Juvenile Court Statistics 1995

ENT OF M JU U.S. Department of Justice T S R T A I P C E E D

O J C S Office of Justice Programs F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention JUSTICE Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and Con- gress through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93–415, as amended. Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP’s goal is to provide national leadership in addressing the issues of juvenile delinquency and improving juvenile justice.

OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, program, and training initiatives to improve the juvenile justice system as a whole, as well as to benefit individual youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by seven components within OJJDP, described below.

Research and Program Development Division Information Dissemination Unit informs individu- develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile als and organizations of OJJDP initiatives; dissemi- delinquency; supports a program for data collection nates information on juvenile justice, delinquency and information sharing that incorporates elements prevention, and missing children; and coordinates pro- of statistical and systems development; identifies how gram planning efforts within OJJDP. The unit’s activi- delinquency develops and the best methods ties include publishing research and statistical reports, for its prevention, intervention, and treatment; and bulletins, and other documents, as well as overseeing analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice the operations of the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. system. Concentration of Federal Efforts Program pro- Training and Technical Assistance Division motes interagency cooperation and coordination among provides juvenile justice training and technical assist- Federal agencies with responsibilities in the area of ance to Federal, State, and local governments; law juvenile justice. The program primarily carries out this enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel; and responsibility through the Coordinating Council on private agencies, educational institutions, and com- Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an inde- munity organizations. pendent body within the executive branch that was established by Congress through the JJDP Act. Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary funds to public and private agencies, organizations, Missing and Exploited Children’s Program seeks and individuals to replicate tested approaches to to promote effective policies and procedures for ad- delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in such dressing the problem of missing and exploited chil- pertinent areas as chronic juvenile offenders, commu- dren. Established by the Missing Children’s Assistance nity-based sanctions, and the disproportionate repre- Act of 1984, the program provides funds for a variety sentation of minorities in the juvenile justice system. of activities to support and coordinate a network of resources such as the National Center for Missing and State Relations and Assistance Division supports Exploited Children; training and technical assistance to collaborative efforts by States to carry out the man- a network of 47 State clearinghouses, nonprofit organi- dates of the JJDP Act by providing formula grant zations, law enforcement personnel, and attorneys; and funds to States; furnishing technical assistance to research and demonstration programs. States, local governments, and private agencies; and monitoring State compliance with the JJDP Act.

The mission of OJJDP is to provide national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent juvenile victimization and respond appropriately to juvenile delinquency. This is accomplished through developing and implementing prevention programs and a juvenile justice system that protects the public safety, holds juvenile offenders accountable, and provides treatment and rehabilitative services based on the needs of each individual juvenile. Juvenile Court Statistics 1995

Report

Melissa Sickmund

Anne L. Stahl

Terrence A. Finnegan

Howard N. Snyder

Rowen S. Poole

Jeffrey A. Butts

National Center for Juvenile Justice

May 1998

Shay Bilchik, Administrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice

Raymond C. Fisher Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General

Shay Bilchik Administrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

This report was prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and was supported by grant number 95–JN–FX–0008 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Suggested citation: Sickmund, Melissa, Anne L. Stahl, Terrence A. Finnegan, Howard N. Snyder, Rowen S. Poole, and Jeffrey A. Butts. (1998). Juvenile Court Statistics 1995. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Foreword

In 1999, we will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the juvenile court. It is a centennial worth celebrating, for the juvenile court is the linchpin of America’s juvenile justice system, playing a critical role on the front line in the fight against juvenile crime and violence. The juvenile court’s influence on the lives of the children it serves is significant and often lasts a lifetime.

As we approach the next millennium, the challenges that face the juvenile court are considerable. These challenges have changed as our society has changed over the past two decades, and these changes have affected both the volume and the nature of the juvenile offenses with which the court must deal.

Juvenile Court Statistics 1995 profiles more than 1.7 million delinquency cases and 146,000 status offense cases handled by juvenile courts in 1995. From 1986 to 1995, the number of delinquency cases addressed by juvenile courts rose 45 percent. In that same decade, juvenile court cases for offenses against persons increased 98 percent to 377,300 cases.

As its predecessors, this Report should prove a valuable reference guide for policymakers, practitioners, research- ers, and others working to improve our juvenile justice system. Documenting trends enables us to plan more effec- tively for the future. By working together to strengthen the juvenile court’s ability to provide timely, appropriate justice, we can build a bridge to a better future for our children and our Nation.

Shay Bilchik Administrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

iii Acknowledgments

This Report is a product of the Na- Juvenile Justice Training and Re- Colorado—Colorado Judicial tional Juvenile Court Data Archive, search; Alfred Blumstein, Carnegie Department. which is funded by grants to the Mellon University; Carol Burgess, Connecticut—Chief Court National Center for Juvenile Jus- Maricopa County Juvenile Court; Administrator’s Office. tice from the Office of Juvenile Jus- David Farrington, Cambridge Uni- tice and Delinquency Prevention versity; Daniel Kasprzyk, National Delaware—Family Court of the (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Jus- Center for Education Statistics; and State of Delaware. tice. Joseph Moone is the OJJDP Malcolm Klein, University of South- Program Manager for the project. ern California. Their support and in- District of Columbia—District of volvement are deeply appreciated. Columbia Superior Court. The entire staff of the National Ju- venile Court Data Archive contrib- Juvenile Court Statistics would not Florida—Department of Juvenile utes to the collection and process- be possible were it not for the State Justice. ing of the data presented in this and local agencies that take the Report: time each year to honor our re- Georgia—Administrative Office of quests for data and documentation. the Courts, Council of Juvenile and Jeffrey A. Butts, Ph.D., former The following agencies contributed Family Court Judges. Project Manager case-level data or court-level aggre- Hawaii—The Judiciary, Adminis- Terrence A. Finnegan, Senior Com- gate statistics for this Report: trative Office of the Courts. puter Programmer Alabama—Alabama Department of Idaho—Administrative Office of Jennifer Kennedy, Research Assis- Youth Services. tant Intern the Courts. Alaska—Alaska Court System. Eileen Poe-Yamagata, Research Illinois—Administrative Office of Analyst Arizona—Supreme Court of Arizona the Illinois Courts, Probation Divi- and the Maricopa County Juvenile sion, and the Circuit Court of Cook Rowen S. Poole, Computer Court Center. County, Juvenile Division. Programmer Melissa Sickmund, Ph.D., Senior Arkansas—Administrative Office of Indiana—Division of State Court Research Analyst the Courts. Administration. Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., Project California—Judicial Council of Cali- Iowa—State Court Administrator. Director fornia and the following county pro- Kansas—Kansas Bureau of Investi- bation departments: Alameda, Anne L. Stahl, Manager of Data gation. Kings, Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Collection San Bernardino, San Diego, San Kentucky—Kentucky Administra- Dennis P. Sullivan, Data Analyst Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Bar- tive Office of the Courts. bara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Nancy Tierney, Administrative Stanislaus, and Ventura. Assistant Louisiana—Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Advisers to the Archive are Linda Bender, Pennsylvania Center for

v Maine—Administrative Office of New Hampshire—New Hampshire South Carolina—Department of the Courts. Supreme Court, Administrative Of- Juvenile Justice. fice of the Courts. Maryland—Department of Juve- South Dakota—Unified Judicial nile Justice. New Jersey—Administrative Office System. of the Courts. Massachusetts—Administrative Tennessee—Tennessee Council of Office of the Courts. New Mexico—Children, Youth and Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Families Department. Michigan—State Court Adminis- Texas—Texas Juvenile Probation trative Office. New York—Office of Court Admin- Commission and Criminal Justice istration and the State of New York, Policy Council. Minnesota—Minnesota Supreme Division of Probation and Correc- Court Information System. tional Alternatives. Utah—Utah Administrative Office of the Courts. Mississippi—Mississippi Depart- North Carolina—Administrative ment of Human Services, Division Office of the Courts. Vermont—Supreme Court of Ver- of Youth Services. mont, Office of the Court Adminis- North Dakota—Supreme Court, trator. Missouri—Department of Social Office of State Court Administrator. Services, Division of Youth Ser- Virginia—Department of Family vices. Ohio—Supreme Court of Ohio and and Youth Services. the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Montana—Board of Crime Control Court Division. Washington—Office of the Admin- and the Office of Court Administra- istrator for the Courts. tion. Oregon—Judicial Department. West Virginia—Juvenile Justice Nebraska—Nebraska Crime Com- Pennsylvania—Juvenile Court Committee. mission. Judges’ Commission. Wyoming—Supreme Court of Nevada—Nevada Association of Rhode Island—Administrative Of- Wyoming, Court Coordinator’s Chief Juvenile Probation Officers. fice of State Courts and Rhode Is- Office. land Family Court.

vi Table of Contents

Foreword ...... iii

Acknowledgments ...... v

List of Tables ...... ix

List of Figures ...... xiii

Preface ...... xv

Introduction ...... 1

National Estimates of Delinquency Cases...... 5

National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases ...... 33

Methods ...... 51

Glossary of Terms ...... 57

Appendix: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1995, by County ...... 63

vii List of Tables

Delinquency Cases: Table 1: Delinquency Cases, by Most Serious Offense, 1995 ...... 5

Table 2: Offense Profile of Delinquency Cases, 1986, 1991, and 1995...... 6

Table 3: Percent Change in Delinquency Cases and Case Rates, 1986–1995 ...... 6

Table 4: Percentage of Delinquency Cases Referred by Law Enforcement, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 7

Table 5: Percentage of Delinquency Cases Detained, by Offense, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 7

Table 6: Percent Change in Detained Delinquency Cases, 1986–1995 ...... 7

Table 7: Offense Profile of Detained Delinquency Cases, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 8

Table 8: Offense Profile of Delinquency Cases, by Manner of Handling, 1995 ...... 8

Table 9: Petitioned Delinquency Cases, 1986–1995...... 12

Table 10: Percentage of Petitioned Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 13

Table 11: Percent Change in Petitioned Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 1986–1995 ...... 13

Table 12: Offense Profile of Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 13

Table 13: Percentage of Petitioned Delinquency Cases Adjudicated, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 14

Table 14: Percentage of Adjudicated Delinquency Cases That Resulted in Out-of-Home Placement, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 15

Table 15: Percent Change in Adjudicated Delinquency Cases That Resulted in Out-of-Home Placement, 1986–1995 ...... 15

Table 16: Offense Profile of Adjudicated Delinquency Cases That Resulted in Out-of-Home Placement, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 16

Table 17: Percentage of Adjudicated Delinquency Cases That Resulted in Formal Probation, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 16

Table 18: Percent Change in Adjudicated Delinquency Cases That Resulted in Formal Probation, 1986–1995 ...... 16

ix Table 19: Offense Profile of Adjudicated Delinquency Cases That Resulted in Formal Probation, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 16

Table 20: Percentage of Delinquency Cases Involving Youth 15 or Younger, by Offense, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 17

Table 21: Offense Profile of Delinquency Cases, by Age at Referral, 1995 ...... 17

Table 22: Percent Change in Delinquency Case Rates, by Age at Referral, 1986–1995 ...... 18

Table 23: Age Profile of Detained Delinquency Cases, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 18

Table 24: Percentage of Delinquency Cases Detained, by Age at Referral, 1995...... 19

Table 25: Percentage of Delinquency Cases Petitioned, by Age at Referral, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 19

Table 26: Percentage of Petitioned Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, by Age at Referral, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 19

Table 27: Percentage of Petitioned Delinquency Cases Adjudicated, by Age at Referral, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 19

Table 28: Percentage of Adjudicated Delinquency Cases That Resulted in Out-of-Home Placement, by Age at Referral, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 21

Table 29: Percentage of Adjudicated Delinquency Cases That Resulted in Formal Probation, by Age at Referral, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 21

Table 30: Percentage of Delinquency Cases Involving Males, by Offense, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 21

Table 31: Offense Profile of Delinquency Cases, by Sex, 1995 ...... 21

Table 32: Percentage Change in Delinquency Cases and Case Rates, by Sex, 1986–1995...... 22

Table 33: Percentage of Delinquency Cases Detained, by Sex, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 22

Table 34: Percentage of Delinquency Cases Petitioned, by Sex, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 22

Table 35: Percentage of Petitioned Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, by Sex, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 23

Table 36: Percentage of Petitioned Delinquency Cases Adjudicated, by Sex, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 23

Table 37: Percentage of Adjudicated Delinquency Cases That Resulted in Out-of-Home Placement, by Sex, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 26

Table 38: Percentage of Adjudicated Delinquency Cases That Resulted in Formal Probation, by Sex, 1986, 1991, and 1995...... 26

Table 39: Race Profile of Delinquency Cases, by Offense, 1995 ...... 26

Table 40: Offense Profile of Delinquency Cases, by Race, 1995 ...... 27

Table 41: Percent Change in Delinquency Cases and Case Rates, by Race, 1986–1995 ...... 27

Table 42: Percentage of Delinquency Cases Detained, by Race, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 28

x Table 43: Percentage of Delinquency Cases Petitioned, by Race, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 31

Table 44: Percentage of Petitioned Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, by Race, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 31

Table 45: Offense Profile of Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, by Race, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 31

Table 46: Percentage of Petitioned Delinquency Cases Adjudicated, by Race, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 31

Table 47: Percentage of Adjudicated Delinquency Cases That Resulted in Out-of-Home Placement, by Race, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 32

Table 48: Percentage of Adjudicated Delinquency Cases That Resulted in Formal Probation, by Race, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 32 Status Offense Cases: Table 49: Percent Change in Petitioned Status Offense Cases and Case Rates, 1986–1995 ...... 33

Table 50: Offense Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 34

Table 51: Percentage of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Referred by Law Enforcement, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 34

Table 52: Percentage of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Detained, by Offense, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 34

Table 53: Offense Profile of Detained Petitioned Status Offense Cases, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 34

Table 54: Percent Change in Detained Petitioned Status Offense Cases, 1986–1995 ...... 34

Table 55: Percentage of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Adjudicated, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 35

Table 56: Percentage of Adjudicated Status Offense Cases That Resulted in Out-of-Home Placement, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 35

Table 57: Percent Change in Adjudicated Status Offense Cases That Resulted in Out-of-Home Placement, 1986–1995 ...... 37

Table 58: Offense Profile of Adjudicated Status Offense Cases That Resulted in Out-of-Home Placement, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 37

Table 59: Percentage of Adjudicated Status Offense Cases That Resulted in Formal Probation, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 37

Table 60: Percent Change in Adjudicated Status Offense Cases That Resulted in Formal Probation, 1986–1995 ...... 37

Table 61: Offense Profile of Adjudicated Status Offense Cases That Resulted in Formal Probation, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 38

Table 62: Percentage of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Involving Youth 15 or Younger, by Offense, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 38

Table 63: Offense Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases, by Age at Referral, 1995 ...... 38

Table 64: Percent Change in Petitioned Status Offense Case Rates, by Age at Referral, 1986–1995 ...... 39

xi Table 65: Age Profile of Detained Petitioned Status Offense Cases, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 40

Table 66: Percentage of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Detained, by Age at Referral, 1995 ...... 40

Table 67: Percentage of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Adjudicated, by Age at Referral, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 41

Table 68: Percentage of Adjudicated Status Offense Cases That Resulted in Out-of-Home Placement, by Age at Referral, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 41

Table 69: Percentage of Adjudicated Status Offense Cases That Resulted in Formal Probation, by Age at Referral, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 41

Table 70: Percentage of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Involving Males, by Offense, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 42

Table 71: Offense Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases, by Sex, 1995...... 42

Table 72: Percent Change in Petitioned Status Offense Cases and Case Rates, by Sex, 1986–1995 ...... 42

Table 73: Percentage of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Detained, by Sex, 1986, 1991, and 1995...... 43

Table 74: Percentage of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Adjudicated, by Sex, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 45

Table 75: Percentage of Adjudicated Status Offense Cases That Resulted in Out-of-Home Placement, by Sex, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 45

Table 76: Percentage of Adjudicated Status Offense Cases That Resulted in Formal Probation, by Sex, 1986, 1991, and 1995...... 45

Table 77: Race Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases, by Offense, 1995 ...... 46

Table 78: Offense Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases, by Race, 1995 ...... 46

Table 79: Percent Change in Petitioned Status Offense Cases and Case Rates, by Race, 1986–1995 ...... 47

Table 80: Percentage of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Detained, by Race, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 49

Table 81: Percentage of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Adjudicated, by Race, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 50

Table 82: Percentage of Adjudicated Status Offense Cases That Resulted in Out-of-Home Placement, by Race, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 50

Table 83: Percentage of Adjudicated Status Offense Cases That Resulted in Formal Probation, by Race, 1986, 1991, and 1995 ...... 50 Methods: Table A–1: 1995 Stratum Profiles: Delinquency Data ...... 52

Table A–2: 1995 Stratum Profiles: Status Offense Data ...... 52

Table A–3: Content of Case-Level Data Sources, 1995 ...... 55

xii List of Figures

Figure 1: Juvenile Court Processing of Delinquency Cases, 1995 ...... 9

Figure 2: Juvenile Court Processing of Delinquency Cases Within Offense Categories, 1995 ...... 10

Figure 3: Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 1986–1995 ...... 14

Figure 4: Manner-of-Handling Profile of Delinquency Cases, 1986–1995 ...... 14

Figure 5: Delinquency Case Rates, by Age at Referral, 1995 ...... 17

Figure 6: Delinquency Case Rates, by Age at Referral and Offense, 1995 ...... 18

Figure 7: Juvenile Court Processing of Delinquency Cases, by Age at Referral, 1995 ...... 20

Figure 8: Delinquency Case Rates, by Sex and Age at Referral, 1995...... 23

Figure 9: Delinquency Case Rates, by Sex, Age at Referral, and Offense, 1995 ...... 24

Figure 10: Juvenile Court Processing of Delinquency Cases, by Sex, 1995 ...... 25

Figure 11: Delinquency Case Rates, by Race and Age at Referral, 1995 ...... 28

Figure 12: Delinquency Case Rates, by Race, Age at Referral, and Offense, 1995 ...... 29

Figure 13: Juvenile Court Processing of Delinquency Cases, by Race, 1995...... 30

Figure 14: Juvenile Court Processing of Petitioned Status Offense Cases, 1995 ...... 35

Figure 15: Juvenile Court Processing of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Within Offense Categories, 1995 ...... 36

Figure 16: Petitioned Status Offense Case Rates, by Age at Referral, 1995 ...... 38

Figure 17: Petitioned Status Offense Case Rates, by Age at Referral and Offense, 1995 ...... 39

Figure 18: Juvenile Court Processing of Petitioned Status Offense Cases, by Age at Referral, 1995 ...... 41

Figure 19: Petitioned Status Offense Case Rates, by Sex and Age at Referral, 1995 ...... 43

Figure 20: Petitioned Status Offense Case Rates, by Sex, Age at Referral, and Offense, 1995 ...... 44

Figure 21: Juvenile Court Processing of Petitioned Status Offense Cases, by Sex, 1995 ...... 45

Figure 22: Petitioned Status Offense Case Rates, by Race and Age at Referral, 1995 ...... 46

Figure 23: Petitioned Status Offense Case Rates, by Race, Age at Referral, and Offense, 1995 ...... 48

Figure 24: Juvenile Court Processing of Petitioned Status Offense Cases, by Race, 1995 ...... 49

xiii Preface

This is the 69th report in the Juve- annual case counts reported to the port series. Although NCJJ agreed nile Court Statistics series. It de- Children’s Bureau by participating to use the procedures established scribes the delinquency and status courts. by HEW in order to ensure report- offense cases handled between ing continuity, NCJJ also began to 1986 and 1995 by U.S. courts with In 1957, the Children’s Bureau initi- investigate methods of improving juvenile jurisdiction. National esti- ated a new data collection design the quality and detail of national mates of juvenile court caseloads that enabled the Juvenile Court Sta- statistics. A critical innovation was in 1995 were based on analyses of tistics series to develop statistically made possible by the proliferation approximately 876,000 automated sound, national estimates. The of computers during the 1970’s. As case records and court-level statis- Children’s Bureau, which had been NCJJ asked agencies across the tics summarizing more than transferred to the U.S. Department country to complete the annual ju- 176,800 additional cases. The data of Health, Education, and Welfare venile court statistics form, some used in the analyses were contrib- (HEW), developed a probability agencies began offering to send uted to the National Juvenile Court sample of more than 500 courts. the automated case-level data col- Data Archive by nearly 1,800 Each court in the sample was lected by their management infor- courts with jurisdiction over 67% asked to submit annual counts of mation systems. NCJJ learned to of the juvenile population in 1995. delinquency, status offense, and combine these automated records dependency cases. This design to produce a detailed national por- The first Juvenile Court Statistics re- proved difficult to sustain as trait of juvenile court activity—the port was published in 1929 by the courts began to drop out of the original objective of the Juvenile U.S. Department of Labor and de- sample. At the same time, a grow- Court Statistics series. scribed cases handled by 42 courts ing number of courts outside the during 1927. During the next de- sample began to compile compa- The project’s transition from using cade, Juvenile Court Statistics re- rable statistics. By the late 1960’s, annual case counts to analyzing ports were based on statistics HEW ended the sample-based ef- automated case-level data was cards completed for each delin- fort and returned to the policy of completed with the production of quency, status offense, and depen- collecting annual case counts from Juvenile Court Statistics 1984. For dency case handled by the courts any court able to provide them. the first time since the 1930’s, Juve- participating in the reporting se- However, the series continued to nile Court Statistics contained de- ries. The Children’s Bureau (within generate national estimates using tailed, case-level descriptions of the U.S. Department of Labor) data from these nonprobability the delinquency and status offense tabulated the information on each samples. cases handled by U.S. juvenile card, including age, sex, and race courts. This case-level detail would of the youth; the reason for refer- The Office of Juvenile Justice and continue to be the emphasis of the ral; the manner of dealing with the Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) reporting series throughout the case; and the final disposition of became responsible for Juvenile next decade. Thus, the content of the case. During the 1940’s, how- Court Statistics following the pas- Juvenile Court Statistics was once ever, the collection of case-level sage of the Juvenile Justice and De- again consistent with the goals es- data was abandoned because of its linquency Prevention Act of 1974. tablished by those who began this high cost. From the 1940’s until the In 1975, the National Center for Ju- work almost 70 years earlier. mid-1970’s, Juvenile Court Statistics venile Justice (NCJJ) was awarded reports were based on the simple, an OJJDP grant to continue the re-

xv Data Access courts. Designed to facilitate re- merged for cross-jurisdictional and search on the juvenile justice sys- longitudinal analyses. Upon re- The data used in this Report are tem, the Archive’s data files are quest, project staff are also avail- stored in the National Juvenile available to policymakers, re- able to perform special analyses of Court Data Archive at NCJJ in searchers, and students. In addi- the Archive’s data files. Research- Pittsburgh, PA. The Archive con- tion to national data files, State and ers are encouraged to contact the tains the most detailed informa- local data can be provided to re- Archive directly to explore the pos- tion available on youth involved in searchers. With the assistance of sible uses of Archive data files for the juvenile justice system and on Archive staff, selected files can be their work. the activities of U.S. juvenile

xvi Introduction

This report describes delinquency The fact that a case is “disposed” case. In other words, the intake and status offense cases handled means that a definite action was function is performed outside the between 1986 and 1995 by U.S. taken as the result of the referral— court and some matters are di- courts with juvenile jurisdiction. i.e., a plan of treatment was se- verted to other agencies without Courts with juvenile jurisdiction lected or initiated. It does not the court ever handling them. Sta- may handle a variety of matters, mean necessarily that a case was tus offense cases, in particular, including child abuse and neglect, closed or terminated in the sense tend to be diverted from court pro- traffic violations, child support, that all contact between the court cessing in this manner. and adoptions. This report focuses and the youth ceased. For ex- on cases involving juveniles ample, a case is considered to be Since its inception, Juvenile Court charged with law violations (delin- disposed when the court orders Statistics has adapted to the chang- quency or status offenses). probation, not when a term of pro- ing structure of juvenile court probation supervision is completed. cessing nationwide. As court pro- Unit of Count cessing became more diverse, the JCS series broadened its definition In measuring the activity of juve- Coverage of the juvenile court to incorporate nile courts, one could count the A basic question for this reporting other agencies that perform what number of offenses referred; the series is what constitutes a referral can generically be considered juve- number of cases referred; the ac- to juvenile court. The answer partly nile court functions. In some com- tual filings of offenses, cases, or depends on how each jurisdiction munities, data collection has ex- petitions; the number of disposi- organizes its case-screening func- panded to include departments of tion hearings; or the number of tion. In many communities, all ju- youth services, child welfare agen- youth handled. Each “unit of venile matters are first screened cies, and prosecutor’s offices. In count” has its own merits and dis- by an intake unit within the juve- other communities, this expansion advantages. The unit of count used nile court. The intake unit deter- has not been possible. Therefore, in Juvenile Court Statistics (JCS) is mines whether the matter should while there is complete coverage the number of “cases disposed.” be handled informally (i.e., di- of formally handled delinquency verted) or petitioned for formal A “case” represents a youth pro- and status offense cases and ad- handling. In data files from commu- cessed by a juvenile court on a equate coverage of informally nities using this type of system, a new referral regardless of the num- handled delinquency cases in the delinquency or status offense case ber of law violations contained in JCS series, the coverage of infor- is defined as a court referral at the the referral. A youth charged with mally handled status offense cases point of initial screening, regard- four burglaries in a single referral is not sufficient to support the gen- less of whether it is handled for- would represent a single case. A eration of national estimates. For mally or informally. youth referred for three burglaries this reason, JCS reports do not present national estimates of infor- and referred again the following In other communities, the juvenile mally handled status offense week on another burglary charge court is not involved in delin- cases. (Subnational analyses of would represent two cases, even if quency or status offense matters these cases are available from the the court eventually merged the until another agency (e.g., the Archive.) two referrals for more efficient prosecutor’s office or a social ser- processing. vice agency) has first screened the

1 Juvenile Court the matter is usually scheduled for judicial decision to detain or con- an adjudicatory hearing in the juve- tinue detention may occur before Processing nile court. or after adjudication or disposi- Any attempt to describe juvenile tion. This report includes only court caseloads at the national Petitioning. If the intake depart- those detention actions that result level must be based on a generic ment decides that a case should be in a youth being placed in a restric- model of court processing to serve handled formally within the juve- tive facility under court authority as a common framework. In order nile court, a petition is filed and while awaiting the outcome of the to analyze and present data about the case is placed on the court cal- court process. This report does juvenile court activities in diverse endar (or docket) for an adjudica- not include detention decisions jurisdictions, the Archive strives tory hearing. A small number of pe- made by law enforcement officials to fit the processing characteris- titions is dismissed for various prior to court intake or those oc- tics of all jurisdictions into the fol- reasons before the adjudicatory curring after the disposition of a lowing general model: hearing is actually held. case (e.g., temporary holding of a youth in a detention facility while Adjudication. At the adjudicatory Intake. Referred cases are first awaiting availability of a court- hearing, a youth may be adjudi- screened by an intake department ordered placement). (either within or outside the cated (judged) a delinquent or sta- court). The intake department tus offender, and the case would Data Quality may decide to dismiss the case for then proceed to a disposition hear- lack of legal sufficiency or to re- ing. Alternatively, a case can be dis- Juvenile Court Statistics relies on solve the matter formally or infor- missed or continued in contempla- the secondary analysis of data mally. Informal (i.e., nonpeti- tion of dismissal. In these cases, originally compiled by juvenile tioned) dispositions may include a the court often recommends that courts or juvenile justice agencies voluntary referral to a social the youth take some actions prior to meet their own information and agency for services, informal pro- to the final adjudication decision, reporting needs. As a consequence, bation, or the payment of fines or such as paying restitution or volun- incoming data files are not uniform some form of voluntary restitu- tarily attending drug counseling. across jurisdictions. However, these tion. Formally handled cases are data files are likely to be more de- Disposition. At the disposition petitioned and scheduled for an tailed and accurate than data files hearing, the juvenile court judge adjudicatory or waiver hearing. compiled by local jurisdictions determines the most appropriate merely complying with a mandated Judicial Waiver. The intake de- sanction, generally after reviewing national reporting program. partment may decide that a case a predisposition report prepared should be removed from juvenile by a probation department. The The heterogeneity of the contrib- court and handled instead in range of options available to a uted data files greatly increases criminal (adult) court. In such court typically includes commit- the complexity of the Archive’s cases, a petition is usually filed in ment to an institution; placement data processing tasks. Contribut- juvenile court asking the juvenile in a group or foster home or other ing jurisdictions collect and report court judge to waive jurisdiction residential facility; probation (ei- information using their own defini- over the case. The juvenile court ther regular or intensive supervi- tions and coding categories. There- judge decides whether the case sion); referral to an outside agen- fore, the detail reported in some merits criminal prosecution.1 cy, day treatment, or mental health data sets is not contained in others. When a waiver request is denied, program; or imposition of a fine, of Even when similar data elements community service, or of a restitu- are used, they may have inconsis- tion order. tent definitions or overlapping coding categories. The Archive re- 1Mechanisms of transfer to criminal Detention. A youth may be placed structures contributed data into court vary by State. In some States, in a detention facility at different a prosecutor has the authority to standardized coding categories in points as a case progresses file juvenile cases that meet speci- order to combine information from fied criteria directly in criminal through the juvenile justice sys- multiple sources. The standardiza- court. This report, however, in- tem. Detention practices also vary tion process requires an intimate cludes only cases that were trans- from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A ferred as a result of judicial waiver.

2 understanding of the development, Validity of the Structure of the structure, and content of each data set received. Codebooks and op- Estimates Report eration manuals are studied, data The national estimates presented This Report describes the delin- suppliers interviewed, and data in this Report were generated with quency and status offense cases files analyzed to maximize the un- data from a large nonprobability handled by juvenile courts be- derstanding of each information sample of juvenile courts. There- tween 1986 and 1995. First, the Re- system. Every attempt is made to fore, statistical confidence in the port presents national estimates of ensure that only compatible infor- estimates cannot be mathemati- petitioned and nonpetitioned de- mation from the various data sets cally determined. Although statisti- linquency cases handled by courts is used in standardized data files. cal confidence would be greater if with juvenile jurisdiction. Next, na- a probability sampling design were tional estimates of petitioned sta- While the heterogeneity of the data used, the cost of such an effort has tus offense cases are presented. adds complexity to the develop- long been considered prohibitive. Together, these sections provide a ment of a national data file, it has Secondary analysis of available detailed national portrait of juve- proven to be valuable in other ap- data is the best practical alterna- nile court cases, including the of- plications. The diversity of the tive for developing an understand- fenses involved, sources of refer- data stored in the National Juve- ing of the Nation’s juvenile courts.2 ral, detention practices, and nile Court Data Archive enables dispositions ordered. the data to support a wider range National estimates for 1995 are of research efforts than would a based on analyses of 876,173 indi- A brief description of the statisti- uniform, and probably more gen- vidual case records from more cal procedure used to generate eral, data collection form. For ex- than 1,300 courts with jurisdiction these estimates can be found in ample, the Federal Bureau of over half of the U.S. juvenile popu- the Methods section. Investigation’s (FBI’s) Uniform lation, and aggregate court-level Crime Reporting (UCR) Program is data on 176,823 cases from 511 ju- Readers are encouraged to consult limited by necessity to a small risdictions. The weighting proce- the Glossary of Terms for defini- number of relatively broad offense dures that generate national esti- tions of key terms used throughout codes. The UCR offense code for mates from this sample control for the Report. Few terms in the field larceny-theft combines shoplifting many factors: the size of a commu- of juvenile justice have widely ac- with a number of other larcenies. nity; the demographic composition cepted definitions. The terminol- Thus, the data are useless for stud- of its youth population; the volume ogy used in this Report has been ies of shoplifting. In comparison, of cases referred to the reporting carefully developed to communi- many of the Archive’s data sets are courts; the age, sex, and race of cate the findings of the work as sufficiently detailed to enable a re- the youth involved; the offense precisely as possible without sacri- searcher to distinguish offenses characteristics of the cases; the ficing applicability to multiple that are often combined in other court’s response to the cases jurisdictions. reporting series—shoplifting can (manner of handling, detention, ad- Finally, the Appendix presents a be distinguished from other larce- judication, and disposition); and complete list of the number of de- nies, joyriding from motor vehicle the nature of each court’s jurisdic- linquency, status offense, and de- theft, and armed robbery from un- tional responsibilities (i.e., upper pendency cases handled by juve- armed robbery. The diversity of age of original jurisdiction). nile courts in 1995. Table Notes, at these coding structures allows re- the end of the Appendix, indicate searchers to construct data sets the source of the data and the unit that contain the detail demanded 2 For more detailed analyses of the of count. Because courts report by their research designs. JCS national estimates and their ac- their statistical data using various curacy, see: Jeffrey A. Butts and units of count (e.g., cases dis- Howard N. Snyder. 1995. A Study to posed, offenses referred, peti- Assess the Validity of the National Es- tions), the reader is cautioned timates Developed for the Juvenile Court Statistics Series. Pittsburgh, PA: against making cross-jurisdictional National Center for Juvenile Justice. comparisons before studying the Table Notes.

3 Other Sources of analysis of Archive data while Statistics: 1991–1995 on a single eliminating the need for statistical 3.5 inch diskette. Contact the Juvenile Court Data analysis software. All necessary National Center for Juvenile Jus- The national delinquency esti- data files, as well as the NCJJ soft- tice at 412–227–6950 to order a mates presented in this Report are ware, are available on two 3.5 inch complimentary copy. The Win- also available in an easy-to-use diskettes that can be easily installed dows version of Easy Access to Ju- software package, Easy Access to in Windows on an IBM-compatible venile Court Statistics can also be Juvenile Court Statistics: 1986–1995. personal computer or network. For downloaded from OJJDP’s Web site With the support of the Office of those operating an IBM-compatible at http://www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency personal computer in a DOS envi- Prevention, NCJJ distributes this ronment, NCJJ offers a DOS version package to facilitate independent of Easy Access to Juvenile Court

4 National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Counts and Trends Table 1: Delinquency Cases, by Most Serious Offense, 1995 In 1995, courts with juvenile jurisdiction handled an estimated Most Serious Number Percent Change 1,714,300 delinquency cases, repre- Offense of Cases 1986–95 1991–95 1994–95 senting a 7% increase over the 1994 caseload (table 1). Delin- Total 1,714,300 45% 21% 7% quency offenses are acts commit- Person Offense 377,300 98 36 8 ted by juveniles that could result Criminal Homicide 2,800 84 20 –6 Forcible Rape 6,800 47 19 4 in criminal prosecution when com- Robbery 39,600 53 27 6 mitted by an adult. Between 1986 Aggravated Assault 93,200 137 33 6 and 1995, the number of delin- Simple Assault 205,500 103 47 12 quency cases processed by U.S. ju- Other Violent Sex Offense 9,300 50 9 –3 Other Person Offense 20,100 72 –2 –4 venile courts increased 45%. Property Offense 871,700 23 3 3 The number of person offense Burglary 139,900 –2 –9 –2 cases increased 98% between 1986 Larceny-Theft 418,800 28 10 10 Motor Vehicle Theft 53,400 23 –26 –13 and 1995, property offense cases Arson 10,400 78 42 10 increased 23%, drug law violation Vandalism 121,700 40 9 –2 cases increased 120%, and public Trespassing 64,400 18 9 1 Stolen Property Offense 33,100 10 9 2 order offense cases grew 48%. Other Property Offense 29,900 46 –5 6 Compared with 1986, juvenile courts in 1995 handled 84% more Drug Law Violation 159,100 120 145 28 criminal homicide cases, 47% more Public Order Offense 306,300 48 37 6 rape cases, 53% more robbery Obstruction of Justice 110,100 53 45 8 Disorderly Conduct 85,100 82 46 9 cases, 137% more aggravated as- Weapons Offense 47,000 132 38 –9 sault cases, and 103% more simple Liquor Law Violation 12,200 –39 –1 2 assault cases. During the same Nonviolent Sex Offense 10,500 –21 –8 –4 time period, juvenile courts saw Other Public Order 41,300 19 31 17 their weapons offense caseloads Violent Crime Index* 142,400 99 30 5 climb 132% and cases involving Property Crime Index** 622,500 20 1 5 motor vehicle theft increase 23%. Several offense categories had drops in caseloads between 1994 * Violent Crime Index includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated and 1995; criminal homicide cases assault. dropped 6%, weapons offense ** Property Crime Index includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. cases dropped 9%, and motor vehicle theft cases dropped 13%. Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent change calculations are based on unrounded numbers. Examination of the caseloads of juvenile courts using the Federal

5 Bureau of Investigation (FBI) property offense, such as shoplift- Table 2: Offense Profile of crime indexes indicates that juve- ing, burglary, or vandalism, was the Delinquency Cases, 1986, nile courts handled substantially most serious charge in 51% of the 1991, and 1995 more Violent Crime Index offense delinquency cases handled by juve- cases in 1995 than in 1986 (99%), nile courts in 1995 versus 60% in Most Serious while cases involving Property 1986. The proportion of drug law Offense 1986 1991 1995 Crime Index offenses increased violations, such as possession or 1 Person 16% 20% 22% 20%. The increases in juvenile sale of controlled substances, rose Property 60 60 51 court cases parallel the increases from 6% in 1986 to 9% in 1995. Pub- Drugs 6 5 9 in arrests of persons under the age lic order offenses remained rela- Public Order 18 16 18 of 18, as reported by the FBI. Be- tively unchanged between 1986 Total 100% 100% 100% tween 1986 and 1995, the number and 1995. of arrests involving persons under Note: Detail may not total 100% the age of 18 charged with Violent In 1995, juvenile courts processed because of rounding. Crime Index offenses increased 60.7 delinquency cases for every 67%, while arrests of youth for 1,000 juveniles who resided in the Property Crime Index offenses in- United States and were at risk of re- creased 8%. (See Crime in the ferral—those age 10 or older who United States 1995.) According to were under the jurisdiction of a ju- the FBI, the number of juvenile ar- venile court (table 3).2 Analysis of rests for homicide increased 90% this case rate permits comparisons between 1986 and 1995 but de- creased 14% between 1994 and 1995, changes that closely corre- Table 3: Percent Change in Delinquency Cases and Case Rates, spond to the trends in juvenile 1986–1995 court cases involving homicide charges. Most Serious Percent Change Offense 1986 1991 1995 1986–95 1991–95 The offense profile of juvenile court caseloads changed some- Number of Cases what between 1986 and 1995 (table Delinquency 1,180,000 1,413,300 1,714,300 45% 21% 2). The relative proportion of per- Person 190,300 277,500 377,300 98 36 son offenses increased, while Property 710,000 846,800 871,700 23 3 property offenses declined. A per- Drugs 72,400 65,100 159,100 120 145 Public Order 207,300 223,900 306,300 48 37 son offense, such as robbery or assault, was the most serious charge Case Rates in 22% of delinquency cases in 1995 compared with 16% in 1986. A Delinquency 45.5 54.2 60.7 33% 12% Person 7.3 10.6 13.4 82 26 Property 27.4 32.5 30.9 13 –5 1 Drugs 2.8 2.5 5.6 102 126 The annual series of reports from Public Order 8.0 8.6 10.8 36 26 the FBI, Crime in the United States, provides information on arrests in Case Rate = Cases per 1,000 youth at risk. offense categories that have be- come part of the common vocabu- Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent change calculations lary of criminal justice statistics. are based on unrounded numbers. The Crime in the United States series tracks changes in the general nature of arrests through the use of two indexes, the Violent Crime Index and the Property Crime Index. While not 2 The upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction is defined by statute in each State. containing all violent or all property See the Glossary of Terms section for a more detailed discussion on upper age offenses, the indexes serve as a ba- of juvenile court jurisdiction. The case rates presented in this report control rometer of criminal activity in the for State variations in youth population at risk of referral to juvenile court. United States.

6 of juvenile court activity over time sources (70%), perhaps because while controlling for differences in this offense category contains pro- Table 4: Percentage of Delinquency Cases Referred the population at risk of referral to bation violations and contempt of by Law Enforcement, 1986, the juvenile court. court cases that are referred most 1991, and 1995 often by court personnel. The total delinquency case rate Most Serious rose 33% from 1986 to 1995.3 Dur- Detention Offense 1986 1991 1995 ing the same time period, case rates increased in all offense cat- Juvenile courts sometimes hold Delinquency 84% 84% 86% youth in secure detention facilities Person 81 81 87 egories. The case rate for person Property 90 89 91 offenses climbed 82%, the property during court processing. Depend- Drugs 91 88 94 case rate increased 13%, the rate ing on the State’s detention laws, Public Order 67 69 70 of drug cases grew 102%, and the the court may decide detention is rate of public order offense cases necessary to protect the commu- increased 36%. Over the more re- nity from a juvenile’s behavior, to cent 5-year period, however, the ensure a juvenile’s appearance at Table 5: Percentage of subsequent court hearings, or to Delinquency Cases Detained, property case rate declined 5%. by Offense, 1986, 1991, and secure the juvenile’s own safety. 1995 Source of Referral Detention may also be ordered for the purpose of evaluating the Most Serious Delinquency cases can be referred juvenile. Offense 1986 1991 1995 to court intake by a number of sources, including law enforce- Juveniles were held in detention fa- Delinquency 21% 21% 19% ment agencies, social service agen- Person 25 25 23 cilities at some point between re- Property 17 17 15 cies, schools, parents, probation ferral to court intake and case dis- Drugs 25 37 24 officers, and victims. However, law position in 19% of all delinquency Public Order 26 24 21 enforcement agencies are tradi- cases disposed in 1995 (table 5). tionally the source of most delin- Cases involving property offenses quency referrals. In 1995, for ex- were least likely to involve deten- juveniles were detained in 38% of ample, 86% of delinquency cases tion in 1995, while those involving drug cases and by 1995 that pro- were referred to courts by law en- drug offenses were most likely to portion had dropped to 21%; a forcement (table 4). About the involve detention. In 1995, 15% of 17-point change. same proportion of delinquency property offense cases involved cases were referred to juvenile detention (compared with 24% of The number of delinquency cases court by law enforcement in 1986 drug cases, 23% of person offense in which juveniles were detained (84%). cases, and 21% of public order of- increased 31% between 1986 and fense cases). 1995, rising from 244,000 to 320,800 There is some variation across the (table 6). Increases occurred in all four major offense categories in The probability of detention for de- offense categories, with drug of- the proportion of cases referred by linquency cases changed very little fense cases showing the greatest law enforcement. In 1995, 94% of between 1986 and 1995. The use of increase. Between 1986 and 1995, drug law violation cases were re- detention ranged between 19% and the number of drug offense cases ferred by law enforcement agen- 23%. The peak year was in 1990. in which youth were detained in- cies, as were 91% of property The same pattern was seen in each creased 110%. There was a 75% in- cases and 87% of person offense of the four major offense catego- crease among person offense cases. However, a smaller propor- ries. With the exception of drug cases, 22% among public order of- tion of public order offense cases law violation cases, use of deten- fense cases, and 7% among prop- were referred by law enforcement tion fluctuated within a 5 to 7 per- erty offense cases. During the centage point range, with 1990 be- more recent 5-year period from ing the peak year. The use of 1991 to 1995, however, there was a 3 The percent change in the number of cases disposed may not be equal detention for drug law violation 9% decline in the number of prop- to the percent change in case rates cases also peaked in 1990, but erty cases in which juveniles were due to the changing size of the juve- showed a wider variation. In 1990, detained. nile population.

7 Table 6: Percent Change in Detained Delinquency Cases, 1986–1995 Table 6: Percent Change in Detained Delinquency Cases, 1986–1995 Table 8: Offense Profile of Delinquency Cases, by Manner Most Serious Number of Cases Percent Change of Handling, 1995 Offense 1986 1991 1995 1986–95 1991–95 Most Serious Delinquency 244,000 293,900 320,800 31% 9% Offense Informal Formal Person 48,400 69,800 84,900 75 22 Property 123,800 145,400 132,300 7 –9 Person 20% 23% Drugs 18,400 23,900 38,600 110 61 Property 55 47 Public Order 53,300 54,800 64,900 22 18 Drugs 8 10 Public Order 16 19 Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent change calculations are based on unrounded numbers. Total 100% 100% Number of Cases: 775,900 938,400

Table 7: Offense Profile of Detained Delinquency Cases, 1986, 1991, and Note: Detail may not total 100% 1995 because of rounding.

Most Serious Offense 1986 1991 1995 handled formally by juvenile Person 20% 24% 26% courts in 1995 (figure 2). Among Property 51 49 41 property offense cases, the propor- Drugs 8 8 12 tion of cases processed formally Public Order 22 19 20 was just over half. As a result of Total 100% 100% 100% this differential handling, formally Number of Cases processed cases in 1995 involved a Involving Detention: 244,000 293,900 320,800 higher proportion of person, drug, and public order offenses and a Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding. lower proportion of property offense cases compared with the informally handled delinquency Although detention was least likely Intake Decision caseload (table 8). in property offense cases in 1995, More than half (55%) of the delin- they accounted for 41% of all de- Intake decisions varied among quency cases disposed by juvenile linquency cases involving deten- each of the four major offense cat- courts in 1995 were processed for- tion because they represented the egories. A detailed analysis of re- mally (figure 1). Formal processing largest share of juvenile court ferral offenses showed that the involves the filing of a petition re- caseloads (table 7). Person offense likelihood of formal handling was questing an adjudicatory or waiver cases accounted for 26% of cases greater for more serious offenses hearing. Informal cases, on the involving detention, public order within the same general offense other hand, are handled without a offense cases accounted for 20%, category. In 1995, for example, 60% petition. Among informally handled and drug law violation cases ac- of aggravated assault cases were (nonpetitioned) delinquency cases, counted for 12%. Between 1986 handled formally compared with nearly half were dismissed by the and 1995, the offense characteris- 50% of simple assault cases. Simi- court. Most of the remainder re- tics of delinquency cases involving larly, more than 70% of burglary sulted in voluntary probation or detention changed somewhat, with and motor vehicle theft cases were other dispositions, but a small person offenses and drug law vio- handled formally by juvenile proportion involved voluntary lations accounting for larger pro- courts, compared with 40% of out-of-home placements. portions of detentions, and prop- larceny-theft cases and 48% of erty offenses representing a Among person offense, drug law cases in which vandalism was the smaller share in 1995 than in 1986 violation, and public order cases, most serious charge (table 9). (41% compared with 51%). approximately 6 in 10 cases were

8 Figure 1: Juvenile Court Processing of Delinquency Cases, 1995

Waived 9,700 1%

Placed 148,900 28%

Petitioned Probation 938,400 55% Adjudicated 283,300 53% 529,700 56% Other 71,600 14%

Dismissed 25,900 5%

Placed 1,714,300 Cases 11,000 3%

Probation Nonadjudicated 86,000 22% 399,000 43% Other 63,200 16% Placed 6,300 1% Dismissed 238,900 60% Probation Nonpetitioned 239,900 31% 775,900 45% Other 166,700 21%

Dismissed 363,000 47%

Intake Intake Judicial Judicial Decision Disposition Decision Disposition

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

9 Figure 2: Juvenile Court Processing of Delinquency Cases Within Offense Categories, 1995

Person Offenses

Waived 4,600 2% Petitioned Placed 35,600 31% 219,100 58% Adjudicated 116,400 53% Probation 62,100 53% Other 12,300 11% Dismissed 6,500 6%

377,300 Cases Placed 2,800 3% Nonadjudicated 98,200 45% Probation 20,100 21% Other 13,300 14% Dismissed 61,900 63% Nonpetitioned Placed 1,000 1% 158,100 42% Probation 48,600 31% Other 26,200 17% Dismissed 82,400 52%

Property Offenses

Waived 3,300 1% Petitioned Placed 66,200 26% 443,000 51% Adjudicated 255,900 58% Probation 142,400 56% Other 36,400 14% Dismissed 10,900 4%

871,700 Cases Placed 5,100 3% Nonadjudicated 183,800 41% Probation 46,600 25% Other 28,300 15% Dismissed 103,900 56% Nonpetitioned Placed 2,200 1% 428,600 49% Probation 136,200 32% Other 107,900 25% Dismissed 182,300 43%

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

10 Figure 2 (continued)

Drug Offenses

Waived 1,200 1% Petitioned Placed 13,700 25% 97,400 61% Adjudicated 55,300 57% Probation 29,400 53% Other 8,500 15% Dismissed 3,700 7%

159,100 Cases Placed 1,100 3% Nonadjudicated 40,900 42% Probation 8,200 20% Other 5,900 14% Dismissed 25,700 63% Nonpetitioned Placed 600 1% 61,700 39% Probation 22,300 36% Other 11,700 19% Dismissed 27,100 44%

Public Order Offenses

Waived 700 <1% Petitioned Placed 33,400 33% 178,800 58% Adjudicated 102,100 57% Probation 49,400 48% Other 14,400 14% Dismissed 4,900 5%

306,300 Cases Placed 2,000 3% Nonadjudicated 76,100 43% Probation 11,000 15% Other 15,600 21% Dismissed 47,400 62% Nonpetitioned Placed 2,400 2% 127,500 42% Probation 32,900 26% Other 20,900 16% Dismissed 71,300 56%

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

11 Table 9: Petitioned Delinquency Cases, 1986–1995

1986 1995 Percent Cha