Juveniles in Court - NCJRS · PDF fileJuveniles in Court Melissa Sickmund A Message From OJJDP...

National Report Series

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

June 2003

This Bulletin is part of the Juvenile Offenders andVictims National Report Series.Published every 4 years, theNational Report offers a com-prehensive statistical overviewof the problems of juvenilecrime, violence, and victimiza-tion and the response of thejuvenile justice system. Duringeach interim year, the Bulletinsin the National Report Seriesprovide access to the latestinformation on juvenile arrests,court cases, juveniles in cus-tody, and other topics of inter-est. Each Bulletin in the serieshighlights selected topics atthe forefront of juvenile justicepolicymaking, giving readersfocused access to statistics onsome of the most critical is-sues. Together, the NationalReport and this series providea baseline of facts for juvenilejustice professionals, policy-makers, the media, and con-cerned citizens.

Juveniles in CourtMelissa Sickmund

A Message From OJJDP

Courts with juvenile jurisdiction handle some 1.8 million delinquency cases each year. ThisBulletin, part of OJJDP’s National Report Series, summarizes the latest national statistics onjuveniles in court. Drawing on court data and research findings from diverse sources, includ-ing OJJDP’s National Juvenile Court Data Archive and the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ NationalJudicial Reporting Program, the Bulletin provides an overview of how courts process casesinvolving juvenile offenders.

Juveniles in Court should serve as a useful resource for practitioners and policymakers con-cerned about juvenile offending. In addition to providing information on juvenile court activi-ties, the Bulletin includes information about who is under juvenile court jurisdiction and howjuvenile courts transfer juveniles to criminal court. Also discussed in the Bulletin are researchfindings about very young offenders involved with the juvenile court.

Access to sound data is an integral aspect of assessing and addressing any problem effectively.In this regard, the statistics cited in this Bulletin provide helpful insights into the nature andscope of juvenile delinquency in our nation.

J. Robert Flores Administrator

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

2 National Report Series Bulletin

Local processing ofjuvenile offenders varies

From state to state, case processing ofjuvenile law violators varies. Even withinstates, case processing may vary fromcommunity to community, reflecting localpractice and tradition. Any description ofjuvenile justice processing in the U.S.must therefore be general, outlining acommon series of decision points.

Law enforcementagencies divert manyjuvenile offenders outof the justice system

At arrest, a decision is made either tosend the matter further into the justicesystem or to divert the case out of thesystem, often into alternative programs.Generally, law enforcement agenciesmake this decision after talking to thevictim, juvenile, and parents and afterreviewing the juvenile’s prior contactswith the juvenile justice system. Nearlyone-quarter of all juveniles arrested in1998 were handled within the policedepartment and then released; nearly 7 in 10 arrested juveniles were referred tojuvenile court.

Federal regulations discourage holdingjuveniles in adult jails and lockups. Insome instances, law enforcement mustdetain a juvenile in secure custody in anadult facility for a brief period in order tocontact a parent or guardian or to arrangetransportation to a juvenile detentionfacility. Federal regulations require that, in these cases, the juvenile be securelydetained for no longer than 6 hours and

in an area out of sight or sound of adultinmates.

Most delinquency casesare referred by lawenforcement agencies

Of all delinquency cases referred to juve-nile court in 1998, 84% were referred bylaw enforcement agencies. The remainingreferrals were made by parents, victims,schools, probation officers, and others.

Intake departmentsscreen cases referredto juvenile court forformal processing

The court intake function is generally theresponsibility of the juvenile probationdepartment and/or the prosecutor’soffice. Intake decides whether to dismissthe case, to handle the matter informally,or to request formal intervention by thejuvenile court.

To make this decision, an intake officer orprosecutor first reviews the facts of thecase to determine whether there is suffi-cient evidence to prove the allegation. Ifnot, the case is dismissed. If there is suf-ficient evidence, intake then determineswhether formal intervention is necessary.

About half of all cases referred to juvenilecourt intake are handled informally. Mostinformally processed cases are dismissed.In the other informally processed cases,the juvenile voluntarily agrees to specificconditions for a specified time period.

These conditions often are outlined in a written agreement, generally called a

consent decree. It may include conditionssuch as victim restitution, school attend-ance, drug counseling, or a curfew.

In most jurisdictions, a juvenile may beoffered an informal disposition only if heor she admits to committing the act. Thejuvenile’s compliance with the informalagreement often is monitored by a proba-tion officer. Thus, this process is some-times labeled “informal probation.”

If the juvenile successfully complies withthe informal disposition, the case is dis-missed. If, however, the juvenile fails tomeet the conditions, the case is referredfor formal processing and proceeds as itwould have if the initial decision had beento refer the case for an adjudicatory hearing.

If the case is to be handled formally injuvenile court, intake files one of twotypes of petitions: a delinquency petitionrequesting an adjudicatory hearing (trial)or a petition requesting a waiver hearingto transfer the case to criminal court.

A delinquency petition states the allega-tions and requests the juvenile court toadjudicate (or judge) the youth a delin-quent, making the juvenile a ward of thecourt. This language differs from thatused in the criminal court system, wherean offender is convicted and sentenced.

In response to the delinquency petition,an adjudicatory hearing is scheduled. Atthe adjudicatory hearing, witnesses arecalled and the facts of the case are pre-sented. In nearly all adjudicatory hear-ings, the judge determines whether the juvenile was responsible for theoffense(s); in some states, however, the juvenile has the right to a jury trial.

Most young law violators enter the juvenile justicesystem through law enforcement agencies

June 2003 3

During the processingof a case, a juvenilemay be held in a securedetention facility

Juvenile courts may hold delinquents ina secure juvenile detention facility if thisaction is determined to be in the bestinterest of the community and/or thechild. After arrest, law enforcement maybring the youth to the local juveniledetention facility. A juvenile probationofficer or detention worker reviews thecase to decide whether the youth shouldbe detained pending a hearing before ajudge. In all states, a detention hearingmust be held within a time period definedby statute, generally within 24 hours.

At the detention hearing, a judge reviewsthe case and determines whether contin-ued detention is warranted. In 1998, juve-niles were detained in 19% of delinquen-cy cases processed by juvenile courts.

Detention may extend beyond the adjudi-catory and dispositional hearings. If

residential placement is ordered and noplacement beds are available, detentionmay continue until a bed becomesavailable.

The juvenile court maytransfer the case tocriminal court

The prosecutor or intake officer files awaiver petition when he or she believesthat a case under jurisdiction of the juve-nile court would be handled more appro-priately in criminal court. When a waiverpetition is filed, the juvenile court judgereviews the facts of the case and deter-mines whether there is probable cause tobelieve that the juvenile committed theact. The judge then decides whether juve-nile court jurisdiction over the mattershould be waived and the case trans-ferred to criminal court.

The judge’s decision in such cases gener-ally centers on whether the juvenile isamenable to treatment in the juvenile jus-tice system. The prosecutor may argue

that the juvenile has been adjudicatedseveral times in the past and that inter-ventions ordered by the juvenile courthave not kept the juvenile from com-mitting subsequent criminal acts. Theprosecutor may also argue that the crimeis so serious that the juvenile court isunlikely to be able to intervene for thetime period necessary to rehabilitate theyouth.

If the judge decides that the case shouldbe transferred to criminal court, juvenilecourt jurisdiction is waived and the caseis filed in criminal court. In 1998, juvenilecourts waived 1% of all formally proc-essed delinquency cases. If the judgedoes not approve the waiver request,generally an adjudicatory hearing isscheduled in juvenile court.

Prosecutors may filecertain cases directly in criminal court

In more than half of the states, the legis-lature has decided that, in certain cases(generally those involving serious offens-es), juveniles should be tried as criminaloffenders. The law excludes such casesfrom juvenile court; prosecutors must filethem in criminal court. In a smaller num-ber of states, the legislature has givenboth the juvenile and adult courts originaljurisdiction in certain cases. Prosecutors,thus, have discretion to file such cases ineither criminal court or juvenile court.

After adjudication,probation staff preparea disposition plan

Once the juvenile is adjudicated delinquentin juvenile court, probation staff developa disposition plan. To prepare this plan,probation staff assess the youth andavailable support systems and programs.

Revocation

Release

Judicial waiver

Criminal justice system

Detention

Non-lawenforcement

sources

ProsecutionJuvenile

court intake

Diversion

Diversion

Statutoryexclusion

Prosecutorialdiscretion

Transfer to juvenile

court

Revocation

Lawenforcement

Formalprocessing

Residentialplacement

Probation orother non-residentialdisposition

Aftercare

Diversion Informalprocessing/diversion

Dismissal

Adjudication

Release

What are the stages of processing a delinquency case in the juvenilejustice system?

Note: This chart gives a simplified view of caseflow through the juvenile justice system. Pro-cedures vary among jurisdictions.


The court may also order psychologicalevaluations, diagnostic tests, or a periodof confinement in a diagnostic facility.

At the disposition hearing, probation staffpresent dispositional recommendationsto the judge. The prosecutor and theyouth may also present dispositionalrecommendations. After considering therecommendations, the judge orders a dis-position in the case.

Most cases placed onprobation also receiveother dispositions

Most juvenile dispositions are multifac-eted and involve some sort of supervisedprobation. In 1998, formal probation wasthe most severe disposition ordered in58% of the cases in which the youth wasadjudicated delinquent.

A probation order often includes addition-al requirements such as drug counseling,weekend confinement in the local deten-tion center, or restitution to the commu-nity or victim. The term of probation maybe for a specified period or may be open-ended. Review hearings are held to moni-tor the juvenile’s progress. After condi-tions of probation have been successfullymet, the judge terminates the case.

The judge may orderresidential placement

In 1998, juvenile courts ordered residen-tial placement in 26% of the cases inwhich the youth was adjudicated delin-quent. Residential commitment may befor a specific or indeterminate time peri-od. The facility may be publicly or pri-vately operated and may have a secure,prisonlike environment or a more open(even homelike) setting. In many states,when the judge commits a juvenile to thestate department of juvenile corrections,

the department determines where thejuvenile will be placed and when the juve-nile will be released. In other states, thejudge controls the type and length ofstay; in these situations, review hearingsare held to assess the juvenile’s progress.

Juvenile aftercare issimilar to adult parole

On release from an institution, the juve-nile is often ordered to a period of after-care or parole. During this period, thejuvenile is under supervision of the courtor the juvenile corrections departmentand must meet certain conditions. If thejuvenile does not follow the conditions ofaftercare, he or she may be recommittedto the same facility or may be committedto another facility.

Status offense anddelinquency caseprocessing differ

A delinquent offense is an act committedby a juvenile for which an adult could beprosecuted in criminal court. There are,however, behaviors that are law violationsonly for juveniles and/or young adultsbecause of their status. These “statusoffenses” may include behaviors such asrunning away from home, truancy, alco-hol possession or use, ungovernability,and curfew violations.

In many ways, the processing of statusoffense cases parallels that of delinquen-cy cases. Not all states, however, consid-er all of the behaviors noted above to belaw violations. Many states view suchbehaviors as indicators that the child is inneed of supervision. These states handlestatus offense matters more like depen-dency cases than delinquency cases, re-sponding to the behaviors by providingsocial services.

Although many status offenders enter the juvenile justice system through lawenforcement, in many states the initialofficial contact is a child welfare agency.In 1998, about half of all status offensecases referred to juvenile court camefrom law enforcement agencies.

The federal Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention Act discourages theholding of status offenders in securejuvenile facilities for detention or place-ment. This policy has been labeled “de-institutionalization of status offenders.”There is an exception to the general policy:a status offender may be confined in asecure juvenile facility if he or she hasviolated a valid court order, such as aprobation order requiring the youth toattend school or observe a curfew.

A juvenile court byany other name isstill a juvenile court Every state has at least one court withjuvenile jurisdiction but, in most states,it is not actually called juvenile court.The names of the courts with juvenilejurisdiction vary by state—district,superior, circuit, county, family, or pro-bate court, to name a few. Often thecourt of juvenile jurisdiction has aseparate division for juvenile matters.Courts with juvenile jurisdiction gener-ally have jurisdiction over delinquency,status offense, and abuse/neglect mat-ters and may also have jurisdiction inother matters such as adoption, termi-nation of parental rights, and emanci-pation. Whatever their name, courtswith juvenile jurisdiction are generi-cally referred to as juvenile courts.

June 2003 5

Statutes set age limitsfor original jurisdictionof the juvenile court

In most states, the juvenile court hasoriginal jurisdiction over all youthcharged with a law violation who wereyounger than age 18 at the time of theoffense, arrest, or referral to court. Since1975, four states have changed their agecriteria: Alabama raised its upper agefrom 15 to 16 in 1976 and to 17 in 1977;Wyoming lowered its upper age from 18to 17 in 1993; and New Hampshire andWisconsin lowered their upper age from17 to 16 in 1996.

Oldest age for original juvenile court juris-diction in delinquency matters:

Age State15 Connecticut, New York, North Carolina16 Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,New Hampshire, South Carolina,Texas, Wisconsin

17 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,California, Colorado, Delaware, Districtof Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Maine, Maryland, Minnesota,Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,Vermont, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia, Wyoming

Many states have higher upper ages of juvenile court jurisdiction in statusoffense, abuse, neglect, or dependencymatters—typically through age 20.

In many states, the juvenile court hasoriginal jurisdiction over young adultswho committed offenses while juveniles.

Many states exclude married or otherwiseemancipated juveniles from juvenile courtjurisdiction. States often have statutoryexceptions to basic age criteria. Theexceptions, related to the youth’s age,alleged offense, and/or prior court history,place certain youth under the originaljurisdiction of the criminal court. In somestates, a combination of the youth’s age,offense, and prior record places the youthunder the original jurisdiction of both thejuvenile and criminal courts. In thesestates, the prosecutor has the authorityto decide which court will initially handlethe case.

At the end of the 1999 legislative session,16 states had statutes that set the lowestage of juvenile court delinquency jurisdic-tion. Other states rely on case law orcommon law. Children younger than acertain age are presumed to be incapableof criminal intent and, therefore, are ex-empt from prosecution and punishment.

Youngest age for original juvenile courtjurisdiction in delinquency matters:

Age State6 North Carolina7 Maryland, Massachusetts, New York8 Arizona

10 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas,Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas,Vermont, Wisconsin

Juvenile court authorityover youth may extendbeyond the upper ageof original jurisdiction

Through extended jurisdiction mecha-nisms, legislatures enable the court toprovide sanctions and services for a

duration of time that is in the best inter-ests of the juvenile and the public, evenfor older juveniles who have reached theage at which original juvenile court juris-diction ends. At the end of the 1999legislative session, statutes in 35 statesextended juvenile court jurisdiction indelinquency cases until the 21st birthday.

Oldest age over which the juvenile courtmay retain jurisdiction for disposition pur-poses in delinquency matters:

Age State18 Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska,

Oklahoma, Tennessee19 Mississippi, North Dakota20 Alabama, Arizona,* Arkansas,

Connecticut, Delaware, District ofColumbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine,Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, NewHampshire, New Mexico, New York,North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Carolina, SouthDakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming

22 Kansas24 California, Montana, Oregon,

Wisconsin** Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey

Note: Extended jurisdiction may be restricted tocertain offenses or juveniles.

*Arizona statute extends jurisdiction throughage 20, but a 1979 state Supreme Court deci-sion held that juvenile court jurisdiction termi-nates at age 18.

**Until the full term of the disposition order.

In some states, the juvenile court mayimpose adult correctional sanctions oncertain adjudicated delinquents thatextend the term of confinement wellbeyond the upper age of juvenile jurisdic-tion. Such sentencing options are includ-ed in the set of dispositional optionsknown as blended sentencing.

State statutes define who is under juvenile courtjurisdiction


All states allow juveniles to be tried as adults incriminal court under certain circumstances

Transferring juvenilesto criminal court is nota new phenomenon

In some states, provisions that enabledtransfer of certain juveniles to criminalcourt were in place before the 1920s.Other states have permitted transferssince at least the 1940s. For many years,all states have had at least one provisionfor trying certain youth of juvenile age asadults in criminal court. Such provisionsare typically limited by age and offensecriteria. Transfer mechanisms varyregarding where the responsibility fortransfer decisionmaking lies. Transferprovisions fall into three generalcategories:

Judicial waiver: The juvenile court judgehas the authority to waive juvenile courtjurisdiction and transfer the case to crim-inal court. States may use terms otherthan judicial waiver. Some call the processcertification, remand, or bind over forcriminal prosecution. Others transfer ordecline rather than waive jurisdiction.

Concurrent jurisdiction: Original jurisdic-tion for certain cases is shared by bothcriminal and juvenile courts, and theprosecutor has discretion to file suchcases in either court. Transfer under con-current jurisdiction provisions is alsoknown as prosecutorial waiver, prosecu-tor discretion, or direct file.

Statutory exclusion: State statute ex-cludes certain juvenile offenders fromjuvenile court jurisdiction. Under statutoryexclusion provisions, cases originate incriminal rather than juvenile court. Statu-tory exclusion is also known as legislativeexclusion.

Most states have multiple ways to impose adult sanctions on juveniles

Statutes at the end of the 1999 legislative sessionOnce anadult,

Judicial waiver Concurrent Statutory Reverse always BlendedState Discretionary Presumptive Mandatory jurisdiction exclusion waiver an adult sentencing

Total States 46 16 15 15 29 24 34 22Alabama ■ ■ ■

Alaska ■ ■ ■ ■

Arizona ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Arkansas ■ ■ ■ ■

California ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Colorado ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Connecticut ■ ■ ■

Delaware ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Dist. of Columbia ■ ■ ■ ■

Florida ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Georgia ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Hawaii ■ ■

Idaho ■ ■ ■ ■

Illinois ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Indiana ■ ■ ■ ■

Iowa ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Kansas ■ ■ ■ ■

Kentucky ■ ■ ■

Louisiana ■ ■ ■ ■

Maine ■ ■ ■

Maryland ■ ■ ■ ■

Massachusetts ■ ■ ■

Michigan ■ ■ ■ ■

Minnesota ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Mississippi ■ ■ ■ ■

Missouri ■ ■ ■

Montana ■ ■ ■ ■

Nebraska ■ ■

Nevada ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

New Hampshire ■ ■ ■

New Jersey ■ ■ ■

New Mexico ■ ■

New York ■ ■

North Carolina ■ ■ ■

North Dakota ■ ■ ■ ■

Ohio ■ ■ ■

Oklahoma ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Oregon ■ ■ ■ ■

Pennsylvania ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Rhode Island ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

South Carolina ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

South Dakota ■ ■ ■ ■

Tennessee ■ ■ ■

Texas ■ ■ ■

Utah ■ ■ ■ ■

Vermont ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Virginia ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Washington ■ ■ ■

West Virginia ■ ■ ■

Wisconsin ■ ■ ■ ■

Wyoming ■ ■ ■

■ In states with a combination of provisions for transferring juveniles to criminal court, the exclu-sion, mandatory waiver, or concurrent jurisdiction provisions generally target the oldest juvenilesand/or those charged with the most serious offenses, while those charged with relatively lessserious offenses and/or younger juveniles may be eligible for discretionary waiver.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Griffin’s State Juvenile Justice Profiles.

June 2003 7

Nearly all states haveexpanded their transferprovisions recently

Traditionally, discretionary judicial waiverwas the transfer mechanism on whichmost states relied. Beginning in the 1970sand continuing through the present, how-ever, state legislatures have increasinglymoved juvenile offenders into criminalcourt based on age and/or offense seri-ousness, without the case-specific con-sideration offered by the discretionaryjuvenile court judicial waiver process.

State transfer provisions changed exten-sively in the 1990s. From 1992 through1999, 49 states and the District of Colum-bia enacted or expanded their transferprovisions. Nebraska was the only excep-tion. An increasing number of statelegislatures have enacted mandatorywaiver or exclusion statutes. Less com-mon, then and now, are concurrent juris-diction provisions.

Criminal courts maysend transferred casesto juvenile court

Several states have provisions for send-ing transferred cases from criminal tojuvenile court for adjudication undercertain circumstances. This procedure,sometimes referred to as “reverse waiver,”generally applies to cases initiated incriminal court under statutory exclusionor concurrent jurisdiction provisions. Ofthe 36 states with such provisions at theend of the 1999 legislative session, 21also have provisions that allow certaintransferred juveniles to petition for a“reverse.” Reverse decision criteria oftenparallel a state’s discretionary waiver cri-teria. In some states, transfers convictedin criminal court may be reversed to juve-nile court for disposition.

Most states have “oncean adult, always anadult” provisions

In 34 states, juveniles who have beentried as adults must be prosecuted incriminal court for any subsequent offens-es. Nearly all of these “once an adult,always an adult” provisions require thatthe youth must have been convicted ofthe offenses that triggered the initial crim-inal prosecution.

Laws in 22 states allowblended sentencing

Blended sentencing statutes allow courtsto impose juvenile and/or adult correc-tional sanctions on certain young offend-ers. In some states, blended sentencingauthority lies with the juvenile court, inothers with the criminal court.

Blended sentencing authority specified bystatute, 1999:

Court StateJuvenile Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut,

Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts,Michigan, Minnesota,New Mexico, Rhode Island,South Carolina, Texas

Criminal Arkansas, California, Colorado,Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan,Missouri, Oklahoma, Vermont,Virginia, West Virginia

Blended sentencing has been referred toas a “middle ground” between traditionaljuvenile and adult sanctions. Judges haveflexibility to choose from a broader arrayof punishments. In some states, the adultsanction may be suspended but can bereinstated if the terms of the juvenilesanction are violated. A blended sentence,therefore, is seen as one last chance forthe juvenile to avoid adult sanctions.

Judicial waiver remainsthe most commontransfer provision

In the District of Columbia and all statesexcept Massachusetts, Nebraska, NewMexico, and New York, juvenile courtjudges may waive jurisdiction over cer-tain cases and transfer them to criminalcourt. Such action is usually in responseto a request by the prosecutor; in severalstates, however, juveniles or their parentsmay request judicial waiver. In most states,laws limit waiver by age and offense.

Waiver provisions vary in terms of thedegree of decisionmaking flexibilityallowed. The decision may be entirelydiscretionary, there may be a rebuttablepresumption in favor of waiver, or waivermay be mandatory. Some provisionsmandate that waiver is required once thejuvenile court judge determines that cer-tain statutory criteria have been met.Mandatory waiver provisions are distin-guished from statutory exclusion provi-sions in that the case originates in juve-nile rather than criminal court.

Statutes establishwaiver criteria otherthan age and offense

In some states, waiver provisions targetyouth charged with offenses involvingfirearms or other weapons. Most statestatutes also limit judicial waiver to juve-niles who are “no longer amenable totreatment.” The specific factors that deter-mine lack of amenability vary, but theytypically include the juvenile’s offensehistory and previous dispositional out-comes. Such amenability criteria are gen-erally not included in statutory exclusionor concurrent jurisdiction provisions.

Many statutes instruct juvenile courtsto consider other factors when making


waiver decisions, such as the availabilityof dispositional alternatives for treatingthe juvenile, the time available for sanc-tions, public safety, and the best interestof the child. The waiver process mustalso adhere to certain constitutional prin-ciples of due process.

Transfer decisionmakinghas changed

Studies of transfer in the 1990s foundthat, independent of law changes, waiverdecisions have changed. One Pennsylvaniastudy found that waiver was more likelyfor youth in 1994 than for youth in 1986.Although Pennsylvania’s waiver law didnot change, the waiver criteria seemed tochange. Analysis showed that both the1986 and 1994 groups had similar num-bers of prior adjudications and residentialplacements. However, juveniles withcases waived in 1994 had gone throughthe court’s full range of sanctions withless serious offense histories than youthwith cases waived in 1986.

Two other studies focused on cases judi-cially waived in South Carolina and inUtah in the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s. Analyses found that juvenile courtjudges granted most waiver requests.Overall, judges approved approximately 8out of 10 waiver requests made by prose-cutors. In South Carolina, the proportionof waiver requests granted rose from about70% in the mid-1980s to 96% in 1994.

Two factors distinguished cases thatjudges waived from those not waived: theseriousness of the juvenile’s crime andthe extent of his or her court history. Thecases most likely to be waived, regardlessof the offenders’ court history, involvedserious person offenders who used weap-ons and injured someone. Even first-timeoffenders were waived if they injured theirvictim. For other cases, the court took intoaccount the youth’s history; those with

In most states, juvenile court judges may waive juvenile courtjurisdiction over certain cases and transfer them to criminal court

Minimum Judicial waiver offense and minimum age criteria, 1999age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certainjudicial criminal Certain Capital person property drug weapon

State waiver offense felonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offenses

Alabama 14 14Alaska NS NS NSArizona NS NSArkansas 14 14 14 14 14 14California 14 16 16 14 14 14 14Colorado 12 12 12 12Connecticut 14 14 14 14Delaware NS NS 15 NS NS 16 16Dist. of Columbia NS 16 15 15 15 15 NSFlorida 14 14Georgia 13 15 13 14 14 15Hawaii NS 14 NSIdaho NS 14 NS NS NS NS NSIllinois 13 13 15Indiana NS 14 NS 10 16Iowa 14 14 15Kansas 10 10 14 14 14Kentucky 14 14 14Louisiana 14 14 14Maine NS NS NS NSMaryland NS 15 NSMichigan 14 14Minnesota 14 14Mississippi 13 13Missouri 12 12Montana NS NSNevada 14 14 14 14New Hampshire 13 15 13 13 15New Jersey 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14North Carolina 13 13 13North Dakota 14 16 14 14 14 14Ohio 14 14 14 16 16Oklahoma NS NSOregon NS 15 NS NS 15Pennsylvania 14 14 15 15Rhode Island NS 16 NS 17 17South Carolina NS 16 14 NS NS 14 14South Dakota NS NSTennessee NS 16 NS NSTexas 14 14 14 14Utah 14 14 16 16 16 16Vermont 10 10 10 10Virginia 14 14 14 14Washington NS NSWest Virginia NS NS NS NS NS NSWisconsin 14 15 14 14 14 14 14Wyoming 13 13

Note: Ages in the minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions but representthe youngest possible age at which a juvenile may be judicially waived to criminal court. “NS”indicates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified.

Examples: Alabama allows waiver for juveniles age 14 or older charged with any criminaloffense. Maryland allows waiver for any juvenile charged with a capital crime (an act punish-able by death or life imprisonment) and for juveniles age 15 or older charged with any criminaloffense.


June 2003 9

longer histories were more likely to bewaived. This coincides closely withthe waiver criteria outlined in the U.S.Supreme Court’s Kent decision. TheCourt stated that, “An offense . . . will bewaived if . . . it is heinous or of an aggra-vated character, or—even though lessserious—if it represents a pattern ofrepeated offenses. . . .”

Few states allowprosecutorial discretion

At the end of the 1999 legislative session,15 states had concurrent jurisdiction pro-visions, which gave both juvenile courtand criminal court original jurisdiction incertain cases. Under such provisions,prosecutors have discretion to file eligiblecases in either court.

Concurrent jurisdiction is typically lim-ited by age and offense criteria. Often

concurrent jurisdiction is limited to casesinvolving violent or repeat crimes oroffenses involving firearms or otherweapons. Juvenile and criminal courtsoften also share jurisdiction over minoroffenses such as traffic, watercraft, orlocal ordinance violations.

No national data exist on the number ofjuvenile cases tried in criminal court un-der concurrent jurisdiction provisions. InFlorida, which has a fairly broad concur-rent jurisdiction provision, prosecutorssent more than 4,000 youth to criminalcourt in fiscal year 1998–99. In compari-son, juvenile court judges nationwidewaived an estimated 8,100 cases tocriminal court in 1998.

State appellate courts have taken the viewthat prosecutorial discretion is equivalentto the routine charging decisions prose-cutors make in criminal cases. Thus,

prosecutorial transfer is considered anexecutive function, which is not subjectto judicial review and is not required tomeet the due process standards estab-lished by the U.S. Supreme Court. Somestates, however, do have written guide-lines for prosecutorial transfer.

In most states, lawsallow transfer of certainvery young offenders

At the end of the 1999 legislative session,in 23 states and the District of Columbia,no minimum age was specified in at leastone judicial waiver, concurrent jurisdic-tion, or statutory exclusion provision fortransferring juveniles to criminal court.For example, Pennsylvania’s murderexclusion has no minimum age specified.Other transfer provisions in Pennsylvaniahave age minimums set at 14 or 15.Among states where statutes specify agelimits for all transfer provisions, age 14 isthe most common minimum age speci-fied across provisions.

Minimum transfer age specified in statute:

Age StateNone Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, District

of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine,Maryland, Montana, Nebraska,Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,Washington, West Virginia, andWisconsin

10 Kansas and Vermont

12 Colorado and Missouri

13 Illinois, Mississippi,New Hampshire, New York,North Carolina, and Wyoming

14 Alabama, Arkansas, California,Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky,Louisiana, Massachusetts,Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio,Utah, and Virginia

15 New Mexico

In states with concurrent jurisdiction, the prosecutor has discretion tofile certain cases in either criminal court or juvenile court

Minimum Concurrent jurisdiction offense and minimum age criteria, 1999age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certain

concurrent criminal Certain Capital person property drug weaponState jurisdiction offense felonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offensesArizona 14 14Arkansas 14 16 14 14 14Colorado 14 14 14 14 14 14Dist. of Columbia 16 16 16 16Florida NS 16 NS 14 14 14 14Georgia NS NSLouisiana 15 15 15 15 15Massachusetts 14 14 14 14Michigan 14 14 14 14 14 14Montana 12 12 12 16 16 16Nebraska NS 16 NSOklahoma 15 15 15 15 16 15Vermont 16 16Virginia 14 14 14Wyoming 14 14

Note: Ages in the minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions but representthe youngest possible age at which a juvenile may be filed directly in criminal court. “NS” indi-cates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified.

Examples: In Arizona, prosecutors have discretion to file directly in criminal court those casesinvolving juveniles age 14 or older charged with certain felonies (defined by state statutes). InFlorida, prosecutors may “direct file” cases involving juveniles age 16 or older charged with amisdemeanor (if they have a prior adjudication) or a felony offense and those age 14 or oldercharged with murder or certain person, property, or weapon offenses; no minimum age is spec-ified for cases in which a grand jury indicts a juvenile for a capital offense (punishable by deathor life imprisonment).



Statutory exclusionaccounts for the largestnumber of transfers

Legislatures “transfer” large numbers of young offenders to criminal court byenacting statutes that exclude certaincases from juvenile court jurisdiction. Atthe end of the 1999 legislative session,29 states had statutory exclusion provi-sions. State laws typically set age andoffense limits for excluded offenses. Theoffenses most often excluded are murder,capital crimes in general (offenses pun-ishable by death or life imprisonment),and other serious offenses against per-sons. (Minor offenses such as traffic,watercraft, and wildlife violations areoften excluded from juvenile court juris-diction in states where they are notcovered by concurrent jurisdictionprovisions.)

Although not typically thought of astransfers, large numbers of youthyounger than age 18 are tried in criminalcourt in the 13 states where the upperage of juvenile court jurisdiction is set at15 or 16. Nearly 2 million 16- and 17-year-olds live in these 13 states. If theseyouth are referred to criminal court at thesame rate that 16- and 17-year-olds else-where are referred to juvenile court, thena large number of youth younger thanage 18 face trial in criminal court becausethey are defined as adults under statelaws. In fact, it is possible that moreyouth younger than age 18 are tried incriminal court in this way than by allother transfer mechanisms combined.

In states with statutory exclusion provisions, certain cases involvingjuveniles originate in criminal court rather than juvenile court

Minimum Statutory exclusion offense and minimum age criteria, 1999age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certain

statutory criminal Certain Capital person property drug weaponState exclusion offense felonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offenses

Alabama 16 16 16 16Alaska 16 16 16Arizona 15 15 15 15California 16 16 16 16Delaware 15 15Florida NS NS NSGeorgia 13 13 13Idaho 14 14 14 14 14Illinois 13 15 13 15 15 15Indiana 16 16 16 16 16 16Iowa 16 16 16 16Louisiana 15 15 15Maryland 14 14 16 16 16Massachusetts 14 14Minnesota 16 16Mississippi 13 13 13Montana 17 17 17 17 17 17Nevada NS 16 NS NS 16New Mexico 15 15New York 13 13 14 14 14Oklahoma 13 13Oregon 15 15 15Pennsylvania NS NS 15South Carolina 16 16South Dakota 16 16Utah 16 16 16Vermont 14 14 14 14Washington 16 16 16 16Wisconsin NS 10 NS

Note: Ages in the minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions but representthe youngest possible age at which a juvenile may be excluded from juvenile court. “NS” indi-cates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified.

Examples: In California, cases involving juveniles age 16 or older charged with capital crimes(punishable by death or life imprisonment), murder, or certain other person offenses must befiled in criminal court. In Delaware, cases involving juveniles age 15 or older charged with cer-tain felonies must be initiated in criminal court.


June 2003 11

The Juvenile Court Statistics series details theactivities of U.S. juvenile courts

Juvenile Court Statisticshas provided data sincethe late 1920sThe Juvenile Court Statistics series is theprimary source of information on theactivities of the nation’s juvenile courts.The first Juvenile Court Statistics report,published in 1929 by the Children’s Bu-reau of the U.S. Department of Labor,described cases handled in 1927 by 42courts. In the 1950s, the U.S. Departmentof Health, Education and Welfare tookover the work, and, in 1974, the newlyestablished Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention (OJJDP) took onthe project. Since 1975, the NationalCenter for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) hasbeen responsible for this OJJDP project.

Throughout its history, the Juvenile CourtStatistics series has depended on the vol-untary support of courts with juvenilejurisdiction. Courts contribute data origi-nally compiled to meet their own infor-mation needs. The data received are notuniform but reflect the natural variationthat exists across court information sys-tems. To develop national estimates,NCJJ restructures compatible data into acommon format. In 1998, juvenile courtswith jurisdiction over virtually 100% ofthe U.S. juvenile population contributedat least some data to the national report-ing program. Because not all contributeddata can support the national reportingrequirements, the national estimates for1998 were based on data from more than2,100 jurisdictions containing nearly 70%of the nation’s juvenile population (i.e.,youth age 10 through the upper age oforiginal juvenile court jurisdiction in eachstate).

Juvenile Court Statisticsdocuments the numberof cases courts handled

Just as the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report-ing Program counts arrests made by lawenforcement (i.e., a workload measure,not a crime measure), the Juvenile CourtStatistics series counts delinquency andstatus offense cases handled by courtswith juvenile jurisdiction during the year.Each case represents the initial disposi-tion of a new referral to juvenile court forone or more offenses. A youth may beinvolved in more than one case in a year.Therefore, the Juvenile Court Statisticsseries does not provide a count of indi-vidual juveniles brought before juvenilecourts.

Cases involving multiplecharges are categorizedby their most seriousoffense

In a single case where a juvenile ischarged with robbery, simple assault, and a weapons law violation, the case iscounted as a robbery case (similar to theFBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program’shierarchy rule). Thus, the Juvenile CourtStatistics series does not provide a countof the number of crimes committed byjuveniles. In addition, given that only themost serious offense is used to classifythe case, counts of—and trends for—less serious offenses must be interpretedcautiously.

Similarly, cases are categorized by theirmost severe or restrictive disposition. For example, a case in which the judgeorders the youth to a training school and

to pay restitution to the victim would becharacterized as a case in which the juve-nile was placed in a residential facility.

Juvenile Court Statisticsdescribes delinquencyand status offensecaseloads

The Juvenile Court Statistics series pro-vides annual estimates of the number ofdelinquency and formally processed sta-tus offense cases handled by juvenilecourts. The reports provide demographicprofiles of the youth referred and thereasons for the referrals (offenses). Theseries documents the juvenile courts’ dif-ferential use of petition, detention, adjudi-cation, and disposition alternatives bycase type. The series also can identifytrends in the volume and characteristicsof court activity.

Care should be exercised when interpret-ing gender, age, or racial differences inthe analysis of juvenile delinquency orstatus offense cases because reportedstatistics do not control for the serious-ness of the behavior leading to eachcharge or the extent of a youth’s courthistory.

The series does not provide national esti-mates of the number of youth referred tocourt, their prior court histories, or theirfuture recidivism. Nor does it providedata on criminal court processing of juve-nile cases. Criminal court cases involv-ing youth younger than age 18 who aredefined as adults in their state are notincluded. The series was designed to pro-duce national estimates of juvenile courtactivity, not to describe the law-violatingcareers of juveniles.


Juvenile courts handled 1.8 million delinquencycases in 1998—about the same as in 1997

Juvenile court caseloadshave grown and changed

In 1998, U.S. courts with juvenile juris-diction handled an estimated 1.8 millioncases in which the juvenile was chargedwith a delinquency offense—an offensefor which an adult could be prosecuted incriminal court. Thus, U.S. juvenile courtshandled more than 4,800 delinquencycases per day in 1998. In comparison,approximately 1,100 delinquency caseswere processed daily in 1960.

Changes in the juvenile court delinquencycaseload in recent years have strained thecourts’ resources and programs. The vol-ume of cases handled by juvenile courtsincreased 44% between 1989 and 1998.Courts were asked to respond not only tomore cases but also to a different type ofcaseload.

Most delinquency casesare referred to court bylaw enforcementDelinquency cases are referred to juve-nile courts from a number of differentsources, including law enforcement agen-cies, social services agencies, victims,probation officers, schools, and parents.In 1998, 84% of delinquency cases werereferred by law enforcement agencies.This proportion has changed little overthe past decade.

Percentage of delinquency cases referred bylaw enforcement agencies:

Offense 1998Delinquency 84%

Person 86Property 90Drugs 92Public order 63

Youth were charged with a property offense in nearly half of thedelinquency cases handled by juvenile courts in 1998

Number Percentage of Percent changeMost serious offense of cases total cases 1989–98 1997–98

Delinquency 1,757,400 100% 44% –3%

Person offenses 403,800 23 88 1Criminal homicide 2,000 <1 6 –2Forcible rape 6,000 <1 26 –7Robbery 29,600 2 29 –12Aggravated assault 65,100 4 36 –6Simple assault 262,400 15 128 3Other violent sex offenses 10,500 1 53 –1Other person offenses 28,200 2 87 26

Property offenses 797,600 45 11 –8Burglary 125,800 7 –7 –9Larceny-theft 370,500 21 13 –10Motor vehicle theft 44,200 3 –34 –11Arson 8,400 0 27 –9Vandalism 118,700 7 40 0Trespassing 64,000 4 26 –5Stolen property offenses 34,000 2 35 3Other property offenses 32,100 2 37 –3

Drug law violations 192,500 11 148 1

Public order offenses 363,500 21 73 0Weapons offenses 40,700 2 61 4Obstruction of justice 152,000 9 102 2Disorderly conduct 92,100 5 100 –4Liquor law violations 19,600 1 29 59Nonviolent sex offenses 10,900 1 –13 –3Other public order offenses 48,100 3 36 –10

Violent Crime Index* 102,600 6 33 –8

Property Crime Index** 548,800 31 3 –10

■ Juvenile court delinquency caseloads increased 44% from 1989 to 1998. The juvenilepopulation increased just 15% in that time.

■ Although a substantial portion of the growth in court referrals is related to arrests,changes in juvenile court caseloads are also influenced by other forces. Between 1989and 1998, the overall growth in juvenile court cases (44%) was greater than the growthin arrests of persons younger than age 18 (24%). During the same period, ViolentCrime Index arrests rose 15%, arrests for Property Crime Index offenses dropped 12%,and drug arrests rose 86%.

*The FBI’s Violent Crime Index includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, andaggravated assault.

**The FBI’s Property Crime Index includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft,and arson.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent change calculations arebased on unrounded numbers.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Puzzanchera et al.’s Juvenile Court Statistics 1998.

June 2003 13

Within detailed offenses,there is a range ofoffense seriousness

The four general offense categories—person, property, drugs, and publicorder—are each very broad in terms ofthe seriousness of the offenses theycomprise. Within these general cate-gories, individual offenses (e.g., aggra-vated assault, robbery) may encompass awide range of seriousness. For example:

Aggravated assault is the unlawful inten-tional infliction of serious bodily injury orunlawful threat or attempt to inflict bodilyinjury or death by means of a deadly ordangerous weapon with or without actualinfliction of any injury. Aggravated assaultincludes the following situations:

■ A gang attempts to kill a rival gangmember in a drive-by shooting, buthe survives the attack.

■ A son fights with his father, causinginjuries that require treatment at ahospital.

■ A student raises a chair and threatensto throw it at a teacher but does not.

Robbery is the unlawful taking or attempt-ed taking of property in the immediatepossession of another person by forceor threat of force. Robbery includes thefollowing situations:

■ Masked gunmen with automaticweapons demand cash from a bank.

■ A gang of young men beat up a touristand steal his wallet and valuables.

■ A school bully says to another student,“Give me your lunch money, or I’llpunch you.”

Juvenile courts handled more than four times as many delinquencycases in 1998 as in 1960

■ Between 1989 and 1998, the volume of cases handled by juvenile courts increased acrossall four general offense categories. Person offense cases rose 88%, property cases rose11%, drug cases rose 148%, and public order cases rose 73%.

■ Although increases occurred in all four general offense categories, the trend patterns weredifferent. Person and public order cases increased steadily from 1989 through 1998; drugcases were initially flat, then increased sharply in the mid-1990s, and then leveled off;property offense cases changed relatively little during the time period.


60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 980

400,000

800,000

1,200,000

1,600,000

2,000,000

Year

Number of cases

Delinquency

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000Number of cases

Person

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000Number of cases

Property

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

100,000

200,000

300,000


Public order

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000


Drugs

Delinquency cases, by offense category


1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

10

20

30

40

50

60Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Property

Person

Public order Drugs

Male

Caseloads grew fasterfor females than males

The overall delinquency caseload forfemales grew at an average rate of 7%per year between 1989 and 1998, com-pared with 3% per year for males. Theresult was an 83% overall increase infemale cases, compared with a 35%increase for males.

Percent change in number of cases,1989–98:

Offense Male FemaleDelinquency 35% 83%

Person 71 157Property 3 44Drugs 142 182Public order 65 105

Offense profiles weresimilar for males andfemales Compared with the offense profiles in1989, both male and female delinquencycaseloads had greater proportions of per-son offense cases in 1998, and males hada greater proportion of drug offense cases.

Offense profile of delinquency cases:

Offense Male Female1998Delinquency 100% 100%


1989Delinquency 100% 100%


Note: Detail may not total 100% because ofrounding.

Delinquency caseloads for both males and femaleshave increased sharply in recent years

As in 1989, the delinquency caseloadsfor both males and females in 1998 con-sisted primarily of property offensecases. Compared with males, females

Although case rates are much lower for females than for males, thefemale rates have increased more sharply in the last decade

■ From 1989 to 1998, females had a greater relative change in case rates than males ineach of the four general offense categories. Drug case rates rose 145% for females and111% for males; person case rates rose 124% for females and 49% for males; publicorder case rates rose 79% for females and 43% for males; and property case rates rose25% for females and dropped 10% for males.


1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

4

8

12

16Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Property

Person

Public order

Drugs

Female

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%Percent of cases involving females

Delinquency

The proportion of delinquency cases involving females was greater in1998 than in 1989

■ The female proportion of delinquency cases increased from 19% in 1989 to 24% in1998. The sharpest increase was seen among person offense cases. Females accountedfor 20% of person cases in 1989, compared with 28% in 1998.


1990 1992 1994 1996 19980%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%Percent of cases involving females

Person

PropertyPublic order

Drugs

had a greater proportion of person offensecases and a smaller proportion of drugoffense cases.

June 2003 15

Black juveniles were referred to juvenile court ata rate more than double that for white juveniles

A disproportionatenumber of casesinvolved black youth

Although two-thirds of delinquency casesinvolved white youth, a disproportionatenumber of cases involved blacks (29%),given their proportion of the juvenile pop-ulation. In 1998, whites made up 79% ofthe juvenile population, blacks 15%, andyouth of other races 5%.

Racial profile of delinquency cases:

OtherOffense White Black races Total1998Delinquency 67% 29% 4% 100%

Person 62 35 3 100Property 70 26 4 100Drugs 68 29 3 100Public order 68 29 3 100

1989Delinquency 68% 29% 3% 100%

Person 56 40 3 100Property 72 25 4 100Drugs 58 40 2 100Public order 70 27 3 100

Note: Detail may not total 100% because ofrounding. All racial groups include Hispanics.

The racial profile of delinquency casesoverall was essentially the same in 1998as in 1989, although there were notice-able changes in some offense categories.The black proportion of person casesdropped from 40% in 1989 to 35% in1998, and the black proportion of drugcases dropped from 40% in 1989 to 29%in 1998.

Offense profiles for whitesand blacks differed

Delinquency caseloads of black juvenilescontained a greater proportion of personoffenses than did caseloads of white

juveniles and those of other races. For allracial groups, property offenses account-ed for the largest proportion of cases anddrug offenses the smallest proportion.

Compared with 1989, person and publicorder offenses made up a larger shareand property offenses a smaller share ofdelinquency cases for all racial groups in 1998. Among black juveniles, personoffenses rose 3 percentage points, publicorder offenses rose 5 points, and proper-ty offenses dropped 10 points. Amongwhite juveniles, person offenses rose 6percentage points, public order offensesrose 3 points, and property offensesdropped 15 points.

Offense profile of delinquency cases:Other

Offense White Black races1998Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 21 28 19Property 47 40 53Drugs 11 11 8Public order 21 21 20

1989Delinquency 100% 100% 100%



1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 19980

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Black

White

Other races

1989

Case rates increased from 1989 to 1998 for all racial groups

■ In 1998, the overall delinquency case rate for black juveniles (115) was more than twicethe rate for whites (51) and nearly triple the rate for youth of other races (40).

■ In all four general offense categories, case rates were higher for blacks than for whitesand higher for whites than for youth of other races.

■ The differences in rates by race were more pronounced for person offenses than for theother three general offense categories.

Note: Juveniles of Hispanic ethnicity can be of any race, but most are included in the white racial category.



All age groups contributed to delinquency caseloadincreases between 1989 and 1998

Delinquency case ratesrose between 1989 and1998 for most ages

In 1998, juvenile courts handled 60.4delinquency cases for every 1,000 juve-niles (youth subject to original juvenilecourt jurisdiction) in the U.S. population.The 1998 delinquency case rate was 25%greater than the 1989 rate. For all but the youngest age groups, age-specificcase rates showed similar increases. The greatest increase was among 17-year-olds.

Most delinquency casesinvolved older teens

Juveniles age 15 and older made up 64%of the delinquency caseload in 1998. Ju-veniles ages 13 and 14 were involved in26% of delinquency cases, while juve-niles age 12 and younger accounted for10%. There was some variation in ageprofiles across offenses. Juveniles age 12 and younger accounted for greaterproportions of person (14%) and proper-ty (13%) cases than of drug (2%) orpublic order (6%) cases. These propor-tions were not substantially different fromthose in 1989.

Why do juvenile courtshandle more 16- than17-year-olds?

Although comparable numbers of 17-year-olds and 16-year-olds were arrestedin 1998, the number of juvenile courtcases involving 17-year-olds (286,700)was lower than the number involving 16-year-olds (411,600). The explanation liesprimarily in the fact that, in 13 states,

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 170

20406080

100120140

5.9 11.524.3

46.5

73.4

96.7116.4 119.2

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 1998

Delinquency

Age at referral

Delinquency case rates generally increase with age

■ The delinquency case rate for 16-year-olds was 1.5 times the rate for 14-year-olds, therate for 14-year-olds was 3 times the rate for 12-year-olds, and the rate for 17-year-oldswas slightly greater than the rate for 16-year-olds.

■ Case rates increased through age 17 for drug and public order offenses, but for personand property offenses, rates peaked for 16-year-olds and then declined for 17-year-olds.


10 11 12 13 14 15 16 170

10

20

30

40

50Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 1998

Property

Public order

Person

Age at referral

Drugs

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

5

10

15

20

25Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Ages 15–17

Ages 10–12

Ages 13–14

Person

Between 1989 and 1998, the pattern of change in case rates wasgenerally similar across age groups

■ Person case rates rose from 1989 through 1995; the rates then leveled off for olderyouth but not for youth ages 10–12.

■ Across all age groups, property case rates were higher in the early 1990s than in theyears since.

■ Drug case rates rose sharply from 1991 through 1996, particularly for older youth.

■ Public order case rates generally rose steadily for all age groups from 1989 to 1998.Source: Author’s adaptation of Puzzanchera et al.’s Juvenile Court Statistics 1998.

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

10

20

30

40

50


Ages 15–17

Ages 13–14

Ages 10–12

Property

1990 1992 1994 1996 199802468


Ages 15–17

Ages 13–14

Ages 10–12

Drugs

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

5

10

15

20

25

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Ages 15–17

Ages 13–14

Ages 10–12

Public order

June 2003 17

17-year-olds are excluded from the originaljurisdiction of the juvenile court. In thesestates, all 17-year-olds are legally adultsand are referred to criminal court ratherthan to juvenile court. Thus, far fewer 17-year-olds than 16-year-olds are subject tooriginal juvenile court jurisdiction in the U.S.

Even after controlling for their differentialrepresentation in the juvenile population,the case rates for 16-year-olds are oftenslightly greater than the rates for 17-year-olds. One reason may be state legislationthat targets certain older juveniles forprocessing directly in criminal courts (viaeither statutory exclusion or concurrentjurisdiction provisions). In these situa-tions, when a youth of juvenile age isarrested, the matter goes before a criminalcourt rather than before a juvenile court.

In 1998, the offenseprofiles of younger andolder youth differed

In 1998, the caseload of juveniles age 12and younger had larger proportions ofperson and property offenses and smallerproportions of drug and public orderoffenses, compared with caseloads ofolder juveniles. In 1989, the proportionsof person offense cases were similar foryounger and older youth.

Offense profile of delinquency cases:Age Age

12 and Ages 15 andOffense younger 13–14 older1998Delinquency 100% 100% 100%


1989Delinquency 100% 100% 100%



10 11 12 13 14 15 16 170

5

1015

20

25

30

35

Age at referral


Male

Female

Person

In 1998, overall delinquency case rates increased with age throughage 16 for both males and females

■ Although delinquency case rates for females were much lower than those for males,the age-related increase in rates was greater for females than for males. For males, therate for 16-year-olds was 18 times the rate for 10-year-olds. For females, the rate for16-year-olds was 28 times the rate for 10-year-olds.

■ Similar patterns were seen in each of the four general offense categories.

■ The most striking age-related increase in rates was in drug cases. Drug case rates werehighest for 17-year-olds of both sexes. The drug case rate for male 17-year-olds wasmore than 300 times the rate for male 10-year-olds. Among females, the magnitude ofdifference was 500-fold.


10 11 12 13 14 15 16 170

1020304050607080

Age at referral


Male

Female

Property

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 170

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Age at referral


Delinquency

Male

Female

Delinquency case rates for males and females, by offense category, 1998

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 170

5

10

1520

25

30

35

Age at referral


Male

Female

Drugs

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1705

1015202530354045

Age at referral


Male

Female

Public order


Most delinquency cases do not involve detentionbetween referral to court and disposition

When is securedetention used?

A youth may be placed in a secure juve-nile detention facility at various pointsduring the processing of his or her case.Most delinquency cases, however, do notinvolve detention. Although detentionpractices vary from jurisdiction to juris-diction, a general model of detentionpractices is useful.

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 youthwill be detained if there is reason tobelieve he or she is a threat to the com-munity, will be at risk if returned to thecommunity, or may fail to appear at anupcoming hearing. The youth may also bedetained for diagnostic evaluation purposes.

In all states, legislation requires that adetention hearing be held within a fewdays (generally within 24 hours). At thattime, a judge reviews the decision todetain the youth and either orders theyouth released or continues the detention.

National juvenile court statistics count thenumber of cases that involve detentionduring a calendar year. As a case isprocessed, the youth may be detainedand released more than once betweencase referral and disposition. Juvenilecourt data do not count individual deten-tions, nor do they count the number ofyouth detained. In addition, although in afew states juveniles may be committed toa detention facility as part of a dispositionorder, the court data do not include suchplacements in the count of cases involv-ing detention.

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000Number of cases detained

Property

Person

Public order

Drugs

Although the percentage of cases involving detention dropped from1989 to 1998, the number of cases involving detention increased

■ Overall, youth were detained in 19% of delinquency cases handled in 1998.

■ The number of delinquency cases involving detention rose 25% from 1989 to 1998.Person offense cases had the largest relative increase in detained cases (63%).

■ Although there was a 6% decline in detained property cases between 1989 and 1998,they accounted for the largest volume of cases involving detention in every year.

■ In 1998, the percentage of cases that involved detention was lower for property offensecases (15%) than for the other general offense categories (22–23%).

■ For all four general offense categories, the probability of detention was lower in 1998than in 1989. This was especially true for drug cases.


1990 1992 1994 1996 19980%

10%

20%

30%

40%Percent of cases detained

Drugs

PersonPublic order

Property

White youth were least likely to be detained, but they accounted forthe largest volume of delinquency cases involving detention

■ The number of delinquency cases involving white youth who were detained rose 33%from 1989 to 1998. For black youth and youth of other races, the increases in thenumber of cases detained was smaller (15% and 19%, respectively).

■ Trends in the likelihood of detention followed similar patterns for all racial groups,although the proportion of cases involving detention remained lower for white youththan for black youth or youth of other races.

Note: Juveniles of Hispanic ethnicity can be of any race, but most are included in the white racial category.


1990 1992 1994 1996 19980%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent of delinquency cases detained

White

Other racesBlack

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

Number of cases detained

White

Black

Other races

June 2003 19

The detention caseloadhas changed

Property offense cases continue to ac-count for the largest proportion of delin-quency cases involving detention, buttheir share declined from 1989 to 1998.Person offense cases had an increasein their share of the detention caseload.

Offense profile of delinquency cases involving detention:

Offense 1989 1998Delinquency 100% 100%



Relative to their share of the juvenile pop-ulation, black youth were overrepresentedin the detention caseload in 1998. Blackyouth made up 15% of the population but 35% of cases involving detention.Compared with the detention caseload in1989, however, the extent of their over-representation has diminished somewhat.Youth of other races were not overrepre-sented in the detention caseload relativeto their proportion in the population.

Racial profile of delinquency cases involvingdetention:

Race 1989 1998All races 100% 100%

White 57 61Black 39 35Other races 4 4


Not only were black youth overrepresent-ed among cases involving detention rela-tive to their proportion of the juvenilepopulation, they were also overrepresent-ed relative to their proportion of the over-all delinquency caseload. Although blackjuveniles made up 29% of all delinquencycases processed in 1998, they accountedfor 35% of cases involving detention.

This overrepresentation was greatest fordrug cases. Black youth were involvedin 29% of all drug cases handled but in44% of drug cases involving detention.

Percentage of cases that involved blackjuveniles, 1998:

DetainedOffense All cases casesDelinquency 29% 35%


Juveniles age 15 or younger accountedfor 53% of cases involving detention in1998. Those age 12 or younger made up5% of the detention caseload that year.The age profile for detained delinquencycases changed only slightly between1989 and 1998.

Age profile of delinquency cases involvingdetention:

Age 1989 1998All ages 100% 100%

10 or younger 1 111 1 112 4 313 9 914 16 1515 24 2416 26 2617 or older 19 21


Males were more likelythan females to bedetained

Overall, the youth was detained in 20%of delinquency cases involving malesin 1998. In comparison, females weredetained in 14% of their delinquencycases. Both males and females were leastlikely to be detained in property offensecases.

Percentage of delinquency cases involvingdetention, 1998:



With the exception of drug cases, the useof detention for both males and femalesdeclined a few percentage points from1989 to 1998. For males, the proportionof drug cases involving detention was15 points higher in 1989 than in 1998;for females, it was 9 points higher.

Detention was used more frequently for older juveniles than foryounger juveniles in 1998

Percentage of delinquency cases detained, by age at referral, 1998

Offense 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Delinquency 7% 7% 12% 16% 18% 20% 21% 22%

Person 7 10 17 18 21 25 25 28

Property 6 6 9 13 15 16 17 17

Drugs * 9 13 18 21 24 23 25

Public order 11 9 13 19 22 23 23 23*Too few cases to obtain a reliable percentage.



Formal case handling was more likely in 1998 thanin 1989, and more cases were adjudicated

In a formally processedcase, petitioners ask thecourt to order sanctions

Formal case handling involves the filingof a petition requesting that the courthold an adjudicatory or waiver hearing.Informal case handling is consideredwhen the decisionmaker (police, proba-tion, intake, prosecutor, or other screen-ing officer) believes that accountabilityand rehabilitation can be achieved with-out formal court intervention. Comparedwith informally handled cases, formallyprocessed delinquency cases tend toinvolve more serious offenses, older juve-niles, and juveniles with longer courthistories.

If the court decides to handle the matterinformally, the offender agrees to com-ply with one or more sanctions such ascommunity service, victim restitution, orvoluntary probation supervision. Informalcases are generally held open pendingthe successful completion of the disposi-tion. If the court’s conditions are met, thecharges are dismissed. If, however, theoffender does not fulfill the conditions,the case is likely to be petitioned forformal processing.

The use of formal handling has increased

In 1989, juvenile courts formally processed50% of delinquency cases. By 1998, thatproportion had increased to 57%. Com-pared with the likelihood of formal proc-essing in 1989, cases in three of the fourgeneral offense categories were more like-ly to be handled formally in 1998. Only thepercentage of drug offense cases remainedvirtually the same.

In 1998, juvenile courts petitioned nearly 6 of 10 delinquency casesand adjudicated youth delinquent in more than 6 of 10 of thosepetitioned cases

Percentage ofPetitioned cases, 1998 petitioned cases

Most serious offense Number Percent adjudicated

Delinquency 1,000,300 57% 63%

Person offenses 236,500 59 61Criminal homicide 1,700 86 40Forcible rape 4,600 77 66Robbery 26,000 88 62Aggravated assault 47,200 73 64Simple assault 131,800 50 60Other violent sex offenses 7,900 75 61Other person offenses 17,400 62 55

Property offenses 422,600 53 65Burglary 96,600 77 71Larceny-theft 153,400 41 64Motor vehicle theft 33,500 76 71Arson 5,100 61 65Vandalism 60,100 51 61Trespassing 27,600 43 58Stolen property offenses 22,900 67 59Other property offenses 23,500 73 58

Drug law violations 121,100 63 63

Public order offenses 220,100 61 63Weapons offenses 26,000 64 65Obstruction of justice 111,500 73 70Disorderly conduct 37,100 40 54Liquor law violations 8,700 45 55Nonviolent sex offenses 6,400 59 66Other public order offenses 30,300 63 50

Violent Crime Index* 79,500 77 63

Property Crime Index** 288,500 53 67

■ Generally, the more serious the case, the more likely it was to be formally handled.



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


June 2003 21

In 1998, drug offense cases were themost likely to be petitioned for formalhandling, and property offense caseswere the least likely.

Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned:

Offense 1989 1998Delinquency 50% 57%


The percentage of casespetitioned increased forall demographic groups

The likelihood of formal case processingincreased between 1989 and 1998 forboth genders and for all ages and races.

Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned:

Characteristic 1989 1998Gender

Male 53% 60%Female 40 48

RaceWhite 46 54Black 61 65Other races 50 52

Age15 or younger 48 5416 or older 54 61

Note: All racial groups include Hispanics.

Males were more likely to have their casespetitioned than were females. This wastrue for each of the general offenses.Black youth had a higher proportion ofcases petitioned than white youth oryouth of other races. This also was foundin each of the general offenses. Juvenilesage 16 or older were more likely to havetheir cases petitioned than were youngerjuveniles (overall and across offenses).

Adjudication was morelikely for some types ofcases than for others

Youth were adjudicated delinquent in asmaller proportion of person offense

cases than in cases involving other typesof offenses. This lower rate of adjudica-tion in person offense cases may reflect,in part, reluctance to divert these casesfrom the formal juvenile justice systemuntil a judge has had a chance to reviewthem. In addition, person offense casesare more likely than other cases to bejudicially waived to criminal court.

In the majority of formally processedcases involving males in 1998, the youthwas adjudicated delinquent. The likeli-hood of adjudication was somewhatlower for females. This pattern held evenwhen controlling for offense category.

Percentage of petitioned cases in which thejuvenile was adjudicated delinquent, 1998:



The proportion of cases adjudicatedin 1998 also varied by the race of theyouth. Black youth were less likely to be

adjudicated than were white youth oryouth of other races.


OtherOffense White Black racesDelinquency 65% 60% 66%



Cases involving younger youth weremore likely to result in adjudication thanwere cases involving older youth.


Age 15 or Age 16 orOffense younger olderDelinquency 65% 62%


1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 19980

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000Number of cases adjudicated

Property

Person

Public order

Drugs

1989

Delinquency adjudications grew 65% between 1989 and 1998

■ The number of adjudicated delinquency cases increased 146% for drug cases,111% for person cases, 105% for public order cases, and 26% for property cases.



Most adjudicated delinquency cases in 1998 resultedin residential placement or formal probation

Probation was morelikely than residentialplacement

In 26% of adjudicated delinquency cases,the court ordered the youth to residentialplacement such as a training school,treatment center, boot camp, drug treat-ment or private placement facility, orgroup home. In 58% of adjudicated delin-quency cases, probation was the mostsevere sanction ordered.

Once adjudicated, females were less likelyto be ordered to residential placementthan were males, and white youth wereless likely than were black youth or youthof other races. Demographic patterns inthe use of residential placement and pro-bation, however, do not control for crimi-nal histories and other risk factors relatedto dispositional decisions and increasedseverity of sanctions.

Percentage of adjudicated delinquencycases, 1998:

Residential FormalCharacteristic placement probationAll cases 26% 58%Gender

Male 27 57Female 20 63

RaceWhite 24 58Black 30 57Other races 25 57

Age12 and younger 16 6713 23 6314 26 6015 28 5816 28 5517 and older 25 53


In 1998, residential placement or formal probation was ordered in84% of delinquency cases; in 1989, the proportion was 86%

Percentage of adjudicated delinquency cases

Residential placement Formal probationMost serious offense 1989 1998 1989 1998

Delinquency 31% 26% 55% 58%

Person offenses 33 27 54 58Criminal homicide 64 51 33 39Forcible rape 46 40 47 45Robbery 45 43 43 47Aggravated assault 33 30 54 56Simple assault 28 23 58 61Other violent sex offenses 29 33 61 55Other person offenses 26 21 59 61

Property offenses 27 24 57 59Burglary 34 29 57 59Larceny-theft 22 22 59 61Motor vehicle theft 36 39 51 52Arson 27 25 58 57Vandalism 18 17 61 62Trespassing 23 20 55 60Stolen property offenses 31 30 56 52Other property offenses 25 16 58 64

Drug law violations 36 23 54 59

Public order offenses 38 28 50 54Weapons offenses 27 26 63 62Obstruction of justice 49 36 45 51Disorderly conduct 20 15 58 64Liquor law violations 18 9 57 52Nonviolent sex offenses 37 34 56 58Other public order offenses 23 13 49 46

Violent Crime Index* 39 35 49 52

Property Crime Index** 29 26 57 59

■ Cases involving youth adjudicated for serious person offenses, such as homicide, rape,or robbery, were most likely to result in residential placement.

■ The relatively high residential placement rate for public order cases stems from that cat-egory’s inclusion of certain obstruction of justice offenses that have a high likelihood ofplacement (e.g., escapes from confinement and violations of probation or parole).




June 2003 23

Residential placementand probation caseloadsincreased between1989 and 1998

The total number of delinquency cases in which youth were placed out of thehome (including informal/voluntary andformal placements) rose 41% between1989 and 1998, from 125,700 to176,700. The number of adjudicatedcases ordered to residential placementincreased 37% in that period, from119,700 to 163,800.

The total number of delinquency casesreceiving probation (either formal orinformal) as the most severe initial dispo-sition increased 56% between 1989 and1998, from 425,900 to 665,500. The num-ber of cases adjudicated and ordered toformal probation increased 73% in thattime, from 211,400 to 366,100. Thegrowth in probation caseloads was greaterthan the growth in delinquency caseloadsat referral (44%) and adjudication (65%).

In addition, an increasing number of youthreceived other sanctions (e.g., commu-nity service, restitution) as their mostsevere disposition. Cases receiving othersanctions represented 17% of cases dis-posed in 1998. The majority (77%) ofsuch cases were handled informally.Overall, the number of cases receivingother sanctions as their most severe dis-position increased 61% from 1989 to1998. The number of adjudicated casesreceiving other sanctions as their mostsevere disposition rose 85% in this time,from 38,400 to 71,000.

Probation conditions are designed to controland rehabilitate

Probation is the oldest and most widelyused community-based correctionsprogram. Probation is used both for

first-time, low-risk offenders and as analternative to institutional confinement formore serious offenders. During a periodof probation supervision, a juvenile offend-er remains in the community and can con-tinue normal activities such as schooland work. However, the juvenile mustcomply with certain conditions.

This compliance may be voluntary: theyouth agrees to conditions in lieu of for-mal adjudication. Or compliance may bemandatory following adjudication: theyouth is formally ordered to a term ofprobation and must comply with the con-ditions established by the court. Morethan half (55%) of juvenile probation

dispositions in 1998 were formal (i.e.,enacted under court order followingadjudication).

In addition to being required to meetregularly with a probation officer, a juve-nile may be ordered to adhere to a cur-few, complete a specified period of com-munity service, or pay restitution. Moreserious offenders may be placed onintensive supervision requiring more fre-quent contact with their probation officerand stricter conditions. Typically, proba-tion can be revoked if the juvenile violatesthe probation conditions. If probation isrevoked, the court may reconsider its dis-position and impose stricter sanctions.

The profiles of adjudicated cases ordered to residential placementand those ordered to probation changed between 1989 and 1998

Percentage of residential Percentage of formalplacement cases probation cases

Characteristic 1989 1998 1989 1998

Most serious offense 100% 100% 100% 100%Person 19 24 17 23Property 50 41 59 45Drugs 9 11 8 12Public order 22 24 16 21

Gender 100% 100% 100% 100%Male 88 85 85 79Female 12 15 15 21

Race 100% 100% 100% 100%White 60 61 63 66Black 36 36 33 31Other races 4 3 4 3

Age 100% 100% 100% 100%12 and younger 5 4 8 813 9 9 10 1014 17 17 17 1715 25 25 23 2316 26 27 24 2417 and older 18 19 18 18

■ Compared with 1989, the profiles of residential placement and probation cases in 1998contained greater proportions of person offenses and females.

■ Compared with the profile of cases that resulted in residential placement in 1998, casesthat resulted in formal probation involved a greater proportion of property offenses(45% versus 41%), females (21% versus 15%), whites (66% versus 61%), and youthage 13 or younger (18% versus 13%).

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding. Juveniles of Hispanic ethnicity can be ofany race, but most are included in the white racial category.



The processing of delinquency cases varied moreby offense than by gender

■ Although juvenile courts handled morethan 4 in 10 cases without the filing of apetition, more than half of these casesreceived some form of court sanction.These sanctions included informal proba-tion or other dispositions such as restitu-tion, community service, or referral toanother agency for services.

■ In many formally handled delinquencycases that did not result in adjudication,the youth agreed to informal sanctions,including out-of-home placement, informalprobation, or other dispositions such asrestitution.

Of every 1,000 delinquency cases handled in 1998, 208 resulted in court-ordered probation, 93 resulted incourt-ordered residential placement, and 5 were waived to criminal court

Compared with simple assault cases, aggravated assault cases were more likely to receive formal sanctionsor to be waived to criminal court

■ Juvenile courts ordered formal sanctionsor waived more than 4 in 10 aggravatedassault cases and fewer than 3 in 10 sim-ple assault cases.

■ Juvenile courts waived 11 of 1,000 aggra-vated assault cases to criminal court. Thefigure for simple assault cases was 2 of1,000.

■ Of a typical 1,000 aggravated assaultcases, 139 were ordered to residentialplacement, and 259 were ordered toformal probation following adjudication.

■ Of a typical 1,000 simple assault cases,69 were ordered to residential placement,and 185 were ordered to formal probationfollowing adjudication.

■ Among aggravated assault cases, 138 of1,000 were dismissed at intake, and 178were dismissed following an adjudicatoryhearing. For simple assault cases, 239 of1,000 were dismissed at intake, and 143were dismissed following an adjudicatoryhearing.

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.


139 Placed11 Waived

A typical 1,000 259 Probationaggravated assault cases 464 Adjudicated

39 Other sanction

725 Petitioned 27 Released

137 Informal 72 Informal 275 Not petitioned 250 Not adjudicated

138 Dismissed 178 Dismissed

69 Placed2 Waived

A typical 1,000 185 Probationsimple assault cases 302 Adjudicated

30 Other sanction




93 Placed5 Waived

A typical 1,000 208 Probationdelinquency cases 361 Adjudicated

40 Other sanction

19 Released569 Petitioned

5 Placed 2 Placed

30 Probation140 Probation 204 Not adjudicated

431 Not petitioned 32 Other sanction101 Other sanction

137 Dismissed187 Dismissed

June 2003 25

Juvenile courts’ handling of assault cases varied more by offense severity (aggravated assault versus simpleassault) than by gender


Source: Author’s analysis of National Juvenile Court Data Archive: 1998 Juvenile Court Case Records [machine-readable data file].

■ The proportion of aggravated assault casesthat were petitioned was similar for males(730 of 1,000) and females (711 of 1,000).

■ Of a typical 1,000 aggravated assault casesinvolving males, 151 were ordered to resi-dential placement and 255 were ordered toformal probation following adjudication.

■ Among females, 105 of 1,000 aggravatedassault cases resulted in court-orderedresidential placement and 271 in formalprobation.

■ Juvenile court processing of simple assaultcases involving males and those involvingfemales was substantially different from itshandling of aggravated assault cases.

■ Of a typical 1,000 simple assault casesinvolving males, 80 were ordered to resi-dential placement and 190 were ordered toformal probation following adjudication.

■ Among females, 47 of 1,000 simpleassault cases resulted in court-orderedresidential placement and 175 in formalprobation.

■ Among males, juvenile courts waived tocriminal court 13 of 1,000 aggravatedassault cases and 2 of 1,000 simpleassault cases.

■ In comparison, among females, juvenilecourts waived to criminal court 4 of 1,000aggravated assault cases and 1 of 1,000simple assault cases.

151 Placed13 Waived

A typical 1,000 male 255 Probationaggravated assault cases 473 Adjudicated

40 Other sanction




105 Placed4 Waived

A typical 1,000 female 271 Probationaggravated assault cases 439 Adjudicated

36 Other sanction




80 Placed2 Waived

A typical 1,000 male 190 Probationsimple assault cases 321 Adjudicated

32 Other sanction




47 Placed1 Waived

A typical 1,000 female 175 Probationsimple assault cases 262 Adjudicated

26 Other sanction





The juvenile court’s use of judicial waiver haschanged over the past decade

The profile of waivedcases has changed

In 1989, property cases were nearly halfof all delinquency cases judicially waivedfrom juvenile court to criminal court. In1994, waived cases had a greater propor-tion of person offense cases than proper-ty cases (44% versus 37%). By 1998,property cases once again accounted forthe largest proportion of waived cases(40% versus 36% for person cases). Incomparison, drug and public order casesmade up smaller proportions of waivedcases in 1998 (16% and 8%, respectively).

Offense profile of judicially waived cases:

Offense 1989 1994 1998Waived cases 100% 100% 100%


Number of cases 8,000 12,100 8,100


The demographic characteristics of judi-cially waived cases have also changedsomewhat over the past decade.

Percentage of formally handled cases judi-cially waived to criminal court:

Characteristic 1989 1998Gender 100% 100%


Race 100% 100%White 49 55Black 49 42Other races 2 3

Age 100% 100%15 or younger 11 1316 or older 89 87


1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 19980

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

Delinquency

Juvenile courts waived 33% fewer delinquency cases to criminalcourt in 1998 than in 1994

■ The number of delinquency cases waived to criminal court grew 51% between 1989and 1994, from 8,000 to about 12,000. By 1998, waived cases were down 33%, nearlyto the 1989 level.

■ From 1993 through 1997, person offenses outnumbered property offenses amongwaived cases. In 1998, property offenses outnumbered person offenses among waivedcases, as they had prior to 1993.

■ The number of waived person offense cases increased 133% from 1989 to 1994 andthen decreased 45% by 1998, for an overall increase of 28% from 1989 to 1998.

■ The number of waived drug cases was relatively flat, other than a 1-year jump in 1991when the number of drug cases waived was nearly 40% greater than the average for allother years between 1989 and 1998.

■ The overall proportion of petitioned delinquency cases waived was 1.3% in 1989,peaked at 1.5% in 1991, and then dropped to 0.8% by 1998.

■ From 1989 through 1992, drug cases were the most likely type of case to be waived.From 1993 through 1998, person offense cases were the most likely type of case to bewaived.


1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000


Person

Property

Drugs

Public order

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Percent of petitioned cases judiciallywaived to criminal court

Drugs

Person

Property

Public order

June 2003 27

Although the proportions of judiciallywaived cases involving females andyounger juveniles increased slightlybetween 1989 and 1998, the vast major-ity of waived cases involved males age 16 or older. However, the proportion ofolder males among judicially waivedcases decreased somewhat, from 85%in 1989 to 81% in 1998.

The likelihood of waivervaried across casecharacteristics

In 1998, a greater proportion of casesinvolving males was waived than casesinvolving females. This was true in eachof the four general offense categories. For example, males charged with personoffenses were four times as likely asfemales charged with person offenses tohave their cases waived to criminal court.However, this comparison does not con-trol for male-female differences in theseriousness of offenses within the personoffense category.

Percentage of formally handled cases judi-cially waived to criminal court, 1998:

Offense Male FemaleDelinquency 0.9% 0.3%

Person 1.5 0.4Property 0.9 0.3Drugs 1.2 0.5Public order 0.4 0.1

For delinquency cases overall, a largerproportion of cases involving black youthwas waived than cases involving whiteyouth or youth of other races. Morespecifically, black youth were more likelyto be waived than other youth for personand drug offenses. For white youth andyouth of other races, waiver was mostlikely in person offense cases; for blackyouth, it was most likely in drug offensecases.


OtherOffense White Black racesDelinquency 0.7% 1.0% 0.8%

Person 1.1 1.4 2.2Property 0.8 0.8 0.4Drugs 0.6 2.0 0.4Public order 0.2 0.4 0.4


In general, cases involving younger juve-niles were less likely to be waived thanwere cases involving older juveniles. Thiswas true for each of the four generaloffense categories and across racial groups.


Age 15 Age 16Offense/race or younger or olderDelinquency 0.2% 1.6%

White 0.1 1.3Black 0.3 2.1Other races 0.1 1.6

Person 0.3 2.6White 0.2 2.3Black 0.5 3.0Other races 0.6 4.2

Property 0.1 1.6White 0.1 1.6Black 0.2 1.8Other races 0.0 1.1

Drugs 0.3 1.6White 0.1 0.9Black 0.5 2.9Other races 0.0 0.8

Public order 0.1 0.5White 0.1 0.4Black 0.1 0.8Other races 0.0 0.9


1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000


Property

Person

Public order Drugs

White

Racial differences in waiver stem primarily from differences in theuse of waiver for person and drug offense cases

■ The likelihood of waiver was greater for black than for white juveniles in each of thefour general offense categories. These data, however, do not control for racial differ-ences in offense seriousness within those categories or in juveniles’ offense histories.



1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000


Person

Property

Drugs

Public order

Black

■ Both whites and blacks experienced sharp increases in person cases waived between1989 and 1994; and substantially fewer person cases waived in 1998 than in 1994.

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%


Person

Drugs

Property

Public order

White

1990 1992 1994 1996 19980%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%


Drugs

PersonProperty

Public order

Black


Convicted transfers did not always receive harsher sanctions than adults received

Convicted juveniletransfers differ fromadult felons

The National Judicial Reporting Programcompiles information on sentences thatfelons receive in state courts nationwideand on the felons’ characteristics. Dataare collected on a sample basis everyother year. The term “felony,” althoughnot uniformly defined or used across thecountry, is often defined as crimes forwhich a convicted offender can be sen-tenced to more than 1 year in prison.

Juvenile-age felony defendants convictedin criminal court were identified in 1996data from a nationally representativesample of 344 counties. These juveniletransfers included those whose caseswere statutorily excluded from juvenilecourt jurisdiction, filed in criminal courtat the discretion of prosecutors, and judi-cially waived from juvenile court to crimi-nal court. The sample of transfers waslarge, although not statistically represen-tative of all juvenile transfers.

Compared with adult felons, juvenile trans-fers were more likely to be male than femaleand more likely to be black than white.

Percentage of convicted felons:

TransferredCharacteristic juvenile AdultGender 100% 100%


Race 100% 100%White 43 53Black 55 45Other races 2 2


Juvenile transfers weremore likely than adultsto be convicted of aperson offense

In most states, provisions for transfer-ring juveniles to criminal court target themost serious offenses and the most seri-ous juvenile offenders. The result is that,compared with adult felons, transferredjuveniles had a substantially greater pro-portion of person offense convictions(especially robbery and aggravatedassault) and a smaller proportion ofdrug convictions.

Percentage of convicted felons:

Most serious Transferredconviction offense juvenile AdultAll felonies 100% 100%Person 53% 17%

Murder 7 1Sexual assault 4 3Robbery 23 4Aggravated assault 17 7Other person 1 1

Property 27% 30%Burglary 19 9Larceny 8 12Fraud 1 8

Drugs 11% 37%Possession 3 15Trafficking 8 22

Weapons 3% 3%Other offenses 6% 14%

Note: Detail may not add to totals because ofrounding.

Some transfers receivedharsher sanctions thanadults; others did not

Among defendants convicted of burglary,larceny, or weapons offenses, juveniletransfers were more likely to be sentenced

to prison than were adult felons convictedof similar offenses.

Percentage of convicted felons sentenced toprison:

Most serious Transferredconviction offense juvenile AdultAll felonies 60% 37%Person 75% 78%

Murder 96 95Sexual assault 73 75Robbery 79 78Aggravated assault 67 75

Property 46% 18%Burglary 50 20Larceny 37 17

Drugs 31% 34%Possession 21 28Trafficking 34 37

Weapons 55% 39%

Among defendants convicted of murderor weapons offenses, transfers receivedlonger prison terms than adults. However,among those convicted of sexual assault,burglary, or drug offenses, transfersreceived shorter prison terms than adults.

Mean maximum sentence length (in months)for convicted felons sentenced to prison:

Most serious Transferredconviction offense juvenile AdultAll felonies 91 59Person 118 101

Murder 277 250Sexual assault 105 117Robbery 101 95Aggravated assault 80 66

Property 39 46Burglary 41 57Larceny 33 38

Drugs 30 47Possession 21 38Trafficking 32 52

Weapons 48 42

June 2003 29

Those who begin offending as young children aremore likely to become violent offenders

Early-onset offenderswill place a burden onjustice resources

Snyder (2001) studied the juvenile courtrecords of more than 150,000 urban juv-eniles who aged out of the juvenile justicesystem (i.e., turned age 18) between1980 and 1995. The study found that theearlier a youth enters the juvenile justicesystem, the more likely he or she is toacquire an extensive juvenile court rec-ord. The younger the juvenile is at firstreferral to court, the more likely he or sheis to have at least four separate referralsto juvenile court intake, at least one refer-ral for a serious offense, and at least onereferral for a violent offense by the timehe or she reaches age 18. As a result,early-onset youth will consume a dispro-portionate amount of the court’s resources.

Most early-onset offenders, however, donot become serious, violent, or chronicoffenders. For example, 84% of youthfirst referred to court intake at age 9 werenever referred to juvenile court for a vio-lent offense. They were far more likely,however, to be referred to juvenile courtfor a violent crime eventually.

Juvenile court career patterns differ de-pending on when offenders began theircareers, before or after age 13.

Number of youth out of a typical 1,000:

First referralBefore Age 13

Career type age 13 or olderSingle referral 411 629Serious 473 312Chronic 317 116Violent 130 72Chronic and violent 104 31

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 170%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Age at first referral

16%

14%13%

12%11%

10%

7%6%

4%

Percent of careers with a violent referral

The likelihood of becoming a violent offender declines with the ageat first referral to juvenile court

■ Of those referred to juvenile court for the first time at age 9, 16% had at least one referral for a violent offense before they turned 18.

Child Offenders(first referral before age 13)

Chronic

Serious

Violent

Child offenders had a greater proportion of serious, violent, and chronic careers than older-onset youth

■ Those outside the serious, violent, and chronic inner circles were referred to courtbetween 1 and 3 times but never for a serious offense. Overlaps represent careers withmultiple attributes. The circles and their overlaps are drawn in proportion to the numberof careers with those attributes.

Violent offenses: murder, kidnapping, violent sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.Serious offenses: violent offenses plus burglary, serious larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson,weapons offenses, and drug trafficking.Chronic offenders: 4 or more referrals in court career.

Note: If these circles were drawn to scale, the child offender circle would be one sixth of thecircle for older onset offenders—roughly the size of the small circle in the center.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Snyder’s Epidemiology of official offending, in Child Delin-quents: Development, Intervention, and Service Needs.

Older-Onset Offenders(first referral at age 13 or older)

ChronicSerious

Violent


The formal status offense caseload differs substantially from the delinquency caseload

What are status offenses?

Status offenses are those behaviors thatare law violations only if committed by aperson of juvenile status. Such behaviorsinclude running away from home, ungovern-ability (being beyond the control of par-ents or guardians), truancy, curfew viola-tions, and underage drinking (which alsoapplies to young adults through age 20).

Police refer few truancy,ungovernability, orrunaway cases to court

Law enforcement agencies referred 4 in10 runaway cases formally handled injuvenile court between 1989 and 1998*and just 1 in 10 truancy and ungovern-ability cases. Law enforcement agencieswere more likely to be the referral sourcefor status liquor law violation cases thanfor other status offense cases.

Percentage of formal status offense casesreferred by law enforcement agencies:

Offense 1989–98Runaway 40%Truancy 10Ungovernability 11Liquor 92

Females account formost runaway cases Another major difference between delin-quency and status offense cases is thelarge proportion of cases that involvefemales.

Percentage of formal status offense casesinvolving females:

Offense 1989–98Runaway 61%Truancy 46Ungovernability 45Liquor 29

The proportion of casesadjudicated varied bystatus offense category

Truancy and ungovernability cases weremore likely to be adjudicated than othertypes of status offense cases.

Percentage of formal status offense casesadjudicated, 1989–98:

Offense Total Male FemaleRunaway 45% 46% 45%Truancy 60 60 60Ungovernability 61 61 60Liquor 59 60 55

In most adjudicatedstatus offense cases, thecourt ordered probation

From 1989 through 1998, among adjudi-cated runaway, truancy, ungovernability,and liquor law violation cases, formalprobation was the most likely disposition.A few cases were ordered to out-of-homeplacement, and some (primarily liquorlaw violation cases) resulted in othersanctions such as fines, communityservice, restitution, or referrals to otheragencies for services. The remaining fewwere released with no additional sanction.

Percentage of adjudicated status offensecases receiving disposition, 1989–98:

Residential FormalOffense placement probationRunaway 26% 56%Truancy 11 78Ungovernability 26 64Liquor 7 57

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 170%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Age at referral

Percent of cases within offense category, 1989–98

Liquor

Truancy

Runaway

Ungovernability

During the 10-year period 1989–98, the volume of petitioned truancy, runaway, and ungovernability cases peaked at age 15

■ For liquor law violation cases, the proportion of cases increased substantially throughoutthe juvenile years.


*Available data cannot support national estimatesof the trends and volume of petitioned statusoffense cases. Data are, therefore, presented assample-based profiles of cases disposed duringthe 10-year period 1989–98.

June 2003 31

During the 10-year period from 1989 through 1998, juvenile courts were less likely to order formal probationin runaway cases than in other types of status offense cases

■ Of a typical 1,000 petitioned runawaycases, 251 were ordered to formalprobation. In comparison, the figurewas 471 for truancy cases, 388 forungovernability cases, and 333 forliquor law violation cases.

■ Among petitioned runaway cases, theyouth was not adjudicated in 548 of a typical 1,000 cases. Of these 548cases, 172 received informal sanctionsor were referred to a social servicesagency for handling, and 376 weredismissed.

■ Of a typical 1,000 petitioned truancycases, 603 were adjudicated, and 585received some sort of formal sanction.

■ Use of informal sanctions was relativelyuncommon in formally processed tru-ancy cases (89 of 1,000).

■ Juvenile courts were more likely toorder youth to residential placement inpetitioned ungovernability cases (157of 1,000) than in other types of statusoffenses, but formal probation was themost likely court-ordered dispositionfor ungovernability cases (388 of1,000).

■ Among petitioned liquor law violationcases, the most likely outcome wasformal probation (333 of 1,000), al-though the court often ordered formalsanctions other than residential place-ment or probation (195 of 1,000).



117 Placed

251 ProbationRunaway 452 Adjudicated

44 Other sanctionA typical 1,000 petitionedrunaway cases 40 Released

172 Informal 548 Not adjudicated

376 Dismissed

65 Placed

471 ProbationTruancy 603 Adjudicated

49 Other sanctionA typical 1,000 petitionedtruancy cases 19 Released


308 Dismissed

157 Placed

388 ProbationUngovernability 607 Adjudicated

41 Other sanctionA typical 1,000 petitionedungovernability cases 20 Released


300 Dismissed

42 Placed

333 ProbationLiquor law violation 588 Adjudicated

195 Other sanctionA typical 1,000 petitionedliquor law violation cases 18 Released


202 Dismissed

National Report Series Bulletin NCJ 195420

This Bulletin was prepared under cooperative agree-ment number 95–JN–FX–K008 from the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this docu-ment are those of the author and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position or policies of OJJDP orthe U.S. Department of Justice.

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by Melissa

Sickmund, Senior Research Associate at

the National Center for Juvenile Justice,

with funds provided by OJJDP to support

the Juvenile Justice Statistics and Systems

Development Program and the National

Juvenile Justice Data Analysis Program.

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

SourcesGriffin, P. 2000. State Juvenile Justice Profiles.Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/.

Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S. Ct. 1045(1966).

Levin, D., Langan, P., and Brown, J. 2000. StateCourt Sentencing of Convicted Felons. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 1975–1986.Juvenile Court Statistics (1973 through 1984).Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2000. NationalJuvenile Court Data Archive: Juvenile Court CaseRecords 1975–1997 [machine-readable data file].Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2001. NationalJuvenile Court Data Archive: Juvenile Court CaseRecords 1989–1998 [machine-readable data file].Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A.L., Finnegan, T.A., Tierney,N., and Snyder, H.N. 2003. Juvenile Court Statistics

1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H. 2001. Epidemiology of official offending.In Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention, and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber and D.Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Snyder, H., Finnegan, T., Stahl, A., and Poole, R.2000. Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics:1989–1998 [data presentation and analysis package].Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention. ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ezajcs98.

Snyder, H., Sickmund, M., and Poe-Yamagata, E.2000. Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the1990’s: Lessons Learned From Four Studies.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.1962–1974. Juvenile Court Statistics (1960 through1972). Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

*ncj~195420*

Juveniles in Court - NCJRS · PDF fileJuveniles in Court Melissa Sickmund A Message From OJJDP...

Documents

Transcript of Juveniles in Court - NCJRS · PDF fileJuveniles in Court Melissa Sickmund A Message From OJJDP...