Online resources

National Center National Juvenile Court Data Archive for Juvenile ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/njcda The annual Juvenile Court Statistics report series is one of many products Justice supported by the National Juvenile Court Data Archive. To learn more, visit the ncjj.org Archive web site.  The Archive web site was developed to inform researchers about data sets The National Center for Juvenile housed in the National Juvenile Court Data Archive and the procedures for Justice's web site describes its access and use of these data. Visitors can view variable lists and download research activities, services, and user guides to the data sets. The site also includes links to publications publications, featuring links to based on analyses of Archive data. project-supported sites and data  Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics is an interactive web-based resources, including OJJDP’s application that allows users to analyze the actual databases that are used to Statistical Briefing Book, the produce the Juvenile Court Statistics report. Users have access to national National Juvenile Court Data estimates on more than 47 million delinquency cases processed by the nation’s juvenile courts between 1985 and 2018. Preformatted tables describe Archive, and the Juvenile Justice the demographic characteristics of involved in the juvenile justice Geography, Policy, Practice & system and how juvenile courts process these cases. Users can also create Statistics web site. their own analyses beginning with 2005 data to explore relationships among a youth’s demographics and referral offenses, and the court’s detention, adjudication, and disposition decisions. This application is available from the “Products & Publications” section on the Archive web site.  Easy Access to State and County Juvenile Court Case Counts gives users quick access to multiple years of state and county juvenile court case counts for delinquency, , and dependency cases. This application is available from the “Products & Publications” section on the Archive web site.

OJJDP’s Statistical Briefing Book ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb The Briefing Book is a comprehensive online resource describing various topics related to delinquency and the juvenile justice system, including the latest information on juveniles living in poverty, teen birth rates, juvenile victims of violent , trends in juvenile arrest rates, and youth in residential placement facilities. The Briefing Book is also a repository for more detailed presentations of juvenile court data than are found in the annual Juvenile Court Statistics report.  Under the “Juveniles in Court” section of the Statistical Briefing Book, users will find the latest statistical information on trends in the volume of cases handled by the nation’s juvenile courts and the court’s response (e.g., detention, adjudication, and disposition decisions) to these cases. Juvenile court data are displayed in an easy-to-read, ready-to- use format, using tables and graphs.  The Briefing Book’s “Juveniles in Court” section includes an interactive tool that describes how specific types of delinquency cases typically flow through the juvenile justice system. Annual summaries are available from 2005 to present for more than 25 offense categories, and include separate presentations by gender, age, and race. Juvenile Court Statistics 2018

Sarah Hockenberry Charles Puzzanchera

April 2020

National Center for Juvenile Justice

JuvenileJuvenile Court CourtStatistics Statistics 2006–2007 2018 i This report was prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research di vi sion of the Nation al Coun cil of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and was sup port ed by grant number 2018–JX–FX–0002 funded by the Of fice of Ju ve nile Justice and De lin quen cy Prevention and managed by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Jus tice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not neces sari ly reflect those of the Depart ment of Justice.

Copyright 2020, National Center for Juvenile Justice, 3700 South Water Street, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA, 15203– 2363. ISSN 0091–3278.

Suggested citation: Hockenberry, Sarah, and Puzzanchera, Charles. 2020. Juvenile Court Statistics 2018. Pitts- burgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Acknowledgments

This report is a product of the National Juvenile Court Statistics would not be Juvenile Court Data Archive (Archive), possible were it not for the state and which is funded by a grant to the Na- local agencies that take the time each tional Center for Juvenile Justice year to honor our requests for data and (NCJJ), the research division of the Na- documentation. The following agencies tional Council of Juvenile and Family contributed case-level data or court- Court Judges, from the Office of Juve- level aggregate statistics for this report: nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and managed by the National Alabama—State of Alabama, Adminis- Institute of Justice (NIJ), U.S. Depart- trative Office of the Courts. ment of Justice. Benjamin Adams and Barbara Kelley are the NIJ Social Sci- Alaska—Alaska Division of Juvenile ence Analysts for the project. Justice.

The report authors are Sarah Hocken- —Supreme Court, State of Ari- berry, Project Manager, and Charles zona, Administrative Office of the Puzzanchera, Senior Research Associ- Courts. ate. Melissa Sickmund is the Project Director of the National Juvenile Court —Administrative Office of the Data Archive. In addition, the following Courts, State of Arkansas. Archive staff are acknowledged for their contributions to the collection and pro- —California Department of cessing of the data presented in this Justice, Statistics report. Center. Jeremy Bilfield, Research Assistant —Colorado Judicial Branch. Greg Chamberlin, Computer Programmer —Judicial Branch Adminis- tration, Court Support Services and Zoe Livengood, Research Assistant Court Operations Divisions. Anthony Sladky, Senior Computer Delaware—Delaware Family Court, Ad- Programmer ministrative Office of the Courts. Jason Smith, Computer Programmer District of Columbia—Superior Court Moriah Taylor, Research Assistant of the District of Columbia.

Nancy Tierney, Program Manager

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 iii Acknowledgments

Florida—State of Florida Department of —Office of State Court Oregon—Oregon Youth Authority. Juvenile Justice. Administrator. —Juvenile Court Judges’ —Council of Juvenile Court Montana—Office of State Court Commission. Judges of Georgia. Administrator, Youth Court Services. Rhode Island—Rhode Island Family Hawaii—Department of the Attorney —Nebraska Supreme Courts, Court. General. Administrative Office of the Court. South Carolina—Department of Illinois—Administrative Office of the Nevada—Division of Child and Family Juvenile Justice. Illinois Courts, Services Services, Juvenile Justice Programs Division; and Juvenile Court of Cook Office. —Unified Judicial County. System. New Jersey—Administrative Indiana—Supreme Court of Indiana, Office of the Courts. Tennessee—Tennessee Council of Division of State Court Administration. Juvenile and Family Court Judges. New Mexico—Children, Youth and Iowa—Iowa Division of Criminal and Families Department. —Texas Juvenile Justice Juvenile Justice Planning. Department. —Office of Court Administra- —Supreme Court of Kansas, tion; and Division of Criminal Justice Utah—Utah Administrative Office of the Office of Judicial Administration. Services. Courts.

Kentucky—Kentucky Administrative —North Carolina —Vermont Court Administra- Office of the Courts. Department of Juvenile Justice and tor’s Office. Delinquency Prevention. —Department of Juvenile Virginia—Department of Juvenile Services. North Dakota—North Dakota Supreme Justice. Court, State Court Administrator’s —Administrative Office. Washington—Administrative Office of Office of the Courts. the Courts. Ohio—Supreme Court of Ohio; —State Court Administrative Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Divi- West Virginia—West Virginia Supreme Office, Michigan Supreme Court. sion; Franklin County Court of Common Court of Appeals Administrative Office, Pleas; Hamilton County Juvenile Court; Court Services Division. Minnesota—Minnesota Supreme Court. and Lucas County Juvenile Court. —Supreme Court of —Mississippi Department of Oklahoma—Oklahoma Office of Wisconsin. Human Services. Juvenile Affairs.

iv Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ...... iii Preface ...... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases ...... 5 Counts and Trends ...... 6 Case Rates ...... 8 Age at Referral ...... 9 Gender ...... 12 Race ...... 18 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Pr ocessing ...... 29 Referral ...... 31 Detention ...... 32 Intake Decision ...... 35 Waiver ...... 38 Adjudication ...... 42 Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement ...... 46 Dispositions: Probation ...... 49 Case Processing Overview ...... 52 By Offense Category ...... 54 By Age ...... 56 By Gender ...... 57 By Race ...... 58 By Selected Individual Offense ...... 60 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Of fense Cases ...... 63 Counts and Trends ...... 64 Case Rates ...... 65 Age at Referral ...... 66 Gender ...... 68 Race ...... 72 Source of Referral ...... 76 Detention ...... 77 Adjudication ...... 78 Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement ...... 80 Dispositions: Probation ...... 82 Case Processing Overview ...... 84 By Offense Category ...... 85 Appendix A: Methods ...... 87 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms ...... 95 Index of Tables and Figures...... 101

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 v

Preface

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 describes disposition of the case. During the delinquency cases and petitioned status 1940s, however, the collection of case- offense cases handled between 2005 level data was abandoned because of and 2018 by U.S. courts with juvenile its high cost. From the 1940s until the jurisdiction. National estimates of juve- mid-1970s, Juvenile Court Statistics nile court delinquency caseloads in reports were based on simple, annual 2018 were based on analyses of case counts reported to the Children's 539,646 automated case records and Bureau by participating courts. court-level statistics summarizing an additional 55,566 cases. Estimates of In 1957, the Children's Bureau initiated status offense cases formally processed a new data collection design that by juvenile courts in 2018 were based enabled the Juvenile Court Statistics on analyses of 67,347 automated case- series to develop statistically sound na- level records and court-level summary tional estimates. The Children's Bureau, statistics on an additional 4,686 cases. which had been transferred to the U.S. The data used in the analyses were Department of Health, Education, and contributed to the National Juvenile Welfare (HEW), developed a probability Court Data Archive (the Archive) by sample of more than 500 courts. Each more than 2,500 courts with jurisdiction court in the sample was asked to sub- over 87% of the juvenile population in mit annual counts of delinquency, status 2018. offense, and dependency cases. This approach, though, proved difficult to The first Juvenile Court Statistics report sustain as courts began to drop out of was published in 1929 by the U.S. the sample. At the same time, a grow- Department of Labor and described ing number of courts outside the sam- cases handled by 42 courts during ple began to compile comparable sta- 1927. During the next decade, Juvenile tistics. By the late 1960s, HEW ended Court Statistics reports were based on the sample-based effort and returned to statistics cards completed for each the policy of collecting annual case delinquency, status offense, and depen- counts from any court able to provide dency case handled by the courts par- them. The Juvenile Court Statistics se- ticipating in the reporting series. The ries, however, continued to generate Children's Bureau (within the U.S. national estimates based on data from Department of Labor) tabulated the these nonprobability samples. information on each card, including age, gender, and race of the juvenile; the The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- reason for referral; the manner of deal- quency Prevention (OJJDP) became ing with the case; and the final responsible for Juvenile Court Statistics

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 vii Preface

following the passage of the Juvenile form, some agencies began offering to 1930s, Juvenile Court Statistics con- Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act send the detailed, automated case-level tained detailed case-level descriptions of 1974. In 1975, OJJDP awarded the data collected by their management of the delinquency and status offense National Center for Juvenile Justice information systems. NCJJ learned to cases handled by U.S. juvenile courts. (NCJJ) a grant to continue the report combine these automated records to This case-level detail continues to be series. Although NCJJ agreed to use produce a detailed national portrait of the emphasis of the reporting series. procedures established by HEW to juvenile court activity—returning to the ensure reporting continuity, NCJJ also original objective of the Juvenile Court In 2019, to ensure efficiency and coor- began to investigate methods of im- Statistics series. dination of all Office of Justice Programs proving the quality and detail of national (OJP) research activities, the National statistics. A critical innovation was made The project’s transition from using an- Institute of Justice (NIJ) assumed man- possible by the proliferation of comput- nual case counts to analyzing automat- agement of the juvenile justice research, ers during the 1970s. As NCJJ asked ed case-level data was completed with evaluation, and statistical data collection agencies across the country to com- the production of Juvenile Court Statis- projects funded by OJJDP, including the plete the annual juvenile court statistics tics 1984. For the first time since the National Juvenile Court Data Archive.

viii Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 1

Introduction

This report describes de lin quency and The fact that a case is “disposed” status offense cases handled between means that a definite action was tak en 2005 and 2018 by U.S. courts with as the result of the referral—i.e., a plan juvenile ju risdic tion. Courts with juvenile of treatment was se lected or ini ti ated. It juris dic tion may han dle a va ri ety of mat- does not nec essar ily mean that a case ters, includ ing child maltreatment, traffic was closed or termi nat ed in the sense violations, child sup port, and adop tions. that all contact be tween the court and This report fo cus es on cases involving the juvenile ceased. For ex ample, a ju veniles charged with law vi ola tions case is con sider ed to be disposed (de linquen cy or sta tus of fens es). when the court orders pro ba tion, not when a term of proba tion supervision is Unit of Count completed.

In measuring the activity of ju ve nile Coverage courts, one could count the num ber of offenses referred; the number of cases A basic question for this reporting series referred; the actu al filings of offens es, is what constitutes a re fer ral to ju venile cases, or pe titions; the num ber of dis- court. The answer de pends part ly on po sition hearings; or the num ber of how each ju risdic tion or ga niz es its juveniles handled. Each “unit of count” case-screen ing func tion. In many com- has its own merits and dis advan tages. munities, an in take unit with in the ju ve- The unit of count used in Juvenile Court nile court first screens all juvenile mat- Statistics (JCS) is the num ber of “cases ters. The in take unit de termines whether disposed.” the mat ter should be han dled in formal ly (i.e., di verted) or petitioned for formal A “case” represents a juvenile pro- handling. In data files from com mu ni ties cessed by a ju ve nile court on a new us ing this type of sys tem, a de linquen cy referral, regar d less of the number of law or status offense case is de fined as a violations contained in the re fer ral. A court referral at the point of initial juvenile charged with four bur glaries in screen ing, re gard less of whether it is a sin gle referral would repre sent a sin- handled for mally or in formal ly . gle case. A juvenile referr ed for three burglaries and re ferred again the follow- In other communities, the juvenile court ing week on an other burglary charge is not involved in de lin quency or status would rep re sent two cases, even if the offense matters until an other agency court even tual ly merged the two refer- (e.g., the prose cu tor’s office or a social rals for more ef fi cient process ing.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 1 Chapter 1: Introduction

ser vice agency) has first screened the referred cases. The intake department final ad judi ca tion de ci sion, such as pay- case. In other words, the intake func tion may decide to dismiss the case for lack ing res titu tion or volun tari ly attending is per formed outside the court, and of legal suf fi cien cy or to resolve the drug counsel ing. some matters are di verted to other matter formal ly or in formal ly . Informal agencies without the court ever han- (i.e., nonpe titioned) dispositions may Disposition. At the disposition hearing, dling them. Sta tus offense cases, in in clude a voluntary referral to a social the juvenile court judge de termines the par tic u lar, tend to be diverted from service agen cy, in for mal proba tion, or most appropriate sanc tion, generally court process ing in this manner . the payment of fines or some form of after reviewing a pre dis posi tion report voluntary res titu tion. Formal ly han dled prepared by a probation department. Since its inception, Juvenile Court Sta- cases are petitioned and sched uled in The range of options avail able to a tistics has adapted to the changing court for an ad judi ca tory or waiver court typically includes com mitment to structur e of juvenile court process ing hearing. an in sti tution; place ment in a group nationwide. As court pro cess ing home or oth er res i dential facility or per- be came more di verse, the JCS series Judicial Waiver. The intake depart ment haps in a foster home; probation (either broadened its defi ni tion of the juve nile may de cide that a case should be regular or inten sive super vi sion); re ferral court to in corpo rate other agen cies that re moved from juvenile court and han- to an outside agency, day treat ment, or per form what can ge neri cal ly be con sid- dled instead in crimi nal (adult) court. In mental health pro gram; or impo si tion of ered ju ve nile court functions. In some such cases, a petition is usual ly filed in a fine, commu ni ty ser vice, or restitution. com mu nities, data col lection has juvenile court ask ing the juvenile court Disposition orders often involve multiple ex pand ed to include de partments of judge to waive juvenile court ju risdic tion sanctions and/or conditions. Review youth ser vices, child wel fare agen cies, over the case. The juvenile court judge hearings are held to monitor the juve- and prosecutors’ of fices. In other com- decides whether the case mer its crimi- nile’s progress. Dispositions may be mu ni ties, this ex pan sion has not been nal prosecution.1 When a waiver modified as a result. This report pos sible. There fore, while there is exten- request is denied, the matter is usual ly includes only the most severe initial sive data cov erage in the JCS series of then scheduled for an ad ju di cato ry disposition in each case. for mal ly handled de linquen cy cases and hearing in the ju ve nile court. ad e quate data cover age of in for mal ly Detention. A juvenile may be placed in han dled de lin quen cy cases and formally Petitioning. If the intake depart ment a detention facility at differ ent points as handled status offense cases, the data decides that a case should be han dled a case progresses through the juve nile cov erage of informally handled status formally within the ju ve nile court, a peti- justice sys tem. De tention prac tic es also offense cases is limited and is not suffi- tion is filed and the case is placed on vary from ju ris diction to juris dic tion. A cient to sup port the gen era tion of the court cal en dar (or dock et) for an judicial decision to de tain or continue national es ti mates. For this reason, JCS adju di ca tory hearing. A small number of deten tion may oc cur before or af ter re ports do not present any information peti tions are dis missed for var i ous rea- adju di cation or dis posi tion. This report on in for mal ly han dled status of fense sons before an adjudicatory hearing is in cludes only those de tention ac tions cas es. (Subnational anal y ses of these actually held. that result in a juvenile being placed in cas es are available from the National a re strictive fa cili ty un der court author i ty Juvenile Court Data Archive [the Adjudication. At the adju dica to ry hear- while await ing the outcome of the court Archive].) ing, a juvenile may be adju di cat ed pro cess. This report does not include (judged) a delinquent or sta tus of fend er, deten tion de cisions made by law Juvenile Court Processing and the case would then pro ceed to a enfor ce ment of fi cials prior to court dis po sition hear ing. Al ter na tive ly, a case intake or those oc cur ring after the dis- Any attempt to describe juvenile court can be dismissed or con tinued in con- posi tion of a case (e.g., tem po rary hold- caseloads at the national lev el must be tem pla tion of dis missal. In these cases, ing of a juvenile in a deten tion fa cil i ty based on a generic mod el of court pro- the court often rec om mends that the while awaiting court-ordered placement cessing to serve as a common frame- juvenile take some ac tions prior to the elsewhere). work. In order to ana lyze and present data about ju venile court activities in Data Quality diverse jurisdictions, the Archive strives to fit the processing char ac ter is tics of all 1 Mechanisms of transfer to crimi nal court vary Juvenile Court Statistics relies on the jurisdictions into the fol lowing general by state. In some states, a prose cu tor has the secondary analysis of data orig i nally model: au thori ty to file juve nile cases direct ly in crim i nal compiled by juvenile courts or ju ve nile court if they meet speci fied criteria. This report, how ev er, in cludes only cases that were initially justice agencies to meet their own infor- Intake. An intake department (either under juvenile court jurisdiction and were trans- mation and re porting needs. Although within or outside the court) first screens ferred as a result of judicial waiver. these in coming data files are not

2 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 1: Introduction

uni form across jurisdictions, they are be distinguished from oth er larce nies, replaced. There are two primary rea- likely to be more de tailed and accu rate joyriding from motor ve hicle theft, and sons for this. First, data submissions than data files com piled by lo cal ju ris- armed robbery from unarmed robbery. from contributing jurisdictions, particu- dic tions mere ly com plying with a man- The diver sity of these coding struc tures larly case-level data submissions, can dat ed national re port ing program. allows re searchers to construct data change as newer data files submitted to sets that contain the detail de manded the Archive replace previously submitted The heterogeneity of the con trib uted by their re search designs. files. Second, the estimation procedure data files greatly increases the com plex- used by the Archive utilizes county level ity of the Archive’s data process ing Validity of the Estimates population estimates, which are revised tasks. Con tribut ing ju ris dictions collect by the Census Bureau each year. There- and report infor mation using their own The national delinquency and status fore, readers should not compare esti- def ini tions and coding cate go ries. offense estimates presented in this mates from Juvenile Court Statistics There fore, the detail report ed in some report were generated with data from a reports produced in different years, but data sets is not contained in others. large nonprobability sam ple of juvenile should compare estimates across Even when similar data el ements are courts. There fore, sta tis tical confidence trending years within a Juvenile Court used, they may have in consis tent defini- in the es timates cannot be math e mat i- Statistics report. tions or over lapping cod ing categories. cally deter mined. Although sta tisti cal The Ar chive re structur es contrib ut ed con fi dence would be great er if a proba- Since publication of the 2017 Juvenile data into stan dard ized coding cate go- bil i ty sampling design were used, the Court Statistics report, the Archive ries in or der to com bine in for ma tion cost of such an effort has long been changed the programming language from multiple sources. The standar diza- considered pro hib itive. Sec ondary anal- used for imputation and estimation pro- tion pro cess re quires an intimate un der- ysis of avail able data is the best practi- cedures. This change has also allowed standing of the de velop ment, struc ture, cal alter native for developing an under - for technical improvements to the code and con tent of each data set re ceived. standing of the nation’s ju ve nile courts. itself. Anyone using data from this Codebooks and op era tion man u als are report for trend purposes should stud ied, data providers in ter viewed, and National estimates of delinquency cases replace any back year data with data data files analyzed to max i mize the for 2018 are based on analyses of indi- produced using the current procedures. un der standing of each in forma tion sys- vidual case records from nearly 2,200 tem. Every at tempt is made to en sure courts and aggregate court-level data Structure of the Report that only com pati ble infor mation from on cases from nearly 400 courts. the var ious data sets is used in the Together, these courts had juris dic tion Chapters 2 and 3 of this report pre- stan dard ized data files. over 87% of the U.S. ju venile pop u lation sent na tion al es timates of de linquen cy in 2018. National estimates of petitioned cases han dled by the ju venile courts in While the heterogeneity of the data status offense cases for 2018 are based 2018 and analyze caseload trends since adds complexity to the de velop ment of on case records from more than 2,000 2005. Chapter 2 describes the volume a national data file, it has proven to be courts and court-level data from more and rate of de linquen cy cases, demo- valuable in other ways. The diversity of than 200 courts, covering 78% of the graphic characteristics of the ju ve niles the data stored in the Na tion al Juve nile juvenile population. The imputation and involved (age, gender, and race), and Court Data Archive en ables the data to weight ing pro cedur es that gener ate offenses charged. Chapter 3 traces the support a wider range of research nation al esti mates from these sam ples flow of de lin quency cases from referral efforts than would a uni form, and prob- control for many fac tors: the size of a to court through court processing, ably more gen eral, data collection form. commu ni ty , the age and race compo si- examining each de cision point (i.e., For ex am ple, the Federal Bureau of tion of its juvenile pop u lation, the vol- deten tion, in take de ci sion, adjudication Inves tiga tion’s (FBI’s) Uniform Crime ume of cases referr ed to the report ing decision, and ju di cial dis posi tion) and Reporting (UCR) Program is limit ed by courts, the age and race of the juveniles presenting data by demo graphic char- necessity to a small number of relatively in volved, the of fense char ac teris tics of acteristics and of fense. Together, these broad offense codes. The UCR offense the cases, the courts’ responses to the two chap ters provide a de tailed national code for lar ce ny-theft combines shop- cases (man ner of han dling, de tention, portrait of de lin quen cy cases. lifting with a number of other larcenies. adju di cation, and dis posi tion), and the Thus, the data are useless for studies of nature of each court’s juris dic tion al Chapter 4 presents national estimates shoplifting. In com pari son, many of the re sponsi bil ities (i.e., upper age of origi- of sta tus of fense cas es for mal ly handled Archive’s data sets are suffi ciently nal jurisdiction). by the juvenile courts in 2018 and case- detailed to en able a re searcher to distin- load trends since 2005. It includes data guish of fens es that are often combined With each annual release of data, esti- on de mograph ic characteristics, offens- in other re port ing series—shoplift ing can mates for prior years are revised and es charged, and case pro cessing.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 3 Chapter 1: Introduction

Appendix A describes the statis ti cal The Ar chive con tains the most detailed Other Sources of Juvenile Court pro ce dure used to gener ate these esti- in forma tion avail able on ju ve niles Data mates. Readers are encouraged to con- involved in the juvenile justice system sult appendix B for def i nitions of key and on the activities of U.S. ju venile With support from OJJDP, NCJJ has terms used through out the report. Few courts. De signed to fa cil i tate resear ch devel oped two web-based data anal y- terms in the field of ju ve nile jus tice have on the juvenile justice sys tem, the sis and dissemination applications that wide ly ac cepted def i nitions. The termi- Archive’ s data files are available to policy- provide access to the data used for this nol o gy used in this report has been makers, resear chers, and students. In report. The first of these appli ca tions, care ful ly de veloped to commu ni cate the addi tion to na tion al data files, state and Easy Access to Juvenile Court Sta tistics find ings of the work as pre cisely as local data can be pro vided to resear ch- 1985–2018, was de veloped to facilitate pos si ble with out sac rific ing applicability ers. With the as sistance of Archive staff, independent anal y sis of the national to mul tiple ju ris dictions. re search ers can merge selected files for delinquency es timates pre sent ed in this cross-jurisdictional and longi tu di nal report while elimi nating the need for sta- This report uses a format that combines anal y ses. Upon request, project staff is tistical analy sis softwar e. It also enables tables, fig ures, and text highlights for also avail able to perform special analy- users to view preformatted tables, presentation of the data. A de tailed ses of the Archive’s data files. beyond those included in this report, index of tables and figures ap pears at describing the demographic character- the end of the report. Researchers are en cour aged to explore istics of youth involved in the juvenile the National Juvenile Court Data Archive justice system and how juvenile courts Data Access web site at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/njcda/ for process these cases. The second appli- a sum mary of Archive holdings and pro- cation, Easy Access to State and Coun- The data used in this report are stored ce dures for data access. Researchers ty Juve nile Court Case Counts, presents in the National Juvenile Court Data may also con tact the Ar chive dir ectly at an nu al counts of the de linquen cy , status Ar chive at the National Center for Juve- 412–246-0833. offense, and depen dency cases pro- nile Justice (NCJJ) in Pittsburgh, PA. cessed in juve nile courts, by state and county . These appli cations are available from OJJDP’s Statistical Briefing Book at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb.

4 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 2

National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Delinquency offenses are acts commit- lated as the number of cases for every ted by juveniles that, if committed by an 1,000 juveniles in the population—those adult, could result in criminal prosecu- age 10 or older who were under the tion. This chapter documents the vol- jurisdiction of a juvenile court.1 ume of delinquency cases referred to juvenile court and examines the charac- The chapter focuses on cases disposed teristics of these cases, including types in 2018 and examines trends since of offenses charged and demographic 2005. characteristics of the juveniles involved (age, gender, and race).

1 The upper age of juvenile court juris dic tion is Analysis of case rates permits compari- defined by statute in each state. See appendix sons of juvenile court activity over time B, the “Glossary of Terms,” for a more detailed while controlling for differences in the dis cussion on the upper age of juve nile court size and demographic characteristics of ju risdic tion. Case rates present ed in this report the juvenile population. Rates are calcu- con trol for state varia tions in juvenile pop ula tion.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 5 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Counts and Trends

 In 2018, courts with juvenile jurisdic- The 2018 juvenile court delinquency caseload was nearly double (84%) tion handled an estimated 744,500 the 1960 caseload delinquency cases.

 In 1960, approximately 1,100 delin- Number of cases quency cases were processed daily. 2,000,000 In 2018, juvenile courts handled about 2,000 delinquency cases per 1,600,000 day.

1,200,000  The number of delinquency cases Total delinquency processed by juvenile courts decreased 55% in the 14 years 800,000 between 2005 and 2018. 400,000  Between 2005 and 2018, the number of cases decreased for all offense categories: property 63%, public 0 62 66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94 98 02 06 10 14 18 order 57%, person 46%, and drugs Year 45%. Offense profile of delinquency cases: Most serious offense 2005 2018 Delinquency caseloads in 2018 for property, drug, and public order Person 26% 31% offenses were at their lowest level since 2005 Property 37 30 Drugs 11 14 Number of cases Number of cases Public order 26 25 500,000 700,000 600,000 Total 100% 100% 400,000 Person 500,000 Property Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 300,000 400,000 round ing. 200,000 300,000 200,000 100,000  The offense profile of the court’s 100,000 2018 delinquency caseload was sim- 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 ilar to that of 2005, but had slightly greater proportions of person and drug offenses and slightly smaller Number of cases Number of cases proportions of property and public 200,000 500,000 order offenses. 160,000 400,000 Drugs Public order 120,000 300,000

80,000 200,000

40,000 100,000

0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

6 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Counts and Trends

In the last 10 years (2009–2018), the number of cases handled by  Between 2009 and 2018, offenses juvenile courts has decreased for nearly all offenses with the largest percentage decrease in caseloads included liquor law vio- Percent change lations (72%) and larceny-theft Number 10 year 5 year 1 year (64%). of cases 2009– 2014– 2017– Most serious offense 2018 2018 2018 2018  Trends in juvenile court cases were 2 Total delinquency 744,500 –48% –20% –5% similar to trends in arrests of per- sons younger than 18. The number Total person 232,400 –35 –7 0 of juvenile court cases involving rob- Criminal homicide 1,100 3 35 2 bery and aggravated assault cases Rape 8,000 –11 4 2 decreased during the 10-year period Robbery 19,200 –32 0 –6 between 2009 and 2018 (32% and Aggravated assault 26,100 –30 8 2 30%, respectively). The FBI reported Simple assault 146,800 –36 –11 0 that the number of arrests involving persons younger than age 18 Other violent sex offenses 7,800 –28 –11 8 charged with aggravated assault or Other person offenses 23,400 –42 –3 3 robbery offenses also decreased Total property 225,900 –59 –30 –12 during this period (down 44% and Burglary 42,600 –55 –24 –16 45%, respectively). Larceny-theft 96,200 –64 –40 –12  Between 2009 and 2018, the volume Motor vehicle theft 15,200 –19 30 –8 of juvenile court cases involving Arson 2,200 –62 –36 –9 burglary or larceny-theft cases Vandalism 35,600 –60 –23 –11 decreased (55% and 64%, respec- Trespassing 20,200 –57 –25 –13 tively), and the FBI reported that Stolen property offenses 7,500 –53 –24 –11 arrests of persons under age 18 Other property offenses 6,500 –47 –6 –2 decreased 70% for burglary and 71% for larceny-theft offenses. Drug law violations 101,000 –38 –19 –3 Total public order 185,100 –50 –22 –4  Unlike most other offenses, the num- Obstruction of justice 90,500 –49 –23 –8 ber of juvenile court cases involving Disorderly conduct 48,000 –55 –25 –3 criminal homicide increased substan- tially in the 5-year period between Weapons offenses 16,400 –50 –18 –6 2014 and 2018 (35%), with most of Liquor law violations 3,900 –72 –33 –12 the increase occurring in the last two Nonviolent sex offenses 11,100 3 7 0 years (25% between 2016 and 2018). Other public order offenses 15,200 –46 –17 16 The FBI reported a 21% increase in the number of juvenile arrests involv- Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent change calculations are based on unrounded numbers. ing criminal homicide between 2014 and 2018.

2 The annual series of data tables from the FBI’s Crime in the United States provides information on arrests and tracks changes in the gener al natur e of ar rests. The arrest trends re ported above are from Crime in the Unit ed States 2018, supplemental tables, available at ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/ crime-in-the-u.s.-2018.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 7 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Case Rates

 More than 31 million youth were The delinquency case rate declined from 51.3 per 1,000 juveniles in under juvenile court jurisdiction in 2005 to 23.5 in 2018 2018. Each age between age 10 and age 15 accounts for about 13% of these youth, thus 79% were between the ages of 10 and 15. Youth ages 16 Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age and 17 make up somewhat smaller 60 shares of the population (12% were age 16 and 9% were age 17) 50 because in a few states the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction is 40 below age 17. In those states, youth Total delinquency age 17 or ages 16 and 17 were 30 under the original jurisdiction of the 20 criminal court. (See “upper age of jurisdiction” in the Glossary of Terms, 10 appendix B.) 0  In 2018, juvenile courts processed 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 23.5 delinquency cases for every 1,000 juveniles in the population— those age 10 or older who were under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court. Between 2005 and 2018, case rates decreased the most for property  The total delinquency case rate offenses (from 18.9 to 7.1 per 1,000 juveniles) remained stable between 2005 and 2008 and then declined 53% to the Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 2018 level. As a result, the overall 14 20 delinquency case rate in 2018 was 12 16 54% below the 2005 level.3 10 Person 12 8 Property  Between 2005 and 2018, case rates 6 8 decreased 62% for property offense 4 4 cases, 56% for public order offenses, 2 45% for person offenses, and 44% 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 for drug law violations.

3 The percent change in the number of cases Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 14 disposed may not be equal to the percent 6 change in case rates because of the changing 5 12 10 size of the juve nile popu la tion. 4 Public order Drugs 8 3 6 2 4 1 2 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

8 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Age at Referral

Of the 744,500 delinquency cases processed in 2018, 53% involved  The proportion of cases involving juveniles age 15 or younger varied by youth younger than 16, 27% involved females, and 44% involved white offense category. Between 2005 and youth Percentage of total 2018, younger juveniles accounted juvenile court cases, 2018 for a smaller proportion of drug and Number Younger public order cases than of person Most serious offense of cases than 16 Female White and property offense cases. Total delinquency 744,500 53% 27% 44% Total person 232,400 60 30 41  In 2018, juveniles younger than 16 Criminal homicide 1,100 33 14 28 accounted for three-quarters (73%) Rape 8,000 60 4 54 of juvenile arson cases. Robbery 19,200 46 11 14 Aggravated assault 26,100 55 25 33 Offense profile of delinquency Simple assault 146,800 62 37 42 cases by age group: Other violent sex offenses 7,800 72 6 60 Most serious Age 15 Age 16 Other person offenses 23,400 62 29 58 offense or younger or older Total property 225,900 54 25 43 Burglary 42,600 54 12 37 2018 Larceny-theft 96,200 52 35 44 Person 35% 27% Motor vehicle theft 15,200 51 22 31 Property 31 30 Arson 2,200 73 16 52 Drugs 10 18 Vandalism 35,600 61 18 54 Public order 24 26 Trespassing 20,200 54 21 42 Stolen property offenses 7,500 44 13 23 Total 100% 100% Other property offenses 6,500 48 27 48 2005 Drug law violations 101,000 38 25 55 Person 29% 22% Total public order 185,100 51 28 43 Obstruction of justice 90,500 43 27 40 Property 38 35 Disorderly conduct 48,000 64 36 42 Drugs 8 15 Weapons offenses 16,400 53 12 34 Public order 25 28 Liquor law violations 3,900 31 31 58 Total 100% 100% Nonviolent sex offenses 11,100 62 22 60 Note: Detail may not total 100% because of Other public order offenses 15,200 56 23 51 round ing. Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

 Compared with the delinquency ca seload involving older juve niles, the caseload of youth age 15 or younger in 2018 includ ed larg er pro- In 2018, juveniles younger than 16 accounted for more than half of all por tions of person and proper ty delinquency cases, including 60% of person offense cases of fense cases and smaller propor - tions of drug and public order Percent of cases involving juveniles younger than age 16 of fense cases. 70% Person  Compared with 2005, the caseload in 2018 for both younger and older 60% Property juveniles involved slightly greater 50% Public order proportions of person and drug offense cases, and slightly smaller 40% Drugs proportions of property and public 30% order offense cases.

20%

10%

0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 9 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Age at Referral

 Although, in general, more 17-year- In 2018, delinquency case rates increased with the referral age of the olds than 16-year-olds are arrested, juvenile the number of juvenile court cases involving 17-year-olds (146,100) was lower than the number involving Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 16-year-olds (181,700) in 2018. The 60 50.4 explanation lies primarily in the fact 48.2 that in 8 states 17-year-olds are 50 excluded from the original jurisdic- tion of the juvenile court. In these 40 36.9 states, all 17-year-olds are legally adults and are referred to criminal 30 26.4 court rather than to juvenile court. Thus, far fewer 17-year-olds than 20 16.5 16-year-olds are subject to original 10 8.4 juvenile court jurisdiction. 3.5 1.6 0  In 2018, the delinquency case rate 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 for 17-year-olds (50.4) was nearly Age twice the rate for 14-year-olds (26.4) and more than 3 times the rate for 13-year-olds (16.5).

 The largest increase in case rates between age 13 and age 17 was for drug offenses. The case rate for drug Case rates increased continuously with age for drug offense cases, offenses for 17-year-old juveniles while person, property, and public offense case rates leveled off or (10.5) was 8 times the rate for decreased after age 16 13-year-olds (1.3).

 For public order offenses in 2018, Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group the case rate for 17-year-olds (12.1) 16 was 3 times the rate for 13-year-olds 14 (3.8) and the property offense case Property rate for 17-year-olds (14.8) was also 12 3 times the rate for 13-year-olds 10 (4.9). 8 Public  For cases involving person offenses, Person 6 order the case rate for 17-year-olds (13.0) was double the rate for 13-year-olds 4 (6.5). Drugs 2

0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age

10 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Age at Referral

Trends in case rates were similar across age groups between 2005 and 2018 for each general offense category

Person offense case rates Property offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 25 45 40 20 Age 17 35 Age 16 Age 17 Age 16 30 15 25 Ages 13−15 Ages 13−15 20 10 15 10 5 Ages 10−12 5 Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

 Between 2005 and 2018, person offense case rates  Property offense case rates were at their highest in 2005 were at their highest in 2005 for all age groups. for youth ages 10–12 and 13–15, and peaked in 2008 for youth ages 16 and 17, before declining through 2018.  Since 2005, person offense case rates for all age groups declined through 2018: down 47% each for  Property offense case rates were lower in 2018 than in youth ages 10–12 and 13–15, 42% for 16-year-olds, 2005 for all age groups. In 2018, the case rate for juveniles and 44% for 17-year-olds. ages 10–12 was 69% less than the 2005 rate, the rate for ages 13–15 was 64% less, the rate for 16-year-olds was 59% less, and the rate for 17-year-olds was 60% less.

Drug offense case rates Public order offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 20 30

25 16 Age 17 Age 17 Age 16 20 12 Age 16 15 Ages 13−15 8 Ages 13−15 10

4 5 Ages 10−12 (x5)* Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

 Drug offense case rates reached their low point in 2016 for  Except for youth ages 10–12, whose lowest level was in youth ages 10–12, while rates were at their lowest levels in 2017, public order case rates for all other age groups 2018 for all other age groups. Compared with 2005, rates were at their lowest levels in 2018 since at least 2005. in 2018 were 24% lower for youth ages 10–12, 48% lower Case rates declined at a similar pace for all age groups: for youth ages 13–15, 45% lower for 16-year-olds, and 53% for youth ages 10–12, 59% for youth ages 13–15, 43% lower for 17-year-olds. 56% for youth age 16, and 57% for youth age 17.

* Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving youth ages 10–12 for drug offenses, their case rates are inflated by a factor of 5 to dis- play the trend over time.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 11 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Gender

 Males were involved in 73% The overall decline in the male and female delinquency caseloads (541,700) of the delinquency cases between 2005 and 2018 was the same (55%) handled by juvenile courts in 2018.

 The average annual decrease in the Number of cases 1,400,000 male and female delinquency case- Delinquency loads was very similar for all offense 1,200,000 types between 2005 and 2018. The average decrease was slightly larger 1,000,000 for males than females for cases Male involving drug offenses (5% vs. 3%), 800,000 equal for person (5% each) and pub- lic order (6% each), and slightly less 600,000 Female for property (7% vs. 8%). 400,000

 Between 2005 and 2018, the number 200,000 of property offense cases involving males was at its highest level in 0 2005, and the female caseload 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 peaked in 2008. Between their respective peaks and 2018, the male caseload declined 61% while the female caseload fell 67%. Number of cases 500,000 Male  Drug offense cases involving males were level between 2005 and 2008, 400,000 before decreasing 47% through Public order Property 2018. Drug offense cases involving 300,000 females decreased steadily between 2005 and 2018, and in 2018 the Person number of cases was 31% below 200,000 the level in 2005. 100,000 Drugs  The public order offense caseload decreased at a similar pace for both males and females between 2005 0 and 2018 (57% and 58%, respec- 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 tively).

Number of cases 200,000 Female

160,000

Property 120,000 Person

80,000 Public order

40,000 Drugs

0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

12 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Gender

Females accounted for 27% of the delinquency caseload in 2018 —  Between 2005 and 2018, the female similar to 2005 (28%) proportion of the person offense caseload has remained steady, from 30% to 31%. Percent of cases involving females 30%  The female proportion of the drug offense caseload decreased from 25% Delinquency 20% in 2005 to 18% in 2010 and then increased to 25% by 2018. 20% Offense profile of delinquency 15% cases for males and females:

10% Most serious offense Male Female 5% 2018 Person 30% 35% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Property 31 28 Drugs 14 12 Public order 25 25 Total 100% 100% 2005 Percent of cases involving females Percent of cases involving females 35% 35% Person 25% 28% 30% Person 30% Property 37 37 25% 25% Property Drugs 12 8 20% 20% Public order 26 27 15% 15% Total 100% 100% 10% 10% 5% 5% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 0% 0% round ing. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018  For both males and females, the property and public order offense proportions of the delinquency case- Percent of cases involving females Percent of cases involving females loads were less in 2018 than in 2005. 35% 35% 30% 30%  In 2018, the male caseload con- 25% 25% Public order Drugs tained greater proportions of drug 20% 20% and property offenses than the 15% 15% 10% 10% female caseload. 5% 5%  The male caseload contained a 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 smaller proportion of person offenses and an equal proportion of public order offenses as the female case- load in 2018.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 13 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Gender

 The decrease in the delinquency Despite decreases in case rates for both males and females, the male case rate was similar for males and case rate remained at least twice the rate of females for all years females between 2005 and 2018 between 2005 and 2018 (54% and 55%, respectively). Most of the decline occurred between 2008 and 2018 (down 52% and Cases per 1,000 juveniles 10−upper age 80 53%, respectively). Delinquency 70  In 2018, the delinquency case rate 60 for males was 2.6 times the rate for Male females, 33.5 compared with 13.1. 50

 With the exception of person cases 40 involving males and drug offense 30 cases involving females (which were Female at their lowest in 2017 and 2016, 20 respectively), case rates in 2018 for 10 all offense types were at their lowest level since 2005 for both males and 0 females in 2018. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

 Between 2005 and 2018, male case rates decreased 45% for person offenses, 47% for drug offenses, Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 56% for public order offenses, and 30 61% for property offenses. Female Male case rates also decreased, down 25 30% for drug offenses, 45% for per- Property son offenses, 57% for public order 20 Public order offenses, and 66% for property offenses. 15 Person  Despite a decrease in the disparity 10 between male and female delinquen- cy case rates between 2005 and Drugs 5 2018, male case rates for drug and property offenses were each 2.9 0 times that of female case rates in 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2018. Male rates were 2.5 times the female rate for public order offenses and 2.2 times the female rate for per- son offenses in 2018. Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 12 Female 10 Property 8 Person

6 Public order 4 Drugs 2

0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

14 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Gender

In 2018, the delinquency case rate for males and females increased  In 2018, the difference between age- steadily through age 17 specific male and female delinquen- cy case rates was greatest for the younger juveniles. The male delin- Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group quency rate for 10-year-olds was 3.3 80 Delinquency 73.3 times the female rate; for 11-year- 69.5 70 olds, the male case rate was 3.0 times the female rate. 60 52.3 50  In 2018, the case rate for person offenses increased through age 16 40 36.6 for males and leveled off, and the case rate for property offenses 30 26.0 26.5 22.5 20.9 increased through age 16 and 20 15.8 decreased for 17-year-olds. Case 11.8 10.2 rates increased through age 17 for 10 5.2 4.8 2.4 0.7 1.8 drug and public order offenses. 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age  For females, case rates for property and drug offenses increased through Male Female age 17, while case rates for person and public order offenses peaked at age 16.

 In 2018, the drug offense case rate for 17-year-old males was 22.3 times the rate for 12-year-old males; Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group among females, the drug offense 20 25 Person Property case rate for 17-year-olds was 14.8 16 20 times the rate for 12-year-olds. 12 15

8 10

4 5

0 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 16 20 Drugs Public order 16 12 12 8 8

4 4

0 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age Age

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 15 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Gender

Across all age groups and offense categories, case rates for males exceed rates for females; however, rates for both males and females have declined substantially in the past 13 years

Person offense case rates Property offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 40 60 Male Male 35 50 Age 17 30 Age 16 Age 16 40 25 Age 17 20 30 15 Ages 13−15 Ages 13−15 20 10 Ages 10−12 10 5 Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 16 30 Female Female 14 25 12 Age 17 Age 16 Age 16 20 Age 17 10 8 Ages 13−15 15 Ages 13−15

6 10 4 5 2 Ages 10−12 Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

 In the last 14 years (2005 through 2018), male person  Male property offense case rates decreased to their lowest offense case rates decreased for all age groups: 49% for levels in 2018 for all age groups. youth ages 10–12, 47% for youth ages 13–15, 41% for youth age 16, and 43% for 17-year-olds.  Between 2005 and 2018, male property case rates decreased 68% for youth ages 10–12, 62% for ages  During the same period, female person offense case rates 13–15, 57% for age 16, and 59% for age 17. followed a similar pattern as males, decreasing 39% for youth ages 10–12, 47% for youth ages 13–15, 43% for  Age-specific property offense rates for females were at 16-year-olds, and 45% for 17-year-olds. their lowest level for all age groups in 2018.

16 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Gender

Drug offense case rates Public order offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 35 Male 50 Male 30 40 25 Age 17 Age 17 Age 16 20 30 Age 16 15 20 10 Ages 13−15 Ages 13−15 10 5 Ages 10−12 (x5)* Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 8 18 Female Female 7 16 6 14 Age 17 Age 17 12 5 Age 16 10 4 Age 16 8 3 Ages 13−15 Ages 13−15 6 2 4 Ages 10−12 (x5)* 1 2 Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

 The male drug offense case rate decreased 30% between  Except for males and females ages 10–12, whose lowest 2005 and 2018 for youth ages 10–12, while case rates level was in 2017, public order offense case rates for all decreased 51% for youth ages 13–15, 48% for youth age other age groups for both males and females in 2018 were 16, and 47% for youth age 17. Most of the decreases at their lowest level since 2005. occurred between 2008 and 2018 (down 26% for youth ages 10–12, 48% for youth ages 13–15, 46% each for  Between 2005 and 2018, public order case rates youth age 16 and 17). decreased at a similar pace for both males and females across all age groups. Male case rates decreased 54% for  Female drug offense case rates for youth ages 10–12 youth ages 10–12, 58% for youth ages 13–15, 55% for increased 5% from 2005 to 2013, before decreasing 13% youth age 16, and 57% for youth age 17. Similarly, female in 2018. Case rates for females ages 13–15 and age 16 case rates decreased 50% for youth ages 10–12, 61% for decreased relatively steadily between 2005 and 2018 youth ages 13–15, and 57% each for youth age 16 and (38% and 34%, respectively). Despite a 13% increase in age 17. the case rate for 17-year-olds between 2015 and 2017, the 2018 rate was 24% less than the 2005 rate.

* Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving male and female youth ages 10–12 for drug offenses, their case rates are inflated by a factor of 5 to display the trends over time.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 17 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

 Between 2005 and 2018, delinquency The number of delinquency cases decreased substantially for all race cases declined 63% for Asian4 youth, groups between 2005 and 2018 59% for white youth, 53% for black youth, 48% for Hispanic5 youth, and Number of cases 43% for American Indian6 youth. 800,000 Delinquency 700,000  The number of property offense cases involving black youth and 600,000 Hispanic youth peaked in 2008 White before decreasing through 2018 500,000 Black (54% and 63%, respectively). 400,000

 The offense profile was similar for 300,000 Hispanic white youth, American Indian youth, 200,000 and Asian youth; property offenses accounted for the largest proportion 100,000 Asian Amer. Indian of caseloads, followed by person, 0 public order, and drug offense cases. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 For black and Hispanic youth, person offenses accounted for the largest Number of cases proportion, followed by property, 30,000 public order and drug offenses. Delinquency 25,000 20,000 4 Amer. Indian The racial classification Asian includes 15,000 Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Asian Islander. 10,000 5,000 5 Persons of Hispanic ethnicity are treated as 0 a distinct race group and are excluded from 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 the other four race groups, with one important exception. Data provided to the Archive from many jurisdictions did not include any means to determine the ethnicity of American Indian youth. Rather than assume ethnicity for these youth, they are classified solely on their racial classification; as such, the American Indian The offense profile for all races had a larger proportion of person group includes an unknown proportion of offenses in 2018 than in 2005 Hispanic youth. 6 The racial classification American Indian Offense profile of delinquency cases (usually abbreviated as Amer. Indian) includes Most serious Amer. American Indian and Alaskan Native. offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian 2018 Person 29% 34% 30% 30% 28% Property 30 33 27 33 33 Drugs 17 7 17 17 15 Public order 24 25 26 20 24 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2005 Person 24% 32% 22% 23% 21% Property 40 32 35 41 45 Drugs 13 8 12 12 9 Public order 23 28 31 24 25 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

18 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

Between 2005 and 2018, the number of cases decreased for all racial groups and offenses

White Black

Number of cases Number of cases 350,000 200,000

300,000 Person 160,000 Property 250,000 Property 120,000 200,000 Public order Public order Person 150,000 80,000 100,000 Drugs 40,000 Drugs 50,000

0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Hispanic American Indian

Number of cases Number of cases 120,000 10,000

100,000 Property 8,000 Property 80,000 Public order 6,000 Public order 60,000 Person Person 4,000 40,000 Drugs Drugs 20,000 2,000

0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Asian

Number of cases 10,000 Percent change in number of cases, 2005–2018: Most serious American 8,000 offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Property Delinquency –59% –53% –48% –43% –63% 6,000 Public order Person –49 –49 –28 –26 –51 4,000 Property –70 –52 –59 –54 –73 Person Drugs –46 –57 –25 –19 –36 Public order –57 –57 –57 –53 –64 2,000 Drugs

0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 19 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

Between 2005 and 2018, delinquency case rates declined for youth of all racial groups: 53% for whites, 49% for blacks, 60% for Hispanics, 49% for American Indians, and 72% for Asians

 In 2018, the total delinquency case rates for American Indian Delinquency youth, white youth, and Hispanic youth were similar (22.8, 19.3, and 18.0, respectively). The case rate for black juve- Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age niles (55.5) was about triple their rates, and nearly 13 times 120 the case rate for Asian youth (4.4). 100 Black  In 2018, the person offense case rate for black juveniles 80 (19.1) was about 3 times the rate for Hispanic youth (5.4), white youth (5.7), and American Indian youth (6.9), and nearly 60 16 times that of Asian youth (1.2). Hispanic 40 Amer. Indian  Case rates in 2018 were lower than in 2005 for each racial White group for all four offense categories. 20 Asian 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Person Property

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 35 40

30 35 Black 30 25 Black 25 20 20 15 White 15 Amer. Indian White 10 Amer. Indian 10 Hispanic 5 Hispanic 5 Asian Asian 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Drugs Public order

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 9 35

8 30 7 Black 25 Black 6 White 5 20 4 Amer. Indian 15 Hispanic 3 Amer. Indian Hispanic 10 2 White 1 5 Asian Asian 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

20 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

Although white youth represented the largest share of the delinquency  In 2018, white youth made up 53% caseload, their relative contribution declined between 2005 and 2018, of the U.S. population under juvenile from 48% to 44% court jurisdiction, black youth 15%, Hispanic youth 24%, American Indian youth 2%, and Asian youth Proportion of delinquency cases 6%. 100% 90% Racial profile of delinquency cases: 80% Race 2005 2018 70% White 48% 44% 60% Black 33 35 50% Hispanic 16 18 40% American Indian 1 2 Asian 1 1 30% Total 100% 100% 20% 10% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of round ing. 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018  The proportion of delinquency cases White Black Hispanic Other* involving black youth, Hispanic youth, and American Indian youth * Because American Indian and Asian proportions are too small to display individually, they increased between 2005 and 2018. are combined in the category “Other races.” Racial profile of delinquency cases by offense: Public Delinquency case rates for juveniles increased with age for all races Race Person Property Drugs order except American Indian, which declined after age 16 2018 White 41% 43% 55% 43% Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Black 38 38 19 36 140 Hispanic 18 16 23 19 Amer. 120 Indian 2 2 2 1 100 Asian 1 1 1 1 Black Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 80 2005 White 44% 52% 57% 42% 60 Black 40 29 24 36 Amer. Indian 40 Hispanic 13 15 17 19 White Amer. Hispanic 20 Asian Indian 1 2 2 1 Asian 1 2 1 1 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age Note: Detail may not total 100% because of round ing.

 In 2018, the delinquency case rate for 13-year-olds was more than 8 times the rate for 10-year-olds for each racial group.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 21 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

Case rates for person offenses in 2018 were lower than those in 2005 for all age groups for all races

Person offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 20 70 White Black 60 16 Age 17 Age 16 Age 17 Age 16 50 12 40 Ages 13−15 8 Ages 13−15 30 20 4 Ages 10−12 10 Ages 10−12

0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 20 20 Hispanic Amer. Indian

16 16 Age 16 Age 17 Age 17 Age 16 12 12 Ages 13−15 8 8 Ages 13−15

4 4 Ages 10−12 Ages 10−12

0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 7  The pattern of decrease in person offense case rates was Asian similar for black, Hispanic, and American Indian youth 6 between 2005 and 2018; case rates decreased more for 5 Age 17 younger youth (ages 10–12 and 13–15) than for older youth Age 16 (ages 16 and 17). 4

3  For white youth, the relative decline in person offense case Ages 13−15 rates between 2005 and 2018 was about the same for each 2 age group (between 40% and 47%). For Asian youth, the decrease was greatest for youth age 17, followed by youth 1 Ages 10−12 ages 13–15 and age 16, and finally youth ages 10–12. 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018  The person offense case rates for 17-year-olds was at its lowest level in 2018 for Hispanic and Asian youth but had increased for all other race groups from their respective low points.

22 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

Property offense case rates were at their lowest level in 2018 for all age groups within each racial category

Property offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 40 90 White Black 35 80 30 70 Age 16 Age 17 Age 16 Age 17 60 25 50 20 40 15 Ages 13−15 Ages 13−15 30 10 20 Ages 10−12 5 Ages 10−12 10 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 35 30 Hispanic Amer. Indian 30 25 Age 16 Age 17 Age 17 25 Age 16 20 20 15 15 Ages 13−15 Ages 13−15 10 10 Ages 10−12 5 Ages 10−12 5 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 14  Between 2005 and 2018, among all racial groups, prop- Asian erty offense case rates decreased more for youth ages 12 10–12 and 13–15, than youth age 16 and age 17. 10 Age 17 Age 16  Property offense case rates decreased the least for black 8 youth age 16 and age 17 (39% and 40%, respectively), 6 and decreased the most for Asian youth ages 10–12 and Ages 13−15 ages 13–15 (88% and 82%, respectively) between 2005 4 and 2018.

2 Ages 10−12 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 23 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

Drug offense case rates for all age groups within each racial category declined in the 14-year period 2005–2018

Drug offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 20 40 White Black 35 16 Age 17 30 Age 16 12 25 Age 17 20 Age 16 8 15 Ages 13−15 10 4 Ages 13−15 Ages 10−12 (x5)* 5 Ages 10−12 (x5)* 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 16 12 Hispanic Amer. Indian Age 17 14 10 12 Age 17 Age 16 Age 16 8 10 8 6 Ages 13−15 6 Ages 13−15 4 4 Ages 10−12 (x5)* 2 Ages 10−12 (x5)* 2 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 4 Asian  Although changes in age specific case rates for drug offenses varied by racial group between 2005 and 2018, Age 17 case rates decreased for all age groups for all races. 3 Age 16  Between 2005 and 2018, age-specific case rates for all 2 racial groups decreased by at least 23% for youth age 17, while decreases in other age groups varied. Ages 13−15 1 Ages 10−12 (x5)*

0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

* Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving youth of all races ages 10–12 for drug offenses, their case rates are inflated by a factor of 5 to display the trends over time.

24 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

In 2018, public order case rates were at the lowest level since 2005 for all age groups for black youth

Public order offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 70 25 Black White 60 20 Age 17 Age 16 Age 17 50 Age 16 15 40

Ages 13−15 30 10 Ages 13−15 20 5 Ages 10−12 10 Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 35 25 Hispanic Amer. Indian 30 20 25 Age 17 Age 17 Age 16 15 20 Age 16

15 10 Ages 13−15 Ages 13−15 10 5 5 Ages 10−12 Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 10 Asian  Between 2005 and 2018, age-specific public order case rates decreased least for white youth ages 10–12 (34%) 8 and most for Asian youth age 16 (76%).

6 Age 16  Case rates for white youth were at their lowest in 2015 for Age 17 ages 10–12 and 2017 for ages 13–15 before increasing through 2018. 4 Ages 13−15  Public order case rates for Hispanic youth decreased at a 2 similar pace for all age groups: 69% for youth ages 10–12 Ages 10−12 and 13–15, 64% for youth age 16, and 60% for youth age 0 17. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018  Asian case rates decreased through 2017 for youth ages 10–12 and through 2016 for ages 13–15 and then increased slightly in 2018.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 25 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

For both males and females, case rates for black youth were higher than rates for all other racial groups for all offense categories except drug offenses involving females

Person offense case rates Property offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 50 60 Male Male 50 40 Black Black 40 30 30 Hispanic 20 White 20 White Hispanic Amer. Indian 10 Amer. Indian 10 Asian Asian 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 25 25 Female Female

20 20 Black Black 15 15 Amer. Indian White 10 10 White Amer. Indian Hispanic 5 5 Hispanic Asian Asian 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

 For all years between 2005 and 2018, person offense case  Among males and females, property offense case rates rates for black males were 3 to 4 times higher than the cor- were lower in 2018 than in 2005 for all racial groups. responding rates for white, Hispanic, and American Indian males, and 9 to 16 times higher than those for Asian males.  Between 2005 and 2018, cases involving Asian youth showed the largest relative decrease in property offense  In 2018, the person offense case rate for black females case rates. During this period, the property case rate for (12.6) was 20 times the rate for Asian females (0.6) and 2.5 Asian males decreased 79% and the rate for Asian females to 4 times the rate for Hispanic females (3.1), white females decreased 80%. (3.3), and American Indian females (5.0).

26 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

Drug offense case rates Public order offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 16 45 Male Male 14 40 35 12 Black Black 30 10 Hispanic White 25 8 20 Hispanic 6 Amer. Indian 15 Amer. Indian 4 10 Asian White 2 Asian 5 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 4 20 Female Female

16 Black 3 Amer. Indian 12 White 2 Hispanic 8 Amer. Indian 1 Black 4 White Asian Hispanic Asian 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

 For all years between 2005 and 2018, drug offense case  Between 2005 and 2018, cases involving Asian youth rates were higher for black males than for males of all showed the largest relative decrease in public order offense other races. In 2018, the rate for black males (6.6) was 7 case rates for males and females. During this period, the times the rate for Asian males, and at least 1.3 times the public order case rate for Asian males decreased 73% and rate for white males, Hispanic males, and American Indian the rate for Asian females decreased 74%. males.  In 2018, the public order offense case rate for black males  In 2018, the drug offense case rate for American Indian was nearly 3 times the rate for Hispanic males, more than 3 females was higher than the corresponding rate for all times the rate for both white males and American Indian other race groups: 1.4 times the rate for white youth, dou- males, and 12 times the rate for Asian males. ble the rates for Hispanic youth and black youth, and near- ly 8 times the rate for Asian youth.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 27

Chapter 3

National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

This chapter quantifies the flow of delin- Waiver: One of the first decisions made quency cases referred to juvenile court at intake is whether a case should be through the stages of the juvenile court processed in the criminal (adult) justice system as follows. system rather than in the juvenile court. Most states have more than one mech- Referral: An agency or in divid u al files a anism for transferring cases to criminal complaint with court in take that initiates court: prosecutors may have the court processing. Cases can be authority to file certain juvenile cases referred to court intake by a number of directly in criminal court; state statute sources, including law enforcement may order that cases meeting certain agencies, social service agencies, age and offense criteria be excluded schools, parents, probation officers, from juvenile court jurisdiction and filed and victims. directly in criminal court; and a juvenile court judge may waive juvenile court Detention: Juvenile courts sometimes jurisdiction in certain juvenile cases, hold youth in secure detention facilities thus authorizing a transfer to criminal during court processing to protect the court. This report describes those cases community, to ensure a juvenile’s that were transferred to criminal court appearance at subsequent court hear- by judicial waiver only. ings, to secure the juvenile’s own safety, or for the purpose of evaluating the Adjudication: At an adjudicatory hear- juvenile. This report describes the use ing, a youth may be adjudicated of detention between court referral and (judged) delinquent if the juvenile court case disposition only, although juveniles determines that the youth did commit can be detained by police prior to refer- the offense(s) charged in the petition. If ral and also by the courts after disposi- the youth is adjudicated, the case pro- tion while awaiting placement ceeds to a disposition hearing. Alterna- elsewhere. tively, a case can be dismissed or con- tinued in contemplation of dismissal. In Intake: Formal processing of a case these cases where the youth is not involves the filing of a petition that adjudicated delinquent, the court can requests an adjudicatory or waiver recommend that the youth take some hearing. Informally processed cases, on actions prior to the final adjudication the other hand, are handled without a decision, such as paying restitution or petition and without an adjudicatory or voluntarily attending drug counseling. waiver hearing.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 29 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Disposition: Disposition options report characterizes case disposition This chapter describes case process- include commitment to an institution by the most severe or restrictive sanc- ing by offense and by demographics or other residential facility, probation tion. For example, although most youth (age, gender, and race) of the juveniles supervision, or a variety of other sanc- in out-of-home placements are also involved, focusing on cases disposed tions, such as community service, resti- technically on probation, in this report in 2018 and examining trends from tution or fines, or referral to an outside cases resulting in placement are not 2005 through 2018. agency or treatment program. This included in the probation group.

30 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Referral

Law enforcement agencies are the primary source of delinquency referrals to juvenile court  Between 2005 and 2018, law en- Percent of cases referred by law enforcement forcement agencies were the primary 100% Drugs Property source of delinquency referrals for 90% each year. 80% Person 70%  In 2018, 82% of all delinquency cases were referred by law enforce- 60% Public order ment; however, there were variations 50% across offense categories. 40% 30%  Law enforcement agencies referred 92% of property offense cases, 90% 20% of drug law violation cases, 88% of 10% person offense cases, and 58% of 0% public order offense cases in 2018. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018  For each year between 2005 and 2018, public order offense cases had the smallest proportion of cases referred to court by law enforcement. This may be attributed Drug and property offense cases were most likely to be referred by law in part to the fact that this offense enforcement, compared with other offense types category contains probation viola- tions and contempt-of-court cases, Proportion of cases which are most often referred by 100% court personnel. 12% 8% 10% 90% 18%  Law enforcement referred a smaller 80% 42% proportion of all delinquency cases 70% in 2018 (82%) than in 2005 (84%). 60% 50% 88% 92% 90% 40% 82% 30% 58% 20% 10% 0% Delinquency Person Property Drugs Public Order Law enforcement referral Total other referrals

Source of referral profile, 2018: Public Referral source Delinquency Person Property Drugs order

Law enforcement 82% 88% 92% 90% 58% School 4 4 1 5 6 Relative 1 1 1 0 1 Other 13 7 6 4 34 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 31 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Detention

 The number of delinquency cases The number of cases involving detention decreased between 2005 and involving detention decreased 52% 2018 for all offense categories between 2005 and 2018 to its lowest level in the analysis period. The larg- Number of cases est relative decline since 2005 was 140,000 for drug offense cases involving detention, down 59%, compared 120,000 Property with 54% each for public order and property offenses, and 46% for per- 100,000 son offenses. Public order Person 80,000

 Despite the decrease in the volume 60,000 of delinquency cases involving detention, the proportion of cases 40,000 Drugs detained was slightly larger in 2018 (26%) than in 2005 (25%). 20,000

 Between 2005 and 2018, the use of 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 detention remained the same for person offense cases (32%), decreased for drug law violation cases (from 23% to 17%), and increased for property offense cases (from 19% to 24%) and public order offense cases (from 26% to 28%) . Between 2005 and 2018, the proportions of cases involving detention increased for property and public order offense cases, remained the Offense profile of detained same for person offenses cases, and decreased for drug offense cases delinquency cases:

Most serious Percent of cases detained offense 2005 2018 35% Person Person 33% 36% 30% Property 29 29 Public order Drugs 10 8 25% Public order 27 27 Property 20% Total 100% 100% 15% Drugs Number of cases 405,700 202,900 10% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of round ing. 5%

 0% Compared with 2005, the offense 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 characteristics of the 2018 detention caseload had a larger proportion of person offenses and a smaller pro- portions of drug offenses.

32 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Detention

Black and Hispanic youth represented a larger share of the overall  In 2018, black youth accounted for detention caseload than of the overall delinquency caseload in 2018 35% of the overall delinquency caseload, compared with 40% of the Percent of cases overall detention caseload. Hispanic 50% youth accounted for 18% of the Delinquency 44% overall delinquency caseload and 40% 22% of the overall detention case- 40% 35% 35% load.

30%  White youth accounted for a smaller 22% proportion of the detention caseload 20% 18% (35%) compared with the delinquen- cy caseload (44%).

10%  Black and Hispanic youth accounted for larger proportions of the cases 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% detained than of the cases referred White Black Hispanic Indian Asian for all offense categories in 2018.

Cases referred Cases detained  White youth accounted for a smaller proportion of the cases detained than of the cases referred for all offense categories in 2018.

Proportion of caseload Proportion of caseload 50% 50% 41% 41% Person 43% 44% Property 40% 38% 40% 38% 35% 34% 30% 30% 21% 19% 20% 18% 20% 16% 10% 10%

0% 0% White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic

Proportion of caseload Proportion of caseload 60% 55% 50% Drugs 43% Public order 50% 40% 37% 42% 34% 36% 40% 30% 29% 26% 30% 26% 23% 19% 20% 20% 19% 10% 10% 0% 0% White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic

Note: Proportions for American Indian and Asian youth are not shown in the offense graphs above because their percentages are too small for display.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 33 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Detention

Age Detention was more likely for cases involving older youth than younger youth, and for cases involving males than females  In each year from 2005 through 2018, delinquency cases involving Percentage of cases detained youth age 16 or older were more Most serious Age 15 Age 16 likely to be detained than were cases offense and younger and older Male Female involving youth age 15 or younger. 2018  For all years between 2005 and Delinquency 25% 28% 28% 21% 2018, person offense cases were Person 29 35 34 26 more likely to involve detention than Property 23 25 26 16 were other offenses for both youth Drugs 16 17 18 13 age 15 and younger and those age Public order 25 31 30 23 16 and older. 2005 Delinquency 24% 26% 26% 20% Gender Person 30 34 33 28 Property 19 20 22 13  In 2018, male juveniles charged with Drugs 23 23 24 19 delinquency offenses were more like- Public order 24 28 27 23 ly than females to be held in secure facilities while awaiting court disposi- tion. Overall in 2018, 28% of male delinquency cases involved deten- tion, compared with 21% of female cases. Detention was more likely for cases involving Hispanic youth than cases involving youth of other racial groups Offense profile of detained delinquency cases by gender, 2018: Percentage of cases detained Most serious American Most serious offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian offense Male Female 2018 Person 36% 43% Delinquency 21% 30% 32% 26% 25% Property 29 21 Person 27 34 38 33 29 Drugs 9 8 Property 19 28 27 23 22 Public order 26 28 Drugs 13 23 21 15 16 Total 100% 100% Public order 22 29 37 32 32 2005 Race Delinquency 21% 27% 29% 25% 23% Person 29 32 37 30 33  Cases involving white youth were Property 17 23 23 20 18 less likely to be detained than cases Drugs 17 33 27 20 20 involving all other racial groups for Public order 23 26 32 32 27 most years between 2005 and 2018 across offense categories.

 In 2018, person and public order offense cases involving Hispanic youth were more likely to involve detention (38% and 37%, respec- tively) than those involving all other races.

34 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Intake Decision

Each year between 2005 and 2018, delinquency cases were more  Between 2005 and 2018, the likeli- likely to be handled formally, with the filing of a petition for hood that a delinquency case would adjudication, than informally be handled informally (without filing a petition for adjudication) decreased Delinquency cases at a similar rate as formally handled 900,000 cases. As the overall delinquency 800,000 caseload decreased 55% between 2005 and 2018, the number of non- 700,000 Petitioned petitioned cases decreased 58% to 600,000 its lowest level in 2018, and the 500,000 number of petitioned cases Nonpetitioned decreased 52%. 400,000 300,000  The largest relative decrease in the number of petitioned cases between 200,000 2005 and 2018 was seen in property 100,000 offense cases (58%), followed by 0 drug offense cases and public order 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 offense cases (54% and 53%, respectively) and person offense cases (44%).

Offense profile of delinquency cases, 2018: Most serious Regardless of offense type, the number of petitioned cases decreased offense Nonpetitioned Petitioned between 2005 and 2018 Person 31% 31% Property 29 31 Petitioned cases 350,000 Drugs 17 11 Public order 23 26 300,000 Total 100% 100% 250,000 Public order Property Number of cases 322,400 422,100 200,000 Person Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 150,000 round ing.

100,000  In 2018, the offense profiles of non- Drugs petitioned and petitioned delinquen- 50,000 cy cases were similar but the nonpe- titioned caseload had a greater 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 proportion of drug law violations and a smaller proportion of public order offenses.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 35 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Intake Decision

 The overall likelihood of formal han- In 2018, juvenile courts petitioned 57% of all delinquency cases dling was greater for more serious offenses within the same general Percentage Percentage of all offense category. In 2018, for exam- of total petitioned cases, 2018 delinquency ple, 72% of aggravated assault Petitioned Younger cases cases were handled formally, com- Most serious offense cases than 16 Female White pared with 50% of simple assault Total delinquency 422,100 57% 50% 23% 40% cases. Similarly, 74% of burglary Total person 132,900 57 57 26 38 cases and 76% of motor vehicle Criminal homicide 900 85 34 13 27 theft cases were handled formally by Rape 5,900 73 61 3 53 juvenile courts, compared with 50% Robbery 16,400 85 46 10 14 of larceny-theft and 48% of tres- Aggravated assault 18,900 72 53 23 31 passing cases. Simple assault 73,800 50 59 34 40 Other violent sex offenses 5,700 73 72 5 60  Youth younger than 16 accounted Other person offenses 11,300 48 56 24 51 for 50% of the delinquency cases Total property 131,000 58 52 20 38 handled formally by juvenile courts Burglary 31,400 74 53 9 36 in 2018; females accounted for 23% Larceny-theft 48,100 50 51 28 38 and white youth accounted for 40% Motor vehicle theft 11,600 76 52 20 29 of petitioned cases. Arson 1,500 67 71 16 51 Vandalism 18,800 53 59 18 50  Between 2005 and 2018, the likeli- Trespassing 9,600 48 53 19 37 hood of formal processing increased: Stolen property offenses 6,500 86 43 12 21 from 55% to 60% for public order Other property offenses 3,600 56 44 26 47 Drug law violations 47,400 47 34 21 52 cases, from 51% to 58% for prop- Total public order 110,800 60 47 25 40 erty offense cases, and from 55% to Obstruction of justice 65,100 72 41 26 38 57% for person offense cases. Disorderly conduct 21,100 44 62 34 42 Weapons offenses 10,600 65 48 10 29  In 2018, 47% of drug offense cases Liquor law violations 1,200 31 31 28 54 were petitioned—a lower percentage Nonviolent sex offenses 5,600 51 57 16 57 than in 2005, when 56% were peti- Other public order offenses 7,100 47 58 20 53 tioned. Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.  Between 2005 and 2010, property offense cases were less likely than cases in each of the other general offense categories to be handled with a petition for adjudication; since Between 2005 and 2018, the use of formal processing increased in all 2011, drug offense cases were the general offense categories except drug offense cases least likely.

Percent of cases petitioned 70% Person Public order 60%

50% Property Drugs 40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

36 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Intake Decision

Formal processing was more likely for cases involving Age older youth than younger youth, and more likely for cases involving males than females  In each year between 2005 and 2018, delinquency cases involving Percentage of cases petitioned juveniles age 16 or older were more Most serious Age 15 Age 16 likely to be petitioned than were offense and younger and older Male Female cases involving younger juveniles. 2018  In 2018, 54% of delinquency cases Delinquency 54% 60% 60% 48% involving youth age 15 or younger Person 54 62 61 49 were petitioned, compared with 60% Property 57 60 62 46 of cases involving older youth. Drugs 42 50 49 40 Public order 55 65 62 54 Gender 2005 Delinquency 51% 58% 57% 45%  Between 2005 and 2018, the likeli- Person 53 59 58 48 hood of formal case processing for Property 49 55 56 38 delinquency cases increased slightly Drugs 52 59 58 47 for males (from 57% to 60%) and Public order 51 61 57 51 females (from 45% to 48%).

 Between 2005 and 2018, for both males and females, the likelihood of formal case processing decreased for drug offense cases (down 9 and Between 2005 and 2018, the likelihood of formal processing 7 percentage points, respectively). The use of formal case processing increased for cases involving all race groups except Asian increased for all other offense types youth for both males and females, with the Percentage of cases petitioned largest increases occurring in prop- erty offense cases (up 6 percentage Most serious American offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian points for males and 8 percentage points for females). 2018 Delinquency 52% 64% 55% 58% 54% Race Person 52 63 57 57 58 Property 52 66 55 59 49  The proportion of delinquency cases Drugs 44 58 44 48 44 petitioned decreased between 2005 Public order 56 64 60 63 63 and 2018 for Asian youth (down 2 2005 percentage points), and increased Delinquency 51% 59% 53% 55% 56% between 1 and 5 percentage points Person 50 60 55 55 60 for all other race groups. Property 48 57 50 51 50 Drugs 50 70 55 50 58  For each year between 2005 and Public order 55 56 53 66 60 2018, drug offense cases involving black juveniles were more likely to be petitioned than were such cases involving any other racial group.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 37 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Waiver

 Between 2005 and 2018, the number The number of cases judicially waived to criminal court decreased 44% of delinquency cases waived to crim- between 2005 and 2018 inal court was at its highest in 2006 (6,800). Despite an increase between Cases judicially waived to criminal court 2015 and 2018, the number of cases 7,000 waived in 2018 was 47% below the 2006 level. 6,000 Total delinquency  The number of judicially waived per- 5,000 son offense cases increased 8% 4,000 between 2005 and 2008, fell 49% to its lowest level in 2015, and then 3,000 increased 24% by 2018. Despite the recent increase, the number of per- 2,000 son offense cases judicially waived in 2018 was 32% less than the number 1,000 in 2005. 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018  The number of drug offense cases judicially waived remained stable between 2005 and 2007 before fall- ing 60% by 2018.

 For public order offenses, the num- ber of waived cases decreased 49% between 2005 and 2018. Since 2005, the number of cases judicially waived to criminal court  Between 2005 and 2018, the largest decreased the most for drug offenses (60%), followed by property number of judicially waived cases (54%), public order (49%), and person offenses (32%) involved person offense cases.

 Historically, the number of cases Cases judicially waived to cirminal court judicially waived declined after 1994 3,500 and may be attributable in part to 3,000 the large increase in the number of states that passed legislation exclud- 2,500 Person ing certain serious offenses from Property juvenile court jurisdiction and legisla- 2,000 tion permitting the prosecutor to file 1,500 certain cases directly in criminal court. 1,000 Drugs

500 Public order 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

38 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Waiver

For all years from 2005 to 2018, cases involving person offense cases  Over the 2005–2018 reporting peri- were most likely to be judicially waived od, the likelihood of waiver for per- son offense cases was at its highest Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court level in 2018. 1.6%  Between 2005 and 2018, the pro- 1.4% portion of property and public order Person 1.2% offense cases that were judicially waived fluctuated, with the likeli- 1.0% hood of waiver being slightly higher Drugs 0.8% in 2018 than in 2005.

0.6% Property  Despite some fluctuation in the latter years of the analysis period, the pro- 0.4% portion of judicially waived drug 0.2% Public order offense cases was lower in 2018 than in 2005. 0.0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018  The proportion of the waived case- load involving person offenses grew between 2005 and 2018. In 2005, person offense cases accounted for 46% of the waived caseload; by 2018, person offense cases were 56% of the waived caseload.

Between 2005 and 2018, the offense profile of the judicially waived  The proportion of all waived delin- caseload changed slightly—the share of person offense cases quency cases that involved a prop- increased while the share of most other offense cases decreased erty offense as the most serious charge was 31% in 2005 and 26% in 2018, and ranged between 26% Proportion of judicially waived delinquency cases 100% and 33% over the time period. 90%  Drug offense cases represented 80% 14% of the judicially waived cases 70% in 2005 and 10% in 2018. 60%  Between 2005 and 2018, public 50% order offense cases comprised 7% 40% to 11% of the waived caseload. 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Person Property Drugs Public order

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 39 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Waiver

Age Cases involving juveniles age 16 or older were much more likely to be judicially waived to criminal court than those  In 2018, 1.5% of all petitioned delin- involving younger juveniles quency cases involving juveniles age 16 or older were waived to criminal Percentage of petitioned cases judicially waived court, compared with 0.2% of cases Most serious Age 15 Age 16 involving younger juveniles. offense and younger and older Male Female 2018  For both age groups, the probability Delinquency 0.2% 1.5% 1.0% 0.3% of waiver remained relatively stable Person 0.4 3.0 1.9 0.4 between 2005 and 2018. Property 0.1 1.4 0.8 0.3 Drugs 0.1 1.1 0.9 0.4 Gender Public order 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 2005  The proportion of person offense cases judicially waived increased Delinquency 0.2% 1.4% 0.9% 0.3% from 1.6% in 2005 to 1.9% in 2018 Person 0.4 2.7 1.6 0.4 for males. Property 0.1 1.4 0.7 0.3 Drugs 0.1 1.4 1.0 0.5  The proportion of drug offense Public order 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 cases judicially waived decreased from 1.0% in 2005 to 0.9% in 2018 for males and from 0.5% to 0.4% for females.

Race Person offense cases involving black youth were more likely than cases involving white youth to be judicially waived  The likelihood of judicial waiver among cases involving American Percentage of petitioned cases judicially waived Indian youth was lower in 2018 Most serious American (0.6%) than in 2005 (0.9%); the like- offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian lihood for cases involving black 2018 youth, Asian youth, and Hispanic Delinquency 0.7% 1.1% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% youth increased. The likelihood of Person 1.0 2.1 1.4 1.0 1.3 judicial waiver for cases involving Property 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.1 white youth was the same for both Drugs 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.3 1.0 years. Public order 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.5 2005  In 2018, cases involving person offenses were more likely than other Delinquency 0.7% 0.8% 0.6% 0.9% 0.5% offenses to be waived for youth of Person 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.2 all races: 1.0% among white juve- Property 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.4 Drugs 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.6 0.2 niles, 2.1% among black juveniles, Public order 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.4% among Hispanic youth, 1.0% among American Indian juveniles, and 1.3% among Asian juveniles.

40 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Waiver

The number of delinquency cases judicially waived to criminal court  The number of judicially waived was lower in 2018 than in 2005 for all race groups cases involving white youth declined 61% between 2005 and 2018.

 For black juveniles, the number of Delinquency cases judicially waived to criminal court judicially waived cases increased 3,000 15% between 2005 and 2008, fell 45% to its lowest level in 2015, and 2,500 then increased 15% by 2018. Black 2,000  The number of judicially waived White cases involving Hispanic youth 1,500 increased 20% between 2005 and 2007 and decreased 59% to its low- 1,000 est level in 2015 before increasing Hispanic 23% through 2018. 500  Between 2005 and 2018, the number 0 of judicially waived cases decreased 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 the most for drug offenses involving black youth (75%) and property offenses involving white youth (72%).

Offense profile of waived cases: Cases judicially waived to criminal court Cases judicially waived to criminal court Most serious 2,000 Person 1,400 Property offense White Black Hispanic 1,200 1,600 Black White 1,000 2018 1,200 800 Black Person 45% 61% 63% White 800 600 Property 30 26 18 400 Drugs 15 5 15 400 Hispanic Hispanic 200 Public order 10 8 4 0 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2005 Person 33% 58% 55% Cases judicially waived to criminal court Cases judicially waived to criminal court Property 43 19 26 500 400 Drugs 14 15 11 Drugs Public order White Public order 10 8 8 400 300 White Total 100% 100% 100% 300 200 Black Black Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 200 round ing. Offense profiles are not presented Hispanic 100 100 Hispanic for American Indian and Asian youth because counts were too small to calculate meaningful 0 0 percentages. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018  In 2018, person offense cases accounted for the largest proportion of judicially waived cases for all racial groups.

 The proportion of person cases waived was largest for Hispanic youth compared with all other race groups in 2018.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 41 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Adjudication

 In 2005, 33% of all delinquency The proportion of formally processed delinquency cases that resulted cases resulted in either adjudication in a delinquency adjudication or waiver changed little since 2005 of delinquency or waiver to criminal court. This proportion decreased to 30% in 2018. Proportion of delinquency cases 100%  In general, the likelihood of being 90% adjudicated delinquent was greater 80% for more serious offenses within the same general offense category. 70% 60%  Within the 2018 person offense cat- 50% egory, 55% of petitioned aggravated 40% assault cases were adjudicated 30% delinquent, compared with 45% of simple assault cases. 20% 10%  In the property offense category in 0% 2018, similar proportions of peti- 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 tioned burglary and motor vehicle Nonpetitioned theft cases were adjudicated delin- quent (58% and 55%, respectively), Petitioned: not adjudiciated delinquent compared with 49% of larceny-theft Petitioned: adjudicated delinquent or judicially waived cases.

 Among public order offenses in 2018, 61% of obstruction of justice cases were adjudicated delinquent, compared with 46% of disorderly In 2018, youth were adjudicated delinquent in more than half (52%) of conduct cases. petitioned delinquency cases Percentage Percentage of all of total adjudicated cases, 2018  Youth younger than 16 accounted Cases petitioned for 51% of all adjudicated delin- adjudicated Younger cases quency cases handled by juvenile Most serious offense delinquent than 16 Female White courts in 2018, females accounted Total delinquency 220,000 52% 51% 21% 40% for 21%, and white youth accounted Total person 66,300 50 57 23 37 for 40%. Criminal homicide 400 48 44 17 30 Rape 3,200 54 65 2 55 Robbery 9,900 61 48 11 13 Aggravated assault 10,300 55 52 21 30 Simple assault 33,500 45 59 31 41 Other violent sex offenses 3,100 54 72 3 61 Other person offenses 5,900 52 57 21 53 Total property 68,100 52 54 17 39 Burglary 18,300 58 54 8 36 Larceny-theft 23,700 49 53 24 40 Motor vehicle theft 6,400 55 55 20 30 Arson 800 53 72 15 52 Vandalism 9,100 49 59 17 51 Trespassing 4,200 44 54 17 40 Stolen property offenses 3,700 57 44 11 22 Other property offenses 1,800 51 46 23 50 Drug law violations 23,500 50 36 20 52 Total public order 62,200 56 47 23 40 Obstruction of justice 39,800 61 41 24 38 Disorderly conduct 9,800 46 63 33 45 Weapons offenses 5,700 53 45 8 26 Liquor law violations 600 46 35 28 56 Nonviolent sex offenses 2,900 52 59 14 59 Other public order offenses 3,500 49 58 18 55 Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

42 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Adjudication

Between 2005 and 2018, the number of cases in which youth were  The annual number of delinquency adjudicated delinquent decreased 59% cases in which youth were adjudi- cated delinquent steadily decreased from 540,900 in 2005 to its lowest Cases adjudicated delinquent level in 2018 (220,000). 600,000  The number of adjudicated property 500,000 offense cases was at its lowest level Total delinquency in 2018 (from 188,100 in 2005 to 400,000 68,000 in 2018).

300,000  The number of adjudicated person offense cases decreased 52% from 200,000 136,900 cases in 2005 to 66,300 cases in 2018. 100,000  The number of adjudicated cases 0 decreased 62% for drug offense 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 cases and 59% for public order cases between 2005 and 2018. Offense profile of cases adjudicated delinquent: Most serious offense 2005 2018

Since 2005, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent decreased for Person 25% 30% all general offense categories Property 35 31 Drugs 12 11 Public order 28 28 Cases adjudicated delinquent 200,000 Total 100% 100% Cases adjudicated 540,900 220,000 160,000 Public order delinquent

Property Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 120,000 round ing. Person  Compared with 2005, the 2018 adju- 80,000 dicated delinquency caseload includ- ed a greater proportion of person 40,000 Drugs offenses, smaller proportions of property and drug offenses, and an equal proportion of public order 0 offenses. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 43 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Adjudication

 The likelihood of a delinquency adju- The likelihood of delinquency adjudication decreased from 61% of dication was less in 2018 than in petitioned cases in 2005 to 52% in 2018 2005 for all offense types (by 8 to 12 percentage points). Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent  The likelihood of adjudication among 70% cases involving a property offense 60% decreased from 61% to 52% Total delinquency between 2005 and 2018. 50%

 The likelihood of adjudication among 40% drug offense cases followed a simi- lar pattern, decreasing from 61% to 30% 50% between 2005 and 2018. 20%

 Among public order cases, the likeli- 10% hood of adjudication decreased from 64% to 56% between 2005 and 0% 2018. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

 Cases involving public order offens- es were slightly more likely than any other offense to result in a delin- quency adjudication each year Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent between 2005 and 2018. Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent 70% 70% 60% 60% Property 50% Person 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent 70% 70% 60% 60% Public order 50% Drugs 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

44 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Adjudication

Cases involving younger juveniles were slightly more likely to Age be adjudicated delinquent than those involving older juveniles  For youth age 15 and younger, per- Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent son offense cases were less likely Most serious Age 15 Age 16 than other offense categories to be offense and younger and older Male Female adjudicated delinquent for each year 2018 between 2005 and 2018. Delinquency 53% 52% 54% 47%  For drug offense cases involving Person 50 50 52 44 juveniles age 16 and older, the likeli- Property 53 51 54 45 hood of adjudication decreased from Drugs 53 48 50 47 60% to 48% between 2005 and Public order 56 56 57 53 2018. 2005 Delinquency 62% 60% 62% 58% Gender Person 59 57 59 53 Property 62 60 62 56  Between 2005 and 2018, male cases Drugs 63 60 61 61 generally were more likely to be Public order 64 65 65 63 adjudicated delinquent than were female cases.

 Between 2005 and 2018, for females, the likelihood of a delin- quency adjudication decreased for all offense types (between 9 and 14 Delinquency cases involving black youth were less likely percentage points). to result in a delinquency adjudication than were cases involving youth of all other races Race

Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent  Between 2005 and 2018, the likeli- Most serious American hood of a delinquency adjudication offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian decreased 10 percentage points for white youth, 9 percentage points for 2018 black youth, and 8 percentage points Delinquency 52% 49% 57% 59% 50% for Hispanic youth. Person 49 48 56 56 50 Property 53 49 56 58 50  In 2018, cases involving American Drugs 49 47 52 64 42 Indian juveniles were more likely to Public order 57 52 63 62 53 result in a delinquency adjudication 2005 than cases involving all other races. Delinquency 62% 58% 65% 67% 61% Person 59 55 63 65 63 Property 62 57 64 66 58 Drugs 62 58 64 68 58 Public order 66 60 69 70 62

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 45 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

 The number of cases adjudicated The number of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in out-of- delinquent that resulted in out-of- home placement decreased from 150,800 in 2005 to 62,100 in 2018 home placement decreased 59% from 2005 to its lowest level in 2018. Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out−of−home placement  Between 2005 and 2018, the number 160,000 of cases involving the use of out-of- home placement decreased 71% for 140,000 drug offense cases, 61% for property 120,000 offense cases, 60% for public order Total delinquency offense cases, and 49% for person 100,000 offense cases. 80,000

 Public order offense cases include 60,000 escapes from institutions, weapons 40,000 offenses, and probation and parole violations. This may help to explain 20,000 the relatively high number of public 0 order offense cases involving out-of- 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 home placement. Offense profile of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement: Most serious offense 2005 2018 In 2018, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in Person 27% 33% out-of-home place was at its lowest level for all offense types Property 33 31 Drugs 9 7 Public order 32 30 Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out−of−home placement 50,000 Total 100% 100% Cases resulting 40,000 in out-of-home Public order placement 150,800 62,100 30,000 Note: Detail may not total 100% because of Person round ing. Property 20,000  In 2005, property offense cases accounted for the largest share of Drugs cases adjudicated delinquent that 10,000 resulted in out-of-home placement; in 2018, person offense cases 0 accounted for the largest share. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

46 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

The court ordered out-of-home placement in 28% of all cases adjudicated  The proportion of adjudicated delin- delin quent in 2018 quency cases that resulted in out- of-home placement was very stable over the period 2005 to 2018, rang- Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement ing from 28% to 26%. 30%  The likelihood that an adjudicated 25% Total delinquency case would result in out-of-home placement was also very stable 20% between 2005 and 2018 for person, property, and public order offense 15% cases.

10%  The proportion of drug offense cases resulting in out-of-home 5% placement declined from 22% in 2005 to 17% in 2018. 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement resulting in out-of-home placement 35% 30% 30% 25% 25% Property Person 20% 20% 15% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement resulting in out-of-home placement 25% 35% 30% 20% Public order Drugs 25% 15% 20% 10% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 47 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

Age Between 2005 and 2018, the likelihood of out-of-home placement remained relatively stable but varied by offense  Unlike all other offense categories in 2018, drug offense cases involving Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent, juveniles age 16 or older adjudicated resulting in out-of-home placement delinquent were slightly less likely to Most serious Age 15 Age 16 result in out-of-home placement offense and younger and older Male Female than were cases involving youth age 2018 15 or younger. Delinquency 27% 30% 30% 22% Person 28 34 32 24  Between 2005 and 2018, the use of Property 26 29 29 20 out-of-home placement for youth Drugs 18 17 18 13 age 15 and younger declined for Public order 27 33 32 25 drug and public order offense cases, 2005 and increased slightly for person and Delinquency 26% 30% 29% 22% property offense cases. For youth Person 27 32 31 23 age 16 and older, the use of out-of- Property 24 28 28 19 home placement declined for drug Drugs 21 23 24 18 offense cases and increased slightly Public order 29 33 33 27 for person and property offense cases.

Gender

 For males in 2018, person and pub- lic order offense cases adjudicated In 2018, adjudicated public order cases involving Hispanic delinquent were most likely to result youth were most likely to receive a disposition of out-of-home in out-of-home placement (32% placement, across all offense and racial categories each), followed by property cases (29%), and cases involving drug Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent, offenses (18%). resulting in out-of-home placement Most serious American  For females in 2018, adjudicated offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian person and public order offense 2018 cases were most likely to result in Delinquency 23% 32% 32% 27% 20% out-of-home placement (24% and Person 26 34 34 32 21 25%, respectively), followed by Property 24 31 31 26 18 property cases (20%) and drug Drugs 14 22 20 21 NA offense cases (13%). Public order 24 33 37 26 23 2005 Race Delinquency 24% 31% 32% 24% 25% Person 26 31 32 27 28  After adjudication, the likelihood of Property 23 30 29 23 23 out-of-home placement in 2018 was Drugs 16 31 26 18 22 greater for Hispanic and black youth Public order 28 33 36 25 27 (32% each) than for American Indian (27%), white (23%), or Asian youth NA: Data are not presented because the small number of cases produces (20%). unstable estimates.

 Compared with 2005, the proportion of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in out-of-home-placement in 2018 was smaller for white and Asian youth, greater for black and American Indian youth, and the same for Hispanic youth.

48 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Dispositions: Probation

The number of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in probation  Between 2005 and 2018, the declined 59% between 2005 and 2018 number of cases adjudicated delin- quent that resulted in an order of probation decreased at the same Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation 350,000 pace as the number of cases that resulted in out-of-home placement 300,000 (59% each).

250,000  Between 2005 and 2018, the number Total delinquency of cases resulting in probation 200,000 decreased at a similar pace for all 150,000 offense groups: 64% for property offenses, 61% for drug offenses, 100,000 59% for public order offenses, and 52% for person offenses. 50,000

0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

The number of adjudicated property offense cases resulting in an order of probation fell 64% since 2005

Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation 140,000

120,000 Property 100,000

80,000 Person 60,000

40,000 Public order Drugs 20,000

0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 49 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Dispositions: Probation

 Despite a decrease in the volume of Probation remains the most likely sanction imposed by juvenile courts cases between 2005 and 2018 (342,800 and 139,000, respectively), Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation the proportion of adjudicated cases 70% with probation as the most restrictive Total delinquency outcome remained the same (63%). 60% 50%  Between 2005 and 2018, the likeli- hood of probation for cases adjudi- 40% cated delinquent was relatively sta- ble for all offense categories. 30% Offense profile of cases adjudicated 20% delinquent, resulting in probation: 10% Most serious offense 2005 2018 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Person 26% 30% Property 36 31 Drugs 13 12 Public order 26 26 Total 100% 100%

Cases resulting in Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, formal probation 342,800 139,000 resulting in probation resulting in probation 80% 80% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of round ing. 60% Person 60% Property

40% 40%  In 2018, 31% of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in probation 20% 20% involved property offenses, 30% 0% 0% involved person cases, and 26% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 involved public order cases.

 The offense characteristics of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in probation changed little between Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation 2005 and 2018, with a slight resulting in probation 80% 80% increase in the proportion of cases involving person offenses and a cor- 60% 60% responding decrease in the propor- Drugs Public order tion of cases involving property 40% 40% offenses. The proportion of drug and 20% 20% public order offense cases remained the same. 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

50 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Dispositions: Probation

Cases involving youth age 15 or younger were generally more Age likely than cases involving older youth to be placed on formal probation following a delinquency adjudication  Among juveniles age 15 or younger, the overall likelihood of being placed Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated on formal probation decreased delinquent, resulting in probation slightly between 2005 and 2018 from Most serious Age 15 Age 16 66% to 65%. offense and younger and older Male Female  Among youth age 16 or older, the 2018 overall likelihood of being placed on Delinquency 65% 61% 63% 65% formal probation remained the same Person 66 61 63 68 between 2005 and 2018, 61% each. Property 66 62 63 67 Drugs 73 71 71 73  For both age groups in 2018, adjudi- Public order 60 57 58 58 cated cases involving drug offenses 2005 were more likely to result in proba- Delinquency 66% 61% 63% 66% tion than cases in other offense cat- Person 67 61 63 69 egories. Property 67 62 64 68 Drugs 72 67 68 74 Gender Public order 60 56 57 60  The overall likelihood of being placed on formal probation decreased slightly between 2005 and 2018 for females (from 66% to 65%) and remained the same for Adjudicated cases involving white youth were more likely males (63%). than cases involving black youth to be placed on probation  For females in 2018, drug offense Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated cases adjudicated delinquent were delinquent, resulting in probation most likely to be placed on proba- Most serious American tion (73%), followed by person offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian (68%) and property offense cases 2018 (67%). Public order offense cases Delinquency 65% 61% 64% 62% 75% were least likely to result in formal Person 68 60 63 63 78 probation (58%). Property 66 62 65 62 77 Drugs 73 68 74 65 NA Race Public order 57 58 60 61 73 2005  Between 2005 and 2018, the overall Delinquency 64% 61% 64% 66% 67% likelihood of being placed on formal Person 66 63 65 68 66 probation decreased for American Property 66 63 66 67 69 Indian youth, remained the same for Drugs 72 63 70 75 66 black and Hispanic youth, and Public order 57 57 60 59 65 increased for white and Asian youth. NA: Data are not presented because the small number of cases produces unstable estimates.  In 2018, among white youth, drug offense cases that were adjudicated delinquent were most likely to be placed on formal probation (73%), followed by adjudicated person and property offense cases (68% and 66%, respectively) and public order offense cases (57%).

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 51 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing Overview, 2018

 In 2018, 57% (422,100) of the esti- 744,500 estimated Waived mated 744,500 juvenile court cases delinquency cases 3,600 1% Placed were handled formally (with the filing 62,100 28% of a petition). Adjudicated Probation  In 2018, 1% (3,600) of all formally 220,000 52% 139,000 63% processed delinquency cases were Other sanction judicially transferred to criminal 19,000 9% court. Petitioned 422,100 57%  In 2018, 52% (220,000) of the cases Probation that were handled formally (with the 71,900 36% filing of a petition) resulted in a delin- Not adjudicated Other sanction quency adjudication. 198,400 47% 17,900 9%

 In 63% (139,000) of cases adjudi- Dismissed 108,600 55% cated delinquent in 2018, formal pro- bation was the most severe sanction Probation ordered by the court. 49,400 15% Not petitioned Other sanction  In 2018, 28% (62,100) of cases adju- 322,400 43% 142,600 44% dicated delinquent resulted in place- ment outside the home in a residen- Dismissed tial facility. 130,400 40%

 In 9% (19,000) of cases adjudicated delinquent in 2018, the juvenile was ordered to pay restitution or a fine, to Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 2005 participate in some form of commu- through 2018 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp. nity service, or to enter a treatment or counseling program—dispositions with minimal continuing supervision.

 In 47% (198,400) of all petitioned delinquency cases in 2018, the youth was not subsequently adjudicated delinquent. The court dismissed 55% of these cases, while 36% resulted in some form of informal probation and 9% in other voluntary dispositions.

 In 2018, the court dismissed 40% of the informally handled (i.e., nonpeti- tioned) delinquency cases, while 15% of the cases resulted in volun- tary probation and 44% in other dispositions.

52 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing Overview, 2018

A typical 1,000 5 Waived  For every 1,000 delinquency cases delinquency cases processed in 2018, 567 were peti- 83 Placed Adjudicated tioned for formal processing and 433 296 delinquent 187 Proba tion were handled informally.

567 Petitioned 25 Other sanction  Of the cases that were adjudicated delinquent, 63% (187 of 296) 97 Probation received a disposition of probation Not adjudicated and 28% (83 of 296) were placed 267 delinquent 24 Other sanction out of the home. 146 Dismissed  In many petitioned delinquency 66 Probation cases that did not result in a delin- quency adjudication, the youth 433 Nonpetitioned 192 Other sanction agreed to informal services or sanc- 175 Dismissed tions (121 of 267), including informal probation and other dispositions such as restitution.

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may  Although juvenile courts in 2018 not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 2005 handled more than 4 in 10 delin- through 2018 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp. quency cases without the filing of a formal petition, 60% of these cases received some form of court sanc- tion, including probation or other dispositions such as restitution, community service, or referral to another agency.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 53 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing by Offense Category, 2018

Person Offense Cases Person offenses Waived 232,400 2,000 2%  In 2018, 50% (66,300) of all formally Placed 20,200 31% processed person offense cases resulted in a delinquency adjudication. Adjudicated Probation 66,300 50% 42,400 64%  Formal probation was the most Other sanction severe sanction ordered by the court 3,700 6% in 64% (42,400) of the adjudicated Petitioned person offense cases in 2018. 132,900 57% Probation  Once adjudicated, person offense 23,500 36% cases were more likely to result in Not adjudicated Other sanction out-of-home placement (31%) than 64,500 49% 6,100 9% public order offense cases (30%), property offenses cases (28%), and Dismissed 34,900 54% drug offense cases (17%). Probation  In 2018, 15% of person offense 14,800 15% cases that were handled informally Not petitioned Other sanction resulted in probation; 46% were dis- 99,500 43% 38,400 39% missed. Dismissed  Juvenile courts waived jurisdiction in 46,300 46% 2% (2,000) of all petitioned person offense cases in 2018.

Property Offense Cases Property offenses Waived 225,900 900 1%  Juvenile courts handled more than Placed 19,000 28% half (58%) of all property offense cases formally in 2018. Of these for- Adjudicated Probation mally handled cases, 52% (68,100 68,100 52% 43,500 64% cases) were adjudicated delinquent. Other sanction 5,600 8%  In 2018, 43,500 (64%) of the adjudi- Petitioned cated property offense cases result- 131,000 58% ed in probation as the most severe Probation 22,500 36% sanction; another 28% (19,000) resulted in out-of-home placement. Not adjudicated Other sanction Other sanctions, such as restitution, 62,100 47% 5,900 10% community service, or referral to Dismissed another agency, were ordered in 8% 33,700 54% (5,600) of the petitioned property offense cases following adjudication. Probation 14,200 15%  Property offense cases were slightly Not petitioned Other sanction more likely than person offense 94,900 42% 43,600 46% cases to be petitioned for formal processing. Once petitioned, prop- Dismissed 37,100 39% erty offense cases were also more likely to result in the youth being adjudicated delinquent than were cases involving person offenses. Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 2005 through 2018 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

54 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Offense Category, 2018

Drug offenses Waived Drug Offense Cases 101,000 400 1% Placed  In 2018, 50% (23,500) of all peti- 4,100 17% tioned drug offense cases resulted Adjudicated Probation in the youth being adjudicated delin- 23,500 50% 16,800 72% quent; 72% (16,800) of these cases Other sanction received probation as the most 2,600 11% severe sanction, and another 17% Petitioned (4,100) resulted in out-of-home 47,400 47% placement. Probation 10,100 43%  Other sanctions, such as restitution, Not adjudicated Other sanction community service, or referral to 23,600 50% 2,600 11% another agency, were ordered in 11% (2,600) of petitioned drug Dismissed 10,900 46% offense cases following adjudication in 2018. Probation 10,400 19%  Juvenile courts waived jurisdiction in Not petitioned Other sanction 1% (400) of all petitioned drug 53,600 53% 28,800 54% offense cases in 2018.

Dismissed  More than half (53%) of drug offense 14,400 27% cases were informally handled in 2018; 73% of the informally handled drug offense cases resulted in pro- bation or some other sanction.

Public order offenses Waived Public Order Offense Cases 185,100 300 <1% Placed  In 2018, the majority (60%) of all 18,800 30% public order offense cases were han- Adjudicated Probation dled formally, with the filing of a peti- 62,200 56% 36,300 58% tion for adjudication. Other sanction 7,100 11%  Once adjudicated delinquent, 58% Petitioned of public order offense cases in 2018 110,800 60% resulted in probation as the most Probation severe sanction, 30% were placed 15,800 33% out of the home, and 11% resulted Not adjudicated Other sanction in other sanctions. 48,300 44% 3,400 7%  In 2018, 40% of all public order Dismissed 29,100 60% offense cases were handled infor- mally. Of the informal cases, 44% Probation were dismissed, while the remaining 9,900 13% cases resulted in some form of court Not petitioned Other sanction sanction, including probation, restitu- 74,400 40% 31,800 43% tion, community service, or referral to another agency. Dismissed 32,700 44%

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 2005 through 2018 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 55 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Age, 2018

 In 2018, 54% (212,600) of all delin- Age 15 or younger Waived quency cases involving youth age 15 394,100 400 <1% Placed or younger and 60% (209,400) of 29,700 27% cases involving youth age 16 or older were handled formally with the Adjudicated Probation filing of a petition. 112,000 53% 72,900 65% Other sanction  Cases involving youth age 15 or 9,400 8% younger were adjudicated delinquent Petitioned in 53% of all formally processed 212,600 54% cases in 2018; cases involving youth Probation 36,800 37% age 16 or older were adjudicated delinquent in 52% of all such cases. Not adjudicated Other sanction 100,200 47% 9,800 10%  The proportion of petitioned cases Dismissed waived to criminal court in 2018 was 53,600 53% less than 1% for youth age 15 or younger, compared with 2% for Probation youth age 16 or older. 30,600 17% Not petitioned Other sanction  In 2018, 27% of cases adjudicated 181,500 46% 81,300 45% delinquent involving youth age 15 or younger and 30% of such cases Dismissed 69,600 38% involving youth age 16 or older resulted in out-of-home placement.

 Probation was ordered as the most severe sanction in 2018 in 65% of the adjudicated cases involving youth age 15 or younger, compared Age 16 or older Waived with 61% of adjudicated cases 350,300 3,200 2% Placed involving youth 16 or older. 32,400 30%  Among cases formally adjudicated in Adjudicated Probation 2018, similar proportions of cases 108,000 52% 66,000 61% involving youth age 15 or younger Other sanction and youth age 16 or older resulted in 9,600 9% other sanctions (8% and 9%, Petitioned respectively). 209,400 60% Probation 35,100 36%  For youth age 15 or younger, 46% of all delinquency cases were handled Not adjudicated Other sanction informally in 2018; of these cases, 98,200 47% 8,100 8% 17% resulted in a disposition of pro- Dismissed bation and 38% were dismissed. 55,000 56% Among older youth, 40% of all delin- quency cases were handled without Probation the filing of a petition for adjudication 18,800 13% in 2018; 13% of these cases resulted Not petitioned Other sanction in a disposition of probation and 140,900 40% 61,300 44% 43% were dismissed. Dismissed 60,800 43%

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 2005 through 2018 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

56 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Gender, 2018

Male Waived  In 2018, 60% of delinquency cases 541,700 3,300 1% involving males were handled with Placed 51,900 30% the filing of a petition for adjudica- tion, compared with 48% of those Adjudicated Probation involving females. 174,000 54% 109,000 63%  Once petitioned, cases involving Other sanction 13,200 8% males in 2018 were more likely to Petitioned result in a delinquency adjudication 324,000 60% than were cases involving females Probation (54% vs. 47%). 53,800 37% Not adjudicated Other sanction  Delinquency cases involving females 146,600 45% 13,000 9% in 2018 were less likely to be waived to criminal court than those involving Dismissed 79,800 54% males. Probation  Once adjudicated delinquent, 30% of 33,200 15% cases involving males in 2018 result- ed in out-of-home placement, com- Not petitioned Other sanction 217,600 40% 93,600 43% pared with 22% of those involving females. Dismissed 90,900 42%  Of the adjudicated cases involving males, 63% received probation as the most severe sanction, and 8% resulted in other sanctions such as restitution or community service.

Female Waived  Among adjudicated cases involving 202,800 300 <1% females in 2018, 65% received pro- Placed bation as the most severe sanction 10,200 22% and 12% resulted in other sanctions. Adjudicated Probation 46,000 47% 30,000 65%  Informally handled delinquency cases involving males were equally Other sanction as likely than those involving females 5,700 12% Petitioned to receive probation in 2018 (15% 98,000 48% each); male cases were more likely Probation than female cases to be dismissed 18,100 35% (42% vs. 38%). Not adjudicated Other sanction 51,800 53% 5,000 10%  In 2018, informally handled delin- quency cases involving females were Dismissed more likely to result in other sanc- 28,700 56% tions than those involving males Probation (47% vs. 43%). 16,200 15% Not petitioned Other sanction 104,700 52% 49,000 47% Dismissed 39,500 38%

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 2005 through 2018 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 57 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing by Race, 2018

 In 2018, delinquency cases involving White Waived Placed white youth were less likely to be 326,900 1,200 1% 20,600 23% handled formally (52%) than those Adjudicated Probation involving black youth (64%), 88,500 52% 57,300 65% Hispanic youth (55%), American Other sanction Indian youth (58%), or Asian youth 10,600 12% Petitioned (54%). 169,000 52% Probation 30,400 38%  Once petitioned, cases in 2018 Not adjudicated Other sanction involving black youth (49%), Asian 79,400 47% 7,700 10% youth (50%), white youth (52%), and Dismissed Hispanic youth (57%) were less likely Probation 41,200 52% to be adjudicated delinquent than 29,100 18% were cases involving American Not petitioned Other sanction Indian youth (59%). 157,900 48% 73,100 46% Dismissed  For all racial groups in 2018, about 55,700 35% 1% of petitioned delinquency cases resulted in waiver to criminal court. Black Waived Placed  In 2018, adjudicated delinquency 258,500 1,900 1% 25,900 32% cases involving black youth and Adjudicated Probation Hispanic youth were more likely to 81,400 49% 49,400 61% result in out-of home placement Other sanction (32% each) than cases involving all 6,100 7% other races. Asian youth (20%) and Petitioned white youth (23%) were less likely 165,200 64% Probation 27,300 33% than American Indian youth (27%) to be ordered to residential placement. Not adjudicated Other sanction 81,900 50% 7,000 9%  For adjudicated cases involving Dismissed black youth in 2018, probation was Probation 47,600 58% 10,600 11% the most severe sanction ordered in 61% of the cases and 7% resulted in Not petitioned Other sanction 93,400 36% 38,300 41% other sanctions. Dismissed 44,500 48%

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 2005 through 2018 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

58 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing by Race, 2018

Hispanic Waived Placed  For adjudicated cases involving 137,200 500 1% 13,900 32% American Indian youth in 2018, pro- Adjudicated Probation bation was the most severe sanction 43,300 57% 27,700 64% ordered in 62% of the cases and Other sanction 10% resulted in other sanctions. 1,700 4% Petitioned 75,600 55% Probation  In 75% of the adjudicated cases 12,800 40% involving Asian youth in 2018, proba- tion was the most severe sanction; Not adjudicated Other sanction 31,800 42% 2,800 9% 4% resulted in other sanctions such as restitution or community service. Dismissed Probation 16,200 51% 8,300 14%  In 2018, 48% of delinquency cases involving white youth were handled Not petitioned Other sanction 61,600 45% 26,800 43% informally, compared with 36% of cases involving black youth, 45% of Dismissed 26,500 43% cases involving Hispanic youth, 42% of cases involving American Indian youth, and 46% of cases involving American Indian Waived Placed Asian juveniles. 13,500 <100 1% 1,200 27%  Informally handled delinquency Adjudicated Probation 4,600 59% 2,900 62% cases involving black youth in 2018 were more likely to be dismissed Other sanction 500 10% (48%) than those involving Hispanic Petitioned youth (43%), American Indian youth 7,800 58% Probation 800 27% (42%), or Asian youth or white youth (35% each). Not adjudicated Other sanction 3,100 40% 200 6%  In 2018, informally handled delin- Dismissed quency cases involving Asian youth Probation 2,100 67% 800 14% were most likely to result in other sanctions such as restitution, com- Not petitioned Other sanction munity service, or referral to another 5,700 42% 2,500 44% agency (50%), compared with cases Dismissed involving white youth (46%), 2,400 42% American Indian youth (44%), Hispanic (43%), or black youth Asian Waived Placed (41%). 8,300 <100 1% 500 20% Adjudicated Probation 2,200 50% 1,700 75% Other sanction 100 4% Petitioned 4,500 54% Probation 600 27% Not adjudicated Other sanction 2,200 49% 200 9% Dismissed Probation 1,400 65% 600 15% Not petitioned Other sanction 3,800 46% 1,900 50% Dismissed 1,300 35%

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 2005 through 2018 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 59 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2018

Aggravated Assault Cases A typical 1,000 10 Waived aggravated assault cases  Juvenile courts waived 10 of every 140 Placed 1,000 aggravated assault cases to 396 Adjudicated 240 Probation criminal court in 2018, compared with 2 of every 1,000 simple assault 725 Petitioned 16 Other sanction cases. 136 Probation  In 2018, 41% of aggravated assault cases received some formal sanction 319 Not adjudicated 33 Other sanction or were waived to criminal court (406 150 Dismissed of 1,000). 51 Probation  In 2018, 14% of aggravated assault cases received a formal sanction of 275 Not petitioned 82 Other sanction out-of-home placement (140 of 142 Dismissed 1,000) and 24% were placed on for- mal probation (240 of 1,000).

 Of all aggravated assault cases referred to juvenile courts in 2018, 29% were eventually released or dis- missed (292 of 1,000)—21% of the petitioned cases and 52% of those that were informally handled.

Simple Assault Cases A typical 1,000 2 Waived simple assault cases  Of every 1,000 simple assault cases 58 Placed handled in 2018, 230 received some 228 Adjudicated 154 Probation formal sanction or were waived to criminal court. 503 Petitioned 16 Other sanction

 In 2018, 6% of simple assault cases 96 Probation resulted in the juvenile receiving a formal sanction of out-of-home 273 Not adjudicated 25 Other sanction placement (58 of 1,000) and 15% 152 Dismissed were placed on formal probation (154 of 1,000). 63 Probation

 Juveniles received informal sanc- 497 Not petitioned 211 Other sanction tions in 39% of simple assault cases 224 Dismissed processed in 2018 (394 of 1,000).

 Of all simple assault cases referred to juvenile courts in 2018, 38% Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not were eventually dismissed (375 of add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 2005 1,000)—30% of the petitioned cases through 2018 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp. and 45% of those that were infor- mally handled.

60 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2018

A typical 1,000 40 Waived Robbery Cases robbery cases 246 Placed  Juvenile courts waived 40 of every 517 Adjudicated 256 Probation 1,000 robbery cases to criminal court in 2018. 853 Petitioned 15 Other sanction  In 2018, juvenile courts ordered for- 111 Probation mal sanctions or waived jurisdiction in 56% of all robbery cases (557 of 296 Not adjudicated 31 Other sanction 1,000). 153 Dismissed  In 2018, 25% of robbery cases 21 Probation received a formal sanction of out-of- home placement (246 of 1,000) and 147 Not petitioned 31 Other sanction 26% resulted in formal probation 94 Dismissed (256 of 1,000).  Of all robbery cases referred to juve- nile court in 2018, 15% were not petitioned; the majority (64%) of these cases were dismissed.

A typical 1,000 9 Waived Burglary Cases burglary cases 150 Placed  Juvenile courts waived 9 of every 430 Adjudicated 264 Probation 1,000 burglary cases to criminal court in 2018. 738 Petitioned 16 Other sanction  Juvenile courts ordered formal sanc- 144 Probation tions or waived jurisdiction in 60% of all formally handled burglary cases in 299 Not adjudicated 26 Other sanction 2018 (439 of 738).

129 Dismissed  In 2018, 150 of 1,000 burglary cases 31 Probation received a formal sanction of out-of- home placement and 264 of 1,000 262 Not petitioned 100 Other sanction resulted in formal probation. 131 Dismissed  More than one-quarter (26%) of all burglary cases referred to juvenile courts in 2018 were handled infor- Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not mally and half of these cases (131 of add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 2005 262) were dismissed. through 2018 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 61 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2018

Motor Vehicle Theft Cases A typical 1,000 7 Waived motor vehicle theft cases 168 Placed  Juvenile courts waived less than 1% of motor vehicle theft cases to crimi- 419 Adjudicated 241 Probation nal court in 2018 (7 of every 1,000). 759 Petitioned 11 Other sanction  In 2018, 43% of motor vehicle theft cases referred to juvenile courts 151 Probation resulted in formal court sanctions or waiver to criminal court. 333 Not adjudicated 32 Other sanction 150 Dismissed  About 40% of motor vehicle cases adjudicated delinquent in 2018 28 Probation resulted in out-of-home placement (168 of 419). 241 Not petitioned 83 Other sanction 129 Dismissed  Nearly one-quarter of motor vehicle theft cases referred to juvenile courts in 2018 were handled without the filing of a petition (241 of 1,000).

Vandalism Cases A typical 1,000 1 Waived vandalism cases  Juvenile courts waived 1 of every 55 Placed 1,000 vandalism cases to criminal 257 Adjudicated 175 Probation court in 2018. 529 Petitioned 27 Other sanction  More than half of vandalism cases referred to juvenile courts in 2018 78 Probation were handled formally (529 of 1,000). Of these cases, 49% were adjudi- 270 Not adjudicated 25 Other sanction cated delinquent (257 of 529). 167 Dismissed  In 2018, 68% of petitioned vandalism 78 Probation cases adjudicated delinquent result- ed in a court sanction of probation 471 Not petitioned 200 Other sanction (175 of 257), and 21% resulted in 193 Dismissed out-of-home placement (55 of 257).

 Juvenile courts handled 471 of every 1,000 vandalism cases informally Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not (without a petition) in 2018. Youth add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 2005 received informal sanctions in 59% through 2018 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp. of these nonpetitioned cases.

62 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 4

National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Status offenses are acts that are ille gal decide to process the juve nile for mally only because the persons com mit ting with the filing of a petition. The anal y- them are of juvenile sta tus. The five ses in this report are limited to pe ti- major status offense cat e gories used in tioned cases. this report are running away, truan cy, law violations, un gov ern abili ty Juvenile courts may ad judi cate peti- (also known as in cor ri gibil i ty or being tioned status offense cas es and may beyond the con trol of one’s parents), or der sanctions such as proba tion or and under age li quor law violations out-of-home place ment. While their (e.g., a mi nor in possession of alcohol, cases are be ing pro cessed, ju ve niles under age drinking). A number of other charged with status offenses are some- behav iors, such as those involving times held in se cure de tention. (Note tobacco offenses, may be considered that the Juvenile Justice and Delin- status of fens es. However, because of quency Prevention Act discourages the heterogeneity of these miscella- secure detention of status offenders. neous offenses, they are not discussed States holding large numbers of status independently in this report but are offenders in secure detention risk losing included in discussions and displays of a significant portion of their juvenile jus- petitioned status offense totals. tice block grant awards.)

Agencies other than juvenile courts are This chapter pre sents national esti- responsible for processing status mates of petitioned status offense offense cases in many jurisdictions. In cases disposed in 2018 and examines some communities, for example, family trends since 2005, includ ing demo- crisis units, county attorneys, and social graphic characteristics of the juveniles service agencies have assumed this in volved, types of offenses charged, responsibility. When a juvenile charged and the flow of cases as they moved with a status offense is referred to juve- through ju ve nile court pro cess ing. (See nile court, the court may divert the ju ve- chapter 3 for a description of the stag- nile away from the for mal jus tice sys tem es of court processing.) to other agen cies for ser vice or may

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 63 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Counts and Trends

 In 2018, U.S. courts with juvenile Between 1995 and 2002, the formally handled status offense caseload jurisdiction petitioned and formally increased considerably (43%) and then declined 54% through 2018 disposed an estimated 97,800 status offense cases. Number of cases  The number of petitioned status offense cases processed by juvenile 225,000 courts decreased 49% between 200,000 Total status 2005 and 2018. 175,000

 The number of petitioned runaway 150,000 cases processed by juvenile courts 125,000 decreased 58% between 2005 and 100,000 2018 (from 22,700 to 9,500). 75,000  The number of petitioned truancy 50,000 cases processed by juvenile courts increased 14% between 2005 and 25,000 2007 and then declined 24% through 0 2018. 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

 Between 2005 and 2007, the number of petitioned curfew cases increased 13% and then declined 77% through 2018 (4,300). Number of cases Number of cases  The number of petitioned ungovern- 25,000 80,000 ability cases in 2018 (8,400) was 20,000 67% below the 2005 level (25,600). Runaway 60,000 15,000 Truancy 40,000  The number of petitioned liquor law 10,000 violation cases increased 10% 20,000 5,000 between 2005 and 2007 and then decreased 79% through 2018. 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Offense profile of petitioned status offense cases: Number of cases Number of cases 20,000 30,000 Most serious 25,000 offense 2005 2018 16,000 Curfew 20,000 12,000 Ungovernability Runaway 12% 10% 15,000 8,000 Truancy 37 62 10,000 Curfew 8 4 4,000 5,000 Ungovernability 13 9 0 0 Liquor 20 9 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Miscellaneous 10 6

Total 100% 100% Number of cases Number of cases 192,600 97,800 50,000 40,000 Note: Detail may not total 100% because of round ing. 30,000 Liquor 20,000

 Compared with 2005, the court’s 10,000 petitioned status offense caseload in 0 2018 involved a larger proportion of 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 truancy and smaller proportions of all other status offenses.

64 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Case Rates

Petitioned status offense case rates decreased from 6.0 to 3.1 per 1,000  In 2018, juvenile courts formally pro- juveniles between 2005 and 2018 cessed 3.1 status offense cases for every 1,000 juveniles in the popula- tion—those age 10 or older who Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age were under the jurisdiction of a juve- 7 nile court. 6  The total petitioned status offense 5 Total status case rate decreased 48% between 2005 and 2018.1 4  Between 2005 and 2018, the peti- 3 tioned runaway case rate decreased 58%. 2

1  The petitioned truancy case rate increased 14% between 2005 and 0 2007, and then declined 24% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 through 2018.

 Between 2005 and 2007, the peti- tioned curfew violation case rate increased 14% and then decreased 77% by 2018. Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 0.8 3.0  The petitioned ungovernability case 2.5 0.6 rate declined 67% between 2005 2.0 and 2018. Runaway Truancy 0.4 1.5 1.0  The petitioned liquor law violation 0.2 0.5 case rate increased 10% between 2005 and 2007, and then decreased 0.0 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 79% by 2018.

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 1 The percent change in the number of cases 0.6 0.8 disposed may not be equal to the percent 0.5 0.6 change in case rates because of the changing 0.4 Ungovernability Curfew size of the juve nile popu la tion. 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 1.4 1.2 1.0 Liquor 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 65 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Age at Referral

 In 2018, the petitioned status offense In 2018, status offense case rates increased with the age of the case rate for 16-year-olds was twice juvenile through age 16, then decreased for 17-year-olds the rate for 14-year-olds, and the rate for 14-year-olds was nearly 3 times the rate for 12-year-olds. Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 7 6.6  The largest increase in case rates 5.7 between age 13 and age 17 was for 6 4.9 liquor law violations. The case rate 5 for 17-year-old juveniles (1.0) was 15 times the rate for 13-year-olds (0.1). 4 3.3  Liquor law violation rates increased 3 continuously with the age of the 2.0 2 juvenile. In contrast, rates for peti- 1.2 tioned cases for all other status 1 0.6 offense categories were higher for 0.4 16-year-old juveniles than for 0 17-year-olds. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 0.8 4.0 Runaway Truancy 0.6 3.0

0.4 2.0

0.2 1.0

0.0 0.0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 0.4 0.6 Ungovernability Curfew 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 1.2 Liquor 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age

66 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Age at Referral

Trends in case rates differed across age groups for each general status offense category

Runaway case rates Truancy case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 1.8 5.0 1.6 Age 16 1.4 4.0 1.2 Age 17 Age 16 3.0 1.0 Age 17 0.8 2.0 Ages 13−15 0.6 Ages 13−15 0.4 1.0 Ages 10−12 0.2 Ages 10−12 (x2)* 0.0 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Curfew case rates Ungovernability case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 1.6 1.4 1.4 Age 17 1.2 1.2 Age 16 1.0 Age 17 Age 16 1.0 0.8 0.8 Ages 13−15 0.6 0.6 Ages 13−15 0.4 0.4 0.2 Ages 10−12 (x2)* 0.2 Ages 10−12 0.0 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Liquor law violation case rates  Case rates for petitioned runaway cases decreased the most for youth ages 10–12 and 13–15 between 2005 and Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 2018 (58% and 61%, respectively). 6.0  Despite relative stability in recent years, truancy case rates for most age groups increased slightly between 5.0 2014 and 2018. Age 17 4.0  The decrease in case rates between 2005 and 2018 for petitioned ungovernability cases was greater for youth 3.0 Age 16 ages 13–15 than for all other age groups.

2.0  Depending on age, case rates for petitioned curfew offenses and petitioned liquor law violations grew 1.0 Ages 13−15 between 2005 and either 2007 or 2008, before decreas- Ages 10−12 (x10)* 0.0 ing through 2018. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

* Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving youth ages 10–12 for runaway, curfew, and liquor law violations, their case rates are inflated by a factor specified in the graph to display the trend over time.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 67 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Gender

 Overall, the relative decrease in peti- Trends in petitioned status offense caseloads revealed similar patterns tioned status offense cases between for males and females 2005 and 2018 was similar for males and females (49% and 50%, respec- tively). Number of cases 120,000  Between 2005 and 2018, the peti- Total status tioned runaway caseload decreased 100,000 51% for males and 63% for females. Male 80,000  Between 2005 and 2007, the number of petitioned truancy cases 60,000 increased 13% for males and 14% Female for females, then decreased through 40,000 2018 (22% for males and 27% for females). 20,000

 Between 2005 and 2018, the number 0 of petitioned truancy cases outnum- 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 bered all other status offense cases for both males and females.

Number of cases Number of cases 14,000 50,000 Runaway Truancy 12,000 40,000 Male 10,000 8,000 Female 30,000 Female 6,000 20,000 Male 4,000 10,000 2,000 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Number of cases Number of cases 14,000 16,000 Curfew Ungovernability 12,000 10,000 12,000 Male 8,000 Male 8,000 6,000 Female Female 4,000 4,000 2,000 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Number of cases 30,000 Liquor 25,000

20,000 Male 15,000 10,000 Female 5,000 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

68 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Gender

Compared with the delinquency caseload, females accounted for a  Males accounted for 56% of the total substantially larger proportion of petitioned status offenses petitioned status offense caseload in 2018.

Percent of cases involving females  In 2018, males accounted for the 50% majority of curfew (70%), liquor law 45% violation (58%), ungovernability 40% Total status (58%), and truancy (54%) cases. 35%  Females accounted for 54% of peti- 30% tioned runaway cases in 2018, the 25% Total delinquency only status offense category in which 20% females represented a larger propor- 15% tion of the caseload than males. 10% Offense profile of petitioned status 5% offense cases by gender: 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Most serious offense Male Female 2018 Runaway 8% 12% Truancy 61 64 Percent of cases involving females Percent of cases involving females Curfew 5 3 70% 50% 60% Ungovernability 9 8 40% Truancy 50% Runaway Liquor 9 9 40% 30% Miscellaneous 8 3 30% 20% Total 100% 100% 20% 10% 10% 2005 0% 0% Runaway 7% 13% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Truancy 40 46 Curfew 11 7 Percent of cases involving females Percent of cases involving females Ungovernability 11 11 35% 50% Liquor 21 17 30% Curfew 40% Miscellaneous 11 6 25% Ungovernability Total 100% 100% 20% 30% 15% 20% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 10% round ing. 5% 10% 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018  Truancy cases accounted for over 60% of the petitioned status offense caseload for both males and females Percent of cases involving females in 2018. 50%

40% Liquor 30%

20%

10%

0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 69 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Gender

 The petitioned status offense case The petitioned status offense case rates followed similar patterns for rate decreased for both males and males and females between 2005 and 2018 females between 2005 and 2018 (48% and 49%, respectively). Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age  Runaway case rates declined 8 Total status between 2005 and 2018 for both males (50%) and females (62%). 7 6  Between 2005 and 2018, the truancy Male case rate for both males and females 5 was greater than the rate of any 4 other status offense category. Female 3  For both males and females, the 2 case rates for truancy cases increased between 2005 and 2007 1 (14% and 15%, respectively) before 0 declining through 2018 (21% and 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 27%, respectively). A similar pattern occurred for curfew cases: male case rates and female case rates each increased 14% between 2005 and 2007, before declining through Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 2018 (76% and 78%, respectively). 1.0 3.0 Runaway Truancy 2.5  Between 2005 and 2018, case rates 0.8 Male 2.0 for ungovernability declined 64% for 0.6 Female 1.5 Female males and 70% for females. 0.4 1.0 Male 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 0.8 1.0 Curfew Ungovernability 0.8 0.6 Male 0.6 Male 0.4 Female 0.4 Female 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 1.6 Liquor

1.2 Male

0.8

Female 0.4

0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

70 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Gender

In 2018, the status offense case rate for males and females increased  After age 12, case rates for running through age 16 and decreased for 17-year-olds away were higher for females than for males in 2018.

 In 2018, petitioned case rates for Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group running away, truancy, and ungov- 8 7.5 ernability peaked at age 16 for both 7 males and females. 6.5 6 5.8 5.4  Petitioned case rates for curfew vio- 4.8 lations peaked at age 16 for females 5 4.4 and continued to increase through 4 3.5 age 17 for males. 3.0 3  For both males and females, peti- 2.2 1.9 2 tioned status offense case rates 1.3 1.1 increased continuously with age for 1 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 liquor law violations in 2018. 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  In 2018, curfew case rates for males Age were at least double curfew case Male Female rates for females for most ages.  The largest disparity in the ungov- ernability case rate between males and females was among youth age Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 10. The case rate for males age 10 1.0 5.0 was more than double the case rate Runaway Truancy for females of the same age. 0.8 4.0

0.6 3.0

0.4 2.0

0.2 1.0

0.0 0.0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 0.5 0.6 Curfew Ungovernability 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 1.4 Liquor 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 71 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Race

 The petitioned status offense case- The petitioned status offense caseload decreased for all racial groups load decreased the most for white between 2005 and 2018 youth (53%) between 2005 and 2018, followed by black youth (47%) and American Indian youth (45%). Number of cases 140,000  Between 2005 and 2018, across Total status racial groups and offenses, the num- 120,000 ber of cases decreased with the exception of truancy cases involving 100,000 White Hispanic and Asian youth. 80,000

 In 2018, truancy cases made up the 60,000 greatest proportion of the caseloads for youth of all race groups. 40,000 Black Amer. Indian Racial profile of petitioned status 20,000 Asian Hispanic offense cases: 0 Race 2005 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 White 66% 61% Black 22 23 The number of petitioned status offense cases decreased more for white Hispanic2 71 1 youth (53%) than youth of any other race between 2005 and 2018 American Indian3 3 3 Percent change in number of cases, 2005–2018 Asian4 2 2 Most serious American Total 100% 100% offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Note: Detail may not total 100% because of Status –53% –47% –21% –45% –32% round ing. Runaway –63 –53 –42 –67 –86 Truancy –21 –16 37 –7 26  White youth made up 53% of the Curfew –77 –63 –81 –81 –84 population under juvenile court juris- Ungovernability –67 –68 –62 –58 –56 diction and 61% of the petitioned Liquor law –78 –74 –71 –59 –81 status offense caseload in 2018.

 Between 2005 and 2018, the pro- The proportion of truancy cases increased across all racial groups portion of petitioned status offense between 2005 and 2018 cases involving white youth decreased and the proportion involv- Offense profile of status offense cases ing black youth and Hispanic youth Most serious Amer. increased. offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian 2018 2 Persons of Hispanic ethnicity are treated as Runaway 7% 20% 8% 3% 3% a distinct race group and are excluded from Truancy 62 54 76 58 84 the other four race groups, with one important Curfew 4 8 2 4 2 exception. Data provided to the Archive from Ungovernability 8 13 3 2 2 many jurisdictions did not include any means Liquor law 11 2 7 28 4 to determine the ethnicity of American Indian Miscellaneous 8 3 3 5 5 youth. Rather than assume ethnicity for these Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% youth, they are classified solely on their racial 2005 classification; as such, the American Indian group includes an unknown proportion of Runaway 9% 22% 11% 6% 16% Hispanic youth. Truancy 37 34 44 34 45 Curfew 7 11 11 11 7 3 The racial classification American Indian Ungovernability 12 22 6 3 3 (usually abbreviated as Amer. Indian) includes American Indian and Alaskan Native. Liquor law 24 5 20 37 14 Miscellaneous 11 6 8 8 14 4 The racial classification Asian includes Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding. Islander.

72 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Race

Between 2005 and 2018, the petitioned status offense caseload declined the most for liquor law violation cases involving white youth (78%)

Runaway Truancy

Number of cases Number of cases 12,000 60,000

10,000 50,000 White 8,000 40,000

6,000 Black 30,000 White 4,000 20,000 Black 2,000 Hispanic 10,000 Hispanic 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Curfew Ungovernability

Number of cases Number of cases 12,000 16,000 14,000 10,000 12,000 8,000 White 10,000 White 6,000 8,000 Black Black 6,000 4,000 4,000 2,000 Hispanic 2,000 Hispanic 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Liquor law violation  The number of petitioned runaway cases decreased by at least half for white youth and black youth, and by 42% for Number of cases Hispanic youth between 2005 and 2018. 35,000  The number of truancy cases increased for Hispanic youth 30,000 (37%) and decreased for white youth and black youth 25,000 (21% and 16%, respectively) between 2005 and 2018. White 20,000  The decrease in the curfew caseload between 2005 and 15,000 2018 was greater for white youth (77%) and Hispanic youth (81%), and smaller for black youth (63%). 10,000 Black  Hispanic Between 2005 and 2018, the number of petitioned ungov- 5,000 ernability cases decreased by at least 62% for all three 0 race groups. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Note: Case counts for American Indian and Asian youth are not shown in the offense graphs above because their numbers are too small for display.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 73 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Race

 Between 2005 and 2018, petitioned Between 2005 and 2018, petitioned status offense case rates status offense case rates decreased decreased for all race groups 50% each for American Indian and Asian youth, 47% for white youth, 43% for black youth, and 40% for Total status offense case rates Hispanic youth. Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age  The total petitioned status case rates 12 for American Indian youth and black 10 youth were similar for all years Black Amer. Indian between 2005 and 2018 and were 8 consistently higher than case rates for all other racial categories. 6 White  Between 2005 and 2018, the run- 4 away case rate decreased 49% for Hispanic black youth, 56% for Hispanic youth, 2 and 58% for white youth. Despite Asian 0 declines for all racial groups, the run- 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 away case rate for black youth in 2018 was about 4 times the rate for white youth, 6 times the rate for Runaway case rates American Indian youth, 8 times the rate for Hispanic youth, and 22 times Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age the rates for Asian youth. 2.0

 Compared with all other status 1.6 offense types, truancy case rates Black decreased the least for all race 1.2 groups between 2005 and 2018: down 16% for American Indian youth, 10% for white youth, 9% for 0.8 Amer. Indian black youth, and 7% for Asian youth, Asian and increased 4% for Hispanic 0.4 White youth. Hispanic 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Truancy case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 4.0

Amer. Indian 3.0 Black

2.0 White

Hispanic 1.0 Asian 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

74 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Race

Case rates varied by racial group and offense between 2005 and  Between 2005 and 2018, curfew 2018 case rates decreased most for Asian youth and Hispanic youth (88% and 86%, respectively), followed by Curfew case rates American Indian youth (83%), white youth (74%), and black youth (60%). Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 1.6  In 2018, the ungovernability case rate for black juveniles was more Amer. Indian than twice the white rate. 1.2  American Indian juveniles had the Black 0.8 highest case rate for liquor law viola- tions in each year between 2005 and White 2018. In 2018, the liquor law violation 0.4 case rate for American Indian youth Hispanic was more than 3 times the rate for Asian white youth, and more than 11 times 0.0 the rates for black youth, Hispanic 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 youth, and Asian youth.

Ungovernability case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 2.0

1.6 Black

1.2

0.8 White Asian Hispanic 0.4 Amer. Indian

0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Liquor law violation case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 5.0

4.0

3.0 Amer. Indian

2.0 White Black 1.0 Hispanic Asian 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 75 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Source of Referral

 Status offense cases can be referred Law enforcement agencies are the primary source of referrals to to court intake by a number of juvenile court for curfew and liquor law violation cases sources, including law enforcement agencies, schools, relatives, social Percent of cases referred by law enforcement service agencies, and probation 100% Curfew officers. 90% Liquor 80% Percentage of petitioned status 70% offense cases referred by law 60% enforcement: Runaway 50% Most serious 40% offense 2005 2018 30% Ungovernability Total status 34% 17% 20% Runaway 36 33 10% Truancy Truancy 5 2 0% Curfew 96 90 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Ungovernability 25 37 Liquor law 95 87

 In 2018, law enforcement agencies referred 17% of the petitioned status offense cases disposed by juvenile courts.

 Compared with 2005, law enforce- The source of referral in 2018 for petitioned status offense cases ment referred a larger proportion of varied with the nature of the offense ungovernability offense cases in 2018. Proportion of petitioned cases referred 100%  Schools referred 91% of the peti- tioned truancy cases in 2018. 90% 80%  Relatives referred 47% of the peti- 70% tioned ungovernability cases in 2018. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Status Runaway Truancy Curfew Ungovernability Liquor

Law enforcement School Relative Other

76 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Detention

The number of cases involving detention decreased substantially  The number of petitioned status between 2005 and 2018 for all case types offense cases involving detention decreased 78% between 2005 and Cases detained 2018 (from 20,000 to 4,500). 6,000  The decline in the volume of peti- tioned status offense cases involving 5,000 Liquor detention resulted in a smaller pro- portion of cases detained in 2018 4,000 Runaway Truancy (5%) than in 2005 (10%). 3,000  Between 2005 and 2018, the number of petitioned cases involving deten- 2,000 tion decreased: 87% for curfew Ungovernability cases, 84% for liquor law violation 1,000 Curfew cases, 77% for ungovernability cases, 74% for runaway cases, and 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 71% for truancy cases.

 Between 2005 and 2018, the likeli- hood of detention decreased for all status offense categories.

Offense profile of detained status offense cases:

Between 2005 and 2018, truancy cases were least likely to involve Most serious detention, and runaway cases were the most likely offense 2005 2018 Runaway 17% 20% Truancy 25 33 Percent of cases detained Curfew 10 6 18% Ungovernability 14 14 16% Runaway Liquor law 24 18 14% Ungovernability Miscellaneous 10 10 12% Total 100% 100% 10% Liquor Number of cases 20,000 4,500 Curfew 8% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 6% Truancy round ing. 4% 2%  Compared with 2005, the offense 0% characteristics of the 2018 status 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 offense detention caseload involved a greater proportion of runaway and truancy cases, and a smaller propor- tion of curfew and liquor law viola- tion cases. The proportion of ungov- ernability cases was the same in both years.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 77 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Adjudication

 Between 2005 and 2018, the number Between 2005 and 2007, the number of cases in which the youth was of status offense cases in which the adjudicated a status offender remained stable and then declined 66% youth was adjudicated a status through 2018 offender decreased from 104,000 to 34,000. Cases adjudicated a status offender  Between 2005 and 2018, the num- 120,000 ber of cases in which the youth was adjudicated a status offender 100,000 decreased for all offense types: liquor law violation (82%), curfew 80,000 (81%), ungovernability (74%), run- Total status away (72%), and truancy (45%). 60,000

Offense profile of cases 40,000 adjudicated a status offender: 20,000 Most serious offense 2005 2018 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Runaway 10% 9% Truancy 29 49 Curfew 10 6 Ungovernability 14 11 Liquor law 25 14 Miscellaneous 13 12 Total 100% 100% Cases adjudicated Between 2005 and 2018, the number of cases in which the youth was a status offender 104,000 34,000 adjudicated a status offender decreased for all status offense categories Note: Detail may not total 100% because of round ing. Cases adjudicated a status offender  In both 2005 and 2018, cases involv- 35,000 ing truancy and liquor law violations 30,000 made up the largest proportions of the adjudicated caseload. 25,000 Truancy  The 2018 adjudicated status offense 20,000 caseload had a much greater propor- Ungovernability 15,000 tion of truancy offenses and smaller Liquor proportions of all other offenses than 10,000 the 2005 caseload. 5,000 Runaway Curfew 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

78 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Adjudication

The likelihood of adjudication for petitioned status offense cases  Among status offense categories in decreased from 54% in 2005 to 35% in 2018 2018, adjudication was least likely in petitioned truancy cases (27%) and Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated a status offender most likely in cases involving curfew 60% and liquor law violations (47% and 53%, respectively). 50%  The likelihood of petitioned runaway Total status cases resulting in adjudication 40% decreased from 45% in 2005 to 31% in 2018. 30%  Between 2005 and 2018, the likeli- 20% hood of adjudication among peti- tioned curfew cases decreased from 10% 64% to 47%.

0%  The likelihood of adjudication for 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 petitioned ungovernability cases decreased from 56% to 45% between 2005 and 2018.

 The likelihood of adjudication among petitioned liquor law violation cases Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated decreased from 67% in 2005 to 53% 50% 50% in 2018. 40% 40% Percentage of petitioned status Runaway Truancy 30% 30% offense cases adjudicated, 2018: 20% 20% Most serious 15 or 16 or 10% 10% offense younger older Male Female

0% 0% Total status 33% 37% 37% 32% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Runaway 33 28 30 31 Truancy 27 28 28 26 Curfew 46 47 46 50 Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated Ungovern. 45 45 46 43 70% 60% Liquor law 53 53 55 50 60% 50% 50% Ungovernability Most serious Curfew 40% 40% offense White Black Hisp. Other 30% 30% Total status 39% 29% 24% 34% 20% 20% Runaway 41 21 35 NA 10% 10% Truancy 29 29 17 24 0% 0% Curfew 61 29 NA NA 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Ungovern. 51 35 NA NA Liquor law 52 44 53 62 NA: Too few cases to obtain a reliable per- Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated centage. 70% 60% Liquor 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 79 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

 The number of petitioned status The number of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in out-of- offense cases in which youth were home placement declined 76% between 2005 and 2018 adjudicated a status offender and ordered to out-of-home placement declined from 9,600 in 2005 to 2,300 Adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement in 2018. 10,000

Offense profile of adjudicated 8,000 status offense cases resulting in Total status out-of-home placement: 6,000 Most serious offense 2005 2018 4,000 Runaway 21% 21% Truancy 20 32 2,000 Curfew 3 2 Ungovernability 25 24 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Liquor law 18 6 Miscellaneous 13 15 Total 100% 100% Cases resulting in out-of-home 9,600 2,300 placement

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of round ing. The number of adjudicated status offense cases that resulted in out- of-home place ment declined between 2005 and 2018 for all offense types  In 2005, ungovernability cases accounted for the largest share (25%) of adjudicated status offense Adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement cases that resulted in out-of-home 3,000 placement; in 2018, truancy cases 2,500 accounted for the largest share Ungovernability (32%). 2,000

1,500 Runaway Truancy 1,000 Liquor 500 Curfew 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

80 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

The court ordered out-of-home placement in 7% of all adjudicated status  The likelihood that an adjudicated offense cases in 2018 status offense case would result in out-of-home placement decreased Percent of adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement between 2005 and 2018 for all status 10% offense categories.

Total status  Between 2005 and 2018, the largest 8% decline in the proportion of adjudi- cated status offense cases resulting 6% in out-of-home placement was seen in cases involving liquor law viola- tions (down 4 percentage points). 4% Percentage of adjudicated status 2% offense cases resulting in out-of- home placement, 2018: 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Most serious 15 or 16 or offense younger older Male Female Total status 8% 6% 6% 7% Runaway 18 15 17 17 Truancy 4 4 4 5 Curfew 2 2 2 1 Percent of adjudicated cases resulting Percent of adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement in out-of-home placement Ungovern. 15 14 15 14 25% 7% Liquor law 4 3 3 2 6% 20% Most serious Runaway 5% Truancy offense White Black Hisp. Other 15% 4% Total status 7% 8% 7% 2% 10% 3% 2% Runaway 20% 14% NA NA 5% 1% Truancy 4 6 8 1 0% 0% Curfew 1 3 NA NA 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Ungovern. 17 10 NA NA Liquor law 3 NA NA 3 NA: Too few cases to obtain a reliable per- centage. Percent of adjudicated cases resulting Percent of adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement in out-of-home placement 4% 20%

16% Ungovernability 3% Curfew 12% 2% 8% 1% 4%

0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Percent of adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement 7% 6% 5% Liquor 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 81 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Dispositions: Probation

 Between 2005 and 2018, the num- Between 2005 and 2008, the number of adjudicated status offense ber of adjudicated status offense cases that resulted in probation remained stable and then declined cases resulting in an order of proba- 66% by 2018 tion decreased 66%, compared with a 76% decrease in the number of Adjudicated cases resulting in probation cases resulting in out-of-home 60,000 placement. 50,000  Between 2005 and 2018, the num- Total status ber of adjudicated status offense cases receiving probation decreased 40,000 for all offense types: liquor law viola- tion (84%), curfew (82%), ungovern- 30,000 ability (73%), runaway (67%), and truancy (43%). 20,000

Offense profile of adjudicated 10,000 status offense cases resulting in probation: 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Most serious offense 2005 2018 Runaway 10% 10% Truancy 32 54 Curfew 5 3 Ungovernability 17 14 Liquor law 26 12 Miscellaneous 9 7 Between 2005 and 2018, the number of adjudicated status offense Total 100% 100% cases that resulted in probation decreased in all major status offense Cases resulting in categories formal probation 59,500 20,100 Adjudicated cases resulting in probation Note: Detail may not total 100% because of round ing. 20,000

 In 2018, most adjudicated status 16,000 offense cases that resulted in proba- Truancy tion involved truancy offenses (54%), followed by ungovernability (14%) 12,000 Ungovernability Liquor and liquor law violations (12%). 8,000 Runaway

4,000 Curfew 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

82 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Dispositions: Probation

Between 2005 and 2018, the use of probation as the most restrictive  Probation was the most restrictive disposition in adjudicated status offense cases increased for runaway, disposition used in 59% of the adju- truancy, and ungovernability offenses dicated status offense cases in 2018 and 57% of the adjudicated caseload in 2005. Percent of adjudicated cases resulting in probation 70%  In 2018, probation was ordered in 60% 71% of adjudicated runaway cases, Total status 66% of truancy cases, 29% of cur- 50% few violations, 72% of ungovernabil- 40% ity cases, and 51% of cases involv- ing liquor law violations. 30% Percentage of adjudicated status 20% offense cases resulting in 10% probation, 2018:

0% Most serious 15 or 16 or 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 offense younger older Male Female Total status 63% 54% 58% 61% Runaway 70 72 71 71 Truancy 70 60 66 66 Percent of adjudicated cases Percent of adjudicated cases Curfew 33 26 29 29 resulting in probation resulting in probation Ungovern. 73 71 71 74 80% 80% Liquor law 49 52 53 49 60% Runaway Truancy 60% Most serious 40% 40% offense White Black Hisp. Other Total status 57% 66% 61% 56% 20% 20% Runaway 69% 73% NA NA 0% 0% Truancy 66% 69% 62% 68% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Curfew 24% 38% NA NA Ungovern. 71% 77% NA NA Liquor law 52% NA NA 45% NA: Too few cases to obtain a reliable per- Percent of adjudicated cases Percent of adjudicated cases centage. resulting in probation resulting in probation 40% 80% Ungovernability 30% 60% Curfew 20% 40%

10% 20%

0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Percent of adjudicated cases resulting in probation 70% 60% Liquor 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 83 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Case Processing Overview, 2018

 In 2018, 35% of petitioned status Total status Placed offense cases resulted in adjudica- 2,300 7% Adjudicated a tion. status offender Probation 34,000 35% 20,100 59%  In 59% of adjudicated status offense cases, formal probation was Other sanction 11,600 34% the most restrictive sanction ordered 97,800 estimated petitioned by the court. status offense cases Probation  In 2018, 7% of adjudicated status 8,000 13% offense cases resulted in out-of- Not adjudicated a status offender Other sanction home placement. 63,900 65% 3,300 5%

 Dispositions with minimal continuing Dismissed supervision by probation staff were 52,600 82% ordered in 34% of status offense cases adjudicated in 2018—the juvenile was ordered to enter a treatment or counseling program, to pay restitution or a fine, or to partici- Total status 23 Placed pate in some form of community Adjudicated a service. 347 status offender 205 Proba tion A typical 1,000 petitioned 119 Other sanction  In 65% of formally handled status status offense cases offense cases in 2018, the juvenile was not adjudicated a status offend- 82 Probation Not adjudicated er. The court dismissed 82% of 653 a status offender 33 Other sanction these cases, while 13% resulted in some form of informal probation and 537 Dismissed 5% in other voluntary dispositions.

 For every 1,000 status offense cases Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may formally processed by juvenile not add to totals because of rounding. courts in 2018, 205 resulted in for- mal probation and 23 were placed out of the home.

84 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Case Processing by Offense Category, 2018

Runaway 51 Placed Runaway Cases Adjudicated a 307 status offender 218 Proba tion  Among the five major status offense A typical 1,000 petitioned 38 Other sanction categories, juvenile courts were most runaway cases likely to order youth to out-of-home placement following adjudication in Not adjudicated 111 Informal sanction 693 a status offender runaway cases (51 of 307 cases), but 582 Dismissed formal probation was a more likely outcome (218 of 307).

 Among petitioned runaway cases in 2018, youth were not adjudicated a Truancy 12 Placed status offender in 693 of a typical Adjudicated a 271 status offender 179 Proba tion 1,000 cases. Of these 693 cases, 84% (582) were dismissed. A typical 1,000 petitioned 80 Other sanction truancy cases Truancy Cases Not adjudicated 114 Informal sanction 729 a status offender  In 2018, of a typical 1,000 formal 615 Dismissed truancy cases, 179 resulted in formal probation and 12 were placed out of the home.

Curfew 9 Placed Curfew Violation Cases Adjudicated a 469 status offender 137 Proba tion  In 2018, for every 1,000 petitioned A typical 1,000 petitioned 323 Other sanction curfew violation cases, 137 resulted curfew cases in formal probation and 9 were placed out of the home. Not adjudicated 82 Informal sanction 531 a status offender 449 Dismissed  Among petitioned cases involving curfew violations in 2018, youth were not adjudicated a status offender in 531 of a typical 1,000 cases. Of these 531 cases, 85% (449) were Ungovernability 67 Placed dismissed. Adjudicated a 451 status offender 326 Proba tion Ungovernability Cases A typical 1,000 petitioned 58 Other sanction ungovernability cases  For every 1,000 petitioned ungovern- Not adjudicated 100 Informal sanction ability cases in 2018, 326 resulted in 549 a status offender formal probation following adjudica- 449 Dismissed tion and 67 were placed out of the home.

Liquor Law Violation Cases Liquor 15 Placed Adjudicated a  Among petitioned liquor law violation 527 status offender 270 Proba tion cases in 2018, the most likely out- A typical 1,000 petitioned 242 Other sanction come was formal probation (270 of liquor law violation cases 1,000); out-of-home placement was ordered in 15 of a typical 1,000 Not adjudicated 194 Informal sanction 473 a status offender cases. 279 Dismissed  In 2018, among petitioned liquor law violation cases, youth were not adju- Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not dicated as status offenders in 473 of add to totals because of rounding. a typical 1,000 cases.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 85

Appendix A

Methods

The Juvenile Court Statistics (JCS) having been designed to meet the infor- series uses data provided to the Nation- mation needs of a particular jurisdiction. al Juvenile Court Data Archive (the Archive staff study the structure and Archive) by state and county agencies content of each data set in order to responsible for collecting and/or dis- design an automated restructuring pro- seminating information on the process- cedure that will transform each jurisdic- ing of youth in juvenile courts. These tion’s data into a common case-level data are not the result of a uniform data format. collection effort. They are not derived from a complete census of juvenile Court-level aggregate statistics either courts or obtained from a probability are abstracted from the annual reports sample of courts. The national estimates of state and local courts or are contrib- presented in this report are developed uted directly to the Archive. Court-level by using compatible information from all statistics typically provide counts of the courts that are able to provide data to delinquency and status offense cases the Archive. handled by courts in a defined time period (calendar or fiscal year). Sources of Data Each year, many juvenile courts contrib- The Archive uses data in two forms: ute either detailed data or aggregate detailed case-level data and court- statistics to the Archive. However, not level aggregate statistics. Case-level all of this information can be used to data are usually generated by automat- generate the national estimates con- ed client-tracking systems or case- tained in JCS. To be used in the devel- reporting systems managed by juvenile opment of national estimates, the data courts or other juvenile justice agencies. must be in a compatible unit of count These systems provide detailed data on (i.e., case disposed), the data source the characteristics of each delinquency must demonstrate a pattern of consis- and status offense case handled by tent reporting over time (at least 2 courts, generally including the age, gen- years), and the data file contributed to der, and race of the youth referred; the the Archive must represent a complete date and source of referral; the offenses count of delinquency and/or status charged; detention and petitioning deci- offense cases disposed in a jurisdiction sions; and the date and type of during a given year. disposition. The aggregation of the JCS-compatible The structure of each case-level data standardized case-level data files con- set contributed to the Archive is unique, stitutes the Archive’s national case-level database. The compiled data from

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 87 Appendix A: Methods

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Number of Counties

Table A–1: 2018 Stratum Profiles for Delinquency Data Counties reporting compatible data Number of counties County population Counties in Case- Court- Percentage Percentage of Stratum ages 10–17 stratum level level Total* of counties juvenile population 1 Fewer than 14,038 2,673 1,820 329 2,109 79% 81% 2 14,0538–51,200 325 245 40 272 84 84 3 51,201–124,000 109 88 9 93 85 87 4 More than 124,000 35 31 9 34 97 98 Total 3,142 2,184 387 2,508 80 87 * Some counties reported both case-level and court-level data; therefore, the total number of counties reporting delin quency data is not equal to the number of counties reporting case-level data plus the number of counties reporting court-level data.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Number of Counties

Table A–2: 2018 Stratum Profiles for Status Offense Data Counties reporting compatible data Number of counties County population Counties in Case- Court- Percentage Percentage of Stratum ages 10–17 stratum level level Total of counties juvenile population 1 Fewer than 14,038 2,673 1,714 194 1,908 71% 72% 2 14,038–51,200 325 223 11 234 72 72 3 51,201–124,000 109 77 3 80 73 76 4 More than 124,000 35 30 0 30 86 90 Total 3,142 2,044 208 2,252 72 78

jurisdictions that contribute only court- Virginia, and Wisconsin. These courts Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, level JCS-compatible statistics consti- had jurisdiction over 80% of the nation’s South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennes- tute the national court-level database. juvenile population in 2018. Compatible see, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Together, these two multijurisdictional court-level aggregate statistics on an Washington, West Virginia, and Wiscon- databases (case-level and court-level) additional 55,566 delinquency cases sin. These courts had jurisdiction over are used to generate the Archive’s from 387 jurisdictions were used from 8 74% of the juvenile population. An addi- national estimates of delinquency and states: (Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michi- tional 208 jurisdictions in Indiana, status offense cases. gan, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, and Nebraska, and Wyoming had compati- Wyoming). In all, the Archive collected ble court-level aggregate statistics on In 2018, case-level data describing compatible case-level data and court- 4,686 petitioned status offense cases. 539,646 delinquency cases handled by level statistics on delinquency cases Altogether, compatible case-level and 2,184 jurisdictions in 38 states met the from 2,508 jurisdictions containing 87% court-level data on petitioned status Archive’s criteria for inclusion in the of the nation’s juvenile population in offense cases were available from 2,252 development of national delinquency 2018 (table A–1). jurisdictions containing 78% of the U.S. estimates. Compatible data were avail- juvenile population in 2018 (table A–2). able from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Case-level data describing 67,347 for- Arkansas, California, Colorado, Con- mally handled status offense cases from A list of states contributing case-level necticut, District of Columbia, Florida, 2,044 jurisdictions in 36 states met the data (either delinquency or petitioned Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, criteria for inclusion in the sample for status offense data), the variables each Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Mis- 2018. The states included Alabama, reports, and the percentage of cases souri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexi- Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, containing each variable are presented co, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Flori- in table A–3. More information about the Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, da, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Ken- reporting sample for the current data Rhode Island, South Carolina, South tucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, year and previous years since 1985 is Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Ver- Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ mont, Virginia, Washington, West Mexico, New York, North Carolina, ezajcs/asp/methods.asp.

88 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Appendix A: Methods

Table A–3: Content of Case-Level Data Sour ces, 2018 Age at Referral Referral Secure Manner of Data source referral Gender Race source reason detention handling Adjudication Disposition Alabama AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL Alaska AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK Arizona AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ – AZ AZ AZ Arkansas AR AR AR – AR – AR AR – California CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA Colorado – – CO – CO – CO – – Connecticut CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT District of Columbia DC DC DC – DC DC DC DC DC Florida FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL Georgia GA GA GA GA GA – GA GA GA Hawaii HI HI HI HI HI – HI HI HI Illinois1 IL IL – – IL IL IL IL IL Iowa IA IA IA – IA – IA IA IA Kentucky KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY Maryland MD MD MD MD MD – MD MD MD Minnesota MN MN MN – MN – MN MN MN Mississippi MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS Missouri MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO Montana MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT – New Jersey NJ NJ NJ – NJ – NJ NJ NJ New Mexico NM NM NM NM NM – NM NM NM New York NY NY NY – NY – NY NY NY North Carolina NC NC NC – NC NC NC NC NC Ohio2 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH Oklahoma OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Oregon OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR Pennsylvania PA PA PA PA PA – PA PA PA Rhode Island RI RI – RI RI – RI RI RI South Carolina SC SC SC SC SC – SC SC SC South Dakota SD SD SD – SD SD SD SD SD Tennessee TN TN TN TN TN – TN TN TN Texas TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX Utah UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT Vermont VT VT VT – VT VT VT VT VT Virginia VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA – Washington WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA West Virginia WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV Wisconsin WI WI WI – WI – WI WI WI Percentage of estimation sample 98% 98% 94% 77% 96% 59% 100% 94% 85%

Note: The symbol “–” indicates that compatible data for this variable ar e not reported by this state. 1 Data from Cook county only. 2 Data from Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, and Lucas counties only.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 89 Appendix A: Methods

Juvenile Population from the Census Bureau.1 The esti- identify the county in which the case mates, separated into single-year age was handled, and (3) youth population The volume and characteristics of juve- groups, reflect the number of white, estimates can be developed at the nile court caseloads are partly a func- black, Hispanic,2 American Indian/Alas- county level. tion of the size and demographic com- kan Native, and Asian (including Native position of a jurisdiction’s population. Hawaiian and Pacific Islander) youth The Archive’s national estimates are Therefore, a critical element in the ages 10 through the upper age of juve- generated using data obtained from its Archive’s development of national esti- nile court jurisdiction who reside in each nonprobability sample of juvenile courts. mates is the population of youth that county in the nation. There are two major components of the generates the juvenile court referrals in estimation procedure. First, missing val- each jurisdiction—i.e., the “juvenile” Estimation Procedure ues on individual records of the national population of every U.S. county. case-level database are imputed using National estimates are developed hot deck procedures. Then the records A survey of the Archive’s case-level data using the national case-level database, of the national case-level database are shows that very few delinquency or sta- the national court-level database, and weighted to represent the total number tus offense cases involve youth younger the Archive’s juvenile population esti- of cases handled by juvenile courts than 10. Therefore, the lower age limit mates for every U.S. county. “County” nationwide. Each stage of the estimation of the juvenile population is set at 10 was selected as the unit of aggregation procedure will be described separately. years for all jurisdictions. On the other because (1) most juvenile court jurisdic- hand, the upper age limit varies by tions in the United States are concur- Record-level imputation. The first step state. Every state defines an upper age rent with county boundaries, (2) most in the estimation procedure is to place limit for youth who will come under the data contributed by juvenile courts all U.S. counties into one of four strata original jurisdiction of the juvenile court if based on their youth population ages they commit an illegal act. (See “Upper 10 through 17. The lower and upper age of jurisdiction” in the “Glossary of 1 County-level intercensal estimates were population limits of the four strata are Terms” section.) Most states set this obtained for the years 2005–2018. The follow- defined each year so that each stratum age to be 17 years; other states have ing data files were used: contains one-quarter of the national set the age at 15 or 16. States often National Center for Health Statistics. 2012. population of youth ages 10 through enact exceptions to this simple age cri- Intercensal Estimates of the Resident 17. terion (e.g., offense-specific youthful Population of the United States for July 1, offender legislation and concurrent juris- 2000–July 1, 2009, by Year, County, Single- This information is added onto each diction or extended jurisdiction provi- year of Age (0, 1, 2, ..., 85 Years and Over), record in the national case-level data- sions). In general, however, juvenile Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex [machine-readable data file]. Prepared under a base. As a result, each record in the courts have responsibility for all law vio- collaborative arrangement with the U.S. Census national case-level database contains lations committed by youth whose age Bureau. Available online: cdc.gov/nchs/ 11 variables of interest to the JCS does not exceed the upper age of origi- nvss/bridged_race.htm [Released 10/26/12, report: county strata, year of disposi- nal jurisdiction. following release by the U.S. Census Bureau of tion, intake decision, youth’s age, the unbridged intercensal estimates by 5-year youth’s gender, youth’s race, referral age group on 10/9/12]. For the purposes of this report, there- offense, source of referral, case deten- fore, the juvenile population is defined National Center for Health Statistics. 2019. tion, case adjudication, and case as the number of youth living in a juris- Vintage 2018 Postcensal Estimates of the disposition. diction who are at least 10 years old but Resident Population of the United States (April who are not older than the upper age of 1, 2010, July 1, 2010–July 1, 2018), by Year, By definition, the first three of these County, Single-year of Age (0, 1, 2, ..., 85 Years original juvenile court jurisdiction. For and Over), Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, and variables (i.e., county strata, year of dis- example, in North Carolina, where the Sex [machine-readable data file]. Prepared position, and intake decision) are known upper age of original juvenile court juris- under a collaborative arrangement with the U.S. for every case in the database. Each of diction is 15 in 2018, the juvenile popu- Census Bureau. Available online: cdc.gov/nchs/ the other variables may be missing for lation is the number of youth residing in nvss/bridged_race.htm [released on 6/25/19, some records and given a missing value following release by the U.S. Census Bureau of a county who have had their 10th birth- the unbridged Vintage 2018 postcensal esti- code. The estimation procedure for the day but are not older than 15 (e.g., they mates by 5-year age groups]. JCS report employs a multistage pro- have not yet reached their 16th birthday). cess to impute information for each 2 In this report, Hispanic ethnicity is handled as missing value on each case record in The juvenile population estimates used a race category. All other racial categories the national case-level database. in this report were developed with data exclude youth of Hispanic ethnicity.

90 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Appendix A: Methods

Within a county’s set of records in the again for that variable unless no other missing the target data, the donor pool database there can be two types of matches can be found for another tar- for format-missing records is defined as missing information: record-level miss- get record. There are a small number of the records from all counties in the tar- ing and format-level missing. For many instances in which no donor record can get record’s stratum with the same year counties, a small proportion of their be found in the county file. When this of disposition and intake decision. case-level records are missing valid occurs, the imputation software relaxes codes in data elements that are valid for its record matching criteria. That is, Using this expanded donor pool, the most of the other records from that instead of trying to find a donor record imputation process follows the steps county. For example, the gender of a with identical codes on variables other described above where a target record youth may not have been reported on a than the target field, the software (i.e., one with missing data) is identified few records while it is known for all the ignores one nonmissing variable and and the donor pool is scanned for a other youth in the county’s database. attempts to find a match on all of the match. Once a match is found, the This type of missing value is “record- others. In the small number of cases missing information on the target record level missing.” There are also counties where this does not lead to the identifi- is overwritten and the donor record is in which every record in the database cation of a donor record, a second vari- flagged as having been used for that has a missing value code for a specific able is ignored and the file is reread variable so it will not be reused for that variable. For example, some court data looking for a donor. Although theoreti- variable unless all other donors are collection systems do not capture infor- cally (and programmatically) this pro- used. If a donor record cannot be found mation on a youth’s pre-disposition cess can be repeated until all variables in the first pass through the donor pool, detention. Therefore, the variable “case but county, year of disposition, and matching criteria are relaxed until a detention” in the national case-level intake decision are ignored to find a donor is found. data has a missing value code on each donor, this never occurred. The order in record from that county. This type of which variables are removed from the There is one major exception to this missing value is “format-level missing.” matching criteria are source of referral, process of imputing format-level (Table A–3 indicates the standardized detention, offense, adjudication, race, missing information. This exception data elements that were not available, gender, and age. involves the process of imputing i.e., format-missing, from each jurisdic- missing race for those counties that do tion’s 2018 data set.) The imputation Since publication of the 2017 Juvenile not report this data element to the process handles the two types of miss- Court Statistics report, the Archive Archive. The racial composition of a ing values separately. changed the programming language court’s caseload is strongly related to used for imputation and estimation pro- the racial composition of the resident The imputation of record-level missing cedures. This change has also allowed juvenile population. Creating a donor values uses a hot deck procedure with for technical improvements to the code pool that ignores this relationship would a donor pool of records from the same itself. Anyone using data from this reduce the validity of the imputation pro- county. First, all the records for a specif- report for trend purposes should use cess. So for those few data files that did ic county are sorted by disposition date. the Easy Access to Juvenile Court Sta- not include race, donor pools were Then the file is read again, one record tistics data analysis tool (https://www. developed that restricted the pool to at a time. When the imputation software ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/) to replace counties with racial compositions similar identifies a record with a record-level any back year data with data produced to that of the target record’s county. missing value (i.e., the target record), it using the current procedures. imputes a valid code for this target data This was accomplished by dividing the field. This is accomplished by locating Format-level imputation. After all the counties in the U.S. into four groups the next record in the county file that record-level missing values have been defined by the percentage of white juve- matches the target record on all of its imputed, the process turns to format- niles in their age 10–17 populations. nonmissing values and has a nonmiss- missing information, or information that This classification was then added to ing code in the target data field; this is missing from a case record because each case record and used as a match- record is called the donor record. The that court’s information system does not ing criterion for finding a donor record imputation software copies the valid report this information on their cases. within the set of potential donor records code from the donor record and replac- The process for imputing format-miss- defined by stratum, year of disposition, es the missing value code on the target ing information is similar to that used in and intake decision. record with this nonmissing value. the record-missing imputation process with the needed difference that the Weighting to produce national esti- Once a donor record is used in the pro- donor pool is expanded. Since all mates. The Archive employs an elabo- cess for a given variable, it is not used records in a county are rate multivariate procedure that assigns

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 91 Appendix A: Methods

a weight to each record in the national jurisdictions within each stratum are youth, and 600 Asian youth. The stra- case-level database that, when used in then developed for each of the 15 age/ tum 2 case rates for each racial group analysis, yields national estimates of race categories. The national case-level in the 10–15 age group would be multi- juvenile court activity. The weights incor- database is summarized to determine plied by the corresponding population porate a number of factors related to within each stratum the number of to develop estimates of the proportion the size and characteristics of juvenile court cases that involved youth in each of the court’s caseload that came from court caseloads: the size of a communi- of the 15 age/race population groups. each age/race group, as follows: ty, the age and race composition of its Case rates (number of cases per 1,000 juvenile population, the age and race juveniles in the population) are then White: profile of the youth involved in juvenile developed for the 15 age/race groups (6.1 x 12,000) / [(6.1 x 12,000) + court cases, the courts’ responses to within each of the four strata. (27.6 x 4,200) + (7.8 x 4,000)] + the cases (intake decision, detention, (10.0 x 400) + (2.3 x 600) = 32.4% adjudication, and disposition), and the For example, assume that a total of nature of each court’s jurisdictional 2,739,000 white youth ages 10–15 Black: responsibilities (i.e., upper age of original resided in those stratum 2 counties that (27.6 x 4,200) / [(6.1 x 12,000) + jurisdiction). reported JCS-compatible case-level (27.6 x 4,200) + (7.8 x 4,000)] + data to the Archive. If the Archive’s (10.0 x 400) + (2.3 x 600) = 51.4% The basic assumption underlying the case-level database shows that the weighting procedure is that similar legal juvenile courts in these counties han- Hispanic: and demographic factors shape the vol- dled 16,598 petitioned delinquency (7.8 x 4,000) / [(6.1 x 12,000) + ume and characteristics of cases in cases involving white youth ages 10 (27.6 x 4,200) + (7.8 x 4,000)] + reporting and nonreporting counties of through 15, the number of cases per (10.0 x 400) + (2.3 x 600) = 13.8% comparable size and features. The 1,000 white youth ages 10–15 for stra- weighting procedure develops indepen- tum 2 would be 6.1, or: American Indian: dent estimates for the number of peti- (10.0 x 400) / [(6.1 x 12,000) + tioned delinquency cases, nonpetitioned (16,598 / 2,739,000) x 1,000 = 6.1 (27.6 x 4,200) + (7.8 x 4,000)] + delinquency cases, and petitioned sta- (10.0 x 400) + (2.3 x 600) = 1.8% tus offense cases handled by juvenile Comparable analyses are then used to courts nationwide. Identical statistical establish the stratum 2 case rates for Asian: procedures are used to develop all case black youth, Hispanic youth, American (2.3 x 600) / [(6.1 x 12,000) + estimates. Indian youth, and Asian youth in the (27.6 x 4,200) + (7.8 x 4,000)] + same age group (27.6, 7.8, 10.0, and (10.0 x 400) + (2.3 x 600) = 0.6% As noted earlier, all U.S. counties are 2.3, respectively). placed into one of four strata based on The jurisdiction’s total caseload of 500 the size of their youth population ages Next, information contained in the would then be allocated based on 10 through 17. In the first step to devel- national court-level database is intro- these proportions. In this example, it op the weights, the Archive divides the duced, and stratum-level case rates are would be estimated that 32.4% of all youth 10–17 population for each stra- adjusted accordingly. First, each court- cases reported in the jurisdiction’s tum into three age groups: 10- through level statistic is disaggregated into the aggregate statistics involved white 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds, and 17-year- 15 age/race groups. This separation is youth, 51.4% involved black youth, olds. The three age groups are further accomplished by assuming that, for 13.8% involved Hispanic youth, 1.8% subdivided into five racial groups: white, each jurisdiction, the relationships involved American Indian youth, and the black, Hispanic, American Indian (includ- among the stratum’s 15 age/race case remaining 0.6% involved Asian youth. ing Alaskan Native), and Asian (including rates (developed from the case-level When these proportions are applied to Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific data) are paralleled in the court-level a reported court-level caseload statistic Islander). Thus, juvenile resident popula- data. of 500 cases, this jurisdiction is estimat- tion estimates are developed for 15 age/ ed to have handled 162 cases involving race categories in each stratum of For example, assume that a jurisdiction white youth, 257 cases involving black counties. in stratum 2 with an upper age of origi- youth, 69 cases involving Hispanic nal juvenile court jurisdiction of 15 youth, 9 cases involving American Indi- The next step is to identify within each reported it processed 500 cases during an youth, and 3 cases involving Asian stratum the jurisdictions that contributed the year. Also assume that this jurisdic- youth age 15 or younger. to the Archive case-level data consistent tion had a juvenile population of 12,000 with JCS reporting requirements. The white youth, 4,200 black youth, 4,000 The same method is used to disaggre- populations of these case-level reporting Hispanic youth, 400 American Indian gate the case counts reported by those

92 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Appendix A: Methods

jurisdictions that could only report Stratum estimates for the total number from stratum 2 counties. Assume also aggregate court-level statistics for juris- of cases involving each age/race group that the national case-level database for dictions with an upper age of 16 (10 are then calculated by multiplying the that year contained 8,382 petitioned age/race groups) and an upper age of revised case rate for each of the 15 age/ delinquency cases involving white 17 (15 age/race groups). The disaggre- race groups in a stratum by the corre- 16-year-olds from stratum 2 counties. In gated court-level counts are then added sponding juvenile population in all coun- the Archive’s national estimation data- to the counts developed from case-level ties belonging to that stratum (both base, each stratum 2 petitioned delin- data to produce an estimate of the reporting and nonreporting). quency case that involved a white number of cases involving each of the 16-year-old would be weighted by 1.59 15 age/race groups handled by report- After the stratum estimates for the total because: ing courts (i.e., both case-level and number of cases in each age/race group court-level reporters) in each of the four in each stratum has been calculated, the 13,343 / 8,382 = 1.59 strata. next step is to weight the records in the national case-level database. This Finally, by incorporating the weights into The juvenile population figures for the weight is equal to the estimated number all analyses of the national case-level entire reporting sample are also com- of cases in one of the stratum’s 15 age/ database, national estimates of case piled. Together, these new stratum- race groups divided by the actual num- volumes and case characteristics can specific case counts and juvenile popu- ber of such records in the national case- be produced. More detailed information lations for the reporting counties are level database. For example, assume about the Archive’s national estimation used to generate a revised set of case that the Archive generates a national methodology is available on request rates for each of the 15 age/race estimate of 13,343 petitioned delinquen- from the National Center for Juvenile groups within each of the four strata. cy cases involving white 16-year-olds Justice.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 93

Appendix B

Glossary of Terms

Adjudication: Judicial de ter mina tion absence, or phys i cal or mental inca pac i- (judgment) that a juvenile is or is not ty of parents/guardians. re spon si ble for the delinquency or sta- tus offense charged in a petition. Detention: The placement of a youth in a secure facility under court au thor i ty at Age: Age at the time of referral to ju ve- some point be tween the time of referral nile court. to court intake and case disposition. This report does not include detention Case rate: Number of cases dis posed decisions made by law en force ment per 1,000 juveniles in the pop u lation. officials prior to court refer ral or those The pop u la tion base used to calcu late occurring after the dis posi tion of a case. the case rate var ies. For ex ample, the popu la tion base for the male case rate Disposition: Sanction ordered or treat- is the total number of male youth age ment plan decided on or ini tiat ed in a 10 or old er un der the ju risdic tion of the par tic u lar case. Case dispo sitions are juve nile courts. (See “ju ve nile popula- coded into the fol low ing cat ego ries: tion.”)  Waived to criminal court—Cases Delinquency: Acts or con duct in vi ola- that were transferred to crim i nal tion of criminal law. (See “rea son for court as the result of a judicial waiv- referral.”) er hear ing in ju ve nile court.

 Placement—Cases in which youth Delinquent act: An act com mit ted by a were placed in a resi den tial facil i ty juvenile which, if committed by an adult, for de linquents or status offenders, would be a crim i nal act. The juve nile or cases in which youth were oth er- court has ju ris diction over de linquent wise re moved from their homes and acts. De lin quent acts in clude placed elsewher e. against persons, crimes against prop er- ty, drug offens es, and crimes against  Probation—Cases in which youth public order. were placed on informal/volun tary or formal/court-ordered super vi sion. Dependency case: Those cases in volv-  Dismissed/released—Cases dis- ing neglect or inadequate care on the missed or otherwise released part of parents or guard ians, such as (includ ing those warned and coun- abandon ment or de sertion; abuse or seled) with no fur ther sanc tion or cruel treat ment; improper or inad equate consequence an tici pat ed. Among condi tions in the home; and in suf fi cient cases han dled in formal ly (see care or sup port re sulting from death,

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 95 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

“man ner of han dling”), some cas es tion as an adult. This de cision is gener- American Indian youth. Specifically, data may be dis missed by the ju ve nile ally made by a ju ve nile court judge or from many jurisdictions did not include court be cause the mat ter is being referee. any means to determine the ethnicity of han dled in another court or agen cy. American Indian youth. Rather than Judicial disposition: The dis po sition assume ethnicity for these youth, they  Other—Miscellaneous dis po si tions rendered in a case after the judi cial are classified solely on their racial clas- not included above. These dis posi- deci sion has been made. sification; as such, the American Indian tions include fines, res titu tion, com- group includes an unknown proportion mu nity service, re fer rals outside the Juvenile: of Hispanic youth. court for servic es or treatment pro- Youth at or below the upper grams with min i mal or no further age of original juvenile court ju risdic tion.  White—A person having origins in supervision an tici pat ed, and dispo si- (See “juvenile pop u la tion” and “upper any of the indigenous peo ples of tions coded as “oth er” in a ju risdic- age of jurisdiction.”) Europe, North Af rica, or the Mid dle tion’s orig inal data. Juvenile court: Any court that has East. ju risdic tion over matters in volving Formal handling: See “intake deci-  Black—A person having origins in sion.” juveniles. any of the black racial groups of Africa. Juvenile population: Informal handling: See “intake deci- For de linquen cy  Hispanic—A person of Cuban, sion.” and status offense mat ters, the ju ve nile population is de fined as the num ber of Mexican, Puerto Rican, South chil dren be tween the age of 10 and the or Central American, or other Intake decision: The de ci sion made by upper age of ju ris diction. In all states, Spanish culture or origin regardless juvenile court intake that re sults in the the up per age of ju ris diction is defined of race. case either being han dled in formal ly at by statute. Thus, when the up per age of the intake level or being peti tioned and  American Indian—A person having juris dic tion is 17, the de linquen cy and sched uled for an ad judi ca to ry or judicial origins in any of the indigenous peo- status offense juvenile popu lation is waiver hear ing. ples of North America, including equal to the number of childr en ages 10 Alaskan Natives. through 17 liv ing with in the geo graphi cal  Nonpetitioned (informally han- area ser viced by the court. (See “upper  Asian—A person having origins in dled)—Cas es in which duly au tho- age of jurisdiction.”) any of the original peoples of the Far rized court personnel, hav ing East, South east Asia, the In dian screened the case, decide not to file Nonpetitioned case: See “intake Subcon ti nent, Hawaii, or any of the a formal petition. Such per son nel decision.” other Pa cific Islands. include judg es, ref er ees, proba tion of fic ers, other offic ers of the court, Reason for referral: The most seri ous Petition: and/or agen cies stat uto ri ly des ig nat- A document filed in juve nile offense for which the youth is referr ed ed to con duct pe ti tion screen ing for court alleging that a juvenile is a de lin- to court intake. At tempts to com mit an the ju venile court. quent or a status offender and ask ing offense are included under that offense, that the court assume jurisdiction over ex cept at tempted mur der, which is  Petitioned (formally handled)— the juvenile or that an alleged de lin quent in cluded in the ag gra vated as sault cate- Cases that appear on the of fi cial be judicially waived to criminal court for gory . court cal endar in re sponse to the pros e cu tion as an adult. filing of a petition, com plaint, or  Crimes against persons—Includes other le gal instrument re quest ing the Petitioned case: See “intake decision.” criminal homicide, rape, rob bery, court to adjudicate a youth as a aggra vated assault, sim ple assault, de linquent, status of fender , or Race: The race of the youth referr ed, as other violent sex acts, and oth er de pen dent child or to waive ju ris dic- determined by the youth or by court of fenses against persons as defined tion and transfer a youth to crim i nal per sonnel. In this report, Hispanic eth- below. court for processing as a criminal nicity is considered a separate race. offender. Each of the other racial categories  Criminal homicide—Causing Judicial decision: The decision made excludes persons of Hispanic ethnicity. the death of another per son in response to a petition that asks the An important exception must be noted. without legal justification or court to adjudicate or judicially waive Data provided to the Archive did ex cuse. Crim i nal homicide is a the youth to criminal court for prosecu- not always allow for identification of summa ry category, not a sin gle Hispanic ethnicity for cases involving

96 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

codi fied offense. In law, the term  Aggravated assault— reckless en danger ment, harass- em braces all ho mi cides in which Un lawful inten tion al infliction ment, and attempts to commit the per petra tor in tention al ly kills of seri ous bodily in ju ry or any such acts. someone with out legal jus tifi ca- un lawful threat or at tempt to  Crimes against property— tion or ac ciden tal ly kills some one inflict bodi ly in ju ry or death by Includes burglary, lar ce ny, motor as a con se quence of reckless or means of a dead ly or dan ger- ve hi cle theft, ar son, vandalism, gross ly neg ligent conduct. It ous weap on with or with out stolen proper ty offenses, trespass- includes all conduct en com- actu al infliction of any in jury . ing, and other property of fens es as passed by the terms mur der, The term is used in the same defined below. nonnegli gent (voluntary) man- sense as in the UCR. It slaughter , negli gent (in vol un tary) includes con duct en com-  Burglary—Un lawful entry or man slaughter , and vehic ular passed un der the stat u to ry attempt ed entry of any fixed manslaughter. The term is broad- names: aggravated as sault structur e, vehicle, or ves sel used er than the cate go ry used in the and battery, aggravated bat- for regular res i dence, indus try, or Fed er al Bur eau of Investigation’s tery, as sault with intent to kill, business, with or without force, (FBI’s) Uni form Crime Reporting as sault with in tent to com mit with intent to commit a felony or Program (UCR), in which murder/ murder or man slaughter , lar ce ny. The term is used in the nonnegligent man slaughter does atro cious assault, attempt ed same sense as in the UCR. not in clude neg li gent man slaugh- mur der, fe loni ous assault, ter or ve hic u lar man slaugh ter. and as sault with a deadly  Larceny—Un lawful taking or weap on. attempt ed taking of prop erty  Rape—Penetration, no matter (oth er than a mo tor ve hi cle) from how slight, of the vagina or anus  Simple assault—Un lawful the posses sion of an other by with any body part or object, or inten tion al in fliction or stealth, with out force and with out oral penetration by a sex organ at tempted or threat ened deceit, with in tent to per manent ly of another person, without the inflic tion of less than serious deprive the own er of the prop er- consent of the victim. This bodily injury with out a dead ly ty. This term is used in the same includes certain statutory rape or dan ger ous weap on. The sense as in the UCR. It includes offenses where the victim is pre- term is used in the same shoplift ing and purse snatch ing sumed incapable of giving con- sense as in UCR reporting. without force. sent. This definition includes the Simple assault is not often offenses of rape, sodomy, and dis tinctly named in statutes  Motor vehicle theft—Un lawful sexual assault with an object. because it en compass es all taking or attempted tak ing of a Unlike the prior definition for as saults not ex plicit ly named self-pro pelled road vehi cle “forcible rape,” the current defini- and defined as seri ous. owned by another with the in tent tion of rape is gender neutral and Un speci fied as saults are clas- to deprive the owner of it perma- does not require force. The term si fied as “other offenses nent ly or tempo rari ly. The term is is used in the same sense as the against persons.” used in the same sense as in the FBI's revised rape definition UCR. It includes joyriding or  Other violent sex offenses— (implemented in 2013) in the un au thorized use of a motor Includes unlawful sexual acts or UCR. ve hicle as well as grand theft contact, other than rape, auto.  Robbery—Unlaw ful taking between members of the same or at tempted taking of prop er ty sex or different sexes against the  Arson—Inten tion al damage or that is in the im medi ate pos ses- will of the victim which can destruc tion by means of fire or sion of an other by force or threat involve the use or threatened use explosion of the prop erty of of force. The term is used in the of force or attempting such anoth er without the owner’s con- same sense as in the UCR and act(s). Includes incest where the sent or of any proper ty with includes forcible purse snatching. victim is presumed to be inca- in tent to de fraud, or at tempting pable of giving consent. the above acts. The term is used  Assault—Un lawful in tention al in the same sense as in the inflic tion, or at tempted or threat-  Other offenses against UCR. ened in flic tion, of in jury upon the persons —Includes kidnapping, person of another. custo dy inter fer ence, unlawful  Vandalism—Destr oying, dam ag- re straint, false impris onment, ing, or at tempting to de stroy or

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 97 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

damage public prop erty or the or at tempt to com mit any of is tra tion of justice, act ing in a property of anoth er without the these acts. The term is used in way cal culat ed to less en the owner’s con sent, except by fire the same sense as the UCR cat- authority or dig ni ty of the court, or explosion. e gory “weapons: carry ing, pos- failing to obey the lawful order of sessing, etc.” a court, escaping from con fine-  Stolen property offenses— ment, and violating pro bation or Unlaw fully and knowingly re ceiv-  Nonviolent sex offenses—All parole. This term in cludes con- ing, buying, distributing, selling, offenses having a sexual ele ment tempt, perjury, brib ery of wit- transporting, concealing, or pos- not in volv ing violence. The term nesses, fail ure to re port a crime, sessing stolen property, or combines the mean ing of the and non vi o lent re sistance of attempt ing any of the above. The UCR cat e go ries “prosti tu tion and ar rest. term is used in the same sense com mer cial ized vice” and “sex as the UCR cat e gory “sto len of fens es.” It includes offens es  Other offenses against public property: buying, receiv ing, pos- such as stat u to ry rape, indecent or der—Other offenses against sess ing.” ex po sure, pros titu tion, solic ita- gov ern ment admin is tration or tion, pimp ing, lewdness, for ni ca- regu la tion, such as bribery; vio la-  Trespassing—Unlaw ful entry or tion, and adultery. (Many states tions of laws per tain ing to fish attempted en try of the prop er ty have decriminalized prostitution and game, gambling, health, of another with the intent to for minors and view this as com- hitchhik ing, and immigration; and com mit a mis demean or oth er mercial sexual exploitation of false fire alarms. than lar ce ny or without intent to children under Safe Harbor laws.) commit a crime.  Status offenses—Includes acts or  Liquor law violations, not types of conduct that are of fens es  Other property offenses— status offenses—Being in a only when com mitted or en gaged in Includes extortion and all fraud public place while intoxicated by a juvenile and that can be ad ju di- of fens es, such as forgery , coun- through con sump tion of alcohol. cat ed only by a ju ve nile court. ter feiting, em bez zlement, check It in cludes pub lic in toxi ca tion, Although state stat utes de fining sta- or credit card fraud, and drunken ness, and other li quor tus offenses vary and some states attempts to com mit any such law vio lations. It does not include may clas si fy cases in volv ing these of fens es. driving un der the in flu ence. The of fenses as de penden cy cas es, for  Drug law violations—Includes term is used in the same sense the pur poses of this report the fol- unlaw ful sale, purchase, dis tribu tion, as the UCR cat ego ry of the lowing types of offenses are classi- manufacture, culti va tion, transport, same name. Some states treat fied as status offenses: possession, or use of a con trolled or public drunken ness of ju ve niles pro hib ited sub stance or drug or as a status of fense rather than  Runaway—Leav ing the cus to dy drug para pherna lia, or at tempt to delin quen c y. Hence, some of and home of par ents, guard ians, com mit these acts. Sniff ing of glue, these of fens es may appear or cus todi ans with out per mission paint, gas oline, and other inhal ants un der the status of fense code and fail ing to re turn within a rea- is also included. Hence, the term is “sta tus li quor law vi ola tions.” son able length of time, in vi ola- broad er than the UCR cate go ry (When a person who is pub lic ly tion of a statute reg u lat ing the “drug abuse violations.” in toxi cat ed per forms acts that con duct of youth. cause a distur bance, he or she  Offenses against public order—  Truancy—Vio lation of a compul- may be charged with disor der ly In cludes weapons of fenses; non vi o- sory school at ten dance law. conduct.) lent sex offenses; liquor law vi o la-  Curfew violations—Being found tions, not status offenses; dis or der ly  Disorderly conduct—Un law ful in a public place after a specified conduct; obstruction of jus tice; and inter ruption of the peace, qui et, hour of the evening, usually oth er offenses against pub lic order or order of a com mu nity , includ- established in a local ordinance as defined below. ing of fenses called disturb ing the applying only to persons under a peace, va gran cy, loitering, unlaw-  Weapons offenses—Un lawful specified age. ful as sembly , and riot. sale, dis tribu tion, man u factur e,  Ungovernability—Being be yond al ter ation, trans porta tion, pos-  Obstruction of justice—Inten- the control of par ents, guard ians, ses sion, or use of a deadly or tional ly obstruct ing court or law or cus todi ans or being dis obedi- dan ger ous weap on or acces so ry, en force ment ef forts in the admin- ent of parental au thori ty . This

98 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

classification is re ferred to in vari-  Relatives—Includes the youth’s and 16 in 7 states (Geor gia, Lou i si ana, ous ju venile codes as un ruly , own par ents, foster parents, adop- Mich i gan, Missou ri, South Caroli na, Tex- un manage able, and incorrigible. tive parents, steppar ents, grandpar - as, and Wisconsin). In the remain ing 41 ents, aunts, un cles, and oth er legal states and the Dis trict of Co lum bia, the  Status liquor law violations— guardians. upper age of ju risdic tion was 17. New Vi o la tion of laws regu lat ing the York raised its upper age to 16 in Octo- possession, pur chase, or con-  Other—Includes so cial agen cies, ber 2018. Several other states with sumption of li quor by mi nors. district at tor neys, proba tion offic ers, upper ages below 17 amended statutes Some states treat con sump tion victims, other private cit i zens, and to conform with the national majority; of alcohol and pub lic drunk en- miscel laneous sourc es of referral however, the enacted legislation will not ness of ju veniles as status often only de fined by the code “oth- take effect until 2019 or later. It must be of fenses rather than delin quen cy. er” in the orig i nal data. noted that with in most states, there are Hence, some of these of fens es ex cep tions in which youth at or be low may appear under this status Status offense: the state’s up per age of ju risdic tion can of fense code. Behavior that is con- sid ered an offense only when commit- be placed under the orig i nal juris diction  Miscellaneous status offenses — ted by a juvenile (e.g., run ning away of the adult crim i nal court. For exam ple, Numerous sta tus offens es not from home). (See “reason for re ferral.”) in most states, if a youth of a certain in cluded above (e.g., tobacco age is charged with an of fense from a vio la tion and vio la tion of a court Unit of count: A case dis posed by a defined list of “ex cluded of fens es,” the order in a status offense pro- court with ju venile jurisdiction dur ing the case must orig i nate in the adult crimi nal ceeding) and those offenses calendar year. Each case rep re sents a court. In ad di tion, in a number of states, coded as “other” in a ju ris dic- youth referred to the juve nile court for a the dis trict at tor ney is giv en the discr e- tion’s orig i nal data. new refer ral for one or more offenses. tion of fil ing cer tain cases in either the juvenile court or the crim i nal court. Source of referral: The agency or in di- (See “reason for refer ral.”) The term dis- Therefor e, while the upper age of juris- vid ual filing a complaint with intake that posed means that during the year some diction is com monly rec ognized in all initiates court processing. definite action was tak en or some treat- ment plan was decided on or initiated. states, there are numer ous ex ceptions (See “dis posi tion.”) Un der this def i ni tion, to this age cri teri on. [See OJJDP's Sta-  Law enforcement agency— a youth could be involved in more than tistical Briefing Book (www.ojjdp.gov/ In cludes metropolitan police, one case during a calen dar year. ojstatbb/structure_process/faqs.asp) for state police, park police, sher iffs, detail on state variations in jurisdictional con sta bles, po lice as signed to the Upper age of jurisdiction: boundaries.] ju venile court for special duty, and all The old est oth ers per form ing a po lice func tion, age at which a juvenile court has origi- Waiver: Cas es transferred to crim i nal with the ex ception of pro ba tion offic- nal jurisdiction over an indi vid ual for law- court as the result of a judicial waiv er ers and officers of the court. violating be havior . At the start of 2018, the upper age of ju ris diction was 15 in 2 hear ing in juve nile court. states (New York and North Caro lina)  School—Includes coun se lors, teachers, prin ci pals, at ten dance offi- cers, and school resource officers.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 99

Index of Tables and Figures

Delinquency Race, 26–27 Transfer to criminal court, see Waiver Adjudication Trends, 12–14, 16–17, 34, 37, 40, 45, Trends Age, 45 48, 51 Adjudication, 42–45 Gender, 45 Waiver, 40 Age, 9, 11, 16–17, 22, 25, 34, 37, 40, Offense, 42–45 Intake decision, see Manner of handling 45, 48, 51 Race, 45 Manner of handling (petitioned, Case counts, 6–7, 12, 18–19, 32, 35, 37, Trends, 42–45 non pe titioned) 38, 41, 43, 46, 49 Age Age, 37 Case rates, 8–9, 11, 14, 16–17, 20, Adjudication, 45 Case counts, 35–36 22, 25 Case flow diagram, 56 Gender, 36–37 Detention, 32–34 Case rates, 9–11, 15–17, 21–25 Offense, 35–37 Gender, 12–14, 16–17, 34, 37, 40, 45, 48, Detention, 34 Race, 36–37 51 Gender, 15–17 Trends, 35–37, 42 Manner of handling, 35–37, 42 Manner of handling, 37 Offense Offense, 6–9, 11–14, 16–17, 19–27, Offense, 9–11, 15–17, 18, 22–25, 34, 37, Adjudication, 42–45 31–41, 43–51 40, 45, 48, 51 Age, 9–11, 15–17, 22–25, 34, 37, 40, 45, Placement, 46–48 Placement, 48 48, 51 Probation, 49–51 Probation, 51 Case counts, 6–7, 12, 19, 32, 35–36, Race, 18–20, 22–27, 33–34, 37, 40–41, Race, 18, 21–25 38, 41–43, 46, 49 45, 48, 51 Trends, 9, 11, 16–17, 22, 25, 34, 37, 40, Case flow diagrams, 54–55, 60–62 Source of referral, 31 45, 48, 51 Case rates, 8, 10–11, 14–17, 20–25 Waiver, 38–41 Waiver, 40 Detention, 32–33 Waiver Case counts Gender, 12–17, 34, 37, 40, 45, 48, 51 Age, 40 Case flow diagrams, 52, 54–59 Manner of handling, 35–37 Case counts, 38, 41 Detention, 32 Placement, 46–48 Gender, 40 Gender, 12 Probation, 49–51 Offense, 38–41 Manner of handling, 35–36 Race, 19–27, 34, 37, 40–42, 45, 48, 51 Race, 40–41 Offense, 6–7, 12, 19, 32, 35–36, 38–43, Source of referral, 31 Trends, 38–41 46, 49 Trends, 6–9, 11–14, 16–17, 19, 21–27, Placement, 46 31–41, 43–51 Status Offense Waiver, 38–41 Probation, 49 Adjudication Petitioned and nonpetitioned, see Race, 18–19, 41 Age, 79 Manner of handling Trends, 6–7, 12, 18–19, 32, 35, 37, 38, Gender, 79 Placement (out-of-home) 43, 46, 49 Offense, 78–79 Age, 48 Waiver, 38, 41 Race, 79 Case counts, 46 Case flow diagrams, 52–62 Trends, 78–79 Gender, 48 Age, 56 Age Offense, 46–48 Gender, 57 Adjudication, 79 Race, 48 Offense, 54–55, 60–62 Case rates, 66–67, 71 Trends, 46–48 Race, 58–59 Gender, 71 Probation Case rates Offense, 66–67, 71, 79, 81, 83 Age, 51 Age, 9–11, 15–17, 21–25 Placement, 81 Case counts, 49 Gender, 14–17 Probation, 83 Gender, 51 Offense, 8, 10–11, 14–17, 20–25 Trends, 67 Offense, 49–51 Race, 20–27 Case counts Race, 51 Trends, 8–9, 11, 14, 16–17, 20, 22, 25 Case flow diagrams, 84–85 Trends, 49–51 Detention Detention, 77 Race Age, 34 Gender, 68 Adjudication, 45 Case counts, 32 Offense, 64, 68, 72–73, 77–78, 80, 82 Age, 21–25 Gender, 34 Placement, 80 Case counts, 18–19, 41 Offense, 32–33 Probation, 82 Case flow diagram, 58–59 Race, 33, 34 Race, 72–73 Case rates, 20–27 Trends, 32–34 Trends, 64, 68, 72–73, 77–78, 80, 82 Detention, 33, 34 Gender Case flow diagrams, 84–85 Manner of handling, 36–37 Adjudication, 45 Case rates Offense, 19–27, 34, 37, 40–42, 45, Age, 15–17 Age, 66–67, 71 48, 51 Case counts, 12 Gender, 70–71 Placement, 48 Case flow diagram, 57 Offense, 65, 67, 70–71, 74–75 Probation, 51 Case rates, 14–17 Race, 74–75 Trends, 18–20, 22–27, 33–34, 37, 40–41, Detention, 34 Trends, 65, 67, 70, 74–75 45, 48, 51 Manner of handling, 36–37 Detention Waiver, 40–41 Offense, 12–17, 34, 37, 40, 45, 48, 51 Case counts, 77 Placement, 48 Source of referral, 31 Probation, 51

Juvenile Court Statistics 2018 101 Offense, 77 Trends, 77 Gender Adjudication, 79 Case counts, 68 Case rates, 70–71 Offense, 68–71, 79, 81, 83 Placement, 81 Probation, 83 Trends, 68–70 Offense Adjudication, 78–79 Age, 66–67 Case counts, 64, 68, 72–73, 77–78, 80, 82 Case flow diagrams, 85 Case rates, 65–67, 70–71, 74–75 Detention, 77 Gender, 68–71 Placement, 80–81 Probation, 82–83 Race, 72–75 Source of referral, 76 Trends, 64–65, 67–70, 73–83 Placement (out-of-home) Age, 81 Case counts, 80 Gender, 81 Offense, 80–81 Race, 81 Trends, 80–81 Probation Age, 83 Case counts, 82 Gender, 83 Offense, 82–83 Race, 83 Trends, 82–83 Race Adjudication, 79 Case counts, 72–73 Case rates, 74–75 Offense, 72–75, 79, 81, 83 Placement, 81 Probation, 83 Trends, 72–75 Source of referral, 76 Trends Adjudication, 78–79 Age, 67 Case counts, 64, 68, 72–73, 77–78, 80, 82 Case rates, 65, 67, 70, 74–75 Detention, 77 Gender, 68–70 Offense, 64–65, 67–70, 73–83 Placement, 80–81 Probation, 82–83 Race, 72–75 Source of referral, 76

102 Juvenile Court Statistics 2018