33%, the
adult arrest rate increased 138%. In 2009, 11% of all arrests
for drug possession or use were juvenile
arrests.

In contrast to the trends in drug possession or use arrests,
the juvenile and adult arrest trends for drug sale or
manufacture were more similar over the 30-year period (figure
43). Juveniles were involved in an average of 10% of all
arrests for drug sale or manufacture. The proportion
increased somewhat in the mid-1990s to a high of 13% in 1996.
The arrest rates for drug sale or manufacture increased
substantially for both juveniles (up 163%) and adults (up
210%) between 1980 and 1989. The adult rate fell gradually
after its 1989 peak through 2009, dropping a total of 43%.
Over this same period the juvenile arrest rate for drug sale
or manufacture declined a total of 50%; however, unlike the
adult trend, the juvenile arrest rate experienced a temporary
increase during the mid-1990s before continuing its downward
slide. Over the entire 30-year period from 1980 to 2009, the
increase in the arrest rate for drug sale or manufacture was
greater for adults (up 77%) than for juveniles (up 31%),
a pattern consistent with that of drug possession or use.

In 1980 the black arrest rate for drug possession or use was
about twice the white arrest rate; by 1989 the disparity had
increased to 4 black arrests to 1 white arrest (figure 40).
Between 1980 and 1989, the white arrest rate for drug
possession or use increased 56%, while the increase
in the black arrest rate was four times greater (up 219%).
Both the white and black rates declined in 1990 and 1991;
afterwards both generally increased. By 2009 the black rate
had reached a level near that of 1989 and was 205% above its
1980 level. In contrast, after 1991, the white arrest rate
quickly surpassed its 1989 level and continued to increase
so that by 2009 it had reached a level 102% above its 1980
level. In all, during the 30-year period from 1980 to 2009,
the white arrest rate of drug possession or use doubled and
the black arrest rate tripled. The black arrest rate ended
the period at 3 times the white arrest rate.

Overall, the racial disparity in arrests for drug sale or
manufacture was greater than for drug possession or use. In
1980, the black arrest rate was about 4 times greater than
the white rate (figure 44). The large increase in these
arrests between 1980 and 1989 was disproportionately the
result of increases in black arrests. Over this 10-year
period, the white arrest rate for drug sale or manufacture
increased 127%, while the black arrest rate increased 363%.
In 1989 more than half (52%) of all persons arrested
for drug sale or manufacture were black. Both white and black
arrest rates for drug sale or manufacture declined after
1989. Between 1989 and 2009, the decline in the rate was
greater for blacks (59%) than for whites (27%). As a result,
both white and black arrest rates for drug sale or
manufacture ended the 30-year period in 2009 substantially
above their 1980 levels (66% versus 90%). The black arrest
rate in 2009 was about 4 times the white rate, similar to the
disparity that had existed in 1980.

Methodology
The Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)
Division of the FBI provided the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) with the set of annual Age, Sex, and
Race (ASR) Arrest Master Files for the years 1980
through 2009. Each of these annual files holds counts
of the reported arrests from each law enforcement
agency that submitted its arrest data for the complete
12-month period. The files also contain an estimate of the
population served by each agency. The FBI classifies law
enforcement agencies into nine population groups based
on the estimated annual population and the nature of the
community that the agency serves.

Over the 30-year period, on average, 61% of law
enforcement agencies in the UCR annually reported
complete 12-month arrest counts. Over the 30-year
period, the 12-month reporters served an average of 79%
of the U.S. resident population. The population coverage
was greater than the proportion of agencies reporting
because larger agencies reported at a higher rate than
smaller agencies did. On average, over the 30-year period,
agencies annually reported 80% of all arrests estimated to
have occurred in the U.S. The estimation procedures used
in this bulletin were designed to develop the offense and
demographic attributes of the 20% of arrests that the FBI
estimated occurred in the nonreporting law enforcement
agencies. An assessment of the coverage of the annual
samples can be found in table 2.

In the first step of the estimation process, the annual
12-month arrest counts were summed for all law
enforcement agencies within each of the nine
population groups. Two tables were produced for each
population group with arrest counts at the most detailed
demographic levels supported by the data. These two
table shells were 

* Offense (in 33 offense categories) by age of arrestee (in
22 age groups) by sex (in two categories--male and
female)

* Offense (using 33 offense categories) by age of arrestee
(in two age categories--juvenile and adult) and race (in
four race categories--white, black, AIAN, and API).

Next, the cells in these 18 tables (i.e., two shells for each
of nine strata) were each weighted by a factor equal to
the total population of all law enforcement agencies in
the population group divided by the population of all
reporting law enforcement agencies in the population
group. Then, the nine Offense by Age by Sex tables were
combined into one table, as were the nine Offense by Age
by Race tables. Finally, the cells in these two tables were
each multiplied by the ratio of the FBI's annual national
offense-specific arrest estimate divided by the sum of
all cells in the table with that offense. This transformed
each of these table cells into a national estimate for that
cell's demographic subgroup. This process made all of
the annual arrest count estimates for the subgroups
internally consistent with the FBI's published national
estimates. Arrest rates were calculated using national
resident populations estimates for the various subgroups
developed by the U.S. Census Bureau and the National
Center for Health Statistics.

UCR counting rules

Less than half of all victims of violent and property
crimes reported their crimes to law enforcement in 2009.
For crimes known to law enforcement, less than half of
violent crimes and less than a fifth of property crimes
were cleared by arrest. Therefore, the annual number of
arrests underestimates substantially the number of crimes
committed. In addition, arrest trends cannot be assumed
to parallel crime trends. Only if the many factors that
influence arrest rates (e.g., victim reporting rates, crime
clearance rates) were to remain constant over time, could
trends in arrests be used to infer trends in crime.

Finally, an annual arrest count should not be interpreted
as the number of persons arrested in the year. Arrests
could only be interpreted as a count of persons arrested
if every person arrested in the year were arrested only
once in the year--which is clearly untrue. In the end, the
most appropriate way to interpret arrest statistics was as
a measure of the flow of matters into law enforcement
agencies.

Readers should be aware of some nuances of the counting
rules used by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting
Program (UCR) to interpret properly arrest statistics:

The hierarchy rule: The FBI requires law enforcement
agencies to apply an offense hierarchy rule when
reporting arrests. That is, if a person is arrested and
charged with multiple offenses (e.g., robbery and
possession of a weapon), the arrest is reported to the
UCR as a single arrest for the most serious charge (in
this case, robbery). As a result, more arrests are made
for most crimes (e.g., weapon law violations) than are
reflected in the UCR statistics.

A single arrest for multiple crimes: A single arrest
can cover many separate criminal acts. For example, a
person may be arrested once and charged with stealing
five automobiles over a period of several weeks. The UCR
arrest statistic would be one arrest for motor vehicle theft.

Multiple arrests for a single crime: A single crime
can result in multiple arrests. If three juveniles steal an
automobile and all are arrested, the UCR arrest statistics
would show three arrests for motor vehicle theft.
----------------------------------------------------------
Office of Justice Programs * Innovation * Partnerships 
* Safer Neighborhoods * http://www.ojp.gov
----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of
the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is the
director.

This report was written by Howard Snyder. Alexia Cooper
provided statistical review and verification of the report.

Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas edited the report, Barbara
Quinn produced the report, and Jayne E. Robinson prepared the
report for final printing under the supervision of Doris J.
James.

September 2011, NCJ 234319

This report in PDF and in ASCII and its related statistical
data and tables are available at the BJS website:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2203.
----------------------------------------------------------

9/16/2011/JER/ 12:15pm