offenders in juvenile court, 1997court in 1997 than in 1988, but 28% fewer than in 1994. these...

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

From the Administrator

From 1988 to 1997, the number ofdelinquency cases handled by theNation’s juvenile courts rose 48 per-cent, with disproportionate increasesin person offense, weapons offense,and drug offense cases.

In 1997, juvenile courts processednearly 1.8 million delinquency cases,virtually the same number as theprevious year. The 1997 offenseprofile also paralleled that of 1996.

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1997presents these and other findingsfrom Juvenile Court Statistics 1997,the latest in a series of OJJDPReports that provide data from theNational Juvenile Court Data Archive.The Archive, which is maintained forOJJDP by the National Center forJuvenile Justice, is the only compre-hensive source of data about youthreferred to U.S. juvenile courts fordelinquency and status offenses.

The estimates provided in this Bul-letin are derived from data fromnearly 2,000 courts that had jurisdic-tion over 71 percent of the U.S. juve-nile population in 1997. The Bulletin,like the larger Report on which it isbased, serves as a barometer oftrends in juvenile crime. It is my hopethat the information it provides willprove useful to juvenile justice profes-sionals, public officials, policymakers,and others concerned about juvenileviolence and delinquency.

John J. WilsonActing Administrator

October 2000

Findings from Juvenile Court Statistics1997 include the following:

◆ The number of criminal homicidecases processed by juvenile courtsdropped 17% between 1996 and 1997.

◆ In 22% of delinquency cases processedin 1997, the most serious charge was aperson offense. Person offenses ac-counted for 17% of all cases in 1988.

◆ Juveniles were held in secure deten-tion facilities at some point betweenreferral and disposition in 19% of alldelinquency cases disposed in 1997,about the same proportion as in 1988.

◆ There were 25% more delinquencycases judicially waived to criminalcourt in 1997 than in 1988, but 28%fewer than in 1994.

These national estimates of juvenile courtcases are based on data from nearly 2,000courts that had jurisdiction over 71% ofthe U.S. juvenile population in 1997. Theunit of count in Juvenile Court Statistics isa case disposed during the calendar yearby a court with juvenile jurisdiction. It ispossible for an individual youth to havebeen involved in more than one case dur-ing the year. Each case represents a youthprocessed by a juvenile court on a newreferral, regardless of the number of of-fenses contained in that referral. Casesinvolving multiple offenses are categorized

Offenders in JuvenileCourt, 1997

Melissa Sickmund

Juvenile courts in the United States pro-cessed nearly 1.8 million delinquencycases in 1997. This number represents a48% increase over the number of delin-quency cases handled in 1988. Nearly 6out of 10 cases processed in 1997 werehandled formally (i.e., a petition was filedrequesting an adjudicatory or waiverhearing). In nearly 6 out of 10 petitionedcases, the court adjudicated the youthdelinquent. The juvenile court waived ju-risdiction and transferred youth to crimi-nal court in 1% of formally handled cases.The court ordered the youth placed in aresidential facility in 3 out of 10 adjudi-cated delinquency cases.

These statistics are among the findings re-ported in Juvenile Court Statistics 1997, thelatest in a series of Reports on caseshandled by U.S. courts with juvenile juris-diction. Although courts with juvenilejurisdiction handle a variety of cases, in-cluding abuse, neglect, adoption, and trafficviolations, Juvenile Court Statistics Reportsfocus on the disposition of delinquencycases and formally processed status offensecases (see page 12 for a description of sta-tus offenses). Each Report includes nationalestimates of the number of cases handledby juvenile courts and an appendix thatlists caseload statistics for individual Statesand jurisdictions within each State. ThisBulletin highlights some of the importantfindings presented in the 1997 Report.

2

sources, including law enforcement, so-cial service agencies, schools, parents,probation officers, and victims. Law en-forcement agencies refer the majority ofdelinquency cases to juvenile court (85%in 1997). The proportion of all cases that

according to the most serious offense. Forexample, a case involving both a chargeof vandalism and a charge of robberywould be characterized as a robberycase. Similarly, cases involving multipledispositions are categorized according tothe most restrictive disposition. A casethat resulted in both probation and place-ment in a residential facility would becoded as a residential placement.

Delinquency Cases

U.S. juvenile courts handled4,800 delinquency caseseach dayIn 1997, U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdic-tion handled an estimated 1.8 millioncases in which the juvenile was chargedwith a delinquency offense (i.e., an of-fense for which an adult could be pros-ecuted in criminal court).

An individual juvenile may be involved inmore than one case during the year. Theannual ratio of cases to juveniles is about3 to 2. Therefore, juvenile courts handledabout 1.2 million individual juvenilescharged with delinquency offenses in1997.

Juvenile court workloadshave grown and changedChanges in the juvenile court delinquencycaseload in recent years have strainedthe court’s resources and programs. The48% increase between 1988 and 1997 inthe volume of cases means that juvenilecourts handled 1,600 more cases eachday in 1997 than in 1988. Over this period,however, the courts were asked to re-spond not only to more cases, but also toa different type of caseload.

From 1988 through 1997, the juvenilecourts saw disproportionate increases inviolent and other person offense, weap-ons offense, and drug offense cases. Theproperty offense share of the delinquencycaseload declined from approximately60% to approximately 50%. Courts havehad to adapt their program resourcesaccordingly.

The 1997 delinquency caseload of nearly1.8 million was virtually the same in vol-ume as the caseload for 1996. The offenseprofile for the 1997 caseload was also es-sentially the same as the profile in 1996.

Delinquency cases may be referred to ju-venile court from a number of different

were law enforcement referrals varied byoffense: person (85%), property (90%),drugs (93%), and public order (67%).

Youth were charged with a property offense in nearly half thedelinquency cases handled by juvenile courts in 1997

Number of Percentage of Percent change

Most serious offense cases total cases 1988–97 1996–97

Total delinquency 1,755,100 100% 48% 0%

Person offenses 390,800 22 97 2Criminal homicide 2,000 <1 31 –17Forcible rape 6,500 <1 48 –5Robbery 33,400 2 55 –11Aggravated assault 67,900 4 66 –18Simple assault 248,800 14 124 11Other violent sex offense 10,200 1 59 8Other person offense 22,000 1 72 3

Property offenses 841,800 48 19 –3Burglary 135,900 8 2 –4Larceny-theft 401,300 23 23 –4Motor vehicle theft 48,800 3 –11 –6Arson 9,300 1 44 4Vandalism 114,800 7 41 –4Trespassing 65,100 4 28 1Stolen property offense 33,800 2 5 0Other property offense 32,800 2 60 0

Drug law violations 182,400 10 125 4

Public order offenses 340,100 19 67 4Obstruction of justice 132,600 8 78 4Disorderly conduct 92,300 5 107 3Weapons offense 38,500 2 74 –6Liquor law violation 11,100 1 –31 0Nonviolent sex offense 11,100 1 –4 7Other public order 54,600 3 56 17

Violent Crime Index* 109,800 6 61 –15

Property Crime Index** 595,300 34 14 –4

◆ Person offense cases accounted for 22% of all delinquency cases handled byjuvenile courts in 1997. Cases involving a Violent Crime Index offense accountedfor 6% of all delinquency cases.

◆ Ten percent of all delinquency cases involved drug law violations as the mostserious charge.

◆ Although much of the growth in court referrals is related to arrests, changes injuvenile court caseloads also depend on other forces. Between 1988 and 1997,the overall growth in juvenile court cases (48%) was greater than the growthin arrests of persons under age 18 (35%). Violent Crime Index arrests rose49%, arrests for Property Crime Index offenses rose 1%, and drug arrestsrose 125%.

*Includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.**Includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent calculations are based onunrounded numbers.

3

diction (see Note on page 14). In theseStates, all 17-year-olds are legally adultswho face prosecution in criminal ratherthan juvenile court. Thus, far fewer 17-year-olds than 16-year-olds are subject tooriginal juvenile court jurisdiction in theUnited States.

Even after controlling for this, the caserates for 16-year-olds were still slightlygreater than the rates for 17-year-olds.One reason may be State legislation that

targets certain older juveniles for pro-cessing directly in criminal courts (viaeither statutory exclusion or concurrentjurisdiction provisions). In these situa-tions, when a youth of juvenile age is ar-rested, the matter goes before a criminalcourt rather than before a juvenile court.

Age, Sex, and Race ofDelinquent Youth

Delinquency case ratesrose substantially between1988 and 1997 for most agegroupsIn 1997, juvenile courts handled 61.1 de-linquency cases for every 1,000 juvenilesin the U.S. population—i.e., youth subjectto original juvenile court jurisdiction (seeNote on page 14). The 1997 delinquencycase rate was 30% greater than the 1988rate.

Delinquency casesper 1,000 juveniles

Age at in age group Percentreferral 1988 1997 change

All ages 46.8 61.1 30%10 6.0 5.7 –511 9.7 11.5 1812 19.2 24.6 2813 35.3 47.4 3414 56.7 73.6 3015 73.1 97.8 3416 87.0 120.7 3917 87.7 118.3 35

Juveniles age 15 and olderaccounted for more than 6in 10 delinquency cases in1997Juveniles age 15 and older made up 63%of the delinquency caseload in 1997, juve-niles ages 13 and 14 were involved in 26%of delinquency cases, and juveniles age 12and younger accounted for 10%. Therewas some variation in age profiles acrossoffense. Juveniles age 12 and younger ac-counted for greater proportions of person(13%) and property (12%) cases than ofdrug (2%) or public order (6%) cases.These proportions were not substantiallydifferent from those in 1988.

Why did juvenile courtshandle more 16- than 17-year-olds in 1997?Although comparable numbers of 17- and16-year-olds were arrested in 1997, thenumber of juvenile court cases involving17-year-olds (282,400) was lower than thenumber involving 16-year-olds (414,100).The explanation partly lies in the factthat, in 13 States, 17-year-olds are ex-cluded from original juvenile court juris-

Caseloads generally increased between 1988 and 1997 across the fourmajor offense categories

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Person

Property

Drugs

Public order

Number of delinquency cases

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Across all ages in 1997, property offense case rates were highest, butdrug offense case rates had the greatest percentage of increase with age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Age at referral

Person

Property

Drugs

Public order

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Person

DrugsPublic order

Cases per 1,000 female juveniles age 10 through upper age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Person

Property

DrugsPublic order

Cases per 1,000 male juveniles age 10 through upper age

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Property

Males are involved in about8 in 10 delinquency caseseach yearAlthough they constitute only half of thejuvenile population, males were involvedin well over 70% of person, property, andpublic order offense cases and in 85% ofdrug law violation cases handled by thecourts in 1997. The male proportionswere somewhat higher in 1988.

Percentage of casesMost serious involving malesoffense 1988 1997

Delinquency 81% 77%Person 80 74Property 81 76Drugs 86 85Public order 79 76

Compared with caseloadsof males, femaledelinquency caseloadsgrew at a faster paceThe number of delinquency cases involv-ing females rose 83% between 1988 and1997, compared with 39% for males. Thegrowth in cases involving females out-paced the growth in cases involving malesfor all offense categories.

Percent changeMost serious 1988–97offense Males Females


Case rates for females are much lower than those for males, but rateincreases have been sharper for females

◆ In 1997, for every 1,000 males between the ages of 10 and 17 (who were underjuvenile court jurisdiction), the court handled 91 delinquency cases involvingmales. The delinquency case rate for females (30 cases per 1,000 females) wasone-third the rate for males.

◆ Among males, drug offense case rates showed the greatest percent change(98%). The drug offense case rate for females rose 106%.

◆ Among females, person offense case rates showed the greatest percent changebetween 1988 and 1997 (126%). In comparison, the person offense rate formales grew 61%.

Male case rates

Female case rates

5

The offense profiles ofcaseloads of white juvenilesdiffered from caseloads ofblack juvenilesCaseloads of black juveniles contained agreater proportion of person offensesthan did caseloads of white juveniles andthose of other races. Property offensecases accounted for the largest propor-tion of cases for all racial groups, al-though among black juveniles, propertycases accounted for fewer than half of thecases processed in 1997. For all races,drug offense cases accounted for thesmallest proportion of the 1997 caseload.

Most serious Otheroffense White Black races

1997

Total 100% 100% 100%Person 20 27 18Property 51 41 57Drugs 10 11 7Public order 19 21 18

1988

Total 100% 100% 100%Person 14 24 14Property 62 52 65Drugs 6 9 4Public order 18 15 16

Caseload offense profiles for 1997 differedfrom offense profiles for 1988 for all racialgroups. Regardless of race, the propor-tion of cases involving person offenseswas greater in 1997 than in 1988. Amongblack juveniles, person offenses increasedby 3 percentage points. Among white ju-veniles, person offenses increased by 6percentage points.

Black juveniles were involved in a disproportionate number ofdelinquency cases in 1997

Most serious offense White Black Other races Total

TotalDelinquency cases 66% 31% 3% 100%

Person 60 37 3 100Property 70 26 4 100Drugs 66 32 2 100Public order 64 33 3 100

MaleDelinquency cases 66% 31% 3% 100%


FemaleDelinquency cases 67% 30% 4% 100%


Juvenile population 80% 15% 5% 100%

◆ Although two-thirds of delinquency cases involve white youth, black youth areoverrepresented in the delinquency caseload, given their proportion of thejuvenile population (age 10 through upper age).

Note: Nearly all juveniles of Hispanic ethnicity are included in the white racial category. Detailmay not total 100% because of rounding.

◆ Rates for black juveniles remain well above those for white juveniles and juve-niles of other races.

Delinquency case rates were higher in 1997 than in 1988 for allracial groups

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Other races

White

Black

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in race group

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

6

Detention

When is secure detentionused?A youth may be placed in a secure juve-nile detention facility at various pointsduring the processing of a case throughthe juvenile justice system. Most delin-quency cases, however, do not involvedetention. Although detention practicesvary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, ageneral model of detention practices isuseful.

When a case is referred to juvenile court,intake staff may decide to hold the youthin a detention facility while the case isbeing processed. In general, the youth willbe detained if there is reason to believethe youth is a threat to the community,will be at risk if returned to the commu-nity, or may fail to appear at an upcominghearing.

The youth may also be detained for diag-nostic evaluation purposes. In all States,legislation requires that a detention hear-ing be held within a few days (generallywithin 24 to 48 hours). At that time, ajudge reviews the decision to detain theyouth and either orders the youth re-leased or continues the detention.

Juvenile Court Statistics Reports count thenumber of cases that involve the use ofdetention during a calendar year. As acase is processed, the youth may be de-tained and released more than once be-tween case referral and disposition. Ayouth also may have more than one caseinvolving detention during the year. Juve-nile court data do not count “detentions,”nor do they count the number of youthdetained. In addition, although in a fewStates juveniles may be committed to adetention facility as part of a dispositionorder, the court data do not include suchplacements in the count of cases involv-ing detention.

Growth in the number ofcases detained was lessthan the growth in overallcaseloadsCompared with the increase in the overalldelinquency caseload, the relative growthin the number of cases involving deten-tion was smaller. Growth in the use of de-tention may have been limited by facilitycrowding.

Percent change1988–97

Most serious Detainedoffense All cases cases


The offense profile ofdetained delinquency caseshas changedProperty cases continue to account forthe largest volume of delinquency casesinvolving detention, but their share of to-tal detained cases has diminished. Theproportion of person offense cases in thedetention caseload was greater in 1997than in 1988.

Percentage ofMost serious detained casesoffense 1988 1997


Number of casesinvolving detention 241,700 326,800

Note: Detail may not total 100% because ofrounding.

In 1997, juveniles were detained between referral and disposition in 19%of all delinquency cases processed during the year

Percentage of cases detained

PersonAll delinquency

Drugs

Public order

0%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Property

10%

5%

◆ For all offenses, the likelihood of detention was lower in 1997 than in 1990. Thedecline was greatest for drug offense cases.

7

White youth were leastlikely to be detained in 1997In 1997, secure detention was nearly twiceas likely in cases involving black youth asin cases involving white youth, even aftercontrolling for general offense category.Detention was least likely in cases involv-ing white youth charged with propertycrimes and most likely in cases involvingblack youth charged with drug offenses.

Percentage of casesthat involved

detention in 1997

Most serious Otheroffense White Black races

Delinquency 15% 27% 19%Person 19 28 28Property 12 23 16Drugs 14 38 16Public order 19 29 21

Black youth wereoverrepresented indetention caseloads in 1997As a result of their greater likelihood ofdetention, as noted above, black youthwere overrepresented in the detentioncaseload, compared with their propor-tions in the overall delinquency caseload.Although black youth made up 31% of alldelinquency cases processed in 1997,they were involved in 44% of detainedcases. This overrepresentation was great-est for drug offenses: black youth ac-counted for 32% of all drug cases pro-cessed but 55% of drug cases detained.

Percentage of casesthat involved black

juveniles in 1997

Most serious All Detainedoffense cases cases


Across offenses, youth of other races ac-counted for less than 5% of all cases pro-cessed and of those involving detention.

For black juveniles, the relative increase in the number of casesinvolving detention was more than double the increase for whites

◆ For white juveniles, the number of delinquency cases involving detentionincreased 25% from 1988 to 1997. For black juveniles, the increase was 52%.For youth of other races, the increase was 12%.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Other races

White

Black

Percentage of delinquency cases that involved detention

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Compared with 1988, the use of detention in delinquency cases in1997 remained about the same for black juveniles but declined forwhite juveniles and juveniles of other races

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

White

Black

Other races

Delinquency cases that involved detention

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

8

Processing ofDelinquency Cases

Informal processinginvolves the voluntaryacceptance of sanctionsand interventionsSoon after a case is referred to juvenilecourt, an intake officer or prosecutor de-cides whether to handle the case formallyor informally. Informal processing is con-sidered when the decisionmakers (police,probation officers, intake workers, pros-ecutors, other screening officers) believethat accountability and rehabilitation canbe achieved without the use of formalcourt intervention. In these cases, an of-fender agrees to comply with one or moresanctions such as community service,victim restitution, or voluntary probationsupervision. In many jurisdictions, beforejuveniles are offered informal sanctions,they must admit they committed the al-leged act. Informal sanctions are volun-tary. The court cannot force a juvenile tocomply with an informal disposition.

When informally handled, the case maybe held open pending the successfulcompletion of the informal disposition.Upon successful completion of the infor-mal disposition, the charges against theoffender are dropped. If, however, the of-fender does not fulfill the court’s condi-tions, the case is likely to be reopenedand formally prosecuted.

Informal handling is less common than inthe past but is still used in a large num-ber of cases. In 1997, juvenile courtshandled 43% of delinquency cases infor-mally, compared with more than half in1988. The decline in the use of informalprocessing was seen in all four generaloffense categories.

A substantial proportionof informal casesinvolved some sort ofvoluntary sanctionIn 1997, juvenile courts dismissed 4 out of10 informally handled cases. In the infor-mal cases that were not dismissed, youthagreed to intervention services and/or

sanctions. In 57% of these cases, theyouth agreed to a term of voluntary pro-bation supervision. In 41% of the cases,the youth agreed to other sanctions suchas voluntary restitution, community ser-vice, or referral to another agency. In asmall number of the informal cases thatwere not dismissed, the youth and theyouth’s family agreed to a period of out-of-home placement as a sanction (2%).

Petitioners ask the courtto order sanctions inpetitioned casesFormal case handling involves the filing ofa petition requesting that the court holdan adjudicatory or waiver hearing. Com-pared with cases that are handled infor-mally, formally processed delinquencycases tend to involve more serious of-fenses, older juveniles, and juveniles whohave longer court histories. The juvenilecourt’s formally processed delinquencycaseload increased 75% from 1988 to1997, from 569,000 to 996,000 casesannually.

In 1997, juveniles wereadjudicated in 577,600formally processeddelinquency casesA youth referred to juvenile court for adelinquency offense may be adjudicateddelinquent after admitting to the chargesin the case or after the court finds suffi-cient evidence to conclude, beyond a rea-sonable doubt, that the youth committedthe acts alleged in the petition.

Delinquency adjudications grew 69% be-tween 1988 and 1997. In 29% of adjudi-cated delinquency cases in 1997, thecourt ordered the youth to residentialplacement such as a training school,camp, ranch, drug treatment or privateplacement facility, or group home. Gener-ally, if adjudicated delinquents were notplaced out of their homes, they wereplaced on formal probation. In 55% of ad-judicated delinquency cases, probationwas the most severe sanction ordered.Overall, 83% of adjudicated delinquencycases resulted in either placement orformal probation.

Probation conditionstypically incorporate itemsmeant to control and torehabilitateProbation is the oldest and most widelyused community-based corrections pro-gram. Probation may be used at either the“front end” or the “back end” of the juve-nile justice system: for first-time, low-riskoffenders or as an alternative to institu-tional confinement for more serious of-fenders. During probation, a juvenile of-fender remains in the community and cancontinue normal activities such as schooland work. In exchange for this freedom,the juvenile must comply with a numberof conditions.

This compliance may be voluntary. Inother words, the youth agrees to complywith a period of informal probation in lieuof formal adjudication. Compliance alsomay be mandatory. Once the case is adju-dicated and the juvenile is formally or-dered to a term of probation, the juvenilemust comply with the probation condi-tions established by the court. More thanhalf (51%) of juvenile probation disposi-tions in 1997 were informal (i.e., enactedwithout a formal adjudication or courtorder).

A juvenile may be required to meet regu-larly with a probation supervisor, adhereto a strict curfew, and/or complete aspecified period of community service.The conditions of probation may also in-clude provisions for the revocation ofprobation should the juvenile violate theconditions. If probation is revoked, thecourt may reconsider its disposition andimpose stricter sanctions.

Probation caseloadsincreased between 1988and 1997The total number of delinquency casesreceiving probation (either formal or in-formal) as the most severe initial disposi-tion climbed 48% between 1988 and 1997,from 435,300 to 645,600. The number ofadjudicated delinquency cases placed onformal probation increased 67% duringthis period, from 190,900 to 318,700. Thegrowth in probation caseloads was re-lated to the general growth in juvenilecourt delinquency caseloads at referral(48%) and at adjudication (69%).

9

In 1997, juvenile courts formally processed 996,000 delinquency cases—most of these petitioned caseswere adjudicated delinquent, and, once adjudicated, most were ordered to residential placement or formalprobation

Delinquency casesformally processed in 1997 Percentage of petitioned cases Percentage of adjudicated cases

All other Residential FormalMost serious offense Number Percentage of total Adjudicated Waived cases placement probation

Total delinquency 996,000 57% 57% 1% 42% 29% 55%

Person offenses 228,200 58% 54% 1% 45% 30% 56%Criminal homicide 1,700 86 38 31 31 63 29Forcible rape 5,100 79 58 3 39 43 42Robbery 29,300 87 61 4 36 44 45Aggravated assault 48,900 72 57 2 41 31 55Simple assault 121,000 49 51 0 49 25 60Other violent sex offense 7,900 78 57 1 42 28 58Other person offense 14,300 65 52 1 47 28 61

Property offenses 445,600 53% 58% 1% 41% 27% 57%Burglary 104,300 77 64 1 35 33 56Larceny-theft 166,200 41 56 0 44 24 57Motor vehicle theft 36,200 74 65 1 33 41 50Arson 5,400 58 60 1 39 26 62Vandalism 58,200 51 54 0 46 19 61Trespassing 27,800 43 49 0 51 22 55Stolen property offense 24,200 72 59 1 40 30 49Other property offense 23,200 71 57 0 42 17 64

Drug law violations 114,500 63% 58% 1% 41% 25% 55%

Public order offenses 207,600 61% 58% 0% 41% 34% 49%Obstruction of justice 103,200 78 65 0 35 43 44Disorderly conduct 36,500 40 47 0 53 15 58Weapons offense 24,600 64 62 1 37 28 58Liquor law violations 5,200 47 55 0 45 14 58Nonviolent sex offense 6,100 56 63 1 36 40 52Other public order 31,900 59 50 0 50 18 44

Violent Crime Index* 85,000 77% 58% 3% 39% 37% 50%

Property Crime Index** 312,100 52% 60% 1% 40% 29% 56%

◆ As a general rule, the more serious the offense, the more likely the case was to be brought before a judge for formal (court-ordered) sanctioning. For example, juvenile courts formally processed 41% of all larceny-theft cases in 1997, compared with77% of all burglary cases.

◆ Cases involving youth adjudicated for serious person offenses, such as homicide, rape, or robbery, were most likely to result inresidential placement. Cases involving youth adjudicated for minor offenses, such as vandalism or disorderly conduct, wereleast likely to result in residential placement.

◆ The relatively high residential placement rate for public order offense cases stems from the inclusion in that category of certainobstruction of justice offenses that have a high likelihood of placement (e.g., escapes from confinement and probation andparole violations).

*Includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.**Includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

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

10

568 Petitioned

432 Nonpetitioned

5 Waived325 Adjudicated

238 Not adjudicated


311 Not adjudicated

875 Petitioned

125 Nonpetitioned

720 Petitioned

280 Nonpetitioned


298 Not adjudicated

13 Released

94 Placed

177 Probation 41 Other sanction

139 Dismissed

7 Placed 50 Probation 43 Other sanction

23 Released


201 Dismissed


23 Released


169 Dismissed


137 Dismissed


71 Dismissed


191 Dismissed


Of 1,000 delinquency cases

Of 1,000 robbery cases

Of 1,000 aggravated assault cases

◆ Of every 1,000 delinquencycases handled in 1997, 177resulted in formal probation and94 resulted in residential place-ment following adjudication.

◆ In a small number of cases(13 of 1,000), the youth wasadjudicated but the courtclosed the case with a stayedor suspended sentence orwarned and released theyouth. In such cases, theyouth is not under anycontinuing court supervision.

◆ In 1997, juvenile courts waivedjurisdiction in 34 of 1,000robbery cases and transferredthem to criminal court.

◆ Juvenile courts ordered formalsanctions in more than half ofrobbery cases.

◆ Juvenile courts imposed somesort of sanctions (formal orinformal) in 70% of robberycases handled in 1997.

◆ Juvenile courts waived 12 in1,000 aggravated assaultcases to criminal court in1997.

◆ Juvenile courts orderedformal sanctions in 39% ofaggravated assault cases.

◆ More than two-thirds ofaggravated assault casesresulted in some sort ofsanction.

Compared with delinquency cases overall, juvenile courts were more likely to petition, adjudicate delinquent,and order sanctions in cases involving more serious charges such as robbery or aggravated assault

Note: Cases are categorized by their most serious offense and most severe or restrictive sanction. Cases are counted at the point at which initialdisposition is made, not at the point at which sanctions are completed. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

11

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Person

Property

Drugs

Public order

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Delinquency cases judicially waived to criminal court

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Judicial Waivers toCriminal Court

In certain cases, juvenilesmay be tried in criminalcourtCertain juveniles—those charged withserious offenses, those with lengthyrecords of prior offenses, or those whoare unreceptive to treatment in the juve-nile justice system—are sometimes trans-ferred to criminal court. Most States havemodified their laws in recent years to en-able the transfer of more young offendersinto the criminal justice system.

In a growing number of States, cases thatmeet certain age and offense criteria areexcluded by statute from juvenile courtjurisdiction and may be filed directly incriminal court. In some States, prosecu-tors have discretion to file certain juve-nile cases directly in criminal court. Inmost States, laws also allow juvenilecourt judges to waive jurisdiction overcases meeting certain criteria. The crimi-nal court then has responsibility to pros-ecute such cases. There are no nationaltrend data on the number of young of-fenders moved into the criminal justicesystem directly via statutory exclusionor prosecutor decision (rather than byjuvenile court waiver), but recent legis-lative trends suggest that the number isgrowing.

The offense profile ofwaived cases has changedIn 1988, property offense cases accountedfor 53% of judicially waived delinquencycases and person offense cases accountedfor 28%. By 1995, the offense profile ofwaived cases had changed, with personoffense cases accounting for 47% andproperty offense cases for 34% of waivedcases. By 1997, however, the numbers ofwaived person and property cases con-verged: person cases dropped to 40%of waived cases and property cases in-creased to 38%. In comparison, drug andpublic order cases have remained a smallproportion of waived cases (15% and 7%,respectively, in 1997).

Juvenile courts waived 28% fewer delinquency cases to criminal courtin 1997 than in the peak year 1994

◆ Between 1988 and 1994, the number of delinquency cases judicially waived tocriminal court grew 73% (from 6,700 to 11,700). By 1997, the number of caseswaived was down 28% to 8,400.

◆ One reason for the decline in judicial waivers after 1994 was that a largernumber of serious cases bypassed the juvenile justice system under newlyenacted statutory exclusion and prosecutor discretion provisions.

◆ Waived person offenses increased 166% between 1988 and 1994, then dropped35% by 1997. The result was an overall increase of 74% between 1988 and 1997.

◆ The number of waived drug cases peaked in 1991, 147% above the 1988number. Between 1991 and 1997, waived drug cases declined 28%.

◆ There have also been declines since 1994 in the number of property and publicorder cases waived (26% and 36%, respectively).

Person offenses outnumbered property offenses among waived casesafter 1992

12

Waived cases generallyinvolve males age 16or olderThe demographic characteristics of judi-cially waived cases have changed some-what over the past decade. The propor-tion of younger juveniles has increased.Despite this change, the vast majority ofwaivers involve males age 16 or older, al-though their proportion has diminishedsomewhat. These older males accountedfor 88% of all waived cases in 1988 and83% in 1997.

Percentage ofwaived cases

Case characteristics 1988 1997

Waived cases 6,700 8,400

Sex 100% 100%Male 95 95Female 5 5

Age at referral 100% 100%15 or younger 7 1316 or older 93 87

Race 100% 100%White 55 50Black 43 46Other races 2 4

Judicially waived cases included a greaterproportion of black youth in 1997 than in1988.

Waiver trends are relatedto trends in transferprovisionsChanges in the juvenile court’s use ofwaiver and the characteristics and vol-ume of waived cases reflect changes intransfer provisions. For example, as pre-sumptive waiver for certain serious of-fenses has become more common acrossthe country, such cases have had an in-creased likelihood of waiver. In addition,the recent decline in the volume ofwaived cases can be at least partially at-tributed to the proliferation of statutoryexclusion provisions—many of the veryserious cases that in the past came to ju-venile court and were waived are nowfiled directly in criminal court.

Changes in the waiver caseload also re-sult from changes in the delinquencycaseload. For example, the growth in the

total volume of the juvenile court’s per-son offense caseload accounts for thegrowth in waived person offense cases.

In addition, changes in the waiver case-load result from changes in the system’sresponse to certain types of crime. Thiseffect is seen in the use of waiver in drugcases. Following the introduction of crackcocaine and the subsequent “war on drugs,”there was a change in the perceived seri-ousness of drug offenses (particularlydrug trafficking). The likelihood of waiveramong formally processed drug casesrose from 1.6% in 1988 to 4.1% in 1991. In1991, the number of waived drug casespeaked at more than 1,800, despite thefact that the total number of formal drugcases was at a 4-year low.

Petitioned StatusOffense Cases

What are status offenses?Traditionally, status offenses were thosebehaviors that were law violations only if

committed by a person of juvenile status.Such behaviors included running awayfrom home, ungovernability (being be-yond the control of parents or guardians),truancy, status liquor law violations (e.g.,underage drinking, which also applies toyoung adults up to age 20), and other mis-cellaneous offenses that apply only to mi-nors (e.g., curfew violations and tobaccooffenses).

In some States, these behaviors are nolonger law violations. Instead, juvenileswho engage in the behaviors may be clas-sified as dependent children, which giveschild protective service agencies, ratherthan juvenile courts, the primary respon-sibility for responding to this population.

States vary in how theyrespond to status-offendingbehaviorThe official processing of status offendersvaries from State to State. For example, insome States, a runaway’s entry into theofficial system may be through juvenile

About 1% of formally processed delinquency cases are waived, buttrends in the use of waiver vary by the most serious offense charged

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

Percentage of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court

Person

Property

Drugs

Public order

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

◆ The overall proportion of formal delinquency cases waived to criminal court was1.1% in 1988, peaked at more than 1.5% in 1991, and dropped to 0.8% by 1997.

◆ From 1989 through 1992, drug offense cases were more likely to be waived thanwere cases involving other offenses. The proportion of formally handled drugcases waived was more than 4% in 1991.

◆ Person offense cases were more likely to be waived in 1997 than were othertypes of cases (1.5% of formal person offense cases were waived in 1997).

13

The number of status offense cases that juvenile courts formallyhandled increased 101% from 1988 through 1997

◆ The degree of growth in formally processed status offense cases from 1988through 1997 varied across the major offense categories: truancy (96%), runningaway (93%), status liquor law violations (56%), and ungovernability (65%).

◆ In 1997, juvenile courts formally processed 5.5 status offense cases for every1,000 juveniles age 10 through the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Runaway

Truancy

Ungovernability

Liquor

Petitioned status offense cases

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

court intake and, in other States, the mat-ter may enter through the child welfareagency. This mixture of approaches tocase processing has made it difficult tomonitor the volume and characteristics ofstatus offense cases nationally.

In all States, however, if informal effortsto resolve the status-offending behaviorfail or if formal intervention is needed,the matter is referred to juvenile court. In1997, roughly one in five status offensecases that came to the attention of juve-nile court intake or child welfare agencieswas formally processed by the courts.

Compared with caseloadsfor delinquency, statusoffense caseloads weresmallUnited States juvenile courts formallyprocessed an estimated 158,500 statusoffense cases in 1997. These cases ac-counted for about 14% of the courts’formal delinquency and status offensecaseload. Status liquor law and truancyoffenses accounted for the greatest pro-portion of status offense cases. In 1997,juvenile courts formally processedapproximately:

◆ 24,000 runaway cases.

◆ 40,500 truancy cases.

◆ 21,300 ungovernability cases.

◆ 40,700 status liquor law violationcases.

◆ 32,100 other miscellaneous status of-fense cases. (Due to the heterogeneityof these offenses, these cases are notdiscussed independently. They are,however, included in all totals.)

Status offense cases wereless often referred by policethan delinquency casesLaw enforcement agencies, the mostlikely referral source, referred 47% ofthe petitioned status offense cases pro-cessed in juvenile courts in 1997, com-pared with 85% of delinquency cases.Law enforcement agencies were morelikely to be the referral source for statusliquor law violation cases (94%) than forother status offense cases, including run-ning away (40%), truancy (8%), and un-governability (11%).

About the NationalJuvenile Court Data ArchiveThis Bulletin presents analyses of datathat are the bases for the latest Report inOJJDP’s Juvenile Court Statistics series.The Juvenile Court Statistics Report se-ries was first published in 1929 and con-tinues to be the Nation’s primary sourceof information on the activities of juvenilecourts. The data for the Reports are col-lected, analyzed, and stored by the Na-tional Juvenile Court Data Archive, whichis operated by the National Center for Ju-venile Justice (NCJJ) in Pittsburgh, PA.The Archive collects demographic, legal,and dispositional data on more than1 million delinquency and status offensecases annually. In addition to producingJuvenile Court Statistics and other topicalpublications, the Archive can provide datafiles and special analyses for researchand policy purposes. Additional presenta-tions of Juvenile Court Statistics data canbe found in the Statistical Briefing Bookon OJJDP’s Web site, www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

The Archive’s national delinquency esti-mates are also available in an easy-to-use software package, Easy Access toJuvenile Court Statistics: 1988–1997. Withthe support of OJJDP, NCJJ distributesthe software to facilitate independentanalysis of Archive data while eliminatingthe need for statistical analysis software.All necessary data files and the NCJJsoftware can be downloaded fromOJJDP’s Web site, www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org, ora complimentary copy of Easy Access toJuvenile Court Statistics: 1988–1997 onCD–ROM can be ordered from NCJJ.

For further information about the Na-tional Juvenile Court Data Archive,contact:

National Center for Juvenile Justice710 Fifth AvenuePittsburgh, PA 15219–3000412–227–[email protected]

14

Juvenile courts were lesslikely to detain youth instatus offense cases thanin delinquency casesIn 1997, courts ordered the juvenile held insecure detention at some point betweenreferral to court and case disposition in6% of formally processed status offensecases. In comparison, youth were detainedin 25% of formally processed delinquencycases. The proportion of cases involvingdetention varied by offense category. Juve-nile courts detained youth in 11% of run-away cases, 7% of status liquor law viola-tion cases, 7% of ungovernability cases,and 2% of truancy cases.

Of the 9,400 formally processed statusoffense cases that involved detention in1997, liquor law violation cases (30%) andrunaway cases (28%) accounted forgreater proportions than ungovernabilitycases (16%) and truancy cases (7%).

Females were involved inapproximately 4 in 10 statusoffense cases formallyprocessed in 1997Another major difference between delin-quency and status offense cases is theproportion of cases that involve females.Although females were charged in only20% of the delinquency cases formallyprocessed in 1997, they were involved in41% of status offense cases. The propor-tion of cases involving females variedsubstantially by offense. In fact, the ma-jority of juveniles brought to court forrunning away from home in 1997 werefemale (60%).

Most seriousoffense Males Females

Status offense 59% 41%Running away 40 60Truancy 53 47Ungovernability 55 45Liquor 68 32

Juveniles age 15 andyounger accounted for morethan half of formal statusoffense casesJuveniles age 15 or younger accounted for55% of formal status offense cases pro-cessed in 1997. These younger juveniles

were involved in a greater proportion oftruancy cases (74%) and ungovernabilitycases (71%) than runaway cases (62%) orstatus liquor law violation cases (27%).The difference between the offense pro-files of younger and older juveniles re-flects age-related differences in behavior.

Most serious Age 15 or Age 16 oroffense younger older

Total 100% 100%Running away 17 13Truancy 34 15Ungovernability 17 9Liquor 12 42Miscellaneous 19 21

Note: Detail may not total 100% because ofrounding.

In 1997, youth were placedout of the home in 14% ofall status offense casesadjudicatedYouth were adjudicated as status offend-ers in 52% of formally processed statusoffense cases in 1997. Of these cases,14% resulted in out-of-home placementand 61% in formal probation. Another23%, largely liquor law violation cases,resulted in other sanctions, such as fines,community service, restitution, or refer-rals to other agencies for services. Theremaining 3% were released with no addi-tional sanction.

522 Adjudicated

478 Not adjudicated

73 Placed 317 Probation119 Other sanction13 Released

1 Placed 45 Probation

109 Other sanction322 Dismissed

Of 1,000 petitioned status offense cases

Among status offense cases not adjudi-cated, 67% were dismissed, 23% resulted ininformal sanctions other than probation orout-of-home placement, 10% resulted ininformal probation, and less than 1% re-sulted in out-of-home placement.

NoteIn this Bulletin, a juvenile court is anycourt having jurisdiction over matters in-volving juveniles. A juvenile is any youth ator below the upper age of original juvenilecourt jurisdiction. The upper age of juris-diction is the oldest age at which a juvenilecourt has original jurisdiction over an indi-vidual for law-violating behavior. In 1997,the upper age of jurisdiction was 15 in 3States (Connecticut, New York, and NorthCarolina), 16 in 10 States (Georgia, Illinois,Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mis-souri, New Hampshire, South Carolina,Texas, and Wisconsin), and 18 in the re-maining 37 States and the District ofColumbia.

Youth received some sort of sanction (formal or informal) in 665 ofevery 1,000 petitioned status offense cases handled in 1997

◆ Of every 1,000 petitionedstatus offense cases, 317resulted in formal probationand 73 resulted in residentialplacement followingadjudication.

Note: Cases are categorized by their most serious offense and most severe or restrictivesanction. Cases are counted at the point at which initial disposition is made, not at the point atwhich sanctions are completed. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

15

Related ReadingsAll of the publications listed below areavailable in print and electronically.

Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Courts,1997, 2000, FS 200004.

Delinquency Cases Waived to CriminalCourt, 1988–1997, 2000, FS 200002.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999National Report, 1999, NCJ 178257.

Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court inthe 1990’s: Lessons Learned FromFour Studies, 2000, NCJ 181301.

Juvenile Vandalism, 1997, 2000,FS 200010.

Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions:Three States That Changed the Rules,2000, NCJ 181203.

Person Offense Cases in JuvenileCourt, 1988–1997, 2000, FS 200006.

Self-Reported Delinquency by 12-Year-Olds, 1997, 2000, FS 200003.

State Legislative Responses to ViolentJuvenile Crime: 1996–97 Update,1998, NCJ 172835.

Trying Juveniles as Adults in CriminalCourt: An Analysis of State TransferProvisions, 1998, NCJ 172836.

The Youngest Offenders, 1996, 1998,FS 9887.

To obtain Juvenile Court Statistics Re-ports, other publications using Archivedata, and other OJJDP publicationsthat focus on juvenile justice statistics,visit OJJDP’s Web site at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org to browse or www.ncjrs.org/puborder to order materials, or contactthe Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse bytelephone at 800–638–8736 or by mailat P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD20849–6000. To ask questions aboutmaterials, e-mail [email protected].

MethodsSouth Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia,Washington, and West Virginia). To-gether, the contributing jurisdictions fromthese States contained 54% of theNation’s juvenile population (i.e., youthage 10 through the upper age of originaljuvenile court jurisdiction in each State).Compatible court-level aggregate datafor 1997, which usually indicate the num-ber of delinquency cases disposed in acalendar year, were provided by an addi-tional 584 jurisdictions in 9 States (Cali-fornia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,New York, Oklahoma, Texas, and Ver-mont) and the District of Columbia. In all,compatible 1997 data were provided tothe Archive by 1,983 jurisdictions, con-taining 71% of the Nation’s juvenilepopulation.

The national estimates of juvenile courtcases reported in this Bulletin and in Ju-venile Court Statistics 1997 were devel-oped using the Archive’s case-level andcourt-level data files combined withcounty-level juvenile population esti-mates (controlling for the upper age oforiginal juvenile court jurisdiction in eachState). The basic assumption underlyingthe estimation procedure is that the vol-ume and characteristics of juvenile courtcases are shaped by the same set offactors in reporting and nonreporting ju-risdictions of similar size. The nationalestimates described in this Bulletin in-clude revisions made after publication ofprevious Juvenile Court Statistics Re-ports. For interested readers, a completedescription of the estimation procedureappears in the “Methods” section of eachJuvenile Court Statistics Report.

Data are provided to the National Juve-nile Court Data Archive by State andlocal agencies responsible for the col-lection and/or dissemination of juvenilejustice data. The information contrib-uted by these agencies is not derivedfrom a probability sampling procedure,nor is it the result of a uniform data col-lection effort. The national estimatesdescribed in this Bulletin and in Juve-nile Court Statistics are developed us-ing information from all courts able toprovide compatible data to the Archive.Although at least some 1997 data wereprovided by juvenile courts with juris-diction over 97% of the U.S. juvenilepopulation, not all of the informationcontributed to the Archive could beused to generate the national estimatesbecause of incompatibilities in thestructure or content of the data files.The Office of Juvenile Justice and De-linquency Prevention (OJJDP) and theNational Center for Juvenile Justice(NCJJ) continue to work to increase thenumber of compatible contributors tothe Archive.

Data are provided to the Archive in twoforms: automated case-level data andcourt-level aggregate data. Automatedcase-level data for 1997, which describeeach case’s demographic and process-ing characteristics, were provided by1,457 jurisdictions in 27 States (Ala-bama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky,Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missis-sippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,New Jersey, New York, North Dakota,Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,

PRESORTED STANDARDPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDPPERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 181204Bulletin

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

This Bulletin was prepared under grantnumber 1999–MU–MU–0020 from the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the author and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. Weencourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, andreprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDPand the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such ashow you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDPmaterials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments andquestions to:

Juvenile Justice ClearinghousePublication Reprint/FeedbackP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–6000800–638–8736301–519–5600 (fax)E-Mail: [email protected]

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by Melissa Sickmund, Ph.D., Senior Research Associateat NCJJ. It summarizes Juvenile Court Statistics 1997 (Puzzanchera, C., Stahl,A.L., Finnegan, T.A., Snyder, H.N., Poole, R.S., and Tierney, N., 2000). The workwas supported by funds provided to the National Juvenile Court Data Archive byOJJDP. Both OJJDP and NCJJ gratefully acknowledge the efforts of the manyState and local agencies that contribute data to the Archive. Their cooperation withrequests for data and documentation makes this work possible.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention is a component of the Of-fice of Justice Programs, which also includesthe Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureauof Justice Statistics, the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

offenders in juvenile court, 1997court in 1997 than in 1988, but 28% fewer than in 1994. these...

Documents