doi:10.

1093/bjc/azp043

BRIT. J. CRIMINOL. (2010) 50, 6681 Advance Access publication 1 July 2009

THE IMPACT OF CO-OFFENDING

Martin A. Andresen* and Marcus Felson Co-offending has a major impact on the arithmetic of crime rates and the burdens on the justice system. This paper studies co-offending by single year of age using data that comprise 750,000 negative police contacts (those charged, chargeable and suspected in criminal offenses) in a largely metropolitan dataset from British Columbia, Canada, 200206. We nd that shifts in co-offending rates within teenage years are extremely rapid and highly sensitive to sample age ranges, such that a single co-offending rate for all teenagers is misleading. Co-offending opens a range of policy options and issues concerning the presence of youth hangouts and offender convergence settings that can assist the search for suitable co-offenders. Keywords: co-offending, group offending, age-crime, juvenile and adult delinquency, estimation, measurement The Importance of Co-Offending More than 25 years ago, Frank Zimring (1981: 873) detailed the salience of co-offending for crime statistics, general deterrence, incapacitation, the construction of models of criminal behavior, the study of criminal careers, and efforts to reform sentencing practices in juvenile and criminal courts. He offered a very interesting discussion of what co-offending means for the incapacitation of offenders through incarceration:
Simply stated, if one of three offenders is taken out of circulation for one year, we have no current basis for estimating whether, or to what extent, the crime rate is affected. If all three offenders are incapacitated, it is possible to estimate crime saved as a joint function of the crimes these offenders would have committed alone and with each other, but not in other groups. Using current methods of incapacitative accounting, however, assigning each member of each group every crime they would have committed together in other groups creates a form of double and triple counting that overestimates crime saved in group-prone adolescent years.

Wide ranges in the estimates of co-offending only intensify any error in estimating incapacitation effects. Zimring explains, too, how discrepancies and estimation error in co-offending cloud the share of offenses carried out by juveniles in comparison to adults. Following Zimring, Albert Reiss (1988) reviewed at length what is known and unknown about co-offending. Like Zimring, Reiss realized that many of our deductions about youth crime, derived from models of individuals, could prove wrong when considering

* PhD, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada; andresen@sfu.ca. This work was carried out in the ICURS Laboratory at Simon Fraser University under terms of a joint Memorandum of Understanding between the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Simon Fraser University, E-Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the British Columbia Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

66
The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

THE IMPACT OF CO-OFFENDING

its group aspects. Reiss also recognized that incapacitation is far less efcient if only one co-offender is incapacitated, while the others can commit crimes without him, or nd a replacement. Reiss further suggested that incapacitation can backre by causing current offenders to recruit new youths to the offender pool to replace newly incarcerated accomplices. The generative impact of co-offending is emphasized not only by Reiss, but also by McCord and Conway (2002). After studying solo and co-offending in a Philadelphia sample, they found co-offenders had higher rates of criminality, concluding that:
Co-offending should become a feature in reckoning crime rates and understanding changes in them. Co-offending is also central to understanding individual differences in recidivism. Co-offenders should become targets of intervention strategies.

Their nding that co-offenders commit more crimes than solo offenders is amplied by others (Hindelang 1976; Reiss 1980; Reiss and Farrington 1991; Erickson 1971; Sarnecki 1986). Research also links co-offending to greater levels of violence (Conway and McCord 2002; McCord and Conway 2002).1 In an analysis of a long-term survey of boys in a working-class London suburb, Knight and West (1975) found that co-offenders continued for a longer period of delinquency. In contrast, lone offenders were more likely to be temporary delinquents. Since co-offending is so common among early adolescents, it likely exposes them to longer periods of criminal participation and personal harm.2 If co-offending is itself criminogenic, then reducing co-offending merits extra attention, and more accurate estimates of co-offending indeed have policy relevance. The Importance of Accuracy in Measuring Co-Offending Scientists have long been obsessed with accurate measurement. In a review of 20 great experiments, Rom Harr (2002) documents how such great scientists as Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, Levoisier and Faraday focused on precision at the outset of inquiry. As the history of science unfolded, the emphasis on accuracy intensied for one scientic topic after another. Yet, precision still eludes some research elds, including criminology. Crime data have so many sources of systematic error that crime researchers often settle for simply nding out whether an effect is large or small, or that it exists at all. Precise measurements may seem unrealistic when so much crime is unknown to police and many variables could inuence the measurement processes. For example, in the United States, the Uniform Crime Reports covered 98 per cent of the population in 1977, but declined to only 87 per cent coverage in 1997 (Maltz 1999). Criminologists often supplement police

1 Co-offending might have more complex patterns with respect to crime seriousness. On the one hand, Hindelang (1971) and Erickson (1971) found that accomplice offenders commit offenses at a relatively more serious level. On the other hand, Gold (1970), Hindelang (1976), Reiss (1986) and Warr (2002) report that common minor offenses are disproportionately committed with others. It is possible that co-offending individuals are over-represented in both serious criminal acts and in oft-repeated substance abuse. Any one of the latter acts might be considered a minor offense, but, over time, this adds up to signicant harm to co-offending individuals. 2 Both in youth and throughout criminal careers, co-offending and lone offending are woven together (Shaw and McKay 1931; Reiss 1988). It is difcult to imagine that lone offending provides as many criminogenic contacts and experiences as are offered by co-offending.

67

ANDRESEN AND FELSON

statistics with alternative types of data, such as victim surveys and offender self-reports. That serves to round out our knowledge; yet, alternative data sources have their own problems and often produce new and competing estimates of crime parameters. Consider that an entire volume was recently devoted to issues with crime surveys (Hough and Maxeld 2007). Although police data improvements can be signicant, systematic errors are not always easy to correct.3 However, the persistence of some types of systematic error does not dictate acceptance of all types. New data sources outside the United States have expanded greatly in recent years. Although some such sources are of low quality (see Mitar 2004), other sources allow us to make progress on some fronts. In particular, rather recent improvements in Canadian crime data offer an important opportunity to improve estimation of certain crime parameters. The current paper addresses a single substantive area. We seek to improve estimates of co-offendingincidents in which two or more persons commit a crime together.4 This paper focuses on youth co-offending, but includes, for comparison purposes, older ages during which group offending is less common. We explain why co-offending is important, and discuss why better estimates of co-offending are worth the effort. Varying Estimates of Co-Offending It is already well accepted that co-offending is a signicant factor in delinquency onset, that it continues to dominate criminal action during adolescence and that solo offending takes over when offenders age out of adolescence (Eynon and Reckless 1961; Zimring 1981; Reiss 1986; 1988; Warr 2002). The empirical work on this topic is mainly from the United States, and displays considerable discrepancies in estimation. Shaw and McKay (1931) found that almost 82 per cent of youth offenders in Chicago were co-offending; Gold (1970) observed 75 per cent in Flint, Michigan, and, in a review of 11 studies, Erickson (1971) found that 85 per cent of offenses involved co-offending. However, others estimate co-offending to be under 50 per cent.5 Even within a single article, co-offending estimates can vary signicantly. For example, Hindelang (1976) reported wide differences in co-offending rates. Sources of variation in co-offending estimation are sometimes indicated by discrepant methodology. For example, Hindelangs rural sample included American school grades 612, while his urban school sample was for grades 912. Ofcial data, self-reports and victim surveys give alternative estimates of co-offending (see Reiss (1988) for an extensive

3 There are many factors that lead from the real incidence of crime to the ofcial reporting of it. Of course there is the problem of citizen non-reporting, but the potential problems within police agencies with poor record management systems or poor case review have received less scrutiny. Computerized record management systems have, in some cases, created a feeling of complacency. Automated error checking has reduced some errors in reporting. Simply being able to enter data into a computer system does not mean that the data are accurate or complete. Case review by a shift supervisor or other high level ofcial is still necessary to insure valid and reliable data, but may be seen as unnecessary due to a misplaced faith in computer software. In addition, an appreciation for the use or misuse of data needs to be nurtured at the highest levels of police administration. If the data collected are not used for tactical, strategic or administrative needs, there will never be a push to insure accuracy, from the abstract for The Quality of Ofcial Crime Data, presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meetings, Atlanta, Georgia, November, 2007, by Daniel B. Bibel, a Massachussetts police data expert. 4 Although Tremblay (1993) includes in the denition sequential co-involvement in a crime, most students of the topic follow Reiss (1988) by requiring that co-offending be simultaneous. 5 Stolzenberg and DAlessio (2008) take the extreme position that solo-offending is dominant at all ages, including the teenage years.

68

THE IMPACT OF CO-OFFENDING

review of the co-offending literature). In addition, alternative methods of crime accounting are consequential. Suppose that two boys get together to break into a home. They have caused victims to suffer one harmful incident. But they have created two problems from the viewpoint of parents, courts and anybody else who focuses on the offenders as people. Some co-offending researchers count this as one co-offense (single counting), while other researchers choose to count this incident as two co-offenses (multiple counting). Even among studies that use the same method, major discrepancies are found in estimated levels of co-offending. The easiest resolution is simply to accept Reisss famous summary: that half of juvenile incidents occur in groups when single counting, while two-thirds of offending occur in groups when multiple counting. It would also be easy to reject any remaining variations in the literature as noise. We reject this resolution because we regard variations in co-offending estimates to have substantive and policy signicance. If the amount of co-offending is important, then it behoves us to estimate that amount as correctly as possible. Consequences of Alternative Measures of Co-Offending Many of these points operate indirectly and take time. But the impact of co-offending can be illustrated more simply and directly with a simplied thought experiment (Table 1). We begin with 100 incidents occurring at the same time, so that one offender could participate in only one of these incidents, but two or more offenders could participate in that same incident. In case (i), we posit 70 solo offending incidents and 30 incidents by a pair of offenders. Multiple counting is very simple. Two co-offenders in an incident are counted as two participations, while three co-offenders are counted as three participations, etc. These are combined for the total co-offending participations. That total is added to solo participations to give us the grand total number of participations. We can calculate the co-offending participations as a percentage of the grand total participationsour key co-offending rate (see the formulas in the footnotes of Table 1).
Table 1
Case

How a xed number of incidents can generate wide variations in the numbers of crime participants
Hypothetical split of 100 incidents Solo a Pairs b Trios c d Total number of participations1 Percentage of incidents that involve co-offending2 e % 30 40 50 60 70 Percentage of participations that involve co-offending3 f % 46.2 60.0 70.6 77.8 85.0

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

70 60 50 40 30

30 30 30 40 40

0 10 20 20 30

130 150 170 180 200

Begin with 100 incidents occurring at the same time, leaving open the number of offenders. Calculation: d = a + 2b + 3c. 2 Often referred to as single counting. Calculation: e = (b + c)/100. 3 Often referred to as multiple counting. Calculation: f = [2b + 3c]/d.
1

69

ANDRESEN AND FELSON

These pairs generate 60 co-offending participations; added to the 70 solo offenses, that produces a grand total of 130 crime participations. In other words, these 100 incidents in case (i) involve 130 persons in crime. The justice system might have to process these 130 persons, perhaps at great expense. At the other extreme, case (v) posits 100 incidents of a different sort: 30 solo, 40 committed by pairs and 30 by trios. Thus, 100 incidents can also produce a grand total of 200 crime participationsfar more pressure on the justice system and on society. These ve portraits give very different estimates of co-offending as a share of total participations, even though the number of incidents is the same. Accounting for Participations Traditionally, incidents have been the basis for crime accounting. Unfortunately, incident-based accounting is more confusing once we recognize co-offending. For example, if two youths of different races co-offend, how shall we assign the incident? We might credit each race with one-half incident; but that has no intrinsic meaning. When mixed-gender groups or mixed-age groups co-offend, the same problem attends. Multiple counting offers the only viable way to keep track of the co-offending process in a world in which groups can diversify, along with justice system processing. So far as we know, Frank and Carrington (2007) were the rst to use the word participations in reference to multiple counting. By their accounting rules,6 the total number of known crime participations can easily be divided up on an integer basis and cross-tabulated, dividing different participations by social group. Thus, when a 14-yearold commits a crime with a 15-year-old, these two participations can easily be sorted separately by single year of age. Participations offer a very sensible and general basis for crime accounting. On the other hand, any social categories that co-offend relatively more will also look worse in the statistics. Such a group will generate a larger share of offenders, above and beyond its share of incidents. Consider comparisons between black and white Americans (see McCord and Conway 2002). Victimization surveys indicate that black youths are more likely than whites to offend in groups. Although non-whites constitute 20 per cent of the total US population, violent victims of lone offenders report their attackers to be non-white 34 per cent of the time. By comparison, victims of group violence describe their attackers as non-white or mixed in 56 per cent of reports (Felson 2003). This partially accounts for minority overrepresentation in prisons and other parts of the justice systeman issue in many nations (see review in Tonry 1996).7 However, we still favour multiple counting to avoid dividing incidents into fractions.

6 Frank and Carrington (2007) also suggested mathematical means for using victim surveys to calibrate the number of group participations missing in police data. The total number of unknown crime participations can be estimated and allocated, along with the number of known participations. In light of their work, we recognize the limitations of the current article. 7 Reiss, Zimring and McCord all advised great care in selecting and reporting crime accounting methods, that produce different impressions about how much one groups crime exceeds that of a comparison group. Caution about counting goes beyond race. Urban crime is carried out disproportionately with accomplices (Hindelang 1976; Laub 1980; Laub and Hindelang 1981), and urban areas look worse if participations are counted instead of incidents. In addition, any police department that enumerates cooffenders more completely will end up with higher numbers of offenders, net of crime incident rates.

70

THE IMPACT OF CO-OFFENDING

Data Source for the Current Study Much research on co-offending has been carried out in the United Statesa nation with 52 different criminal codes. In addition, American policing is carried out by over 17,000 independent police agencies, further interfering with consistent reporting (Reaves and Hickman 2002). The Uniform Crime Reports were formulated in order to iron out some of these wrinkles, but many remain. Additional details that interest scholars and policy makers are not subject to the FBIs Uniform Crime Reporting system. The recent development of the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is important, but the centrifugal forces of American policing and police reporting remain. Canada has far fewer police departments than its neighbour to the South, and employs a single criminal code. British Columbia (BC), Canadas western-most province, is especially uniform in its crime data, as we shall see. BC borders the US states of Alaska, Washington, Idaho and Montana, and has much in common with the Pacic Northwest. Despite its vast expanse of unpopulated space, BCs population of four million is predominantly metropolitan, residing within 100 miles (160 kilometres) of the US Canada border. The rest of BC is largely empty of people. BC crime rates greatly exceed the Canadian average (upwards of 50100 per cent greater, depending on the crime classication). Except for homicide, BC historically has signicantly greater crime rates than usually found in the United States (Kong 1997; Savoie 2002; Wallace 2003). Police in BC have far more organizational coherence than similar portions of the United States, and even more than other provinces in Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are responsible for policing 67 per cent of the provincial population, about 2.7 million persons, divided into 174 sub-jurisdictions. Another 11 jurisdictions are independent of the RCMP,8 but largely conform to the same data protocols. The RCMP do all their tabulations and reporting inconsistencies are substantially fewer than in the United States, with one notable exception. The Vancouver Police Department had its own data system during the years studied in this paper, 2002 06. The exclusion of Vancouver PD from this study does not make the study nonmetropolitan, since so much of the Vancouver metropolis lies outside of Vancouver proper, and because so many urbanized areas are policed by the RCMP.9 In sum, the data from this Western Canadian province benet from consistency of law and procedures, as well as a very large number of cases. This makes possible more coherence in estimating selected crime parameters. The incident-based data used here are extracted from the RCMP Police Information Retrieval System (PIRS). Connected to each incident is a list of involved individuals, stating their ages at the time of the incident and why they are included. The data allow us to study co-offending and to allocate participations by single year of age for 48 months, from 1 August 1 through 31 July 2006. The PIRS database contains information for approximately ve million negative contacts with the police (those suspected, charged or chargeable of a criminal offense) during these years. Our analysis focuses upon a subset of approximately 750,000 index offenses, combining homicide, sexual assault, aggravated assault (including assault with a weapon), assault, robbery, armed
Originally, there were 12 other jurisdictions but, during this period, Esquimalt merged with Victoria. Subsequently (200708), Vancouver PD and the RCMP joined with other jurisdictions in the BC PRIME system, ironing out many remaining discrepancies. Future work will include Vancouver.
9 8

71

ANDRESEN AND FELSON

robbery, burglary, theft of motor vehicle, theft from motor vehicle and other (nonmotor vehicle) theft. The RCMP distinguish three categories of negative police contact: (1) suspectthe RCMP believe this person has committed the crime, but currently lack supporting evidence to pursue a charge; (2) chargeablesomeone for whom the RCMP have supporting evidence, but do not charge despite the evidence, perhaps because the person is underage; and (3) chargedsomeone actually charged with that crime at that time. We combine these three categories for the current analysis. This paper builds upon Carringtons (2002) major step forwards in using a large Canadian dataset to study co-offending. We supplement suspects to the analysis, and take advantage of the high crime rates in BC, allowing sufcient cases for further age-specic analysis. Basic Description of Co-Offending By Age Figure 1 plots the basic numbers for our co-offending analysis by single year of age, from eight through 68. We begin with incidents to show the reader how our analysis was

Fig. 1 Solo-offending and co-offending counts by single year of age, 8 through 68, British Columbia, Canada, 1 August 2002 through 31 July 2006. Source: RCMP Police Information Reporting System (PIRS). Note that zero begins slightly above the x-axis to make lower values more visible.

72

THE IMPACT OF CO-OFFENDING

constructed. Ages are calculated conventionally, changing on birthdays, so that age 12 really means 12.012.99 years. The dashed line gives the number of solo offending incidents at each age. Co-offending incidents are plotted with a dotted line. The total number of co-offending participations is depicted with a solid line. Because the latter line is based on multiple counting, it tends to be approximately 2.5 times as high as the co-offending incidents line. This reects the tendency of co-offending incidents to involve two or three offenders at a time. Taking into account that the zero point on the y-axis begins slightly above the x-axis, that ratio is approximated elsewhere in the diagram.10 Figure 1 shows that our ndings are based on thousands of cases for each age, except for the very youngest and oldest ages. These numbers are much higher during teenage years. As the diagram indicates, at age 17, there are about 20,000 solo incidents or participations; that age also registers 6,000 co-offending incidents that generate about 15,000 co-offending participations2.5 times as many as co-offending incidents. The total participations at age 17 are approximately 20,000 + 15,000 = 35,000, not shown on the diagram. Both solo- and co-offending reach their maxima around ages 1619. Both drop sharply then stabilize in middle ages. However, co-offending drops more precipitously and stabilizes at a much lower level. Figure 1 conrms the standard acceleration of crime participations with adolescence and deceleration as youth fades. The decline in solo-offending levels out around age 30. The relative size of solo and co-offending necessitates further analysis. The statistical core of the current paper is depicted in Figure 2, which gives the percentage of total participations that are co-offending by single year of age. The exhibit includes the percentage of incidents that are co-offending for comparison. It is clear that the co-offending share declines precipitously through the teenage years, then levels off in the 20s. Most noteworthy is the dramatic decline in co-offending participations from over 65 per cent at ages 812 to around 25 per cent by the early 20s. Mirror ndings can be calculated by subtracting from 100 per cent, showing that the solo-offending share of offenses rises sharply through the teens, levelling off in adulthood at around 90 per cent of incidents and 80 per cent of precipitations. Figure 2 indicates that changes from ages 13 to 19 are very noteworthy. The younger teenage years differ from the middle teenage years in their co-offending tendency. And the middle teenage years differ notably from the advanced teenage years. Around age 13, co-offending is near 60 per cent, declining to around 50 per cent around ages 1617 and below 40 per cent at age 20. Indeed, crime incidents occurring in early teenage years are likely to produce more human problems in society than the same number of incidents a couple of years later in the teenage process. Our main nding in this paper is that co-offending changes a good deal not only between teenage and older ages, but also within the teenage years. These differences have policy and justice system consequences, already noted. These major changes also tell us to be aware, in comparing studies of juvenile delinquency, that their age ranges are often inconsistent. The following analysis illustrates this point.
10 Not shown on the diagram is the total number of participations, which can be found by adding the numbers on the dashed line to the numbers on the solid line.

73

ANDRESEN AND FELSON

Fig. 2 Percentage co-offending by single year of age, 8 through 68, British Columbia, Canada, 1 August 2002 through 31 July 2006. Source: RCMP Police Information Reporting System (PIRS). For Base Ns, see Figure 1. Note: to calculate incidents, each co-offender is assigned an equal fraction of each incident, and these fractions are sorted by age. To calculate participations, each co-offender in each incident is counted as one, and these whole numbers are sorted by age. See text for further explanation. Note that the y-axis begins somewhat above zero.

Sensitivity Analysis of Age Specicity in Samples Given long-time data limitations, a good deal of crime research has been opportunistic. Researchers are therefore content to work with what data are available. Thus, it is not unusual for various studies of juvenile crime to differ in their age ranges. Such differences might not be important if the changes within juvenile ages were not too great. But, in the current case, co-offending shifts markedly over teenage years. This section performs a sensitivity analysis of how samples of different age ranges inuence estimates of co-offending participation rates, using the current data from British Columbia (Table 2). We try out age ranges as narrow as two years and as broad as nine years. The minimum age in a range is as young as 11 and as old as 18. The youngest range is 1112 and the oldest range 1819. The lower triangle of Table 2 gives the base Ns, with the lower age in the range along the top and the higher age along the left side of the exhibit. Thus, ages 1119 include 191,180 participations. The percentage of these 74

THE IMPACT OF CO-OFFENDING

Table 2

Youth co-offending as a percentage of total participations within 36 alternative age ranges, British Columbia, Canada, 1 August 2002 through 31 July 2006

Ages

Ages 11 12 59.5 7,365 18,486 36,004 58,672 86,243 120,787 156,296 191,180 16,311 33,829 56,497 84,068 118,612 154,121 189,005 13 58.3 57.9 28,639 51,307 78,878 113,422 148,931 183,815 14 56.5 56.2 55.7 40,186 67,757 102,301 137,810 172,694 15 54.6 54.4 54.0 53.0 50,239 84,783 120,292 155,176 16 52.7 52.5 52.0 51.2 49.9 62,115 97,624 132,508 17 50.1 49.9 49.5 48.7 47.4 45.9 70,053 104,937 18 47.7 47.5 47.1 46.2 45.0 43.5 41.5 70,393 19 45.5 45.3 44.9 44.1 42.9 41.4 39.5 37.5

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Co-offending minimum = 37.5; co-offending maximum = 59.5. How to read this exhibit: The upper triangle contains the percentage of participations that involve co-offending for each age range. For example, for ages 1112, co-offending constitutes 59.5 per cent of participations. In ages 1219, co-offending involves 45.3 per cent of participations. The lower triangle contains the Base Ns in each age range studied. For example, ages 1116 include 86,243 participations. For a denition of participations, see text. Ages are calculated conventionally, changing on birthdays. Thus, the age range 1112 is really 11.012.99 years of age. Source: RCMP Police Information Reporting System (PIRS).

participations involving co-offending is found by looking at age 11 along the left side and age 19 along the top, giving 45.5 per cent co-offending. Note the wide variations in the co-offending share of participations for these diverse samples of teenagers. The minimum co-offending share in Table 2 is 37.5 per cent and the maximum 59.5 per cent. These differences are determined by the dominance of younger versus older ages. Clearly, comparisons among juvenile samples can often go awry if specic ages are ignored, at least with regard to co-offending. Were we to include in our sensitivity analysis variations in sample composition by ethnicity, city size and crimes included, the discrepancies in estimated co-offending rates would likely increase further. Indeed, we may ask whether estimating a crude juvenile co-offending rate makes sense in an era of larger datasets and enhanced data management tools. As Figure 2 demonstrates, disaggregation by single year of age is appropriate during a transformative period of the lifecycle. Differences with Offense Specicity We began this paper by noting that most sciences are obsessed with precise details, with criminal justice an exception. As larger and more coherent datasets become available, this may begin to change. Not denying that many data problems remain, we nonetheless have demonstrated some benets of specicity. Figure 3 offers another demonstration, by disaggregating age-specic co-offending patterns for residential, commercial and other burglarythe latter including cottage, mobile home and recreational vehicle burglaries. The more natural data analysis decision would be to combine all burglaries together, perhaps to conserve cases. But the tripartite disaggregation in Figure 3 produces some details that would not normally be 75

ANDRESEN AND FELSON

Fig. 3 Percentage of participations that are co-offending for three types of burglary, by single year of age, 12 through 29, British Columbia, Canada, 1 August 2002 through 31 July 2006. Source: RCMP Police Information Reporting System (PIRS).

noticed. We admit that the traditional co-offending pattern holds for all three types of burglary: co-offending dominates during adolescence, while solo offending takes over as offenders move towards their 20s. However, residential burglary takes on an adult pattern sooner than the other two types of burglary. At age 18, co-offending decreases to half of residential burglary participations; but the half-way mark is not reached for commercial and other burglaries until ages 2021. We speculate that youths near home might be more likely to recognize and seize upon a crime opportunity without assistance from others, while youths farther from home may depend upon group processes impelling them towards crime, with others present or assisting. Such speculations can only be answered by more detailed data collection on where and when co-offenders converge, and whether their convergence is a deciding factor in setting up their illegal actsa topic to which we return in the policy section, below. Summary of Current Findings In looking at Figure 3, some observers would see three patterns that need comparison, while others would see only one pattern surrounded by noise. We suggest taking the differences seriously if sample sizes are large enough, the curves are replicated and other information provides a consistent substantive interpretation. As crime research 76

THE IMPACT OF CO-OFFENDING

proceeds, greater attention to such details might become feasible. We expect that the continued development of European and Canadian crime data will enable a good deal of progress in crime analysis by providing larger and more coherent datasetssee van Mastrigt and Farrington (2009), who also investigate co-offending, using a large dataset from the United Kingdom. We reafrm the traditional ndings that co-offending is high during adolescence, then declines as offenders age beyond teenage years. We also nd that co-offending shifts dramatically within teenage years, impelling us to argue for single-year-of-age analyses in the future study of juvenile offending. Within-teen variance leads us to conclude that co-offending estimates are highly sensitive to age sampling, and that researchers should attempt a full range of young ages, with enough cases to disaggregate by single year of age. Thus, it may be possible to discern changes that are more than noise, and to look beyond a crude co-offending rate for all teenagers. Adolescence is a period of extremely rapid change that researchers and policy makers should carefully take into account. Policy Implications of this Research This paper reafrms and enhances the view that co-offending is central for understanding crime and doing something about it. Some of the policy implications of co-offending were well stated by Zimring and Reiss in papers already cited: (1) We cannot simply calculate the incapacitation impact of imprisonment without taking co-offending into account, since accomplices might be replaced. (2) We cannot be sure about the effects of rehabilitation without taking co-offending into account, for the same reason. (3) The harms to victims and harms to offenders are not always proportional, since some crimes involve extra offenders. (4) The calculations of minority involvement in crime differ if groups have unequal levels of co-offending. (5) Co-offending may generate more long-term crime participation than solo offending, hence merits extra policy consideration. Zimring and Reiss were clearly pointing in an important direction, justifying much more detailed study of co-offending. But this requires additional theoretical and policy thinking. Felson (2003) suggested additional focus on offender convergence settings that are informal but recurrent settings that persist beyond the participation of any single list of persons. Despite this informal nature, offender convergence settings are stable and predictable when searching for suitable co-offenders: school grounds, local bars and parks are all places that youth may converge without interference at different times of the day. If a community can indeed identify offender convergence settings and nd a legal and socially acceptable way to keep them from growing, to divert them to more desirable uses or to shrink their control, crime rates may be reduced simply by making it more difcult for co-offenders to nd one another. Ultimately, we need to know more about how offender convergences in small groups affect criminal action (see Scott 2001; Felson 2003). Bichler (2005) has demonstrated the empirical ability to study how, where and when Southern California youths converge away from home and why this is 77

ANDRESEN AND FELSON

important. Ethnographic research going back to William Foote Whytes classic Street Corner Society (1993 [1943]) has also explained how youths converge and how such convergences set the stage for criminal cooperation. Indeed, we need to relate crime to non-crime activities within a routine activity framework (Felson 2006). Not only do offenders converge with crime targets, but they also converge with one another in order to co-offendwhat Tremblay (1993) calls the search for suitable co-offenders. In addition, symbiotic and exchange relationships can form among co-offenders (see Weerman 2003), affecting their subsequent co-offending. Our theoretical task for the future is to understand whether and how co-offending enhances crime more broadly. Our empirical task for the future is to ll in many more details about co-offending and its impacts on subsequent crime and its consequences for overall crime rates. Our policy task for the future is to learn the criminogenic impact of offender convergence settings and whether they are subject to reasonable policy impact. Felson (2003) suggested that society can benet from a natural offender depletion process. As offenders age, they tend to become less efcient at, or age out of, crime. Their replacement with new offenders is not automatic, because offenders tend to select co-offenders of similar ages (see Klein and Crawford 1967; Suttles 1968). As such, this offender depletion process has the potential to drive down the crime rate if the search for suitable co-offenders can be disrupted. Knutsson (1997) investigated the outcome of police crackdowns on drug activity in Stockholm that illustrates how such a disruption may occur. Through an examination of the age-structure of drug users before and after the police crackdowns, Knutsson (1997) found a decrease in the young drug users; established drug users were not impacted by the police crackdowns, but decreasing opportunities to initiate drug use signicantly slowed the recruitment process. The more general empirical and policy question is whether the replenishment process is always automatic and youth hangouts always sufce or, alternatively, are subject to policy impact. If the above research in Stockholm is any indication, the answer is the latter. This research forces us to consider two situational policy efforts: rst is the removal targets, clearly in line with conventional situational crime prevention (Clarke 1980); and the second is to remove, or minimize, the settings that allow offenders to nd one another. As outlined by Felson (2003), this latter situational policy effort has gains that are farther into the future, but it does have a greater potential to disrupt a wide variety of crime problems. If co-offending is an important component of (youth) crime, there is a need to develop situational policy to disrupt the process of offender replenishment. Though some scholars have argued that situational prevention measures interfere with civil liberties (see, e.g. von Hirsch et al. 2000), Felson and Clarke (1997) give numerous reasons why situational prevention seldom contributes such a danger. If, however, public ofcials begin to interfere with offender convergences, that raises real issues about civil liberties and brings to the fore questions about when, where and how society should regulate offender assembling patterns. Indeed, it becomes very important to learn empirically how much harm co-offending produces, whether such harm can be reduced by interfering with offender convergences in search of co-offenders, and how such interferences conict with the goals of a free society. Indeed, co-offending and its reduction is a topic of major public policy interest. 78

THE IMPACT OF CO-OFFENDING

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Patricia L. Brantingham and Paul J. Brantingham for valuable discussions, Richard Frank for research assistance and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. References
Bichler, G. (2005), Finding Delinquent Youth: Identifying Key Juvenile Convergence Places. Presentation at the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada. Carrington, P. (2002), Group Crime in Canada, Canadian Journal of Criminology, 44: 277315. Clarke, R. V. G. (1980), Situational Crime Prevention: Theory and Practice, British Journal of Criminology, 20: 13647. Conway, K. P. and McCord, J. (2002), A Longitudinal Examination of the Relation between Co-Offending with Violent Accomplices and Violent Crime, Aggressive Behavior, 28: 97108. Erickson, M. (1971), The Group Context of Delinquent Behavior, Social Problems, 19: 11429. Eynon, T. G. and Reckless, W. C. (1961), Companionship at Delinquency Onset, British Journal of Criminology, 2: 16270. Felson, M. (2003), The Process of Co-Offending, in M. J. Smith and D. B. Cornish, eds, Theory for Practice in Situational Crime Prevention, Crime Prevention Studies Vol. 16,14967. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Felson, M. (2006), Crime and Nature. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Felson, M. and Clarke, R. V. G. (1997), The Ethics of Situational Crime Prevention, in G. Newman, R. V. G. Clarke and S. G. Shoham, eds, Rational Choice and Situational Crime Prevention, 197218. Hants: Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited. Frank, O. and Carrington, P. J. (2007), Estimation of Offending and Co-Offending Using Available Data with Model Support, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 31: 146. Gold, M. (1970), Delinquent Behavior in an American City. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Harr, R. (2002), Great Scientic Experiments: Twenty Experiments that Changed our View of the World. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. Hindelang, M. J. (1971), The Social versus Solitary Nature of Delinquent Involvement, British Journal of Criminology, 11: 16775. (1976), With a Little Help from their Friends: Group Participation in Reported Delinquent Behaviour, British Journal of Criminology, 11: 10925. Hough, M. and Maxeld, M. (2007), Surveying Crime in the 21st Century, Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 22. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Klein, M. W. and Crawford, L. W. (1967), Groups, Gangs, and Cohesiveness, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 4: 6375. Knight, B. J. and West, D. J. (1975), Temporary and Continuing Delinquency, British Journal of Criminology, 15: 4350. Knutsson, J. (1997), Restoring Public Order in a City Park, in R. Homel, ed., Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication and Injury, Crime Prevention Studies Vol. 7,13351. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

79

ANDRESEN AND FELSON

Kong, R. (1997), Canadian Crime Statistics, 1996. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Laub, J. H. (1980), Criminal Behavior and the UrbanRural Dimension, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Albany. Laub, J. H. and Hindelang, M. J. (1981), Juvenile Criminal Behavior in Urban, Suburban, and Rural Areas. Washington, DC: Ofce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, United States Department of Justice. Maltz, M. D. (1999), Bridging Gaps in Police Crime Data. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 176365. McCord, J. and Conway, K. P. (2002), Patterns of Juvenile Delinquency and Co-Offending, in E. Waring and D. Weisburd, eds, Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 10, Crime and Social Organization, 1530. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Mitar, M. (2004), Data Quality as a Challenge to Modern Policing and Criminal Justice, in G. Mesko, M. Pagon and B. Dubovsek, eds, Policing in Central and Eastern Europe: Dilemmas of Contemporary Criminal Justice. Faculty of Criminal Justice, Slovenia: University of Maribor. Reaves, B. A. and Hickman, M. J. (2002), Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJRS Document NCJ 194066, Table 4. Reiss, A. J., Jr (1980), Understanding Changes in Crime Rates, in S. E. Fienberg and A. J. Reiss, eds, Indicators of Crime and Criminal Justice: Quantitative Studies. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-62349. (1986), Co-Offender Inuences on Criminal Careers, in A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. A. Roth and C. A. Visher, eds, Criminal Careers and Career Criminals, Vol. 2, 12158. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. (1988), Co-Offending and Criminal Careers, in N. Morris and M. Tonry, eds, Crime and Justice, Vol. 10, 11770. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Reiss, A. J., Jr and Farrington, D. P. (1991), Advancing Knowledge about Co-Offending: Results from a Prospective Longitudinal Survey of London Males, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82: 36095. Sarnecki, J. (1986), Delinquent Networks. Stockholm: National Council for Crime Prevention. Savoie, J. (2002), Crime Statistics in Canada, 2001. Ottawa. ON: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Scott, M. S. (2001), Disorderly Youth in Public Places, Guide No. 6, Center for Problem Oriented Policing, available online at http://popcenter.org (accessed 20 March 2009). Shaw, C. T. and McKay, H. D. (1931), Report on the Causes of Crime. Vol. II. Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofce. Stolzenberg, L. and DAlessio, S. J. (2008), Co-Offending and the AgeCrime Curve, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45: 6586. Suttles, G. D. (1968), The Social Order of the Slum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tonry M., ed. (1996), Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives on Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration, Crime and Justice, Vol. 21. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tremblay, P. (1993), Search for Suitable Co-Offenders, in R. V. Clarke and M. Felson, eds, Routine Activity and Rational Choice, Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 5, 1736. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. van Mastrigt, S. B. and Farrington, D. P. (2009), Co-Offending, Age, Gender and Crime Type: Implication for Criminal Justice Policy, British Journal of Criminology Advance Access, published June 3, 2009,10.1093/bjc/azp021.

80

THE IMPACT OF CO-OFFENDING

Von Hirsch, A. Garland, D. and Wakeeld, A. eds (2000), Ethical and Social Perspectives on Situational Crime Prevention. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing. Wallace, M. (2003), Crime Statistics in Canada, 2002. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Warr, M. (2002), Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Weerman, F. M. (2003), Co-Offending as Social Exchange: Explaining Characteristics of Co-Offending, British Journal of Criminology, 43: 398416. Whyte, W. F. (1993 [1943]), Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Zimring, F. E. (1981), Kids, Groups and Crime: Some Implications of a Well-Known Secret, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 3: 86785.

81