juvenile justice
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention National Report Series Fact Sheet Robert L. Listenbee, Administrator December 2014 Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 2011 Sarah Hockenberry and Charles Puzzanchera Counts and trends In 2011, juvenile courts in the United States handled more than 1.2 million delinquency cases that involved juveniles charged with crimi\ nal law violations. From 1985 through 1997, the number of delinquen cy cases climbed steadily (62%) and then fell 34% from 1997 through 2011. Juvenile courts handled 7% more cases in 2011 than in 1985.
This overall pattern of increase followed by decline is the result of th\ e trends of various offense categories combined. Public order offense cases increased steadily from 1985 through 2005 (129%) and then declined 28% by 2011. Person offense cases increased through 1997 (131%), leveled off through the mid-2000s, and then fell 27% between 2005 and 2011. Drug law violation cases more than doubled between 1985 and 1997 and then gradually declined (20%) through 2011. Although these patterns differed, each increased through the 2000s, followed by a decline. In contrast, property offenses showed quite a different trend. Between 1985 and 1995, the number of prop erty offense cases increased 31%. Since 1995, the number of prop erty offense cases declined steadily (down 51% from 1995 through 2011). Thus, property offenses were the one general offense category that declined overall from 1985 through 2011 (down 36%).
Gender Females represent a relatively small proportion of the overall delin\ quency caseload. Juvenile courts handled 345,100 cases involving females in 2011, compared with 891,100 cases involving males. The decline in juvenile court caseloads since the mid-1990s is the most substantial decline since 1960 Number of cases 0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 1,600,000 2,000,000 Total delinquency 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 01 06 11 Year Delinquency data estimates The 1985–2011 estimates are based on data from more than 2,400 courts with jurisdiction over 85% of the nation’s juvenile population\ (youth age 10 through the upper age of original juvenile court juris\ diction in each state). Each case represents the most serious offense of one youth that a court with juvenile jurisdiction processed on a new referral, regardless of the number of offenses contained in that referral. A youth may be involved in more than one case during the calendar year. Working for Youth Justice and Safety Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ojjdp.gov Delinquency cases disposed by most serious offense, 2011 Percent change 10 year 5 year 1 year Number 2002– 2007– 2010– Most serious offense of cases 2011 2011 2011 Total delinquency 1,236,200 –26% –24% –8% Person offenses 317,500 –22 –23 –7 Criminal homicide 900 –40 –39 –14 Forcible rape 5,700 –12 –12 1 Robbery 23,200 10 –27 –12 Aggravated assault 31,600 –27 –31 –11 Simple assault 221,300 –23 –21 –7 Other violent sex offenses 10,800 –20 –16 –3 Other person offenses 23,900 –24 –30 –7 Property offenses 447,500 –32 –26 –10 Burglary 79,800 –28 –23 –8 Larceny-theft 219,700 –29 –17 –10 Motor vehicle theft 12,700 –66 –52 –16 Arson 5,400 –39 –32 –2 Vandalism 70,400 –29 –36 –11 Trespassing 39,300 –27 –29 –10 Stolen property offenses 12,000 –46 –36 –13 Other property offenses 8,200 –59 –43 –11 Drug law violations 152,600 –17 –16 –5 Public order offenses 318,600 –24 –27 –9 Obstruction of justice 149,700 –24 –22 –8 Disorderly conduct 90,200 –23 –31 –9 Weapons offenses 26,400 –19 –35 –9 Liquor law violations 14,400 –5 –29 –11 Nonviolent sex offenses 11,700 –26 –6 –3 Other public order offenses 26,300 –34 –37 –11 Notes: Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent change ca\ lcula tions are based on unrounded numbers.
However, between 2002 and 2011, the number of cases decreased more for males (–27%) than for females (–22%). As a result of \ these trends, the female proportion of the delinquency caseload increased slightly from 27% in 2002 to 28% in 2011.
Female proportion Most serious offense 2002 2011 Total delinquency 27% 28% Person 29 31 Property 27 29 Drugs 18 19 Public order 28 28 Females accounted for a slightly larger proportion of cases in 2011 than in 2002 for person, property, and drug offenses. From 2002 through 2011, female caseloads decreased less than male caseloads for person, property, and drug offenses. Percent change 2002–2011 Most serious offense Female Male Total delinquency –22% –27% Person –15 –24 Property –26 –34 Drugs –14 –17 Public order –25 –24 Race In 2011, white youth accounted for 76% of the U.S. juvenile popu lation, black youth 16%, American Indian youth (including Alaska Native) 2%, and Asian youth (including Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander) 5%. Sixty-four percent of delinquency cases handled in 2011 involved white youth, 33% black youth, 2% American Indian youth, and 1% Asian youth. Race profile of cases, 2011 Most serious American offense Total White Black Indian Asian Total delinquency 100% 64% 33% 2% 1% Person 100 58 40 1 1 Property 100 65 32 2 2 Drugs 10077 20 2 1 Public order 100 63 34 1 1 Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.
The racial disparity in delinquency cases varied across offense catego\ ries. White youth accounted for a larger proportion of drug offense cases (77%) than for any of the other general offense categories. In contrast, white youth were involved in only 58% of person offense cases. Black youth accounted for a larger proportion of person offense cases (40%) than for any other general offense category.
Asian and American Indian youth accounted for a small proportion of cases across all offense categories.
A comparison of the rate at which cases involving different groups of youth proceed from one decision point to the next as they go through the court system shows the unique contributions that each decision point makes to the overall disparity in the system. The rate at which black youth were referred to juvenile court for a delinquency offense was more than twice the rate for white youth. The rate at which referred cases were petitioned for formal processing was 20% greater for black youth than for white youth. The rate at which petitioned cases were adjudicated was 9% less for black youth than for white youth. The rate at which petitioned cases were waived to criminal court was 20% greater for black youth than for white youth. The rate at which youth in adjudicated cases were ordered to residential place\ ment was 20% greater for black youth than for white youth, but the rate at which they were ordered to probation was 9% less for black youth than for white youth.
Age In 2011, juveniles younger than age 16 at the time of referral to court \ accounted for 53% of all delinquency cases handled. This age group accounted for 60% of person offense cases, 54% of property offense cases, 50% of public order offense cases, and 41% of drug law viola tion cases. Person offense cases had the largest proportion (12%) of very young juveniles (younger than age 13 at referral), followed by property offense cases (8%) and public order offense cases (7%).
For drug offense cases, a smaller proportion (3%) involved juveniles younger than age 13.
Detention A juvenile may be placed in secure detention at various times during case processing. Detention is primarily used for temporary holding National Report Series Fact Sheet 2 while youth await adjudication, disposition, or placement elsewhere.
Many states detain youth if there is reason to believe they are a threat\ to the community, will be at risk if returned to the community, or may fail to appear at an upcoming hearing. Intake staff may also detain juveniles for diagnostic evaluation purposes. All states require that a \ detention hearing be held within a few days of placement in detention (usually within 24 hours). At the detention hearing, the judge reviews\ the initial detention decision, considers what is in the best interest of the community and/or the youth, and decides whether to continue the youth’s detention. Most states also use detention for sanctioning\ purposes—juveniles may be committed to a detention facility as part of a disposition order or as a sanction for a probation violation. Actua\ l detention practices vary substantially across jurisdictions. These court\ data count the number of cases that involve detention of the juvenile at some point between referral to court and case disposition. A youth may be detained and released more than once between referral to court and case disposition. In most delinquency cases, the juvenile is not detained (79% in 2011).
The likelihood of detention varies by general offense category. In 2011, person offense cases were the most likely to involve detention (26%), followed by public order offense cases (24%). In comparison, \ juveniles were less likely to be detained in property offense cases (17%) and drug offense cases (15%).
Similar to the overall delinquency caseload trend, between 1997 and 2011, the number of delinquency cases in which the juvenile was detained decreased 30%. The 1985–2011 growth in detained cases was the same as the growth in the overall delinquency caseload (7% for each during the period).
Intake decision The juvenile court intake function is typically the responsibility of th\ e juvenile probation department or the prosecutor’s office. At intake, \ authorities decide whether to dismiss the case, handle it informally (without filing a petition), or file a petition to formally request an\ adjudicatory hearing or waiver hearing. In 2011, 234,500 cases (19% of all delinquency cases) were dismissed at intake, generally for lack \ of legal sufficiency. An additional 27% (337,600) were handled infor\ mally, with the juvenile agreeing to some sort of voluntary sanction (e.g., restitution). In more than half of all delinquency cases (54% \ or 664,100), authorities filed a petition and handled the case formally.
The proportion of delinquency cases petitioned for formal handling rose from 46% in 1985 to 57% in the late 1990s and then declined slightly to 54% in 2011.
Waiver to criminal court In most states, juvenile court judges may waive juvenile court jurisdic\ tion in certain cases and transfer jurisdiction to criminal court so the\ juvenile can be tried as an adult. The court decision in these matters follows a review of the case and a determination that probable cause exists to believe the juvenile committed the criminal act. The judge’\ s decision generally centers on the issue of whether the juvenile is ame\ nable to treatment in the juvenile justice system. The prosecutor may argue that the juvenile has been adjudicated several times previously and that interventions the juvenile court ordered have not prevented the youth from committing subsequent criminal acts. The prosecu tor may also argue that the crime is so serious that the juvenile court \ cannot intervene for the time period necessary to rehabilitate the youth. (For more information, see Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 2011, available online from ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ publications/statbb.asp.) In 2011, juvenile court judges waived jurisdiction over an estimated 5,400 delinquency cases, sending them to criminal court. This rep resents less than 1% of all formally handled delinquency cases. The number of cases waived was relatively flat from 1985 to 1988, rose sharply from 1988 to 1994 (122%), and then fell to the levels of the mid-1980s and remained there through 2009 before declining 25% through 2011.
For many years, property offense cases accounted for the largest proportion of waived cases. However, since the mid-1990s, person offenses have outnumbered property offenses among waived cases.
In 2011, almost half of all waived cases involved person offenses.
Offense profile of cases waived to criminal court Most serious Number Percentage offense 2002 2011 2002 2011 Total delinquency 8,200 5,400 100% 100% Person 3,200 2,500 39 47 Property 3,100 1,600 38 31 Drugs 1,100 700 14 13 Public order 800 500 9 8 Adjudication and disposition Adjudicatory hearings establish responsibility for an alleged delinquent\ act. When a juvenile is adjudicated (judged delinquent), it is analogo\ us to conviction in criminal court. In 2011, juveniles were adjudicated delinquent in 59% (391,700) of petitioned cases. The court holds disposition hearings to decide what sanctions it should impose on a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent and whether it should place the juvenile under court supervision. Many cases result in multi\ faceted dispositions, and most involve some type of supervision. A probation order often includes additional requirements, such as drug counseling, restitution to the victim, or community service. In 2011, formal probation was the most severe disposition ordered in 64% of cases in which the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent, and 24% of cases were ordered to residential placement as the most severe disposition. A smaller proportion of cases received some other sanc tion as their most severe disposition. The proportion of adjudicated cases ordered to probation has fluctuated within a relatively narrow range over the years (56%–64% during the 1985–2011 time period),\ as have the proportion of cases resulting in residential placement (24%–32%) and the proportion receiving other sanctions (10%–15%\ ) during that time. National Report Series Fact Sheet 3 Case flow for a typical 1,000 delinquency cases in 2011 537 Petitioned 463 Not petitioned Adjudicated 317 delinquent Not adjudicated 216 delinquent 102 Probation 171 Other sanction 190 Dismissed 78 Placed 202 Pro ba tion 37 Other sanction 57 Probation 30 Other sanction 129 Dismissed Case flow for 1,236,200 delinquency cases in 2011 4 Waived Petitioned 664,100 54% Waived 5,400 1% Adjudicated delinquent 391,700 59% Placed 95,900 24% Probation 250,100 64% Other sanction 45,800 12% Not adjudicated delinquent 267,000 40% Probation 70,500 26% Other sanction 36,500 14% Dismissed 160,100 60% Probation 125,800 22% Not petitioned 572,100 46% Other sanction 211,800 37% Dismissed 234,500 41% Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanctio\ n. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985 through 2011 are available at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
For more information This fact sheet is based on the report Juvenile Court Statistics 2011, which is available through OJJDP’s Web site (ojjdp.gov). To learn more about juvenile court cases, visit OJJDP’s online Statistical Bri\ ef ing Book (ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb) and click on “Juveniles in Court.”\ OJJDP also supports Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics, a Web-based application that analyzes the data files used for the Juvenile Court Statistics report. This application is available from the “Data Analysis Tools” section of the Statistical Briefing Book. Sarah Hockenberry, M.S., Research Associate, and Charles Puzzanchera, M.A., Senior Research Associate, with the National Center for Juvenile Justice, prepared this document as a product of the National Juvenile Court Data Archive, which is supported by OJJDP grant 2012–JR– FX–0002.
Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or polici\ es of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehend- ing, Registering, and Tracking.
NCJ 248409
