The National Juvenile Court
Data Archive online
The annual Juvenile Court Statistics
report series is one of many products
supported by the National Juvenile
Court Data Archive. To learn more,
visit the Archive Web site.

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/njcda/
◆ The Archive Web site was developed to inform researchers about data sets
housed in the National Juvenile Court Data Archive and the procedures for access
and use of these data. Visitors can view variable lists and download user guides
to the data sets. The site also includes links to publications based on analyses of
Archive data.

◆ The Juvenile Court Statistics Databook (JCSDB) provides convenient access to
national estimates of the more than 30 million delinquency cases processed by
the Nation’s juvenile courts since 1985. With this application, users can view preformatted tables describing the demographic characteristics of youth involved in
the juvenile justice system and how juvenile courts process these cases.

◆ Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics is an interactive Web-based application
that allows users to analyze the actual databases that are used to produce the
Juvenile Court Statistics report. Users can explore in detail trends of and
relationships among a youth’s demographics and referral offenses, and the
court’s detention, adjudication, and disposition decisions. Results of analyses
can be saved and imported into spreadsheet and word processing software. This
application is available from the “Products & Publications” section on the Archive
Web site.

◆ Easy Access to State and County Juvenile Court Case Counts gives users quick
access to multiple years of State and county juvenile court case counts for
delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases. This application is available
from the “Products & Publications” section on the Archive Web site.

Juvenile Court
Statistics 2005

Report

Charles Puzzanchera
Melissa Sickmund

July 2008

National Center for Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

i

This Report was prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research division of the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and was supported by grant numbers 2005–JL–FX–0250 and
2007–JL–FX–0022 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of
the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Copyright 2008, National Center for Juvenile Justice, 3700 South Water Street, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA,
15203–2363. ISSN 0091–3278.
Suggested citation: Puzzanchera, Charles, and Melissa Sickmund. 2008. Juvenile Court Statistics 2005.
Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Foreword

The role played by the juvenile court in addressing youth crime, ensuring justice for its victims, and protecting the safety of the community is critical. To
make informed decisions, juvenile courts must take into account the evolving
trends in the nature of the offenders and offenses that come before them.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2005 draws on data from the National Juvenile Court
Data Archive to profile more than 1.6 million delinquency cases handled in
2005 by U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction. The report also tracks trends in
delinquency cases between 1985 and 2005 and in status offense cases
processed between 1995 and 2005.
The profiles that are provided in these pages will inform the efforts by policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and other concerned citizens to strengthen
our juvenile justice system in the face of today’s challenges.
J. Robert Flores
Administrator
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

iii

Acknowledgments

This Report is a product of the National Juvenile Court Data Archive
(Archive), which is funded by grants
to the National Center for Juvenile
Justice (NCJJ) from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice. Brecht Donoghue is the OJJDP
Program Manager for the project.
In addition to the authors, Charles
Puzzanchera, Research Associate,
and Melissa Sickmund, Chief of Systems Research and Project Director,
the following Archive staff are
acknowledged for their contributions
to the collection and processing of
the data presented in this Report.
Sarah Livsey, Research Associate
Anthony Sladky, Senior Computer
Programmer
Jason Smith, Computer Programmer

Terrence A. Finnegan (former Senior
Computer Programmer)
Juvenile Court Statistics would not be
possible were it not for the State and
local agencies that take the time each
year to honor our requests for data
and documentation. The following
agencies contributed case-level data
or court-level aggregate statistics for
this Report:
Alabama—State of Alabama, Administrative Office of the Courts.
Alaska—Alaska Division of Juvenile
Justice and the Alaska Court System.
Arizona—Supreme Court, State of
Arizona, Administrative Office of the
Courts; and the Maricopa County
Juvenile Court Center.
Arkansas—Administrative Office of
the Courts, State of Arkansas.

Nancy Tierney, Executive Assistant
The following individuals are no
longer with NCJJ, but we acknowledge their contributions, as longtime Archive staff members, to the
collection and processing of data
used in Juvenile Court Statistics 2005.
Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D. (former
Project Director)
Anne L. Stahl (former Project
Manager)

California—Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the
Courts; California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center; and the following county probation departments: Alameda, Marin,
Orange, San Francisco, Santa Barbara,
Santa Clara, Stanislaus, and Ventura.
Colorado—Colorado Judicial
Department.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

v

Acknowledgments

Connecticut—Judicial Branch Administration, Court Support Services
Division.

Massachusetts—Administrative
Office of the Courts.

Delaware—Family Court of the State
of Delaware.

Michigan— State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Supreme Court;
and Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan.

District of Columbia—Superior Court
of the District of Columbia.

Minnesota—Minnesota Supreme
Court Information System.

Florida—State of Florida Department
of Juvenile Justice.

Mississippi—Mississippi Department
of Human Services.

Georgia—Judicial Council of Georgia
Administrative Office of the Courts;
Georgia Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges; and Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice.

Missouri—Department of Social
Services, Division of Youth
Services.

Hawaii— Family Court of the First
Circuit, The Judiciary, State of
Hawaii.
Idaho—Idaho Supreme Court.
Illinois—Administrative Office of the
Illinois Courts, Probation Services
Division; and Juvenile Court of Cook
County.
Indiana—Supreme Court of Indiana,
Division of State Court Administration;
and Marion County Superior Court.
Iowa—State Court Administrator; and
Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile
Justice Planning.
Kansas— Supreme Court of Kansas,
Office of Judicial Administration.
Kentucky—Kentucky Administrative
Office of the Courts.

Montana—Montana Board of Crime
Control.
Nebraska—Nebraska Crime
Commission.
Nevada—Division of Child and Family
Services, Juvenile Justice Programs
Office.
New Hampshire—New Hampshire
Supreme Court, Administrative
Office of the Courts.
New Jersey—Administrative
Office of the Courts.
New Mexico—Children, Youth and
Families Department.
New York—Office of Court Administration; and State of New York, Division of Probation and Correctional
Alternatives.

Louisiana—Judicial Council of the
Supreme Court of Louisiana; and
Youth Services, Office of Youth
Development.

North Carolina—Administrative Office of the Courts; North Carolina
Court System’s Office of Research
and Planning; and the North Carolina
Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.

Maine—Administrative Office of the
Courts.

North Dakota—Supreme Court, Office
of State Court Administrator.

Maryland—Department of Juvenile
Justice.

Ohio—Supreme Court of Ohio; Ohio
Department of Youth Services;

vi

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Division; and Lucas County Juvenile
Court Division.
Oklahoma—Oklahoma Office of
Juvenile Affairs.
Oregon—Judicial Department;
and Office of the State Court
Administrator.
Pennsylvania—Juvenile Court
Judges’ Commission.
Rhode Island—Administrative
Office of State Courts; and Rhode
Island Family Court.
South Carolina—Department of
Juvenile Justice.
South Dakota—Unified Judicial
System.
Tennessee—Tennessee Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Texas—Texas Juvenile Probation
Commission.
Utah—Utah Administrative Office of
the Courts.
Vermont—Vermont Judiciary Data
Warehouse.
Virginia—Department of Juvenile
Justice; and Virginia Supreme Court.
Washington—Office of the Administrator for the Courts; and Superior
Court.
West Virginia—Criminal Justice
Statistical Analysis Center.
Wisconsin—Supreme Court of
Wisconsin.
Wyoming—Supreme Court of
Wyoming Court Services.

Table of Contents

Foreword .................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... v
Preface ........................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases ............................................ 5
Counts and Trends ................................................................................................ 6
Case Rates .............................................................................................................. 8
Age at Referral ...................................................................................................... 9
Gender .................................................................................................................. 12
Race ...................................................................................................................... 18
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing ........................ 29
Referral .................................................................................................................. 31
Detention .............................................................................................................. 32
Intake Decision .................................................................................................... 36
Waiver .................................................................................................................... 40
Adjudication ........................................................................................................ 45
Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement .............................................................. 50
Dispositions: Probation ...................................................................................... 54
Case Processing
Overview ........................................................................................................ 58
By Offense Category ...................................................................................... 60
By Age ............................................................................................................ 62
By Gender ...................................................................................................... 63
By Race ............................................................................................................ 64
By FBI Offense Category .............................................................................. 66
By Selected Individual Offense .................................................................... 67
Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases .................... 71
Counts and Trends .............................................................................................. 72
Case Rates ............................................................................................................ 73
Age at Referral ...................................................................................................... 74
Gender .................................................................................................................. 76
Race .................................................................................................................... 80
Source of Referral ................................................................................................ 82
Detention .............................................................................................................. 83
Adjudication ........................................................................................................ 84
Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement .............................................................. 86
Dispositions: Probation ...................................................................................... 88
Case Processing
Overview ........................................................................................................ 90
By Offense Category ...................................................................................... 91
Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

vii

Appendix A: Methods .............................................................................................. 93
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms ............................................................................ 101
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed
in 2005, by County ............................................................................................ 107
Table Notes ........................................................................................................ 130
Index of Tables and Figures .................................................................................... 137

viii

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Preface

This is the 77th report in the Juvenile
Court Statistics series. It describes
delinquency cases handled between
1985 and 2005 and petitioned status
offense cases handled between 1995
and 2005 by U.S. courts with juvenile
jurisdiction. National estimates of juvenile court delinquency caseloads in
2005 were based on analyses of
1,174,857 automated case records and
court-level statistics summarizing an
additional 51,570 cases. Estimates of
status offense cases formally processed by juvenile courts in 2005
were based on analyses of 95,660 automated case-level records and courtlevel summary statistics on an additional 13,673 cases. The data used in
the analyses were contributed to the
National Juvenile Court Data Archive
(the Archive) by more than 2,100
courts with jurisdiction over 80% of
the juvenile population in 2005.
The first Juvenile Court Statistics report was published in 1929 by the
U.S. Department of Labor and described cases handled by 42 courts
during 1927. During the next decade,
Juvenile Court Statistics reports were
based on statistics cards completed
for each delinquency, status offense,
and dependency case handled by the
courts participating in the reporting
series. The Children's Bureau (within
the U.S. Department of Labor) tabulated the information on each card,
including age, gender, and race of the
juvenile; the reason for referral; the

manner of dealing with the case; and
the final disposition of the case. During the 1940s, however, the collection
of case-level data was abandoned because of its high cost. From the 1940s
until the mid-1970s, Juvenile Court
Statistics reports were based on simple, annual case counts reported to
the Children's Bureau by participating
courts.
In 1957, the Children's Bureau initiated a new data collection design that
enabled the Juvenile Court Statistics
series to develop statistically sound
national estimates. The Children's Bureau, which had been transferred to
the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), developed a
probability sample of more than 500
courts. Each court in the sample was
asked to submit annual counts of
delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases. This approach,
though, proved difficult to sustain as
courts began to drop out of the sample. At the same time, a growing number of courts outside the sample began to compile comparable statistics.
By the late 1960s, HEW ended the
sample-based effort and returned to
the policy of collecting annual case
counts from any court able to provide them. The Juvenile Court Statistics series, however, continued to
generate national estimates based
on data from these nonprobability
samples.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

ix

Preface

The Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) became responsible for Juvenile Court
Statistics following the passage of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. In 1975, OJJDP
awarded the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) a grant to continue
the report series. Although NCJJ
agreed to use procedures established
by HEW to ensure reporting continuity, NCJJ also began to investigate
methods of improving the quality and
detail of national statistics. A critical

x

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

innovation was made possible by the
proliferation of computers during the
1970s. As NCJJ asked agencies across
the country to complete the annual
juvenile court statistics form, some
agencies began offering to send the
detailed, automated case-level data
collected by their management information systems. NCJJ learned to combine these automated records to produce a detailed national portrait of
juvenile court activity—returning to
the original objective of the Juvenile
Court Statistics series.

The project's transition from using
annual case counts to analyzing automated case-level data was completed
with the production of Juvenile Court
Statistics 1984. For the first time since
the 1930s, Juvenile Court Statistics
contained detailed case-level descriptions of the delinquency and status
offense cases handled by U.S. juvenile
courts. This case-level detail continues to be the emphasis of the reporting series.

Chapter 1

Introduction

This Report describes delinquency
cases handled between 1985 and
2005 by U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction and status offense cases
handled between 1995 and 2005.
Courts with juvenile jurisdiction may
handle a variety of matters, including
child maltreatment, traffic violations,
child support, and adoptions. This
Report focuses on cases involving juveniles charged with law violations
(delinquency or status offenses).

Unit of Count
In measuring the activity of juvenile
courts, one could count the number
of offenses referred; the number of
cases referred; the actual filings of offenses, cases, or petitions; the number of disposition hearings; or the
number of juveniles handled. Each
“unit of count” has its own merits
and disadvantages. The unit of count
used in Juvenile Court Statistics (JCS)
is the number of “cases disposed.”
A “case” represents a juvenile processed by a juvenile court on a new
referral, regardless of the number of
law violations contained in the referral. A juvenile charged with four burglaries in a single referral would represent a single case. A juvenile
referred for three burglaries and referred again the following week on
another burglary charge would repre-

sent two cases, even if the court
eventually merged the two referrals
for more efficient processing.
The fact that a case is “disposed”
means that a definite action was taken as the result of the referral—i.e., a
plan of treatment was selected or initiated. It does not necessarily mean
that a case was closed or terminated
in the sense that all contact between
the court and the juvenile ceased. For
example, a case is considered to be
disposed when the court orders probation, not when a term of probation
supervision is completed.

Coverage
A basic question for this reporting series is what constitutes a referral to
juvenile court. The answer depends
partly on how each jurisdiction organizes its case-screening function. In
many communities, an intake unit
within the juvenile court first screens
all juvenile matters. The intake unit
determines whether the matter
should be handled informally (i.e., diverted) or petitioned for formal handling. In data files from communities
using this type of system, a delinquency or status offense case is defined as a court referral at the point
of initial screening, regardless of
whether it is handled formally or informally.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

In other communities, the juvenile
court is not involved in delinquency
or status offense matters until another agency (e.g., the prosecutor’s office or a social service agency) has
first screened the case. In other
words, the intake function is performed outside the court, and some
matters are diverted to other agencies without the court ever handling
them. Status offense cases, in particular, tend to be diverted from court
processing in this manner.
Since its inception, Juvenile Court
Statistics has adapted to the changing
structure of juvenile court processing
nationwide. As court processing became more diverse, the JCS series
broadened its definition of the juvenile court to incorporate other
agencies that perform what can generically be considered juvenile court
functions. In some communities, data
collection has expanded to include
departments of youth services, child
welfare agencies, and prosecutors’ offices. In other communities, this expansion has not been possible. Therefore, while there is extensive data
coverage in the JCS series of formally
handled delinquency cases and adequate data coverage of informally
handled delinquency cases and formally handled status offense cases,
the data coverage of informally handled status offense cases is limited
and is not sufficient to support the
generation of national estimates. For
this reason, JCS reports do not present any information on informally
handled status offense cases. (Subnational analyses of these cases are
available from the National Juvenile
Court Data Archive [the Archive].)

Archive strives to fit the processing
characteristics of all jurisdictions into
the following general model:
Intake. An intake department (either
within or outside the court) first
screens referred cases. The intake
department may decide to dismiss
the case for lack of legal sufficiency
or to resolve the matter formally or
informally. Informal (i.e., nonpetitioned) dispositions may include a
voluntary referral to a social service
agency, informal probation, or the
payment of fines or some form of voluntary restitution. Formally handled
cases are petitioned and scheduled in
court for an adjudicatory or waiver
hearing.
Judicial Waiver. The intake department may decide that a case should
be removed from juvenile court and
handled instead in criminal (adult)
court. In such cases, a petition is usually filed in juvenile court asking the
juvenile court judge to waive juvenile
court jurisdiction over the case. The
juvenile court judge decides whether
the case merits criminal prosecution.1
When a waiver request is denied, the
matter is usually then scheduled for
an adjudicatory hearing in the juvenile court.
Petitioning. If the intake department
decides that a case should be handled formally within the juvenile
court, a petition is filed and the case
is placed on the court calendar (or
docket) for an adjudicatory hearing.
A small number of petitions are dismissed for various reasons before an
adjudicatory hearing is actually held.

Juvenile Court Processing
Any attempt to describe juvenile
court caseloads at the national level
must be based on a generic model of
court processing to serve as a common framework. In order to analyze
and present data about juvenile court
activities in diverse jurisdictions, the

2

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

1Mechanisms of transfer to criminal court

vary by State. In some States, a prosecutor
has the authority to file juvenile cases directly in criminal court if they meet specified
criteria. This Report, however, includes only
cases that were initially under juvenile court
jurisdiction and were transferred as a result
of judicial waiver.

Adjudication. At the adjudicatory
hearing, a juvenile may be adjudicated (judged) a delinquent or status
offender, and the case would then
proceed to a disposition hearing. Alternatively, a case can be dismissed
or continued in contemplation of
dismissal. In these cases, the court
often recommends that the juvenile
take some actions prior to the final
adjudication decision, such as paying
restitution or voluntarily attending
drug counseling.
Disposition. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court judge determines the most appropriate sanction,
generally after reviewing a predisposition report prepared by a probation
department. The range of options
available to a court typically includes
commitment to an institution; placement in a group home or other residential facility or perhaps in a foster
home; probation (either regular or intensive supervision); referral to an
outside agency, day treatment, or
mental health program; or imposition
of a fine, community service, or restitution. Disposition orders often
involve multiple sanctions and/or
conditions. Review hearings are held
to monitor the juvenile’s progress.
Dispositions may be modified as a
result. This Report includes only the
most severe initial disposition in each
case.
Detention. A juvenile may be placed
in a detention facility at different
points as a case progresses through
the juvenile justice system. Detention
practices also vary from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction. A judicial decision to
detain or continue detention may occur before or after adjudication or
disposition. This Report includes
only those detention actions that
result in a juvenile being placed in a
restrictive facility under court authority while awaiting the outcome of the
court process. This Report does not
include detention decisions made by
law enforcement officials prior to
court intake or those occurring after

Chapter 1: Introduction

the disposition of a case (e.g., temporary holding of a juvenile in a detention facility while awaiting courtordered placement elsewhere).

Data Quality
Juvenile Court Statistics relies on the
secondary analysis of data originally
compiled by juvenile courts or juvenile justice agencies to meet their
own information and reporting needs.
Although these incoming data files
are not uniform across jurisdictions,
they are likely to be more detailed
and accurate than data files compiled
by local jurisdictions merely complying with a mandated national reporting program.
The heterogeneity of the contributed
data files greatly increases the complexity of the Archive’s data processing tasks. Contributing jurisdictions
collect and report information using
their own definitions and coding categories. Therefore, the detail reported
in some data sets is not contained in
others. Even when similar data elements are used, they may have inconsistent definitions or overlapping
coding categories. The Archive restructures contributed data into standardized coding categories in order
to combine information from multiple
sources. The standardization process
requires an intimate understanding of
the development, structure, and content of each data set received. Codebooks and operation manuals are
studied, data providers interviewed,
and data files analyzed to maximize
the understanding of each information system. Every attempt is made to
ensure that only compatible information from the various data sets is
used in the standardized data files.
While the heterogeneity of the data
adds complexity to the development
of a national data file, it has proven to
be valuable in other ways. The diversity of the data stored in the National
Juvenile Court Data Archive enables
the data to support a wider range of

research efforts than would a uniform, and probably more general,
data collection form. For example, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
(FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reporting
(UCR) Program is limited by necessity to a small number of relatively
broad offense codes. The UCR offense
code for larceny-theft combines
shoplifting with a number of other
larcenies. Thus, the data are useless
for studies of shoplifting. In comparison, many of the Archive’s data sets
are sufficiently detailed to enable a
researcher to distinguish offenses
that are often combined in other
reporting series—shoplifting can be
distinguished from other larcenies,
joyriding from motor vehicle theft,
and armed robbery from unarmed
robbery. The diversity of these coding structures allows researchers to
construct data sets that contain the
detail demanded by their research
designs.

Validity of the Estimates
The national delinquency and status
offense estimates presented in this
Report were generated with data
from a large nonprobability sample of
juvenile courts. Therefore, statistical
confidence in the estimates cannot be
mathematically determined. Although
statistical confidence would be greater if a probability sampling design
were used, the cost of such an effort
has long been considered prohibitive.
Secondary analysis of available data
is the best practical alternative for
developing an understanding of the
Nation’s juvenile courts.
National estimates of delinquency
cases for 2005 are based on analyses
of individual case records from 2,000
courts and aggregate court-level data
on cases from more than 150
additional courts. Together, these
courts had jurisdiction over 80% of
the U.S. juvenile population in 2005.
National estimates of petitioned status offense cases for 2005 are based
on case records from nearly 2,000

courts and court-level data from
more than 200 additional courts, covering 77% of the juvenile population.
The imputation and weighting procedures that generate national estimates from these samples control for
many factors: the size of a community, the age and race composition of
its juvenile population, the volume of
cases referred to the reporting
courts, the age and race of the juveniles involved, the offense characteristics of the cases, the courts’ responses to the cases (manner of
handling, detention, adjudication, and
disposition), and the nature of each
court’s jurisdictional responsibilities
(i.e., upper age of original
jurisdiction).

Structure of the Report
Chapters 2 and 3 of this Report present national estimates of delinquency
cases handled by the juvenile courts
in 2005 and analyze caseload trends
since 1985. Chapter 2 describes the
volume and rate of delinquency
cases, demographic characteristics of
the juveniles involved (age, gender,
and race), and offenses charged.
Chapter 3 traces the flow of delinquency cases from referral to court
through court processing, examining
each decision point (i.e., detention,
intake decision, adjudication
decision, and judicial disposition)
and presenting data by demographic
characteristics and offense. Together,
these two chapters provide a detailed
national portrait of delinquency
cases.
Chapter 4 presents national estimates
of status offense cases formally handled by the juvenile courts in 2005
and caseload trends since 1995. It
includes data on demographic characteristics, offenses charged, and case
processing.
Appendix A describes the statistical
procedure used to generate these estimates. Readers are encouraged to

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

3

Chapter 1: Introduction

consult appendix B for definitions of
key terms used throughout the Report. Few terms in the field of juvenile justice have widely accepted definitions. The terminology used in this
Report has been carefully developed
to communicate the findings of the
work as precisely as possible without
sacrificing applicability to multiple
jurisdictions.
Appendix C presents a detailed table
showing the number of delinquency,
status offense, and dependency cases
handled by juvenile courts in 2005, by
State and county. Table notes, at the
end of the appendix, indicate the
source of the data and the unit of
count. Because courts report their
statistical data using various units of
count (e.g., cases disposed, offenses
referred, petitions), the reader is cautioned against making cross-jurisdictional comparisons before studying
the table notes.
This Report uses a format that combines tables, figures, and text highlights for presentation of the data. A
detailed index of tables and figures
appears at the end of the Report.

4

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Data Access
The data used in this Report are
stored in the National Juvenile Court
Data Archive at the National Center
for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) in
Pittsburgh, PA. The Archive contains
the most detailed information available on juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system and on the activities of U.S. juvenile courts. Designed
to facilitate research on the juvenile
justice system, the Archive’s data
files are available to policymakers, researchers, and students. In addition
to national data files, State and local
data can be provided to researchers.
With the assistance of Archive staff,
researchers can merge selected files
for cross-jurisdictional and longitudinal analyses. Upon request, project
staff is also available to perform special analyses of the Archive’s data
files.
Researchers are encouraged to explore the National Juvenile Court Data
Archive Web site at ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/
ojstatbb/njcda/ for a summary of
Archive holdings and procedures for
data access. Researchers may also
contact the Archive directly at
412–227–6950.

Other Sources of Juvenile Court
Data
With support from OJJDP, NCJJ has
developed three Web-based data analysis and dissemination applications
that provide access to the data used
for this Report. The first of these
applications, Easy Access to Juvenile
Court Statistics 1985–2005, was
developed to facilitate independent
analysis of the national delinquency
estimates presented in this Report
while eliminating the need for statistical analysis software. The second application, the Juvenile Court Statistics
Databook enables users to view preformatted tables, beyond those
included in this Report, describing
the demographic characteristics of
youth involved in the juvenile justice
system and how juvenile courts
process these cases. The third application, Easy Access to State and County Juvenile Court Case Counts, is a
Web-based version of the information
presented in appendix C of this Report. This application presents annual counts of the delinquency, status,
and dependency cases processed in
juvenile courts, by State and county.
These applications are available from
OJJDP’s Statistical Briefing Book at
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/
index.html.

Chapter 2
National Estimates of
Delinquency Cases

Delinquency offenses are acts committed by juveniles that, if committed
by an adult, could result in criminal
prosecution. This chapter documents
the volume of delinquency cases
referred to juvenile court and examines the characteristics of these
cases, including types of offenses
charged and demographic characteristics of the juveniles involved (age,
gender, and race).
Analysis of case rates permits comparisons of juvenile court activity
over time while controlling for differences in the size and demographic
characteristics of the juvenile population. Rates are calculated as the
number of cases for every 1,000

juveniles in the population—those
age 10 or older who were under the
jurisdiction of a juvenile court.1
The chapter focuses on cases disposed in 2005 and examines trends
since 1985.

1 The upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction
is defined by statute in each State. See
appendix B, the “Glossary of Terms,” for a
more detailed discussion on upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction. Case rates presented in this Report control for State variations
in juvenile population.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

5

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Counts and Trends

■

In 2005, courts with juvenile jurisdiction handled an estimated 1,697,900
delinquency cases.

Between 1960 and 2005, juvenile court delinquency caseloads
increased more than 300%

■

In 1960, approximately 1,100 delinquency cases were processed daily.
In 2005, juvenile courts handled
about 4,700 delinquency cases per
day.

Number of cases
2,000,000

The number of delinquency cases
processed by juvenile courts
increased 46% between 1985 and
2005.

1,200,000

■

1,800,000
1,600,000

Total delinquency

1,400,000

1,000,000
800,000
600,000

■

Between its peak year 1997 and
2005, the delinquency caseload
declined 9%.

400,000
200,000

■

Between 1997 and 2005, the number
of public order offense cases
increased 16%, person offense cases
increased 4%, and drug law violation
cases increased 3%, while property
offense cases decreased 30%.

■

Public order offense cases accounted
for more than half (52%) of the
growth in the delinquency caseload
between 1985 and 2005. Person
offense cases made up another 46%
of the increased number of delinquency cases processed during this
time period.

Offense profile of delinquency
cases:
Most serious
offense
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total

6

1965

1970

1975

1980

Number of cases
500,000

2005

16%
61
7
17

25%
35
12
28

100%

100%

Compared with 1985, a much smaller
proportion of the court’s delinquency
caseload in 2005 was property
offenses.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

1990

1995

2000

2005

Number of cases
1,000,000

400,000

Person

800,000

300,000

600,000

200,000

400,000

100,000

200,000
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

1985

1985

Between 1985 and 2005, delinquency caseloads involving person,
drug, and public order offenses more than doubled; in contrast, the
property offense caseload decreased 15%

0

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
■

0
1960

Number of cases
250,000

0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Number of cases
500,000
400,000

200,000

Drugs
150,000

300,000

100,000

200,000

50,000

100,000

0

Property

Public order

0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Counts and Trends

In recent years, the number of cases handled by juvenile courts has
decreased for most property offenses and increased for most public
order offenses

Most serious
offense
Total delinquency

Number
of cases
1,697,900

1985–
2005
46%

Percent change
10 year
5 year
1996–
2001–
2005
2005
–8%

1%

1 year
2004–
2005

■

Compared with 1996, juvenile courts
handled 59% more liquor law violation cases in 2005, 43% more disorderly conduct cases, 34% more
obstruction of justice cases, and 22%
more simple assault cases.

■

Between 1996 and 2005, caseloads
dropped in several offense categories, including stolen property offenses (42%), motor vehicle theft (38%),
larceny-theft (37%), burglary (35%),
robbery (32%), and aggravated
assault (26%).

■

Trends in juvenile court cases paralleled trends in arrests of persons
younger than 18. The number of
juvenile court cases involving offenses included in the FBI’s Violent Crime
Index2 (criminal homicide, forcible
rape, robbery, and aggravated
assault) declined 28% between 1996
and 2005. The FBI reported that the
number of arrests involving persons
younger than age 18 charged with
Violent Crime Index offenses
decreased 25% during this same
period.

■

Between 1996 and 2005, the volume
of juvenile court cases involving
Property Crime Index offenses (burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle
theft, and arson) declined 36%, and
the FBI reported that arrests of persons under age 18 for Property
Crime Index offenses decreased
44%.

1%

Total person
Violent Crime Index*
Criminal homicide
Forcible rape
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Simple assault
Other violent sex offenses
Other person offenses

429,500
81,600
1,400
4,400
26,000
49,900
298,600
17,700
31,600

133
27
11
22
2
48
193
118
192

8
–28
–45
–15
–32
–26
22
41
7

7
7
–10
–7
19
3
6
24
6

3
10
2
0
21
6
2
6
–2

Total property
Property Crime Index**
Burglary
Larceny-theft
Motor vehicle theft
Arson
Vandalism
Trespassing
Stolen property offenses
Other property offenses

598,600
404,900
97,600
265,800
32,900
8,500
100,900
52,000
19,900
20,900

–15
–22
–32
–20
–16
20
18
–4
–28
17

–33
–36
–35
–37
–38
–10
–17
–24
–42
–32

–7
–9
–8
–9
–13
–8
7
0
–17
–15

–3
–5
–1
–6
–6
–5
4
0
1
2

Drug law violations

195,300

153

8

–4

0

Public order offenses
Obstruction of justice
Disorderly conduct
Weapons offenses
Liquor law violations
Nonviolent sex offenses
Other public order offenses

474,400
222,400
129,600
43,600
24,600
13,700
40,400

146
238
191
117
28
8
31

28
34
43
–3
59
24
–5

7
2
25
19
0
–6
–11

3
3
4
5
–4
–2
1

* Includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
** Includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent change calculations are
based on unrounded numbers.

2 The annual series of reports from the FBI,

Crime in the United States, provides information on arrests in offense categories that have
become part of the common vocabulary of
criminal justice statistics. The Crime in the
United States series tracks changes in the
general nature of arrests through the use of
two indexes, the Violent Crime Index and the
Property Crime Index. Although they do not
contain all violent or all property offenses, the
indexes serve as a barometer of criminal activity in the United States. The arrest trends
reported above are from Crime in the United
States 2005.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

7

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Case Rates

■

■

■

More than 31 million youth were
under juvenile court jurisdiction in
2005. Of these youth, 80% were
between the ages of 10 and 15, 12%
were age 16, and 8% were age 17.
The small proportion of 16- and 17year-olds among the juvenile court
population is related to the upper age
of juvenile court jurisdiction, which
varies by State. In 2005, youth age
16 in 3 States were under the original
jurisdiction of the criminal court, as
were youth age 17 in an additional 10
States.
In 2005, juvenile courts processed
53.8 delinquency cases for every
1,000 juveniles in the population—
those age 10 or older who were
under the jurisdiction of a juvenile
court.
The total delinquency case rate
increased 43% between 1985 and
1997 and then declined 15% to the
2005 level. As a result, the overall
delinquency case rate in 2005 was
22% above the 1985 level.3

■

Between 1985 and 2005, case rates
more than doubled for drug law violations (110%) and public order offenses (104%); person offense case rates
increased 94%.

■

In contrast to other offense categories,
case rates for property offenses
declined 29% between 1985 and
2005.

3 The percent change in the number of cases
disposed may not be equal to the percent
change in case rates because of the changing
size of the juvenile population.

8

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Delinquency case rates rose from 44.2 to 63.4 per 1,000 juveniles
between 1985 and 1997, declined through 2003, and then remained
stable through 2005 (53.8)
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
70
60

Total delinquency

50
40
30
20
10
0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Between 1985 and 2005, case rates for person offenses nearly
doubled (from 7.0 to 13.6 per 1,000 juveniles)
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
14
12
10
Person
8
6
4
2
0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
7
6
5
Drugs
4
3
2
1
0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
35
30
Property
25
20
15
10
5
0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
16
12
8

Public order

4
0

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Age at Referral

Of the 1,697,900 delinquency cases processed in 2005, 57% involved
youth younger than 16, 27% involved females, and 64% involved
white youth
Most serious
offense

The proportion of cases involving
juveniles age 15 or younger varied by
offense category. Between 1985 and
2005, younger juveniles accounted
for a smaller proportion of drug and
public order cases than of person
and property offense cases.

■

In 2005, juveniles younger than 16
accounted for over three-quarters
(76%) of juvenile arson cases.

Percentage of total
juvenile court cases, 2005
Younger
than 16
Female
White

Number
of cases

Total delinquency
Total person
Violent Crime Index
Criminal homicide
Forcible rape
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Simple assault
Other violent sex offenses
Other person offenses
Total property
Property Crime Index
Burglary
Larceny-theft
Motor vehicle theft
Arson
Vandalism
Trespassing
Stolen property offenses
Other property offenses
Drug law violations
Public order offenses
Obstruction of justice
Disorderly conduct
Weapons offenses
Liquor law violations
Nonviolent sex offenses
Other public order offenses

■

1,697,900
429,500
81,600
1,400
4,400
26,000
49,900
298,600
17,700
31,600
598,600
404,900
97,600
265,800
32,900
8,500
100,900
52,000
19,900
20,900
195,300
474,400
222,400
129,600
43,600
24,600
13,700
40,400

57%
64
58
37
57
55
60
65
72
61
59
59
60
60
52
76
64
57
51
46
42
54
46
67
62
29
65
52

27%
30
19
17
3
10
26
34
6
28
27
32
11
41
23
14
16
19
15
31
20
28
29
34
13
32
18
25

64%
57
44
57
67
29
50
59
67
65
67
66
66
67
58
76
77
62
53
67
74
63
64
54
62
89
71
73

Offense profiles of delinquency
cases by age group:
Most serious
offense
2005
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total
1985
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total

Person

Property

50%

28%
37
9
26

21%
33
15
30

100%

100%

16%
64
5
15

15%
56
10
19

100%

100%

■

Compared with the delinquency
caseload involving older juveniles,
the caseload of youth age 15 or
younger in 2005 included larger proportions of person and property offense cases and smaller proportions
of drug and public order offense
cases.

■

Compared with 1985, the caseloads
in 2005 of both older and younger
juveniles involved greater proportions
of person, public order, and drug
offense cases and smaller proportions of property offense cases.

In 2005, juveniles younger than 16 accounted for more than half of
all delinquency cases, including nearly two-thirds of person offense
cases

60%

Age 16
or older

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.

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

Percent of cases involving juveniles younger than age 16
70%

Age 15
or younger

Public order

40%

Drugs
30%
20%
10%
0%
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

9

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Age at Referral

■

■

■

■

■

Although more 17-year-olds than 16year-olds were arrested in 2005
(411,200 vs. 374,600), the number of
juvenile court cases involving 17year-olds (291,300) was lower than
the number involving 16-year-olds
(400,800). The explanation lies primarily in the fact that, in 13 States,
17-year-olds are excluded from the
original jurisdiction of the juvenile
court. In these States, all 17-yearolds are legally adults and are
referred to criminal court rather than
to juvenile court. Thus, far fewer 17year-olds than 16-year-olds are subject to original juvenile court jurisdiction.
In 2005, the delinquency case rate
for 17-year-olds (116.1) was nearly
twice the rate for 14-year-olds (63.2)
and almost 3 times the rate for 13year-olds (39.0).
The largest increase in case rates
between age 13 and age 17 was for
drug offenses. The case rate for drug
offenses for 17-year-old juveniles
(20.1) was nearly 8 times the rate for
13-year-olds (2.5).
For public order offenses in 2005, the
case rate for 17-year-olds (33.9) was
more than 3 times the rate for 13year-olds (9.7) and the property
offense case rate for 17-year-olds
(37.9) was more than double the rate
for 13-year-olds (14.5).
For cases involving person offenses,
the case rate for 17-year-olds (24.2)
was nearly double the rate for 13year-olds (12.3).

In 2005, delinquency case rates increased with the referral age of
the juvenile
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
120

116.1
107.7

100

89.2

80
63.2
60
39.0

40
19.2

20

8.1

3.8
0
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Age

Case rates increased continuously with age for property, drug, and
public order offense cases, while person offense cases leveled off
after age 16
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
40

Property

35
30

Public order
25

Person

20
15

Drugs
10
5
0
10

11

12

13

14
Age

10

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

15

16

17

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Age at Referral

Trends in case rates were similar across age groups between 1985 and 2005 for each general offense
category
Person offense case rates

Property offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
25
Age 16
Age 17
20

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
70
60

Age 16

50
15

Age 17

40

Ages 13–15

Ages 13–15

30

10

20
5

10

Ages 10–12
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

0
1985

Ages 10–12
1990

1995

2000

2005

■

With the exception of 10- to 12-year-olds, person
offense case rates increased from 1985 into the mid1990s and then declined through 2000. For youth
ages 10–12, person offense case rates increased
through 2001.

■

Across age groups, property offense case rates were
considerably lower in 2005 than in 1985. In 2005, the
case rate for juveniles ages 10–12 was 49% below the
rate in 1985, and the rate for juveniles ages 13–15 was
27% below the rate in 1985.

■

Between 2000 and 2005, person offense case rates
decreased for youth ages 10–12, and increased for
all other age groups.

■

Property offense case rates peaked in the early 1990s
for all age groups and then declined through 2005.

Drug offense case rates

Public order offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
25

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
35
Age 17
30

20
15

20

Age 16
Ages 13–15

10

5
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

Ages 10–12 (x5)*

5

Ages 10–12 (x5)*

■

Ages 13–15

15

10

■

Age 16

25

Age 17

2005

Drug offense case rates increased dramatically for all
age groups between 1991 and 1998: 209% for
juveniles ages 10–12, 155% for youth ages 13–15,
140% for 16-year-olds, and 142% for 17-year-olds.
Drug offense case rates in 2005 were considerably
higher than the 1985 rates for all age groups.

0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

■

Public order offense case rates nearly doubled for
each age group between 1985 and 1998.

■

With the exception of juveniles ages 10–12, public
order offense case rates were higher for all age
groups in 2005 than in any year since 1985.

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

11

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Gender

■

Males were involved in 73%
(1,233,200) of the delinquency cases
handled by juvenile courts in 2005.

Between 1985 and 2005, the number of delinquency cases involving
females increased 108% (from 223,800 to 464,700 cases); for males,
the increase was 32% (from 937,700 to 1,233,200 cases)

■

Overall, the female delinquency
caseload grew at an average rate of
4% per year between 1985 and
2005, while the average rate
increase was 1% per year for males.

1,600,000

■

■

■

■

■

Between 1997 and 2005, the number
of delinquency cases involving males
decreased 14%, while the female
delinquency caseload grew 5%.
The average annual growth in the
female caseload outpaced that for
males for all offense categories
between 1985 and 2005.
Between 2001 and 2005, the relative
increase in the female caseload outpaced that of the male caseload for
person offenses (12% vs. 5%) and
for public order offenses (11% vs.
6%).
The male property caseload
decreased 8% between 2001 and
2005, while the number of property
offense cases involving females
decreased 2%.
While the number of drug offense
cases involving males between 2001
and 2005 decreased 6%, the female
drug offense caseload increased 9%.

Number of cases

Delinquency
1,400,000
1,200,000

Male
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000

Female
200,000
0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2003

2005

Number of cases
800,000
700,000

Male

600,000

Property

500,000
400,000

Public order

300,000

Person

200,000
100,000

Drugs

0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Number of cases
250,000

Female
200,000

Property

150,000

Public order

100,000

Person
50,000

Drugs
0
1985

12

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Gender

The proportion of the delinquency caseload involving females
increased from 19% in 1985 to 27% in 2005
Percent of cases involving females
30%

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the female
proportion of the person offense
caseload has steadily increased from
20% to 30%.

Offense profiles of delinquency
cases for males and females:

25%

Most serious
offense

Delinquency

20%

2005
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order

15%
10%

Total
5%
0%
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

1985
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total

Percent of cases involving females
30%

Percent of cases involving females
30%

25%

25%

20%

Person

20%

15%

15%

10%

10%

5%

5%

0%

0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

25%

25%

20%

Drugs

20%

15%

15%

10%

10%

5%

5%

0%

0%

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

27%
35
8
29

100%

100%

16%
61
7
16

16%
59
6
19

100%

100%

Both male and female delinquency
caseloads in 2005 had greater proportions of person, drug, and public
order offense cases than in 1985.

■

For both males and females, the
property offense proportions of the
delinquency caseloads were substantially less in 2005 than in 1985.

■

In 2005, the male caseload contained
a greater proportion of drug offenses
and smaller proportions of person
and public order offenses than the
female caseload.

■

The male and female caseloads contained equal proportions of property
offenses in 2005.

Public order

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

25%
35
13
28

■

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Percent of cases involving females
30%

Female

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.

Property

Percent of cases involving females
30%

Male

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

13

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Gender

■

■

■

■

For both males and females, the
delinquency case rate increased from
1985 through the mid-1990s. For
males, the rate increased 36% to its
peak in 1996 and then fell 20% by
2005. The female rate grew 77%
between 1985 and 1997 but dropped
only 2% through 2005.

Although the delinquency case rate is much higher for males than
females, the female rate increased more than the male rate between
1985 and 2005
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
100
90

In 1985, the delinquency case rate
for males was 4 times greater than
the rate for females; by 2005, the
male rate was about 2.5 times the
female rate: 76.2 compared with
30.2.

80

Male and female drug offense case
rates have converged since the early
1990s. In 1992, the male drug
offense case rate was nearly 7 times
greater than the rate for females (4.6
compared with 0.7); by 2005, the
male rate was less than 4 times
greater than the rate for females (9.7
compared with 2.5).

30

While property offense case rates
declined for both males and females
between 1995 and 2005, the decline
was greater for males (43% vs.
28%).

Delinquency
Male

70
60
50
40

Female

20
10
0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2001

2003

2005

2001

2003

2005

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

Male
50

Property

40
30

■

■

■

In 2005, female person offense case
rates were at their highest level (8.2)
since 1985. Male rates for person
offenses fell 8% between the 1995
peak and 2005, while female rates
increased 17%.
Male drug offense case rates
decreased 8% in the 5 years
between 2001 and 2005, while
female rates increased 7%.
Between 2001 and 2005, public order
offense case rates increased more
for females than for males (9% compared with 4%).

Public order
Person

20
10

Drugs

0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
16
14

Female
Property

12
10
8

Person
6

Public order
4
2
0
1985

14

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Drugs
1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Gender

In 2005, the delinquency case rate for females peaked at age 16,
while the male case rate increased through age 17

■

For males, delinquency case rates
increased continuously with age in
2005. Female delinquency case rates
increased through age 16 and then
leveled off.

■

In 2005, the difference between agespecific male and female delinquency
case rates was greatest for the
younger juveniles. The male delinquency rate for 10-year-olds was
more than 4 times the female rate;
for 11-year-olds, the male case rate
was more than 3 times the female
rate.

■

In all four delinquency offense categories in 2005, male case rates
increased continuously through age
17.

■

For females in 2005, property and
drug offense case rates increased
through age 17. Female case rates
for person and public order offenses
increased continuously through age
16 and then slightly declined.

■

In 2005, the drug offense case rate
for 17-year-old males was almost 28
times the rate for 12-year-old males;
among females, the drug offense
case rate for 17-year-olds was more
than 15 times the rate for 12-yearolds.

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
180

170.9

Delinquency

154.4

160
140

123.6

120
100

85.8

80
53.5

60

58.7

58.3

39.4

40
20

53.2

27.2
6.2 1.4

12.5
3.6

10

11

23.8

10.8

0
12

13

14

15

16

17

Age
Male

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
35
Person
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
35
Drugs
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Age

Female

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
60
50

Property

40
30
20
10
0
17

10

11

12

13 14
Age

15

16

17

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
60
50

Public order

40
30
20
10
17

0

10

11

12

13 14
Age

15

16

17

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

15

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Gender

Across all age groups and offense categories, case rates for males exceed rates for females; however, since
1998, female rates for person, drug, and public order offense cases increased, while male rates leveled off
Property offense case rates

Person offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
100
Male
Age 16

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
40
35

Male

Age 17

80

30
25

60

20

Ages 13–15

15

Ages 13–15

40

10

20

5

Ages 10–12

Ages 10–12

0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

0
1985

1990

Female

Female
Age 16

12

1995

2000

2005

2000

2005

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
30

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
16
14

Age 17

Age 16

Age 17

Age 16

25

Age 17
20

10

Ages 13–15

8

Ages 13–15

15

6

10

4
Ages 10–12 (x2)*

2
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

Ages 10–12

5

2005

0
1985

1990

1995

■

Between 2001 and 2005, male person offense case
rates increased 3% for ages 13–15, 6% for age 16,
and 7% for age 17; for males ages 10–12, person
offense case rates decreased 11%.

■

Male property offense case rates increased across all
age groups between 1985 and the early 1990s and then
decreased through 2005 to their lowest level since
1985.

■

Between 2001 and 2005, female person offense case
rates increased 8% for ages 13–15, 15% for age 16,
and 16% for age 17. Similar to the trend among young
males, the person offense case rate for females ages
10–12 fell 8%.

■

Between 1991 and 2005, male property case rates
decreased 60% for youth ages 10–12, 51% for ages
13–15, 44% for age 16, and 40% for age 17.

■

Since 1997, age-specific property offense case rates for
females decreased continuously across all age groups.

■

In contrast to the male rates, age specific property
offense rates for females were higher in 2005 than in
1985 for all age groups except for youth ages 10–12,
which decreased 29%.

*Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving female youth ages 10–12 for person offenses, their case rates are inflated by a factor of 2 to display the trend over time.

16

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Gender

Drug offense case rates

Public order offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
35

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
60

30

50

Male

Male
Age 17

25
Age 16

20

Age 17

40

Age 16

30

Ages 13–15

15
Ages 13–15

20

Ages 10–12 (x5)*

10

10
5
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Ages 10–12 (x5)*

0
1985

1990

1995

2000

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
7

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
18

6

16

Female

Age 17

Female

Age 16

14

5

Age 17

12

Age 16
4

10
Ages 13–15

3

2005

Ages 13–15

8
6

2

4
1
Ages 10–12 (x5)*
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Ages 10–12 (x5)*

2
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

■

For males, drug offense case rates increased sharply
between 1991 and 1996: 217% for males ages 10–12,
156% for ages 13–15, 131% for age 16, and 121% for
age 17.

■

Between 1985 and 1999, public order offense case
rates for male youth ages 10–12 increased 98%, 90%
for males ages 13–15, 84% for those age 16, and 79%
for 17-year-olds.

■

Between 1996 and 2005, male drug offense case rates
remained relatively stable, decreasing slightly for all
age groups.

■

■

Female drug offense case rates increased continuously for all age groups between 1991 and 2005: 255% for
females ages 10–12, 306% for ages 13–15, 304% for
age 16, and 281% for age 17.

Age-specific public order offense case rates for males
have remained relatively stable between 1999 and
2005, although rates for male youth age 16 and age
17 increased slightly in the last two years.

■

For females, public order offense case rates for all
ages increased continuously between 1991 and 2005:
116% for ages 10–12, 106% for ages 13–15, 140% for
16-year-olds, and 155% for 17-year-olds.

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

17

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Race

Percent change in number of
cases by race, 1985–2005:
Most serious
Amer.
offense
White4 Black Indian5 Asian6
Delinquency 29% 93% 52%
Person
125
141
147
Property
–24
9
–8
Drugs
136
215
277
Public order 102
300
141
■

157%
256
84
170
342

Between 1985 and 2005, trends in
the volume of cases differed somewhat across racial groups; however,
the number of person, drug, and public order offense cases increased
substantially for all racial groups.

Offense profile of delinquency
cases by race:

Between 1997 and 2005, the delinquency caseload decreased for
white youth and American Indian youth (14% each) but increased
slightly for Asian youth (3%) and black youth (2%)
Number of cases
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000

White
800,000
600,000

Black
400,000
200,000
0
1985

Most serious
Amer.
offense
White Black Indian Asian
2005
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total

31%
31
8
29

22%
39
12
26

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Number of cases
40,000

Delinquency
Amer. Indian

30,000
20,000

Asian

10,000

13%
62
7
18

25%
56
5
14

14%
65
5
16

15%
61
8
15

100% 100% 100% 100%

In 2005, the offense profile differed
substantially from that of 1985 for all
racial groups. Although a property
offense was the most common
charge involved in delinquency cases
disposed for both years, the proportions of the caseloads that involved
person or public order offenses were
much larger in 2005 than in 1985 for
all racial groups.

0

Number of cases

Number of cases

700,000
White
600,000
Property
500,000
400,000
Public order
300,000
Person
200,000
100,000
Drugs
0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

250,000

Number of cases
20,000

5 The racial classification American Indian
(usually abbreviated as Amer. Indian) includes
American Indian and Alaskan Native.

12,000

6 The racial classification Asian includes

Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific
Islander.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

For all racial groups, the decrease in delinquency cases since 1997
has been driven by the decrease in property cases, while person, drug,
and public order offense cases have increased

4 Throughout this Report, juveniles of Hispanic
ethnicity can be of any race; however, most
are included in the white racial category.

18

1987

21%
44
9
26

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
■

Asian

Amer. Indian

100% 100% 100% 100%

1985
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total

22%
37
13
28

Delinquency

16,000

Amer.
Indian

Property

8,000

Public order

4,000

Person

Drugs
0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

200,000

Black
Property

150,000
Person
100,000
50,000
0

Public order
Drugs
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Number of cases
14,000
Asian
12,000
Property
10,000
8,000
6,000
Person
4,000
Public order
2,000
Drugs
0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Race

In 2005, nearly two-thirds of all delinquency cases involved white
youth: 57% of person offense cases, 67% of property offense cases,
74% of drug offense cases, and 63% of public order offense cases
Proportion of delinquency cases
100%

■

In 2005, white youth made up 78%
of the U.S. population under juvenile
court jurisdiction, black youth 16%,
American Indian youth 1%, and
Asian youth 4%.

90%

Racial profile of delinquency
cases:

80%

Race

1985

2005

73%
25
1
1

64%
33
1
1

100%

100%

50%

White
Black
American Indian
Asian/NHPI

40%

Total

30%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.

70%
60%

20%
10%

■

Although white youth represented
the largest share of the delinquency
caseload, their relative contribution
declined between 1985 and 2005,
from 73% to 64%.

■

The proportion of delinquency cases
involving black youth increased from
25% in 1985 to 33% in 2005.

■

For each year from 1985 through
2005, American Indian youth made
up less than 3% of the delinquency
caseload; Asian youth made up 1%.

0%
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

White

1995
Black

1997

1999

2001

Property offense cases

Proportion of cases
100%

Proportion of cases
100%

80%

80%

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%
0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Drug offense cases
Proportion of cases
100%

Racial profile of delinquency
cases by offense:
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Public order offense cases
Proportion of cases
100%

80%

80%

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

0%

2005

Other races*

Person offense cases

0%

2003

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Person Property

2005
White
57%
Black
41
Amer.
Indian 1
Asian
1
Total

0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Race

100%

1985
White
59%
Black
39
Amer.
Indian 1
Asian
1
Total

100%

Public
Drugs order

67%
29

74%
24

63%
34

2
2

1
1

1
1

100%

100% 100%

75%
23

79%
19

77%
21

1
1

1
1

1
1

100%

100% 100%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.

* Because American Indian and Asian proportions are too small to display individually,
they are combined in the category “Other races” in the above graphs.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

19

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Race

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

20

In 2005, the total delinquency case
rate for black juveniles (108.4) was
more than double the rate for white
juveniles (44.4) and for American
Indian youth (53.3); the delinquency
case rate for Asian youth was 17.2.
The delinquency case rate for white
juveniles peaked in 1997 (54.3) and
then fell 18% by 2005; for black juveniles, the rate in 2005 was down
13% from its 1995 peak (124.1). The
delinquency case rate for American
Indian youth peaked in 1992 (93.9)
and then declined 43% by 2005; for
Asian youth the peak occurred in
1995 (20.6) and fell 16% by 2005.
Between 1985 and 2005, the person
offense case rate increased 97% for
white youth, 81% for black youth,
44% for American Indian youth, and
80% for Asian youth.
In 2005, the person offense case
rate for black juveniles (34.0) was
almost 3 times the rate for American
Indian youth (11.8), more than 3
times the rate for white juveniles
(9.9), and 9 times that of Asian
youth (3.7).
Property offense case rates in 2005
were lower than in 1985 for each
racial group.
The drug offense case rate for black
juveniles increased dramatically from
1985 to 1989, leveled off, and then
increased to reach a peak in 1996
(12.5) that was 230% above the rate
in 1985 (3.8). Between 1996 and
2005, the drug offense case rate for
black juveniles declined 28%, while
the rate increased 11% for white
juveniles, 28% for American Indian
youth, and 18% for Asian youth.
Between 1985 and 2005, public
order offense case rates increased
201% for black juveniles (10.4 to
31.3), 76% for white juveniles (6.9 to
12.2), 41% for American Indian youth
(9.9 to 13.9), and 123% for Asian
youth (2.0 to 4.5).

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Between 1997 and 2005, delinquency case rates declined for youth
of all racial groups: 25% for American Indians, 18% for whites, and
11% for Asians and for blacks
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
140

Delinquency
120

Black
100

Amer. Indian

80
60

White

40
20

Asian
0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
35
Person
30
Black
25
20
Amer. Indian
15
10
White
5
Asian
0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

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

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
14
Drugs
12
Black
10
8
6
White
4
Amer. Indian
Asian
2
0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
35
Public order
30
25
Black
20
Amer. Indian
15
10
White
5
Asian
0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Property

50
40

Black
Amer. Indian

30
20
10
0

White
Asian
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Race

Case rates for juveniles generally increased with age for person,
drug, and public order offenses, regardless of race
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
250

■

In 2005, the delinquency case rate
for 13-year-olds was more than 8
times the rate for 10-year-olds for
each racial group.

■

Age-specific person offense rates for
black juveniles in 2005 averaged
more than 3 times the rates for white
juveniles and American Indian youth.

■

In 2005, the person offense case
rate for 16-year-olds was more than
twice the rate for 13-year-olds for
white juveniles and Asian juveniles.

■

With the exception of black juveniles,
age-specific case rates for property
offenses in 2005 were higher than
the rates for other offense
categories.

■

In 2005, property offense case rates
were higher for black juveniles than
those for youth of all other race categories for each age group.

■

In 2005, racial disparity in age specific drug offense case rates
increased after age 13. By age 17,
the black drug offense case rate was
twice the white rate, more than twice
the rate of American Indian youth,
and more than 8 times the rate of
Asian youth.

■

Within each age group, the 2005
public order offense case rate for
black juveniles was 2 to 3 times the
rate for white and American Indian
youth.

Delinquency
200

Black
150

Amer. Indian

100

White
50

Asian
0
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
70
Person
60
Black
50
40
30
Amer. Indian
20
White
10
Asian
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
70
Property
60
50
Black
Amer. Indian
40
30
20
10
0

White
Asian
10

11

12

13
14
Age

15

16

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
40

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
80

30

60

Drugs

Public order

Black

20
Amer. Indian

Black

40

White

10

Asian

Amer.
Indian

20

White
Asian

0

0
10

11

12

13
14
Age

15

17

16

17

10

11

12

13
14
Age

15

16

17

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

21

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Race

Case rates for person offenses in 2005 were higher than those in 1985 for all age groups within each racial
category

Person offense case rates
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
70

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
20

Black

White

Age 17

16

60

Age 16

Age 17

50
12

Age 16

40

Ages 13–15

Ages 13–15

30

8

20
4

Ages 10–12

0
1985

1990

1995

2000

0
1985

2005

8

70

2005

6

Ages 13–15

Ages 13–15

20

2

Ages 10–12

10
0
1985

22

2000

Age 17

4

30

■

2005

Age 17

40

■

2000

Age 16

Age 16

50

1995

Asian

Amer. Indian

60

1990

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
10

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
90
80

Ages 10–12

10

1990

Ages 10–12
1995

2000

Among white youth, person offense case rates increased
dramatically for each age group between 1988 and 1998,
and then decreased somewhat. Between 1998 and 2005,
the person offense case rates for white youth decreased
14% for 10–12-year-olds, 9% for 13–15-year-olds, 3% for
16-year-olds, and 4% for youth age 17.
Among black youth, person offense case rates increased
steadily for all age groups between 1989 and 1995: 49%
for 10–12-year-olds, 46% for 13–14-year-olds, 43% for
16-year-olds, and 58% for youth age 17.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

0
1985

2005

1990

1995

■

Person offense case rates for black youth decreased
between 1995 and 2000 and then increased 20% or
more through 2005 for all but the youngest juveniles.

■

Person offense case rates for American Indian youth
peaked in the early to mid-1990s for all age groups and
then decreased through 2005.

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Race

Property offense case rates peaked in the early 1990s for all age groups within each racial category and
declined considerably through 2005

Property offense case rates
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
100

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
60
White
Age 16
50
Age 17
40

Black

Age 17

80

Age 16

60
Ages 13–15

30

Ages 13–15

40

20
20

10

Ages 10–12

Ages 10–12
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Amer. Indian

70
Age 16

60
50

1990

2000

2005

15

Age 17

40

1995

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
25
Asian
Age 16
20
Age 17

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
90
80

0
1985

Ages 13–15
10

30

Ages 13–15

20

5

Ages 10–12

10
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

■

For white, black, and American Indian youth, property
offense case rates were lower in 2005 than in 1985 for
all age groups.

■

Among Asian youth in 2005, property offense case
rates were below the 1985 rates for younger youth: the
rate for youth ages 10–12 was 41% lower than the 1985
rate, and for youth ages 13–15 the rate was 8% lower
than the 1985 rate.

Ages 10–12

0
1985

■

1990

1995

2000

2005

Property offense rates peaked in the 1990s for Asian
youth ages 16 (1992) and 17 (1994) and then declined
41% and 32%, respectively, by 2005. Despite these
declines, property offense case rates for 16- and 17year-old Asian youth were higher in 2005 than in 1985.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

23

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Race

Case rates for drug offenses increased dramatically for all age groups within each racial category during
the 1990s

Drug offense case rates
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
20

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
50

16

40

Black

White

Age 17

12

30

Age 16

8

Ages 10–12 (x5)*

0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
16

Amer. Indian

Age 16

20

Ages 13–15

4

Age 17

Ages 13–15

10

Ages 10–12 (x5)*
0
1985

1990

1995

Asian

Age 17

4
Age 16

Age 16

3
8

Ages 13–15
2

4
Ages 10–12
0
1985

■

■

2005

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
5
Age 17

12

2000

1990

1995

2000

2005

For white youth, drug offense case rates increased dramatically for all age groups between 1991 and 2001:
439% for 10- to 12-year-olds, 372% for 13- to 15-yearolds, 305% for 16-year-olds, and 258% for youth age 17.
Between 2001 and 2005, case rates declined for all age
groups: 21% for 10- to 12-year-olds, 13% for youth ages
13–15, 9% for juveniles age 16, and 7% for youth age 17.
Despite these declines, the 2005 drug offense case rates
for white youth of all ages were more than double the
rates in 1985.
Drug offense case rates for black youth generally
increased for all age groups into the 1990s, reaching a
peak in 1998 for youth age 17 and in 1996 for younger
juveniles. Between the peak and 2005, drug offense case
rates for black youth decreased for all age groups: 22%

Ages 13–15

1

Ages 10–12 (x5)*

0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

for youth ages 10–12, 32% for youth ages 13–15, 27%
for juveniles age 16, and 18% for youth age 17.
■

Drug offense case rates for American Indian youth
increased dramatically for all age groups between
1991 and 2002 and, with the exception of 10- to 12year-olds, continued to increase through 2005. For
American Indian youth ages 10–12, the drug offense
case rate decreased 14% between 2002 and 2005,
while the rates increased 16% for juveniles ages
13–15, 5% for 16-year-olds, and 6% for 17-year-olds.

■

Age-specific drug offense case rates for Asian youth
followed a pattern similar to that of American Indian
juveniles.

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

24

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Race

Regardless of racial category, case rates for public order offenses in 2005 were higher than those in 1985
for all age groups

Public order offense case rates
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
30
White
Age 17
25

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
80
70
Age 16

Black

Age 17

60

20

Age 16

50

15

40

Ages 13–15

Ages 13–15

30

10

20

Ages 10–12 (x5)*

5

Ages 10–12 (x5)*

10

0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
50

Amer. Indian

1990

8

20

Age 16

■

■

Ages 13–15

Ages 13–15

4

1995

2000

Age 17

2

Ages 10–12 (x5)*
1990

2005

10

6

0
1985

2000

Asian

Age 17

Age 16

10

1995

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
12

40
30

0
1985

2005

Between 1991 and 1998, age-specific public order
offense case rates for white youth increased substantially for all age groups and then stabilized through
2005. Among white youth, the 2005 public order offense
rate was 68% higher than the 1985 rate for youth ages
10–12, 77% higher for youth ages 13–15, 82% higher
for 16-year-olds, and 88% higher for youth age 17.
Between 1985 and 2005, the black public order offense
rates increased 188% for youth ages 10–12, 209% for
youth ages 13–15, 212% for 16-year-olds, and 218% for
youth age 17.

Ages 10–12 (x5)*

0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

■

With the exception of 10- to 12-year-olds, age-specific
public order offense case rates for American Indian
youth peaked in the mid 1990s, declined through the
late 1990s, and then remained fairly stable.

■

Age-specific public order offense case rates for Asian
youth began to increase in the mid-1990s. Between
1993 and 2005, the public order offense case rates
increased 173% for Asian youth ages 10–12, 127% for
youth ages 13–15, 153% for 16-year-olds, and 73%
for youth age 17.

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

25

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Race

For males, case rates for black youth were higher than rates for all other racial groups, regardless of
offense; this was not the case for females
Property offense case rates

Person offense case rates
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
60

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
90

Male

80

50

Black

70

Black
40

60

Amer. Indian

50

30

40

Amer. Indian
20

White

30

0
1985

10

Asian
1990

1995

Asian

20

White

10

2000

0
1985

2005

1995

30

20

Black

20
Amer. Indian

1995

2005

White
Asian

5
2000

0
1985

2005

■

Among males, person offense case rates peaked in the
mid-1990s for all but American Indian juveniles.

■

For all years between 1985 and 2005, person offense
case rates for black males were 2 to 3 times higher than
the corresponding rates for American Indian males, 2 to
4 times higher than those for white males, and 7 to 9
times higher than those for Asian males.

■

Among females, person offense case rates for black
juveniles were considerably higher than those for the
other racial groups. In 2005, the person offense case
rate for black females (21.1) was 11 times the rate for
Asian females (1.8), more than 3 times the rate for white
females (5.9), and more than twice the rate for American
Indian females (8.3).

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

2000

Black

10
Asian

1990

Amer. Indian

15

White

5

2005

25

15
10

2000

Female

Female

0
1985

1990

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

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
25

26

Male

1990

1995

■

Among males, property offense case rates peaked in the
early 1990s and then declined to a level lower in 2005
than in 1985 for all racial groups.

■

Among females, property offense case rates were lower
in 2005 than in 1985 for white youth and American
Indian youth but increased for black females and Asian
females.

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Race

Drug offense case rates

Public order offense case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
25

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
45

Male

40

20

Male

35

Black

Black

30
15

25

Amer. Indian

20

10

White

15
Amer. Indian

5

Asian

0
1985

1990

1995

2000

White

10

Asian

5
0
1985

2005

1990

1995

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
5

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
20

4

16

2005

Female

Female

Amer. Indian

3

2000

Black

12
Amer. Indian

White
2

8

Black

White
1

4

Asian

0
1985

1990

1995

2000

0
1985

2005

■

Among males, drug offense case rates for black youth
peaked in 1996 and then declined 30% through 2005.

■

Among females, drug offense case rates between 1998
and 2005 decreased 7% for blacks while increasing for
all other racial groups for the same time period: 31% for
whites, 48% for American Indians, and 6% for Asians.

Asian
1990

1995

2000

2005

■

In 2005, the public order offense case rate for black
males was twice the rate for both white and American
Indian males and more than 6 times the rate for Asian
males.

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the public order offense case
rate for black females increased 296% (from 4.8 to
18.9).

■

Public order case rates for American Indian females
decreased 21% between the peak year 1992 and 2005.
During the same time period, public order case rates
more than doubled for each of the other racial groups.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

27

Chapter 3
National Estimates of
Delinquency Case Processing

This chapter quantifies the flow of
delinquency cases referred to juvenile court through the stages of the
juvenile court system as follows.
Referral: An agency or individual
files a complaint with court intake
that initiates court processing. Cases
can be referred to court intake by a
number of sources, including law
enforcement agencies, social service
agencies, schools, parents, probation
officers, and victims.
Detention: Juvenile courts sometimes hold youth in secure detention
facilities during court processing to
protect the community, to ensure a
juvenile’s appearance at subsequent
court hearings, to secure the juvenile’s own safety, or for the purpose
of evaluating the juvenile. This
Report describes the use of detention between court referral and case
disposition only, although juveniles
can be detained by police prior to
referral and also by the courts after
disposition while awaiting placement
elsewhere.
Intake: Formal processing of a case
involves the filing of a petition that
requests an adjudicatory or waiver
hearing. Informally processed cases,
on the other hand, are handled without a petition and without an adjudicatory or waiver hearing.

Waiver: One of the first decisions
made at intake is whether a case
should be processed in the criminal
(adult) justice system rather than in
the juvenile court. Most states have
more than one mechanism for transferring cases to criminal court: prosecutors may have the authority to file
certain juvenile cases directly in
criminal court; state statute may
order that cases meeting certain age
and offense criteria be excluded from
juvenile court jurisdiction and filed
directly in criminal court; and a juvenile court judge may waive juvenile
court jurisdiction in certain juvenile
cases, thus authorizing a transfer to
criminal court. This Report describes
those cases that were transferred to
criminal court by judicial waiver only.
Adjudication: At an adjudicatory
hearing, a youth may be adjudicated
(judged) delinquent if the juvenile
court determines that the youth did
commit the offense(s) charged in the
petition. If the youth is adjudicated,
the case proceeds to a disposition
hearing. Alternatively, a case can be
dismissed or continued in contemplation of dismissal. In these cases
where the youth is not adjudicated
delinquent, the court can recommend
that the youth take some actions
prior to the final adjudication decision, such as paying restitution or
voluntarily attending drug counseling.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

29

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Disposition: Disposition options
include commitment to an institution
or other residential facility, probation supervision, or a variety of
other sanctions, such as community
service, restitution or fines, or referral to an outside agency or treatment
program. This Report characterizes

30

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

case disposition by the most severe
or restrictive sanction. For example,
although most youth in out-of-home
placements are also technically on
probation, in this Report cases
resulting in placement are not
included in the probation group.

This chapter describes case processing by offense and by demographics
(age, gender, and race) of the juveniles involved, focusing on cases disposed in 2005 and examining trends
from 1985 through 2005.

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Referral
Law enforcement agencies are the primary source of delinquency
referrals to juvenile court
■

Between 1985 and 2005, law
enforcement agencies were the primary source of delinquency referrals
for each year.

■

In 2005, 81% of all delinquency
cases were referred by law enforcement; however, there were variations
across offense categories.

■

Law enforcement agencies referred
91% of property cases and drug law
violation cases, 87% of person
offense cases, and 61% of public
order offense cases in 2005.

■

For each year between 1985 and
2005, public order offense cases
had the smallest proportion of
cases referred to court by law
enforcement. This may be attributed
in part to the fact that this offense
category contains probation violations and contempt-of-court cases,
which are most often referred by
court personnel.

■

Compared with 1985, law enforcement referred smaller proportions of
public order offense cases in 2005
and larger proportions of person and
property offense cases.

Percent of cases referred by law enforcement
100%

Drugs

90%
80%

Property

Person

70%

Public order

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Data Table
Drugs

Public
order

88%
88
88

92%
91
92

65%
65
64

80
79
81

88
86
88

93
88
88

64
63
69

83
85
86

80
84
86

87
89
90

89
93
94

70
73
72

1994
1995
1996

86
85
84

86
86
85

90
89
90

94
93
93

71
69
68

1997
1998
1999

83
81
80

85
84
83

90
88
88

92
92
90

63
59
59

2000
2001
2002

80
81
81

85
86
86

90
90
90

89
89
90

59
58
59

2003
2004
2005

80
81
81

85
86
87

90
90
91

89
90
91

59
61
61

Total

Person

1985
1986
1987

83%
83
83

80%
78
80

1988
1989
1990

83
81
83

1991
1992
1993

Property

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

31

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Detention

■

■

■

■

The number of delinquency cases
involving detention increased 48%
between 1985 and 2005, from
239,900 to 354,100. The largest relative increase was for person offense
cases (144%), followed by drug
offense cases (110%) and public
order cases (108%). In contrast, the
number of detained property offense
cases declined 22% during this
period.
Despite the growth in the volume of
delinquency cases involving detention, the proportion of cases detained
was the same in 2005 as in 1985
(21%).
Beginning in 2002, public order
cases accounted for the largest volume of cases involving detention.
Between 1985 and 2005, the use of
detention decreased for public order
offense cases (from 28% to 24%)
and for drug law violation cases
(from 22% to 18%) but changed little
for person offense cases (from 24%
to 25%) and property offense cases
(from 17% to 16%).

The number of cases involving detention increased substantially
between 1985 and 2005 for person, drug, and public order offenses
but decreased for property offense cases
Cases detained
140,000
120,000

Property

100,000

Person
80,000

Public order

60,000
40,000

Drugs
20,000
0
1985

1987

1989

Percent of cases detained
35%

Most serious
offense

30%

Total
Number of
cases

32

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Drugs

1985

2004

19%
51
7
23

31%
27
10
32

100%

100%

10%

239,900

354,100

5%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
■

1993

The proportion of drug offense cases involving detention reached a
peak of 35% in 1990 and declined to 18% in 2005

Offense profile of detained
delinquency cases:

Person
Property
Drugs
Public order

1991

Compared with 1985, the offense
characteristics of the 2005 detention
caseload changed, involving greater
proportions of person, drug, and public order offense cases and a smaller
proportion of property offense cases.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Person

25%
20%
15%

0%
1985

Public order
Property

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Detention

While black youth represented 33% of the overall delinquency
caseload in 2005, they made up 42% of the detention caseload

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the proportion of all delinquency cases that
involved black youth averaged 29%,
while that average was 38% of all
detained cases.

■

Overrepresentation of black youth
was greatest for drug offense cases.
On average, between 1985 and
2005, black youth accounted for 31%
of all cases involving drug offense
violations but represented 49% of
such cases detained.

■

Between 1985 and 1991, the proportion of detained drug offense cases
involving black youth increased substantially (from 29% to 67%). Since
that time, the proportion of detained
drug offense cases involving black
youth fell steadily, reaching a level in
2005 that was 26 percentage points
below the 1991 peak.

■

Between 1987 and 1996, the proportion of detained drug offense cases
involving black youth was more than
50%.

■

Black youth accounted for 24% of all
drug offense cases processed in
2005 but were involved in 41% of the
drug offenses that involved detention.

■

Black youth accounted for 41% of
the person offense cases processed
in 2005 and 46% of those detained.

■

In 2005, the proportion of property
offense cases involving black youth
was 29%, while the proportion of
detained property offense cases
involving black youth was 39%.

■

Black juveniles made up 34% of public order offense cases processed in
2005 and 39% of those detained.

Percent of cases involving black juveniles
45%

Detained delinquency cases

40%
35%
30%

All delinquency cases

25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

Percent of cases involving black juveniles
60%
Detained cases
50%
40%

1995

1997

1999

2001

Percent of cases involving black juveniles
50%

Property

40%

Detained cases

30%

All cases

20%

Person

10%

2005

30%

All cases

20%

2003

10%
0%

0%

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Percent of cases involving black juveniles
80%

Drugs

Detained cases

60%

Percent of cases involving black juveniles
50%

Public order

40%

Detained cases

30%
40%

All cases

20%

All cases
20%
10%
0%

0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

33

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Detention

Age
■

■

■

In each year from 1985 through
2005, delinquency cases involving
youth age 16 or older were more likely to be detained than were cases
involving youth age 15 or younger.
For both age groups, drug offense
cases were more likely to involve
detention than were other offense
cases between 1987 and the mid1990s. After that time, however, person offense and public order offense
cases were as likely or more likely to
involve detention than were drug
offense cases.
In 2005, 16-year-olds accounted for
25% of the cases that involved
detention, a larger proportion of
cases than any other single age
group.

Gender
■

In 2005, male juveniles charged with
delinquency offenses were more likely than females to be held in secure
facilities while awaiting court disposition. Overall in 2005, 22% of male
delinquency cases involved detention, compared with 17% of female
cases.

Offense profile of detained
delinquency cases by gender:
Most serious
offense
2005
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total
1985
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total

Male

Female

30%
29
11
31

35%
22
7
36

100%

100%

19%
53
7
21

16%
45
7
32

100%

100%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.

34

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

For all years between 1985 and 2005, detention was more likely for
cases involving older youth than younger youth and for cases
involving males than females
Percentage of delinquency cases detained, by age group:
15 or younger
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

19%
20
18
19
20
20
17
17
17
16
16
16
17
19
20
20
21
21
21
20
19

16 or older

Person Property Drugs
22%
23
20
21
23
22
21
20
21
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
25
25
24
24
23

16%
16
15
15
16
16
14
13
14
13
13
13
13
15
16
15
16
16
16
16
15

21%
25
29
34
37
38
35
33
29
24
21
20
20
23
22
20
19
19
20
18
17

Public
order
29%
29
27
27
27
26
22
22
22
20
20
20
21
24
24
24
24
25
24
23
22

All

Person Property Drugs

23%
23
22
22
24
23
20
20
20
20
19
19
20
22
23
23
24
24
24
23
23

27%
27
25
25
27
27
25
25
26
25
24
26
27
27
28
28
30
30
30
29
29

21%
20
19
19
19
19
16
17
17
16
15
15
16
18
19
18
19
20
20
18
18

Public
order

23%
26
29
31
34
34
31
30
26
23
20
20
21
23
24
21
22
22
22
21
20

27%
26
25
25
27
24
21
21
22
21
20
21
22
24
25
25
26
27
27
27
26

Person Property Drugs

Public
order

Percentage of delinquency cases detained, by gender:
Male
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

21%
22
20
21
22
22
19
19
20
19
18
19
20
22
23
22
23
24
24
23
22

Female

Public
Person Property Drugs order
26%
26
24
24
26
26
24
23
24
23
23
24
25
25
26
27
28
28
28
27
27

18%
19
17
17
18
18
16
16
16
15
15
15
16
18
19
18
19
20
20
19
18

23%
26
30
33
37
36
34
32
28
24
22
21
22
24
24
22
21
22
22
20
19

28%
27
26
26
27
25
22
22
23
21
21
21
23
25
25
25
26
27
26
26
25

All
18%
18
16
17
18
16
13
14
14
13
13
13
15
17
18
17
18
19
18
18
17

18%
19
16
17
19
18
17
16
17
16
17
19
19
19
21
21
23
23
22
22
21

14%
14
12
12
13
13
10
10
11
10
9
9
10
12
13
11
13
12
12
11
10

20%
22
23
25
27
26
21
23
20
18
15
15
16
20
19
17
17
19
18
16
15

31%
30
27
27
27
25
20
21
20
17
16
18
19
22
23
21
22
23
23
22
21

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Detention

Percentage of delinquency cases detained, by race:

Race

White
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

19%
19
17
17
18
18
15
15
16
15
15
15
16
18
19
18
19
20
20
19
18

Black

Public
Person Property Drugs order
21%
21
19
19
21
20
18
18
20
19
19
20
20
22
22
23
24
24
24
23
23

16%
16
14
14
15
15
12
12
13
13
12
12
12
14
15
14
15
16
15
14
14

19%
20
20
20
23
24
21
21
19
17
15
14
15
18
18
16
16
17
17
15
14

27%
26
25
24
25
23
19
19
20
19
19
18
21
23
23
22
23
24
24
23
22

All
26%
27
26
28
29
28
25
25
24
22
22
23
24
26
27
27
29
28
28
27
26

Public
Person Property Drugs order
28%
28
27
28
29
29
27
26
27
25
25
26
27
27
28
29
32
30
30
30
28

33%
41
47
51
53
49
45
44
39
36
33
34
35
35
38
36
38
36
36
34
32

32%
33
30
31
31
30
26
26
26
23
22
23
24
27
29
28
30
30
29
28
28

Person Property Drugs

Public
order

American Indian
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

26%
24
22
23
23
22
18
17
17
14
16
16
17
19
19
18
16
18
20
20
20

22%
19
18
20
20
19
15
14
15
11
12
11
12
13
13
11
11
12
13
13
13

27%
20
25
30
24
28
22
22
18
21
13
15
13
19
21
16
13
14
14
14
15

Cases involving black youth were
more likely to be detained than cases
involving white youth in each year
between 1985 and 2005 across
offense categories.

■

In 2005, person offense cases involving Asian youth were more likely to
involve detention (30%) than those
involving white youth (23%), black
youth (28%), or American Indian
youth (24%).

■

The likelihood of detention for property offenses in 2005 was greatest
for black youth.

■

In 2005, black youth were about
twice as likely as white youth and
American Indian youth to be detained
for cases involving drug offenses
(32%, 14%, and 15%, respectively).

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the likelihood of detention for cases involving
public order offenses decreased for
youth of all races.

■

Among white youth in 2005, person
offense cases were most likely to be
detained (23%), followed closely by
public order offenses (22%). For
Asian youth, both person offense and
public order offense cases had the
highest probability of detention (30%
and 24%, respectively).

■

Among American Indian youth in
2005, public order offense cases
were most likely to be detained
(28%). For black youth, the likelihood
of detention was greatest for drug
offense cases (32%).

Asian

Public
Person Property Drugs order
33%
33
26
29
27
28
26
22
20
16
20
23
23
25
26
24
22
23
25
24
24

22%
23
22
23
23
23
21
21
20
18
18
19
20
22
22
22
24
24
23
23
21

■

39%
33
32
28
31
27
20
24
19
20
24
27
25
26
28
26
23
25
29
31
28

All
23%
25
21
23
29
32
30
22
23
22
21
25
25
26
31
27
28
27
25
22
22

32%
32
25
26
31
35
32
27
30
31
28
33
32
33
38
35
33
32
32
27
30

20%
23
19
21
28
29
28
22
21
19
17
20
21
21
28
24
25
24
21
17
17

22%
18
19
25
30
33
29
21
23
23
19
25
24
28
27
23
25
24
22
20
17

31%
29
22
25
31
38
34
21
26
24
27
29
29
31
33
27
30
30
29
27
24

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

35

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Intake Decision

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the likelihood that a delinquency case would
be handled informally (without filing a
petition for adjudication) decreased.
While the overall delinquency caseload increased 46% between 1985
and 2005, the number of nonpetitioned cases increased 18% and the
number of petitioned cases increased
79%.

Since 1989, delinquency cases were more likely to be handled
formally, with the filing of a petition for adjudication, than informally
Delinquency cases
1,200,000
1,000,000

Petitioned

800,000

Nonpetitioned
■

■

■

The number of petitioned cases doubled between 1985 and the peak in
1997 and then declined 11% by
2005.
The largest relative increase in the
number of petitioned cases between
1985 and 2005 was seen in drug
offense cases (232%), followed by
public order offense cases (205%)
and person offense cases (151%).

400,000
200,000
0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

The number of petitioned property
offense cases increased 54%
between 1985 and the peak in 1996
and then declined 33% by 2005.

Offense profile of delinquency
cases, 2005:
Most serious
offense
Nonpetitioned
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total
Number
of cases

Petitioned

Petitioned delinquency cases
500,000

26%
34
12
28

400,000

100%

100%

300,000

748,500

949,300

200,000

In 2005, the offense profiles of nonpetitioned and petitioned delinquency
cases were very similar.

36

In contrast to the other general offense categories, the number of
property offense cases decreased 33% between 1996 and 2005

24%
37
11
27

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
■

600,000

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Property

Person
Public order

100,000

0
1985

Drugs

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Intake Decision

In 2005, juvenile courts petitioned 56% of all delinquency cases

Petitioned
cases

Most serious offense
Total delinquency
Total person
Violent Crime Index*
Criminal homicide
Forcible rape
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Simple assault
Other violent sex offenses
Other person offenses
Total property
Property Crime Index**
Burglary
Larceny-theft
Motor vehicle theft
Arson
Vandalism
Trespassing
Stolen property offenses
Other property offenses
Drug law violations
Public order offenses
Obstruction of justice
Disorderly conduct
Weapons offenses
Liquor law violations
Nonviolent sex offenses
Other public order offenses

Percentage
of total
delinquency
cases

949,300
251,200
64,400
1,100
3,300
22,800
37,100
154,600
13,200
19,000
319,400
217,400
74,300
112,700
25,200
5,300
52,900
22,900
14,400
11,800
109,900
268,700
153,200
52,000
25,400
8,100
7,100
23,000

■

The overall likelihood of formal handling was greater for more serious
offenses within the same general
offense category. In 2005, for example, 74% of aggravated assault
cases were handled formally, compared with 52% of simple assault
cases. Similarly, 76% of burglary
cases and 76% of motor vehicle theft
cases were handled formally by
juvenile courts, compared with 42%
of larceny-theft and 44% of trespassing cases.

■

Youth younger than 16 accounted
for 54% of the delinquency cases
handled formally by juvenile courts in
2005; females accounted for 24%
and white youth accounted for 60%
of petitioned cases.

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the likelihood of formal processing increased:
from 43% to 56% for drug offense
cases, from 54% to 58% for person
offense cases, from 46% to 57% for
public order cases, and from 44% to
53% for property offense cases.

■

Between 1988 and 1994, drug
offense cases were more likely than
other cases to be handled with a
petition for adjudication.

■

In 2005, 56% of drug offense cases
were petitioned—a substantially
lower percentage than in the peak
year 1991, when 66% were
petitioned.

■

Since 1999, person offense cases
have been as likely or more likely as
cases involving drug offenses to be
handled formally.

■

Since 1987, property offense cases
have been less likely than cases in
each of the other general offense
categories to be handled with a petition for adjudication.

Percentage of
all petitioned cases
Younger
than 16

56%
58
79
84
76
88
74
52
75
60
53
54
76
42
76
62
52
44
72
56
56
57
69
40
58
33
52
57

Female White

54%
61
57
37
60
56
58
62
73
58
56
56
58
56
52
73
61
55
48
40
39
50
46
63
57
30
63
50

24%
26
18
17
3
9
25
32
5
25
21
23
10
33
21
15
15
16
13
32
17
26
28
31
12
27
18
25

60%
53
42
57
63
29
48
55
66
59
64
63
65
62
56
72
74
55
51
65
67
61
61
51
59
87
69
70

* Includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
** Includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Between 1985 and 2005, the use of formal processing increased in
all general offense categories
Percent of cases petitioned
70%

Drugs
60%

Person

50%

Public order

Property

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

37

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Intake Decision

Age
■

In each year between 1985 and
2005, delinquency cases involving
juveniles age 16 or older were more
likely to be petitioned than were
cases involving younger juveniles.

■

In 2005, 53% of delinquency cases
involving youth age 15 or younger
were petitioned, compared with 60%
of cases involving older youth.

■

Since 1991, the proportion of drug
offense cases petitioned has declined
for both age groups, while the proportion of cases petitioned for each
of the other general offense
categories has grown.

■

Among youth age 15 or younger,
drug offense cases were more likely
to be handled formally than any other
offense category between 1988 and
1994.

■

For each year between 1990 and
2005, for both age groups, property
offense cases were less likely than
cases in any other offense category
to be petitioned for adjudication.

Between 1985 and 2005, the likelihood of formal handling increased
more for younger than older youth and more for females than males
Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned, by age group:
15 or younger
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

42%
46
45
46
48
48
48
48
51
51
52
54
55
56
56
55
55
54
55
54
53

Person Property Drugs
51%
54
53
53
55
54
54
54
56
56
57
59
59
59
59
58
57
56
57
56
56

Between 1985 and 2005, the likelihood of formal case processing
increased for males from 48% to
59% and for females from 35% to
48%.

■

Regardless of offense, for each year
between 1985 and 2005, juvenile
courts were more likely to petition
cases involving males than females.

■

In 2005, for males, person offense
cases were more likely than cases in
any other offense category to be handled formally. For females, person
offense and public order offense
cases were most likely to be handled
formally.

38

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

40%
43
42
43
45
44
44
45
47
47
48
51
52
53
53
52
52
52
52
51
50

38%
45
51
56
60
64
65
62
60
57
56
57
57
59
58
58
56
56
54
53
52

Public
order
45%
46
46
50
52
52
52
52
54
54
55
56
56
58
56
57
56
56
56
54
53

All
50%
50
51
52
54
54
54
54
57
57
58
60
60
61
60
61
60
61
61
59
60

Person Property Drugs
59%
58
58
58
59
59
59
58
61
62
63
65
64
64
64
64
64
63
64
62
63

50%
50
49
50
52
51
51
52
54
55
55
57
57
58
58
58
58
58
59
57
58

Public
order

47%
51
55
58
61
65
66
64
63
60
61
62
62
63
63
62
61
62
61
60
59

46%
46
47
49
51
53
52
53
57
58
59
60
60
61
60
61
60
61
61
60
60

Person Property Drugs

Public
order

Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned, by gender:
Male

Gender
■

16 or older

Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

48%
50
50
51
53
53
53
53
56
56
57
59
59
60
60
60
60
60
60
59
59

Female

Public
Person Property Drugs order
57%
58
57
58
58
58
58
58
60
61
62
64
63
63
63
63
62
61
62
61
61

47%
49
48
49
50
50
50
50
53
53
54
57
58
58
58
58
58
59
59
58
58

45%
51
56
60
63
66
68
66
64
61
61
62
62
63
63
62
61
61
60
59
58

46%
47
48
50
52
53
53
53
57
57
58
59
59
61
59
60
59
60
60
58
58

All
35%
38
38
39
42
41
41
40
43
44
45
48
49
50
50
50
49
49
50
48
48

41%
46
45
46
48
47
47
46
49
49
52
54
54
54
55
54
53
53
53
52
52

30%
34
33
34
36
35
35
35
37
39
39
42
43
44
44
43
43
43
44
42
41

33%
37
42
45
46
51
50
46
47
45
47
48
50
52
52
51
51
52
50
49
49

44%
43
44
48
50
50
51
49
52
51
52
54
55
56
54
55
54
54
54
53
52

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Intake Decision

Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned, by race:

Race

White
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

42%
44
43
44
46
46
46
47
49
50
51
54
54
55
55
55
54
54
54
53
53

Black

Public
Person Property Drugs order
47%
50
48
49
50
50
51
50
53
53
56
58
58
58
58
57
56
56
56
55
55

41%
43
42
43
45
44
44
45
47
48
49
52
53
53
53
52
52
52
52
51
51

39%
41
44
46
47
51
51
49
49
49
51
52
54
55
55
55
54
55
53
52
52

43%
43
43
45
47
47
47
49
52
53
54
55
56
57
55
56
55
56
56
55
54

All
56%
58
59
59
61
61
60
60
62
61
61
63
63
65
65
64
64
63
64
63
62

Public
Person Property Drugs order
64%
64
64
64
64
64
63
63
65
65
65
66
65
65
66
65
65
64
65
64
64

61%
70
75
76
80
81
82
81
79
77
76
77
76
79
78
78
77
77
76
75
71

55%
57
60
61
62
64
63
61
64
62
62
63
63
66
65
65
62
62
63
60
60

Person Property Drugs

Public
order

American Indian
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

44%
48
51
52
52
50
46
46
47
48
50
51
51
53
52
51
52
51
56
54
56

43%
46
51
53
53
50
48
48
48
48
51
48
49
49
49
48
48
48
52
51
53

32%
41
36
44
39
53
47
48
41
51
45
47
50
53
54
50
51
48
49
49
51

The proportion of delinquency cases
petitioned increased for all racial
groups between 1985 and 2005:
from 42% to 53% for white youth,
from 56% to 62% for black youth,
from 44% to 56% for American
Indian youth, and from 46% to 59%
for Asian youth.

■

Between 1985 and 2005, delinquency cases involving black juveniles
were more likely to be petitioned than
were cases involving any other racial
group.

■

For each year between 1985 and
2005, drug offense cases involving
black juveniles were more likely to be
petitioned than were cases involving
any other racial group for any
offense.

■

In 2005, the greatest racial disparity
in the likelihood of petitioning was
seen in drug offense cases: 71% of
drug cases involving black youth
were petitioned compared with 52%
for white juveniles, 51% for American
Indian juveniles, and 58% for Asian
youth.

■

Between 2002 and 2005, public
order offense cases involving Asian
juveniles were more likely to be petitioned than were such cases involving any other racial group.

■

For all racial groups, the proportion
of pubic order cases petitioned for
adjudication increased between 1985
and 2005: from 43% to 54% for
cases involving white youth, from
55% to 60% for cases involving black
youth, from 40% to 64% for
American Indian youth, and from
50% to 66% for Asian youth.

Asian

Public
Person Property Drugs order
55%
57
63
60
58
54
49
51
57
55
55
57
56
57
55
53
55
52
58
55
57

52%
54
54
54
56
55
54
55
56
55
55
58
59
60
60
60
60
61
61
61
60

■

40%
48
44
43
46
47
38
37
37
42
45
54
53
58
57
59
58
59
64
60
64

All
46%
52
49
51
48
50
50
46
49
52
50
54
59
59
59
60
60
61
62
59
59

63%
68
62
63
60
59
61
55
57
62
60
67
71
71
71
68
67
67
68
62
63

42%
50
46
48
45
45
45
43
46
48
45
47
53
53
54
56
56
56
55
52
52

37%
45
38
41
40
32
40
44
43
45
38
50
54
59
56
58
58
58
60
57
58

50%
51
50
52
49
61
56
49
55
57
59
64
67
64
63
64
63
68
71
68
66

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

39

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Waiver

■

■

■

The number of delinquency cases
judicially waived to criminal court in
1994, the peak year, was 80%
greater than the number waived in
1985. This increase was followed by
a 51% decline between 1994 and
2001.
Between 2001 and 2005, the number
of judicially waived delinquency
cases increased 7%. As a result, the
number of cases judicially waived in
2005 was 4% less than in 1985.
The number of judicially waived person offense cases increased 129%
between 1985 and 1994 and then
declined 46% through 2001. Between
2001 and 2005, the number of cases
waived increased 19%.

■

The number of drug offense cases
judicially waived increased 413%
between 1985 and the peak in 1991.
The number of cases waived in 2005
was 54% less than the number
waived in 1991.

■

Between 1985 and 1992, the largest
number of judicially waived cases
involved property offenses; since that
time, the largest group of waived
cases has been person offense
cases.

■

■

For public order offenses, the number
of waived cases increased 82%
between 1985 and the peak in 1994
and then declined 40% by 2005.
The decline in the number of cases
judicially waived after 1994 may be
attributable to the large increase in
the number of states that passed legislation excluding certain serious
offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction and legislation permitting the
prosecutor to file certain cases directly in criminal court.

40

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

The number of cases judicially waived to criminal court peaked
in 1994
Cases judicially waived to criminal court
14,000
12,000
10,000

Total delinqency
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

In 1985, more property offense cases were judicially waived than
cases in any other offense category; in 2005, more person offense
cases were waived than cases in any other category
Cases judicially waived to criminal court
6,000
5,000

Person
Person

Property
Property
4,000
3,000

Drugs
Drugs

2,000
1,000
0
1985

Public
Public order
1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Waiver

Between 1989 and 1992, cases involving drug offenses were most
likely to be judicially waived; for all other years between 1985 and
2005, person offense cases were most likely to be waived

■

Between 1985 and 1991, the proportion of judicially waived drug offense
cases increased sharply from 1.1% to
4.2%. After peaking in 1991, the proportion of waived drug offense cases
decreased, with 0.8% of drug cases
being waived in 2005.

■

The proportion of judicially waived
person offense cases decreased
between 1985 and 1988 and then
increased steadily through 1994,
when 2.6% of such cases were
waived. Since then, the proportion
has decreased: 1.4% of the
petitioned person offense caseload
was waived in 2005.

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the proportion of property offense cases that
were judicially waived decreased
from 1.2% to 0.6%. Following a similar pattern, the proportion of judicially
waived public order offense cases
decreased from 0.7% to 0.3% during
the same time period.

■

The proportion of the waived caseload involving person offenses grew
steadily between 1985 and 2005. In
1985, person offense cases accounted for one-third (33%) of the waived
caseload; by 2005, person offense
cases were 51% of the waived caseload.

■

The proportion of all waived
delinquency cases that involved a
property offense as the most serious
charge declined from 53% in 1985 to
27% in 2005.

■

Drug offense cases represented 5%
of the judicially waived cases in 1985;
by 1991, they comprised 17% of the
waived caseload. In 2005, drug
offense cases made up 12% of the
judicially waived caseload.

■

Between 1985 and 2005, public order
offense cases comprised 7% to 10%
of the waived caseload.

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court
5%

4%

Drugs

3%

Person

2%

Property
1%

Public order
0%
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Between 1985 and 2005, the offense profile of the judicially waived
caseload changed substantially—the share of property offense
cases decreased and the share of person offense cases increased
Proportion of judicially waived delinquency cases
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1985

1987

1989

Person

1991

1993

Property

1995

1997

1999

Drugs

2001

2003

2005

Public order

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

41

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Waiver

Age
■

■

In 2005, 1.3% of all petitioned delinquency cases involving juveniles age
16 or older were waived to criminal
court, compared with 0.2% of cases
involving younger juveniles.
For older juveniles, the probability of
waiver peaked in 1991 at 3.1%, hovered around that level through 1994,
declined to 1.4% by 2000, and
remained relatively stable at that
level through 2005.

■

This pattern was most marked in
waivers for older juveniles charged
with drug offenses, which peaked at
6.4% in 1991 and then steadily
declined to 1.2% in 2001. In 2005,
the likelihood of judicial waiver in
drug offense cases involving older
juveniles was 1.2%.

■

Regardless of offense, less than 1%
of all petitioned delinquency cases
involving juveniles age 15 or
younger were waived to criminal
court between 1985 and 2005.

Gender

Cases involving juveniles age 16 or older were much more likely to be
judicially waived to criminal court than those involving younger
juveniles
Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases judicially waived, by age group:
15 or younger
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

0.2%
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

Person Property Drugs
0.4%
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5

0.1%
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1%
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

16 or older
Public
order

All

0.1%
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0

2.9%
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.6
2.7
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3

Person Property Drugs
5.1%
4.5
3.8
3.6
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.5
5.5
4.5
4.1
3.8
3.4
3.3
2.8
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.8

2.8%
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.5
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2

1.7%
1.8
2.2
2.2
3.9
3.9
6.4
4.4
3.6
3.2
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.2

Regardless of offense, cases involving males were more likely to be
judicially waived than cases involving
females.

Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases judicially waived, by gender:

Year

All

■

The proportion of petitioned drug
offense cases judicially waived
increased substantially for males
between 1985 and 1991 (from 1.1%
to 4.3%) and then declined. In 2005,
0.8% of petitioned drug offense
cases involving males were judicially
waived.

■

Judicially waived drug offense cases
involving females followed the same
pattern. In 2005, 0.4% of petitioned
drug offense cases involving females
were judicially waived.

■

Females accounted for 9% of all
delinquency cases judicially waived
in 2005: 8% of both person and
property offense cases waived, 9%
of drug cases, and 14% of public
order offense cases.

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

1.5%
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9

■

42

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Male

1.4%
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7

1.4%
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5

Female

Public
Person Property Drugs order
2.7%
2.4
2.1
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.7
3.0
3.1
2.6
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.7

Public
order

1.1%
1.3
1.6
1.5
2.8
2.8
4.3
3.1
2.5
2.2
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8

0.9%
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

All
0.5%
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3

Person Property Drugs
0.7%
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4

0.4%
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2

0.7%
0.7
0.7
1.1
1.2
1.5
2.5
1.3
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4

Public
order
0.3%
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Waiver

Race

Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases judicially waived, by race:
White
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

1.2%
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7

Black

Public
Person Property Drugs order
2.2%
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3

1.2%
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6

0.8%
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7

0.6%
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3

All
1.8%
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8

Public
Person Property Drugs order
2.6%
2.5
2.0
1.9
2.3
2.6
2.6
2.8
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.4
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.5

1.9%
1.8
2.0
1.8
3.6
3.8
5.7
4.1
3.2
2.7
2.5
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
0.9
1.0

1.1%
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

Person Property Drugs

Public
order

American Indian
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

1.2%
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.7
2.0
1.2
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.3

Person Property Drugs
2.0%
3.8
2.1
2.4
3.5
2.8
2.6
3.1
3.6
3.3
2.5
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.6
2.0
2.5
2.4
2.3

1.0%
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.6
1.5
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.6
0.9
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.9
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.4

0.8%
1.2
0.0
1.1
1.1
0.3
3.6
3.0
2.0
1.9
0.5
2.5
2.0
1.8
1.9
2.5
2.2
1.2
1.4
1.8
1.4

1.4%
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4

■

The likelihood of judicial waiver
among cases involving white youth
was lower in 2005 (0.7%) than in
1985 (1.2%); the pattern was similar
for cases involving black youth
(0.8% in 2005 compared with 1.8%
in 1985).

■

The likelihood of judicial waiver
among cases involving Asian youth
was the same in 2005 as in 1985
(0.4%); the pattern was similar for
American Indian youth (1.3% in
2005 compared with 1.2% in 1985).

■

In 2005, cases involving person
offenses were most likely to be
waived for youth of all races: 1.3%
among white juveniles, 1.5% among
black juveniles, 2.3% among
American Indian youth, and 1.0%
among Asian juveniles.

■

Among black juveniles, the use of
waiver to criminal court for cases
involving drug offenses peaked at
5.7% in 1991 and declined to 1.0%
by 2005.

■

The likelihood of judicial waiver
peaked in 1993 among person
offense cases involving American
Indian youth (3.6%) and in 1994 for
Asian youth (3.4%).

Asian
Public
order

All

1.4%
0.0
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.7
0.5
1.8
1.6
0.7
0.7
1.1
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5

0.4%
0.2
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4

1.0%
0.9
2.5
1.3
0.9
2.2
2.3
2.1
3.3
3.4
1.9
1.5
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.7
0.9
1.2
0.7
1.0

0.4%
0.1
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
1.4
0.7
4.9
0.0
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.2%
0.0
0.8
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.9
1.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

43

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Waiver

■

■

■

■

The number of judicially waived
cases involving white juveniles
increased 65% between 1985 and
1994, from 4,200 to 7,000, and then
declined 43% by 2005 to 4,000.

Between 1985 and 2005, the number of cases judicially waived to
criminal court decreased 6% for cases involving white youth and 7%
for cases involving black youth
Delinquency cases judicially waived to criminal court

For black juveniles, the number of
judicially waived cases nearly doubled between 1985 and 1994, from
2,900 to 5,600, and then declined
52% by 2005 to 2,700.

7,000

The number of judicially waived person
offense cases involving white youth
increased 118% between 1985 and
1994, from 1,100 to 2,400, and then
declined 30% to 1,700 cases in 2005.

4,000

The number of judicially waived drug
offense cases involving black juveniles increased 804% between 1985
and the peak in 1991 and then
declined 79% by 2005.

1,000

White

6,000
5,000

Black

3,000
2,000

0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Offense profile of waived cases:
Most serious
offense
White
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total
Black
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total

1985

2005

26%
60
4
9

43%
33
12
12

100%

100%

43%
42
6
8

63%
17
12
8

100%

100%

Notes: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding. Offense profiles are not presented
for American Indian and Asian youth because
counts were too small to calculate meaningful
percentages.
■

Person offense cases accounted for
the largest share of the waived caseload involving black juveniles each
year between 1988 and 2005. In
2005, person offense cases accounted for nearly two-thirds (63%) of the
waived cases involving black juveniles.

■

For white youth, property offenses
accounted for the largest share of the
waived caseload in 1985 (60%) but,
in 2005, person offenses accounted
for the largest share (43%).

44

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Cases judicially waived to criminal court
3,000

Person

2,500
2,000

Black

1,500

White

1,000
500
0

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Cases judicially waived to criminal court
3,500
3,000 Property
2,500
White
2,000
1,500
Black
1,000
500
0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Cases judicially waived to criminal court
1,600

Cases judicially waived to criminal court
800

1,200

600

Drugs

Black

Public order

400

800
White

200

400
0

White

0
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Black

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Adjudication

Between 1995 and 2005, the proportion of formally processed
delinquency cases increased, as did the proportion that resulted in
a delinquency adjudication or waiver

■

In 1985, 30% of all delinquency
cases resulted in either adjudication
of delinquency or waiver to criminal
court. By 2005, this proportion had
increased to 37%.

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the number of delinquency cases that resulted in a delinquency adjudication or
were judicially waived to criminal
court increased 83%, and the number of formally handled cases that
were not adjudicated delinquent
increased 72%.

■

The likelihood of being adjudicated
delinquent was greater for more serious offenses within the same general offense category.

■

Within the 2005 person offense category, 64% of petitioned aggravated
assault cases were adjudicated
delinquent, compared with 60% of
simple assault cases.

■

In the property offense category in
2005, 73% of petitioned burglary
cases were adjudicated delinquent,
compared with 69% of motor vehicle
theft cases and 65% of larceny-theft
cases.

■

Among public order offenses in
2005, 69% of the weapons offense
cases were adjudicated delinquent,
compared with 61% of disorderly
conduct cases and 58% of liquor law
violation cases.

■

Youth younger than 16 accounted
for 54% of all adjudicated delinquency cases handled by juvenile courts
in 2005, females accounted for 23%,
and white youth accounted for 63%.

Proportion of delinquency cases
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Nonpetitioned
Petitioned: not adjudicated delinquent
Petitioned: adjudicated delinquent or judicially waived

In 2005, youth were adjudicated delinquent in two-thirds of all
petitioned delinquency cases

Most serious offense
Total delinquency
Total person
Criminal homicide
Forcible rape
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Simple assault
Other violent sex offenses
Other person offenses
Total property
Burglary
Larceny-theft
Motor vehicle theft
Arson
Vandalism
Trespassing
Stolen property offenses
Other property offenses
Drug law violations
Public order offenses
Obstruction of justice
Disorderly conduct
Weapons offenses
Liquor law violations
Nonviolent sex offenses
Other public order offenses

Cases
adjudicated
delinquent
623,900
153,000
600
2,100
14,800
23,700
92,100
9,200
10,600
211,600
54,300
73,500
17,400
3,300
33,400
13,100
9,100
7,500
74,500
184,700
111,400
31,800
17,600
4,700
4,900
14,400

Percentage
of total
petitioned
cases
66%
61
52
64
65
64
60
69
56
66
73
65
69
63
63
57
63
64
68
69
73
61
69
58
69
63

Percentage of
all adjudicated cases
Younger
than 16
54%
62
41
65
57
58
63
75
60
57
59
56
53
73
61
56
48
42
40
51
47
64
57
32
65
49

Female White
23%
25
19
3
9
24
30
5
23
20
9
32
22
16
14
17
13
30
18
26
27
31
11
27
15
25

63%
55
66
66
31
51
58
68
61
66
67
64
59
74
77
57
53
66
70
62
62
53
61
88
72
72

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

45

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Adjudication

■

■

■

Beginning in 1988 and continuing
through 2000, the annual number of
delinquency cases in which the youth
was adjudicated delinquent steadily
increased from 349,100 to 656,600
and then declined to 623,900 in
2005.
The number of adjudicated person
offense cases increased 173%
between 1985 and 2005 (56,100 vs.
153,000).
The number of adjudicated cases
involving property offenses increased
42% between 1985 and its peak in
1997 and then declined 25% by 2005
for an overall increase of 6%.

■

Between 1985 and 2001, the number
of adjudicated drug offense cases
increased 264% (from 22,400 to
81,500) and then declined 9% by
2005.

■

Between 1991 and 2005, the number
of public order offense cases adjudicated delinquent increased 145%,
from 75,400 cases to 184,700 cases.

Offense profile of cases
adjudicated delinquent:
Most serious
offense
Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total

Between 1985 and 2005, the number of cases in which the youth was
adjudicated delinquent increased 85% (from 337,100 to 623,900)
Cases adjudicated delinquent
700,000
600,000
500,000

Total delinquency
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1985

2005

17%
59
7
18

25%
34
12
30

100%

100%

2003

2005

Between 2000 and 2005, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent
increased for cases involving person and public order offenses but
decreased for cases involving property and drug offenses

300,000

Property
250,000
200,000

Public order
150,000

Person

623,900

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.

100,000

Drugs

50,000

Compared with 1985, the 2005 adjudicated delinquent caseload included
greater proportions of person, public
order, and drug offense cases and a
substantially smaller proportion of
property offense cases.

46

2001

Cases adjudicated delinquent

Cases adjudicated
delinquent
337,100

■

1999

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Adjudication

Between 1995 and 2005, the likelihood of petitioned cases resulting
in a delinquency adjudication increased from 56% to 66%
Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
70%

■

The likelihood of delinquency adjudication decreased from 64% to 56%
between 1985 and 1995 and then
increased to 66% in 2005.

■

In 2005, the likelihood of a delinquency adjudication for cases involving property, drug, and public order
offenses was about the same as in
1985. However, for cases involving a
person offense, the likelihood of a
delinquency adjudication was greater
in 2005 than in 1985 (61% vs. 56%).

■

Among the four general offense categories, person offense cases were
least likely to result in delinquency
adjudication for all years between
1985 and 2005.

■

The likelihood of adjudication among
cases involving a property offense
decreased from 65% to 57%
between 1985 and 1995 and then
increased to 66% in 2005.

■

The likelihood of adjudication among
drug offense cases decreased from
68% to 55% between 1985 and 1995
and then increased to 68% in 2005.

■

Among public order cases, the likelihood of adjudication decreased from
68% to 59% between 1985 and 1995
and then increased to 69% in 2005.

60%

Total delinquency
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
70%
60%
Person
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
70%
60%
Property
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
70%
60%
Drugs
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
80%
60%

Public order

40%
20%
0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

47

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Adjudication

Age
■

■

In each year from 1985 through
2005, juveniles age 15 or younger
were more likely than older juveniles
to be adjudicated delinquent, regardless of offense.
Regardless of age, person offense
cases were less likely than other
offense categories to be adjudicated
delinquent for each year between
1985 and 2005.

■

Between 1985 and 1995, the likelihood of adjudication for drug offense
cases involving juveniles 15 or
younger decreased from 70% to
57%. After 1995, the likelihood
increased. In 2005, 71% of drug
offense cases involving juveniles
under age 16 resulted in a
delinquency adjudication.

■

For drug offense cases involving
juveniles age 16 and older, the likelihood of adjudication decreased from
66% to 54% between 1985 and
1995. Similar to the trend for
younger youth, the proportion of
drug offense cases adjudicated
delinquent increased to 66% in 2005
for older juveniles.

Each year between 1985 and 2005, cases involving younger juveniles
were more likely to be adjudicated delinquent than those involving
older juveniles, regardless of offense category
Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent, by age group:
15 or younger
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

65%
62
61
59
61
60
59
58
59
59
57
59
61
64
66
68
68
68
68
68
67

57%
55
54
51
54
54
53
54
54
54
53
55
57
60
62
63
64
64
64
63
62

Between 1985 and 2005, male
cases generally were more likely to
be adjudicated delinquent than were
female cases.

■

In 2004 and 2005, however, petitioned drug offense cases involving
females were more likely to result in
a delinquency adjudication, compared with cases involving males.

■

Between 1985 and 2005, for both
male and female juveniles, the likelihood of a delinquency adjudication
increased more for person offense
cases than for other offenses; however, the increase was greater for
females (from 50% to 58%) than for
males (57% to 62%).

48

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

65%
64
62
60
62
61
60
59
60
59
58
60
62
65
67
69
69
69
70
69
67

70%
68
64
61
66
62
60
58
58
58
57
61
65
67
70
72
71
70
71
71
71

70%
66
65
65
67
65
62
62
64
63
62
63
65
66
69
71
70
71
71
70
69

All
63%
60
59
57
60
58
57
56
56
55
54
57
59
61
63
66
66
66
66
66
65

Person Property Drugs
54%
53
52
50
54
52
52
52
51
51
50
53
55
57
59
60
61
61
61
61
59

64%
61
60
58
61
60
58
58
57
56
55
57
59
62
64
66
66
67
67
67
65

Public
order

66%
63
60
55
62
57
54
54
54
54
54
58
61
62
65
67
67
67
67
67
66

65%
61
60
60
62
60
58
57
59
58
56
59
62
63
65
69
69
68
68
69
68

Person Property Drugs

Public
order

Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent, by gender:
Male

Gender
■

16 or older

Public
Person Property Drugs order

Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

64%
62
61
59
62
60
59
58
59
58
57
59
61
63
66
68
68
68
68
68
66

Female

Person Property Drugs
57%
56
54
52
56
54
54
54
54
54
53
56
57
60
62
63
63
64
64
64
62

65%
63
62
60
62
61
60
60
60
59
58
60
62
64
66
69
68
69
69
69
67

68%
65
62
57
64
59
57
56
56
56
55
60
63
64
67
69
68
68
69
68
67

Public
order
68%
64
63
62
64
62
60
60
62
61
59
62
64
64
67
70
70
70
70
70
69

All
60%
57
56
55
56
56
54
54
54
53
53
54
57
59
62
65
65
65
65
65
64

50%
47
50
45
48
50
47
49
49
49
49
49
51
55
58
59
60
60
60
59
58

61%
58
56
54
56
56
54
54
54
53
52
54
56
59
62
65
65
66
65
65
64

64%
63
58
55
61
57
55
52
53
54
52
55
60
61
66
68
68
68
68
70
69

67%
62
62
64
64
64
61
59
61
59
59
60
62
64
66
69
68
69
68
68
67

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Adjudication

Race

Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent, by race:
White
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

66%
64
62
61
63
61
59
59
60
59
58
59
61
64
66
69
69
69
70
70
68

Black

Public
Person Property Drugs order
59%
56
57
55
57
57
55
55
56
56
54
55
57
61
63
64
65
65
65
65
63

67%
65
63
61
63
62
60
60
61
60
58
60
62
65
67
69
69
70
71
70
68

69%
67
64
60
65
62
59
60
58
59
57
60
63
65
69
70
70
70
71
71
70

69%
65
64
64
66
64
61
60
63
62
60
61
63
64
67
71
71
71
71
72
70

All
58%
56
55
53
57
56
55
54
54
53
53
57
59
60
62
64
63
63
63
62
62

Public
Person Property Drugs order
53%
51
50
46
50
50
50
50
49
49
49
52
54
57
57
59
59
59
59
59
58

63%
61
58
54
62
56
55
53
53
51
51
59
62
61
64
66
63
62
63
61
63

63%
60
59
60
62
59
60
59
60
58
57
61
63
64
67
69
67
67
66
66
66

Person Property Drugs

Public
order

American Indian
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

70%
70
69
65
68
69
65
62
59
60
63
62
64
63
64
69
72
74
74
74
70

Person Property Drugs
69%
69
67
62
67
66
68
62
55
62
64
62
65
62
64
68
69
74
71
73
69

70%
70
69
65
70
70
64
63
60
58
62
63
63
64
63
68
73
75
75
74
70

75%
71
68
71
69
71
63
57
60
66
57
61
70
66
66
72
71
72
71
75
72

59%
57
56
55
57
58
56
55
55
53
53
57
58
60
63
64
64
64
64
63
62

■

In each year between 1985 and
2005, delinquency cases involving
black youth were less likely to result
in a delinquency adjudication than
were cases involving white youth.

■

For black juveniles, the likelihood of
delinquency adjudication decreased
between 1985 and 1995 (from 58%
to 53%) and then increased to 64%
in 2000. In 2005, the likelihood of
adjudication was 62%.

■

For delinquency cases involving
white juveniles, the likelihood of a
delinquency adjudication decreased
between 1985 and 1995 (from 66%
to 58%) and then increased. In 2005,
68% of all cases involving white
youth resulted in a delinquency adjudication.

■

The likelihood of a delinquency adjudication for drug offense cases was
higher in 2005 than in 1985 for Asian
youth but about the same for cases
involving white and black youth.

■

The racial profile of adjudicated
cases changed between 1985 and
2005. In 1985, white youth accounted for 70% of the adjudicated caseload; by 2005, this proportion
declined to 63%.

Asian
Public
order
69%
73
72
62
62
72
66
59
60
64
64
63
66
62
64
71
73
74
75
75
72

All
59%
57
57
54
57
59
56
64
64
59
53
54
56
57
62
66
63
66
69
68
69

59%
52
51
47
49
50
50
60
65
60
51
51
56
54
61
63
61
65
69
67
68

58%
57
58
54
58
60
57
68
65
59
53
54
54
57
62
67
63
67
70
70
68

52%
49
53
52
52
44
43
59
77
61
47
47
52
55
56
64
61
63
64
65
68

64%
67
67
63
65
67
62
58
53
55
60
59
59
63
62
70
67
67
70
69
70

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

49

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

■

The number of cases adjudicated
delinquent that resulted in out-ofhome placement increased 30%
between 1985 and 2005. During this
period, the number of cases involving
the use of out-of-home placement
increased 139% for drug offense
cases, 94% for public order offense
cases, and 89% for person offense
cases but decreased 25% for property offense cases.

The number of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in out-ofhome placement increased 69% between 1985 and 1997 and then
decreased 23% through 2005
Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement
200,000

160,000

Total delinquency
120,000

■

■

The number of cases involving outof-home placement peaked in 1997
at 182,800 cases and then decreased
23% by 2005. Between 1997 and
2005, the number of cases resulting
in out-of-home placement decreased
13% for cases involving person
offenses, 40% for property offense
cases, 25% for drug offense cases,
and 6% for cases involving public
order offenses.
Public order offense cases include
escapes from institutions, weapons
offenses, and probation and parole
violations. This may help to explain
the relatively high number of public
order offense cases involving out-ofhome placement.

80,000

40,000

0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement
80,000

Most serious
offense

60,000

Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total
Cases resulting
in out-of-home
placement

2005

19%
55
5
21

27%
32
10
31

100%

100%

140,100

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
■

Property offense cases are the
largest share of cases adjudicated
delinquent that result in out-of-home
placement, although the proportion
declined substantially between 1985
and 2005.

50

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

2005

70,000

Property

50,000
40,000

Person

30,000

Public order

20,000

Drugs

10,000

107,900

2003

The number of property offense cases adjudicated delinquent that
resulted in out-of-home placement decreased 40% between 1997
and 2005

Offense profile of cases
adjudicated delinquent, resulting
in out-of-home placement:
1985

2001

0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

The court ordered out-of-home placement in 22% of all cases
adjudicated delinquent in 2005, down from 32% in 1985

■

Although the likelihood that an adjudicated case would result in out-ofhome placement decreased
between 1985 and 2005 for each of
the four major offense categories,
the number of cases adjudicated
delinquent resulting in out-of-home
placement increased 30%.

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the largest
decline in the proportion of adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home
placement was seen in cases
involving public order offenses (from
38% to 24%). The proportion also
decreased for person offense cases
(from 36% to 25%), for property
offense cases (from 30% to 21%),
and for drug offense cases (from
26% to 19%).

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the trend
in the likelihood of out-of-home
placement for drug offense cases
differed from the trends of the other
general offense categories. The proportion of adjudicated drug offense
cases that resulted in out-of-home
placement increased from 26% in
1985 to 38% in 1991 before
decreasing through 2005. In contrast, the proportion of cases resulting in out-of-home placement
declined continuously between 1985
and 2005 for person, property, and
public order offense cases adjudicated delinquent.

Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement
35%
30%

Total delinquency

25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent,
resulting in out-of-home placement
40%
30%

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent,
resulting in out-of-home placement
30%
25%

Person

Property

20%
15%

20%

10%

10%

5%

0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent,
resulting in out-of-home placement
40%
30%

1995

Drugs

0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent,
resulting in out-of-home placement
40%
30%

Public order
20%

20%

10%

10%

0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

51

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

Age
■

■

In each year from 1996 through
2005, cases involving juveniles age
16 or older adjudicated delinquent
were more likely to result in out-ofhome placement than were cases
involving youth age 15 or younger,
regardless of offense.
Between 1985 and 2005, the use of
out-of-home placement declined for
both younger youth and older youth
across all four general offense categories. The declines for younger
youth were greater than those for
older youth.

Gender
■

For each year between 1987 and
2005, cases involving males adjudicated delinquent were more likely to
result in out-of-home placement than
were cases involving females,
regardless of offense.

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the use of
out-of-home placement declined
more for public order offense cases
than for any other offense category
for both males (13 percentage
points) and females (18 percentage
points).

■

■

For males in 2005, person offense
and public order offense cases adjudicated delinquent were most likely
to result in out-of-home placement
(27% and 25%, respectively),
followed by property cases (23%)
and cases involving drug offenses
(20%).
For females in 2005, adjudicated
public order offense cases were
most likely to result in out-of-home
placement (20%), followed by person
cases (18%), property cases (15%),
and drug offense cases (13%).

52

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Between 1985 and 2005, the likelihood of out-of-home placement
declined more for younger than older youth and declined more for
females than males
Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement, by
age group:
15 or younger
16 or older
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

32%
32
31
31
32
31
30
30
29
29
28
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
21
21

Person Property Drugs
35%
34
33
33
33
33
34
33
31
30
30
30
29
27
27
26
24
24
23
23
23

30%
28
28
29
29
29
28
28
27
27
26
26
25
24
24
23
22
21
20
21
20

27%
32
34
36
39
38
40
38
34
31
27
27
26
24
24
21
19
18
18
16
17

Public
order
40%
41
41
35
36
35
32
31
30
30
30
29
30
27
26
26
25
23
22
22
22

All
32%
32
32
32
32
31
31
31
30
30
29
30
30
28
28
27
27
26
25
24
24

Person Property Drugs
37%
36
35
34
35
36
36
35
34
34
33
35
34
32
31
31
30
29
29
28
28

30%
31
30
30
29
29
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
27
27
25
25
24
25
23
23

25%
31
31
33
35
35
37
35
32
30
26
28
26
25
25
23
22
21
21
19
20

Public
order
35%
35
36
34
34
32
30
31
31
30
30
30
32
29
28
29
28
27
26
25
25

Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement,
by gender:
Male
Female
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

33%
33
32
32
33
32
32
31
31
30
30
30
30
28
28
27
26
25
25
24
24

Person Property Drugs
37%
36
36
35
36
36
36
35
34
34
33
34
33
31
30
29
28
28
28
27
27

31%
30
29
30
30
30
29
29
28
29
28
28
28
27
27
26
25
24
24
23
23

26%
32
32
35
38
37
39
37
34
31
27
29
27
26
26
23
22
21
21
19
20

Public
order
38%
38
39
36
37
34
32
33
32
31
32
32
33
30
29
29
28
27
26
25
25

All
28%
28
27
25
25
25
24
23
22
22
22
21
21
20
20
19
19
18
18
17
17

Person Property Drugs
29%
28
25
25
25
25
26
26
25
23
24
23
23
21
21
21
20
19
19
18
18

23%
23
23
22
23
23
22
21
20
20
20
19
18
18
18
16
16
15
15
15
15

23%
27
26
29
30
29
30
28
25
23
18
18
16
17
17
14
14
14
15
13
13

Public
order
38%
39
38
30
29
28
26
25
24
24
24
24
25
22
22
23
21
21
20
20
20

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement,
by race:
White
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

31%
30
30
30
30
29
28
27
27
26
26
26
26
25
24
24
23
22
22
21
21

Black

Person Property Drugs
34%
31
32
31
32
32
31
31
29
29
29
29
29
27
27
27
25
25
25
23
23

29%
28
27
28
28
27
25
25
24
25
25
24
25
23
23
23
22
22
21
20
20

23%
27
28
29
31
29
30
29
26
23
20
20
19
18
18
17
16
16
16
15
15

Public
order
38%
38
38
35
36
34
32
32
30
29
30
28
30
28
27
27
26
25
23
23
23

All
35%
36
35
34
35
35
35
34
34
34
33
35
33
31
30
28
28
26
26
26
26

Person Property Drugs
38%
40
37
36
37
38
39
36
36
35
35
36
34
32
30
29
28
27
26
26
26

Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

42%
38
37
36
37
39
40
41
34
34
34
32
30
32
34
31
31
29
31
32
26

40%
36
35
35
36
39
37
40
32
34
32
32
30
33
33
31
32
30
32
33
26

40%
35
27
40
27
27
49
38
20
21
20
18
13
20
17
21
18
16
22
20
18

After adjudication, the likelihood of
out-of-home placement in 2005 was
greater for black youth and
American Indian youth (26% each)
than for white (21%) or Asian youth
(22% ).

38%
39
39
33
33
31
30
30
30
31
31
33
32
30
28
28
27
27
26
25
25

■

The proportion of cases adjudicated
delinquent that resulted in out-ofhome placement was smaller in
2005 than in 1985 for all races and
across all offenses.

■

For adjudicated person offense
cases involving American Indian
youth, the likelihood of out-of-home
placement decreased 17 percentage
points from 48% in 1985 to 31% in
2005; the decrease was less for
black youth (from 38% to 26%),
white youth (from 34% to 23%), and
Asian youth (from 36% to 28%).

■

In each year between 1992 and
2005, drug offense cases involving
black juveniles adjudicated delinquent were more likely to result in
out-of-home placement than were
drug cases involving juveniles of any
other races.

Person Property Drugs

Public
order
■

For adjudicated public order cases,
the use of out-of home placement
decreased 17 percentage points
between 1985 and 2005 for
American Indian juveniles, 15 points
for white youth, 13 points for black
youth, and 11 points for Asian juveniles.

Asian

Public
Person Property Drugs order
48%
44
41
35
42
40
46
40
43
38
38
38
33
40
41
39
38
36
37
35
31

■

Public
order

33%
40
37
39
42
42
44
43
40
40
36
41
39
37
38
35
35
32
32
28
29

American Indian

33%
33
32
33
33
34
34
33
33
33
32
32
31
29
28
26
26
24
24
25
24

Race

43%
42
43
39
41
39
43
47
36
31
37
32
32
30
34
30
28
26
28
30
26

All
27%
24
24
23
26
27
31
41
39
38
32
28
26
23
27
27
25
23
23
21
22

36%
31
36
26
31
31
37
47
44
45
33
30
27
23
25
26
27
26
27
26
28

24%
22
20
23
23
26
32
41
38
36
34
29
25
24
28
27
23
24
25
21
20

21%
21
25
20
23
35
33
37
34
38
21
30
26
24
21
21
22
19
16
15
17

32%
27
24
24
28
26
22
33
41
33
24
22
26
23
26
28
26
21
18
20
21

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

53

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Dispositions: Probation

■

■

■

■

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the
number of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in an order of
probation increased 95%, compared
with a 30% increase in the number
of cases that resulted in out-of-home
placement.
Nearly all of the growth in the number of cases adjudicated delinquent
that resulted in probation took place
between 1985 and 1997. During that
period, the number of cases adjudicated and ordered to probation doubled and then changed little through
2005.
Since 1985, the largest percent
increase in the number of cases
adjudicated delinquent that received
probation has been for drug offense
cases (236%), followed by public
order offenses (220%), person
offenses (203%), and property
offenses (15%).
Between 1997 and 2005, the number
of adjudicated cases resulting in an
order of probation increased 23% for
public order offense cases (from
78,600 to 96,800), 14% for person
offense cases (from 84,800 to
95,800), and 8% for drug offense
cases (from 44,300 to 47,900). For
the same time period, the number of
adjudicated cases resulting in an
order of probation decreased 24%
for property offense cases (from
176,000 to 132,900).
Increases in the person and public
order offense categories accounted
for more than 70% of the growth in
the number of adjudicated cases
resulting in probation between 1985
and 2005.

Between 1997 and 2005, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent
that resulted in probation remained relatively unchanged
Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation
400,000
350,000
300,000

Total delinquency
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1985

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Between 1997 and 2005, the number of adjudicated cases resulting
in probation increased for person, drugs, and public order offense
cases but decreased for property offense cases
Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation
180,000
160,000
140,000

Property

120,000
100,000
80,000

Person

60,000

Public order

40,000

Drugs

20,000
0
1985

54

1987

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Dispositions: Probation

Probation remains the most likely sanction imposed by juvenile
courts

■

Probation was the most restrictive
disposition used in 60% (373,400) of
the cases adjudicated delinquent in
2005, compared with 57% (191,500)
of the adjudicated caseload in 1985.

■

Between 1985 and 2005, the likelihood of probation for cases adjudicated delinquent increased more for
person (from 56% to 63%) and property (from 58% to 63%) offense
cases than for public order (from
51% to 52%) and drug offense
cases (64% in both years).

Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation
70%
60%

Total delinquency

50%
40%
30%
20%

Offense profile of cases
adjudicated delinquent that
resulted in probation:

10%
0%
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Most serious
offense

Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent,
resulting in probation
70%
60%
Person
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent,
resulting in probation
70%
60%
Property
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent,
resulting in probation
70%
60%
Drugs
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent,
resulting in probation
60%
50%
40%

Public order

30%
20%
10%
0%
85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Person
Property
Drugs
Public order
Total
Cases resulting in
formal probation

1985

2005

17%
60
7
16

26%
36
13
26

100%

100%

191,500

373,400

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
■

In 2005, 36% of cases adjudicated
delinquent that resulted in probation
involved property offenses, while
person cases and public order cases
each accounted for about one quarter of these cases (26% each).

■

The offense characteristics of cases
adjudicated delinquent that resulted
in probation changed between 1985
and 2005, with an increase in the
proportion of cases involving person,
drug, and public order offenses and
a large decrease in the proportion
involving property offenses.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

55

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Dispositions: Probation

Age
■

Among juveniles age 15 or younger,
the overall likelihood of being placed
on formal probation increased from
58% in 1985 to 63% in 2005; similar
increases were seen across offense
categories.

■

Among youth age 16 or older, the
overall likelihood of being placed on
formal probation increased between
1985 and 2005 from 55% to 57%;
similar increases were seen across
offense categories.

■

For both age groups in 2005, adjudicated cases involving drug offenses
were more likely to result in probation than cases in other offense categories.

Gender
■

Between 1985 and 2005, the overall
likelihood of being placed on formal
probation increased equally for adjudicated cases involving females
(from 59% to 62%) and males (from
56% to 59%).

■

For females in 2005, drug offense
cases adjudicated delinquent were
most likely to be placed on probation
(69%), followed by person offense
cases (67%) and property offense
cases (64%). Public order offense
cases were least likely to result in
formal probation (53%).

■

Among males, person, property, and
drug offense cases adjudicated
delinquent were almost equally likely
to be placed on probation (61%,
62%, and 63%, respectively) in 2005;
similar to females, public order
offense cases were least likely to
result in probation (52%).

56

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Between 1985 and 2005, the likelihood of probation being ordered
following an adjudication of delinquency increased for nearly all
demographic groups
Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation, by age group:
15 or younger
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

58%
59
60
58
57
57
57
58
57
57
58
61
62
62
63
62
63
63
63
64
63

16 or older

Person Property Drugs
58%
60
60
58
57
57
56
58
58
58
59
61
63
63
64
64
64
65
65
66
65

59%
61
62
61
60
61
61
60
60
59
61
63
64
65
65
64
65
66
65
66
65

64%
61
61
59
55
55
53
54
56
57
59
63
65
66
66
65
66
67
66
69
67

Public
order
51%
50
51
48
47
48
48
51
51
51
52
55
55
54
57
56
57
57
57
58
56

All
55%
55
56
54
53
54
54
54
53
52
53
55
57
55
56
55
56
56
56
58
57

Person Property Drugs
54%
55
55
54
53
52
51
52
52
52
52
53
56
55
57
56
57
59
58
60
59

56%
56
57
56
56
57
57
57
55
55
56
57
59
59
58
58
58
59
59
60
60

64%
60
62
59
54
56
51
53
55
54
56
59
61
61
61
61
61
62
60
64
62

Public
order
51%
50
50
48
47
49
48
48
48
47
48
50
50
47
49
47
49
49
49
51
49

Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation, by gender:
Male
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

56%
57
58
56
55
56
55
56
55
54
55
58
59
58
59
58
59
59
59
60
59

Female

Public
Person Property Drugs order
56%
57
57
56
54
54
53
54
54
54
55
56
59
58
60
59
60
61
61
62
61

57%
58
59
58
58
59
59
58
57
57
58
60
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
63
62

64%
60
61
58
54
55
51
53
55
54
57
60
62
62
62
62
63
64
62
65
63

51%
50
50
48
47
49
48
50
49
48
49
52
52
50
53
51
52
52
53
54
52

All
59%
60
60
58
58
59
59
60
60
60
62
63
64
63
64
62
62
63
62
63
62

Person Property Drugs
61%
63
66
62
63
63
62
62
63
63
64
65
67
66
67
66
66
67
67
68
67

61%
63
62
62
62
63
63
63
62
63
64
65
67
66
67
66
65
65
64
65
64

64%
64
64
62
60
59
58
61
61
61
64
66
69
69
68
66
68
67
65
70
69

Public
order
51%
50
51
47
45
48
48
51
53
52
54
57
56
54
55
54
56
55
56
56
53

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Dispositions: Probation

Race

Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation, by race:
White
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

56%
57
58
56
56
57
57
57
57
57
58
61
62
61
62
60
61
62
62
63
62

Black

Public
Person Property Drugs order
57%
59
59
57
57
57
57
57
58
58
59
60
62
61
63
62
64
64
64
66
65

57%
59
59
59
59
60
60
60
59
59
60
62
63
63
64
63
63
64
64
65
64

64%
62
62
60
58
60
56
58
59
59
62
66
67
67
67
66
66
67
66
68
67

50%
49
49
47
47
49
48
49
50
49
51
56
54
53
56
53
55
55
55
57
55

All
59%
58
59
56
54
54
54
55
54
53
53
54
56
55
56
56
56
57
56
57
56

Public
Person Property Drugs order
56%
56
58
56
54
53
52
54
54
53
53
55
58
58
59
60
59
60
60
60
60

63%
58
61
57
52
51
49
50
52
50
51
53
54
55
54
55
54
56
54
59
57

55%
55
54
48
46
47
48
51
50
49
47
48
48
46
49
49
48
49
50
50
48

Person Property Drugs

Public
order

American Indian
Year

All

1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

39%
43
46
41
44
44
38
36
45
47
47
50
54
52
52
51
52
58
54
56
58

39%
44
47
38
43
42
38
38
47
45
47
49
51
50
50
50
50
57
54
54
58

36%
48
48
44
58
54
33
36
64
56
59
65
69
66
73
65
66
71
65
69
72

Between 1985 and 2005, the overall
likelihood of being placed on formal
probation increased more for adjudicated cases involving American
Indian youth (from 39% to 58%) than
those involving white youth (from
56% to 62%). The likelihood
decreased for black youth (from 59%
to 56%) and Asian youth (from 67%
to 64%).

■

Between 1994 and 2005, the use of
probation for adjudicated person
offense cases increased for all racial
groups: from 58% to 65% for white
youth, from 53% to 60% for black
youth, from 48% to 63% for Asian
youth, and from 47% to 60% for
American Indian youth.

■

In 2005, among white youth, drug
offense cases that were adjudicated
delinquent were most likely to be
placed on formal probation (67%),
followed by adjudicated person and
property offense cases (65% and
64%, respectively).

■

Among cases involving black youth
in 2005, adjudicated person and
property offense cases were most
likely to be placed on formal probation (both 60%), followed by adjudicated drug offense cases (57%).

■

In 2005, for cases involving
American Indian youth, adjudicated
drug offense cases were most likely
to be placed on formal probation
(72%), followed by adjudicated person (60%) and property offense
cases (58%).

■

For cases involving Asian youth in
2005, drug offense cases that were
adjudicated delinquent were most
likely to be placed on formal probation (67%).

Asian

Public
Person Property Drugs order
38%
39
47
46
43
44
36
37
37
47
47
50
55
50
46
47
49
56
53
56
60

60%
60
62
59
59
59
59
59
58
56
57
58
59
60
60
60
60
61
60
59
60

■

41%
45
41
46
45
52
38
28
44
49
47
50
53
53
53
50
55
55
52
53
52

All
67%
70
70
72
68
67
63
48
48
50
59
61
65
65
64
59
59
60
61
64
64

59%
65
62
71
64
64
58
42
49
48
60
63
67
67
67
63
63
65
64
65
63

70%
72
72
71
70
68
60
48
47
50
54
58
65
65
62
58
60
60
59
63
64

77%
75
68
75
67
53
64
55
61
54
62
58
63
64
69
66
64
67
66
68
67

62%
66
71
72
67
69
73
55
49
49
67
68
65
65
63
54
54
55
61
62
64

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

57

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing Overview, 2005

■

■

■

■

■

■

In 2005, 56% (949,400) of the estimated 1,697,900 juvenile court cases
were handled formally (with the filing
of a petition).

1,697,900 estimated
delinquency cases

Petitioned
949,300

56%
Not adjudicated
delinquent
318,500
34%

In 60% (373,400) of cases adjudicated delinquent in 2005, formal probation was the most severe sanction
ordered by the court.
In 2005, 22% (140,100) of cases
adjudicated delinquent resulted in
placement outside the home in a residential facility.
In 18% (110,400) of cases adjudicated delinquent in 2005, the juvenile
was ordered to pay restitution or a
fine, to participate in some form of
community service, or to enter a
treatment or counseling program—
dispositions with minimal continuing
supervision by probation staff.

■

In 34% (318,500) of all petitioned
delinquency cases in 2005, the youth
was not subsequently adjudicated
delinquent. The court dismissed 75%
of these cases, while 6% resulted in
some form of informal probation and
19% in other voluntary dispositions.

■

In 2005, the court dismissed 40% of
the informally handled delinquency
cases, while 22% of the cases resulted in voluntary probation and 38% in
other dispositions.

58

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

1%

Adjudicated
delinquent
623,900
66%

In 2005, 1% (6,900) of all formally
processed delinquency cases were
judicially transferred to criminal court.
In 2005, 66% (623,900) of the cases
that were handled formally (with the
filing of a petition) resulted in a delinquency adjudication.

Waived
6,900

Not petitioned
748,500
44%

Probation
164,000

22%

Other sanction
283,400

38%

Dismissed
301,200

40%

Placed
140,100

22%

Probation
373,400

60%

Other sanction
110,400

18%

Probation
19,100

6%

Other sanction
60,900

19%

Dismissed
238,500

75%

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2005 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing Overview, 2005

A typical 1,000
delinquency cases

4 Waived
Adjudicated
367 delinquent

559 Petitioned

For every 1,000 delinquency cases
processed in 2005, 559 were petitioned for formal processing and 441
were handled informally.

■

Of the cases that were adjudicated
delinquent, 60% (220 of 367)
received a disposition of probation
and 22% (83 of 367) were placed out
of the home.

■

In many petitioned delinquency
cases that did not result in a delinquency adjudication, the youth
agreed to informal services or sanctions (47 of 188), including informal
probation and other dispositions
such as restitution.

■

Although juvenile courts in 2005 handled more than 4 in 10 delinquency
cases without the filing of a formal
petition, 60% of these cases
received some form of court sanction, including probation or other dispositions such as restitution, community service, or referral to another
agency.

83 Placed
220 Probation
65 Other sanction

Not adjudicated
188 delinquent

■

11 Probation
36 Other sanction
140 Dismissed

97 Probation
441 Nonpetitioned

167 Other sanction
177 Dismissed

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

59

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Offense Category, 2005

Person Offense Cases

Formal probation was the most
severe sanction ordered by the court
in 63% (95,800) of the adjudicated
person offense cases in 2005.

■

In 2005, one-fifth (19%) of person
offense cases that were handled
informally resulted in probation; 48%
were dismissed.

■

Petitioned
251,200

58%

25%

Probation
95,800

63%

Other sanction
19,500

13%

Probation
5,600
Not adjudicated
94,700
38%

Not petitioned
178,300
42%

Placed
37,800

Probation
34,300

19%

Other sanction
58,400

33%

Dismissed
85,600

48%

6%

Other sanction
16,500

17%

Dismissed
72,600

77%

Placed
45,100

21%

Probation
132,900

63%

Other sanction
33,700

16%

Juvenile courts waived jurisdiction in
1% (3,500) of all petitioned person
offense cases in 2005.

■

Property Offense Cases

■

1%

Adjudicated
153,000
61%

Once adjudicated, person offense
cases were as likely to result in outof-home placement as were public
order offense cases (25% and 24%,
respectively), and were more likely
than property (21%) or drug offense
cases (19%).

■

■

Waived
3,500

In 2005, 61% (153,000) of all formally processed person offense cases
resulted in a delinquency adjudication.

■

■

Person offenses
429,500

Property offenses
598,600

Juvenile courts handled the majority
(53%) of all property offense cases
formally in 2005. Of these formally
handled cases, two-thirds (211,600
cases) were adjudicated delinquent.
In 2005, 132,900 (63%) of the adjudicated property offense cases resulted
in probation as the most severe
sanction; another 21% (45,100)
resulted in out-of-home placement.
Other sanctions, such as restitution,
community service, or referral to
another agency, were ordered in
16% (33,700) of the petitioned property offense cases following adjudication.
Of the four general offense
categories, property offense cases
were least likely to be petitioned for
formal processing. Once petitioned,
however, property offense cases
were more likely to result in the youth
being adjudicated delinquent than
were cases involving person offenses.

60

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Waived
1,900

1%

Adjudicated
211,600
66%

Petitioned
319,400

53%

Probation
6,900
Not adjudicated
105,900
33%

Not petitioned
279,200
47%

Probation
62,200

22%

Other sanction
113,600

41%

Dismissed
103,400

37%

7%

Other sanction
22,300

21%

Dismissed
76,700

72%

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2005 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Offense Category, 2005

Drug offenses
195,300

Waived
800

1%

Adjudicated
74,500
68%

Petitioned
109,900

56%

Public order offenses
474,400

Probation
20,700

24%

Other sanction
37,200

44%

Dismissed
27,500

32%

Waived
700

<1%

Adjudicated
184,700
69%

Petitioned
268,700

57%

19%

Probation
47,900

64%

Other sanction
12,800

17%

Probation
46,800

23%

Other sanction
74,200

36%

Dismissed
84,700

41%

9%

Other sanction
6,600

19%

Dismissed
24,800

72%

■

In 2005, 68% (74,500) of all
petitioned drug offense cases resulted in the youth being adjudicated
delinquent; 64% (47,900) of these
cases received probation as the
most severe sanction, and another
19% (13,800) resulted in out-ofhome placement.

■

Other sanctions, such as restitution,
community service, or referral to
another agency, were ordered in
17% (12,800) of petitioned drug
offense cases following adjudication
in 2005.

■

Juvenile courts waived jurisdiction in
1% (800) of all petitioned drug
offense cases in 2005.

■

About 44% of drug offense cases
were informally handled in 2005;
68% of the informally handled drug
offense cases resulted in probation
or some other sanction.

Public Order Offense Cases

Placed
43,400

24%

Probation
96,800

52%

Other sanction
44,500

24%

Probation
3,500
Not adjudicated
83,300
31%

Not petitioned
205,600
43%

Placed
13,800

Probation
3,100
Not adjudicated
34,500
31%

Not petitioned
85,400
44%

Drug Offense Cases

■

In 2005, the majority (57%) of all
public order offense cases were handled formally, with the filing of a petition for adjudication.

■

Once adjudicated delinquent, 52% of
public order offense cases in 2005
resulted in probation as the most
severe sanction, 24% were placed
out of the home, and 24% resulted in
other sanctions.

■

In 2005, 43% of all public order
offense cases were handled informally. More than 40% of these cases
were dismissed, while the remaining
cases resulted in some form of court
sanction, including probation, restitution, community service, or referral to
another agency.

4%

Other sanction
15,500

19%

Dismissed
64,300

77%

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2005 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

61

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Age, 2005

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

In 2005, 53% (510,200) of all delinquency cases involving youth age 15
or younger and 60% (439,100) of
cases involving youth age 16 or older
were handled formally with the filing
of a petition.
Cases involving youth age 15 or
younger were adjudicated delinquent
in 67% of all formally processed
cases in 2005; cases involving youth
age 16 or older were adjudicated
delinquent in 65% of all such cases.

Age 15 or younger
964,800

Probation was ordered as the most
severe sanction in 2005 in 63% of
the adjudicated cases involving youth
age 15 or younger, compared with
57% of adjudicated cases involving
youth 16 or older.
Among cases formally adjudicated in
2005 involving youth age 15 or
younger, 16% resulted in other sanctions. For cases involving youth age
16 or older, 19% of the formally adjudicated cases resulted in other sanctions.
Of the 47% of all delinquency cases
involving youth age 15 or younger
that were handled informally in 2005,
23% resulted in a disposition of probation and 39% were dismissed.
Among older youth in 2005, 40% of
all delinquency cases were handled
without the filing of a petition for
adjudication; 21% of these cases
resulted in a disposition of probation
and 43% were dismissed.

<1%

Adjudicated
339,700
67%

Petitioned
510,200

53%

Not petitioned
454,700
47%

Age 16 or older
733,000

Probation
102,700

23%

Other sanction
176,900

39%

Dismissed
175,100

39%

Waived
5,800

1%

Adjudicated
284,300
65%

Petitioned
439,100

60%

21%

Probation
212,300

63%

Other sanction
55,900

16%

Probation
61,300

21%

Other sanction
106,500

36%

Dismissed
126,100

43%

6%

Other sanction
30,200

18%

Dismissed
128,600

76%

Placed
68,600

24%

Probation
161,100

57%

Other sanction
54,500

19%

Probation
8,500
Not adjudicated
149,100
34%

Not petitioned
293,900
40%

Placed
71,500

Probation
10,600
Not adjudicated
169,500
33%

The proportion of petitioned cases
waived to criminal court in 2005 was
less than half of 1% for youth age 15
or younger, compared with 1.3% for
youth age 16 or older.
In 2005, 21% of cases adjudicated
delinquent involving youth age 15 or
younger and 24% of such cases
involving youth age 16 or older
resulted in out-of-home placement.

Waived
1,100

6%

Other sanction
30,700

21%

Dismissed
109,900

74%

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2005 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

62

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Gender, 2005

Male
1,233,200

Waived
6,300

1%

Adjudicated
482,100
66%

Petitioned
726,100

59%

Female
464,700

Probation
110,300

22%

Other sanction
185,100

37%

Dismissed
211,600

42%

Waived
600

<1%

Adjudicated
141,800
64%

Petitioned
223,200

48%

Probation
285,600

59%

Other sanction
80,900

17%

Probation
53,700

22%

Other sanction
98,300

41%

Dismissed
89,600

37%

In 2005, 59% of delinquency cases
involving males were handled with
the filing of a petition for adjudication,
compared with 48% of those involving females.

■

Once petitioned, cases involving
males in 2005 were slightly more
likely to result in a delinquency adjudication than were cases involving
females (66% vs. 64%).

■

Delinquency cases involving females
in 2005 were less likely to be waived
to criminal court than those involving
males.

■

Once adjudicated delinquent, 24% of
cases involving males in 2005 resulted in out-of-home placement, compared with 17% of those involving
females.

■

Of the adjudicated cases involving
males, 59% received probation as
the most severe sanction, and 17%
resulted in other sanctions such as
restitution or community service.

■

Among adjudicated cases involving
females in 2005, 62% received probation as the most severe sanction
and 21% resulted in other sanctions.

■

Informally handled delinquency cases
involving males were as likely as
those involving females to receive
probation in 2005 (22%); male cases
were more likely than female cases
to be dismissed (42% vs. 37%).

■

In 2005, informally handled
delinquency cases involving females
were more likely to result in other
sanctions than those involving males
(41% vs. 37%).

6%

Other sanction
45,500

19%

Dismissed
178,000

75%

Placed
24,400

17%

Probation
87,800

62%

Other sanction
29,500

21%

Probation
4,900
Not adjudicated
80,800
36%

Not petitioned
241,500
52%

24%

Probation
14,300
Not adjudicated
237,700
33%

Not petitioned
507,000
41%

Placed
115,700

■

6%

Other sanction
15,400

19%

Dismissed
60,500

75%

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2005 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

63

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Race, 2005

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

In 2005, delinquency cases involving
black youth were more likely to be
handled formally (62%) than those
involving white youth (53%),
American Indian youth (56%), or
Asian youth (59%).
Once petitioned, cases in 2005
involving black youth were less likely
to be adjudicated delinquent (62%)
than were cases involving white
youth (68%), Asian youth (69%), or
American Indian youth (70%).

White
1,090,200

Waived
4,000

Adjudicated
390,300
68%

Petitioned
573,900

53%

In 64% of the adjudicated cases
involving Asian youth in 2005, probation was the most severe sanction;
14% resulted in other sanctions such
as restitution or community service.

Not petitioned
516,300
47%

Black
559,100

For adjudicated cases involving
American Indian youth in 2005, probation was the most severe sanction
ordered in 58% of the cases and
15% resulted in other sanctions.

Probation
118,600

23%

Other sanction
201,700

39%

Dismissed
196,000

38%

Waived
2,700

For adjudicated cases involving black
youth in 2005, probation was the
most severe sanction ordered in 56%
of the cases and 19% resulted in
other sanctions.

1%

Adjudicated
214,200
62%

Petitioned
347,500

62%

21%

Probation
241,800

62%

Other sanction
67,900

17%

Probation
41,500

20%

Other sanction
73,800

35%

Dismissed
96,300

46%

7%

Other sanction
37,500

21%

Dismissed
129,500

72%

Placed
54,800

26%

Probation
119,800

56%

Other sanction
39,700

19%

Probation
6,000
Not adjudicated
130,700
38%

Not petitioned
211,600
38%

Placed
80,600

Probation
12,600
Not adjudicated
179,600
31%

For all racial groups in 2005, about
1% of delinquency cases resulted in
waiver to criminal court.
Among adjudicated delinquency
cases involving black youth and
American Indian youth in 2005, 26%
resulted in out-of-home placement,
compared with 21% of those involving white youth and 22% of those
involving Asian youth.

1%

5%

Other sanction
21,300

16%

Dismissed
103,400

79%

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2005 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

64

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Race, 2005

American Indian
24,600

Waived
200

1%

Adjudicated
9,700
70%

Petitioned
13,900

56%

Asian
23,900

Probation
2,200

20%

Other sanction
4,100

38%

Dismissed
4,500

42%

Waived
100

<1%

Adjudicated
9,700
69%

Petitioned
14,000

59%

Probation
5,700

58%

Other sanction
1,500

15%

Probation
1,700

17%

Other sanction
3,800

39%

Dismissed
4,400

44%

In 2005, 47% of delinquency cases
involving white youth were handled
informally, compared with 38% of
cases involving black youth, 44% of
cases involving American Indian
youth, and 41% of cases involving
Asian juveniles.

■

Informally handled delinquency cases
involving black or Asian youth in
2005 were a little more likely to be
dis-missed (46% and 44%, respectively) than those involving white
youth (38%) or American Indian
youth (42%).

■

For all four racial groups in 2005,
informally handled delinquency cases
were nearly equally likely to result in
other sanctions such as restitution,
community service, or referral to
another agency: 39% each for cases
involving white youth and Asian
youth, 35% for cases involving black
youth, and 38% for cases involving
American Indian youth.

6%

Other sanction
1,100

27%

Dismissed
2,700

67%

Placed
2,100

22%

Probation
6,200

64%

Other sanction
1,400

14%

Probation
300
Not adjudicated
4,300
31%

Not petitioned
9,900
41%

26%

Probation
200
Not adjudicated
3,900
28%

Not petitioned
10,800
44%

Placed
2,600

■

7%

Other sanction
1,100

25%

Dismissed
3,000

68%

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

65

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by FBI Offense Category, 2005

Violent Crime Index Cases
■

■

■

■

In 2005, juvenile courts waived 30 of
every 1,000 Violent Crime Index
offense cases to criminal court.

A typical 1,000 Violent
Crime Index cases

Cases that are not petitioned and
cases in which juveniles are not adjudicated delinquent may result in informal sanctions. Thus, juvenile courts
imposed some sort of sanction—
formal or informal—in nearly 70%
(699 of every 1,000) of the Violent
Crime Index offense cases handled
in 2005.

789 Petitioned

■

■

■

Juveniles received informal sanctions
in 36% (356 of every 1,000) of
Property Crime Index offense cases
processed in 2005.

More than 25% of all Property Crime
Index offenses referred to juvenile
courts in 2005 were ultimately dismissed (274 of 1,000)—22% of the
petitioned cases and 34% of those
not petitioned.

66

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

42 Other sanction

254 Not adjudicated

44 Other sanction
184 Dismissed

41 Probation
211 Not petitioned

52 Other sanction
117 Dismissed

A typical 1,000 Property
Crime Index cases

4 Waived
81 Placed
367 Adjudicated

537 Petitioned

231 Probation
54 Other sanction
12 Probation

167 Not adjudicated

Juvenile courts waived 4 of every
1,000 Property Crime Index offense
cases to criminal court in 2005.
Cases involving juveniles adjudicated
delinquent for Property Crime Index
offenses were more likely to result in
probation (231 out of 367) than were
Violent Crime Index offense cases
(291 out of 505).

291 Probation

25 Probation

Property Crime Index Cases
■

172 Placed
505 Adjudicated

Juvenile courts ordered formal sanctions or waived jurisdiction in more
than half (535 of 1,000) of Violent
Crime Index offense cases handled
in 2005.
Cases involving juveniles adjudicated
delinquent for Violent Crime Index
offenses in 2005 were more likely to
result in out-of-home placement (172
of 1,000) than were Property Crime
Index offense cases (81 of 1,000).

30 Waived

38 Other sanction
117 Dismissed

107 Probation
463 Not petitioned

199 Other sanction
157 Dismissed

Notes: The Violent Crime Index includes criminal homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The Property Crime Index includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle
theft, and arson. Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction.
Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams
for 1985 through 2005 are available online at
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2005

A typical 1,000
aggravated assault cases

15 Waived

Aggravated Assault Cases
133 Placed

475 Adjudicated
744 Petitioned

■

Juvenile courts waived 15 of every
1,000 aggravated assault cases to
criminal court in 2005, compared with
2 of every 1,000 simple assault
cases.

■

Nearly half (49%) of aggravated
assault cases in 2005 received some
formal sanction or were waived to
criminal court (490 of 1,000).

■

In 2005, more than 13% of aggravated assault cases received a formal
sanction of out-of-home placement
(133 of 1,000) and 30% were placed
on formal probation (299 of 1,000).

■

Of all aggravated assault cases
referred to juvenile courts in 2005,
29% were eventually released or dismissed (311 of 1,000)—24% of the
petitioned cases and 51% of those
that were informally handled.

299 Probation
43 Other sanction
29 Probation

254 Not adjudicated

44 Other sanction
182 Dismissed

59 Probation
256 Not petitioned

67 Other sanction
129 Dismissed

A typical 1,000
simple assault cases

Simple Assault Cases

2 Waived
64 Placed
308 Adjudicated

518 Petitioned

■

Juveniles received informal sanctions
in 30% of simple assault cases
processed in 2005 (301 of 1,000).

■

Of every 1,000 simple assault cases
handled in 2005, 310 received some
formal sanction or were waived to
criminal court.

■

In 2005, 6% of simple assault cases
resulted in the juvenile receiving a
formal sanction of out-of-home placement (64 of 1,000) and nearly 20%
were placed on formal probation
(198 of 1,000).

■

Of all simple assault cases referred
to juvenile courts in 2005, 39%
were eventually dismissed (389 of
1,000)—31% of the petitioned cases
and 47% of those that were informally handled.

198 Probation
46 Other sanction
8 Probation

208 Not adjudicated

37 Other sanction
162 Dismissed

94 Probation
482 Not petitioned

161 Other sanction
227 Dismissed

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2005 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

67

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2005

Robbery Cases
Juvenile courts waived 47 of every
1,000 robbery cases to criminal court
in 2005.

■

In 2005, 24% of robbery cases
received a formal sanction of out-ofhome placement (241 of 1,000) and
29% resulted in formal probation
(292 of 1,000).

■

Burglary Cases

■

■

■

241 Placed

878 Petitioned

292 Probation
38 Other sanction
20 Probation

260 Not adjudicated

46 Other sanction
194 Dismissed

13 Probation
122 Not petitioned

22 Other sanction
87 Dismissed

Of all robbery cases referred to juvenile court in 2005, 12% were not
petitioned; the majority (71%) of
these cases were dismissed.

■

■

47 Waived

570 Adjudicated

In 2005, juvenile courts ordered formal sanctions or waived jurisdiction
in 62% of all robbery cases (618 of
1,000).

■

■

A typical 1,000
robbery cases

Juvenile courts waived 8 of every
1,000 burglary cases to criminal court
in 2005.

A typical 1,000
burglary cases

In 2005, 150 of 1,000 burglary cases
received a formal sanction of out-ofhome placement and 362 of 1,000
resulted in formal probation.
Nearly one-quarter (24%) of all burglary cases referred to juvenile courts
in 2005 were handled informally and
about half of these cases (119 of
239) were dismissed.

68

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

150 Placed
556 Adjudicated

761 Petitioned

In 2005, 73% (556 of 761) of all petitioned burglary cases resulted in the
youth being adjudicated delinquent.
Juvenile courts ordered formal sanctions or waived jurisdiction in 74% of
all formally handled burglary cases in
2005.

8 Waived

362 Probation
45 Other sanction
13 Probation

197 Not adjudicated

54 Other sanction
130 Dismissed

41 Probation
239 Not petitioned

79 Other sanction
119 Dismissed

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2005 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2005

A typical 1,000
motor vehicle theft cases

Motor Vehicle Theft Cases

6 Waived
166 Placed
528 Adjudicated

764 Petitioned

■

Juvenile courts waived about onehalf of 1% of motor vehicle theft
cases to criminal court in 2005 (6 of
every 1,000).

■

In 2005, 53% of motor vehicle theft
cases referred to juvenile courts
resulted in formal court sanctions or
waiver to criminal court.

■

Nearly one-third (31%) of motor vehicle cases adjudicated delinquent in
2005 resulted in out-of-home placement (166 of 528).

■

Nearly one-quarter of motor vehicle
theft cases referred to juvenile courts
in 2005 were handled without the
filing of a petition (236 of 1,000).

311 Probation
52 Other sanction
11 Probation

230 Not adjudicated

63 Other sanction
157 Dismissed

33 Probation
236 Not petitioned

61 Other sanction
141 Dismissed

A typical 1,000
vandalism cases

2 Waived

Vandalism Cases
58 Placed

331 Adjudicated
524 Petitioned

■

Juvenile courts waived 2 of every
1,000 vandalism cases to criminal
court in 2005.

■

More than half of vandalism cases
referred to juvenile courts in 2005
were handled formally (524 of 1,000).
Of these cases, 63% were adjudicated delinquent (331 of 524).

■

In 2005, 65% of petitioned vandalism
cases adjudicated delinquent resulted
in a court sanction of probation (216
of 331), and 18% resulted in out-ofhome placement (58 of 331).

■

Juvenile courts handled 476 of every
1,000 vandalism cases informally
(without a petition) in 2005. Youth
received informal sanctions in 56% of
these nonpetitioned cases.

216 Probation
57 Other sanction
10 Probation

191 Not adjudicated

33 Other sanction
148 Dismissed

103 Probation
476 Not petitioned

165 Other sanction
208 Dismissed

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2005 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

69

Chapter 4
National Estimates of
Petitioned Status
Offense Cases

Status offenses are acts that are illegal only because the persons committing them are of juvenile status.
The five major status offense categories used in this Report are running
away, truancy, curfew law violations,
ungovernability (also known as incorrigibility or being beyond the control
of one’s parents), and underage liquor law violations (e.g., a minor in
possession of alcohol, underage
drinking). A number of other behaviors, such as those involving tobacco
offenses, may be considered status
offenses. However, because of the
heterogeneity of these miscellaneous
offenses, they are not discussed independently in this Report but are
included in discussions and displays
of petitioned status offense totals.

to process the juvenile formally with
the filing of a petition. The analyses
in this Report are limited to petitioned cases.

Agencies other than juvenile courts
are responsible for processing status
offense cases in many jurisdictions.
In some communities, for example,
family crisis units, county attorneys,
and social service agencies have
assumed this responsibility. When a
juvenile charged with a status offense
is referred to juvenile court, the
court may divert the juvenile away
from the formal justice system to other agencies for service or may decide

This chapter presents national estimates of petitioned status offense
cases disposed in 2005 and examines
trends since 1995, including demographic characteristics of the juveniles involved, types of offenses
charged, and the flow of cases as
they moved through juvenile court
processing. (See chapter 3 for a
description of the stages of court
processing.)

Juvenile courts may adjudicate petitioned status offense cases and may
order sanctions such as probation or
out-of-home placement. While their
cases are being processed, juveniles
charged with status offenses are
sometimes held in secure detention.
(Note that the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act discourages secure detention of status
offenders. States holding large numbers of status offenders in secure
detention risk losing a significant
portion of their juvenile justice block
grant awards.)

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

71

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Counts and Trends

■

■

In 2005, U.S. courts with juvenile
jurisdiction petitioned and formally
disposed an estimated 150,600 status offense cases.
The number of petitioned status
offense cases processed by juvenile
courts increased 29% between 1995
and 2005.

Between 1995 and 2005, the formally handled status offense
caseload increased 29%
Number of cases
180,000
160,000
140,000

Total status

120,000
■

■

■

■

■

The number of petitioned runaway
cases processed by juvenile courts
remained relatively stable between
1995 and 2005.
Between 1995 and 2005, the number
of petitioned truancy cases
processed by juvenile courts
increased 60% (from 32,800 to
52,400).
Between 1995 and 2000, the number
of petitioned curfew cases increased
61% (from 11,900 to 19,200) and
then declined 31% through 2005.
The number of petitioned ungovernability cases in 2005 (22,200) was
29% higher than in 1995 (17,200).
The number of petitioned liquor law
violation cases increased 8%
between 1995 and 2005.

Offense profile of petitioned
status offense cases:
Most serious
offense
Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungovernability
Liquor
Miscellaneous
Total
Number of
cases

1995

2005

18%
28
10
15
22
7

14%
35
9
15
19
8

100%

100%

117,200

150,600

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
■

Compared with 1995, a larger proportion of the court’s petitioned status
offense caseload in 2005 involved
truancy cases, and smaller proportions involved runaway and liquor law
violations.

72

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Number of cases
25,000

2001

2002

2003

50,000

Runaway

15,000

40,000

Truancy

30,000
10,000

20,000

5,000

10,000
1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

0
1995

1997

Number of cases
20,000

Number of cases
25,000

16,000

20,000

Curfew
12,000

15,000

8,000

10,000

4,000

5,000

0
1995

2005

Number of cases
60,000

20,000

0
1995

2004

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Number of cases
35,000
30,000
Liquor
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1995 1997 1999

0
1995

2001

1999

2001

2003

2005

Ungovernability

1997

2003

1999

2005

2001

2003

2005

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Case Rates

Petitioned status offense case rates rose from 4.1 to 4.8 per 1,000
juveniles between 1995 and 2005

■

In 2005, juvenile courts formally
processed 4.8 status offense cases
for every 1,000 juveniles in the population—those age 10 or older who
were under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court.

■

The total petitioned status offense
case rate increased 17% between
1995 and 2005.1

■

Between 1995 and 2005, the
petitioned runaway case rate
decreased 5%.

■

Between 1995 and 2005, the
petitioned truancy case rate
increased steadily (45%).

■

Between 1995 and 2000, the
petitioned curfew violation case rate
increased 51% and then decreased
33% by 2005.

■

Between 1995 and 2005, the formally
processed ungovernability case rate
increased 17%.

■

The petitioned liquor law violation
case rate decreased 2% between
1995 and 2005.

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
6
5

Total status
4
3
2
1
0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
1.0

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

0.8

1.6

0.6
0.4

0.8

0.2

0.4

0.0
1995

1997

1999

2001

Truancy

1.2

Runaway

2003

2005

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
0.7
0.6
0.5
Curfew
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

0.0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
0.8
0.6

1 The percent change in the number of cases
disposed may not be equal to the percent
change in case rates because of the changing
size of the juvenile population.

Ungovernability

0.4
0.2
0.0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
1.2
1.0
0.8

Liquor

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

73

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Age at Referral

■

■

■

In 2005, the petitioned status offense
case rate for 16-year-olds was more
than one and one-half times the rate
for 14-year-olds, and the rate for 14year-olds was nearly 4 times the rate
for 12-year-olds.

In 2005, delinquency case rates increased with the age of the
juvenile
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
10

16

17

8
5.7

6

4

Curfew and liquor law violation rates
increased continuously with the age
of the juvenile. In contrast, rates for
petitioned cases involving runaway,
truancy, and ungovernability were
higher for 15-year-old juveniles than
for 17-year-olds; specifically, 1.2
times greater for runaway, 1.4 for
truancy, and 1.5 for ungovernability.

3.3
1.5

2
0.6

0.3
0
10

11

12

13

14

15

Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
1.6

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
3.5
3.0 Truancy
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Age

Runaway

1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
10

11

12

13 14
Age

15

16

17

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
1.2
1.0

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

Curfew

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
10

11

12

13 14
Age

15

16

17

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
4.0

Liquor

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
10

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

9.8

8.3

The largest increase in case rates
between age 13 and age 17 was for
liquor law violations. The case rate
for 17-year-old juveniles (3.8) was
about 20 times the rate for 13-yearolds (0.2).

74

9.7

11

12

13 14
Age

15

16

17

17

17

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Age at Referral

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

Runaway case rates

Truancy case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
2.0
1.6

Age 16

1.2

Ages 13–15

0.8

Age 17

0.4
0.0
1995

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
3.0
Age 16
2.5
Ages 13–15
2.0
Age 17
1.5
1.0

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Curfew case rates

0.0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2003

2005

Ungovernability case rates

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
2.0

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
1.2
Age 16
1.0
Ages 13–15
0.8

Age 17
1.6
1.2

Ages 10–12

0.5

Ages 10–12 (x2)*

Age 16

0.6

Age 17

Ages 13–15

0.8

0.4
0.4
0.0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Ages 10–12

0.2

Ages 10–12 (x2)*
2005

0.0
1995

1997

1999

2001

Liquor law violation case rates

■

Case rates for petitioned runaway cases were lower in
1995 than in 2005 for all age groups except 17-year-olds.

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
6.0

■

Case rates for petitioned truancy cases increased between
1995 and 2005 for all age groups. The largest relative
increase during this period involved 16-year-olds (91%) and
17-year-olds (84%).

■

Case rates for petitioned curfew cases peaked in 1998 for
16-year-olds and 17-year-olds and then decreased through
2005.

■

For all age groups, case rates for petitioned ungovernability
cases were higher in 2005 than in 1995.

■

Case rates for petitioned liquor law violation cases peaked
in 1998 for youth age 17 and declined 33% by 2005.

5.0
Age 17
4.0
Age 16

3.0
2.0

Ages 13–15

1.0

Ages 10–12 (x10)*
0.0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

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

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

75

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Gender

■

Overall, the female petitioned status
offense caseload increased 33%
between 1995 and 2005, compared
with 25% for the male caseload.

■

Between 1995 and 2005, the relative
increase in the female petitioned status offense caseload outpaced that
of the male caseload for runaway
(6% vs. 2%), curfew (26% vs. 6%),
and ungovernability cases (34% vs.
25%).

■

The relative increase in the male
petitioned status offense caseload
outpaced that of the female caseload
between 1995 and 2005 for truancy
(63% vs. 56%).

■

Between 1995 and 2005, the petitioned liquor law violation caseload
decreased 2% for males, while the
caseload increased 29% for females.

■

In contrast to previous years,
between 2000 and 2005, the number
of petitioned truancy cases outnumbered liquor law violations among
males; among females, the
petitioned truancy cases
outnumbered those of all other status
offense categories from 1995
through 2005.

Trends in petitioned status offense case rates revealed similar
patterns for males and females
Number of cases
100,000

Status

90,000
80,000

Male

70,000
60,000

Female

50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Number of cases
16,000
12,000

4,000

2001

2002

25,000

2005

Female

15,000
10,000

Runaway

0
1995

1997

5,000
1999

2001

2003

Female

1999

2001

2003

0
1995

2005

Male

2005

Truancy
1997

2003

2005

Number of cases
14,000
Male
12,000
10,000
8,000
Female
6,000
4,000
Ungovernability
2,000
0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

2005

Number of cases
25,000
20,000

Male

15,000

Female

10,000
5,000

Liquor

0
1995

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

2004

Male

20,000

Male

Number of cases
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Curfew
0
1995 1997

76

2003

Number of cases
30,000

Female

8,000

2000

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

1999

2001

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Gender

Compared with the delinquency caseload, females accounted for a
substantially larger proportion of petitioned status offenses
Percent of cases involving females
45%

■

Males accounted for 56% of the total
petitioned status offense caseload in
2005.

■

In 2005, males accounted for the
majority of both curfew (67%) and
status liquor law violation cases
(63%) and slightly more than half of
petitioned truancy (54%) and
ungovernability (55%) cases.

■

Females accounted for 61% of petitioned runaway cases in 2005, the
only status offense category in which
females represented a larger proportion of the caseload than males.

Total status

40%
35%
30%
25%

Total delinquency

20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1995

Offense profiles of delinquency
cases for males and females:
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Most serious
offense
Percent of cases involving females
70%
60%
Runaway
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

20%

2005
Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungovernability
Liquor
Miscellaneous

10%

Total

Percent of cases involving females
50%

Truancy

40%
30%

2005

0%
1995

1997

2001

2003

2005

Percent of cases involving females
50%

Percent of cases involving females
40%

40%

30%

1999

Curfew

Ungovernability

0%
1995

1999

2001

2003

2005

10%
34
11
14
21
10

20%
36
7
15
16
6

100%

100%

12%
26
13
14
27
8

25%
31
7
15
16
6

100%

100%

Total

20%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.

10%
1997

Female

30%

20%
10%

1995
Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungovernability
Liquor
Miscellaneous

Male

0%
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Percent of cases involving females
40%
30%

Liquor

20%
10%
0%
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

77

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Gender

■

For both males and females, the petitioned status case rate increased
between 1995 and 2005.

■

Runaway case rates declined
between 1995 and 2005 for both
males (7%) and females (4%).

The petitioned status offense case rates followed similar patterns
for males and females between 1995 and 2005
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
6

Total status

Male

5
■

■

■

■

In contrast to previous years,
between 2000 and 2005, the truancy
case rate for males was higher than
the liquor law violation case rate.

4

Female
3

Among females, the truancy case
rate was higher than the rates of all
other status offense categories for
each year between 1995 and 2005.
For both males and females, the
case rates for curfew violations
increased between 1995 and 2000
and then declined through 2005. As a
result, between 1995 and 2005, case
rates for curfew violations increased
14% for females but fell 3% for
males.
Between 1995 and 2005, case rates
for ungovernability increased 14% for
males and 21% for females.

2
1
0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
1.0

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

0.8

1.6

Female

Female

1.2

0.6

Male

0.4
0.2

Male

Truancy

0.8
0.4

Runaway

0.0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
1.0

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

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

Curfew

Male

0.8
0.6

0.0
1995

0.6

Male

Female

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.0
1995

Female

1997

1999

0.2

2001

2003

2005

Ungovernability

0.0
1995

1997

1999

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

Male

1.2

Female

0.8
0.4

Liquor

0.0
1995

78

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2001

2003

2005

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Gender

In 2005, the status offense case rate for females peaked at age 16,
while the male case rate increased through age 17
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
12

■

After age 11, case rates for running
away were higher for females than
for males in 2005.

■

Rates for runaway cases peaked at
age 16 for both males and females in
2005.

■

For both males and females, petitioned status offense case rates
increased continuously with age for
curfew and liquor law violations in
2005.

■

In 2005, petitioned case rates for truancy and ungovernability peaked at
age 15 for both males and females.

11.8

10
8.7

8.4

7.9

8

7.6

5.8 5.7

6
3.3 3.2
1.7 1.4

2
0

0.4 0.2

0.7 0.5

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Age
Male

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
2.0

Runaway
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
10

11

12

13 14
Age

15

16

17

Female

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
3.5
Truancy
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Age

17

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
1.6

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
2.0
1.6

For males, petitioned status offense
case rates increased continuously
with age in 2005. Petitioned status
offense case rates for females
increased through age 16 and then
decreased.

10.9

Total status

4

■

Ungovernability

Curfew
1.2

1.2
0.8
0.8
0.4

0.4
0.0
10

11

12

13 14
Age

15

16

17

0.0
10

11

12

13 14
Age

15

16

17

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
6.0
5.0

Liquor

4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
10

11

12

13 14
Age

15

16

17

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

79

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Race

Percent change in number of
cases by race, 1995–2005:

Between 1995 and 2005, the petitioned status offense caseload
increased for all racial groups

Most serious
Amer.
offense
White2 Black Indian3 Asian4
Total status
17% 70% 44%
87%
Runaway –21
84
21
14
Truancy
57
58
100
166
Curfew
–1
54
28
94
Ungov.
4
115
8
40
Liquor law
5
8
30
161
■

Between 1995 and 2005, the number
of truancy cases increased substantially for all racial groups.

Offense profile of status offense
cases by race:

Number of cases
120,000

80,000

Total status
60,000
40,000

Black
20,000

Total

7%
25
14
3
45
6

22%
41
11
3
14
9

100% 100% 100% 100%

1995
Runaway
17%
Truancy
26
Curfew
10
Ungovernability 14
Liquor
26
Miscellaneous 7
Total

24%
34
9
23
3
7

0
1995

8%
18
16
5
49
4

37%
29
10
4
10
10

100% 100% 100% 100%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
■

In 2005, truancy cases made up the
greatest proportion of the caseloads
for white, black, and Asian juveniles,
while liquor law violation cases were
the greatest proportion of the caseload for American Indian juveniles.

2 Throughout this Report, juveniles of Hispanic

ethnicity can be of any race; however, most
are included in the white racial category.
3 The racial classification American Indian

(usually abbreviated as Amer. Indian) includes
American Indian and Alaskan Native.
4 The racial classification Asian includes
Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific
Islander.

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Number of cases
20,000

2001

2002

40,000

White

12,000

Number of cases
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000 Curfew
4,000
2,000
0
1995 1997

2005

White

20,000
Black

4,000
1997

2004

Truancy

30,000

Runaway

0
1995

2003

Number of cases
50,000

16,000

8,000

22%
36
10
18
5
9

Asian

Amer. Indian

Most serious
Amer.
offense
White Black Indian Asian
2005
Runaway
11%
Truancy
35
Curfew
8
Ungovernability 13
Liquor
23
Miscellaneous 9

White

100,000

1999

2001

Black

10,000
2003

0
1995

2005

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2003

2005

Number of cases
20,000
16,000

White

Ungovernability
White

12,000
8,000
Black

1999

Black

4,000
2001

2003

Number of cases
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
Liquor
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1995 1997

2005

0
1995

1997

1999

2001

White

Black
1999

2001

2003

2005

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

80

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Race

Between 1995 and 2005, petitioned status offense case rates
increased for youth of all racial groups: 51% for Asians, 44% for
blacks, 17% for American Indians, and 9% for whites

■

For all years between 1995 and
2005, the total petitioned status
offense case rate for American
Indian youth was higher than that
for juveniles of all other racial categories. In 2005, the petitioned status
offense case rate for American
Indian youth was three times the rate
for Asian youth and nearly twice the
rate for white youth.

■

Between 1995 and 2005, the
increase in runaway and ungovernability case rates for black youth outpaced that for juveniles in any other
racial category.

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
9
8

Amer. Indian

7

Total status

Black

6
5

White

4
3
2

Asian

1
0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

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

Runaway

Black

0.8
0.4
1997

1999

2001

2004

2005

White
1.0
Asian

0.5

Amer. Indian

0.0
1995

2003

Amer. Indian

1.5
Asian

White

2002

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
2.5
Black
Truancy
2.0

1.6
1.2

2001

2003

0.0
1995

2005

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
2.5

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

2.0

1.2

Ungovernability

Curfew

Amer. Indian

Black

1.5
1.0
0.5

Black

0.8

White

0.4

Asian
0.0
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

0.0
1995

2005

White
Amer. Indian

1997

1999

Asian

2001

2003

2005

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

Liquor

4.0
Amer. Indian

3.0
2.0

White

1.0
0.0
1995

Asian
1997

1999

2001

Black
2003 2005

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

81

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Source of Referral

■

■

■

Status offense cases can be referred
to court intake by a number of
sources, including law enforcement
agencies, schools, relatives, social
service agencies, probation officers,
and victims.

Law enforcement agencies are the primary source of referrals to
juvenile court for curfew and liquor law violation cases
Percent of cases referred by law enforcement
100%
90%

Schools referred 73% of the
petitioned truancy cases in 2005.

80%

Relatives referred 43% of the petitioned ungovernability cases in 2005.

60%

Percentage of petitioned status
offense cases referred by law
enforcement:
Most serious
offense
Total status
Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungovernability
Liquor law

Curfew
Liquor

70%

50%

Runaway

40%

Ungovernability

30%
20%
10%

1995

2005

47%
35
9
97
18
95

47%
51
15
97
34
92

■

In 2005, law enforcement agencies
referred less than half (47%) of the
petitioned status offense cases disposed by juvenile courts.

■

Compared with 1995, law enforcement referred larger proportions of
runaway, truancy, and ungovernability cases in 2005.

0%
1995

Truancy
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

The source of referral for petitioned status offense cases varied
with the nature of the offense
Proportion of petitioned cases referred
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Status

Runaway

Law enforcement

82

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

2005

Truancy
School

Curfew

Ungov
Relative

Liquor
Other

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Detention

The number of petitioned runaway cases involving detention
decreased substantially (43%) between 2000 and 2005

■

The number of petitioned status
offense cases involving detention
increased 54% between 1995 and
2005 (from 7,700 to 11,900). The
largest relative increase was for
ungovernability and liquor law violation cases (85% each).

■

Despite the growth in the volume of
petitioned status offense cases
involving detention, the proportion of
cases detained was nearly the same
in 2005 (8%) as in 1995 (7%).

■

Prior to 1997, runaway cases comprised the largest volume of detained
petitioned status offense cases;
since 2002, cases involving liquor
law violations accounted for the
largest share of the detained status
offense caseload.

Cases detained
4,000
3,500

Runaway

Liquor
3,000
2,500

Ungovernability
Truancy

2,000
1,500

Curfew

1,000
500
0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Offense profile of detained status
offense cases:
Most serious
offense

Between 1995 and 2005, truancy cases were least likely to involve
detention, and runaway cases were among the most likely
Percent of cases detained
16%

Runaway
14%

Ungovernability
12%

Liquor

10%

2005

26%
17
14
16
19
8

17%
15
8
19
23
18

Total

100%

100%

Number of
cases

7,700

11,900

Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungovernability
Liquor law
Miscellaneous

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.

8%

Curfew

■

6%
4%

Truancy
2%
0%
1995

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Compared with 1995, the offense
characteristics of the 2005 status
offense detention caseload involved
a greater proportion of liquor law violation cases and smaller proportions
of runaway, truancy, and curfew violation cases.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

83

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Adjudication

■

■

Between 1995 and 2005, the annual
number of status offense cases in
which the youth was adjudicated a
status offender increased from
59,200 to 88,900.
Between 1995 and 2005, the annual
number of cases in which the youth
was adjudicated a status offender
increased 71% for truancy, 69% for
curfew violations, 42% for liquor law
violations, 32% for ungovernability,
and 5% for running away.

Between 1995 and 2003, the number of cases in which the youth was
adjudicated a status offender increased considerably (71%) and then
declined 12% through 2005
Cases adjudicated a status offender
120,000
100,000

Total status
80,000
60,000

Offense profile of cases
adjudicated a status offender:

40,000

Most serious
offense

20,000

1995

2005

15%
30
9
16
23
7

11%
34
10
14
22
10

Total

100%

100%

Cases adjudicated
a status offender

59,200

88,900

Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungovernability
Liquor
Miscellaneous

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
■

Compared with 1995, the 2005 adjudicated status offense caseload contained a smaller proportion of runaway cases and a larger proportion
of truancy cases. For both years,
cases involving truancy and liquor
law violations made up the largest
proportions of the adjudicated caseload.

0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Between 1995 and 2005, the number of cases in which the youth
was adjudicated a status offender increased for all status offense
categories
Cases adjudicated a status offender
35,000
30,000

Truancy

25,000

Liquor
20,000
15,000

Ungovernability

10,000

0
1995

84

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Runaway

Curfew

5,000

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Adjudication

The likelihood of adjudication for petitioned status offense cases
increased from 50% in 1995 to 59% in 2005

■

Among status offense categories in
2005, adjudication was least likely in
petitioned runaway cases (43%) and
most likely in cases involving curfew
(70%) and liquor law violations
(68%).

■

The likelihood of petitioned runaway
cases resulting in an adjudication
increased between 1996 and the
1999 peak (51%), and then declined
through 2005 (43%).

■

Between 1995 and 2005, the likelihood of adjudication among
petitioned curfew violation cases
increased from 46% to 70%.

■

The likelihood of adjudication among
petitioned liquor law violation cases
increased from 51% in 1995 to 68%
in 2005.

Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated a status offender
70%
60%

Total status
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated
60%

30%

Runaway

20%
10%
0%
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2002

2003

2004

Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated
70%
60%
Truancy
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

50%
40%

2001

2005

Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated
80%

Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated
80%

60%

60%

Curfew

40%

Percentage of petitioned status
offense cases adjudicated, 2005:
Most serious 15 or 16 or
offense
younger older Male Female

2005

Total status
Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungov.
Liquor

Ungovernability

20%

1997

1999

2001

2003

0%
1995

2005

1997

1999

2001

2003

Total status
Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungov.
Liquor

58%
46
57
68
56
69

60%
38
59
71
52
67

60%
42
58
69
55
67

58%
44
58
71
55
69

Most serious
Amer.
offense
White Black Indian Asian

40%

20%
0%
1995

2005

61%
44
58
75
56
68

52%
42
56
56
53
64

66%
37
64
67
73
68

61%
40
65
67
47
69

2005

Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated
80%
60%

Liquor

40%
20%
0%
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

85

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

■

The number of cases in which a
youth was adjudicated a status
offender and ordered to out-of-home
placement increased 62% between
1995 and the peak in 2000, then
declined 28% by 2005.

The number of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in out-ofhome placement increased 16% between 1995 and 2005
Adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement
16,000
14,000

Offense profile of adjudicated
status offense cases resulting in
out-of-home placement:
Most serious
offense

2005

25%
21
6
30
10
9

16%
29
2
20
14
19

Total

100%

100%

Cases resulting
in out-of-home
placement

9,200

10,700

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
■

Total status

10,000
8,000

1995

Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungovernability
Liquor
Miscellaneous

12,000

In 2005, truancy cases accounted for
the largest share of adjudicated status offense cases that resulted in outof-home placement; in 1995, runaway
and ungovernability cases comprised
larger shares than truancy.

6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

The number of adjudicated status offense cases that resulted in outof-home placement varied considerably by the nature of the offense
Adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement
4,500

Truancy

4,000
3,500

Ungovernability

3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500

500
0
1995

86

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Runaway

Liquor

1,000

Curfew
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

The court ordered out-of-home placement in 12% of all adjudicated
status offense cases in 2005

■

The likelihood that an adjudicated
status offense case would result in
out-of-home placement decreased
between 1995 and 2005 for runaway,
curfew, and ungovernability cases.

■

Between 1995 and 2005, the largest
decline in the proportion of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in
out-of-home placement was seen in
cases involving ungovernability (from
29% to 17%), followed by curfew
cases (from 10% to 3%) and
runaway cases (from 25% to 20%).

■

For adjudicated truancy and liquor
law violation cases, the likelihood of
out-of-home placement was about
the same in 2005 as in 1995.

Percent of adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement
16%
14%

Total status
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Percentage of adjudicated status
offense cases resulting in out-ofhome placement, 2005:
Percent of adjudicated cases
resulting in out-of-home placement
30%
25%

Runaway

20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Percent of adjudicated cases
resulting in out-of-home placement
14%
12%
10%
Truancy
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Percent of adjudicated cases
resulting in out-of-home placement
12%

Percent of adjudicated cases
resulting in out-of-home placement
30%

10%

25%

8%

Curfew

20%

6%

15%

4%

10%

2%

5%

0%
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

0%
1995

Most serious 15 or 16 or
offense
younger older Male Female
Total status
Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungov.
Liquor
2005

13%
18
11
3
17
7

11%
18
8
2
18
8

12%
21
11
3
17
9

12%
16
10
3
17
5

Most serious
Amer.
offense
White Black Indian Asian
Total status
Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungov.
Liquor

11%
17
10
3
18
7

14%
19
13
4
15
17

9%
20
10
2
16
14

8%
13
8
0
20
6

Ungovernability

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Percent of adjudicated cases
resulting in out-of-home placement
12%
10%
8%

Liquor

6%
4%
2%
0%
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

87

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Dispositions: Probation

■

■

■

■

Between 1995 and 2005, the number
of adjudicated status offense cases
resulting in an order of probation
increased 28%, compared with a
16% increase in the number of cases
resulting in out-of home placement.
Since 1995, the largest percent
increase in the number of adjudicated status offense cases receiving
probation was seen in ungovernability cases (58%), followed by truancy
cases (35%).
The number of adjudicated runaway,
curfew, and liquor law violation
cases receiving probation increased
at relatively lower rates (6%, 12%,
and 9%, respectively) between 1995
and 2005.
Between 2000 and 2005, the number
of adjudicated cases receiving probation decreased for all status
offense categories: 36% for cases
involving curfew violations, 30% for
cases involving liquor law violations,
23% for runaway cases, 14% for truancy cases, and 6% for ungovernabililty cases.

Between 1995 and the peak year 2000, the number of adjudicated
status offense cases that resulted in probation increased 60% and
then declined 20% by 2005
Adjudicated cases resulting in probation
60,000
50,000

Total status
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Adjudicated cases resulting in probation
25,000

Most serious
offense

20,000

2005

15%
37
4
16
23
5

12%
39
4
20
19
6

Total

100%

100%

Cases resulting in
formal probation

36,300

46,300

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.

88

2002

2003

2004

2005

Truancy
1995

■

2001

Between 1995 and 2005, the number of adjudicated status offense
cases that resulted in probation increased in all five major status
offense categories

Offense profile of adjudicated
status offense cases that resulted
in probation:

Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungovernability
Liquor law
Miscellaneous

2000

In 2005, 39% of adjudicated status
offense cases that resulted in probation involved truancy offenses;
ungovernability and liquor law violations accounted for about one-fifth
each.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

15,000

10,000

Liquor
Ungovernability
Runaway

5,000

Curfew
0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Dispositions: Probation

The use of probation as the most restrictive disposition in adjudicated
status offense cases varied with the nature of the offense

■

Probation was the most restrictive
disposition used in 52% of the adjudicated status offense cases in 2005,
compared with 61% of the adjudicated caseload in 1995.

■

In 2005, probation was ordered in
60% of adjudicated runaway and truancy cases, 19% of curfew
violations, 74% of ungovernability
cases, and 47% of cases involving
liquor law violations.

Percent of adjudicated cases resulting in probation
70%
60%

Total status
50%
40%
30%
20%

Percentage of adjudicated status
offense cases resulting in
probation, 2005:

10%
0%
1995

1996

1997

Percent of adjudicated cases
resulting in probation
70%
60%
Runaway
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1995 1997 1999 2001

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Total status
Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungov.
Liquor

Percent of adjudicated cases
resulting in probation
100%
80%
60%

Truancy

40%
20%
2003

2005

0%
1995

1997

1999

Most serious 15 or 16 or
offense
younger older Male Female

2001

Percent of adjudicated cases
resulting in probation
40%

Percent of adjudicated cases
resulting in probation
80%

30%

60%

2003

2005

2003

2005

50%
57
59
20
74
48

55%
62
61
16
75
47

Most serious
Amer.
offense
White Black Indian

Asian

Total status
Runaway
Truancy
Curfew
Ungov.
Liquor

57%
60
64
22
75
47

51%
62
59
20
73
48

46%
60
52
16
72
47

57%
55
62
14
76
41

44%
68
47
17
76
50

56%
81
71
9
71
34

Ungovernability

Curfew
20%

40%

10%

20%

0%
1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

0%
1995

Percent of adjudicated cases
resulting in probation
70%
60%
Liquor
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1995 1997 1999 2001

1997

2003

1999

2001

2005

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

89

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Case Processing Overview, 2005

■

■

■

■

■

■

90

In 2005, 59% of petitioned status
offense cases resulted in adjudication.
In 52% of adjudicated status offense
cases, formal probation was the
most restrictive sanction ordered by
the court.
In 2005, 12% of adjudicated status
offense cases resulted in out-ofhome placement.
Dispositions with minimal continuing
supervision by probation staff were
ordered in 36% of status offense
cases adjuducated delinquent in
2005—the juvenile was ordered to
enter a treatment or counseling program, to pay restitution or a fine, or
to participate in some form of community service.
In 41% of formally handled status
offense cases in 2005, the juvenile
was not adjudicated a status offender. The court dismissed 82% of
these cases, while 3% resulted in
some form of informal probation and
15% in other voluntary dispositions.
For every 1,000 status offense
cases formally processed by juvenile
courts in 2005, 308 resulted in formal probation and 71 were placed
out of the home.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Total status
Adjudicated a
status offender
88,900
59%

150,600 estimated petitioned
status offense cases
Not adjudicated a
status offender
61,700
41%

Total status

Adjudicated a
590 status offender

A typical 1,000 petitioned
status offense cases

Placed
10,700

12%

Probation
46,300

52%

Other sanction
31,900

36%

Probation
1,800

3%

Other sanction
9,000

15%

Dismissed
50,900

82%

71 Placed
308 Probation
212 Other sanction

Not adjudicated
410 a status offender

12 Probation
60 Other sanction
338 Dismissed

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

Chapter 4: National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Case Processing by Offense Category, 2005

Runaway

Adjudicated a
431 status offender

A typical 1,000 petitioned
runaway cases

Adjudicated a
577 status offender

A typical 1,000 petitioned
truancy cases

Adjudicated a
696 status offender

Adjudicated a
551 status offender

A typical 1,000 petitioned
ungovernability cases
Not adjudicated
449 a status offender

A typical 1,000 petitioned
liquor law violation cases

■

Among petitioned runaway cases in
2005, youth were not adjudicated a
status offender in 569 of a typical
1,000 cases. Of these 569 cases,
most (87%) were dismissed.

74 Informal sanction
496 Dismissed

59 Placead
347 Probation

55 Informal sanction
367 Dismissed

20 Placed
130 Probation

■

■

In 2005, for every 1,000 petitioned
curfew violation cases, 130 resulted
in formal probation following adjudication and 20 were placed out of the
home.

■

Among petitioned cases involving
curfew violations in 2005, youth were
not adjudicated a status offender in
304 of a typical 1,000 cases. Of
these 304 cases, 85% (257) were
dismissed.

Adjudicated a
676 status offender

47 Informal sanction
257 Dismissed

In 2005, of a typical 1,000 formal truancy cases, 347 resulted in formal
probation and 59 were placed out of
the home.

Curfew Violation Cases

546 Other sanction
Not adjudicated
304 a status offender

Liquor

Among the five major status offense
categories, juvenile courts were most
likely to order youth to out-of-home
placement following adjudication in
runaway cases (78 of 431 cases), but
formal probation was a more likely
outcome (258 of 431).

Truancy Cases

A typical 1,000 petitioned
curfew cases

Ungovernability

■

171 Other sanction
Not adjudicated
423 a status offender

Curfew

258 Probation

Runaway Cases

95 Other sanction
Not adjudicated
569 a status offender

Truancy

78 Placed

96 Placed
409 Probation
46 Other sanction

Ungovernability Cases

47 Informal sanction

■

402 Dismissed

52 Placed
319 Probation

Liquor Law Violation Cases
■

Among petitioned liquor law violation
cases in 2005, the most likely outcome was formal probation (319 of
1,000); out-of-home placement was
ordered in 52 of a typical 1,000 cases.

■

In 2005, among petitioned liquor law
violation cases, youth were not adjudicated as status offenders in 324 of
a typical 1,000 cases.

305 Other sanction
Not adjudicated
130 Informal sanction
324 a status offender
194 Dismissed

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

For every 1,000 petitioned ungovernability cases in 2005, 74% (409)
resulted in formal probation following
adjudication and 17% (96) were
placed out of the home.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

91

Appendix A

Methods

The Juvenile Court Statistics (JCS)
series uses data provided to the
National Juvenile Court Data Archive
(the Archive) by State and county
agencies responsible for collecting
and/or disseminating information on
the processing of youth in juvenile
courts. These data are not the result
of a uniform data collection effort.
They are not derived from a complete
census of juvenile courts or obtained
from a probability sample of courts.
The national estimates presented in
this Report are developed by using
compatible information from all
courts that are able to provide data
to the Archive.

Sources of Data
The Archive uses data in two forms:
detailed case-level data and courtlevel aggregate statistics. Case-level
data are usually generated by automated client-tracking systems or
case-reporting systems managed by
juvenile courts or other juvenile justice agencies. These systems provide
detailed data on the characteristics of
each delinquency and status offense
case handled by courts, generally
including the age, gender, and race of
the youth referred; the date and
source of referral; the offenses
charged; detention and petitioning
decisions; and the date and type of
disposition.

The structure of each case-level data
set contributed to the Archive is
unique, having been designed to meet
the information needs of a particular
jurisdiction. Archive staff study the
structure and content of each data
set in order to design an automated
restructuring procedure that will
transform each jurisdiction’s data
into a common case-level format.
Court-level aggregate statistics either
are abstracted from the annual
reports of state and local courts or
are contributed directly to the
Archive. Court-level statistics typically provide counts of the delinquency
and status offense cases handled by
courts in a defined time period (calendar or fiscal year).
Each year, many juvenile courts contribute either detailed data or aggregate statistics to the Archive.
However, not all of this information
can be used to generate the national
estimates contained in JCS. To be
used in the development of national
estimates, the data must be in a compatible unit of count (i.e., case disposed), the data source must demonstrate a pattern of consistent
reporting over time (at least 2 years),
and the data file contributed to the
Archive must represent a complete
count of delinquency and/or status
offense cases disposed in a jurisdiction during a given year.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

93

Appendix A: Methods

Table A–1: 2005 Stratum Profiles for Delinquency Data

seC
io
u
n
tN
u
o
m
fb
re

Counties reporting compatible data
Number of counties

Stratum

County population
ages 10–17

Counties
in stratum

Caselevel

Courtlevel

Total*

1
2
3
4

Fewer than 13,000
13,000–54,900
54,901–145,000
More than 145,000

2,618
335
101
31

1,645
235
74
29

135
14
2
2

1,780
249
76
30

71%
74
77
98

3,085

1,983

153

2,135

80

Total

Percentage of
juvenile population

* Some counties reported both case-level and court-level data; therefore, the total number of counties reporting delinquency data is not equal
to the number of counties reporting case-level data plus the number of counties reporting court-level data.

Table A–2: 2005 Stratum Profiles for Status Offense Data

seC
io
u
n
tN
u
o
m
fb
re
Stratum

County population
ages 10–17

Counties
in stratum

Caselevel

Courtlevel

Total

1
2
3
4

Fewer than 13,000
13,000–54,900
54,901–145,000
More than 145,000

2,618
335
101
31

1,701
215
59
24

172
28
7
5

1,873
243
66
29

74%
72
68
95

3,085

1,999

212

2,211

77

Total

The aggregation of the JCS-compatible standardized case-level data files
constitutes the Archive’s national
case-level database. The compiled
data from jurisdictions that contribute only court-level JCS-compatible
statistics constitute the national
court-level database. Together, these
two multijurisdictional databases
(case-level and court-level) are used
to generate the Archive’s national
estimates of delinquency and status
offense cases.
In 2005, case-level data describing
1,174,857 delinquency cases handled
by 1,983 jurisdictions in 38 States met
the Archive’s criteria for inclusion in
the development of national delinquency estimates. Compatible data
were available from Alabama, Alaska,
Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
94

Counties reporting compatible data
Number of counties

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin. These courts
had jurisdiction over 76% of the
nation’s juvenile population in 2005.
Compatible court-level aggregate statistics on an additional 51,570 delinquency cases from 153 jurisdictions
were used from California, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, and Vermont. In all,
the Archive collected compatible
case-level data and court-level statistics on delinquency cases from 2,135
jurisdictions containing 80% of the
Nation’s juvenile population in 2005
(table A–1).
Case-level data describing 95,660 formally handled status offense cases
from 1,999 jurisdictions in 36 states
met the criteria for inclusion in the
sample for 2005. The States included
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Connecticut, District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,

Percentage of
juvenile population

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin. These courts had
jurisdiction over 69% of the juvenile
population. An additional 212 jurisdictions in 4 states (Idaho, Indiana,
New York, and Vermont) had compatible court-level aggregate statistics on
13,673 petitioned status offense
cases. Altogether, compatible caselevel and court-level data on petitioned status offense cases were
available from 2,211 jurisdictions containing 77% of the U.S. juvenile population in 2005 (table A–2).
A list of States contributing case-level
data (either delinquency or petitioned
status offense data), the variables
each reports, and the percentage of
cases containing each variable are
presented in table A–3.

Appendix A: Methods

Table A–3: Content of Case-Level Data Sources, 2005
Age at
referral

Gender

Race

Referral
source

Referral
reason

Secure
detention

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas

AL
AK
AZ
AR

AL
AK
AZ
AR

AL
AK
AZ
AR

AL
AK
AZ
–

AL
AK
AZ
AR

AL
AK
AZ
–

AL
AK
AZ
AR

AL
AK
AZ
AR

AL
AK
AZ
AR

California
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida

CA
CT
DC
FL

CA
CT
DC
FL

CA
CT
DC
FL

CA
CT
–
–

CA
CT
DC
FL

CA
CT
–
–

CA
CT
DC
FL

CA
CT
DC
FL

CA
CT
DC
FL

Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois1
Kentucky

GA
HI
IL
KY

GA
HI
IL
KY

GA
HI
–
KY

GA
HI
IL
–

GA
HI
IL
KY

–
–
–
–

GA
HI
IL
KY

GA
HI
IL
KY

GA
HI
IL
–

Maine
Maryland
Michigan2
Minnesota

ME
MD
MI
MN

ME
MD
MI
MN

ME
MD
MI
MN

ME
MD
MI
MN

ME
MD
MI
MN

–
–
MI
–

ME
MD
MI
MN

ME
MD
MI
MN

ME
MD
MI
MN

Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada

MO
MT
NE
NV

MO
MT
NE
NV

MO
MT
NE
NV

MO
MT
NE
–

MO
MT
NE
NV

MO
MT
–
NV

MO
MT
NE
NV

MO
MT
NE
NV

MO
MT
NE
NV

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolilna

NJ
NM
NY
NC

NJ
NM
NY
NC

NJ
NM
NY
NC

–
NM
–
–

NJ
NM
NY
NC

–
NM
–
–

NJ
NM
NY
NC

NJ
NM
NY
NC

NJ
NM
NY
NC

Ohio3
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania

OH
OK
OR
PA

OH
OK
OR
PA

OH
OK
OR
PA

OH
OK
OR
PA

OH
OK
OR
PA

OH
OK
OR
–

OH
OK
OR
PA

OH
OK
OR
PA

OH
OK
OR
PA

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee

RI
SC
SD
TN

RI
SC
SD
TN

–
SC
SD
TN

RI
SC
–
TN

RI
SC
SD
TN

RI
SC
–
–

RI
SC
SD
TN

RI
SC
SD
TN

RI
SC
SD
TN

Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington

TX
UT
VA
WA

TX
UT
VA
WA

TX
UT
VA
WA

TX
UT
VA
WA

TX
UT
VA
WA

–
–
VA
–

TX
UT
VA
WA

TX
UT
VA
WA

TX
UT
VA
WA

West Virginia
Wisconsin

WV
WI

WV
WI

WV
WI

WV
–

WV
WI

WV
–

WV
WI

WV
WI

WV
WI

Percentage of
estimation sample

99%

99%

94%

71%

96%

41%

100%

93%

97%

Data source

Manner of
handling Adjudication

Disposition

Note: The symbol “–” indicates that compatible data for this variable are not reported by this State.
1 Data from Cook County only.
2 Data from Wayne County only.
3 Data from Cuyahoga, Hamilton, and Lucas counties only.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

95

Appendix A: Methods

Juvenile Population
The volume and characteristics of
juvenile court caseloads are partly a
function of the size and demographic
composition of a jurisdiction’s population. Therefore, a critical element in
the Archive’s development of national
estimates is the population of youth
that generate the juvenile court referrals in each jurisdiction—i.e., the
“juvenile” population of every U.S.
county.

The juvenile population estimates
used in this Report were developed
with data from the Census Bureau.1
The estimates, separated into
single-year age groups, reflect the
number of white, black, American
Indian/Alaskan Native, and Asian
(including Native Hawaiian and
Pacific Islander) youth ages 10
through the upper age of juvenile
court jurisdiction who reside in
each county in the Nation.2

Estimation Procedure
A survey of the Archive’s case-level
data shows that very few delinquency
or status offense cases involve youth
younger than 10. Therefore, the lower
age limit of the juvenile population is
set at 10 years for all jurisdictions.
On the other hand, the upper age
limit varies by State. Every State
defines an upper age limit for youth
who will come under the original
jurisdiction of the juvenile court if
they commit an illegal act. (See
“Upper age of jurisdiction” in the
“Glossary of Terms” section.) Most
States set this age to be 17 years;
other States have set the age at 15 or
16. States often enact exceptions to
this simple age criterion (e.g.,
offense-specific youthful offender legislation and concurrent jurisdiction
or extended jurisdiction provisions).
In general, however, juvenile courts
have responsibility for all law violations committed by youth whose age
does not exceed the upper age of
original jurisdiction.
For the purposes of this Report,
therefore, the juvenile population is
defined as the number of youth living
in a jurisdiction who are at least 10
years old but who are not older than
the upper age of original juvenile
court jurisdiction. For example, in
New York, where the upper age of
original juvenile court jurisdiction is
15, the juvenile population is the
number of youth residing in a county
who have had their 10th birthday but
are not older than 15 (e.g., they have
not yet reached their 16th birthday).

96

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

National estimates are developed
using the national case-level database, the national court-level database, and the Archive’s juvenile population estimates for every U.S. county.
“County” was selected as the unit of
aggregation because (1) most juvenile

court jurisdictions in the United
States are concurrent with county
boundaries, (2) most data contributed by juvenile courts identify
the county in which the case was
handled, and (3) youth population
estimates can be developed at the
county level.3
The Archive’s national estimates are
generated using data obtained from
its nonprobability sample of juvenile
courts. There are two major components of the estimation procedure.
First, missing values on individual
records of the national case-level
database are imputed using hot deck
procedures. Then the records of the
national case-level database are
weighted to represent the total number of cases handled by juvenile
courts nationwide. Each stage of the
estimation procedure will be described
separately.

1 County-level intercensal estimates were

obtained for the years 1985–2005. The following data files were used:
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1994. 1980–1989
Preliminary Estimates of the Population of
Counties by Age, Sex, and Race [machinereadable data file]. Washington, DC: U.S.
Census Bureau.
National Center for Health Statistics. 2004.
Bridged-race intercensal estimates of the July
1, 1990–July 1, 1999 United States Resident
Population by County, Single-year of Age, Sex,
Race, and Hispanic Origin [machine-readable
data file]. Prepared by the U.S. Census
Bureau with support from the National
Cancer Institute. Available online:
www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/
popbridge/popbridge.htm [released on
7/26/2004].
National Center for Health Statistics. 2007.
Estimates of the July 1, 2000–July 1, 2006
United States Resident Population from the
Vintage 2006 Postcensal Series by Year,
County, Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin
[machine-readable data file]. Prepared under
a collaborative arrangement with the U.S.
Census Bureau. Available online:
www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/
popbridge/popbridge.htm [released on
8/16/2007].
2 Most individuals of Hispanic ancestry are

coded as white.

Record-level imputation. The first
step in the estimation procedure is to
place all U.S. counties into one of four
strata based on their youth population ages 10 through 17. The lower
and upper population limits of the
four strata are defined each year so
that each stratum contains onequarter of the national population of
youth ages 10 through 17.
This information is added onto each
record in the national case-level database. As a result, each record in the
national case-level database contains

3 The only information used in this Report
that cannot be aggregated by county is data
contributed by the Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice, which identifies only the
district in which each case is handled. To
use the Florida data, the aggregation criterion is relaxed to include districts. In 2005,
there were 3,141 counties in the United
States. By replacing Florida’s counties with
districts, the total number of aggregation
units for this Report becomes 3,085. Therefore, while the Report uses the term “county” to describe its aggregation unit, the reader should be aware of the exception made
for Florida’s data.

Appendix A: Methods

11 variables of interest to the JCS
report: county strata, year of disposition, intake decision, youth’s age,
youth’s gender, youth’s race, referral
offense, source of referral, case
detention, case adjudication, and
case disposition.
By definition, the first three of these
variables (i.e., county strata, year of
disposition, and intake decision) are
known for every case in the database.
Each of the other variables may be
missing for some records and given a
missing value code. The estimation
procedure for the JCS report employs
a multistage process to impute information for each missing value on
each case record in the national caselevel database.
Within a county’s set of records in
the database there can be two types
of missing information: record-level
missing and format-level missing. For
many counties, a small proportion of
their case-level records are missing
valid codes in data elements that are
valid for most of the other records
from that county. For example, the
gender of a youth may not have been
reported on a few records while it is
known for all the other youth in the
county’s database. This type of missing value is “record-level missing.”
There are also counties in which
every record in the database has a
missing value code for a specific
variable. For example, some court
data collection systems do not capture information on a youth’s predisposition detention. Therefore, the
variable “case detention” in the
national case-level data has a missing
value code on each record from that
county. This type of missing value is
“format-level missing.” (Table A–3
indicates the standardized data elements that were not available, i.e.,
format-missing, from each jurisdiction’s 2005 data set.) The imputation
process handles the two types of
missing values separately.
The imputation of record-level missing values uses a hot deck procedure
with a donor pool of records from the

same county. First, all the records for
a specific county are sorted by disposition date. Then the file is read again,
one record at a time. When the imputation software identifies a record
with a record-level missing value (i.e.,
the target record), it imputes a valid
code for this target data field. This is
accomplished by locating the next
record in the county file that matches
the target record on all of its nonmissing values and has a nonmissing code
in the target data field; this record is
called the donor record. The imputation software copies the valid code
from the donor record and replaces
the missing value code on the target
record with this nonmissing value.
Once a donor record is used in the
process for a given variable, it is not
used again for that variable unless no
other matches can be found for
another target record. There are a
small number of instances in which
no donor record can be found in the
county file. When this occurs, the
imputation software relaxes its record
matching criteria. That is, instead of
trying to find a donor record with
identical codes on variables other
than the target field, the software
ignores one nonmissing variable and
attempts to find a match on all of the
others. In the small number of cases
where this does not lead to the identification of a donor record, a second
variable is ignored and the file is
reread looking for a donor. Although
theoretically (and programmatically)
this process can be repeated until all
variables but county, year of disposition, and intake decision are ignored
to find a donor, this never occurred.
The order in which variables are
removed from the matching criteria
are source of referral, detention,
offense, adjudication, race, gender,
and age.
Format-level imputation. After all the
record-level missing values have been
imputed, the process turns to formatmissing information, or information
that is missing from a case record
because that court’s information system does not report this information

on their cases. The process for imputing format-missing information is similar to that used in the record-missing
imputation process with the needed
difference that the donor pool is
expanded. Since all records in a county are missing the target data, the
donor pool for format-missing
records is defined as the records
from all counties in the target
record’s strata with the same year of
disposition and intake decision.
Using this expanded donor pool, the
imputation process follows the steps
described above where a target
record (i.e., one with missing data) is
identified and the donor pool is
scanned for a match. Once a match is
found, the missing information on the
target record is overwritten and the
donor record is flagged as having
been used for that variable so it will
not be reused for that variable unless
all other donors are used. If a donor
record cannot be found in the first
pass through the donor pool, matching criteria are relaxed until a donor
is found.
There is one major exception to this
process of imputing format-level
missing information. This exception
involves the process of imputing
missing race for those counties that
do not report this data element to the
Archive. The racial composition of a
court’s caseload is strongly related to
the racial composition of the resident
juvenile population. Creating a donor
pool that ignores this relationship
would reduce the validity of the
imputation process. So for those few
data files that did not include race,
donor pools were developed that
restricted the pool to counties with
racial compositions similar to that of
the target record’s county.
This was accomplished by dividing
the counties in the U.S. into four
groups defined by the percent of
white juveniles in their 10–17 populations. This classification was
then added to each case record and
used as a matching criterion for finding a donor record within the set of
Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

97

Appendix A: Methods

potential donor records defined by
strata, year of disposition, and intake
decision.

population estimates are developed
for 12 age/race categories in each
stratum of counties.

Weighting to produce national estimates. The Archive employs an elaborate multivariate procedure that
assigns a weight to each record in
the national case-level database that,
when used in analysis, yields national estimates of juvenile court activity.
The weights incorporate a number of
factors related to the size and characteristics of juvenile court caseloads: the size of a community; the
age and race composition of its juvenile population; the age and race
profile of the youth involved in juvenile court cases; the courts’ responses to the cases (intake decision,
detention, adjudication, and disposition); and the nature of each court’s
jurisdictional responsibilities (i.e.,
upper age of original jurisdiction).

The next step is to identify within
each stratum the jurisdictions that
contributed to the Archive case-level
data consistent with JCS reporting
requirements. The populations of
these case-level reporting jurisdictions within each stratum are then
developed for each of the 12
age/race categories. The national
case-level database is summarized to
determine within each stratum the
number of court cases that involved
youth in each of the 12 age/race population groups. Case rates (number
of cases per 1,000 juveniles in the
population) are then developed for
the 12 age/race groups within each
of the four strata.

The basic assumption underlying the
weighting procedure is that similar
legal and demographic factors shape
the volume and characteristics of
cases in reporting and nonreporting
counties of comparable size and features. The weighting procedure
develops independent estimates for
the number of petitioned delinquency cases, nonpetitioned delinquency
cases, and petitioned status offense
cases handled by juvenile courts
nationwide. Identical statistical procedures are used to develop all case
estimates.
As noted earlier, all U.S. counties are
placed into one of four strata based
on the size of their youth population
ages 10 through 17. In the first step
to develop the weights, the Archive
divides the youth 10-17 population
for each stratum into three age
groups: 10- through 15-year-olds,
16-year-olds, and 17-year-olds. The
three age groups are further subdivided into four racial groups: white,
black, American Indian (including
Alaskan Native), and Asian (including
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander). Thus, juvenile resident

98

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

For example, assume that a total of
3,507,000 white youth ages 10–15
resided in those stratum 2 counties
that reported JCS-compatible caselevel data to the Archive. If the
Archive’s case-level database shows
that the juvenile courts in these
counties handled 56,039 petitioned
delinquency cases involving white
youth ages 10 through 15, the number of cases per 1,000 white youth
ages 10–15 for stratum 2 would be
16.0, or:
(56,039 / 3,507,000) x 1,000 = 16.0
Comparable analyses are then used
to establish the stratum 2 case rates
for black youth, American Indian
youth, and Asian youth in the
same age group (56.4, 25.5, and 9.4,
respectively).
Next, information contained in the
national court-level database is introduced, and stratum-level case rates
are adjusted accordingly. First, each
court-level statistic is disaggregated
into the 12 age/race groups. This
separation is accomplished by
assuming that, for each jurisdiction, the relationships among the
stratum’s 12 age/race case rates

(developed from the case-level data)
are paralleled in the court-level data.
For example, assume that a jurisdiction in stratum 2 with an upper age
of original juvenile court jurisdiction
of 15 reported it processed 600 cases
during the year. Also assume that
this jurisdiction had a juvenile population of 12,000 white youth, 5,000
black youth, 500 American Indian
youth, and 1,500 Asian youth. The
stratum 2 case rates for each racial
group in the 10–15 age group would
be multiplied by the corresponding
population to develop estimates of
the proportion of the court’s caseload that came from each age/race
group, as follows:
White:
(16.0 x 12,000) / [(16.0 x 12,000) +
(56.4 x 5,000) + (25.5 x 500) +
(9.4 x 1,500)] = 38.3%
Black:
(56.4 x 5,000) / [(16.0 x 12,000) +
(56.4 x 5,000) + (25.5 x 500) +
(9.4 x 1,500)] = 56.3%
American Indian:
(25.5 x 500) / [(16.0 x 12,000) +
(56.4 x 5,000) + (25.5 x 500) +
(9.4 x 1,500)] = 2.6%
Asian:
(9.4 x 1,500) / [(16.0 x 12,000) +
(56.4 x 5,000) + (25.5 x 500) +
(9.4 x 1,500)] = 2.8%
The jurisdiction’s total caseload of
600 would then be allocated based
on these proportions. In this example, it would be estimated that 38.3%
of all cases reported in the jurisdiction’s aggregate statistics involved
white youth, 56.3% involved black
youth, 2.6% involved American
Indian youth, and the remaining 2.8%
involved Asian youth. When these
proportions are applied to a reported court-level caseload statistic of
600 cases, this jurisdiction is estimated to have handled 230 cases involving white youth, 338 cases involving
black youth, 15 cases involving

Appendix A: Methods

American Indian youth, and 17 cases
involving Asian youth age 15 or
younger. The same method is used to
disaggregate into the 12 age/race
groups the aggregated case counts
reported by those jurisdictions that
could only report aggregate courtlevel statistics.
The disaggregated court-level counts
are then added to the counts developed from case-level data to produce
an estimate of the number of cases
involving each of the 12 age/race
groups handled by reporting courts
(i.e., both case-level and court-level
reporters) in each of the four strata.
The juvenile population figures
for the entire reporting sample are
also compiled. Together, these new
stratum-specific case counts and
juvenile population for the reporting
counties are used to generate a
revised set of case rates for each of
the 12 age/race groups within each of
the four strata.

Stratum estimates for the total number of cases involving each age/race
group are then calculated by multiplying the revised case rate for each
of the 12 age/race groups in a stratum by the corresponding juvenile
population in all counties belonging
to that stratum (both reporting and
nonreporting).
After the stratum estimates for the
total number of cases in each
age/race group in each stratum has
been calculated, the next step is to
weight the records in the national
case-level database. This weight is
equal to the estimated number of
cases in one of the stratum’s 12
age/race groups divided by the actual number of such records in the
national case-level database. For
example, assume that the Archive
generates a national estimate of
41,125 petitioned delinquency cases

involving white 16-year-olds from
stratum 2 counties. Assume also that
the national case-level database for
that year contained 27,433 petitioned
delinquency cases involving white
16-year-olds from stratum 2 counties.
In the Archive’s national estimation
database, each stratum 2 petitioned
delinquency case that involved a
white 16-year-old would be weighted
by 1.50, because:
41,125 / 27,433 = 1.50
Finally, by incorporating the weights
into all analyses of the national caselevel database, national estimates of
case volumes and case characteristics can be produced. More detailed
information about the Archive’s
national estimation methodology is
available on request from the
National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

99

Appendix B

Glossary of Terms

Adjudication: Judicial determination
(judgment) that a juvenile is or is not
responsible for the delinquency or
status offense charged in a petition.
Age: Age at the time of referral to juvenile court.
Case rate: Number of cases disposed
per 1,000 juveniles in the population.
The population base used to calculate the case rate varies. For example,
the population base for the male case
rate is the total number of male
youth age 10 or older under the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts. (See
“juvenile population.”)
Delinquency: Acts or conduct in violation of criminal law. (See “reason for
referral.”)
Delinquent act: An act committed by
a juvenile which, if committed by an
adult, would be a criminal act. The juvenile court has jurisdiction over delinquent acts. Delinquent acts include
crimes against persons, crimes
against property, drug offenses, and
crimes against public order.
Dependency case: Those cases involving neglect or inadequate care on
the part of parents or guardians, such
as abandonment or desertion; abuse
or cruel treatment; improper or inadequate conditions in the home; and
insufficient care or support resulting

from death, absence, or physical or
mental incapacity of parents/guardians.
Detention: The placement of a youth
in a secure facility under court authority at some point between the
time of referral to court intake and
case disposition. This Report does
not include detention decisions made
by law enforcement officials prior to
court referral or those occurring after
the disposition of a case.
Disposition: Sanction ordered or
treatment plan decided on or initiated in a particular case. Case dispositions are coded into the following
categories:
■

Waived to criminal court—Cases
that were transferred to criminal
court as the result of a judicial
waiver hearing in juvenile court.

■

Placement—Cases in which youth
were placed in a residential facility for delinquents or status offenders or cases in which youth were
otherwise removed from their
homes and placed elsewhere.

■

Probation—Cases in which youth
were placed on informal/voluntary
or formal/court-ordered supervision.

■

Dismissed/released—Cases dismissed or otherwise released
(including those warned and
counseled) with no further sanction or consequence anticipated.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

101

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

Among cases handled informally
(see “manner of handling”), some
cases may be dismissed by the juvenile court because the matter is
being handled in another court or
agency.
■

Other—Miscellaneous dispositions not included above. These
dispositions include fines, restitution, community service, referrals
outside the court for services or
treatment programs with minimal
or no further court involvement
anticipated, and dispositions
coded as “other” in a jurisdiction’s
original data.

Formal handling: See “intake decision.”
Informal handling: See “intake decision.”
Intake decision: The decision made
by juvenile court intake that results
in the case either being handled informally at the intake level or being petitioned and scheduled for an adjudicatory or judicial waiver hearing.
■

■

Nonpetitioned (informally handled)—Cases in which duly authorized court personnel, having
screened the case, decide not to
file a formal petition. Such personnel include judges, referees, probation officers, other officers of
the court, and/or agencies statutorily designated to conduct petition
screening for the juvenile court.
Petitioned (formally handled)—
Cases that appear on the official
court calendar in response to the
filing of a petition, complaint, or
other legal instrument requesting
the court to adjudicate a youth as
a delinquent, status offender, or
dependent child or to waive jurisdiction and transfer a youth to
criminal court for processing as a
criminal offender.

Judicial decision: The decision made
in response to a petition that asks the
court to adjudicate or judicially waive

102

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

the youth to criminal court for presecution as an adult. This decision is
generally made by a juvenile court
judge or referee.
Judicial disposition: The disposition
rendered in a case after the judicial
decision has been made.
Juvenile: Youth at or below the upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. (See “juvenile population”
and “upper age of jurisdiction.”)
Juvenile court: Any court that has
jurisdiction over matters involving
juveniles.
Juvenile population: For delinquency
and status offense matters, the juvenile population is defined as the number of children between the age of 10
and the upper age of jurisdiction. For
dependency matters, it is defined as
the number of children at or below
the upper age of jurisdiction. In all
States, the upper age of jurisdiction is
defined by statute. Thus, when the
upper age of jurisdiction is 17, the delinquency and status offense juvenile
population is equal to the number of
children ages 10 through 17 living
within the geographical area serviced
by the court. (See “upper age of
jurisdiction.”)
Nonpetitioned case: See “intake
decision.”
Petition: A document filed in juvenile
court alleging that a juvenile is a delinquent or a status offender and asking that the court assume jurisdiction
over the juvenile or that an alleged
delinquent be judicially waived to
criminal court for prosecution as an
adult.
Petitioned case: See “intake
decision.”
Race: The race of the youth referred,
as determined by the youth or by
court personnel.

■

White—A person having origins in
any of the indigenous peoples of
Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East. (In both the population
and court data, nearly all youth of
Hispanic ethnicity were included
in the white racial category.)

■

Black—A person having origins in
any of the black racial groups of
Africa.

■

American Indian—A person having origins in any of the
indigenous peoples of North
America, including Alaskan
Natives.

■

Asian—A person having origins in
any of the original peoples of the
Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, Hawaii, or any of
the other Pacific Islands.

Reason for referral: The most serious offense for which the youth is referred to court intake. Attempts to
commit an offense are included under
that offense, except attempted murder, which is included in the aggravated assault category.
■

Crimes against persons—Includes
criminal homicide, forcible rape,
robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, and other person offenses as defined below.
◆

Criminal homicide—Causing
the death of another person
without legal justification or
excuse. Criminal homicide is a
summary category, not a single
codified offense. In law, the
term embraces all homicides in
which the perpetrator intentionally kills someone without
legal justification or accidentally kills someone as a consequence of reckless or grossly
negligent conduct. It includes
all conduct encompassed by
the terms murder, nonnegligent (voluntary) manslaughter,
negligent (involuntary) manslaughter, and vehicular
manslaughter. The term is
broader than the Crime Index

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

category used in the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s
(FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reports
(UCR), in which murder/
nonnegligent manslaughter
does not include negligent
manslaughter or vehicular
manslaughter.
◆

◆

◆

intent to kill, assault with
intent to commit murder or
manslaughter, atrocious assault, attempted murder, felonious assault, and assault
with a deadly weapon.
❖

Forcible rape—Sexual intercourse or attempted sexual intercourse with a female against
her will by force or threat of
force. The term is used in the
same sense as in the UCR
Crime Index. Some States have
enacted gender-neutral rape or
sexual assault statutes that
prohibit forced sexual penetration of either sex. Data reported by such States do not distinguish between forcible rape
of females as defined above
and other sexual assaults.
(Other violent sex offenses are
classified as “other offenses
against persons.”)
Robbery—Unlawful taking or
attempted taking of property
that is in the immediate possession of another by force or
threat of force. The term is
used in the same sense as in
the UCR Crime Index and includes forcible purse snatching.

◆

■

Simple assault—Unlawful
intentional infliction or attempted or threatened infliction of less than serious
bodily injury without a
deadly or dangerous weapon. The term is used in the
same sense as in UCR
reporting. Simple assault is
not often distinctly named
in statutes because it encompasses all assaults not
explicitly named and defined as serious. Unspecified assaults are classified
as “other offenses against
persons.”

Other offenses against
persons—Includes kidnapping,
violent sex acts other than
forcible rape (e.g., incest, sodomy), custody interference,
unlawful restraint, false imprisonment, reckless endangerment, harassment, and attempts
to commit any such acts.

Assault—Unlawful intentional
infliction, or attempted or
threatened infliction, of injury
upon the person of another.

Crimes against property—
Includes burglary, larceny, motor
vehicle theft, arson, vandalism,
stolen property offenses, trespassing, and other property offenses
as defined below.

❖

◆

Aggravated assault—
Unlawful intentional infliction of serious bodily injury
or unlawful threat or attempt to inflict bodily injury or death by means of a
deadly or dangerous weapon with or without actual
infliction of any injury. The
term is used in the same
sense as in the UCR Crime
Index. It includes conduct
encompassed under the
statutory names aggravated
assault and battery, aggravated battery, assault with

◆

Burglary—Unlawful entry or
attempted entry of any fixed
structure, vehicle, or vessel
used for regular residence, industry, or business, with or
without force, with intent to
commit a felony or larceny.
The term is used in the same
sense as in the UCR Crime
Index.
Larceny—Unlawful taking or
attempted taking of property
(other than a motor vehicle)
from the possession of another
by stealth, without force and

without deceit, with intent to
permanently deprive the owner of the property. This term is
used in the same sense as in
the UCR Crime Index. It includes
shoplifting and purse snatching without force.
◆

Motor vehicle theft—Unlawful
taking or attempted taking of a
self-propelled road vehicle
owned by another with the intent to deprive the owner of it
permanently or temporarily.
The term is used in the same
sense as in the UCR Crime Index. It includes joyriding or unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as well as grand theft auto.

◆

Arson—Intentional damage or
destruction by means of fire or
explosion of the property of
another without the owner’s
consent or of any property
with intent to defraud, or attempting the above acts. The
term is used in the same sense
as in the UCR Crime Index.

◆

Vandalism—Destroying, damaging, or attempting to destroy
or damage public property or
the property of another without the owner’s consent, except by burning or explosion.

◆

Stolen property offenses—
Unlawfully and knowingly receiving, buying, distributing,
selling, transporting, concealing, or possessing stolen property, or attempting any of the
above. The term is used in the
same sense as the UCR category “stolen property: buying, receiving, possessing.”

◆

Trespassing—Unlawful entry
or attempted entry of the property of another with the intent
to commit a misdemeanor other than larceny or without
intent to commit a crime.

◆

Other property offenses—
Includes extortion and all fraud
offenses, such as forgery, counterfeiting, embezzlement,

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

103

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

check or credit card fraud, and
attempts to commit any such
offenses.
■

■

category of the same name.
Some States treat public drunkenness of juveniles as a status
offense rather than delinquency.
Hence, some of these offenses
may appear under the status
offense code “status liquor law
violations.” (When a person
who is publicly intoxicated
performs acts that cause a disturbance, he or she may be
charged with disorderly conduct.)

Drug law violations—Includes unlawful sale, purchase, distribution,
manufacture, cultivation, transport,
possession, or use of a controlled
or prohibited substance or drug
or drug paraphernalia, or attempt
to commit these acts. Sniffing of
glue, paint, gasoline, and other inhalants is also included. Hence,
the term is broader than the UCR
category “drug abuse violations.”

◆

Offenses against public order—
Includes weapons offenses; nonviolent sex offenses; liquor law violations, not status; disorderly
conduct; obstruction of justice;
and other offenses against public
order as defined below.
◆

◆

◆

104

◆

Weapons offenses—Unlawful
sale, distribution, manufacture,
alteration, transportation, possession, or use of a deadly or
dangerous weapon or accessory, or attempt to commit any of
these acts. The term is used in
the same sense as the UCR category “weapons: carrying, possessing, etc.”
Sex offenses—All offenses having a sexual element not involving violence. The term
combines the meaning of the
UCR categories “prostitution
and commercialized vice” and
“sex offenses.” It includes offenses such as statutory rape,
indecent exposure, prostitution, solicitation, pimping,
lewdness, fornication, and
adultery.
Liquor law violations, not
status—Being in a public place
while intoxicated through consumption of alcohol. It includes public intoxication,
drunkenness, and other liquor
law violations. It does not
include driving under the
influence. The term is used
in the same sense as the UCR

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

◆

■

Disorderly conduct—Unlawful
interruption of the peace, quiet, or order of a community,
including offenses called disturbing the peace, vagrancy,
loitering, unlawful assembly,
and riot.
Obstruction of justice—Intentionally obstructing court or
law enforcement efforts in the
administration of justice, acting in a way calculated to lessen the authority or dignity of
the court, failing to obey the
lawful order of a court, escaping from confinement, and violating probation or parole. This
term includes contempt, perjury, bribery of witnesses, failure to report a crime, and nonviolent resistance of arrest.
Other offenses against public
order—Other offenses against
government administration or
regulation, such as bribery; violations of laws pertaining to
fish and game, gambling,
health, hitchhiking, and immigration; and false fire alarms.

Status offenses—Includes acts or
types of conduct that are offenses
only when committed or engaged
in by a juvenile and that can be
adjudicated only by a juvenile
court. Although State statutes
defining status offenses vary and
some States may classify cases
involving these offenses as
dependency cases, for the purposes of this Report the following
types of offenses are classified as
status offenses:

■

◆

Runaway—Leaving the custody and home of parents, guardians, or custodians without
permission and failing to return within a reasonable length
of time, in violation of a statute
regulating the conduct of
youth.

◆

Truancy—Violation of a compulsory school attendance law.

◆

Curfew violations—Being
found in a public place after a
specified hour of the evening,
usually established in a local
ordinance applying only to persons under a specified age.

◆

Ungovernability—Being beyond the control of parents,
guardians, or custodians or
being disobedient of parental
authority. This classification is
referred to in various juvenile
codes as unruly, unmanageable, and incorrigible.

◆

Status liquor law violations—
Violation of laws regulating the
possession, purchase, or consumption of liquor by minors.
Some states treat consumption
of alcohol and public drunkenness of juveniles as status offenses rather than delinquency. Hence, some of these
offenses may appear under
this status offense code.

◆

Miscellaneous status offenses—
Numerous status offenses not
included above (e.g., tobacco
violation and violation of a
court order in a status offense
proceeding) and those offenses
coded as “other” in a jurisdiction’s original data.

Dependency offenses—Includes
actions that come to the attention
of a juvenile court involving neglect or inadequate care of minors
on the part of the parents or
guardians, such as abandonment
or desertion; abuse or cruel treatment; improper or inadequate
conditions in the home; and insufficient care or support resulting

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

from death, absence, or physical
or mental incapacity of the parents
or guardians.
Offenses may also be grouped into
categories commonly used in the
FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. These
groupings are:
■

Violent Crime Index—Includes
the offenses of murder/nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape,
robbery, and aggravated assault.

■

Property Crime Index—Includes
the offenses of burglary, larcenytheft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

Source of referral: The agency or individual filing a complaint with intake
that initiates court processing.
■

Law enforcement agency—
Includes metropolitan police, state
police, park police, sheriffs, constables, police assigned to the juvenile court for special duty, and
all others performing a police
function, with the exception of
probation officers and officers of
the court.

■

School—Includes counselors,
teachers, principals, and attendance officers.

■

Relatives—Includes the youth’s
own parents, foster parents, adoptive parents, stepparents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other
legal guardians.

■

Other—Includes social agencies,
district attorneys, probation officers, victims, other private citizens,
and miscellaneous sources of
referral often only defined by the
code “other” in the original data.

Status offense: Behavior that is considered an offense only when committed by a juvenile (e.g., running away
from home). (See “reason for referral.”)
Unit of count: A case disposed by a
court with juvenile jurisdiction during
the calendar year. Each case represents a youth referred to the juvenile
court for a new referral for one or
more offenses. (See “reason for referral.”) The term disposed means that
during the year some definite action
was taken or some treatment plan
was decided on or initiated. (See “disposition.”) Under this definition, a
youth could be involved in more than
one case during a calendar year.

original jurisdiction over an individual
for law-violating behavior. For the
time period covered by this Report,
the upper age of jurisdiction was 15
in 3 States (Connecticut, New York,
and North Carolina) and 16 in 10
States (Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,
New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin). In the remaining
37 States and the District of Columbia, the upper age of jurisdiction was
17. It must be noted that within most
States, there are exceptions in which
youth at or below the State’s upper
age of jurisdiction can be placed under the original jurisdiction of the
adult criminal court. For example, in
most States, if a youth of a certain
age is charged with an offense from a
defined list of “excluded offenses,”
the case must originate in the adult
criminal court. In addition, in a number of States, the district attorney is
given the discretion of filing certain
cases in either the juvenile court or
the criminal court. Therefore, while
the upper age of jurisdiction is commonly recognized in all States, there
are numerous exceptions to this age
criterion.

Upper age of jurisdiction: The oldest
age at which a juvenile court has

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

105

Appendix C
Reported Juvenile Court
Cases Disposed in 2005,
by County

Information on the juvenile courts’
petitioned and nonpetitioned delinquency, status, and dependency caseloads for 2005 is presented in the following table. The total population of
each reporting jurisdiction, its population age 10 through the upper age
of jurisdiction, and its population age
0 through the upper age of jurisdiction are also presented. Case rates
(the number of cases per 1,000 juveniles in the population) are presented
for each case type for the State. Delinquency and status offense case
rates are based on the population age
10 through upper age, while rates for
dependency cases are based on the
population age 0 through upper age.
Table notes follow the table. The
notes associated with each data presentation identify the source of the
data, the mode of transmission, and
the characteristics of data reported.
State and local agencies responsible
for the collection of their juvenile
court statistics compiled the data in
this table. Agencies transmitted these
juvenile court caseload data to the
National Juvenile Court Data Archive
in one of four modes. First, many jurisdictions provided the project with
an automated data file that contained
a detailed description of each case
processed by their juvenile courts.
Second, some agencies completed a

juvenile court statistics (JCS) survey
form provided by the project. The
survey requested information about
each county jurisdiction, asking for
the number of delinquency, status
offense, and dependency cases disposed and for the number of petition
and nonpetition cases. Third, statistics for some jurisdictions were abstracted from their annual reports. In
these instances, the report name is
listed. Finally, a few States simply
sent statistical pages to the National
Center for Juvenile Justice that contained counts of their courts’ handling of juvenile matters.
The units of count for the court statistics vary across jurisdictions. Although many States used cases disposed as the unit of count, other
States reported cases filed, children
disposed, petitions filed, hearings,
juvenile arraignments, and charges.
The unit of count is identified in the
notes for each data set. The unit of
count for each source should be
reviewed before any attempt is made
to compare statistics either across or
within data sets. Variations in administrative practices, differences in
upper ages of jurisdiction, and wide
ranges in available community resources affect the number of cases
handled by individual counties and
States. Therefore, the data displayed
in this table should not be used to

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

107

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

make comparisons among the delinquency, status offense, or dependency
workloads of counties or States without carefully studying the definitions
of the statistics presented. For reasons of confidentiality, case counts
greater than 0 and less than 5 are not
displayed in the table and are represented with an asterisk (*). States
that have indicated incomplete reporting of data also are noted.
Furthermore, caution must be taken
when interpreting the case rates appearing at the end of each State table.
Case rate is defined as the number of
juvenile court cases per 1,000 juveniles in the population in the reporting counties. For example, not all California counties reported statistics on
nonpetitioned delinquency cases. The
California nonpetitioned delinquency

108

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

case rate was generated from the
total number of nonpetitioned delinquency cases from reporting counties.
The figures within a column relate
only to the specific case type. However, some jurisdictions were unable
to provide statistics that distinguish
delinquency and status offense cases
from dependency matters or, at
times, from other court activities.
Such information is presented in this
appendix in a column labeled “All
reported cases.” By its nature, this
column contains a heterogeneous
mixture of units of count and case
types. These variations are identified
in the notes associated with each presentation of data. Furthermore, due
to the nature of these data, case rates
are not calculated for the “All reported
cases” column.

Finally, although the majority of the
data presented in the appendix are
for calendar years, several reporting
jurisdictions were not able to aggregate data for this timeframe. In those
instances, the data cover fiscal years.
The period of coverage is indicated in
the notes.
For a complete county listing of juvenile court case counts, readers are
encouraged to visit Easy Access to
State and County Juvenile Court Case
Counts, a Web-based version of this
appendix, available from OJJDP’s
Statistical Briefing Book at
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/
index.html. Unlike this appendix, the
Web version does not aggregate data
from the smaller counties in each
State.

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County
2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

48,500
162,700
28,300
21,500
55,600
11,000
20,600
112,200
35,400
45,400
54,600
79,700
48,500
44,200
67,400
73,700
102,900
94,000
53,500
656,000
87,400
123,100
70,400
298,200
85,700
399,900
220,800
113,800
49,400
72,200
171,400
80,100
168,400
70,000
721,800

6,300
17,500
3,300
2,400
6,200
1,300
2,400
11,700
4,000
5,100
5,900
8,500
5,700
5,500
7,300
8,400
11,000
10,700
5,800
72,700
9,000
12,800
7,800
34,400
9,300
48,900
25,900
12,900
6,000
8,100
19,300
9,000
17,200
7,100
81,900

12,800
36,900
6,700
5,200
13,400
2,700
5,100
26,100
8,500
10,700
12,200
18,400
13,000
12,300
16,500
18,000
23,800
23,500
12,300
159,700
18,900
27,500
16,600
72,500
21,400
106,400
57,300
27,700
12,600
17,100
44,200
19,200
38,600
16,000
173,300

163
720
187
106
145
18
37
492
115
262
101
300
178
357
152
327
419
673
255
1,481
348
550
250
1,220
347
2,109
1,496
593
502
167
322
399
859
339
2,898
18,887

137
183
0
0
14
0
0
370
7
0
0
41
0
71
0
0
0
51
0
774
119
161
70
875
59
1,608
230
76
0
0
121
24
193
0
35
5,219

26
288
62
69
74
10
*
115
50
273
33
34
197
91
191
104
133
228
214
445
131
193
14
55
430
414
46
112
875
370
169
81
93
494
2,189
8,307

52
193
*
0
388
0
0
448
9
0
0
572
0
29
0
0
0
15
0
573
348
287
13
419
854
719
10
378
0
0
407
182
68
0
105
6,071

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
251
*
0
*
0
*
*
*
0
0
0
74
0
42
54
93
24
55
314
73
72
119
0
45
22
278
*
181
1,710

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
4,548,300
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

511,300

1,107,100

511,300
36.94
67

511,300
10.21
67

511,300
16.25
67

511,300
11.87
67

1,107,100
1.54
67

—
—
—

—
—
—

663,300

86,200

183,000

2,360
2,360

3,565
3,565

—
—

—
—

—
—

—
—

—
—

Population Represented
663,300
Rates for Reporting Districts
Number of Reporting Counties

86,200

183,000

86,200
27.38
27

86,200
41.36
27

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

11,900
14,900
15,200
418,500
19,500
16,900
100,600
27,100

23,900
32,100
33,400
991,100
42,000
34,500
224,300
59,400

196
522
687
11,649
884
540
5,069
1,450

195
975
807
8,930
1,130
469
6,008
1,021

15
33
140
1,538
53
79
85
125

41
537
577
6,307
651
384
3,730
477

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

Petition

Nonpetition

All
reported
cases

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Alabama - 67 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Autauga
Baldwin
Barbour
Bibb
Blount
Bullock
Butler
Calhoun
Chambers
Coffee
Colbert
Cullman
Dale
Dallas
De Kalb
Elmore
Etowah
Houston
Jackson
Jefferson
Lauderdale
Lee
Limestone
Madison
Marshall
Mobile
Montgomery
Morgan
Russell
St. Clair
Shelby
Talladega
Tuscaloosa
Walker
33 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Alaska - 27 Districts

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
27 Small Districts
Number of Reported Cases

Arizona - 15 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Apache
69,600
Cochise
126,200
Coconino
123,800
Maricopa
3,638,500
Mohave
186,600
Navajo
108,500
Pima
925,000
Pinal
240,000

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

109

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

198,800
181,600
154,400

19,200
23,300
19,400

39,900
53,200
41,100

968
2,267
1,190
25,422

927
908
840
22,210

101
192
381
2,742

488
1,345
714
15,251

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

Population Represented
5,953,000
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

686,400

1,574,900

686,400
37.04
15

686,400
32.36
15

686,400
3.99
15

686,400
22.22
15

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

22,000
9,100
7,100
10,600
9,100
9,400
6,200
39,700
10,500
13,200
19,100
7,700
146,400

50,000
21,000
15,700
23,500
19,700
20,500
13,900
93,300
21,500
30,900
46,400
16,700
311,100

594
281
491
366
447
457
250
258
282
344
669
59
3,927
8,425

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

383
398
122
287
487
253
182
113
90
540
374
150
3,391
6,770

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

185
104
60
130
124
160
40
63
68
322
134
84
1,502
2,976

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

310,100

684,000

310,100
27.17
75

—
—
—

310,100
21.83
75

—
—
—

684,000
4.35
75

—
—
—

—
—
—

155,800
23,000
121,000
20,800
121,900
12,800
21,500
104,500
17,400
7,600
1,228,500
18,000
22,400
10,000
36,300
50,400
14,300
10,400
353,900
35,100
256,500
167,500
282,000
330,700
41,700
90,100
25,000
69,300
44,600
177,800
25,700
20,800
52,100
51,600
69,200

355,100
46,800
256,700
40,000
267,000
27,000
46,500
228,200
39,700
14,600
2,700,800
39,700
49,200
20,500
77,700
115,400
30,400
19,200
792,400
71,600
543,400
361,500
593,000
747,300
108,700
193,500
50,200
162,300
97,800
425,800
56,500
41,100
109,600
108,000
147,300

3,148
770
1,539
489
3,441
81
395
4,308
411
273
15,250
615
636
316
748
764
455
167
7,373
1,004
4,073
5,090
6,379
3,942
1,265
1,917
893
4,554
2,587
2,617
526
807
1,443
1,631
1,065

6,886
731
2,924
609
4,340
603
882
3,558
1,585
327
12,857
730
583
455
1,140
1,246
253
416
3,693
575
4,801
2,717
3,445
3,367
646
3,813
442
838
2,413
4,511
1,008
791
1,930
766
1,586

0
7
861
22
290
55
*
13
9
*
76
34
14
*
12
*
*
*
27
6
0
60
0
211
*
57
47
*
43
596
7
*
12
32
8

117
11
235
36
115
263
51
2,047
—
23
117
385
—
—
312
13
102
97
240
25
—
77
56
198
9
—
—
49
460
318
—
151
—
—
164

1,655
435
—
276
—
24
68
1,931
121
59
9,444
127
39
107
486
93
73
48
2,036
319
3,815
1,845
2,103
2,559
929
788
318
416
295
1,164
282
180
129
217
186

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Yavapai
Yuma
5 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

Arkansas - 75 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Benton
187,400
Craighead
86,600
Crittenden
51,600
Faulkner
97,700
Garland
93,400
Jefferson
81,100
Mississippi
47,800
Pulaski
365,300
Saline
91,200
Sebastian
118,600
Washington
181,400
White
71,400
63 Small Counties
1,302,200
Number of Reported Cases
Population Represented
2,775,700
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

California - 58 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Alameda
1,451,100
Butte
214,200
Contra Costa
1,017,600
El Dorado
176,300
Fresno
878,100
Humboldt
128,400
Imperial
155,900
Kern
757,000
Kings
143,500
Lake
65,200
Los Angeles
9,941,200
Madera
142,500
Marin
247,100
Mendocino
88,300
Merced
242,200
Monterey
412,300
Napa
132,500
Nevada
98,300
Orange
2,992,600
Placer
316,900
Riverside
1,945,400
Sacramento
1,363,400
San Bernardino
1,964,500
San Diego
2,936,600
San Francisco
741,000
San Joaquin
664,800
San Luis Obispo
255,500
San Mateo
701,200
Santa Barbara
400,900
Santa Clara
1,705,200
Santa Cruz
249,400
Shasta
179,000
Solano
410,800
Sonoma
467,000
Stanislaus
505,500

110

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

10 through
upper age

0 through
upper age

89,000
60,900
411,100
56,900
796,300
185,100
67,100
396,300

11,200
7,600
59,400
5,400
100,300
20,600
8,900
45,000

23,900
15,000
132,300
10,300
214,500
44,000
19,900
88,100

Population Represented
36,154,100
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

4,348,300

9,532,700

402,200
529,300
279,500
558,700
249,600
564,900
524,800
271,800
129,700
151,000
228,200
773,600

47,700
61,600
27,300
48,500
30,900
66,600
59,600
27,900
13,800
17,100
26,500
82,400

114,000
135,900
60,900
133,900
71,300
148,700
124,100
60,300
29,700
36,900
61,200
177,000

1,013
1,557
913
1,734
733
1,873
1,646
906
592
550
1,181
2,326
15,024

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
4,663,300
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

510,000

1,153,900

510,000
29.46
64

—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

1,282
411
2,644
816
1,454
3,463
444
1,056
421
491
1,532
916
554
15,484

Population Represented
3,500,700
Rates for Reporting Venue Districts
Number of Reporting Venue Districts

297,800

732,600

143,500
522,100
176,200

16,900
58,500
17,100

Population Represented
841,700
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

92,500

Reporting county

Sutter
Tehama
Tulare
Tuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
16 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

220
289
1,769
143
1,665
328
125
1,115
86,626

Nonpetition

428
344
317
147
1,337
299
501
1,421
82,261

Petition

Petition

All

Nonpetition

reported
cases

32
—
59
128
416
84
83
190
6,663

82
171
391
201
279
212
104
362
34,369

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

4,344,800 3,780,500
0.63
1.76
56
44

8,987,400
3.82
50

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

163
196
83
117
16
236
272
79
74
128
87
442
1,893

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

1,153,900
1.64
64

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

463
107
506
323
512
778
130
222
134
266
600
294
301
4,636

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

1,208
226
1,849
695
1,084
2,028
208
802
178
288
1,255
892
605
11,318

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

297,800
51.99
13

—
—
—

297,800
15.57
13

—
—
—

732,600
15.45
13

—
—
—

—
—
—

36,700
127,800
37,700

2,082
4,520
1,898
8,500

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

202,200

92,500
91.88
3

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

4,344,800 4,344,800
19.94
18.93
56
56

*
85
96
*
*
10
11
13
2,747

Dependency

Nonpetition

Colorado - 64 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Adams
Arapahoe
Boulder
Denver
Douglas
El Paso
Jefferson
Larimer
Mesa
Pueblo
Weld
53 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Connecticut - 13 Venue Districts
Upper age of jurisdiction: 15
Bridgeport
Danbury
Hartford
Middletown
New Britain
New Haven
Norwalk
Rockville
Stamford
Torrington
Waterbury
Waterford
Willimantic
Number of Reported Cases

Delaware - 3 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Kent
New Castle
Sussex
Number of Reported Cases

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

111

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations
Reporting county

Total

10 through
upper age

Delinquency

0 through
upper age

Petition

Status

Nonpetition

Dependency

Nonpetition

Petition

Petition

All

Nonpetition

reported
cases

District of Columbia - 1 District
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
District of Columbia
Number of Reported Cases

582,000

51,300

116,100

1,676
1,676

—
—

*
1

—
—

—
—

—
—

—
—

582,000

51,300

116,100

51,300
32.70
1

—
—
—

51,300
0.02
1

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

223,700
161,300
528,600
1,782,000
154,300
134,100
170,600
307,900
64,100
826,800
295,600
158,100
95,700
1,131,500
127,400
276,800
544,200
244,200
306,300
303,400
139,300
2,377,700
76,100
64,700
181,200
1,021,900
231,500
1,265,000
430,100
926,800
541,900
73,300
161,200
240,000
142,400
365,100
401,300
487,900
804,100

19,500
17,100
54,000
195,400
11,900
11,300
20,600
27,200
6,900
95,200
31,000
14,400
8,400
126,400
11,200
24,800
49,000
22,400
28,900
29,400
12,500
263,100
5,800
7,000
19,800
113,700
26,900
124,300
41,200
85,000
59,100
8,200
16,800
24,800
16,200
28,500
45,900
46,600
80,700

43,000
37,300
108,100
426,400
23,800
21,800
42,100
62,800
15,000
215,500
68,400
29,500
17,900
281,400
23,700
53,900
109,000
51,200
64,200
61,200
25,400
572,300
12,600
14,600
43,900
258,000
59,100
269,300
87,800
179,100
129,900
17,500
33,500
52,100
33,600
59,400
95,000
96,100
172,800

1,543
995
1,931
7,246
562
444
772
1,176
288
3,514
2,855
723
538
6,772
641
1,384
2,218
1,548
1,522
1,747
711
8,300
280
254
1,131
8,786
1,565
5,066
1,940
6,078
3,497
547
871
1,638
601
1,236
1,976
3,550
4,048
90,494

1,007
486
2,279
4,990
607
211
799
575
294
3,714
906
418
383
6,783
181
988
1,638
618
1,632
1,206
451
3,366
185
159
363
4,269
1,275
3,591
627
3,627
3,295
528
427
509
272
851
2,154
2,861
2,617
61,142

*
37
15
10
*
6
*
14
0
8
12
*
0
36
8
*
19
9
*
6
13
11
*
*
94
48
6
12
10
33
13
*
13
8
11
15
15
22
28
564

21
57
57
32
12
*
15
36
7
22
29
*
10
74
11
10
38
26
16
14
11
13
*
*
17
74
12
47
12
20
45
*
23
*
21
26
43
136
85
1,090

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
17,768,200
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

1,831,300

3,968,200

1,831,300 1,831,300
0.31
0.60
67
67

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

3,800
9,400
16,300
5,100
10,300
6,300
23,800
19,300

8,700
23,200
39,700
12,400
25,000
14,100
57,200
47,900

0
473
1,229
—
390
90
401
281

—
43
—
—
—
—
0
0

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
Rates for Reporting District
Number of Reporting Districts

Florida - 67 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Alachua
Bay
Brevard
Broward
Charlotte
Citrus
Clay
Collier
Columbia
Duval
Escambia
Hernando
Highlands
Hillsborough
Indian River
Lake
Lee
Leon
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Miami-Dade
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
Seminole
Volusia
29 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

1,831,300 1,831,300
49.41
33.39
67
67

Georgia - 159 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Baldwin
Bartow
Bibb
Bulloch
Carroll
Catoosa
Chatham
Cherokee

112

45,300
89,000
154,400
62,000
104,400
60,700
238,000
184,400

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

0
349
2,130
—
769
329
2,276
604

—
165
—
—
—
—
336
207

0
150
462
—
279
146
400
244

—
120
—
—
—
—
73
82

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

111,700
266,600
663,500
103,500
109,800
713,700
95,000
112,900
104,200
94,400
140,800
934,200
71,600
726,800
166,300
168,200
125,600
46,900
60,700
96,800
185,800
86,500
112,600
194,100
78,400
61,300
44,600
62,600
63,800
75,700
91,100
2,224,600

6,800
31,500
66,400
12,000
11,800
67,100
10,200
12,500
12,300
9,100
13,900
91,000
7,100
77,500
16,500
18,900
14,100
4,900
7,300
9,900
20,000
9,200
13,000
21,000
8,900
6,700
4,700
6,900
6,200
7,900
9,600
228,700

18,500
76,100
165,400
25,900
28,300
170,400
24,800
29,100
23,600
22,000
37,200
224,000
16,600
195,500
44,300
44,700
31,800
11,400
19,800
24,000
48,200
22,700
31,800
50,200
19,700
15,800
10,600
15,900
14,100
19,100
25,700
533,900

684
1,316
3,505
—
387
8,186
964
1,313
467
796
675
1,156
696
2,642
879
727
2,029
—
322
—
1,929
760
635
1,041
470
642
304
735
251
523
887
8,513
49,891

*
2,205
—
—
208
—
92
—
37
—
—
4,026
—
386
197
152
—
—
—
—
829
92
—
—
—
71
—
27
58
34
43
102
9,271

270
135
802
—
41
1,470
188
521
118
594
46
266
159
1,102
100
317
1,269
—
219
—
732
235
216
150
117
120
32
167
203
211
323
3,410
15,214

*
357
—
—
39
—
40
—
46
—
—
718
—
21
47
66
—
—
—
—
238
20
—
—
—
8
—
*
55
20
8
29
1,991

Population Represented
9,132,600
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

937,900

2,269,500

858,400
58.12
127

411,100
22.55
23

858,400
17.72
127

411,100
4.84
23

166,500
904,600
100
62,400
139,700

19,000
93,400
0
7,300
15,100

39,500
210,900
0
15,000
33,300

492
1,689
0
249
349
2,779

505
230
0
46
60
841

268
343
0
63
143
817

478
2,147
0
216
611
3,452

—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
1,273,300
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

134,800

298,600

134,800
20.62
5

134,800
6.24
5

134,800
6.06
5

134,800
25.62
5

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

345,400
77,800
91,700
165,000
127,700
69,500
552,200

39,500
8,900
12,300
20,800
15,300
8,200
68,400

90,000
22,100
27,600
49,700
32,000
18,500
146,700

3,033
0
0
0
0
0
—
3,033

177
1,614
627
1,695
1,077
877
5,628
11,695

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

230
0
0
0
0
0
—
230

15
55
45
189
160
77
403
944

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
1,429,400
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

173,400

386,700

173,400
17.49
44

173,400
67.43
44

—
—
—

—
—
—

386,700
0.59
44

386,700
2.44
44

—
—
—

Clarke
Clayton
Cobb
Columbia
Coweta
De Kalb
Dougherty
Douglas
Fayette
Floyd
Forsyth
Fulton
Glynn
Gwinnett
Hall
Henry
Houston
Laurens
Liberty
Lowndes
Muscogee
Newton
Paulding
Richmond
Rockdale
Spalding
Thomas
Troup
Walker
Walton
Whitfield
120 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

148
77
945
—
206
2,037
72
388
159
891
114
467
272
697
184
386
1,019
—
39
—
*
89
497
138
209
192
118
240
209
82
378
3,498
16,619

Nonpetition

reported
cases

0
566
—
—
*
—
0
—
*
—
—
1,594
—
8
*
0
—
—
—
—
0
*
—
—
—
0
—
0
0
*
6
—
2,234

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

2,087,300 1,006,600
7.96
2.22
127
23

—
—
—

Hawaii - 5 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Hawaii
Honolulu
Kalawao
Kauai
Maui
Number of Reported Cases

Idaho - 44 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Ada
Bannock
Bonneville
Canyon
Kootenai
Twin Falls
38 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

113

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations
Reporting county

Total

Delinquency

Status

6,500
14,100
3,700
533,100
8,400
96,300
5,000
4,000
53,700
11,300
4,600
80,300
10,900
34,800
14,000
10,600
25,300
17,600
13,100
27,800
18,500
12,100
7,900
5,800
71,900
5,500
29,900
159,100

14,500
35,200
9,100
1,294,200
20,000
226,000
10,700
10,000
134,300
26,000
10,600
187,700
24,800
79,100
34,100
24,200
58,200
42,600
31,700
63,400
43,100
27,800
18,600
13,200
169,500
12,800
69,500
355,000

123
225
146
9,651
245
1,107
70
65
1,080
273
89
745
246
352
146
396
567
505
179
617
115
161
187
122
521
56
523
3,968
22,480

—
—
—
5,031
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5,031

*
16
*
*
41
50
6
*
26
8
0
9
8
6
13
8
6
10
*
14
7
*
*
*
159
27
25
154
612

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

73
72
44
1,315
31
88
27
17
92
80
27
210
82
84
142
120
204
304
132
150
221
111
93
34
188
104
394
1,112
5,551

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

1,285,700

3,046,000

1,285,700
17.48
102

533,100
9.44
1

1,284,600
0.48
100

—
—
—

3,046,000
1.82
102

—
—
—

—
—
—

42,200
8,700
10,700
11,300
24,300
8,500
7,700
31,300
7,300
15,800
5,200
9,500
15,500
3,800
9,100
59,100
12,100
5,000
13,900
96,900
5,700
9,100
8,300
17,700
30,600
5,200
13,800
17,500
10,600

93,800
19,000
24,000
24,400
55,200
17,400
15,900
69,500
15,500
32,700
10,900
21,100
33,400
8,200
20,100
128,500
25,900
10,700
30,200
229,700
12,500
21,000
17,600
37,200
67,800
11,000
32,300
39,600
23,200

2,341
208
198
241
968
137
342
707
39
533
66
500
459
17
145
2,087
359
143
709
4,939
83
145
145
383
911
152
613
470
311

994
100
55
51
633
418
122
165
54
133
26
145
*
13
27
227
*
33
65
132
26
64
34
36
0
119
41
90
77

745
46
15
136
64
51
21
104
*
66
20
92
92
9
8
509
145
50
414
709
39
39
31
47
100
7
676
123
79

308
59
16
33
228
213
21
29
16
34
15
11
*
12
9
207
11
25
51
45
10
56
27
30
0
42
39
16
21

256
25
82
146
75
69
35
239
31
9
86
39
108
26
16
875
119
56
197
1,302
64
236
19
176
269
56
213
303
152

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

Illinois - 102 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Adams
67,100
Champaign
184,700
Coles
51,100
Cook
5,303,900
De Kalb
97,800
Du Page
931,200
Henry
50,500
Jackson
58,000
Kane
483,200
Kankakee
107,800
Knox
53,300
Lake
704,100
La Salle
112,400
McHenry
304,700
McLean
159,000
Macon
109,800
Madison
264,000
Peoria
182,100
Rock Island
147,500
St. Clair
259,400
Sangamon
192,700
Tazewell
129,600
Vermilion
82,200
Whiteside
59,700
Will
642,600
Williamson
63,400
Winnebago
291,600
75 Small Counties
1,672,000
Number of Reported Cases
Population Represented
12,765,400
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

Indiana - 92 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Allen
Bartholomew
Clark
Delaware
Elkhart
Floyd
Grant
Hamilton
Hancock
Hendricks
Henry
Howard
Johnson
Knox
Kosciusko
Lake
La Porte
Lawrence
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Monroe
Morgan
Porter
St. Joseph
Shelby
Tippecanoe
Vanderburgh
Vigo

114

343,900
73,600
101,600
116,200
195,300
72,000
70,500
240,700
63,000
127,300
47,200
84,800
129,800
38,300
76,000
491,700
110,300
46,300
130,400
861,800
47,000
121,500
69,800
157,400
266,000
43,800
154,000
172,800
102,700

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

56,400
69,200
1,584,700

6,800
7,500
186,900

13,900
16,100
394,900

94
149
4,083
22,677

82
116
1,517
5,601

22
15
840
5,315

92
22
980
2,680

16
75
2,662
8,032

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

Population Represented
6,266,000
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

717,600

1,573,300

717,600
31.60
92

717,600
7.81
92

717,600
7.41
92

717,600
3.73
92

1,573,300
5.11
92

—
—
—

—
—
—

12,700
4,700
5,700
4,500
10,400
10,100
22,300
5,100
44,200
10,400
19,000
6,300
5,000
12,600
157,900

28,400
9,800
11,900
9,600
22,300
23,900
49,400
11,100
104,200
22,400
41,400
14,600
10,400
28,500
321,900

364
80
103
147
292
238
486
100
875
394
432
117
92
203
2,468
6,391

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

330,800

709,900

330,800
19.32
99

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

7,900
9,700
58,700
8,700
6,600
4,600
6,100
56,800
18,900
19,100
118,900

15,900
21,800
131,300
18,300
14,600
12,000
13,400
128,800
42,100
44,700
253,400

266
269
2,373
338
437
158
840
1,514
474
1,010
5,806
13,485

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

315,900

696,400

315,900
42.69
105

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

107,100
73,000
274,200
120,800
56,800
146,800
51,600
202,100
285,900

11,500
7,600
29,200
13,000
6,300
15,200
5,800
22,800
30,200

24,100
14,900
60,500
25,900
12,100
30,900
11,500
45,600
59,600

303
116
512
182
41
274
79
362
385
2,254

146
153
346
171
44
279
72
348
307
1,866

16
21
40
29
*
32
7
44
50
240

19
36
72
28
*
45
24
129
116
473

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
1,318,200
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

141,500

285,200

141,500
15.93
16

141,500
13.19
16

141,500
1.70
16

141,500
3.34
16

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

Warrick
Wayne
61 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

Iowa - 99 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Black Hawk
126,000
Cerro Gordo
44,600
Clinton
49,700
Des Moines
41,000
Dubuque
91,600
Johnson
117,200
Linn
199,600
Muscatine
42,600
Polk
401,800
Pottawattamie
89,700
Scott
161,200
Story
79,800
Warren
43,200
Woodbury
102,500
85 Small Counties
1,375,300
Number of Reported Cases
Population Represented
2,965,500
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

Kansas - 105 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Butler
62,400
Douglas
111,500
Johnson
506,200
Leavenworth
72,800
Reno
63,500
Riley
61,800
Saline
54,000
Sedgwick
466,100
Shawnee
171,800
Wyandotte
155,700
95 Small Counties
1,022,300
Number of Reported Cases
Population Represented
2,748,200
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

Maine - 16 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Androscoggin
Aroostook
Cumberland
Kennebec
Oxford
Penobscot
Somerset
York
8 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

115

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

73,200
509,400
783,400
87,600
168,400
97,500
138,100
220,400
238,800
269,200
927,400
842,800
96,900
141,600
90,300
636,400
268,300

6,800
56,900
84,600
11,500
21,000
11,900
17,600
26,600
29,600
33,900
103,700
100,100
11,600
14,700
9,700
72,500
27,900

13,900
124,000
177,700
22,300
41,600
24,200
36,400
56,700
60,900
70,600
230,400
218,700
24,900
31,500
20,900
158,100
56,600

218
1,417
3,209
270
353
402
381
735
564
478
1,188
1,808
197
428
422
5,641
874
18,585

497
2,973
2,920
341
596
487
1,077
610
995
1,040
1,622
2,783
503
715
1,234
3,778
3,060
25,231

10
*
0
0
23
0
0
24
*
0
9
*
0
0
*
*
6
82

152
91
32
131
162
52
101
306
162
27
83
468
46
154
142
143
440
2,692

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
5,589,600
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

640,800

1,369,600

640,800
29.00
24

640,800
39.37
24

640,800
0.13
24

640,800
4.20
24

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

18,500
11,800
53,200
1,300
73,400
6,600
47,900
11,500
127,600
700
60,900
51,500
52,400
79,400

38,800
24,700
119,800
2,800
167,600
13,700
105,700
24,500
306,900
1,900
142,900
116,000
133,800
178,700

2,398
870
4,042
—
4,235
1,002
3,862
—
4,343
—
1,714
1,968
4,489
4,275
33,198

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

303
172
843
—
591
175
655
—
1,103
—
229
281
954
844
6,150

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

110
112
367
—
363
122
368
—
439
—
136
120
381
411
2,929

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

596,700

1,377,900

583,100
56.93
11

—
—
—

583,100
10.55
11

—
—
—

1,348,600
2.17
11

—
—
—

—
—
—

12,400
6,300
10,500
16,700
14,300
5,200
7,500
10,600
48,200
8,000
24,700
6,500
4,900
16,600
22,400
63,800
10,200
10,300

27,700
13,700
23,400
37,800
32,400
11,100
16,200
23,600
109,800
17,700
59,500
14,900
11,700
37,300
53,100
154,500
21,500
22,700

603
272
924
1,375
1,423
275
261
625
1,990
433
934
386
332
1,404
2,072
3,906
341
1,772

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

77
139
52
126
131
121
46
55
421
64
442
70
100
162
612
813
20
53

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

Maryland - 24 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Allegany
Anne Arundel
Baltimore
Calvert
Carroll
Cecil
Charles
Frederick
Harford
Howard
Montgomery
Prince George’s
St. Mary’s
Washington
Wicomico
Baltimore City
8 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Massachusetts - 14 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Barnstable
226,200
Berkshire
131,800
Bristol
545,900
Dukes
15,600
Essex
734,300
Franklin
72,300
Hampden
460,800
Hampshire
153,400
Middlesex
1,465,000
Nantucket
10,100
Norfolk
652,500
Plymouth
491,900
Suffolk
692,000
Worcester
781,700
Number of Reported Cases
Population Represented
6,433,400
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

Michigan - 83 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Allegan
Barry
Bay
Berrien
Calhoun
Cass
Clinton
Eaton
Genesee
Grand Traverse
Ingham
Ionia
Isabella
Jackson
Kalamazoo
Kent
Lapeer
Lenawee

116

113,100
59,800
108,900
162,100
138,500
51,600
69,400
107,200
442,700
84,000
278,100
64,500
65,600
163,400
240,100
596,000
93,200
101,800

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

181,400
829,000
64,700
84,000
153,800
63,800
175,000
1,213,700
255,200
207,800
171,100
62,900
72,900
58,300
78,700
342,100
1,990,900
1,155,800

19,800
79,400
5,300
9,100
16,500
6,700
19,000
122,400
27,500
22,200
17,700
6,500
7,600
6,200
8,500
28,500
232,400
109,200

42,600
183,300
11,600
19,400
35,300
14,900
42,300
281,000
63,800
49,300
39,300
15,600
16,900
13,100
19,100
70,100
519,600
236,500

774
3,233
429
345
1,230
377
1,895
3,918
2,121
979
900
600
553
135
722
1,154
5,569
8,278
52,540

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4,132
—
4,132

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
540
—
540

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8,425
—
8,425

51
420
38
59
88
50
187
603
106
332
134
77
49
29
63
117
3,197
795
9,899

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
312
—
312

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
10,100,800
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

1,043,600

2,362,400

1,043,600
50.35
83

232,400
17.78
1

232,400
2.32
1

232,400
36.26
1

2,362,400
4.19
83

519,600
0.60
1

—
—
—

41,200
5,000
5,900
49,100
116,600
15,400
6,400
55,800
6,700
19,500
15,100
15,600
28,400
14,000
190,300

86,800
11,400
12,100
104,600
267,400
34,800
12,500
124,600
13,900
39,800
34,900
33,400
59,200
31,000
394,400

1,014
359
164
1,835
4,121
332
158
2,552
187
788
377
432
495
351
7,355
20,520

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

592
141
223
2,673
7,626
266
228
1,078
184
921
496
769
609
574
8,332
24,712

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

585,100

1,261,000

585,100
35.07
87

—
—
—

585,100
42.24
87

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

17,000
7,800
22,400
30,800
17,000
7,200
9,200
9,500
7,600
10,500
14,400
8,200
187,200

37,000
18,100
50,500
68,000
35,700
16,600
20,400
21,100
16,600
23,100
32,500
17,800
404,700

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

1,363
474
1,122
1,872
799
119
1,003
475
264
410
848
816
9,066
18,631

348,900

762,100

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

348,900
—
82

Livingston
Macomb
Marquette
Midland
Monroe
Montcalm
Muskegon
Oakland
Ottawa
Saginaw
St. Clair
St. Joseph
Shiawassee
Tuscola
Van Buren
Washtenaw
Wayne
48 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

Minnesota - 87 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Anoka
323,400
Blue Earth
57,600
Clay
53,700
Dakota
383,400
Hennepin
1,118,700
Olmsted
135,300
Otter Tail
57,600
Ramsey
494,900
Rice
61,100
St. Louis
196,800
Scott
120,000
Stearns
142,500
Washington
220,200
Wright
110,600
73 Small Counties
1,651,100
Number of Reported Cases
Population Represented
5,126,700
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

Mississippi - 82 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
De Soto
136,700
Forrest
74,900
Harrison
193,200
Hinds
248,100
Jackson
135,600
Jones
66,100
Lauderdale
76,900
Lee
78,500
Lowndes
59,700
Madison
84,200
Rankin
131,500
Washington
58,800
70 Small Counties
1,564,300
Number of Reported Cases
Population Represented
2,908,500
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

117

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

12,400
8,000
6,400
10,200
19,800
6,700
10,300
21,000
65,900
10,600
22,500
8,000
35,800
5,400
102,000
36,800
191,800

30,100
18,800
14,900
23,000
48,300
16,100
23,500
51,500
161,200
26,900
51,000
18,800
81,800
12,700
226,200
87,000
440,700

560
147
129
85
219
86
76
189
1,096
115
226
60
190
80
1,455
1,045
2,394
8,152

740
442
436
376
942
375
402
1,611
1,766
467
1,064
215
1,057
242
6,575
2,668
10,912
30,290

629
80
14
34
63
33
20
20
341
44
68
15
15
*
168
16
742
2,305

857
433
372
393
131
170
201
610
277
604
436
47
392
126
3,095
696
8,400
17,240

573,800

1,332,500

573,800
14.21
115

573,800
52.79
115

573,800
4.02
115

573,800
30.05
115

79,500
83,100
78,300
100,000
136,600
457,300

9,300
9,400
7,300
9,900
15,100
54,000

20,100
19,500
16,600
21,300
32,900
108,300

164
95
37
146
275
358
1,075

817
622
248
589
640
1,760
4,676

*
10
*
17
*
31
62

125
116
21
120
105
303
790

—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
934,700
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

105,000

218,700

105,000
10.24
56

105,000
44.54
56

105,000
0.59
56

105,000
7.53
56

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

43,600
36,100
486,900
55,000
264,700
139,200
36,600
696,000

4,700
3,900
55,900
6,400
26,000
18,000
4,200
82,400

10,400
8,500
129,600
14,900
61,900
40,200
9,200
170,300

207
113
1,080
190
641
384
132
3,255
6,002

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

51
53
329
60
184
91
38
1,322
2,128

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

41
77
937
131
435
115
14
958
2,708

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
1,758,200
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

201,400

445,100

201,400
29.79
93

—
—
—

201,400
10.56
93

—
—
—

445,100
6.08
93

—
—
—

—
—
—

3,100
190,600
4,900
6,600
100
2,400
600
400

7,100
442,300
9,200
13,500
200
5,000
1,100
700

130
4,534
164
115
0
65
22
*

144
7,101
418
171
0
56
*
*

92
306
10
14
0
0
0
0

101
3,412
341
60
*
41
*
*

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

Missouri - 115 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Boone
143,300
Buchanan
84,900
Cape Girardeau
71,100
Cass
93,800
Clay
201,700
Cole
72,700
Franklin
99,000
Greene
250,500
Jackson
662,100
Jasper
110,500
Jefferson
213,000
Platte
82,100
St. Charles
329,600
St. Francois
61,500
St. Louis
1,002,300
St. Louis City
352,600
99 Small Counties
1,967,000
Number of Reported Cases
Population Represented
5,797,700
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

95
54
32
21
50
77
113
288
673
113
74
13
73
27
733
432
2,145
5,013

224
100
45
*
108
244
*
557
100
185
29
*
20
*
504
278
3,868
6,273

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

1,332,500 1,332,500
3.76
4.71
115
115

—
—
—

Montana - 56 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Cascade
Flathead
Gallatin
Missoula
Yellowstone
51 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Nebraska - 93 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Buffalo
Dodge
Douglas
Hall
Lancaster
Sarpy
Scotts Bluff
86 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Nevada - 17 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Churchill
24,700
Clark
1,709,400
Douglas
46,000
Elko
45,600
Esmeralda
800
Humboldt
17,200
Mineral
4,900
Storey
4,000

118

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

389,800
8,900
161,000

42,500
1,000
18,100

95,700
1,900
37,200

1,021
83
637
6,775

3,396
6
559
11,858

43
*
97
563

1,210
29
261
5,465

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

Population Represented
2,412,300
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

270,200

613,800

270,200
25.08
17

270,200
43.89
17

270,200
2.08
17

270,200
20.23
17

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

77,100
84,800
400,500
146,800
294,200
119,000
184,400

7,000
7,100
42,200
14,400
31,100
10,900
17,000

14,800
15,500
94,000
30,900
66,900
24,900
35,700

—
296
1,850
774
1,008
628
1,350
5,906

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
71
301
84
177
137
294
1,064

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
82
248
51
108
100
330
919

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
1,306,800
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

129,700

282,800

115,500
51.15
7

—
—
—

115,500
9.22
7

—
—
—

253,100
3.63
7

—
—
—

—
—
—

270,300
902,300
449,100
515,400
98,800
152,900
789,200
277,000
603,000
130,000
366,100
789,300
634,800
490,100
558,200
497,000
66,100
319,800
152,700
530,700
110,300

31,400
96,000
50,800
62,800
10,600
17,600
91,900
32,500
58,800
15,400
40,200
82,600
76,100
55,000
57,900
57,600
7,700
36,700
19,700
60,200
13,000

65,600
204,800
105,400
130,800
20,400
37,300
206,100
65,900
135,900
30,900
85,800
185,400
157,600
119,800
127,200
130,600
15,500
81,500
38,400
133,900
26,900

2,274
1,769
1,481
4,359
948
2,310
3,684
1,637
3,640
228
2,321
2,472
2,346
1,011
1,535
2,421
547
516
513
2,168
410
38,590

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
8,703,200
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

974,600

2,105,600

974,600
39.60
21

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

65,700
7,700
23,900
6,400
7,200
12,500
8,200
13,700
17,500

150,700
16,800
53,800
13,800
16,200
25,400
17,200
28,100
37,300

3,407
271
650
160
288
142
219
271
414

3,946
652
1,700
652
422
367
624
699
543

85
6
*
0
7
*
0
*
11

771
130
417
25
217
203
43
100
202

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Washoe
White Pine
7 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

New Hampshire - 10 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Cheshire
Grafton
Hillsborough
Merrimack
Rockingham
Strafford
4 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

New Jersey - 21 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Atlantic
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Cape May
Cumberland
Essex
Gloucester
Hudson
Hunterdon
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Ocean
Passaic
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Union
Warren
Number of Reported Cases

New Mexico - 33 Districts
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Bernalillo
Chaves
Dona Ana
Eddy
Lea
McKinley
Otero
Sandoval
San Juan

603,800
61,900
189,300
51,300
56,600
71,800
63,100
107,100
125,800

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

119

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

140,800
69,100
385,200

14,600
9,000
45,700

31,100
18,800
97,100

341
236
1,683
8,082

601
498
2,759
13,463

12
0
40
173

83
17
928
3,136

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

Population Represented
1,926,000
Rates for Reporting Districts
Number of Reporting Districts

232,100

506,400

232,100
34.82
33

232,100
58.00
33

232,100
0.75
33

232,100
13.51
33

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

297,600
50,400
1,364,600
196,500
82,100
81,400
136,100
89,000
51,700
82,100
63,300
294,500
928,200
55,400
59,200
63,600
115,500
2,511,400
64,200
70,000
732,100
49,000
1,331,600
1,606,300
216,600
234,000
457,300
104,200
372,800
123,100
62,800
100,500
2,256,600
154,600
475,000
294,600
111,300
214,100
149,000
98,400
1,472,100
76,200
51,300
100,100
182,400
65,600
63,000
93,200
947,700
463,600

22,600
3,900
139,200
15,100
6,900
6,700
11,100
7,200
4,500
6,300
5,300
25,300
77,300
4,700
5,200
5,300
9,800
219,100
4,900
5,700
64,000
4,100
115,300
80,400
18,200
19,400
40,100
8,900
36,100
11,200
4,600
9,200
168,400
12,500
41,400
27,400
8,600
17,400
12,400
8,600
131,700
6,400
4,500
5,900
14,900
5,300
5,100
8,600
82,300
37,200

54,600
9,300
353,400
36,100
16,700
15,700
26,200
17,500
10,200
14,200
11,600
59,200
184,800
10,700
12,000
12,200
25,800
586,500
11,500
13,300
152,600
9,900
280,800
248,000
42,800
45,300
96,900
20,600
88,600
25,300
10,300
21,800
452,600
30,200
101,700
71,300
20,400
42,700
30,200
20,000
329,500
15,000
10,600
14,100
33,800
11,900
11,700
20,200
209,500
85,300

341
42
1,423
99
90
58
182
167
27
*
37
217
737
25
59
70
117
1,771
75
33
524
45
592
1,092
219
196
454
64
278
160
27
31
1,444
207
272
84
49
116
165
95
561
40
31
68
211
46
77
84
492
339
13,638

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

190
46
389
109
72
43
64
71
22
10
46
107
754
70
69
46
59
338
58
75
718
51
357
167
179
200
281
29
148
27
24
44
263
249
77
40
48
159
97
41
522
83
23
42
144
73
53
43
456
383
7,659

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

168
35
384
107
71
45
37
52
15
10
40
104
711
64
63
45
55
328
47
73
693
52
352
166
171
200
275
17
148
28
25
44
244
215
76
39
46
156
82
39
506
80
18
42
129
68
46
42
460
366
7,279

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
19,315,700
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

1,596,100

4,035,000

1,596,100
8.54
62

—
—
—

1,596,100
4.80
62

—
—
—

4,035,000
1.80
62

—
—
—

—
—
—

Santa Fe
Valencia
22 Small Districts
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

New York - 62 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 15
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Dutchess
Erie
Fulton
Genesee
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
St. Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
13 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

120

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations
Reporting county

Total

Delinquency

Status

11,400
6,400
16,100
7,300
13,000
6,400
4,400
12,500
8,700
4,600
7,600
28,700
12,900
17,800
5,000
26,400
16,500
35,900
5,200
9,300
6,900
12,300
12,700
5,000
6,100
66,300
6,200
8,100
12,500
11,500
8,400
11,200
11,800
12,300
7,500
11,400
5,400
5,100
6,100
14,800
62,800
10,000
5,000
6,500
130,700

29,700
16,000
41,300
17,900
34,600
16,200
10,700
32,300
21,200
12,000
22,000
78,400
32,700
52,800
12,400
70,700
42,300
93,900
12,300
24,300
18,000
30,900
35,100
12,700
15,000
185,200
15,500
20,100
33,300
39,100
20,700
30,300
30,200
32,100
18,700
28,600
13,300
12,500
15,200
39,800
172,000
26,400
13,300
17,000
330,200

345
124
169
104
201
96
134
258
135
131
215
730
156
273
108
372
457
1,393
103
172
70
111
157
120
128
1,293
133
121
460
263
98
278
208
389
185
307
105
101
83
179
976
240
111
138
2,385
14,315

184
192
226
57
125
94
52
237
168
80
139
283
231
236
144
255
390
441
55
186
124
25
132
120
50
1,217
134
222
312
321
131
271
144
242
77
122
84
52
49
65
790
182
90
174
1,748
10,653

47
19
184
49
34
53
10
141
50
10
17
107
17
78
6
76
172
191
8
14
20
16
6
8
29
152
23
7
31
21
*
7
81
116
40
65
20
19
23
24
96
15
33
*
558
2,702

22
54
61
16
47
*
6
43
57
26
23
15
26
31
*
74
22
22
11
9
15
0
9
7
*
101
22
6
74
127
18
8
70
14
43
33
6
9
45
*
85
27
59
7
700
2,064

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

712,600

1,878,900

712,600
20.09
100

712,600
14.95
100

712,600
3.79
100

712,600
2.90
100

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

12,300
12,100
4,800
6,900
39,600
15,800
22,600
12,100
154,200
6,100
17,500

26,600
24,900
10,700
13,900
86,800
34,000
50,000
24,800
325,900
13,000
39,000

831
691
469
616
3,277
2,142
1,429
436
8,173
312
494

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
515
—
—

98
575
80
152
1,033
343
127
114
477
22
127

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,372
—
—

552
21
63
51
427
317
142
314
3,511
18
101

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

North Carolina - 100 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 15
Alamance
140,200
Brunswick
89,100
Buncombe
218,400
Burke
89,500
Cabarrus
149,600
Caldwell
79,300
Carteret
62,800
Catawba
151,300
Cleveland
98,000
Columbus
54,400
Craven
93,800
Cumberland
299,000
Davidson
154,500
Durham
242,400
Edgecombe
54,000
Forsyth
325,700
Gaston
196,200
Guilford
443,500
Halifax
55,600
Harnett
103,800
Henderson
97,200
Iredell
140,500
Johnston
146,300
Lenoir
57,900
Lincoln
69,700
Mecklenburg
796,400
Moore
81,300
Nash
91,200
New Hanover
179,000
Onslow
150,500
Orange
118,500
Pitt
142,300
Randolph
138,200
Robeson
127,800
Rockingham
92,500
Rowan
134,800
Rutherford
63,700
Stanly
59,000
Surry
72,400
Union
163,500
Wake
750,900
Wayne
113,800
Wilkes
67,100
Wilson
76,200
56 Small Counties
1,640,500
Number of Reported Cases
Population Represented
8,672,500
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

Ohio - 88 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Allen
106,100
Ashtabula
103,000
Athens
62,000
Belmont
69,100
Butler
350,000
Clark
141,900
Clermont
190,300
Columbiana
110,600
Cuyahoga
1,330,400
Darke
53,000
Delaware
150,500

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

121

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

78,400
138,400
1,089,400
95,100
151,800
828,500
73,500
60,300
70,600
232,400
62,900
154,700
300,300
447,400
253,200
65,800
167,000
101,400
545,600
85,600
155,200
127,600
75,100
61,600
76,500
57,400
380,300
546,300
218,700
91,800
196,800
62,200
113,500
123,900
1,514,800

8,700
16,200
118,400
12,200
16,100
96,300
8,300
7,400
7,000
25,600
6,900
17,500
35,100
53,100
27,300
7,400
20,100
11,700
60,200
9,800
16,200
14,200
7,900
7,100
8,300
6,600
42,700
62,100
24,200
10,000
23,200
6,500
13,600
12,900
177,000

17,900
34,100
277,900
24,100
33,500
208,700
17,800
16,100
14,400
52,900
14,500
38,000
73,900
114,300
55,600
15,200
41,800
24,200
131,800
20,700
33,700
30,000
16,900
15,100
18,000
13,800
89,200
131,800
49,800
21,800
51,000
13,600
29,100
26,800
373,000

1,667
619
8,825
473
824
14,953
739
304
289
1,314
347
927
2,428
5,207
1,024
1,496
903
1,356
4,735
837
801
1,942
533
684
322
749
2,636
5,804
1,457
467
1,701
412
765
1,578
12,968
100,956

—
—
—
—
—
239
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,985
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,739

743
40
988
63
100
2,127
193
84
200
531
318
136
237
456
297
539
190
412
2,420
289
47
492
135
94
43
232
199
558
435
114
107
79
138
163
3,797
20,144

—
—
—
—
—
49
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
472
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,893

96
202
4,103
21
150
458
48
92
151
258
48
432
357
632
396
284
72
50
962
157
124
187
115
156
244
110
817
831
335
43
76
22
240
344
2,176
20,306

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
11,470,700
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

1,302,000

2,790,700

1,302,000
77.54
88

303,600
9.02
3

1,302,000
15.47
88

303,600
6.24
3

2,790,700
7.28
88

—
—
—

—
—
—

3,000
500
1,500
700
2,100
1,300
4,200
4,000
11,900
5,400
4,900
1,800
400
23,700
700
14,200
800
1,600
8,300
2,500
4,300
500
400

6,400
1,000
3,200
1,400
4,800
2,700
9,100
8,000
24,700
11,900
10,900
3,900
700
50,700
1,500
32,400
1,600
3,400
17,200
5,700
9,000
1,000
800

14
*
13
*
55
24
51
143
120
51
72
12
0
190
8
211
6
15
72
57
55
*
*

35
18
12
13
43
35
105
133
253
142
41
29
*
646
28
618
25
37
90
86
197
*
*

*
0
*
0
*
*
0
*
59
*
6
0
0
53
*
*
0
*
*
0
*
0
0

40
*
*
0
39
16
*
20
205
31
26
*
0
146
*
909
*
8
*
21
51
0
0

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Erie
Fairfield
Franklin
Geauga
Greene
Hamilton
Hancock
Huron
Jefferson
Lake
Lawrence
Licking
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Marion
Medina
Miami
Montgomery
Muskingum
Portage
Richland
Ross
Sandusky
Scioto
Seneca
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Tuscarawas
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wood
43 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

Oklahoma - 77 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Adair
Alfalfa
Atoka
Beaver
Beckham
Blaine
Bryan
Caddo
Canadian
Carter
Cherokee
Choctaw
Cimarron
Cleveland
Coal
Comanche
Cotton
Craig
Creek
Custer
Delaware
Dewey
Ellis

122

22,000
5,700
14,300
5,400
18,800
12,900
37,700
30,100
98,500
47,000
44,400
15,300
2,800
224,200
5,700
110,600
6,500
15,000
68,700
25,300
39,200
4,500
4,000

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

56,900
27,200
49,400
4,800
5,900
3,000
3,300
12,100
13,900
26,300
6,400
10,300
46,200
14,200
9,900
10,600
49,400
32,300
36,400
9,100
30,000
33,900
19,800
7,300
14,400
39,400
12,800
70,700
11,200
10,800
11,400
684,200
39,700
45,300
32,800
16,800
73,400
44,600
35,200
68,100
11,700
3,300
80,500
24,600
40,800
42,900
20,100
8,500
570,600
64,200
49,000
11,400
8,500
19,000

6,300
2,900
5,700
600
500
400
400
1,400
1,500
3,500
700
1,200
5,400
1,700
1,100
1,200
5,600
4,000
4,100
1,100
3,400
4,300
2,000
800
1,500
4,600
1,300
7,800
1,300
1,300
1,200
73,600
4,700
5,300
3,900
2,000
5,800
4,700
3,800
7,600
1,400
300
10,200
2,800
5,000
4,700
2,400
1,100
64,300
7,900
5,500
1,300
800
2,000

14,300
6,500
12,300
1,100
1,100
800
800
3,000
3,100
7,900
1,500
2,400
11,900
3,500
2,300
2,500
12,600
8,200
8,500
2,200
7,400
9,100
4,200
1,600
3,300
9,800
2,900
17,400
2,700
2,600
2,500
177,400
10,000
10,500
8,100
4,100
13,900
9,800
8,400
16,600
2,800
700
20,500
6,300
10,500
10,100
6,000
2,200
149,900
16,400
11,400
2,700
1,600
4,600

135
35
58
*
8
*
*
16
7
43
*
*
161
8
10
19
53
25
58
7
28
52
64
*
10
53
19
83
17
22
24
1,634
63
49
102
22
121
49
77
161
6
*
159
67
64
27
32
40
2,468
64
136
14
6
39
7,612

95
149
34
*
17
*
9
36
32
67
23
21
140
31
64
10
91
114
110
19
60
133
42
23
51
122
49
78
22
27
45
634
94
111
148
32
201
101
226
261
40
*
166
89
168
111
66
58
1,873
141
235
19
25
71
9,193

*
*
7
0
*
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
0
*
*
*
*
0
0
*
11
*
0
*
0
7
0
*
0
41
9
*
12
0
*
0
*
*
0
0
16
*
7
0
*
0
231
22
10
*
0
*
566

6
34
14
0
6
*
0
10
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
33
15
38
*
17
32
27
*
*
63
0
51
7
12
0
53
23
36
56
*
113
8
45
135
*
0
71
10
43
30
14
*
394
44
73
28
9
39
3,154

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
3,543,400
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

398,300

886,400

398,300
19.11
77

398,300
23.08
77

398,300
1.42
77

398,300
7.92
77

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

11,200
126,400
7,400
18,700

22,500
263,700
14,800
37,500

255
3,885
142
451

142
1,294
177
320

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

Garfield
Garvin
Grady
Grant
Greer
Harmon
Harper
Haskell
Hughes
Jackson
Jefferson
Johnston
Kay
Kingfisher
Kiowa
Latimer
Le Flore
Lincoln
Logan
Love
McClain
McCurtain
McIntosh
Major
Marshall
Mayes
Murray
Muskogee
Noble
Nowata
Okfuskee
Oklahoma
Okmulgee
Osage
Ottawa
Pawnee
Payne
Pittsburg
Pontotoc
Pottawatomie
Pushmataha
Roger Mills
Rogers
Seminole
Sequoyah
Stephens
Texas
Tillman
Tulsa
Wagoner
Washington
Washita
Woods
Woodward
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

Pennsylvania - 67 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Adams
99,700
Allegheny
1,233,000
Armstrong
70,500
Beaver
176,800

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

123

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

10 through
upper age

0 through
upper age

49,900
396,200
126,600
62,500
619,800
181,500
147,800
61,900
140,300
473,700
82,600
64,800
89,500
223,000
252,900
554,400
280,200
146,200
137,300
88,500
45,700
209,600
489,900
92,400
125,400
330,200
312,800
118,100
44,200
119,100
46,100
162,400
774,700
287,300
92,300
1,456,400
147,000
78,800
55,900
42,000
206,400
367,100
408,200
633,500

5,300
44,900
12,900
7,300
72,400
20,200
14,300
6,300
11,100
55,900
8,500
6,100
10,000
22,200
28,300
65,100
32,200
15,000
14,600
8,200
4,800
21,500
58,300
9,900
13,300
36,800
31,100
12,500
4,800
13,000
5,100
20,500
85,600
31,300
9,200
172,200
14,200
7,900
6,300
4,700
20,900
38,000
45,500
68,400

10,900
93,500
27,200
14,800
147,200
42,000
29,300
12,700
23,700
117,200
17,000
12,300
20,400
45,900
59,700
134,600
66,400
30,700
31,300
17,000
9,800
43,800
125,000
20,100
28,200
77,000
62,800
25,500
9,700
26,200
10,800
39,100
182,600
63,100
18,800
372,200
28,600
15,800
12,500
9,200
42,900
74,600
94,200
136,500

Population Represented
12,405,300
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

1,360,500

2,821,100

15,400
16,900
12,200
16,400
29,900
7,200
12,900
13,100
39,200
6,900
18,700
6,400
7,100
23,900

34,300
39,500
31,400
37,700
73,500
16,200
27,400
30,800
93,900
15,800
45,100
14,400
15,700
55,200

Reporting county

Bedford
Berks
Blair
Bradford
Bucks
Butler
Cambria
Carbon
Centre
Chester
Clearfield
Columbia
Crawford
Cumberland
Dauphin
Delaware
Erie
Fayette
Franklin
Indiana
Jefferson
Lackawanna
Lancaster
Lawrence
Lebanon
Lehigh
Luzerne
Lycoming
McKean
Mercer
Mifflin
Monroe
Montgomery
Northampton
Northumberland
Philadelphia
Schuylkill
Somerset
Venango
Warren
Washington
Westmoreland
York
20 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

73
1,415
211
99
1,094
255
1,873
122
168
2,586
168
108
240
449
1,213
1,950
978
260
403
100
133
405
860
220
410
1,145
617
533
64
252
66
442
1,619
642
276
7,518
185
89
217
125
275
1,003
759
1,300
37,653

Status

Nonpetition

Petition

Dependency

Nonpetition

Petition

All

Nonpetition

reported
cases

12
957
98
*
755
52
137
87
0
964
54
265
56
360
395
30
337
321
218
98
38
0
924
352
76
525
682
297
14
103
0
153
1,399
580
728
2,400
382
41
267
34
453
82
1,482
355
18,497

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

1,360,500 1,360,500
27.68
13.60
67
67

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

*
0
33
31
73
24
27
*
25
24
29
*
13
6

22
0
40
122
66
29
42
68
13
24
138
42
23
55

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

South Carolina - 46 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Aiken
Anderson
Beaufort
Berkeley
Charleston
Darlington
Dorchester
Florence
Greenville
Greenwood
Horry
Lancaster
Laurens
Lexington

124

150,100
175,300
138,000
149,500
329,500
67,400
112,800
130,300
407,200
67,900
227,500
63,100
70,200
234,900

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

334
260
125
168
755
117
123
149
543
69
508
124
58
196

450
398
230
745
1,585
384
427
803
740
452
869
420
103
934

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

69,700
90,900
113,200
341,800
266,800
104,900
190,100
746,000

6,300
9,000
9,900
32,900
26,400
11,400
19,500
76,000

14,500
21,000
22,900
76,500
61,000
27,300
44,400
172,600

73
188
114
751
180
108
439
1,330
6,712

94
207
232
250
672
290
536
2,404
13,225

*
6
65
45
28
*
64
332
834

15
16
*
10
46
29
75
324
1,203

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
4,246,900
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

417,700

970,900

417,700
16.07
46

417,700
31.66
46

417,700
2.00
46

417,700
2.88
46

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

15,900
27,800
34,700
26,000
18,900
16,900
22,500
33,400
24,600
160,100
93,400
21,800
279,200

1,800
2,400
3,500
2,900
2,000
2,100
2,300
3,900
3,000
17,500
10,300
2,500
35,700

3,600
5,400
7,800
6,500
4,500
4,300
4,600
8,800
6,700
40,600
23,700
5,100
73,100

109
49
136
115
51
55
81
74
65
1,110
718
139
752
3,454

19
21
26
54
26
0
*
24
0
135
0
39
93
442

33
20
26
33
30
67
16
60
13
987
241
94
558
2,178

13
26
23
0
30
*
*
27
0
186
0
84
178
569

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
774,900
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

89,800

194,600

87,200
39.60
65

87,200
5.07
65

87,200
24.97
65

87,200
6.52
65

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

7,800
12,100
9,500
5,500
54,100
6,600
6,000
32,700
40,400
10,900
8,600
18,400
6,500
24,700
8,000
115,600
15,400
16,600
10,500
20,000
11,700
209,600

16,000
25,300
21,200
11,600
134,500
14,000
13,900
70,700
89,700
23,900
18,800
42,000
14,800
56,200
17,500
253,100
32,000
35,500
23,700
40,300
24,900
448,700

137
606
134
300
0
268
343
935
872
836
722
384
87
889
654
2,594
558
724
505
808
540
9,889
22,785

132
721
617
43
0
291
262
1,659
1,973
61
77
567
47
400
606
10,193
619
703
310
475
250
3,983
23,989

27
275
45
134
0
100
124
407
226
16
417
107
43
552
257
80
138
339
191
202
225
4,372
8,277

73
208
365
31
0
8
53
693
443
185
62
154
22
30
83
2,899
298
233
33
91
17
1,923
7,904

*
49
0
78
0
27
78
37
124
0
165
32
0
0
30
1,837
280
17
129
75
165
1,126
4,252

9
220
*
59
0
70
34
124
19
0
62
*
14
0
203
213
66
21
20
18
16
1,043
2,214

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

651,400

1,428,300

651,400
34.98
95

651,400
36.83
95

651,400
12.71
95

651,400
12.13
95

1,428,300 1,428,300
2.98
1.55
95
95

—
—
—

Oconee
Orangeburg
Pickens
Richland
Spartanburg
Sumter
York
25 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

South Dakota - 66 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Beadle
Brookings
Brown
Codington
Davison
Hughes
Lawrence
Lincoln
Meade
Minnehaha
Pennington
Yankton
54 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Tennessee - 95 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Anderson
72,500
Blount
115,600
Bradley
92,100
Carter
58,900
Davidson
574,400
Greene
65,200
Hamblen
60,200
Hamilton
310,700
Knox
405,400
Madison
94,700
Maury
76,200
Montgomery
146,800
Putnam
66,900
Rutherford
218,500
Sevier
79,300
Shelby
905,700
Sullivan
152,500
Sumner
144,800
Washington
112,400
Williamson
153,400
Wilson
100,500
74 Small Counties
1,949,000
Number of Reported Cases
Population Represented
5,955,700
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

125

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

10 through
upper age

0 through
upper age

56,500
81,600
254,400
1,516,600
90,400
277,800
156,600
378,900
660,900
95,800
75,500
2,308,500
555,000
125,300
133,500
721,200
466,200
277,300
116,800
115,500
103,100
3,762,800
63,100
124,400
79,700
678,700
82,300
247,200
146,500
88,900
75,200
252,300
224,400
121,500
379,000
60,600
319,100
85,000
102,700
120,000
110,000
69,300
190,500
1,619,700
125,000
103,400
889,500
85,700
63,300
224,900
125,700
334,400
3,406,200

4,300
8,500
26,900
162,500
8,700
29,600
12,100
47,000
69,400
9,200
7,900
236,300
56,300
14,300
14,800
87,200
55,500
28,500
11,400
11,700
11,100
406,800
6,600
11,200
7,400
86,400
8,300
24,800
15,600
9,600
8,000
23,700
22,700
13,800
41,600
5,500
34,000
8,900
10,900
12,300
11,000
8,300
19,000
170,200
12,400
10,100
75,600
9,400
4,000
29,200
12,100
36,200
351,000

10,600
20,800
74,900
402,200
20,200
71,900
32,300
122,500
172,600
21,200
18,300
622,400
141,600
35,000
34,500
216,400
121,200
67,000
26,800
28,700
24,800
1,030,100
14,700
27,200
17,400
228,900
19,100
57,900
36,200
22,300
18,500
60,500
54,500
32,100
96,000
13,800
82,800
20,100
23,300
32,800
25,400
19,500
46,100
428,100
31,100
24,800
207,900
22,500
9,800
79,800
30,200
88,700
809,300

Population Represented
22,928,500
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

2,419,700

5,997,500

11,400
37,700
117,100

31,200
87,300
285,000

Reporting county

Total

Petition

Status

Nonpetition

Petition

Dependency

Nonpetition

Petition

All

Nonpetition

reported
cases

Texas - 254 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Anderson
Angelina
Bell
Bexar
Bowie
Brazoria
Brazos
Cameron
Collin
Comal
Coryell
Dallas
Denton
Ector
Ellis
El Paso
Fort Bend
Galveston
Grayson
Gregg
Guadalupe
Harris
Harrison
Hays
Henderson
Hidalgo
Hunt
Jefferson
Johnson
Kaufman
Liberty
Lubbock
McLennan
Midland
Montgomery
Nacogdoches
Nueces
Orange
Parker
Potter
Randall
San Patricio
Smith
Tarrant
Taylor
Tom Green
Travis
Victoria
Walker
Webb
Wichita
Williamson
202 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

48
123
585
4,829
96
939
833
807
801
192
148
4,859
981
244
149
1,935
795
874
170
394
302
11,494
182
225
141
967
227
286
255
90
37
650
858
437
606
132
936
135
119
292
235
202
492
3,185
318
303
2,430
143
83
1,051
611
582
5,832
53,640

63
195
497
2,942
333
920
373
1,231
741
130
113
4,256
391
502
209
1,636
901
623
214
409
428
4,025
182
306
110
1,735
157
182
286
145
84
541
526
463
664
68
1,234
104
150
622
220
209
290
2,795
440
426
1,927
738
45
1,078
161
640
6,945
44,605

2,419,700 2,419,700
22.17
18.43
254
254

*
*
10
297
*
9
51
30
28
20
*
31
115
0
*
0
59
*
*
18
61
62
0
12
12
74
*
14
6
0
*
7
53
*
41
*
63
*
10
8
12
9
51
16
0
29
204
0
0
27
*
15
227
1,701

13
*
380
934
17
324
229
318
139
74
89
1,077
109
*
11
6
1,217
64
*
93
162
2,556
73
43
22
568
29
57
204
*
6
36
118
*
184
40
616
48
90
54
14
206
280
749
*
162
292
262
*
171
31
320
1,431
13,942

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

2,419,700 2,419,700
0.70
5.76
254
254

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

94
309
1,142

0
*
24

—
—
—

Utah - 29 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Cache
Davis
Salt Lake

126

98,400
268,100
960,300

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

456
978
6,691

281
1,219
3,855

97
217
1,304

764
612
1,201

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

451,900
119,200
210,500
382,100

58,900
14,100
26,200
52,800

158,200
33,800
62,900
117,000

2,237
536
1,458
2,571
14,927

1,005
626
1,161
2,009
10,156

715
253
475
970
4,031

385
370
889
1,161
5,382

413
162
417
576
3,113

24
0
*
10
60

—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
2,490,300
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

318,100

775,400

318,100
46.92
29

318,100
31.92
29

318,100
12.67
29

318,100
16.92
29

775,400
4.01
29

775,400
0.08
29

—
—
—

149,600
63,600
59,400
57,800
292,000

16,100
6,800
6,300
6,200
33,000

33,000
13,200
12,500
12,000
65,200

319
178
122
100
679
1,398

—
—
—
—
—
—

62
67
18
12
127
286

—
—
—
—
—
—

226
44
30
39
229
568

—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
622,400
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

68,300

135,800

68,300
20.46
14

—
—
—

68,300
4.19
14

—
—
—

135,800
4.18
14

—
—
—

—
—
—

9,500
12,100
7,500
37,100
113,200
7,800
12,200
31,000
5,700
29,900
6,100
6,400
43,900
9,400
8,000
15,000
16,100
7,300
28,200
4,800
15,800
6,300
21,900
24,200
11,500
17,800
9,400
9,600
54,100
239,300

19,900
35,000
15,000
74,200
254,100
15,800
24,000
68,600
11,800
73,600
13,800
13,300
101,600
19,700
16,700
31,500
32,800
26,100
58,000
10,300
34,400
14,100
51,100
59,500
26,300
43,300
21,000
20,700
116,200
500,800

393
891
298
2,391
4,161
258
632
2,013
240
980
427
232
1,951
532
176
813
879
569
1,487
455
1,103
554
1,655
2,255
950
1,622
936
712
2,303
14,415
46,283

154
17
12
1,508
792
8
110
917
125
220
69
24
583
191
46
137
218
275
558
126
497
69
609
352
224
576
357
9
460
2,602
11,845

34
156
78
53
342
22
59
258
36
124
59
36
184
66
33
78
53
88
376
77
52
204
411
458
43
103
214
134
122
2,568
6,521

23
62
31
612
553
20
24
39
34
77
9
36
49
216
*
94
27
593
165
88
589
16
266
408
802
25
46
*
473
929
6,308

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

821,000

1,803,400

819,200
56.50
133

819,200
14.46
133

819,200
7.96
133

819,200
7.70
133

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

20,100
8,500
6,800
49,400

42,500
18,000
13,600
106,900

713
226
219
788

639
102
101
868

33
8
32
49

154
19
66
214

59
30
65
269

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

Utah
Washington
Weber
23 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

Vermont - 14 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Chittenden
Rutland
Washington
Windsor
10 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Virginia - 134 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Albemarle
90,500
Arlington
199,800
Augusta
69,700
Chesterfield
288,400
Fairfax
1,010,000
Fauquier
64,800
Hanover
97,400
Henrico
280,600
Henry
56,400
Loudoun
256,400
Montgomery
84,300
Pittsylvania
61,600
Prince William
349,200
Roanoke
88,900
Rockingham
71,600
Spotsylvania
116,300
Stafford
118,000
Alexandria City
137,600
Chesapeake City
218,200
Danville City
45,900
Hampton City
145,200
Lynchburg City
66,700
Newport News City
178,900
Norfolk City
230,800
Portsmouth City
99,800
Richmond City
193,200
Roanoke City
91,800
Suffolk City
78,800
Virginia Beach City
437,000
105 Small Counties
2,336,800
Number of Reported Cases
Population Represented
7,564,300
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

Washington - 39 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Benton
Chelan
Clallam
Clark

157,900
70,000
69,500
404,100

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

127

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

97,200
81,100
70,900
80,000
1,799,100
241,500
72,400
753,200
113,200
655,600
440,400
228,900
57,500
183,400
230,900
485,200

11,700
11,100
7,800
8,700
177,000
28,300
8,400
90,100
13,200
79,400
49,800
25,200
6,100
19,400
31,800
54,400

24,100
24,900
16,100
18,600
394,700
58,900
17,300
192,700
27,300
168,000
105,700
52,100
13,300
40,700
71,400
113,200

337
213
146
117
1,222
530
239
1,381
218
1,380
713
559
181
305
903
989
11,379

227
304
124
94
1,539
563
109
1,649
218
1,213
907
206
130
205
905
894
10,997

18
28
15
15
45
48
7
36
18
32
27
35
8
0
35
114
603

62
104
45
16
257
58
24
179
76
201
116
48
34
64
86
290
2,113

124
18
100
50
690
184
43
491
73
402
489
113
86
111
209
380
3,986

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
6,291,900
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

707,300

1,519,900

697,900
16.30
36

697,900
15.76
36

697,900
0.86
36

697,900
3.03
36

1,519,900
2.62
39

—
—
—

—
—
—

93,300
94,000
68,500
193,400
56,700
61,400
84,600
45,000
79,200
86,900
951,300

10,700
8,400
7,200
18,400
5,400
5,700
6,600
4,500
7,600
9,200
98,500

23,000
19,200
15,300
41,300
11,400
12,900
15,100
9,200
16,300
19,300
206,100

75
118
108
480
44
0
*
17
228
103
910
2,085

71
213
45
242
20
78
16
110
38
171
287
1,291

*
0
46
79
10
0
*
*
93
7
472
713

85
*
17
146
8
39
30
326
69
179
446
1,346

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Population Represented
1,814,100
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

182,100

389,200

182,100
11.45
55

182,100
7.09
55

182,100
3.92
55

182,100
7.39
55

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

23,900
5,800
38,900
8,100
8,400
9,600
4,500
7,400
17,400
9,900
8,200
13,600
95,200
18,100
9,000
6,100
20,400
16,300
7,900
11,300
9,600
12,800
39,100

56,200
12,800
94,600
18,100
19,400
21,200
9,900
17,100
39,300
22,600
17,400
29,600
231,400
41,100
18,900
13,700
46,600
37,000
18,300
25,300
21,300
28,500
85,100

444
173
1,204
270
338
324
176
195
688
204
345
376
2,914
842
175
377
826
1,401
214
690
195
350
540

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

140
166
183
201
582
133
157
26
161
79
81
242
51
461
88
233
283
539
102
556
78
55
232

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

225
40
284
96
136
70
26
64
169
114
75
43
1,125
108
31
35
107
116
55
91
74
61
145

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Cowlitz
Grant
Grays Harbor
Island
King
Kitsap
Lewis
Pierce
Skagit
Snohomish
Spokane
Thurston
Walla Walla
Whatcom
Yakima
20 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

West Virginia - 55 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Berkeley
Cabell
Harrison
Kanawha
Marion
Mercer
Monongalia
Ohio
Raleigh
Wood
45 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Wisconsin - 72 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Brown
Chippewa
Dane
Dodge
Eau Claire
Fond Du Lac
Grant
Jefferson
Kenosha
La Crosse
Manitowoc
Marathon
Milwaukee
Outagamie
Ozaukee
Portage
Racine
Rock
St. Croix
Sheboygan
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha

128

238,600
59,700
458,300
88,000
94,100
98,900
49,500
79,300
160,400
108,900
81,800
128,800
918,700
170,900
86,000
67,300
195,200
157,300
77,300
114,400
99,800
125,900
378,800

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2005 populations

Delinquency

Status

159,500
75,100
1,255,200

14,700
7,300
121,900

33,200
16,200
265,800

1,040
145
4,937
19,383

—
—
—
—

416
135
5,412
10,792

—
—
—
—

223
81
1,036
4,630

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

Population Represented
5,527,600
Rates for Reporting Counties
Number of Reporting Counties

545,300

1,240,700

545,300
35.54
72

—
—
—

545,300
19.79
72

—
—
—

1,240,700
3.73
72

—
—
—

—
—
—

Winnebago
Wood
47 Small Counties
Number of Reported Cases

Total

Petition

Petition

Nonpetition

All

0 through
upper age

Reporting county

Nonpetition

Dependency

10 through
upper age

Petition

Nonpetition

reported
cases

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

129

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

Table Notes

Alabama
Source: State of Alabama, Administrative Office of Courts
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
Alaska
Source: Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
Arizona
Source: Supreme Court, State of Arizona, Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Arkansas
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts, State of Arkansas
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
California
Source:
Mode:
Data:

(delinquency and status figures)
California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center
Automated data file
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.

California
Source:
Mode:
Data:

(dependency figures)
Judicial Council of California
2007 Court Statistics Report
1. Dependency figures are cases disposed for fiscal year 2005-06.

Colorado
Source: Colorado Judicial Department
Mode: FY 2005 Annual Report: Statistical Supplement
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are petitioned case filings for fiscal year 2005. They include delinquency and status
offense cases.
2. Status figures were reported with delinquency cases.
3. Dependency figures are petitioned case filings for fiscal year 2005.
Connecticut
Source: Judicial Branch Administration, Court Support Services Division
Mode: Biennial Connecticut Judicial Branch Report and Statistics 2004-2006
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed for fiscal year 2005.
2. Status figures are cases disposed for fiscal year 2005.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed for fiscal year 2005.
Delaware
Source: Family Court of the State of Delaware
Mode: 2005 Annual Report of the Delaware Judiciary.
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed in fiscal year 2005.
130

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

2. Delinquency figures include traffic cases.
3. There is no statute on status offenders in this State; therefore, the court handles no status offense cases.
District of
Source:
Mode:
Data:

Columbia
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Automated data file
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Florida
Source: State of Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed. They represent only those cases disposed by the Department of
Juvenile Justice. Cases disposed by the Florida Network, the Department of Juvenile Justice’s major contracted provider of CINS/FINS centralized intake, are not included in these figures.
Georgia: all counties except those listed in the next note
Source: Judicial Council of Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: AOC publication, Caseload of the Georgia Courts 2006
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 2005.
2. Status figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 2005.
3. Dependency figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 2005.
4. Delinquency, status, and dependency figures may include a small percentage of children disposed without
a petition.
Georgia: Bartow, Camden, Chatham, Cherokee, Clarke, Clayton, Coweta, Dawson, Dougherty, Fayette, Fulton,
Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Murray, Muscogee, Newton, Spalding, Troup, Walker, Walton, Ware, and Whitfield Counties
Source: Georgia Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
Hawaii
Source: Family Court of the First Circuit, The Judiciary, State of Hawaii
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Idaho
Source: Idaho Supreme Court
Mode: Idaho Courts 2005 Annual Report Appendix
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are reported with delinquency cases.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
Illinois: all counties except that listed in the next note
Source: Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, Probation Services Division
Mode: 2005 Probation Statistics
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are the number of petitions filed.
2. Status figures are the number of petitions filed. Minor requiring authoritative intervention (MRAI) and truancy counts were summed to determine status figures.
3. Dependency figures are the number of petitions filed.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

131

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

Illinois: Cook County
Source: Juvenile Court of Cook County
Mode: Automated data file (petitioned delinquency and status cases)
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Indiana
Source: Supreme Court of Indiana, Division of State Court Administration
Mode: 2005 Indiana Judicial Service Report, Volume II (petitioned) and 2005 Indiana Judicial Service Report:
Probation Report (non-petitioned)
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed.
Iowa
Source: Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning
Mode: Juvenile Court Services 2005 Annual Report
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are the number of petitions.
Kansas
Source: Supreme Court of Kansas, Office of Judicial Administration
Mode: Annual Report of the Courts of Kansas
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are juvenile offender filings disposed for fiscal year 2005.
Maine
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Maryland
Source: Department of Juvenile Justice
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Massachusetts
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: Massachusetts Court System Juvenile Court Department, Fiscal Year 2005 Statistics
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are complaints disposed and include motor vehicle violations.
2. Status figures are petitions disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
4. A charge is a single count alleged in a juvenile complaint.
5. Hampshire County figures are reported with Franklin County.
Michigan:
Source:
Mode:
Data:

all counties except that listed in the next note
State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Supreme Court
Statistical pages sent to NCJJ
1. Delinquency figures are petitions disposed.
2. Dependency figures are petitions disposed.

Michigan:
Source:
Mode:
Data:

Wayne County
Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan
Automated data file
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.

132

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

Minnesota
Source: Minnesota Supreme Court Information System
Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Mississippi
Source: Mississippi Department of Human Services
Mode: Division of Youth Services 2005 Annual Statistical Report
Data:
1. Total figures are cases referred.
Missouri
Source: Department of Social Services, Division of Youth Services
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
Montana
Source: Montana Board of Crime Control
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Nebraska
Source: Nebraska Crime Commission
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are petitioned cases disposed.
2. Status figures are petitioned cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed.
4. In Douglas County, only those cases processed through the county attorney’s office were reported.
Nevada
Source: Division of Child and Family Services, Juvenile Justice Programs Office
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
New Hampshire
Source: New Hampshire Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are juvenile filings.
2. Status figures are juvenile filings.
3. Dependency figures are juvenile filings.
New Jersey
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
New Mexico
Source: Children, Youth, and Families Department
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

133

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

New York
Source: Office of Court Administration
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
North Carolina
Source: The North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Ohio: all counties except those listed in the next three notes
Source: Supreme Court of Ohio
Mode: Ohio Courts Summary 2005
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are petition terminations.
2. Status figures are unruly petition terminations.
3. Dependency figures include dependency, neglect, and abuse petition terminations.
Ohio: Cuyahoga County
Source: Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Division
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
Ohio: Hamilton County
Source: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Ohio: Lucas County
Source: Lucas County Juvenile Court
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
Oklahoma
Source: Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Pennsylvania
Source: Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status offenses in Pennsylvania are classified as dependency cases, which were not reported.
3. Figures presented here do not match those found in the 2005 Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Disposition
Report because of differing units of count.
South Carolina
Source: Department of Juvenile Justice
Mode: Automated data file
134

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

Data:

1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.

South Dakota
Source: Unified Judicial System
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Shannon County is an American Indian reservation that handles juvenile matters in the tribal court, which
is not part of the State’s juvenile court system.
Tennessee
Source: Tennessee Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
Texas
Source: Texas Juvenile Probation Commission
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Utah
Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
Vermont
Source: Vermont Judiciary Data Warehouse
Mode: Statistical page sent to NCJJ
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are petitioned cases disposed.
2. Status figures are petitioned cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed.
Virginia
Source: Department of Juvenile Justice and the Virginia Supreme Court
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Fairfax City reports with Fairfax County; South Boston City reports with Halifax County.
Washington
Source: Office of the Administrator for the Courts
Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status) and Superior Court 2005 Annual Caseload Report (dependency)
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2 Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Wakiakum County reports with Pacific County; Garfield County reports with Asotin County; Franklin
County reports with Benton County.
4. King County reports only delinquency data that contribute to an individual’s criminal history record information.
5. Differences in data entry practices among the juvenile courts may contribute to variations in the data.
6. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed. They may include dependency, termination of
parent/child relationship, truancy, at-risk youth, and alternative residential placement cases.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

135

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2005, by County

West Virginia
Source: Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Wisconsin
Source: Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Mode: Automated data file
Data:
1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.

136

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

Index of Tables and Figures
Delinquency
Adjudication
Age, 48
Gender, 48
Offense, 45–49
Race, 49
Trends, 45–49
Age
Adjudication, 48
Case flow diagram, 62
Case rates, 9–11, 15–17, 21–25
Detention, 34
Gender, 15–17
Manner of handling, 38
Offense, 9–11, 15–17, 21–25, 34, 38, 42,
48, 52, 56
Placement, 52
Probation, 56
Race, 21–25
Trends, 9, 11, 16–17, 22, 25, 34, 38, 42,
48, 52, 56
Waiver, 42
Case counts
Case flow diagrams, 58, 60–65
Detention, 32
Gender, 12
Manner of handling, 36–37
Offense, 6–7, 12, 18, 32, 36–37, 40–46,
50, 54
Placement, 50
Probation, 54
Race, 18, 44
Trends, 6–7, 12, 18, 32, 36, 38, 40, 46,
50, 54
Waiver, 40, 44
Case flow diagrams, 58–69
Age, 62
Gender, 63
Offense, 60–61, 66–69
Race, 64–65
Case rates
Age, 9–11, 15–17, 21–25
Gender, 14–17
Offense, 8, 10–11, 14–17, 20–25
Race, 20–25
Trends, 8–9, 11, 14, 16–17, 20, 22, 25
Detention
Age, 34
Case counts, 32
Gender, 34
Offense, 32–33
Race, 33, 35
Trends, 32–35
Gender
Adjudication, 48
Age, 15–17
Case counts, 12
Case flow diagram, 63
Case rates, 14–17
Detention, 34
Manner of handling, 38
Offense, 12–17, 34, 38, 42, 48, 52, 56
Placement, 52
Probation, 56
Trends, 12–14, 16–17, 34, 38, 42, 48,
52, 56

Waiver, 42
Intake decision, see Manner of handling
Manner of handling (petitioned,
nonpetitioned)
Age, 38
Case counts, 36–37
Gender, 38
Offense, 36–39
Race, 39
Trends, 36–39, 45
Offense
Adjudication, 45–49
Age, 9–11, 15–17, 21–25, 34, 38, 42, 48,
52, 56
Case counts, 6–7, 12, 18, 32, 36–37, 40,
44–46, 50, 54
Case flow diagrams, 60–61, 66–69
Case rates, 8, 10–11, 14–17, 20–25
Detention, 32–33
Gender, 12–17, 34, 38, 42, 48, 52, 56
Manner of handling, 36–39
Placement, 50–53
Probation, 54–57
Race, 18–25, 35, 39, 43–44, 49, 53, 57
Source of referral, 31
Trends, 6–9, 11–14, 16–20, 22–27, 31–44,
46–57
Waiver, 40–44
Petitioned and nonpetitioned, see
Manner of handling
Placement (out-of-home)
Age, 52
Case counts, 50
Gender, 52
Offense, 50–53
Race, 53
Trends, 50–53
Probation
Age, 56
Case counts, 54
Gender, 56
Offense, 54–57
Race, 57
Trends, 54–57
Race
Adjudication, 49
Age, 21–25
Case counts, 18, 44
Case flow diagram, 64–65
Case rates, 20–25
Detention, 33, 35
Manner of handling, 39
Offense, 18–25, 35, 39, 43–44, 49, 53, 57
Placement, 53
Probation, 57
Trends, 18–20, 22, 25, 35, 39, 43, 44, 49,
53, 57
Waiver, 43, 44
Source of referral, 31
Transfer to criminal court, see Waiver
Trends
Adjudication, 45–49
Age, 9, 11, 16–17, 22, 25, 34, 38, 42,
48, 52, 56
Case counts, 6–7, 12, 18, 32, 36, 38, 40,
44, 46, 50, 54

Case rates, 8–9, 11, 14, 16–17, 20, 22, 25
Detention, 32–35
Gender, 12–14, 16–17, 34, 38, 42, 48, 52, 56
Manner of handling, 36–39, 45
Offense, 6–9, 11–14, 16–20, 22–27,
31–44, 46–57
Placement, 50–53
Probation, 54–57
Race, 18–20, 22, 25, 35, 39, 43–44, 49,
53, 57
Source of referral, 31
Waiver, 40–44
Waiver
Age, 42
Case counts, 40, 44
Gender, 42
Offense, 40–44
Race, 43–44
Trends, 40–44

Status Offense
Adjudication
Age, 85
Gender, 85
Offense, 84–85
Race, 85
Trends, 84–85
Age
Adjudication, 85
Case rates, 74–75, 79
Detention, 83
Gender, 79
Offense, 74–75, 79, 83, 85, 87, 89
Placement, 87
Probation, 89
Trends, 75
Case counts
Case flow diagrams, 88–89
Detention, 83
Gender, 76
Offense, 72, 76, 80, 83–84, 86, 88
Placement, 86
Probation, 88
Race, 80
Trends, 72, 76, 80, 83–84, 86, 88
Case flow diagrams, 88–89
Case rates
Age, 74–75, 79
Gender, 78–79
Offense, 73, 75, 78–79, 81
Race, 81
Trends, 73, 75, 78, 81
Detention
Age, 83
Case counts, 83
Gender, 83
Offense, 83
Race, 83
Trends, 83
Gender
Adjudication, 85
Case counts, 76
Case rates, 78–79
Detention, 83
Offense, 76–79, 83, 85, 87, 89
Placement, 87

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

137

Index

Probation, 89
Trends, 76–78
Offense
Adjudication, 84–85
Age, 74–75
Case counts, 72, 76, 80, 83–84, 86, 88
Case flow diagrams, 89
Case rates, 73–75, 78–79, 81
Detention, 83
Gender, 76–79
Placement, 86–87
Probation, 88–89
Race, 80–81
Source of referral, 82
Trends, 72–73, 75–78, 80–89
Placement (out-of-home)
Age, 86
Case counts, 86
Gender, 87
Offense, 86–87
Race, 87
Trends, 86–87
Probation
Age, 89
Case counts, 88
Gender, 89
Offense, 88–89
Race, 89
Trends, 88–89
Race
Adjudication, 85
Case counts, 80
Case rates, 81
Detention, 83
Offense, 80–81, 83, 85, 87, 89
Placement, 87
Probation, 89
Trends, 80–81
Source of referral, 82
Trends
Adjudication, 84–85
Age, 75
Case counts, 72, 76, 80, 83–84, 86, 88
Case rates, 73, 75, 78, 81
Detention, 83
Gender, 76–78
Offense, 72–73, 75–78, 80–89
Placement, 86–87
Probation, 88–89
Race, 80–81
Source of referral, 82

138

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005

OJJDP’s Statistical
Briefing Book online
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/
The Briefing Book is a comprehensive online resource describing various topics
related to delinquency and the juvenile justice system, including the latest
information on juveniles living in poverty, teen birth rates, juvenile victims of
violent crime, trends in juvenile arrest rates, and youth in residential placement
facilities. The Briefing Book is also a repository for more detailed presentations of
juvenile court data than are found in the annual Juvenile Court Statistics report.
◆ Under the “Juveniles in Court” section of the Statistical Briefing Book users will find
the latest statistical information on trends in the volume of cases handled by the
Nation’s juvenile courts and the court’s response (e.g., detention, adjudication, and
disposition decisions) to these cases. Juvenile court data are displayed in an easy-toread, ready-to-use format, using tables and graphs.

◆ The Briefing Book’s “Juveniles in Court” section includes an interactive tool that
describes how specific types of delinquency cases typically flow through the juvenile
justice system. Annual summaries are available from 1985 to present for more than
25 offense categories, and include separate presentations by gender, age, and race.

Visit the National Center
for Juvenile Justice online
www.ncjj.org
NCJJ’s website describes its research activities, publications, and services,
featuring quick links to project-supported sites: State Juvenile Justice Profiles,
OJJDP’s Statistical Briefing Book, the National Juvenile Court Data Archive, the
MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change, and the Pennsylvania Commission
on Crime and Delinquency’s Electronic Juvenile Justice Databook.