Juvenile Court Statistics 2016

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 produce the Juvenile Court Statistics report. Users have access to national Statistical Briefing Book, the estimates on more than 40 million delinquency cases processed by the National Juvenile Court Data nation’s juvenile courts between 1985 and 2016 and can explore trends of Archive, and the Juvenile Justice and relationships among a youth’s demographics and referral offenses, and Geography, Policy, Practice & the court’s detention, adjudication, and disposition decisions. Results of Statistics web site. analyses can be saved and imported into spreadsheet and word processing software. Users can also view preformatted tables describing the demographic characteristics of youth involved in the juvenile justice system and how juvenile courts process these cases. 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, status offense, 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 crime, 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 1985 to present for more than 25 offense categories, and include separate presentations by gender, age, and race. Juvenile Court Statistics 2016

Sarah Hockenberry Charles Puzzanchera

August 2018

National Center for Juvenile Justice

JuvenileJuvenile Court CourtStatistics Statistics 2006–2007 2016 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 2015–JF–FX–0061 awarded by the Of fice of Ju venile Jus tice and De lin quency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Depart- ment of Jus tice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not nec es sari ly reflect those of the Depart ment of Justice.

Suggested citation: Hockenberry, Sarah, and Puzzanchera, Charles. 2018. Juvenile Court Statistics 2016. Pitts- burgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Acknowledgments

This report is a product of the National local agencies that take the time each Juvenile Court Data Archive (Archive), year to honor our requests for data and which is funded by grants to the Na- documentation. The following agencies tional Center for Juvenile Justice contributed case-level data or court- (NCJJ), the research division of the Na- level aggregate statistics for this report: tional Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judge, from the Office of Juvenile Alabama—State of Alabama, Adminis- Justice and Delinquency Prevention trative Office of the Courts. (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice. Barbara Tatem Kelley is the OJJDP Pro- Alaska—Alaska Division of Juvenile gram Manager for the project. Justice.

The report authors are Sarah Hocken- Arizona—Supreme Court, State of Ari- berry, Project Manager, and Charles zona, Administrative Office of the Puzzanchera, Senior Research Associ- Courts. ate. In addition to Melissa Sickmund, Project Director of the National Juvenile Arkansas—Administrative Office of the Court Data Archive, the following Ar- Courts, State of Arkansas. chive staff are acknowledged for their contributions to the collection and pro- California—California Department of cessing of the data presented in this Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics report. Center. Greg Chamberlin, Computer Programmer Colorado—Colorado Judicial Branch.

Samantha Ehrmann, Research Assistant Connecticut—Judicial Branch Adminis- tration, Court Support Services and Anthony Sladky, Senior Computer Court Operations Divisions. Programmer Delaware—Delaware Family Court, Ad- Jason Smith, Computer Programmer ministrative Office of the Courts. Moriah Taylor, Research Assistant District of Columbia—Superior Court Nancy Tierney, Program Manager of the District of Columbia.

Juvenile Court Statistics would not be Florida—State of Florida Department of possible were it not for the state and Juvenile Justice.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 iii Acknowledgments

Georgia—Judicial Council of Georgia Montana—Office of State Court Pennsylvania—Juvenile Court Judges’ Administrative Office of the Courts. Administrator, Youth Court Services. Commission.

Hawaii—Family Court of the First Cir- Nebraska—Nebraska Supreme Court, Rhode Island—Rhode Island Family cuit, The Judiciary, State of Hawaii. Administrative Office of the Court. Court.

Illinois—Administrative Office of the Nevada—Division of Child and Family South Carolina—Department of Illinois Courts, Probation Services Services, Juvenile Justice Programs Juvenile Justice. Division; and Juvenile Court of Cook Office. County. South Dakota—Unified Judicial New Jersey—Administrative System. Indiana—Supreme Court of Indiana, Office of the Courts. Division of State Court Administration. Tennessee—Tennessee Council of New Mexico—Children, Youth and Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Iowa—Iowa Division of Criminal and Families Department. Juvenile Justice Planning. Texas—Texas Juvenile Justice New York—Office of Court Administra- Department. Kansas—Supreme Court of Kansas, tion; and Division of Criminal Justice Office of Judicial Administration. Services. Utah—Utah Administrative Office of the Courts. Kentucky—Kentucky Administrative North Carolina—North Carolina Office of the Courts. Department of Juvenile Justice and Vermont—Vermont Court Administra- Delinquency Prevention. tor’s Office. Maryland—Department of Juvenile Services. North Dakota—North Dakota Supreme Virginia—Department of Juvenile Court, State Court Administrator’s Justice. Massachusetts—Administrative Office. Office of the Courts. Washington—Office of the Administra- Ohio—Supreme Court of Ohio; tor for the Courts. Michigan—State Court Administrative Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Divi- Office, Michigan Supreme Court. sion; Franklin County Court of Common West Virginia—West Virginia Supreme Pleas; Hamilton County Juvenile Court; Court of Appeals Administrative Office, Minnesota—Minnesota Supreme Court. and Lucas County Juvenile Court. Court Services Division.

Mississippi—Mississippi Department of Oklahoma—Oklahoma Office of Wisconsin—Supreme Court of Human Services. Juvenile Affairs. Wisconsin.

Missouri—Office of State Court Oregon—Oregon Youth Authority. Administrator.

iv Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016 v

Preface

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 describes however, the collection of case-level delinquency cases and petitioned status data was abandoned because of its offense cases handled between 2005 high cost. From the 1940s until the mid- and 2016 by U.S. courts with juvenile 1970s, Juvenile Court Statistics reports jurisdiction. National estimates of juve- were based on simple, annual case nile court delinquency caseloads in counts reported to the Children's 2016 were based on analyses of Bureau by participating courts. 628,921 automated case records and court-level statistics summarizing an In 1957, the Children's Bureau initiated additional 31,760 cases. Estimates of a new data collection design that status offense cases formally processed enabled the Juvenile Court Statistics by juvenile courts in 2016 were based series to develop statistically sound na- on analyses of 66,177 automated case- tional estimates. The Children's Bureau, level records and court-level summary which had been transferred to the U.S. statistics on an additional 4,744 cases. Department of Health, Education, and The data used in the analyses were Welfare (HEW), developed a probability contributed to the National Juvenile sample of more than 500 courts. Each Court Data Archive (the Archive) by court in the sample was asked to sub- nearly 2,500 courts with jurisdiction over mit annual counts of delinquency, status 86% of the juvenile population in 2016. 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 disposi- responsible for Juvenile Court Statistics tion of the case. During the 1940s, following the passage of the Juvenile

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 vii Preface

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

viii Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016 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 2016 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 de partment 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 dis- sive data cov erage in the JCS series of then scheduled for an ad ju di cato ry position 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. (Sub-national anal yses 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 1Mechanisms 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 2016 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- Structure of the Report data into stan dard ized coding cate go- bil i ty sampling design were used, the ries in or der to com bine in for ma tion cost of such an effort has long been Chapters 2 and 3 of this report pre- from multiple sources. The standar diza- considered pro hib itive. Sec ondary anal- sent nation al es timates of de linquen cy tion pro cess re quires an intimate un der- ysis of avail able data is the best practi- cases han dled by the ju venile courts in standing of the de velop ment, struc ture, cal alter native for developing an under - 2016 and analyze caseload trends since and con tent of each data set re ceived. standing of the nation’s ju ve nile courts. 2005. Chapter 2 describes the volume Codebooks and op era tion man u als are and rate of de linquen cy cases, demo- stud ied, data providers in ter viewed, and National estimates of delinquency cases graphic characteristics of the ju ve niles data files analyzed to max i mize the for 2016 are based on analyses of indi- involved (age, gender, and race), and un der standing of each in forma tion sys- vidual case records from nearly 2,300 offenses charged. Chapter 3 traces the tem. Every at tempt is made to en sure courts and aggregate court-level data flow of de lin quency cases from referral that only com pati ble infor mation from on cases from nearly 300 additional to court through court processing, the var ious data sets is used in the courts. Together, these courts had ju ris- examining each de cision point (i.e., stan dard ized data files. dic tion over 86% of the U.S. ju ve nile deten tion, in take de ci sion, adjudication pop u la tion in 2016. National estimates decision, and ju di cial dis posi tion) and While the heterogeneity of the data of petitioned status offense cases for presenting data by demo graphic char- adds complexity to the de velop ment of 2016 are based on case records from acteristics and of fense. Together, these a national data file, it has proven to be more than 2,100 courts and court-level two chap ters provide a de tailed national valuable in other ways. The diversity of data from more than 200 additional portrait of de lin quen cy cases. the data stored in the Na tion al Juve nile courts, covering 80% of the juvenile Court Data Archive en ables the data to population. The imputation and weight- Chapter 4 presents national estimates support a wider range of research ing pro cedur es that gener ate na tion al of sta tus of fense cas es for mal ly handled efforts than would a uni form, and prob- es timates from these sam ples control by the juvenile courts in 2016 and case- ably more gen eral, data collection form. for many fac tors: the size of a com mu- load trends since 2005. It includes data For ex am ple, the Federal Bureau of ni ty, the age and race compo si tion of its on de mograph ic characteristics, offens- Inves tiga tion’s (FBI’s) Uniform Crime juvenile pop u lation, the volume of cases es charged, and case pro cessing. Reporting (UCR) Program is limit ed by re ferred to the report ing courts, the age necessity to a small number of relatively and race of the juveniles in volved, the Appendix A describes the sta tisti cal broad offense codes. The UCR offense of fense charac teris tics of the cases, the pro ce dure used to gener ate these esti- code for lar ce ny-theft combines shop- courts’ responses to the cases (man ner mates. Readers are encouraged to con- lifting with a number of other larcenies. of han dling, de ten tion, ad ju di cation, and sult appendix B for def i ni tions of key Thus, the data are useless for studies of dis po sition), and the nature of each terms used through out the report. Few shoplifting. In com pari son, many of the court’s ju risdic tional re sponsi bili ties (i.e., terms in the field of ju venile jus tice have Archive’s data sets are suffi ciently upper age of original jurisdiction). widely accept ed def ini tions. The termi- detailed to en able a re searcher to distin- nolo gy used in this report has been guish of fens es that are often combined With each annual release of data, esti- care fully de veloped to com muni cate the in other re port ing series—shoplift ing can mates for prior years are revised and

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 3 Chapter 1: Introduction

findings of the work as pre cise ly as addi tion to na tion al data files, state and report. The first of these appli cations, pos si ble with out sac ri ficing applicability local data can be pro vid ed to resear ch- Easy Access to Juvenile Court Sta tistics to mul tiple ju risdic tions. ers. With the as sistance of Archive staff, 1985–2016, was de veloped to facilitate re search ers can merge selected files for independent anal y sis of the national This report uses a format that combines cross-jurisdictional and longi tu di nal delinquency es timates pre sent ed in this tables, fig ures, and text highlights for anal y ses. Upon request, project staff is report while elimi nating the need for sta- presentation of the data. A de tailed also avail able to perform special analy- tistical analy sis softwar e. It also enables index of tables and figures ap pears at ses of the Archive’s data files. users to view preformatted tables, the end of the report. beyond those included in this report, Researchers are en couraged to explore describing the demographic character- Data Access the National Juvenile Court Data Archive istics of youth involved in the juvenile web site at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/njcda/ for justice system and how juvenile courts The data used in this report are stored a sum mary of Archive holdings and pro- process these cases. The second appli- in the National Juvenile Court Data ce dures for data access. Researchers cation, Easy Access to State and Coun- Ar chive at the National Center for Juve- may also con tact the Ar chive di rect ly at ty Juve nile Court Case Counts, presents nile Justice (NCJJ) in Pittsburgh, PA. 412–246-0833. an nu al counts of the de linquen cy , status The Ar chive con tains the most detailed offense, and depen dency cases pro- in for ma tion avail able on ju ve niles Other Sources of Juvenile Court cessed in juve nile courts, by state and involved in the juvenile justice system Data county . These appli cations are available and on the activities of U.S. ju venile from OJJDP’s Statistical Briefing Book courts. De signed to fa cili tate resear ch With support from OJJDP, NCJJ has at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb. on the juvenile justice sys tem, the devel oped two web-based data anal y- Ar chive’s data files are available to poli- sis and dissemination applications that cymakers, re search ers, and students. In provide access to the data used for this

4 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016 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 2016 5 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Counts and Trends

 In 2016, courts with juvenile jurisdic- Between 1960 and 2016, juvenile court delinquency caseloads tion handled an estimated 850,500 more than doubled (110%) delinquency cases.

 In 1960, approximately 1,100 delin- Number of cases quency cases were processed daily. 2,000,000 In 2016, juvenile courts handled about 2,300 delinquency cases per 1,600,000 day. Total delinquency 1,200,000  The number of delinquency cases processed by juvenile courts decreased 49% in the 12 years 800,000 between 2005 and 2016. 400,000  Between 2005 and 2016, the number of cases decreased for all offense categories: property 54%, public 0 order 51%, person 44%, and drugs 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00 04 08 12 16 Year 42%. Offense profile of delinquency cases: Most serious offense 2005 2016 Delinquency caseloads in 2016 for all offense groups were at their low- Person 26% 29% est level since 2005 Property 37 33 Drugs 11 13 Number of cases Number of cases Public order 26 25 500,000 700,000 Total 100% 100% 400,000 600,000 500,000 300,000 Property Note: Detail may not total 100% because of Person 400,000 round ing. 200,000 300,000 200,000 100,000  The offense profile of the court’s 100,000 0 0 2016 delinquency caseload was sim- 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 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 120,000 300,000 Public order 80,000 200,000

40,000 100,000

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

6 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Counts and Trends

In the last 10 years (2007–2016), the number of cases handled by  Between 2007 and 2016, offenses juvenile courts has decreased for all offenses with the largest percentage decrease in caseloads included liquor law vio- Percent change lations (71%) and vandalism (61%). Number 10 year 5 year 1 year of cases 2007– 2012– 2015–  Trends in juvenile court cases were Most serious offense 2016 2016 2016 2016 similar to trends in arrests2 of per- Total delinquency 850,500 –48% –24% –4% sons younger than 18. The number of juvenile court cases involving rob- Total person 244,900 –40 –15 –1 bery and aggravated assault cases Criminal homicide 1,000 –22 33 22 decreased during the 10-year period Rape 7,900 –20 –8 2 between 2007 and 2016 (37% and Robbery 20,300 –37 –5 4 42%, respectively). The FBI reported Aggravated assault 26,200 –42 –5 1 that the number of arrests involving Simple assault 158,700 –39 –17 –2 persons younger than age 18 charged with aggravated assault or Other violent sex offenses 7,600 –37 –27 –2 robbery offenses also decreased Other person offenses 23,200 –53 –21 –2 during this period (down 46% and Total property 283,600 –53 –29 –6 51%, respectively). Burglary 55,300 –47 –23 1 Larceny-theft 126,800 –52 –36 –13  Between 2007 and 2016, the volume of juvenile court cases involving Motor vehicle theft 15,700 –42 37 19 burglary or larceny-theft cases Arson 2,700 –60 –37 –8 decreased (47% and 52%, respec- Vandalism 41,900 –61 –31 –6 tively), and the FBI reported that Trespassing 24,500 –56 –27 –8 arrests of persons under age 18 Stolen property offenses 9,700 –52 –17 9 decreased 61% for burglary and Other property offenses 6,900 –57 –17 –1 55% for larceny-theft offenses.

Drug law violations 107,400 –41 –26 –4  Unlike most other offenses, the num- Public order offenses 214,700 –50 –25 –5 ber of juvenile court cases involving Obstruction of justice 109,200 –45 –22 –4 criminal homicide increased 33% in Disorderly conduct 56,100 –56 –31 –5 the 5-year period between 2012 and 2016, with most of the increase Weapons offenses 18,300 –54 –20 –3 occurring in the last year (22% Liquor law violations 5,300 –71 –39 –14 between 2015 and 2016). Similarly, Nonviolent sex offenses 11,300 –3 7 1 the FBI reported a 20% increase in Other public order offenses 14,500 –58 –33 –9 the number of juvenile arrests involving criminal homicide between 2012 Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent change calculations are based on unrounded numbers. and 2016.

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 2016, supplemental tables, available at ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s./2016/ crime-in-the-u.s.-2016.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 7 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Case Rates

 More than 31 million youth were The delinquency case rate declined from 52.2 per 1,000 juveniles in under juvenile court jurisdiction in 2005 to 26.9 in 2016 2016. Of these youth, 79% were between the ages of 10 and 15, 12% were age 16, and 9% were age 17. The small proportion of 16- and Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 60 17-year-olds among the juvenile court population is related to the 50 upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction, which varies by state. In 2016, 40 youth age 16 in 2 states were under Total delinquency the original jurisdiction of the criminal 30 court, as were youth age 17 in an additional 7 states. 20  In 2016, juvenile courts processed 26.9 delinquency cases for every 10 1,000 juveniles in the population— 0 those age 10 or older who were 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court.

 The total delinquency case rate remained stable between 2005 and 2008 and then declined 47% to the Between 2005 and 2016, case rates decreased the most for property 2016 level. As a result, the overall offenses (from 19.2 to 9.0 per 1,000 juveniles) delinquency case rate in 2016 was 48% below the 2005 level.3 Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 14 20  Between 2005 and 2016, case rates 12 16 decreased 53% for property offense 10 Person Property cases, 51% for public order offenses, 8 12 43% for person offenses, and 41% 6 8 for drug law violations. 4 2 4 0 0 3 The percent change in the number of cases 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 disposed may not be equal to the percent change in case rates because of the changing size of the juve nile popu la tion. Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 6 14 5 12 Drugs 10 4 Public order 8 3 6 2 4 1 2 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

8 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Age at Referral

Of the 850,500 delinquency cases processed in 2016, 52% involved  The proportion of cases involving juveniles age 15 or younger varied by youth younger than 16, 28% involved females, and 44% involved white offense category. Between 2005 and youth Percentage of total 2016, younger juveniles accounted juvenile court cases, 2016 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 850,500 52% 28% 44% Total person 244,900 59 31 40  In 2016, juveniles younger than 16 Criminal homicide 1,000 32 13 29 accounted for three-quarters (76%) Rape 7,900 62 4 53 of juvenile arson cases. Robbery 20,300 47 11 12 Aggravated assault 26,200 54 25 31 Offense profile of delinquency Simple assault 158,700 61 37 42 cases by age group: Other violent sex offenses 7,600 72 6 63 Most serious Age 15 Age 16 Other person offenses 23,200 60 32 57 offense or younger or older Total property 283,600 53 26 43 Burglary 55,300 54 11 37 2016 Larceny-theft 126,800 51 39 46 Person 33% 24% Motor vehicle theft 15,700 49 21 31 Property 34 32 Arson 2,700 76 15 51 Drugs 9 16 Vandalism 41,900 62 18 52 Public order 24 27 Trespassing 24,500 53 21 41 Stolen property offenses 9,700 48 16 30 Total 100% 100% Other property offenses 6,900 50 25 49 2005 Drug law violations 107,400 37 23 56 Person 29% 22% Public order offenses 214,700 49 28 41 Obstruction of justice 109,200 41 27 39 Property 38 35 Disorderly conduct 56,100 63 37 40 Drugs 8 15 Weapons offenses 18,300 54 12 33 Public order 25 28 Liquor law violations 5,300 30 32 59 Total 100% 100% Nonviolent sex offenses 11,300 60 22 57 Note: Detail may not total 100% because of Other public order offenses 14,500 48 25 48 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 2016 includ ed larg er pro- In 2016, juveniles younger than 16 accounted for more than half of all por tions of person and proper ty delinquency cases, including 59% of person offense cases of fense cases and smaller propor - tions of drug and public order of fense cases. Percent of cases involving juveniles younger than age 16 70% Person  Compared with 2005, the caseload 60% in 2016 for both younger and older 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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 9 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Age at Referral

 Although, in general, more 17-year- In 2016, 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 (174,000) was lower than the number involving Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 16-year-olds (208,600) in 2016. The 70 60.3 explanation lies primarily in the fact 60 that in 9 states 17-year-olds are 53.6 excluded from the original jurisdic- 50 tion of the juvenile court. In these 42.0 states, all 17-year-olds are legally 40 adults and are referred to criminal 30.1 30 court rather than to juvenile court. Thus, far fewer 17-year-olds than 20 18.1 16-year-olds are subject to original 8.9 juvenile court jurisdiction. 10 1.7 3.7 0  In 2016, the delinquency case rate 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 for 17-year-olds (60.3) was twice the Age rate for 14-year-olds (30.1) and more than 3 times the rate for 13-year-olds (18.1).

 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 property, drug, and offenses for 17-year-old juveniles public order offense cases, while person offense case rates leveled off (11.5) was more than 8 times the rate after age 16 for 13-year-olds (1.4).

 For public order offenses in 2016, Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group the case rate for 17-year-olds (15.2) 20 was nearly 4 times the rate for 13-year-olds (4.0) and the property 16 Property Public order offense case rate for 17-year-olds (19.3) was more than 3 times the rate 12 for 13-year-olds (6.1).

 For cases involving person offenses, 8 the case rate for 17-year-olds (14.3) Person was double the rate for 13-year-olds Drugs 4 (6.6).

0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age

10 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Age at Referral

Trends in case rates were similar across age groups between 2005 and 2016 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 Age 17 20 Age 17 35 Age 16 Age 16 30 15 25 Ages 13−15 20 10 Ages 13−15 15 10 5 Ages 10−12 5 Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

 Between 2005 and 2016, 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 2016.  Since 2005, person offense case rates for all age groups declined through 2016: down 48% for youth  Property offense case rates were lower in 2016 than in ages 10–12, 45% for youth ages 13–15, 41% for 2005 for all age groups. In 2016, the case rate for juveniles 16-year-olds, and 39% for 17-year-olds. ages 10–12 was 63% less than the 2005 rate, the rate for juveniles ages 13–15 was 56% less, the rate for 16-year- olds was 51% less, and the rate for 17-year-olds was 49% 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 35

30 16 Age 17 Age 17 25 12 Age 16 Age 16 20 15 8 Ages 13−15 Ages 13−15 10 4 5 Ages 10−12 (x5) Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

 Except for youth age 17, whose level was lowest in 2015,  Public order case rates for all age groups were at their drug offense case rates in 2016 were at their lowest level lowest levels in 2016 since at least 2005. Case rates since 2005 for all other age groups. Compared to 2005, declined at a similar pace for all age groups: 54% for rates in 2016 were 30% lower for youth ages 10–12, 46% youth ages 10–12, 55% for youth ages 13–15, 51% for lower for youth ages 13–15, 44% for 16-year-olds, and youth age 16, and 49% for youth age 17. 38% lower for 17-year-olds.

* 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 display the trend over time.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 11 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Gender

 Males were involved in 72% The overall decline in the male and female delinquency caseloads (614,900) of the delinquency cases between 2005 and 2016 was the same (49% each) handled by juvenile courts in 2016.

 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 2016. The average decrease was slightly larger 1,000,000 for males than females for cases Male involving drug offense cases (5% vs. 800,000 3%) and equal for all other offense 600,000 types; person (5% each), property (7% each) and public order (6%). 400,000 Female  Between 2005 and 2016, the number 200,000 of property offense cases involving males was at its highest level in 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2005, and the female caseload peaked in 2008. Between their respective peaks and 2016, the male caseload declined 53% while the female caseload fell 57%. Number of cases 500,000 Male  Drug offense cases involving males were level between 2005 and 2007, 400,000 Property before decreasing 44% through Public order 2016. Drug offense cases involving females decreased steadily between 300,000 2005 and 2016, and in 2016 the Person number of cases was 30% 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 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 and 2016 (51% and 52%, respectively).

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

12 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Gender

Females accounted for 28% of the delinquency caseload in 2016 —  Between 2005 and 2016, the female similar to 2005 (27%) proportion of the person offense caseload has remained steady, from 30% to 31%. Percent of cases involving females 30% Offense profile of delinquency Delinquency cases for males and females: 25% Most serious 20% offense Male Female 2016 15% Person 28% 32% Property 34 32 10% Drugs 13 11 Public order 25 26 5% Total 100% 100% 0% 2005 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Person 25% 28% Property 37 37 Drugs 12 8 Public order 26 27 Percent of cases involving females Percent of cases involving females Total 100% 100% 35% 35% 30% 30% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of Person round ing. 25% 25% Property 20% 20%  For both males and females, the 15% 15% property and public order offense 10% 10% proportions of the delinquency case- 5% 5% loads were less in 2016 than in 2005. 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016  In 2016, the male caseload contained greater proportions of drug and property offenses than the Percent of cases involving females Percent of cases involving females female caseload. 35% 35% 30% 30%  The male caseload contained smaller 25% 25% Public order Drugs proportions of person and public 20% 20% order offenses than the female case- 15% 15% load in 2016. 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 the same for males case rate remained at least twice the rate of females for all years and females between 2005 and 2016 between 2005 and 2016 (48% each). Most of the decline occurred between 2008 and 2016 (down 47% and 46%, respectively). Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 80

 In 2016, the delinquency case rate 70 for males was 2.5 times the rate for females, 38.1 compared with 15.2. 60 Male 50  With the exception of drug offense cases involving females (which was 40 at its lowest in 2015), case rates in 30 2016 for all offense types were at their lowest level since 2005 for both 20 Female males and females in 2016. 10

 Between 2005 and 2016, male case 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 rates decreased 43% each for drug offenses and person offenses, 50% for public order offenses, and 52% for property offenses. The patterns in case rate decreases were similar for Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age females, down 29% for drug offens- 30 es, 42% for person offenses, 51% Male for public order offenses, and 55% 25 for property offenses. Property 20 Public order  Despite a decrease in the disparity between male and female delinquen- 15 cy case rates between 2005 and Person 2016, the male case rate for drug 10 offense cases was 3.1 times that of Drugs the female case rate. Male rates 5 were between 2.2 and 2.7 times female rates for all other offense 0 types in 2016. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 12 Female

10 Property

8 Person

6 Public order 4

2 Drugs 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

14 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Gender

In 2016, the delinquency case rate for males and females increased  In 2016, the difference between age- steadily through age 17 specific male and female delinquency 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 3.4 90 87.1 Delinquency times the female rate; for 11-year- 80 76.3 olds, the male case rate was 2.9 times the female rate. 70 58.7 60  In all four delinquency offense cat- 50 egories in 2016, case rates increased 41.3 continuously through age 17 for 40 32.2 males. For females, case rates for 29.8 30 24.9 24.5 property, drug, and public order 20 18.4 offenses increased through age 17, 12.5 11.0 while case rates for person offenses 10 5.5 5.2 2.5 0.8 1.9 peaked at age 16. 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age  In 2016, the drug offense case rate for 17-year-old males was 26 times Male Female the rate for 12-year-old males; among females, the drug offense case rate for 17-year-olds was 18 times the rate for 12-year-olds.

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 20 30 Person Property 16 25 20 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 20 25 Drugs Public order 16 20

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 12 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 17 Age 16 40 25 Age 16 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 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 16 30 Female Female 25 12 Age 17 Age 16 Age 17 20 Age 16 8 Ages 13−15 15 10 Ages 13−15 4 5 Ages 10−12 Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

 In the last 12 years (2005 through 2016), male person  Male property offense case rates decreased to their lowest offense case rates decreased for all age groups: 50% for levels for all age groups in 2016. youth ages 10–12, 45% for youth ages 13–15, and 40% each for 16- and 17-year-olds.  Between 2005 and 2016, male property case rates decreased 62% for youth ages 10–12, 54% for ages  During the same period, female person offense case rates 13–15, 50% for age 16, and 49% for age 17. followed a similar pattern as males, decreasing 42% for youth ages 10–12, 43% for youth ages 13–15, 41% for  Similar to the male rates, age-specific property offense 16-year-olds, and 39% for 17-year-olds. rates for females were at their lowest level for all age groups in 2016.

16 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 50 Male Male 30 Age 17 40 Age 17 25 Age 16 Age 16 20 30

15 20 Ages 13−15 10 Ages 13−15 10 5 Ages 10−12 (x5)* Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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

 The male drug offense case rate decreased 32% between  Except for females ages 10–12, whose lowest level was in 2005 and 2016 for youth ages 10–12, while case rates 2015, across all other gender and age groups, public order decreased 48% for youth ages 13–15, 47% for youth age offense case rates in 2016 were at their lowest level since 16, and 41% for youth age 17. Most of the decreases 2005. occurred between 2008 and 2016 (down 27% for youth ages 10–12, 45% each for youth ages 13–15 and 16, and  Between 2005 and 2016, public order case rates 41% for youth age 17). decreased at a similar pace for both males and females across all age groups. Male case rates decreased 56% for  Female drug offense case rates for youth ages 10–12 youth ages 10–12, 54% for youth ages 13–15, 50% for increased 7% from 2005 to 2013, before decreasing 29% youth age 16, and 49% for youth age 17. Similarly, female in 2016. The case rates for all other age groups decreased case rates decreased 45% for youth ages 10–12, 56% for relatively steadily between 2005 and 2016 — 39% for youth ages 13–15, 52% for youth age 16, and 47% for youth ages 13–15, 30% for 16-year-olds, and 21% for youth age 17. 17-year-olds.

* 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 2016 17 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

 Between 2005 and 2016, delinquency The number of delinquency cases decreased substantially for all race cases declined 60% for Asian4 youth, groups between 2005 and 2016 54% for white youth, 46% for black youth, 41% for Hispanic5 youth, and Number of cases 40% for American Indian6 youth. 900,000 Delinquency 800,000  The number of property offense cases involving black youth and 700,000 White Hispanic youth peaked in 2008 600,000 before decreasing through 2016 Black 500,000 (44% and 54%, respectively). 400,000  In 2016, the offense profile was 300,000 Hispanic similar to that of 2005 for all racial groups. 200,000 100,000 Asian Amer. Indian  The offense profile was similar for 0 white, black, and American Indian 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 youth; property offenses accounted for the largest proportion of casel- Number of cases oads, followed by person, public 30,000 order, and drug offense cases. Delinquency 25,000 Amer. Indian  The offense profile for Hispanic youth 20,000 15,000 was similar to that of Asian youth; Asian property offense cases accounted for 10,000 the largest proportion of caseloads, 5,000 followed by equal proportions of per- 0 son and public order cases, then 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 drug offense cases.

4 The racial classification Asian includes Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islander. 5 Persons of Hispanic ethnicity are treated as Across all racial groups, property cases accounted for the largest a distinct race group and are excluded from proportion of the delinquency caseload the other four race groups, with one important exception. Data provided to the Archive from Offense profile of delinquency cases many jurisdictions did not include any means Most serious Amer. to determine the ethnicity of American Indian offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian youth. Rather than assume ethnicity for these 2016 youth, they are classified solely on their racial classification; as such, the American Indian Person 27% 32% 27% 25% 25% group includes an unknown proportion of Property 33 35 30 38 37 Hispanic youth. Drugs 16 7 15 16 13 Public order 24 26 27 22 25 6 The racial classification American Indian Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (usually abbreviated as Amer. Indian) includes American Indian and Alaskan Native. 2005 Person 24% 32% 22% 23% 21% Property 40 32 35 41 44 Drugs 13 8 12 12 8 Public order 23 28 32 25 26 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

18 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

Between 2005 and 2016, 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 Property Property 160,000 250,000 120,000 200,000 Public order Public order

150,000 Person 80,000 100,000 Drugs Drugs 40,000 50,000

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

Hispanic American Indian

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

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

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

Asian

Number of cases 12,000 Percent change in number of cases,cases, 2005–2016: 10,000 Most serious American Property offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian 8,000 Delinquency –54% –46% –41% –40% –60%

6,000 Public order Person –49 –44 –26 –34 –53 Property –62 –41 –49 –43 –66 4,000 Person Drugs –42 –55 –23 –19 –36 Public order –53 –50 –49 –48 –62 2,000 Drugs 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 201

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 19 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

Between 2005 and 2016, delinquency case rates declined for youth of all racial groups: 49% for whites, 41% for blacks, 54% for Hispanics, 45% for American Indians, and 69% for Asians

 In 2016, the total delinquency case rate for white youth and Delinquency Hispanic youth was similar (21.5 and 21.1, respectively). The case rate for black juveniles (65.1) was about triple the rates Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age for white youth, Hispanic youth, and American Indian youth 120 (24.9), and more than 12 times the case rate for Asian youth 100 (5.0). Black 80  In 2016, the person offense case rate for black juveniles (21.6) was more than 3 times the rate for Hispanic youth, 60 white youth, and American Indian youth (5.9 each), and near- Hispanic ly 17 times that of Asian youth (1.3). 40 White Amer. Indian  Case rates in 2016 were lower than in 2005 for each racial 20 group for all four offense categories. Asian 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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

Drugs Public order

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

30 8 25 Black Black 6 White 20 Amer. Indian 15 4 Amer. Indian Hispanic Hispanic 10 2 Asian White 5 Asian

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

20 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

In 2016, 44% of all delinquency cases involved white youth: 40% of per-  In 2016, white youth made up 55% son offense cases, 43% of property offense cases, 56% of drug offense of the U.S. population under juvenile cases, and 41% of public order offense cases court jurisdiction, black youth 15%, Hispanic youth 23%, American Indian youth 2%, and Asian youth Proportion of delinquency cases 6%. 100% 90% Racial profile of delinquency cases: 80% Race 2005 2016 70% White 48% 44% 60% Black 33 36 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% 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Year  Although white youth represented White Black Hispanic Other* the largest share of the delinquency caseload, their relative contribution * Because American Indian and Asian proportions are too small to display individually, they declined between 2005 and 2016, are combined in the category “Other races.” from 48% to 44%.

 The proportion of delinquency cases involving black youth and Hispanic youth increased between 2005 and Case rates for juveniles increased with age, regardless of race 2016. Racial profile of delinquency cases by offense: Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 160 Public Delinquency Race Person Property Drugs order 140 2016 120 White 40% 43% 56% 41% Black Black 40 37 18 37 100 Hispanic 17 16 22 20 80 Amer. Indian 1 2 2 1 60 Hispanic Asian 1 1 1 1 Amer. Indian 40 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% White 20 Asian 2005 White 44% 53% 57% 43% 0 Black 40 29 24 36 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age Hispanic 13 15 17 19 Amer. Indian 1 2 2 1 Asian 1 2 1 1 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of round ing.

 In 2016, 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 2016 21 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

Case rates for person offenses in 2016 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 Age 17 60 16 Age 17 50 Age 16 Age 16 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 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 7 Asian  The pattern of decrease in person offense case rates was similar for black, American Indian, and Hispanic youth 6 between 2005 and 2016; 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 2016 was about the same for each 2 age group (between 42% and 44%). For Asian youth, the 1 decrease was greatest for youth ages 13–15, followed by Ages 10−12 youth age 16, then youth age 17, and finally youth ages 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 10–12.

 In 2016, person offense case rates for 17-year-olds increased from the 2014 historic low levels for white, Hispanic, and American Indian youth.

22 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

Except for American Indian youth, property offense case rates were at their lowest level in 2016 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 Age 17 80 Age 17 30 70 Age 16 Age 16 60 25 50 20 40 Ages 13−15 15 Ages 13−15 30 10 20 5 Ages 10−12 10 Ages 10−12 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 14 Asian  Between 2005 and 2016, among all racial groups, property offense case rates decreased more for youth ages 12 10–12 and 13–15, than youth age 16 and age 17. Age 17 10 Age 16  Property offense case rates decreased the least for black 8 youth age 16 and age 17 (31% and 30%, respectively), 6 and decreased the most for Asian youth ages 10–12 and Ages 13−15 ages 13–15 (86% and 77%, respectively) between 2005 4 and 2016. 2 Ages 10−12 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 23 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

Drug offense case rates for all age groups within each racial category declined in the 12-year period 2005–2016

Drug offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 20 40 White Black Age 17 35 16 30 Age 16 Age 17 12 25 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 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 16 12 Hispanic Amer. Indian 14 Age 17 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 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 5 Asian  Although changes in age specific case rates for drug offenses varied by racial group between 2005 and 2016, 4 Age 17 case rates decreased for all age groups for all races.

3  Between 2005 and 2016, age-specific case rates for all Age 16 racial groups decreased by at least 14% for youth age 17, 2 while decreases in other age groups varied. Ages 13−15 1 Ages 10−12 (x5)* 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

* 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 2016 Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases Race

In 2016, public order case rates were at the lowest level since 2005 for all age groups in all racial categories except white and American Indian youth ages 10–12, which had their lowest rates in 2015

Public order offense case rates

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

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

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

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 10 Asian  Between 2005 and 2016, age-specific public order case rates decreased least for white youth ages 10–12 (39%) 8 and most for Asian youth ages 13–15 (76%). Age 16 Age 17 6  Case rates for white and American Indian youth ages 10–12 decreased between 2005 and 2015 (42% and 63%, Ages 13−15 respectively) before increasing in 2016 (4% and 10%, 4 respectively).

2  With the exception of white youth, public order case rates Ages 10−12 decreased more for youth ages 10–12 and ages 13–15 0 than for youth age 16 and age 17 between 2005 and 2016. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 White 20 Hispanic White 20 Hispanic Amer. Indian 10 Amer. Indian 10 Asian Asian 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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

White 10 10 Amer. Indian Amer. Indian White Hispanic 5 5 Hispanic Asian Asian 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

 For all years between 2005 and 2016, 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 2016 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 2016, cases involving Asian youth showed the largest relative decrease in property offense  In 2016, the person offense case rate for black females case rates. During this period, the property case rate for (13.8) was 21 times the rate for Asian females (0.7) and 3 to Asian males decreased 75% and the rate for Asian females 4 times the rate for Hispanic females (3.4), white females decreased 71%. (3.5), and American Indian females (4.2).

26 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 18 45 Male Male 16 40 14 Black 35 Black 12 30 10 Hispanic White 25 8 20 Hispanic Amer. Indian 6 Amer. Indian 15 4 10 Asian White 2 5 Asian 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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

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

 For all years between 2005 and 2016, drug offense case  Between 2005 and 2016, 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 2016, the rate for black males (7.3) was case rates for males and females. During this period, the about 7 times the rate for Asian males, and at least 1.4 public order case rate for Asian males decreased 72% and times the rate for white males, Hispanic males, and the rate for Asian females decreased 67%. American Indian males.  In 2016, the public order offense case rate for black males  In 2016, 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: nearly 1.3 times the rate for white youth, males, and more than 13 times the rate for Asian males. nearly double the rates for Hispanic youth and black youth, and more than 7 times the rate for Asian youth.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 continued 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 2016 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 2016 and examining trends from tution or fines, or referral to an outside cases resulting in placement are not 2005 through 2016. agency or treatment program. This included in the probation group.

30 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016, 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. Person 80%  In 2016, 81% of all delinquency 70% cases were referred by law enforce- 60% Public order ment; however, there were variations 50% across offense categories. 40%  Law enforcement agencies referred 30% 92% of drug law violation cases, 20% 91% of property offense cases, 89% 10% of person offense cases, and 56% of 0% public order offense cases in 2016. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016  For each year between 2005 and 2016, 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 violations and contempt-of-court cases, Proportion of cases which are most often referred by 100% court personnel. 11% 9% 8% 90% 19%  Law enforcement referred a smaller 80% 44% proportion of all delinquency cases 70% in 2016 (81%) than in 2005 (84%). 60% 50% 89% 91% 92% 40% 81% 30% 56% 20% 10% 0% Delinquency Person Property Drugs Public Order

Law enforcement referral Total other referrals

Source of referral profile, 2016: Public Referral source Delinquency Person Property Drugs order

Law enforcement 81% 89% 91% 92% 56% School 3 3 1 4 5 Relative 1 1 1 0 2 Other 15 7 6 4 38 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 45% 2016 for all offense categories between 2005 and 2016 to its lowest level in the analysis period. The larg- Cases detained est relative decline since 2005 was 140,000 for drug offense cases involving detention, down 54%, compared 120,000 Property with 47% for public order offenses, 100,000 46% for property offenses, and 41% Person for person offenses. Public order 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 2016 (27%) than in 2005 (25%). 20,000

0  Between 2005 and 2016, the use of 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 detention decreased for drug law violation cases (from 23% to 18%), while the use of detention increased for all other offenses. The use of detention increased from 31% to 33% for person offense cases, from 19% to 23% for property offense cases, and from 26% to 29% for Between 2005 and 2016, the proportions of cases involving detention public order offense cases. increased slightly for person, property, and public order offense cases and decreased for drug offense cases Offense profile of detained delinquency cases: Percent of cases detained Most serious 35% offense 2005 2016 Person Person 33% 36% 30% Public order Property 29 28 25% Drugs 10 8 Property Public order 28 27 20% Drugs Total 100% 100% 15%

Number of cases 412,900 226,700 10% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 5% round ing. 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016  Compared with 2005, the offense characteristics of the 2016 detention caseload were similar.

32 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Detention

Black and Hispanic youth represented a larger share of the overall  In 2016, black youth accounted for detention caseload than of the overall delinquency caseload in 2016 36% of the overall delinquency caseload, compared with 40% of the overall detention caseload. Hispanic Percent of cases 50% youth accounted for 18% of the Delinquency overall delinquency caseload and 45% 44% 40% 22% of the overall detention case- 40% 35% 36% load. 35% 30%  White youth accounted for a smaller proportion of the detention caseload 25% 22% (35%) compared with the delinquen- 20% 18% cy caseload (44%). 15% 10%  Hispanic youth accounted for a larger proportion of the cases detained 5% 2% 2% 1% 1% than of the cases referred for all 0% White Black Hispanic Indian Asian offense categories in 2016.

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 2016.

 Black juveniles accounted for a greater proportion of detained cases Proportion of caseload Proportion of caseload 50% 50% 45% than referred cases for person, prop- 43% 43% 40% 40% Person Property erty, and drug offenses, and a slight- 40% 40% 37% 35% 34% ly smaller proportion of detained 30% 30% than referred cases for public order 20% 19% 20% 17% 20% 16% offenses in 2016.

10% 10%

0% 0% White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic

Proportion of caseload Proportion of caseload 60% 56% 50% Drugs 41% Public order 50% 40% 37% 43% 34% 36% 40% 30% 27% 30% 26% 27% 22% 20% 19% 20% 20% 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 2016 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 2016, 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. 2016  For all years between 2005 and Delinquency 26% 27% 29% 22% 2016, person offense cases were Person 32 35 35 29 more likely to involve detention than Property 23 22 26 14 were other offenses for both youth Drugs 18 18 19 14 age 15 and younger and those age Public order 27 31 31 25 16 and older. 2012 Delinquency 25% 26% 27% 21% Gender Person 32 35 35 29 Property 20 21 24 13  In 2016, male juveniles charged with Drugs 19 19 19 16 delinquency offenses were more like- Public order 25 30 30 23 ly than females to be held in secure 2005 facilities while awaiting court disposi- Delinquency 24% 26% 26% 21% tion. Overall in 2016, 29% of male Person 30 34 33 29 delinquency cases involved deten- Property 18 20 22 13 tion, compared with 22% of female Drugs 23 23 23 20 cases. Public order 25 28 27 24

Offense profile of detained delinquency cases by gender, 2016: Most serious offense Male Female Detention was more likely for cases involving Hispanic youth Person 34% 43% than cases involving youth of other racial groups Property 30 21 Percentage of cases detained Drugs 9 7 Most serious American Public order 27 29 offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Total 100% 100% 2016 Delinquency 21% 30% 32% 27% 27% Race Person 29 36 38 34 34 Property 18 27 26 21 20  Cases involving white youth were Drugs 14 25 22 16 19 less likely to be detained than cases Public order 24 28 40 38 35 involving all other racial groups for 2012 most years between 2005 and 2016 Delinquency 22% 28% 30% 26% 25% across offense categories. Person 30 34 39 31 35 Property 17 24 24 21 17  In 2016, person and public order Drugs 15 25 23 19 21 offense cases involving Hispanic Public order 25 26 35 36 34 youth were more likely to involve 2005 detention (38% and 40%, respectively) than those involving all other Delinquency 21% 27% 29% 25% 24% races. Person 29 32 37 30 33 Property 17 22 22 20 18 Drugs 17 33 27 21 20 Public order 24 26 32 32 27

34 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Intake Decision

Each year between 2005 and 2016, delinquency cases were more  Between 2005 and 2016, 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 1,000,000 cases. As the overall delinquency caseload decreased 49% between 2005 and 2016, the number of non- 800,000 Petitioned petitioned cases decreased 52% to its lowest level in 2016, and the 600,000 number of petitioned cases Nonpetitioned decreased 47%. 400,000  The largest relative decrease in the number of petitioned cases between 200,000 2005 and 2016 was seen in property offense cases (50%), followed by 0 drug offense cases (49%), public 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 order offense cases (48%), and person offense cases (42%).

Offense profile of delinquency cases, 2016: Most serious offense Nonpetitioned Petitioned Regardless of offense type, the number of petitioned cases decreased Person 28% 29% between 2005 and 2016 Property 34 33 Drugs 15 11 Petitioned delinquency cases 350,000 Public order 23 27 Total 100% 100% 300,000 Number Public order 250,000 Property of cases 370,900 479,600 Person Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 200,000 round ing.

150,000  In 2016, the offense profiles of non- 100,000 petitioned and petitioned delinquency cases were similar but the nonpe- Drugs 50,000 titioned caseload had a greater proportion of drug law violations and 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 a smaller proportion of public order offenses.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 35 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Intake Decision

 The overall likelihood of formal han- In 2016, juvenile courts petitioned 56% of all delinquency cases dling was greater for more serious offenses within the same general Percentage Percentage of all offense category. In 2016, for exam- of total petitioned cases, 2016 delinquency ple, 75% 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 479,600 56% 50% 24% 40% cases. Similarly, 71% of burglary Total person 139,700 57 57 27 36 cases and 76% of motor vehicle Criminal homicide 800 79 33 12 28 theft cases were handled formally by Rape 5,900 74 64 4 54 juvenile courts, compared with 47% Robbery 17,200 85 47 11 12 of larceny-theft and 46% of tres- Aggravated assault 19,500 75 52 24 29 passing cases. Simple assault 79,700 50 59 35 39 Other violent sex offenses 5,400 71 72 5 60  Youth younger than 16 accounted Other person offenses 11,200 48 55 28 51 for 50% of the delinquency cases Total property 157,100 55 52 21 39 handled formally by juvenile courts Burglary 39,500 71 53 8 36 in 2016; females accounted for 24% Larceny-theft 59,400 47 50 31 40 and white youth accounted for 40% Motor vehicle theft 12,000 76 49 20 30 of petitioned cases. Arson 1,800 68 72 15 52 Vandalism 21,900 52 60 17 49  Between 2005 and 2016, the likeli- Trespassing 11,400 46 53 19 35 hood of formal processing increased: Stolen property offenses 7,400 76 46 14 27 from 56% to 61% for public order Other property offenses 3,700 54 45 26 47 Drug law violations 52,700 49 33 21 55 cases, from 51% to 55% for prop- Public order offenses 130,100 61 45 26 38 erty offense cases, and from 55% to Obstruction of justice 80,400 74 39 26 37 57% for person offense cases. Disorderly conduct 24,200 43 61 36 39 Weapons offenses 11,600 63 49 10 27  In 2016, 49% of drug offense cases Liquor law violations 1,600 31 30 27 56 were petitioned—a lower percentage Nonviolent sex offenses 5,900 52 56 16 56 than in 2005, when 56% were peti- Other public order offenses 6,400 44 47 24 53 tioned. Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.  Between 2005 and 2009, property offense cases were less likely than cases in each of the other general offense categories to be handled with a petition for adjudication; in Between 2005 and 2016, the use of formal processing increased in all 2016, drug offense cases were the general offense categories except drug offense cases least likely.

Percent of cases petitioned 70% Public order 60%

50% Property Person Drugs 40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

36 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016, 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. 2016  In 2016, 54% of delinquency cases Delinquency 54% 59% 59% 49% involving youth age 15 or younger Person 55 61 60 50 were petitioned, compared with 59% Property 54 57 60 43 of cases involving older youth. Drugs 44 52 51 43 Public order 56 65 63 56 Gender 2012 Delinquency 52% 59% 58% 47%  Between 2005 and 2016, the likeli- Person 54 61 60 50 hood of formal case processing for Property 50 55 57 40 delinquency cases increased slightly Drugs 44 53 51 43 for males (from 57% to 59%) and Public order 53 65 61 54 females (from 47% to 49%). 2005 Delinquency 51% 58% 57% 47%  Between 2005 and 2016, for both Person 53 59 58 49 males and females, the likelihood of Property 49 55 56 40 formal case processing decreased Drugs 52 59 58 49 for drug offense cases (down 7 and Public order 52 61 58 53 6 percentage points, respectively). The use of formal case processing increased slightly for all other offense types for both males and females, with the largest increase occurring Between 2005 and 2016, the likelihood of formal processing for males involved in public order increased for cases involving black and Hispanic youth, and offense cases (up 5 percentage decreased for cases involving American Indian and Asian youth points). Percentage of cases petitioned Race Most serious American offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian  The proportion of delinquency cases 2016 petitioned decreased between 2005 and 2016 for Asian and American Delinquency 51% 63% 55% 55% 54% Indian youth (down 2 and 1 percent- Person 51 63 57 55 57 age points, respectively), remained Property 50 63 53 55 47 the same for white youth, and Drugs 48 58 46 47 46 increased for black youth and Public order 57 64 61 62 67 Hispanic youth (4 and 2 percentage 2012 points, respectively). Delinquency 51% 61% 52% 56% 54% Person 52 63 55 56 63  For each year between 2005 and Property 49 58 50 53 45 2016, drug offense cases involving Drugs 47 60 45 51 50 black juveniles were more likely to be Public order 58 62 56 67 66 petitioned than were such cases 2005 involving any other racial group. Delinquency 51% 59% 53% 56% 56% Person 51 60 55 55 61 Property 49 57 50 51 51 Drugs 51 70 55 50 59 Public order 56 58 53 66 62

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 37 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Waiver

 Between 2005 and 2016, the number The number of cases judicially waived to criminal court decreased 46% of delinquency cases waived to crim- between 2005 and 2016 inal court was at its highest in 2006 (6,700). Despite a slight increased Case judicially waived to criminal court between 2015 and 2016, the number 7,000 of cases waived in 2016 was 49% below the 2006 level. 6,000 Total delinquency  The number of judicially waived per- 5,000 son offense cases increased 10% 4,000 between 2005 and 2008 and then fell 44% through 2016. 3,000

 The number of drug offense cases 2,000 judicially waived remained stable between 2005 and 2007 before fall- 1,000 ing 64% by 2016. 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016  For public order offenses, the number of waived cases decreased 53% between 2005 and 2016.

 Between 2005 and 2016, the largest number of judicially waived cases involved person offense cases.

 Historically, the number of cases Since 2005, the number of cases judicially waived to criminal court judicially waived declined after 1994 decreased the most for drug offenses (64%), followed by public order and may be attributable in part to (53%), property (47%), and person offenses (39%) the large increase in the number of states that passed legislation exclud- ing certain serious offenses from Cases judicially waived to criminal court 3,500 juvenile court jurisdiction and legislation permitting the prosecutor to file 3,000 certain cases directly in criminal court. 2,500 Person 2,000 Property 1,500

1,000 Drugs 500 Public order 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

38 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Waiver

For all years from 2005 to 2016, cases involving person offense cases  The proportion of judicially waived were most likely to be judicially waived drug offense cases remained stable between 2005 and 2011, with a rela- Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court tive decline through 2016. 1.6%  Between 2005 and 2016, the proportion of person and property Person 1.2% offense cases that were judicially waived fluctuated, with the likelihood of waiver being slightly higher Drugs 0.8% in 2016 than in 2005.

 After an initial increase between Property 2005 and 2009, the proportion of 0.4% Public order judicially waived public order offense cases decreased through 2016 to a level just below that in 2005. 0.0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016  The proportion of the waived caseload involving person offenses grew between 2005 and 2016. In 2005, person offense cases accounted for 46% of the waived caseload; by 2016, person offense cases were 52% of the waived caseload.

Between 2005 and 2016, 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 both 2005 and 2016, and ranged between 30% and Proportion of judicially waived delinquency cases 100% 34% over the time period.

90%  Drug offense cases represented 80% 14% of the judicially waived cases 70% in 2005 and 9% in 2016. 60%  Between 2005 and 2016, public 50% order offense cases comprised 8% 40% to 11% of the waived caseload. 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Person Property Drugs Public order

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016, 1.3% 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 0.1% of cases Most serious Age 15 Age 16 involving younger juveniles. offense and younger and older Male Female 2016  For both age groups, the probability Delinquency 0.1% 1.3% 0.9% 0.3% of waiver remained relatively stable Person 0.3 2.6 1.6 0.4 between 2005 and 2016. Property 0.1 1.3 0.8 0.3 Drugs 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.3 Gender Public order 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 2012  The proportion of person offense cases judicially waived increased Delinquency 0.1% 1.3% 0.9% 0.2% from 1.5% in 2005 to 1.6% in 2016 Person 0.4 2.6 1.7 0.3 for males, and the proportion of Property 0.1 1.4 0.8 0.3 Drugs 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.4 drug offense cases judicially waived Public order 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 decreased from 0.9% to 0.7%. 2005  The use of waiver remained relatively Delinquency 0.1% 1.4% 0.8% 0.3% stable for all offense types involving Person 0.3 2.6 1.5 0.4 females between 2005 and 2016. Property 0.1 1.3 0.7 0.3 Drugs 0.1 1.3 0.9 0.4 Race Public order 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.1

 The likelihood of judicial waiver among cases involving white youth was slightly lower in 2016 (0.6%) than in 2005 (0.7%); the likelihood Person offense cases involving black youth were more likely for cases involving black youth was than cases involving white youth to be judicially waived higher in 2016 (0.9%) than in 2005 (0.7%). Percentage of petitioned cases judicially waived Most serious American  In 2016, cases involving person offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian offenses were more likely than other 2016 offenses to be waived for youth of Delinquency 0.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.9% 0.3% all races: 0.9% among white juve- Person 0.9 1.6 1.2 2.1 0.8 niles, 1.6% among black juveniles, Property 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.1 1.2% among Hispanic youth, 2.1% Drugs 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 among American Indian juveniles, Public order 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.2 and 0.8% among Asian juveniles. 2012 Delinquency 0.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.7% 0.4% Person 0.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.0 Property 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.2 Drugs 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.4 Public order 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 2005 Delinquency 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.5% Person 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.1 Property 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.4 Drugs 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 Public order 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2

40 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Waiver

For white juveniles, the number of delinquency cases judicially waived  The number of judicially waived to criminal court in 2016 was at its lowest level since 2005 cases involving white youth increased slightly between 2005 and 2006, and then declined 61% to its lowest level (1,100) in 2016. Delinquency case judicially waived to criminal court 3,000  For black juveniles, the number of judicially waived cases increased 2,500 17% between 2005 and 2008 and Black fell 47% to its lowest level in 2015, 2,000 White before a slight increase in 2016. Similarly, the number of judicially 1,500 waived cases involving Hispanic youth increased 19% between 2005 1,000 and 2007 and decreased 58% to its Hispanic lowest level in 2015 before a slight 500 increase in 2016.

0  The number of judicially waived per- 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 son offense cases involving white youth decreased 51% between 2005 and 2016.

 The number of judicially waived drug Case judicially waived to criminal court Case judicially waived to criminal court offense cases involving black juve- 2,000 1,400 niles decreased substantially Person Property 1,200 1,600 between 2005 and 2016—down 73%. Black 1,000 White 1,200 800 Offense profile of waived cases: 800 White 600 Black 400 Most serious 400 Hispanic 200 Hispanic offense White Black Hispanic 0 0 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Person 42% 56% 65% Property 38 30 17 Drugs 13 6 14 Case judicially waived to criminal court Case judicially waived to criminal court Public order 7 9 5 500 400 Drugs Public order Total 100% 100% 100% 400 300 2005 White 300 White Person 34 58 56 Black 200 200 Black Property 42 19 26 100 Drugs 14 15 10 100 Hispanic Hispanic Public order 10 8 8 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Total 100% 100% 100% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of round ing. Offense profiles are not presented for American Indian and Asian youth because counts were too small to calculate meaningful percentages.

 In 2016, person offense cases accounted for the largest proportion of judicially waived cases for all racial groups.

 Similar proportions of person and property offense cases involving white youth were judicially waived in 2016 (42% and 38%, respectively).

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016. 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 2016 person offense cat- 50% egory, 55% of petitioned aggravated 40% assault cases were adjudicated 30% delinquent, compared with 47% of simple assault cases. 20% 10%  In the property offense category in 0% 2016, similar proportions of peti- 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 tioned burglary and motor vehicle Nonpetitioned theft cases were adjudicated delin- Petitioned: not adjudiciated delinquent quent (58% and 56%, respectively), compared with 49% of larceny-theft Petitioned: adjudicated delinquent or judicially waived cases.

 Among public order offenses in 2016, 59% of obstruction of justice cases were adjudicated delinquent, compared with 49% of disorderly In 2016, youth were adjudicated delinquent in more than half (52%) of conduct cases. petitioned delinquency cases Percentage Percentage of all of total adjudicated cases, 2016  Youth younger than 16 accounted Cases petitioned for 50% of all adjudicated delin- adjudicated Younger cases quency cases handled by juvenile Most serious offense delinquent than 16 Female White courts in 2016, females accounted Total delinquency 250,400 52% 50% 22% 41% for 22%, and white youth accounted Total person 70,500 50 57 25 37 for 41%. Criminal homicide 300 44 41 14 34 Rape 3,100 52 68 4 54 Robbery 10,200 59 49 11 12 Aggravated assault 10,700 55 52 22 29 Simple assault 37,200 47 59 33 40 Other violent sex offenses 3,100 56 74 4 62 Other person offenses 5,900 53 58 27 53 Total property 81,500 52 54 19 40 Burglary 22,800 58 54 7 35 Larceny-theft 29,300 49 52 29 43 Motor vehicle theft 6,700 56 52 19 30 Arson 1,000 53 73 13 50 Vandalism 10,700 49 60 17 51 Trespassing 4,800 42 55 18 38 Stolen property offenses 4,300 58 48 14 28 Other property offenses 1,800 50 51 24 52 Drug law violations 26,000 49 37 20 55 Public order offenses 72,500 56 45 24 40 Obstruction of justice 47,400 59 39 25 38 Disorderly conduct 11,800 49 63 35 43 Weapons offenses 6,200 54 46 8 24 Liquor law violations 700 46 35 25 55 Nonviolent sex offenses 3,100 53 58 13 58 Other public order offenses 3,200 50 48 23 56 Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

42 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Adjudication

Between 2005 and 2016, the number of cases in which youth were  The annual number of delinquency adjudicated delinquent decreased 55% cases in which youth were adjudicated delinquent steadily decreased from 554,100 in 2005 to its lowest Cases adjudicated delinquent level in 2016 (250,400). 600,000  The number of adjudicated property 500,000 offense cases was at its lowest level in 2016 (from 193,400 in 2005 to 400,000 81,500 in 2016). Total delinquency 300,000  The number of adjudicated person offense cases decreased 50% from 200,000 139,700 cases in 2005 to 70,500 cases in 2016. 100,000  The number of adjudicated cases 0 decreased 59% for drug offense 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 cases and 54% for public order cases between 2005 and 2016. Offense profile of cases adjudicated delinquent: Most serious offense 2005 2016

Since 2005, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent decreased for Person 25% 28% all general offense categories Property 35 33 Drugs 11 10 Public order 28 29 Number of cases 200,000 Total 100% 100% Cases adjudicated 554,100 250,400 Public order 160,000 delinquent

Property Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 120,000 round ing.

Person  Compared with 2005, the 2016 adju- 80,000 dicated delinquency caseload included greater proportions of person and 40,000 public order offense cases and Drugs smaller proportions of property and drug offense cases. 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016 than in petitioned cases in 2005 to 52% in 2016 2005 for all offense types (by 7 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 2016. 50%

 The likelihood of adjudication among 40% drug offense cases followed a similar pattern, decreasing from 61% to 30% 49% between 2005 and 2016. 20%

 Among public order cases, the likeli- 10% hood of adjudication decreased from 63% to 56% between 2005 and 0% 2016. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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

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 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

44 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016 between 2005 and 2016. Delinquency 53% 51% 53% 49%  For drug offense cases involving Person 51 50 52 46 juveniles age 16 and older, the likeli- Property 53 50 53 47 hood of adjudication decreased from Drugs 54 47 50 48 60% to 47% between 2005 and Public order 55 56 57 53 2016. 2012 Delinquency 57% 55% 57% 52% Gender Person 55 52 55 49 Property 58 55 58 51  Between 2005 and 2016, male cases Drugs 58 52 55 54 generally were more likely to be Public order 59 59 60 56 adjudicated delinquent than were 2005 female cases. Delinquency 62% 60% 62% 58% Person 59 56 60 53  Petitioned drug offense cases involv- Property 62 60 62 56 ing females were nearly as likely as Drugs 64 60 61 62 those involving males to result in a Public order 63 63 64 62 delinquency adjudication for all years between 2005 and 2016.

 Between 2005 and 2016, for females, the likelihood of a delinquency adjudication decreased for Delinquency cases involving black youth were less likely all offense types (between 7 and 14 to result in a delinquency adjudication than were cases percentage points). involving youth of all other races Race Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent Most serious American  Between 2005 and 2016, the likeli- offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian hood of a delinquency adjudication 2016 decreased 9 percentage points for white youth, and 8 percentage points Delinquency 53% 49% 57% 61% 52% each for black youth and Hispanic Person 51 48 56 60 47 youth. Property 53 49 55 63 53 Drugs 50 46 50 62 41  Cases involving American Indian Public order 58 50 62 60 60 juveniles were more likely to result 2012 in a delinquency adjudication than Delinquency 56% 53% 62% 67% 55% cases involving all other races. Person 53 51 60 64 57 Property 57 53 60 67 51 Drugs 54 51 58 69 43 Public order 60 55 66 68 62 2005 Delinquency 62% 57% 65% 68% 62% Person 59 55 63 66 64 Property 62 58 63 68 58 Drugs 62 58 64 69 59 Public order 64 60 68 68 67

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 144,400 in 2005 to 66,500 in 2016 home placement decreased 54% from 2005 to its lowest level in 2016. Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement  Between 2005 and 2016, the number 160,000 of cases involving the use of out-of- home placement decreased 70% for 140,000 drug offense cases, 55% for property 120,000 offense cases, 53% 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 home placement. Offense profile of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement: Most serious offense 2005 2016 In 2016, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in Person 27% 30% out-of-home place was at its lowest level in all four general offense Property 33 32 categories Drugs 9 6 Public order 31 31 Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement 50,000 Total 100% 100% Property Cases resulting Public order 40,000 in out-of-home placement 144,400 66,500 30,000 Note: Detail may not total 100% because of Person round ing. 20,000  In 2005 and 2016, property offense cases accounted for the largest share of cases adjudicated delin- 10,000 Drugs quent that resulted in out-of-home placement. 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

46 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

The court ordered out-of-home placement in 27% of all cases adjudicated  The proportion of adjudicated delin- delin quent in 2016 quency cases that resulted in out- of-home placement was very stable over the period 2005 to 2016, rang- Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement ing from 27% to 25%. 30%  The likelihood that an adjudicated 25% case would result in out-of-home Total delinquency placement was also very stable 20% between 2005 and 2016 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 21% in 2006 to 16% in 2016. 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 47 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

Age Between 2005 and 2016, the likelihood of out-of-home placement remained relatively stable  In each year from 2005 through 2016, cases involving juveniles age Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent, 16 or older adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement were more likely to result in out-of- Most serious Age 15 Age 16 home placement than were cases offense and younger and older Male Female involving youth age 15 or younger, 2016 regardless of offense. Delinquency 25% 29% 28% 21% Person 26 32 30 22  Between 2005 and 2016, the use of Property 25 28 28 19 out-of-home placement for younger Drugs 15 16 16 12 youth remained the same for person Public order 26 31 30 24 and public order offense cases, 2012 declined for drug offense cases, and Delinquency 23% 28% 27% 19% increased slightly for property Person 25 31 30 21 offense cases. For older youth, the Property 22 26 26 16 use of out-of-home placement Drugs 16 17 17 14 declined for drug offense cases and Public order 25 32 31 23 increased slightly for all other 2005 offense types. Delinquency 24% 28% 28% 20% Person 26 31 30 22 Gender Property 23 27 26 17 Drugs 20 22 22 16  For males in 2016, person and pub- Public order 26 30 30 23 lic order offense cases adjudicated delinquent were most likely to result in out-of-home placement (30% each), followed by property cases (28%), and cases involving drug In 2016, adjudicated public order cases involving Hispanic offenses (16%). youth were most likely to receive a disposition of out-of-home placement, across all offense and racial categories  For females in 2016, adjudicated public order offense cases were Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent, most likely to result in out-of-home resulting in out-of-home placement placement (24%), followed by per- Most serious American son cases (22%), property cases offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian (19%), and drug offense cases (12%). 2016 Delinquency 22% 29% 33% 23% 22% Race Person 24 29 35 27 26 Property 22 29 31 22 18  After adjudication, the likelihood of Drugs 12 20 21 17 NA out-of-home placement in 2016 was Public order 23 31 37 24 24 greater for Hispanic youth (33%) 2012 than for black (29%), American Delinquency 21% 28% 31% 24% 19% Indian (23%), white, or Asian youth Person 24 29 31 31 20 (22% each). Property 20 28 28 22 19 Drugs 13 21 21 17 NA  The proportion of cases adjudicated Public order 24 30 36 23 22 delinquent that resulted in out-of- 2005 home-placement was the same in 2016 as in 2005 for white and black Delinquency 22% 29% 31% 25% 24% youth, greater for Hispanic youth, Person 25 30 32 27 27 and smaller for American Indian and Property 21 28 29 24 23 Asian youth. Drugs 15 30 26 18 21 Public order 25 29 34 27 24

NA: Data are not presented because the small number of cases produces unstable estimates.

48 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Dispositions: Probation

The number of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in probation  Between 2005 and 2016, the declined 53% between 2005 and 2016 number of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in an order of probation decreased 53%, compared Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation with a 54% decrease in the number 350,000 of cases that resulted in out-of-home 300,000 placement.

250,000  Between 2005 and 2016, the number Total delinquency of cases resulting in probation 200,000 decreased at a similar pace for all offense groups: 57% for property 150,000 offenses, 55% for drug offenses, 100,000 53% for public order offenses, and 47% for person offenses. 50,000

0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

The number of adjudicated property offense cases resulting in an order of probation fell 57% since 2005

Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation 140,000

120,000

100,000 Person Property 80,000

60,000 Public order 40,000 Drugs 20,000

0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 49 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Dispositions: Probation

 Probation was the most restrictive Probation remains the most likely sanction imposed by juvenile courts disposition used in 62% (155,500) of the cases adjudicated delinquent in Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation 2016, compared with 60% (333,700) 70% of the adjudicated caseload in 2005. 60% Total delinquency  Between 2005 and 2016, the likeli- 50% hood of probation for cases adjudicated delinquent was relatively sta- 40% ble for person, property, and public order offense cases, varying by 2 to 30% 4 percentage points, compared with an 8 percentage point range for drug 20% offense cases. 10%

Offense profile of cases adjudicated 0% delinquent, resulting in probation: 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Most serious offense 2005 2016 Person 26% 29% Property 36 33 Drugs 13 12 Public order 26 26 Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation resulting in probation Total 100% 100% 80% 80%

Cases resulting in 60% 60% formal probation 333,700 155,500 Person Property 40% 40% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of round ing. 20% 20%

0% 0%  In 2016, 33% of cases adjudicated 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 delinquent that resulted in probation involved property offenses, 29% involved person cases, and 26% involved public order cases. Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation resulting in probation  The offense characteristics of cases 80% 60% adjudicated delinquent that resulted 50% Public order in probation changed little between 60% Drugs 40% 2005 and 2016, with a slight 40% increase in the proportion of cases 30% 20% involving person offenses and 20% decreases in the proportion of cases 10% involving drug and property offenses. 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 The proportion of public order offense cases remained the same.

50 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 increased delinquent, resulting in probation between 2005 and 2016 from 62% Most serious Age 15 Age 16 to 64%. offense and younger and older Male Female  Among youth age 16 or older, the 2016 overall likelihood of being placed on Delinquency 64% 60% 62% 64% formal probation also increased Person 67 62 63 69 between 2005 and 2016, from 57% Property 65 60 62 64 to 60%. Drugs 75 71 73 73 Public order 58 53 55 56  For both age groups in 2016, adjudi- 2012 cated cases involving drug offenses Delinquency 64% 59% 61% 63% were more likely to result in proba- Person 66 61 63 68 tion than cases in other offense cat- Property 65 61 63 65 egories. Drugs 73 70 71 72 Public order 57 51 53 54 Gender 2005 Delinquency 62% 57% 60% 62%  The overall likelihood of being Person 64 58 61 65 placed on formal probation Property 64 59 62 64 increased for females between 2005 Drugs 70 65 66 70 and 2016 (from 62% to 64%) and for Public order 57 51 54 55 males (from 60% to 62%).

 For females in 2016, drug offense cases adjudicated delinquent were most likely to be placed on proba- Adjudicated cases involving white youth were more likely tion (73%), followed by person than cases involving black youth to be placed on probation (69%) and property offense cases Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated (64%). Public order offense cases delinquent, resulting in probation were least likely to result in formal probation (56%). Most serious American offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian 2016 Race Delinquency 64% 61% 61% 63% 70%  Between 2005 and 2016, the overall Person 68 63 61 67 69 likelihood of being placed on formal Property 64 61 63 58 71 probation increased for adjudicated Drugs 74 69 73 75 NA cases for all races except Hispanic Public order 55 55 55 61 68 youth, which decreased slightly. 2012 Delinquency 63% 58% 63% 63% 71%  In 2016, among white youth, drug Person 66 62 64 61 72 offense cases that were adjudicated Property 65 60 64 65 69 delinquent were most likely to be Drugs 72 68 72 73 NA placed on formal probation (74%), Public order 53 51 57 58 70 followed by adjudicated person and 2005 property offense cases (68% and Delinquency 61% 58% 62% 61% 65% 64%, respectively) and public order Person 63 60 63 65 63 offense cases (55%). Property 63 60 64 64 66 Drugs 69 61 69 71 64 Public order 54 52 58 52 67 NA: Data are not presented because the small number of cases produces unstable estimates.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 51 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing Overview, 2016

 In 2016, 56% (479,600) of the esti- 850,500 estimated Waived mated 850,500 juvenile court cases delinquency cases 3,500 1% Placed were handled formally (with the filing 66,500 27% of a petition). Adjudicated Probation  In 2016, 1% (3,500) of all formally 250,400 52% 155,500 62% processed delinquency cases were Other sanction judicially transferred to criminal 28,400 11% court. Petitioned 479,600 56%  In 2016, 52% (250,400) of the cases Probation that were handled formally (with the 67,900 30% filing of a petition) resulted in a delin- Not adjudicated Other sanction quency adjudication. 225,700 47% 32,100 14%

 In 62% (155,500) of cases adjudi- Dismissed 125,800 56% cated delinquent in 2016, formal probation was the most severe sanction Probation ordered by the court. 58,800 16% Not petitioned Other sanction  In 2016, 27% (66,500) of cases adju- 370,900 44% 164,500 44% dicated delinquent resulted in placement outside the home in a residen- Dismissed tial facility. 147,600 40%

 In 11% (28,400) of cases adjudicated delinquent in 2016, 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 1985 participate in some form of commu- through 2016 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 by probation staff.

 In 47% (225,700) of all petitioned delinquency cases in 2016, the youth was not subsequently adjudicated delinquent. The court dismissed 56% of these cases, while 30% resulted in some form of informal probation and 14% in other voluntary dispositions.

 In 2016, the court dismissed 40% of the informally handled (i.e., nonpetitioned) delinquency cases, while 16% of the cases resulted in voluntary probation and 44% in other dispositions.

52 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing Overview, 2016

A typical 1,000 4 Waived  For every 1,000 delinquency cases delinquency cases processed in 2016, 564 were peti- 78 Placed Adjudicated tioned for formal processing and 436 294 delinquent 183 Proba tion were handled informally.

564 Petitioned 33 Other sanction  Of the cases that were adjudicated delinquent, 62% (183 of 294) 80 Probation received a disposition of probation Not adjudicated and 27% (78 of 294) were placed 265 delinquent 38 Other sanction out of the home. 148 Dismissed  In many petitioned delinquency 69 Probation cases that did not result in a delinquency adjudication, the youth 436 Nonpetitioned 193 Other sanction agreed to informal services or sanc- 174 Dismissed tions (118 of 265), 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 2016 not add to totals because of rounding. handled more than 4 in 10 delinquency cases without the filing of a formal petition, 60% of these cases received some form of court sanction, including probation or other dispositions such as restitution, community service, or referral to another agency.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 53 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing by Offense Category, 2016

Person Offense Cases Person offenses Waived 244,900 1,800 1%  In 2016, 50% (70,500) of all formally Placed 20,100 28% processed person offense cases resulted in a delinquency adjudication. Adjudicated Probation 70,500 50% 45,600 65%  Formal probation was the most Other sanction severe sanction ordered by the court 4,800 7% in 65% (45,600) of the adjudicated Petitioned person offense cases in 2016. 139,700 57% Probation  Once adjudicated, person offense 19,800 29% cases were almost as likely as public Not adjudicated Other sanction order offense cases to result in out- 67,400 48% 8,400 12% of-home placement (28% and 29%, respectively) and more likely than Dismissed 39,200 58% property offenses cases (26%) and drug offense cases (16%). Probation 15,900 15%  In 2016, 15% of person offense Not petitioned Other sanction cases that were handled informally 105,200 43% 40,000 38% resulted in probation; 47% were dismissed. Dismissed 49,300 47%  Juvenile courts waived jurisdiction in 1% (1,800) of all petitioned person offense cases in 2016.

Property Offense Cases Property offenses Waived 283,600 1,100 1%  Juvenile courts handled more than Placed 21,500 26% half (55%) of all property offense cases formally in 2016. Of these for- Adjudicated Probation mally handled cases, 52% (81,500 81,500 52% 51,000 63% cases) were adjudicated delinquent. Other sanction 9,000 11%  In 2016, 51,000 (63%) of the adjudi- Petitioned cated property offense cases result- 157,100 55% ed in probation as the most severe Probation 24,200 33% sanction; another 26% (21,500) resulted in out-of-home placement. Not adjudicated Other sanction Other sanctions, such as restitution, 74,600 47% 10,200 14% community service, or referral to Dismissed another agency, were ordered in 40,100 54% 11% (9,000) of the petitioned property offense cases following adjudi- Probation cation. 20,100 16% Not petitioned Other sanction  Property offense cases were less 126,500 45% 60,300 48% likely than person offense cases to be petitioned for formal processing. Dismissed 46,100 36% Once petitioned, however, property offense cases were slightly more likely to result in the youth being adjudicated delinquent than were Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may cases involving person offenses. not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985 through 2016 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

54 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Offense Category, 2016

Drug offenses Waived Drug Offense Cases 107,400 300 1% Placed  In 2016, 49% (26,000) of all peti- 4,100 16% tioned drug offense cases resulted Adjudicated Probation in the youth being adjudicated delin- 26,000 49% 18,800 73% quent; 73% (18,800) of these cases Other sanction received probation as the most 3,100 12% severe sanction, and another 16% Petitioned (4,100) resulted in out-of-home 52,700 49% placement. Probation 10,200 39%  Other sanctions, such as restitution, Not adjudicated Other sanction community service, or referral to 26,400 50% 3,500 13% another agency, were ordered in 12% (3,100) of petitioned drug Dismissed 12,700 48% offense cases following adjudication in 2016. Probation 11,700 21%  Juvenile courts waived jurisdiction in Not petitioned Other sanction 1% (300) of all petitioned drug 54,700 51% 26,900 49% offense cases in 2016.

Dismissed  More than half (51%) of drug offense 16,100 29% cases were informally handled in 2016; 71% of the informally handled drug offense cases resulted in probation or some other sanction.

Public order offenses Waived Public Order Offense Cases 214,700 300 <1% Placed  In 2016, the majority (61%) of all 20,900 29% public order offense cases were han- Adjudicated Probation dled formally, with the filing of a peti- 72,500 56% 40,100 55% tion for adjudication. Other sanction 11,500 16%  Once adjudicated delinquent, 55% Petitioned of public order offense cases in 2016 130,100 61% resulted in probation as the most Probation severe sanction, 29% were placed 13,600 24% out of the home, and 16% resulted Not adjudicated Other sanction in other sanctions. 57,400 44% 10,000 17%  In 2016, 39% of all public order Dismissed 33,700 59% offense cases were handled informally. Of the informal cases, 43% Probation were dismissed, while the remaining 11,100 13% cases resulted in some form of court Not petitioned Other sanction sanction, including probation, restitu- 84,600 39% 37,400 44% tion, community service, or referral to another agency. Dismissed 36,100 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 1985 through 2016 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 55 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Age, 2016

 In 2016, 54% (237,700) of all delin- Age 15 or younger Waived quency cases involving youth age 15 441,400 300 <1% Placed or younger and 59% (241,900) of 31,100 25% cases involving youth age 16 or older were handled formally with the Adjudicated Probation filing of a petition. 126,400 53% 81,400 64% Other sanction  Cases involving youth age 15 or 13,900 11% younger were adjudicated delinquent Petitioned in 53% of all formally processed 237,700 54% cases in 2016; cases involving youth Probation 33,900 31% age 16 or older were adjudicated delinquent in 51% of all such cases. Not adjudicated Other sanction 110,900 47% 16,200 15%  The proportion of petitioned cases Dismissed waived to criminal court in 2016 was 60,900 55% less than 1% for youth age 15 or younger, compared with 1% for Probation youth age 16 or older. 35,700 18% Not petitioned Other sanction  In 2016, 25% of cases adjudicated 203,700 46% 92,700 46% delinquent involving youth age 15 or younger and 29% of such cases Dismissed 75,300 37% involving youth age 16 or older resulted in out-of-home placement.

 Probation was ordered as the most severe sanction in 2016 in 64% of the adjudicated cases involving youth age 15 or younger, compared Age 16 or older Waived with 60% of adjudicated cases 409,200 3,100 1% Placed involving youth 16 or older. 35,500 29%  Among cases formally adjudicated in Adjudicated Probation 2016, 11% of cases involving youth 124,000 51% 74,100 60% age 15 or younger and 12% involv- Other sanction ing youth age 16 or older resulted in 14,400 12% other sanctions. Petitioned 241,900 59%  For youth age 15 or younger, 46% of Probation 34,000 30% all delinquency cases were handled informally in 2016; of these cases, Not adjudicated Other sanction 18% resulted in a disposition of pro- 114,800 47% 16,000 14% bation and 37% were dismissed. Dismissed Among older youth, 41% of all delin- 64,900 56% quency cases were handled without the filing of a petition for adjudication Probation in 2016; 14% of these cases resulted 23,100 14% in a disposition of probation and Not petitioned Other sanction 43% were dismissed. 167,200 41% 71,800 43% Dismissed 72,300 43%

56 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Gender, 2016

Male Waived  In 2016, 59% of delinquency cases 614,900 3,100 1% involving males were handled with Placed 54,800 28% the filing of a petition for adjudication, compared with 49% of those Adjudicated Probation involving females. 194,600 53% 119,900 62%  Once petitioned, cases involving Other sanction 20,000 10% males in 2016 were more likely to Petitioned result in a delinquency adjudication 364,900 59% than were cases involving females Probation (53% vs. 49%). 50,600 30% Not adjudicated Other sanction  Delinquency cases involving females 167,100 46% 23,800 14% in 2016 were less likely to be waived to criminal court than those involving Dismissed 92,700 55% males. Probation  Once adjudicated delinquent, 28% of 39,200 16% cases involving males in 2016 resulted in out-of-home placement, com- Not petitioned Other sanction 250,000 41% 107,500 43% pared with 21% of those involving females. Dismissed 103,300 41%  Of the adjudicated cases involving males, 62% received probation as the most severe sanction, and 10% resulted in other sanctions such as restitution or community service.

Female Waived  Among adjudicated cases involving 235,600 300 <1% females in 2016, 64% received pro- Placed bation as the most severe sanction 11,800 21% and 15% resulted in other sanctions. Adjudicated Probation 55,800 49% 35,600 64%  Informally handled delinquency cases involving males were equally Other sanction as likely as those involving females 8,400 15% Petitioned to receive probation in 2016 (16% 114,700 49% each); male cases were more likely Probation than female cases to be dismissed 17,300 29% (41% vs. 37%). Not adjudicated Other sanction 58,700 51% 8,400 14%  In 2016, informally handled delinquency cases involving females were Dismissed more likely to result in other sanc- 33,000 56% tions than those involving males Probation (47% vs. 43%). 19,700 16% Not petitioned Other sanction 120,900 51% 57,000 47% Dismissed 44,300 37%

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 57 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing by Race, 2016

 In 2016, delinquency cases involving White Waived Placed white youth were less likely to be 370,200 1,100 1% 21,800 22% handled formally (51%) than those Adjudicated Probation involving black youth (63%), 101,400 53% 64,700 64% Hispanic youth (55%), American Other sanction Indian youth (55%), or Asian youth 14,900 15% Petitioned (54%). 190,500 51% Probation 28,700 33%  Once petitioned, cases in 2016 Not adjudicated Other sanction involving black youth (49%), white 87,900 46% 12,400 14% youth (53%), Asian youth (52%), and Dismissed Hispanic youth (57%) were less likely Probation 46,900 53% to be adjudicated delinquent than 36,300 20% were cases involving American Not petitioned Other sanction Indian youth (61%). 179,700 49% 81,400 45% Dismissed  For all racial groups in 2016, about 62,000 35% 1% or less of petitioned delinquency cases resulted in waiver to criminal court. Black Waived Placed 302,100 1,800 1% 27,100 29%  In 2016, adjudicated delinquency Adjudicated Probation cases involving Hispanic youth were 93,000 49% 56,400 61% more likely to result in out-of home Other sanction placement (33%) than cases involv- 9,500 10% ing all other races. Black youth were Petitioned ordered to residential placement in 190,400 63% Probation 25,900 27% 29% of adjudicated cases. White and Asian youth (22% each) were Not adjudicated Other sanction 95,600 50% 14,100 15% slightly less likely than American Indian youth (23%) to be ordered to Dismissed Probation 55,700 58% residential placement. 11,900 11%

 For adjudicated cases involving Not petitioned Other sanction 111,700 37% 47,500 43% black youth in 2016, probation was the most severe sanction ordered in Dismissed 61% of the cases and 10% resulted 52,300 47% in other sanctions.

58 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing by Race, 2016

Hispanic Waived Placed  For adjudicated cases involving 154,600 400 1% 15,900 33% American Indian youth in 2016, pro- Adjudicated Probation bation was the most severe sanction 48,500 57% 29,500 61% ordered in 63% of the cases and Other sanction 14% resulted in other sanctions. 3,100 6% Petitioned 85,700 55% Probation  In 70% of the adjudicated cases 12,000 33% involving Asian youth in 2016, probation was the most severe sanction; Not adjudicated Other sanction 36,800 43% 5,000 14% 8% resulted in other sanctions such as restitution or community service. Dismissed Probation 19,800 54% 8,800 13%  In 2016, 49% of delinquency cases involving white youth were handled Not petitioned Other sanction 68,900 45% 30,700 45% informally, compared with 37% of cases involving black youth, 45% of Dismissed 29,300 43% cases involving Hispanic youth, 45% of cases involving American Indian youth, and 46% of cases involving American Indian Waived Placed Asian juveniles. 14,600 100 1% 1,100 23%  Informally handled delinquency Adjudicated Probation 4,900 61% 3,100 63% cases involving black youth and Hispanic youth in 2016 were more Other sanction 700 14% likely to be dismissed (47% and Petitioned 43%, respectively) than those involv- 8,100 55% Probation 700 23% ing American Indian youth (38%), Asian youth (36%), or white youth Not adjudicated Other sanction (35%). 3,000 38% 400 12% Dismissed  In 2016, informally handled delin- Probation 2,000 65% 1,000 16% quency cases involving American Indian youth were most likely to Not petitioned Other sanction result in other sanctions such as res- 6,500 45% 3,000 46% titution, community service, or refer- Dismissed ral to another agency (46%), com- 2,500 38% pared with cases involving white, Hispanic, or Asian youth (45% each), Asian Waived Placed or black youth (43%). 9,100 0 <1% 600 22% Adjudicated Probation 2,600 52% 1,800 70% Other sanction 200 8% Petitioned 4,900 54% Probation 600 26% Not adjudicated Other sanction 2,300 47% 300 13% Dismissed Probation 1,400 61% 800 19% Not petitioned Other sanction 4,200 46% 1,900 45% Dismissed 1,500 36%

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 59 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2016

Aggravated Assault Cases A typical 1,000 12 Waived aggravated assault cases  Juvenile courts waived 12 of every 137 Placed 1,000 aggravated assault cases to 407 Adjudicated 249 Probation criminal court in 2016, compared with 2 of every 1,000 simple assault 745 Petitioned 22 Other sanction cases. 113 Probation  In 2016, 42% of aggravated assault cases received some formal sanction 327 Not adjudicated 39 Other sanction or were waived to criminal court (419 174 Dismissed of 1,000). 35 Probation  In 2016, 14% of aggravated assault cases received a formal sanction of 255 Not petitioned 72 Other sanction out-of-home placement (137 of 147 Dismissed 1,000) and 25% were placed on formal probation (249 of 1,000).

 Of all aggravated assault cases referred to juvenile courts in 2016, 32% were eventually released or dismissed (321 of 1,000)—23% of the petitioned cases and 58% 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 56 Placed handled in 2016, 237 received some 235 Adjudicated 160 Probation formal sanction or were waived to criminal court. 502 Petitioned 19 Other sanction

 In 2016, 6% of simple assault cases 76 Probation resulted in the juvenile receiving a formal sanction of out-of-home 266 Not adjudicated 33 Other sanction placement (56 of 1,000) and 16% 157 Dismissed were placed on formal probation (160 of 1,000). 67 Probation

 Juveniles received informal sanc- 498 Not petitioned 207 Other sanction tions in 38% of simple assault cases 224 Dismissed processed in 2016 (383 of 1,000).

 Of all simple assault cases referred to juvenile courts in 2016, 38% Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not were eventually dismissed (381 of add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985 1,000)—31% of the petitioned cases through 2016 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp. and 45% of those that were informally handled.

60 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2016

A typical 1,000 33 Waived Robbery Cases robbery cases 223 Placed  Juvenile courts waived 33 of every 502 Adjudicated 259 Probation 1,000 robbery cases to criminal court in 2016. 851 Petitioned 19 Other sanction  In 2016, juvenile courts ordered for- 81 Probation mal sanctions or waived jurisdiction in 54% of all robbery cases (535 of 316 Not adjudicated 43 Other sanction 1,000). 191 Dismissed  In 2016, 22% of robbery cases 10 Probation received a formal sanction of out-of- home placement (223 of 1,000) and 149 Not petitioned 29 Other sanction 26% resulted in formal probation 111 Dismissed (259 of 1,000).  Of all robbery cases referred to juvenile court in 2016, 15% were not petitioned; the majority (74%) of these cases were dismissed.

A typical 1,000 8 Waived Burglary Cases burglary cases 140 Placed  Juvenile courts waived 8 of every 413 Adjudicated 254 Probation 1,000 burglary cases to criminal court in 2016. 715 Petitioned 19 Other sanction  In 2016, 58% (413 of 715) of all peti- 125 Probation tioned burglary cases resulted in the youth being adjudicated delinquent. 294 Not adjudicated 40 Other sanction  Juvenile courts ordered formal sanc- 129 Dismissed tions or waived jurisdiction in 59% of 33 Probation all formally handled burglary cases in 2016 (421 of 715). 285 Not petitioned 119 Other sanction  In 2016, 140 of 1,000 burglary cases 133 Dismissed received a formal sanction of out-of- home placement and 254 of 1,000 resulted in formal probation. 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 1985  More than one-quarter (29%) of all through 2016 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp. burglary cases referred to juvenile courts in 2016 were handled informally and nearly half of these cases (133 of 285) were dismissed.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 61 Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2016

Motor Vehicle Theft Cases A typical 1,000 5 Waived motor vehicle theft cases 180 Placed  Juvenile courts waived less than 1% of motor vehicle theft cases to crimi- 428 Adjudicated 229 Probation nal court in 2016 (5 of every 1,000). 761 Petitioned 20 Other sanction  In 2016, nearly half (43%) of motor vehicle theft cases referred to juve- 129 Probation nile courts resulted in formal court sanctions or waiver to criminal court. 328 Not adjudicated 44 Other sanction 154 Dismissed  About 42% of motor vehicle cases adjudicated delinquent in 2016 21 Probation resulted in out-of-home placement (180 of 428). 239 Not petitioned 84 Other sanction 135 Dismissed  Nearly one-quarter of motor vehicle theft cases referred to juvenile courts in 2016 were handled without the filing of a petition (239 of 1,000).

Vandalism Cases A typical 1,000 2 Waived vandalism cases  Juvenile courts waived 2 of every 51 Placed 1,000 vandalism cases to criminal 255 Adjudicated 169 Probation court in 2016. 521 Petitioned 35 Other sanction  More than half of vandalism cases referred to juvenile courts in 2016 69 Probation were handled formally (521 of 1,000). Of these cases, 49% were adjudi- 264 Not adjudicated 30 Other sanction cated delinquent (255 of 521). 165 Dismissed  In 2016, 66% of petitioned vandalism 88 Probation cases adjudicated delinquent resulted in a court sanction of probation 479 Not petitioned 206 Other sanction (169 of 255), and 20% resulted in 184 Dismissed out-of-home placement (51 of 255).

 Juvenile courts handled 479 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 2016. Youth add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985 received informal sanctions in 61% through 2016 are available online at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp. of these nonpetitioned cases.

62 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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, curfew 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 2016 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 2016 63 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Counts and Trends

 In 2016, U.S. courts with juvenile Between 1995 and 2002, the formally handled status offense caseload jurisdiction petitioned and formally increased considerably (61%) and then declined 52% through 2016 disposed an estimated 94,700 status offense cases.

 The number of petitioned status Number of cases 200,000 offense cases processed by juvenile courts decreased 43% between 175,000 2005 and 2016. 150,000 Total status  The number of petitioned runaway 125,000 cases processed by juvenile courts decreased 57% between 2005 and 100,000 2016 (from 18,700 to 8,000). 75,000

 The number of petitioned truancy 50,000 cases processed by juvenile courts 25,000 increased 17% between 2005 and 2007 and then declined 25% through 0 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2016.

 Between 2005 and 2007, the number of petitioned curfew cases increased 17% and then declined 69% through 2016 (5,400). Number of cases Number of cases  The number of petitioned ungovern- 20,000 80,000 ability cases in 2016 (8,600) was 16,000 60,000 58% below the 2005 level (20,000). 12,000 Runaway 40,000 Truancy  The number of petitioned liquor law 8,000 violation cases increased 12% 4,000 20,000 between 2005 and 2007 and then 0 0 decreased 71% through 2016. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Offense profile of petitioned status offense cases: Number of cases Number of cases 20,000 25,000 Most serious 16,000 20,000 offense 2005 2016 Curfew Ungovernability 12,000 15,000 Runaway 11% 8% Truancy 37 57 8,000 10,000 Curfew 9 6 4,000 5,000 Ungovernability 12 9 0 0 Liquor 21 12 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Miscellaneous 10 8

Total 100% 100% Number of cases 40,000 Number of cases 166,900 94,700 30,000 Note: Detail may not total 100% because of Liquor round ing. 20,000

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

64 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Case Rates

Petitioned status offense case rates decreased from 5.2 to 3.0 per 1,000  In 2016, juvenile courts formally pro- juveniles between 2005 and 2016 cessed 3.0 status offense cases for every 1,000 juveniles in the population—those age 10 or older who Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age were under the jurisdiction of a juve- 6 nile court. 5  The total petitioned status offense Total status case rate decreased 42% between 4 2005 and 2016.1

3  Between 2005 and 2016, the petitioned runaway case rate decreased 2 57%.

1  The petitioned truancy case rate increased 18% between 2005 and 0 2007, and then declined 24% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 through 2016.

 Between 2005 and 2007, the petitioned curfew violation case rate increased 17% and then decreased 68% by 2016. Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 0.6 2.5  The petitioned ungovernability case 0.5 Runaway 2.0 rate declined 57% between 2005 0.4 and 2016. 1.5 Truancy 0.3 1.0 0.2  The petitioned liquor law violation 0.1 0.5 case rate increased 12% between 2005 and 2007, and then decreased 0.0 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 71% by 2016.

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 0.7 disposed may not be equal to the percent 0.5 0.6 change in case rates because of the changing Curfew 0.4 0.5 size of the juve nile popu la tion. 0.4 0.3 Ungovernability 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 65 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Age at Referral

 In 2016, the petitioned status offense In 2016, status offense case rates increased with the age of the case rate for 16-year-olds was twice juvenile through age 16 the rate for 14-year-olds, and the rate for 14-year-olds was more than 3 times the rate for 12-year-olds. Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 7 6.4 6.4  The largest increase in case rates between age 13 and age 17 was for 6 liquor law violations. The case rate 5 4.8 for 17-year-old juveniles (1.5) was 24 times the rate for 13-year-olds (0.1). 4 3.2  Curfew and liquor law violation rates 3 increased continuously with the age 1.8 of the juvenile. In contrast, rates for 2 1.0 petitioned cases involving runaway, 1 truancy, and ungovernability were 0.3 0.5 higher for 16-year-old juveniles than 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 for 17-year-olds. Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 0.6 4.0 Runaway 0.5 Truancy 3.0 0.4 0.3 2.0 0.2 1.0 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 Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 0.5 0.6 Ungovernability 0.4 Curfew 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 1.6 Liquor 1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age

66 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 1.4 5.0

1.2 Age 16 Age 16 4.0 1.0

0.8 Age 17 3.0 Age 17

0.6 2.0 Ages 13−15 Ages 13−15 0.4 1.0 0.2 Ages 10−12 Ages 10−12 (x2)* 0.0 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Curfew case rates Ungovernability case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 1.6 1.2

Age 17 1.0 Age 17 Age 16 1.2 0.8 Age 16 0.8 0.6 Ages 13−15 Ages 13−15 0.4 0.4 0.2 Ages 10−12 Ages 10−12 (x2)* 0.0 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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 2016 (58% each). Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 6.0  Despite relative stability in recent years, truancy case rates for youth ages 10–12 and age 17 increased slightly 5.0 between 2014 and 2016. 4.0 Age 17  The decrease in case rates between 2005 and 2016 for petitioned ungovernability cases was greater for younger 3.0 Age 16 youth than older youth.

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

* 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 2016 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 2016 was similar for males and females (44% and 43%, respectively). Number of cases 120,000 Total status  Between 2005 and 2016, the petitioned runaway caseload decreased 100,000 53% for males and 60% for females. Male 80,000  Between 2005 and 2007, the number of petitioned truancy cases 60,000 increased 16% for males and 18% Female for females, then decreased through 40,000 2016 (24% for males and 26% for females). 20,000

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

Number of cases Number of cases 12,000 40,000 10,000 Male 30,000 8,000 Female 6,000 20,000 Female

4,000 Male 10,000 2,000 Truancy Runaway 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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

Number of cases 25,000

20,000

15,000 Male

10,000 Female 5,000 Liquor 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

68 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Gender

Compared with the delinquency caseload, females accounted for a  Males accounted for 57% of the total substantially larger proportion of petitioned status offenses petitioned status offense caseload in 2016.

Percent of cases involving females  In 2016, males accounted for the 45% majority of curfew (72%), liquor law 40% Total status violation (60%), ungovernability 35% (57%), and truancy (54%) cases.

30%  Females accounted for 56% of peti- 25% Total delinquency tioned runaway cases in 2016, the 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 Most serious offense Male Female 2016 Runaway 7% 11% Truancy 55 60 Percent of cases involving females Percent of cases involving females Curfew 7 4 60% 50% Ungovernability 9 9 50% 40% Truancy Runaway Liquor 13 11 40% 30% Miscellaneous 9 5 30% 20% Total 100% 100% 20% 10% 10% 2005 0% 0% Runaway 8% 16% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Truancy 35 39 Curfew 11 7

Percent of cases involving females Percent of cases involving females Ungovernability 11 13 35% 50% Liquor 23 18 30% Curfew 40% Ungovernability Miscellaneous 12 8 25% 20% 30% Total 100% 100% 15% 20% Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 10% round ing. 10% 5% 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016  Truancy cases accounted for over half of the petitioned status offense caseload for both males and females Percent of cases involving females in 2016. 50%

40% Liquor 30%

20%

10%

0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016 females between 2005 and 2016 (42% each). Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age  Runaway case rates declined 8 Total status between 2005 and 2016 for both 7 males (52%) and females (60%). 6  Between 2005 and 2016, the truancy 5 case rate for both males and females Male was greater than the rate of any 4 other status offense category. 3 Female  For both males and females, the 2 case rates for truancy cases increased between 2005 and 2007 1 (17% and 18%, respectively) before 0 declining through 2016 (23% and 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 26%, respectively). A similar pattern occurred for curfew cases: male case rates increased 17% and female case rates increased 18% between 2005 and 2007, before Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age declining through 2016 (66% and 0.8 2.5 72%, respectively). 2.0 Male 0.6  Between 2005 and 2016, case rates Female 1.5 Female 0.4 for ungovernability declined 54% for 1.0 Male males and 60% for females. 0.2 0.5 Runaway Truancy 0.0 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 Male Male

0.4 0.4 Female Female 0.2 0.2 Curfew Ungovernability 0.0 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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

1.2 Male 0.8 Female 0.4 Liquor 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

70 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Gender

In 2016, the status offense case rate for males increased through age  After age 12, case rates for running 17; for females the rate increased through age 16 and dropped for away were higher for females than 17-year-olds for males in 2016.

 In 2016, petitioned case rates for Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group running away, truancy, and ungov- 8 7.1 7.4 ernability peaked at age 16 for both 7 males and females.

6 5.6 5.2 5.3  For both males and females, peti- 5 tioned status offense case rates 4.3 increased continuously with age for 4 3.4 curfew and liquor law violations in 3.0 3 2016. 2.0 2 1.7  In 2016, curfew case rates for males 1.1 0.9 were at least double curfew case 1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 rates for females, regardless of age. 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age  The largest disparity in the ungovernability case rate between males Male Female and females was among youth ages 10 and 11. The case rate for males ages 10 and 11 was more than double the case rate for females of the same age. Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 0.7 4.0 Runaway Truancy 0.6 0.5 3.0 0.4 2.0 0.3 0.2 1.0 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 Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group 0.7 0.6 Curfew Ungovernability 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 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 2.0 Liquor 1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016 youth (47%) between 2005 and 2016, followed by Asian youth and American Indian youth (38% each). Number of cases 140,000  Between 2005 and 2016, across Total status racial groups and offenses, the num- 120,000 ber of cases decreased with the 100,000 exception of truancy cases involving White Hispanic and American Indian youth. 80,000

 In 2016, truancy cases made up the 60,000 greatest proportion of the caseloads for youth of all race groups. 40,000 Black Amer. Indian Asian Racial profile of petitioned status 20,000 Hispanic offense cases: 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Race 2005 2016 White 68% 63% Black 20 22 The number of petitioned status offense cases decreased more for white Hispanic2 81 0 youth (44%) than youth of any other race American Indian3 3 3 Percent change in number of cases, 2005–2016 Asian4 2 2 Most serious American Total 100% 100% offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian Note: Detail may not total 100% because of Status –47% –36% –28% –38% –38% round ing. Runaway –61 –52 –49 –66 –83 Truancy –18 –8 13 5 –3  White youth made up 55% of the Curfew –69 –49 –71 –57 –69 population under juvenile court juris- Ungovernability –59 –55 –56 –58 –21 diction and 63% of the petitioned Liquor law –69 –57 –61 –56 –71 status offense caseload in 2016.

 Between 2005 and 2016, the pro- The proportion of truancy cases increased across all racial groups portion of petitioned status offense between 2005 and 2016 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 2016 2 Persons of Hispanic ethnicity are treated as Runaway 6% 16% 8% 3% 5% a distinct race group and are excluded from Truancy 57 51 69 58 77 the other four race groups, with one important Curfew 5 10 4 8 4 exception. Data provided to the Archive from Ungovernability 8 15 4 2 3 many jurisdictions did not include any means Liquor law 15 3 11 26 7 to determine the ethnicity of American Indian Miscellaneous 9 5 4 4 4 youth. Rather than assume ethnicity for these Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% youth, they are classified solely on their racial classification; as such, the American Indian 2005 group includes an unknown proportion of Runaway 8% 21% 12% 6% 17% Hispanic youth. Truancy 36 36 44 34 49 Curfew 8 12 11 12 8 3 The racial classification American Indian (usually abbreviated as Amer. Indian) includes Ungovernability 11 21 6 3 3 American Indian and Alaskan Native. Liquor law 25 5 20 37 15 Miscellaneous 12 6 7 9 8 4 The racial classification Asian includes Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Note: Islander. Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

72 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Race

Between 2005 and 2016, the petitioned status offense caseload declined the most for liquor law violation cases involving white youth (67%)

Runaway Truancy

Number of cases Number of cases 10,000 50,000

8,000 40,000 White

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

Curfew Ungovernability

Number of cases Number of cases 10,000 14,000

12,000 8,000 10,000 White White 6,000 8,000 Black 4,000 6,000 Black 4,000 2,000 Hispanic 2,000 Hispanic 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Liquor law violation  The number of petitioned runaway cases decreased by at least half for all three race groups between 2005 and Number of cases 2016. 35,000  The number of truancy cases increased for Hispanic youth 30,000 (13%) and decreased for white youth and black youth 25,000 (18% and 8%, respectively) between 2005 and 2016.

20,000 White  The decrease in the curfew caseload between 2005 and 15,000 2016 was greater for white youth (69%) and Hispanic youth (71%), and smaller for black youth (49%). 10,000 Black  Between 2005 and 2016, the number of petitioned ungov- 5,000 Hispanic ernability cases decreased by at least 55% for all three 0 race groups. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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 2016 73 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Race

 Between 2005 and 2016, petitioned Between 2005 and 2016, petitioned status offense case rates status offense case rates decreased decreased for all race groups 52% for Asian youth, 43% each for American Indian and Hispanic youth, 41% for white youth, and 31% for Total status offense case rates black youth. Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age  For all years between 2005 and 10 2016, the total petitioned status offense case rate for American Indian 8 Black Amer. Indian youth was higher than that for juveniles of all other racial categories. 6 White  Between 2005 and 2016, the run- 4 away case rate decreased 48% for Hispanic black youth, 56% for white youth, 2 and 60% for Hispanic youth. Despite Asian declines for all racial groups, the run- 0 away case rate for black youth in 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2016 was more than 3 times the rate for white youth and more than 4 times the rates for Hispanic youth, Runaway case rates American Indian youth, and Asian youth. Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 1.4  Compared with all other status offense types, truancy case rates 1.2 decreased the least for all race 1.0 Black groups between 2005 and 2016, down 25% for Asian youth, 11% for 0.8 Hispanic youth, 8% for white youth, 0.6 Amer. Indian and 4% for American Indian youth. The truancy case rate for black youth 0.4 White in 2016 was the same as in 2005. 0.2 Hispanic Asian 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Truancy case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 3.5 Amer. Indian 3.0

2.5 Black 2.0 White 1.5 Asian 1.0 Hispanic 0.5

0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

74 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Race

Case rates varied by racial group and offense between 2005 and  Curfew case rates decreased more 2016 for white, Hispanic, and Asian youth (down at least 65% each) than for black or American Indian youth (45% Curfew case rates and 61%, respectively) between 2005 and 2016. Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10−upper age 1.6  In 2016, the ungovernability case Amer. Indian rate for black juveniles was more than twice the white rate. 1.2  American Indian juveniles had the Black 0.8 highest case rate for liquor law violations in each year between 2005 and 2016. In 2016, the liquor law violation 0.4 White Hispanic case rate for American Indian youth was more than twice the rate for Asian white youth, and more than 9 times 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 the rates for black youth, Hispanic youth, and Asian youth.

Ungovernability case rates

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

1.2 Black

0.8 White

0.4 Asian Hispanic Amer. Indian

0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Liquor law violation case rates

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

3.0

Amer. Indian 2.0

White 1.0 Hispanic Black

Asian 0.0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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% officers. 90% Liquor Curfew 80% Percentage of petitioned status 70% offense cases referred by law 60% enforcement: Runaway 50% Most serious 40% offense 2005 2016 30% Ungovernability Total status 34% 21% 20% Runaway 36 46 10% Truancy Truancy 4 2 0% Curfew 96 97 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Ungovernability 26 30 Liquor law 96 94

 In 2016, law enforcement agencies referred one-fifth (21%) of the petitioned status offense cases disposed by juvenile courts.

 Compared with 2005, law enforce- The source of referral in 2016 for petitioned status offense cases ment referred larger proportions of varied with the nature of the offense runaway, curfew, and ungovernability offense cases in 2016. Proportion of petitioned cases referred 100%  Schools referred 93% of the petitioned truancy cases in 2016. 90% 80%  Relatives referred 50% of the peti- 70% tioned ungovernability cases in 2016. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Status Runaway Truancy Curfew Ungovernability Liquor

Law enforcement School Relative Other

76 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016 for all case types offense cases involving detention decreased 59% between 2005 and Cases detained 2016 (from 14,900 to 6,100). 4,500  The decline in the volume of peti- 4,000 tioned status offense cases involving 3,500 detention resulted in a smaller pro- Liquor portion of cases detained in 2016 3,000 Truancy Runaway (6%) than in 2005 (9%). 2,500 2,000  Between 2006 (a peak year for sev- eral offense types) and 2016, the 1,500 Ungovernability number of petitioned cases involving 1,000 Curfew detention decreased: 81% for cur- 500 few cases, 80% for liquor law violation cases, 55% for truancy cases, 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 53% for ungovernability cases, and 36% for runaway cases.

 Between 2005 and 2016, runaway cases were more likely to be detained than any other status offense type.

Offense profile of detained status Between 2005 and 2016, truancy cases were least likely to involve offense cases: detention, and runaway cases were the most likely Most serious offense 2005 2016 Percent of cases detained Runaway 17% 25% 20% Truancy 24 32 Runaway Curfew 9 6 16% Ungovernability 11 14 Liquor law 28 14 Ungovernability 12% Liquor Miscellaneous 11 10 Total 100% 100% 8% Curfew Number of cases 14,900 6,100

4% Truancy Note: Detail may not total 100% because of round ing.

0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016  Compared with 2005, the offense characteristics of the 2016 status offense detention caseload involved a greater proportion of runaway, truancy, and ungovernability cases, and a smaller proportion of curfew and liquor law violation cases.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 77 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Adjudication

 Between 2005 and 2016, the number Between 2005 and 2008, 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 59% youth was adjudicated a status through 2016 offender decreased from 88,700 to 36,100. Cases adjudicated a status offender  Between 2005 and 2016, the num- 100,000 ber of cases in which the youth was adjudicated a status offender 80,000 decreased for all offense types: liquor law violation (74%), curfew Total status (72%), runaway (67%), ungovernabil- 60,000 ity (61%), and truancy (32%). 40,000 Offense profile of cases adjudicated a status offender: 20,000 Most serious offense 2005 2016 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Runaway 9% 7% Truancy 28 47 Curfew 11 7 Ungovernability 12 12 Liquor law 27 17 Miscellaneous 13 10 Total 100% 100% Cases adjudicated Between 2005 and 2016, the number of cases in which the youth was a status offender 88,700 36,100 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 30,000  In both 2005 and 2016, cases involving truancy and liquor law violations 25,000 made up the largest proportions of the adjudicated caseload. Truancy 20,000  The 2016 adjudicated status offense 15,000 caseload had a much greater propor- Ungovernability tion of truancy offenses and smaller Liquor 10,000 proportions of runaway, curfew, and Curfew liquor law violations than the 2005 5,000 caseload. Runaway 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

78 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 53% in 2005 to 38% in 2016 2016, adjudication was least likely in petitioned truancy cases (31%) and most likely in cases involving ungov- Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated a status offender ernability and liquor law violations 60% (50% and 53%, respectively).

50%  The likelihood of petitioned runaway Total status cases resulting in adjudication 40% decreased from 43% in 2005 to 33% in 2016. 30%  Between 2005 and 2016, the likeli- 20% hood of adjudication among petitioned curfew cases decreased from 10% 65% to 49%.

0%  The likelihood of adjudication among 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 petitioned liquor law violation cases decreased from 68% in 2005 to 53% in 2016. Percentage of petitioned status offense cases adjudicated, 2016: Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated Most serious 15 or 16 or 50% 50% offense younger older Male Female 40% Runaway 40% Total status 36% 40% 40% 36% Truancy 30% 30% Runaway 34 32 33 32 20% 20% Truancy 31 32 32 30 Curfew 48 51 49 49 10% 10% Ungovern. 51 48 51 48 0% 0% Liquor law 57 52 54 52 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Most serious offense White Black Hisp. Other Total status 42% 31% 31% 37% Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated 70% 60% Runaway 40 24 38 NA 60% 50% Truancy 34 29 23 28 Ungovernability 50% Curfew 40% Curfew 62 31 55 NA 40% 30% Ungovern. 55 41 55 NA 30% 20% Liquor law 53 43 52 63 20% 10% NA: Too few cases to obtain a reliable per- 10% centage. 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 68% between 2005 and 2016 adjudicated a status offender and ordered to out-of-home placement declined from 6,700 in 2005 to 2,200 Adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement in 2016. 7,000 6,000 Offense profile of adjudicated Total status status offense cases resulting in 5,000 out-of-home placement: 4,000 Most serious 3,000 offense 2005 2016 Runaway 21% 24% 2,000 Truancy 19 24 1,000 Curfew 3 3 Ungovernability 25 23 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Liquor law 19 9 Miscellaneous 14 17 Total 100% 100% Cases resulting in out-of-home 6,700 2,200 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 2016 for all offense types  In 2005, ungovernability cases accounted for the largest share of adjudicated status offense cases that Adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement resulted in out-of-home placement; 1,800 Ungovernability in 2016, runaway and truancy (24% 1,600 each), and ungovernability cases 1,400 (23%) accounted for the largest shares. 1,200 Truancy 1,000 Runaway 800 600 Liquor 400 Curfew 200 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

80 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

The court ordered out-of-home placement in 6% of all adjudicated status  The likelihood that an adjudicated offense cases in 2016 status offense case would result in out-of-home placement decreased between 2005 and 2016 for all status Percent of cases resulting in out−of−home placement 8% offense categories except runaway, which increased 3 percentage 7% points, and curfew cases, which Total status 6% remained the same.

5%  Between 2005 and 2016, the largest decline in the proportion of adjudi- 4% cated status offense cases resulting 3% in out-of-home placement was seen in cases involving ungovernability 2% (down 4 percentage points). 1%

0% Percentage of adjudicated status 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 offense cases resulting in out-of- home placement, 2016: Most serious 15 or 16 or offense younger older Male Female Total status 7% 5% 6% 6% Percent of adjudicated cases resulting Percent of adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement in out-of-home placement Runaway 20 20 23 18 25% 6% Truancy 3 3 3 3 Curfew 3 2 3 1 20% 5% 4% Ungovern. 12 12 13 11 15% Truancy Runaway 3% Liquor law 4 3 4 2 10% 2% Most serious 5% 1% offense White Black Hisp. Other 0% 0% Total status 6% 7% 7% 3% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Runaway 21 20 NA NA Truancy 3 3 3 1 Curfew 2 2 NA NA Ungovern. 13 8 NA NA Percent of adjudicated cases resulting Percent of adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement in out-of-home placement Liquor law 2 NA 9 4 4% 20% NA: Too few cases to obtain a reliable per- 16% centage. 3% Ungovernability Curfew 12% 2% 8%

1% 4%

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

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 81 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Dispositions: Probation

 Between 2005 and 2016, the num- Between 2005 and 2008, the number of adjudicated status offense ber of adjudicated status offense cases that resulted in probation increased 10% and then declined 59% cases resulting in an order of proba- by 2016 tion decreased 55%, compared with a 68% decrease in the number of cases resulting in out-of-home Adjudicated cases resulting in probation 50,000 placement.

 Between 2005 and 2016, the num- 40,000 Total status ber of adjudicated status offense cases receiving probation decreased 30,000 for all offense types: liquor law violation (77%), runaway (63%), curfew (62%), ungovernability (61%), and 20,000 truancy (29%). Offense profile of adjudicated 10,000 status offense cases resulting in probation: 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Most serious offense 2005 2016 Runaway 10% 9% Truancy 32 50 Curfew 5 4 Ungovernability 17 15 Liquor law 28 15 Miscellaneous 8 7 Between 2005 and 2016, 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 45,500 20,300 Adjudicated cases resulting in probation Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 16,000 round ing. 14,000  In 2016, most adjudicated status Truancy offense cases that resulted in proba- 12,000 tion involved truancy offenses (50%), 10,000 followed by ungovernability and Ungovernability Liquor liquor law violations (15% each). 8,000

6,000 Runaway 4,000

2,000 Curfew 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

82 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Dispositions: Probation

Between 2005 and 2016, the use of probation as the most restrictive  Probation was the most restrictive disposition in adjudicated status offense cases increased for all offenses disposition used in 56% of the adju- except liquor law violations, which decreased dicated status offense cases in 2016, compared with 51% of the adjudicated caseload in 2005. Percent of adjudicated cases resulting in probation 60%  In 2016, probation was ordered in Total status 50% 66% of adjudicated runaway cases, 60% of truancy cases, 30% of cur- 40% few violations, 72% of ungovernability cases, and 49% of cases involv- 30% ing liquor law violations.

20% Percentage of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in 10% probation, 2016:

0% Most serious 15 or 16 or 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 offense younger older Male Female Total status 60% 52% 56% 57% Runaway 65 66 64 67 Truancy 65 54 61 59 Percent of adjudicated cases Percent of adjudicated cases Curfew 28 31 30 29 resulting in probation resulting in probation Ungovern. 74 67 71 73 80% 70% 60% Liquor law 47 50 51 46 Truancy 60% Runaway 50% Most serious 40% 40% offense White Black Hisp. Other 30% Total status 20% 50% 78% 62% 47% 20% 10% Runaway 69 61 NA NA 0% 0% Truancy 60 64 65 41 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Curfew 24 45 NA NA Ungovern. 71 72 NA NA Liquor law 50 NA 63 32 NA: Too few cases to obtain a reliable per- Percent of adjudicated cases Percent of adjudicated cases centage. resulting in probation resulting in probation 35% 80% 30% 60% Ungovernability 25% Curfew 20% 40% 15% 10% 20% 5% 0% 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 83 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Case Processing Overview, 2016

 In 2016, 38% of petitioned status Total status Placed offense cases resulted in adjudica- 2,200 6% Adjudicated a tion. status offender Probation 36,100 38% 20,300 56%  In 56% of adjudicated status offense cases, formal probation was Other sanction 13,600 38% the most restrictive sanction ordered 94,700 estimated petitioned by the court. status offense cases Probation  In 2016, 6% of adjudicated status 10,500 18% offense cases resulted in out-of- Not adjudicated a status offender Other sanction home placement. 58,600 62% 3,800 7%

 Dispositions with minimal continuing Dismissed supervision by probation staff were 44,300 76% ordered in 38% of status offense cases adjudicated in 2016—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. 381 status offender 214 Proba tion A typical 1,000 petitioned 144 Other sanction  In 62% of formally handled status status offense cases offense cases in 2016, the juvenile was not adjudicated a status offend- 111 Probation Not adjudicated er. The court dismissed 76% of 619 a status offender 40 Other sanction these cases, while 18% resulted in some form of informal probation and 468 Dismissed 7% 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 2016, 214 resulted in formal probation and 23 were placed out of the home.

84 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Case Processing by Offense Category, 2016

Runaway 66 Placed Runaway Cases Adjudicated a 329 status offender 217 Proba tion  Among the five major status offense A typical 1,000 petitioned 47 Other sanction categories, juvenile courts were most runaway cases likely to order youth to out-of-home placement following adjudication in Not adjudicated 101 Informal sanction 671 a status offender runaway cases (66 of 329 cases), but 570 Dismissed formal probation was a more likely outcome (217 of 329).

 Among petitioned runaway cases in 2016, youth were not adjudicated a Truancy 10 Placed status offender in 671 of a typical Adjudicated a 312 status offender 188 Proba tion 1,000 cases. Of these 671 cases, 85% (570) were dismissed. A typical 1,000 petitioned 114 Other sanction truancy cases Truancy Cases Not adjudicated 162 Informal sanction 688 a status offender  In 2016, of a typical 1,000 formal 526 Dismissed truancy cases, 188 resulted in formal probation and 10 were placed out of the home.

Curfew 12 Placed Curfew Violation Cases Adjudicated a 493 status offender 148 Proba tion  In 2016, for every 1,000 petitioned A typical 1,000 petitioned 333 Other sanction curfew violation cases, 148 resulted curfew cases in formal probation and 12 were placed out of the home. Not adjudicated 149 Informal sanction 507 a status offender 358 Dismissed  Among petitioned cases involving curfew violations in 2016, youth were not adjudicated a status offender in 507 of a typical 1,000 cases. Of these 507 cases, 71% (358) were Ungovernability 60 Placed dismissed. Adjudicated a 496 status offender 355 Proba tion Ungovernability Cases A typical 1,000 petitioned 81 Other sanction ungovernability cases  For every 1,000 petitioned ungovern- Not adjudicated 107 Informal sanction ability cases in 2016, 355 resulted in 504 a status offender formal probation following adjudica- 397 Dismissed tion and 60 were placed out of the home.

Liquor Law Violation Cases Liquor 18 Placed Adjudicated a  Among petitioned liquor law violation 531 status offender 262 Proba tion cases in 2016, the most likely out- A typical 1,000 petitioned 251 Other sanction come was formal probation (262 of liquor law violation cases 1,000); out-of-home placement was ordered in 18 of a typical 1,000 Not adjudicated 207 Informal sanction 469 a status offender cases. 262 Dismissed  In 2016, 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 469 of add to totals because of rounding. a typical 1,000 cases.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 courtstatistics 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 2016 87 Appendix A: Methods

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Number of Counties

Table A–1: 2016 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 13,973 2,670 1,884 241 2,085 78% 80% 2 13,973–50,000 329 255 26 268 81 82 3 50,001–121,500 108 87 7 90 83 85 4 More than 121,500 35 34 6 34 97 98 Total 3,142 2,260 280 2,477 79 86 * 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.

Table A–2: 2016 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 13,973 2,670 1,778 187 1,965 74% 75% 2 13,973–50,000 329 231 11 242 74 73 3 50,001–121,500 108 75 3 78 72 75 4 More than 121,500 35 33 0 33 94 96 Total 3,142 2,117 201 2,318 74 80

jurisdictions that contribute only court- West Virginia, and Wisconsin. These Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, level JCS-compatible statistics consti- courts had jurisdiction over 83% of the South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, tute the national court-level database. nation’s juvenile population in 2016. Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Together, these two multijurisdictional Compatible court-level aggregate statis- Virginia, and Wisconsin. These courts databases (case-level and court-level) tics on an additional 31,760 delinquen- had jurisdiction over 77% of the juvenile are used to generate the Archive’s cy cases from 280 jurisdictions were population. An additional 201 jurisdic- national estimates of delinquency and used from Illinois, Indiana, Maine, tions in Indiana, Nebraska, and Wyo- status offense cases. Nebraska, New York, and Wyoming. In ming had compatible court-level aggre- all, the Archive collected compatible gate statistics on 4,744 petitioned In 2016, case-level data describing case-level data and court-level statistics status offense cases. Altogether, com- 628,921 delinquency cases handled by on delinquency cases from 2,477 juris- patible case-level and court-level data 2,260 jurisdictions in 40 states met the dictions containing 86% of the nation’s on petitioned status offense cases were Archive’s criteria for inclusion in the juvenile population in 2016 (table A–1). available from 2,318 jurisdictions con- development of national delinquency taining 80% of the U.S. juvenile popula- estimates. Compatible data were avail- Case-level data describing 66,177 for- tion in 2016 (table A–2). able from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, mally handled status offense cases from Arkansas, California, Colorado, Con- 2,117 jurisdictions in 38 states met the A list of states contributing case-level necticut, District of Columbia, Florida, criteria for inclusion in the sample for data (either delinquency or petitioned Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, 2016. The states included Alabama, status offense data), the variables each Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missis- Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, reports, and the percentage of cases sippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Connecticut, District of Columbia, Flori- containing each variable are presented Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North da, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Ken- in table A–3. More information about the Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, tucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, reporting sample for the current data Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Car- Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, year and previous years since 1985 is olina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, available online at ojstatbb/ezajcs/pdf/ Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, JCSSample.pdf.

88 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Appendix A: Methods

Table A–3: Content of Case-Level Data Sour ces, 2016 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 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 – Maryland MD MD MD MD MD – MD MD MD Michigan MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI 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 – Nevada NV NV NV – NV NV NV NV NV 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 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 RI South Carolina SC 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 – 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% 96% 94% 71% 96% 54% 100% 96% 84%

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 2016 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 2005–2016. 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. 2018. tion, case adjudication, and case as the number of youth living in a juris- Vintage 2017 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, 2017), 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 New York, where the upper Sex [machine-readable data file]. Prepared position, and intake decision) are known age of original juvenile court jurisdiction under a collaborative arrangement with the U.S. for every case in the database. Each of is 15 in 2016, the juvenile population is Census Bureau. Available online: cdc.gov/nchs/ the other variables may be missing for the number of youth residing in a coun- nvss/bridged_race.htm [released on 6/27/18, some records and given a missing value following release by the U.S. Census Bureau of ty who have had their 10th birthday but the unbridged Vintage 2017 postcensal esti- code. The estimation procedure for the are not older than 15 (e.g., they have mates by 5-year age groups. JCS report employs a multistage pro- 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 2016 Appendix A: Methods

Within a county’s set of records in the again for that variable unless no other flagged as having been used for that database there can be two types of matches can be found for another target variable so it will not be reused for that missing information: record-level miss- record. There are a small number of variable unless all other donors are ing and format-level missing. For many instances in which no donor record can used. If a donor record cannot be found counties, a small proportion of their be found in the county file. When this in the first pass through the donor pool, case-level records are missing valid occurs, the imputation software relaxes matching criteria are relaxed until a codes in data elements that are valid for its record matching criteria. That is, donor is found. most of the other records from that instead of trying to find a donor record county. For example, the gender of a with identical codes on variables other There is one major exception to this youth may not have been reported on a than the target field, the software process of imputing format-level few records while it is known for all the ignores one nonmissing variable and missing information. This exception other youth in the county’s database. attempts to find a match on all of the involves the process of imputing This type of missing value is “record- others. In the small number of cases missing race for those counties that do level missing.” There are also counties where this does not lead to the identifi- not report this data element to the in which every record in the database cation of a donor record, a second vari- Archive. The racial composition of a has a missing value code for a specific able is ignored and the file is reread court’s caseload is strongly related to variable. For example, some court data looking for a donor. Although theoreti- the racial composition of the resident collection systems do not capture infor- cally (and programmatically) this process juvenile population. Creating a donor mation on a youth’s pre-disposition can be repeated until all variables but pool that ignores this relationship would detention. Therefore, the variable “case county, year of disposition, and intake reduce the validity of the imputation pro- detention” in the national case-level decision are ignored to find a donor, this cess. So for those few data files that did data has a missing value code on each never occurred. The order in which vari- not include race, donor pools were record from that county. This type of ables are removed from the matching developed that restricted the pool to missing value is “format-level missing.” criteria are source of referral, detention, counties with racial compositions similar (Table A–3 indicates the standardized offense, adjudication, race, gender, and to that of the target record’s county. data elements that were not available, age. i.e., format-missing, from each jurisdic- This was accomplished by dividing the tion’s 2016 data set.) The imputation Format-level imputation. After all the counties in the U.S. into four groups process handles the two types of miss- record-level missing values have been defined by the percentage of white juve- ing values separately. imputed, the process turns to format- niles in their age 10–17 populations. missing information, or information that This classification was then added to The imputation of record-level missing is missing from a case record because each case record and used as a match- values uses a hot deck procedure with that court’s information system does not ing criterion for finding a donor record a donor pool of records from the same report this information on their cases. within the set of potential donor records county. First, all the records for a specif- The process for imputing format-missing defined by stratum, year of disposition, ic county are sorted by disposition date. information is similar to that used in the and intake decision. Then the file is read again, one record record-missing imputation process with at a time. When the imputation software the needed difference that the donor Weighting to produce national esti- identifies a record with a record-level pool is expanded. Since all records in a mates. The Archive employs an elabo- missing value (i.e., the target record), it county are missing the target data, the rate multivariate procedure that assigns imputes a valid code for this target data donor pool for format-missing records is a weight to each record in the national field. This is accomplished by locating defined as the records from all counties case-level database that, when used in the next record in the county file that in the target record’s stratum with the analysis, yields national estimates of matches the target record on all of its same year of disposition and intake juvenile court activity. The weights incor- nonmissing values and has a nonmiss- decision. porate a number of factors related to ing code in the target data field; this the size and characteristics of juvenile record is called the donor record. The Using this expanded donor pool, the court caseloads: the size of a communi- imputation software copies the valid imputation process follows the steps ty, the age and race composition of its code from the donor record and replac- described above where a target record juvenile population, the age and race es the missing value code on the target (i.e., one with missing data) is identified profile of the youth involved in juvenile record with this nonmissing value. and the donor pool is scanned for a court cases, the courts’ responses to match. Once a match is found, the the cases (intake decision, detention, Once a donor record is used in the pro- missing information on the target record adjudication, and disposition), and the cess for a given variable, it is not used is overwritten and the donor record is nature of each court’s jurisdictional

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 91 Appendix A: Methods

responsibilities (i.e., upper age of original resided in those stratum 2 counties that Black: jurisdiction). reported JCS-compatible case-level (33.7 x 3,000) / [(7.0 x 10,000) + data to the Archive. If the Archive’s (33.7 x 3,000) + (9.5 x 4,000)] + The basic assumption underlying the case-level database shows that the (10.5 x 200) + (2.7 x 800) = 47.4% weighting procedure is that similar legal juvenile courts in these counties han- and demographic factors shape the vol- dled 20,234 petitioned delinquency Hispanic: ume and characteristics of cases in cases involving white youth ages 10 (9.5 x 4,000) / [(7.0 x 10,000) + reporting and nonreporting counties of through 15, the number of cases per (33.7 x 3,000) + (9.5 x 4,000)] + comparable size and features. The 1,000 white youth ages 10–15 for stra- (10.5 x 200) + (2.7 x 800) = 17.8% weighting procedure develops indepen- tum 2 would be 7.0, or: dent estimates for the number of peti- American Indian: tioned delinquency cases, nonpetitioned (20,234 / 2,907,000) x 1,000 = 7.0 (10.5 x 200) / [(7.0 x 10,000) + delinquency cases, and petitioned sta- (33.7 x 3,000) + (9.5 x 4,000)] + tus offense cases handled by juvenile Comparable analyses are then used to (10.5 x 200) + (2.7 x 800) = 1.0% courts nationwide. Identical statistical establish the stratum 2 case rates for procedures are used to develop all case black youth, Hispanic youth, American Asian: estimates. Indian youth, and Asian youth in the (2.7 x 800) / [(7.0 x 10,000) + same age group (33.7, 9.5, 10.5, and (33.7 x 3,000) + (9.5 x 4,000)] + As noted earlier, all U.S. counties are 2.7 respectively). (10.5 x 200) + (2.7 x 800) = 1.0% placed into one of four strata based on the size of their youth population ages Next, information contained in the The jurisdiction’s total caseload of 500 10 through 17. In the first step to devel- national court-level database is intro- would then be allocated based on op the weights, the Archive divides the duced, and stratum-level case rates are these proportions. In this example, it youth 10–17 population for each stra- adjusted accordingly. First, each court- would be estimated that 32.8% of all tum into three age groups: 10- through level statistic is disaggregated into the cases reported in the jurisdiction’s 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds, and 17-year- 15 age/race groups. This separation is aggregate statistics involved white olds. The three age groups are further accomplished by assuming that, for youth, 47.4% involved black youth, subdivided into five racial groups: white, each jurisdiction, the relationships 17.8% involved Hispanic youth, 1.0% black, Hispanic, American Indian (includ- among the stratum’s 15 age/race case involved American Indian youth, and the ing Alaskan Native), and Asian (including rates (developed from the case-level remaining 1.0% involved Asian youth. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific data) are paralleled in the court-level When these proportions are applied to Islander). Thus, juvenile resident popula- data. a reported court-level caseload statistic tion estimates are developed for 15 age/ of 500 cases, this jurisdiction is estimat- race categories in each stratum of For example, assume that a jurisdiction ed to have handled 164 cases involving counties. in stratum 2 with an upper age of origi- white youth, 237 cases involving black nal juvenile court jurisdiction of 15 youth, 89 cases involving Hispanic The next step is to identify within each reported it processed 500 cases during youth, 5 cases involving American Indi- stratum the jurisdictions that contributed the year. Also assume that this jurisdic- an youth, and 5 cases involving Asian to the Archive case-level data consistent tion had a juvenile population of 10,000 youth age 15 or younger. with JCS reporting requirements. The white youth, 3,000 black youth, 4,000 populations of these case-level reporting Hispanic youth, 200 American Indian The same method is used to disaggre- jurisdictions within each stratum are youth, and 800 Asian youth. The stra- gate the case counts reported by those then developed for each of the 15 age/ tum 2 case rates for each racial group jurisdictions that could only report race categories. The national case-level in the 10–15 age group would be multi- aggregate court-level statistics for juris- database is summarized to determine plied by the corresponding population dictions with an upper age of 16 (10 within each stratum the number of court to develop estimates of the proportion age/race groups) and an upper age of cases that involved youth in each of the of the court’s caseload that came from 17 (15 age/race groups). The disaggre- 15 age/race population groups. Case each age/race group, as follows: gated court-level counts are then added rates (number of cases per 1,000 juve- to the counts developed from case-level niles in the population) are then devel- White: data to produce an estimate of the oped for the 15 age/race groups within (7.0 x 10,000) / [(7.0 x 10,000) + number of cases involving each of the each of the four strata. (33.7 x 3,000) + (9.5 x 4,000)] + 15 age/race groups handled by report- (10.5 x 200) + (2.7 x 800) = 32.8% ing courts (i.e., both case-level and For example, assume that a total of court-level reporters) in each of the four 2,907,000 white youth ages 10–15 strata.

92 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Appendix A: Methods

The juvenile population figures for the After the stratum estimates for the total the Archive’s national estimation data- entire reporting sample are also com- number of cases in each age/race group base, each stratum 2 petitioned delin- piled. Together, these new stratum- in each stratum has been calculated, the quency case that involved a white specific case counts and juvenile popu- next step is to weight the records in the 16-year-old would be weighted by 1.38, lations for the reporting counties are national case-level database. This because: used to generate a revised set of case weight is equal to the estimated number rates for each of the 15 age/race of cases in one of the stratum’s 15 age/ 15,099 / 10,931 = 1.38 groups within each of the four strata. race groups divided by the actual number of such records in the national case- Finally, by incorporating the weights into Stratum estimates for the total number level database. For example, assume all analyses of the national case-level of cases involving each age/race group that the Archive generates a national database, national estimates of case are then calculated by multiplying the estimate of 15,099 petitioned delinquen- volumes and case characteristics can revised case rate for each of the 15 cy cases involving white 16-year-olds be produced. More detailed information age/race groups in a stratum by the from stratum 2 counties. Assume also about the Archive’s national estimation corresponding juvenile population in all that the national case-level database for methodology is available on request counties belonging to that stratum (both that year contained 10,931 petitioned from the National Center for Juvenile reporting and nonreporting). delinquency cases involving white Justice. 16-year-olds from stratum 2 counties. In

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 status 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 crimes placed elsewher e. against persons, crimes against prop erty, 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 2016 95 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

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

96 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 97 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

 Stolen property offenses—  Nonviolent sex offenses—All parole. This term in cludes con- Unlaw ful ly and knowingly re ceiv- offenses having a sexual ele ment tempt, perjury, bribery of wit- ing, buying, distributing, selling, not in volving violence. The term nesses, failur e to report a crime, transporting, concealing, or pos- com bines the mean ing of the and non vi o lent re sistance of sess ing stolen property, or UCR cat e gories “pros titu tion and ar rest. at tempting any of the above. The com mer cial ized vice” and “sex  Other offenses against public term is used in the same sense of fens es.” It includes offens es or der—Other offenses against as the UCR cat ego ry “sto len such as statu tory rape, indecent gover n ment ad min istra tion or property: buying, re ceiv ing, pos- ex posur e, pros titu tion, so lici ta- regu la tion, such as bribery; vio la- sess ing.” tion, pimping, lewdness, for ni cations of laws per tain ing to fish tion, and adultery. (Many states  Trespassing—Un lawful entry or and game, gambling, health, have decriminalized prostitution attempted en try of the proper ty hitch hik ing, and immigration; and for minors and view this as com- of another with the intent to false fire alarms. mercial sexual exploitation of com mit a mis de meanor oth er children under Safe Harbor laws.)  Status offenses—Includes acts or than lar ce ny or without intent to types of conduct that are of fens es com mit a crime.  Liquor law violations, not only when commit ted or engaged in sta tus offenses—Being in a  Other property offenses— by a juvenile and that can be ad ju di- public place while intoxicated Includes extortion and all fraud cat ed only by a ju ve nile court. through con sumption of alcohol. of fenses, such as forgery , coun- Al though state statutes de fin ing sta- It includes public in toxi cation, ter feiting, em bez zle ment, check tus offenses vary and some states drunk enness, and other li quor or credit card fraud, and may clas si fy cases involv ing these law vi ola tions. It does not include attempts to commit any such of fens es as de pen dency cases, for driving under the in fluence. The offens es. the pur poses of this report the fol- term is used in the same sense lowing types of offenses are classi-  Drug law violations—Includes as the UCR cat e gory of the fied as status offenses: un law ful sale, purchase, dis tribu tion, same name. Some states treat manufacture, culti va tion, transport, pub lic drunk enness of juve niles  Runaway—Leav ing the custo dy possession, or use of a con trolled or as a status offense rather than and home of par ents, guardians, pro hib ited substance or drug or delin quen c y. Hence, some of or cus todi ans without per mis sion drug par a pher nalia, or attempt to these of fens es may appear and failing to retur n within a rea- commit these acts. Sniff ing of glue, under the status of fense code son able length of time, in vi ola- paint, gas o line, and other inhal ants “status liquor law vi o la tions.” tion of a statute reg u lat ing the is also included. Hence, the term is (When a person who is pub licly conduct of youth. broad er than the UCR cate gory in tox icat ed performs acts that “drug abuse violations.” cause a distur bance, he or she  Truancy—Vi o lation of a compul- may be charged with disor derly so ry school atten dance law.  Offenses against public order— conduct.) In cludes weapons of fens es; non vi o-  Curfew violations—Being found lent sex offenses; liquor law vi ola-  Disorderly conduct—Un lawful in a public place after a specified tions, not status offenses; dis or derly in terrup tion of the peace, qui et, hour of the evening, usually con duct; obstruction of jus tice; and or order of a com muni ty, in clud- established in a local ordinance oth er offenses against public order ing of fens es called disturb ing the applying only to persons under a as defined below. peace, va grancy , loitering, unlaw- specified age. ful as sem bly, and riot.  Weapons offenses—Un law ful  Ungovernability—Being be yond sale, dis tri bu tion, man u fac ture,  Obstruction of justice—In ten- the control of par ents, guardians, alter ation, trans por tation, pos- tion al ly ob struct ing court or law or cus to dians or being dis obe di- session, or use of a deadly or en forcement ef forts in the admin- ent of parental au thor i ty. This danger ous weapon or acces so ry, istra tion of justice, acting in a classification is referr ed to in vari- or attempt to commit any of way cal culat ed to lessen the ous ju venile codes as un ruly , these acts. The term is used in authority or digni ty of the court, un manage able, and incorrigible. the same sense as the UCR cat- failing to obey the lawful order of  Status liquor law violations— e go ry “weapons: carry ing, pos- a court, escaping from con fine- Vi o lation of laws regu lat ing the sess ing, etc.” ment, and violating pro bation or

98 Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

possession, pur chase, or con- consta bles, po lice as signed to the (See “dis posi tion.”) Un der this def i ni tion, sump tion of li quor by mi nors. juve nile court for special duty, and all a youth could be involved in more than Some states treat con sump tion others perform ing a po lice func tion, one case during a calen dar year. of alcohol and pub lic drunk en- with the ex ception of pro bation of fic- ness of ju ve niles as status ers and officers of the court. Upper age of jurisdiction: The old est of fens es rather than delin quen cy. age at which a juvenile court has orig i- Hence, some of these of fenses  School—Includes coun se lors, nal jurisdiction over an indi vid ual for law- may appear under this status teachers, prin cipals, at tendance offi- violating be hav ior. For the time period of fense code. cers, and school resource officers. cov ered by this report, the upper age of juris dic tion was 15 in 2 states (New  Miscellaneous status offenses —  Relatives York and North Caro li na) and 16 in 7 Numerous sta tus offens es not —Includes the youth’s states (Georgia, Loui si ana, Michi gan, in cluded above (e.g., tobacco own par ents, foster parents, adop- Missou ri, South Caro lina, Texas, and vio la tion and vio la tion of a court tive parents, steppar ents, grandpar - Wisconsin). In the remain ing 41 states order in a status offense pro- ents, aunts, un cles, and oth er legal and the District of Co lumbia, the upper ceeding) and those offenses guardians. age of ju ris diction was 17. It must be coded as “other” in a ju ris dic- noted that with in most states, there are tion’s orig i nal data.  Other—Includes so cial agen cies, district at tor neys, proba tion offic ers, ex cep tions in which youth at or be low  Dependency offenses—Includes victims, other private cit i zens, and the state’s up per age of ju risdic tion can ac tions that come to the at tention of miscel laneous sourc es of referral be placed under the orig i nal juris diction a juvenile court in volv ing neglect or often only de fined by the code “oth- of the adult crim i nal court. For exam ple, inadequate care of minors on the er” in the orig i nal data. in most states, if a youth of a certain part of the parents or guardians, age is charged with an of fense from a such as aban donment or de sertion; Status offense: Behavior that is con- defined list of “ex cluded of fenses,” the abuse or cruel treat ment; im proper sid ered an offense only when commit- case must orig i nate in the adult crimi nal or in ad equate conditions in the ted by a juvenile (e.g., run ning away court. In ad dition, in a number of states, home; and insuf fi cient care or sup- from home). (See “reason for re ferral.”) the dis trict at tor ney is giv en the discr e- port result ing from death, absence, tion of fil ing cer tain cases in either the or physi cal or mental inca pac i ty of the Unit of count: A case dis posed by a juvenile court or the crim inal court. parents or guardians. court with ju venile jurisdiction dur ing the Therefor e, while the upper age of juris- calendar year. Each case rep re sents a dic tion is com monly recog nized in all Source of referral: The agency or in di- youth referred to the juve nile court for a states, there are numer ous excep tions vidu al filing a complaint with intake that new refer ral for one or more offenses. to this age cri teri on. initiates court processing. (See “reason for refer ral.”) The term disposed means that during the year some Waiver: Cases transferred to crim inal  Law enforcement agency— definite action was tak en or some treat- court as the result of a judicial waiv er In cludes metropolitan police, ment plan was decided on or initiated. hearing in ju ve nile court. state police, park police, sher iffs,

Juvenile Court Statistics 2016 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 2016 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 2016