National 

Report Series

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

June 2003

This Bulletin is part of the 

Juvenile Offenders and

Victims National Report Series.

Published every 4 years, the

National Report offers a comprehensive statistical overview

of the problems of juvenile

crime, violence, and victimization and the response of the

juvenile justice system. During

each interim year, the Bulletins

in the National Report Series

provide access to the latest

information on juvenile arrests,

court cases, juveniles in custody, and other topics of interest. Each Bulletin in the series

highlights selected topics at

the forefront of juvenile justice

policymaking, giving readers

focused access to statistics on

some of the most critical issues. Together, the National

Report and this series provide

a baseline of facts for juvenile

justice professionals, policymakers, the media, and concerned citizens.

Juveniles in Court

Melissa Sickmund

A Message From OJJDP

Courts with juvenile jurisdiction handle some 1.8 million delinquency cases each year. This

Bulletin, part of OJJDP’s National Report Series, summarizes the latest national statistics on

juveniles in court. Drawing on court data and research findings from diverse sources, including OJJDP’s National Juvenile Court Data Archive and the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National

Judicial Reporting Program, the Bulletin provides an overview of how courts process cases

involving juvenile offenders.

Juveniles in Court should serve as a useful resource for practitioners and policymakers concerned about juvenile offending. In addition to providing information on juvenile court activities, the Bulletin includes information about who is under juvenile court jurisdiction and how

juvenile courts transfer juveniles to criminal court. Also discussed in the Bulletin are research

findings about very young offenders involved with the juvenile court.

Access to sound data is an integral aspect of assessing and addressing any problem effectively.

In this regard, the statistics cited in this Bulletin provide helpful insights into the nature and

scope of juvenile delinquency in our nation.

J. Robert Flores 

Administrator

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp
2 National Report Series Bulletin

Local processing of

juvenile offenders varies 

From state to state, case processing of

juvenile law violators varies. Even within

states, case processing may vary from

community to community, reflecting local

practice and tradition. Any description of

juvenile justice processing in the U.S.

must therefore be general, outlining a

common series of decision points. 

Law enforcement

agencies divert many

juvenile offenders out

of the justice system 

At arrest, a decision is made either to

send the matter further into the justice

system or to divert the case out of the

system, often into alternative programs.

Generally, law enforcement agencies

make this decision after talking to the

victim, juvenile, and parents and after

reviewing the juvenile’s prior contacts

with the juvenile justice system. Nearly

one-quarter of all juveniles arrested in

1998 were handled within the police

department and then released; nearly 7 

in 10 arrested juveniles were referred to

juvenile court. 

Federal regulations discourage holding

juveniles in adult jails and lockups. In

some instances, law enforcement must

detain a juvenile in secure custody in an

adult facility for a brief period in order to

contact a parent or guardian or to arrange

transportation to a juvenile detention

facility. Federal regulations require that, 

in these cases, the juvenile be securely

detained for no longer than 6 hours and

in an area out of sight or sound of adult

inmates. 

Most delinquency cases

are referred by law

enforcement agencies

Of all delinquency cases referred to juvenile court in 1998, 84% were referred by

law enforcement agencies. The remaining

referrals were made by parents, victims,

schools, probation officers, and others. 

Intake departments

screen cases referred

to juvenile court for

formal processing 

The court intake function is generally the

responsibility of the juvenile probation

department and/or the prosecutor’s

office. Intake decides whether to dismiss

the case, to handle the matter informally,

or to request formal intervention by the

juvenile court. 

To make this decision, an intake officer or

prosecutor first reviews the facts of the

case to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the allegation. If

not, the case is dismissed. If there is sufficient evidence, intake then determines

whether formal intervention is necessary. 

About half of all cases referred to juvenile

court intake are handled informally. Most

informally processed cases are dismissed.

In the other informally processed cases,

the juvenile voluntarily agrees to specific

conditions for a specified time period. 

These conditions often are outlined in 

a written agreement, generally called a

consent decree. It may include conditions

such as victim restitution, school attendance, drug counseling, or a curfew. 

In most jurisdictions, a juvenile may be

offered an informal disposition only if he

or she admits to committing the act. The

juvenile’s compliance with the informal

agreement often is monitored by a probation officer. Thus, this process is sometimes labeled “informal probation.” 

If the juvenile successfully complies with

the informal disposition, the case is dismissed. If, however, the juvenile fails to

meet the conditions, the case is referred

for formal processing and proceeds as it

would have if the initial decision had been

to refer the case for an adjudicatory hearing. 

If the case is to be handled formally in

juvenile court, intake files one of two

types of petitions: a delinquency petition

requesting an adjudicatory hearing (trial)

or a petition requesting a waiver hearing

to transfer the case to criminal court. 

A delinquency petition states the allegations and requests the juvenile court to

adjudicate (or judge) the youth a delinquent, making the juvenile a ward of the

court. This language differs from that

used in the criminal court system, where

an offender is convicted and sentenced. 

In response to the delinquency petition,

an adjudicatory hearing is scheduled. At

the adjudicatory hearing, witnesses are

called and the facts of the case are presented. In nearly all adjudicatory hearings, the judge determines whether 

the juvenile was responsible for the

offense(s); in some states, however, 

the juvenile has the right to a jury trial. 

Most young law violators enter the juvenile justice

system through law enforcement agencies
June 2003 3

During the processing

of a case, a juvenile

may be held in a secure

detention facility 

Juvenile courts may hold delinquents in

a secure juvenile detention facility if this

action is determined to be in the best

interest of the community and/or the

child. After arrest, law enforcement may

bring the youth to the local juvenile

detention facility. A juvenile probation

officer or detention worker reviews the

case to decide whether the youth should

be detained pending a hearing before a

judge. In all states, a detention hearing

must be held within a time period defined

by statute, generally within 24 hours. 

At the detention hearing, a judge reviews

the case and determines whether continued detention is warranted. In 1998, juveniles were detained in 19% of delinquency cases processed by juvenile courts. 

Detention may extend beyond the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings. If 

residential placement is ordered and no

placement beds are available, detention

may continue until a bed becomes

available.

The juvenile court may

transfer the case to

criminal court 

The prosecutor or intake officer files a

waiver petition when he or she believes

that a case under jurisdiction of the juvenile court would be handled more appropriately in criminal court. When a waiver

petition is filed, the juvenile court judge

reviews the facts of the case and determines whether there is probable cause to

believe that the juvenile committed the

act. The judge then decides whether juvenile court jurisdiction over the matter

should be waived and the case transferred to criminal court. 

The judge’s decision in such cases generally centers on whether the juvenile is

amenable to treatment in the juvenile justice system. The prosecutor may argue

that the juvenile has been adjudicated

several times in the past and that interventions ordered by the juvenile court

have not kept the juvenile from committing subsequent criminal acts. The

prosecutor may also argue that the crime

is so serious that the juvenile court is

unlikely to be able to intervene for the

time period necessary to rehabilitate the

youth. 

If the judge decides that the case should

be transferred to criminal court, juvenile

court jurisdiction is waived and the case

is filed in criminal court. In 1998, juvenile

courts waived 1% of all formally processed delinquency cases. If the judge

does not approve the waiver request,

generally an adjudicatory hearing is

scheduled in juvenile court. 

Prosecutors may file

certain cases directly 

in criminal court 

In more than half of the states, the legislature has decided that, in certain cases

(generally those involving serious offenses), juveniles should be tried as criminal

offenders. The law excludes such cases

from juvenile court; prosecutors must file

them in criminal court. In a smaller number of states, the legislature has given

both the juvenile and adult courts original

jurisdiction in certain cases. Prosecutors,

thus, have discretion to file such cases in

either criminal court or juvenile court. 

After adjudication,

probation staff prepare

a disposition plan

Once the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent

in juvenile court, probation staff develop

a disposition plan. To prepare this plan,

probation staff assess the youth and

available support systems and programs.

Revocation

Release

Judicial waiver

Criminal justice system

Detention

Non-law

enforcement

sources

Prosecution

Juvenile

court intake

Diversion

Diversion

Statutory

exclusion

Prosecutorial

discretion

Transfer 

to juvenile 

court

Revocation

Law

enforcement

Formal

processing

Residential

placement

Probation or

other nonresidential

disposition

Aftercare

Diversion Informal

processing/

diversion

Dismissal

Adjudication

Release

What are the stages of processing a delinquency case in the juvenile

justice system?

Note: This chart gives a simplified view of caseflow through the juvenile justice system. Procedures vary among jurisdictions.
4 National Report Series Bulletin

The court may also order psychological

evaluations, diagnostic tests, or a period

of confinement in a diagnostic facility. 

At the disposition hearing, probation staff

present dispositional recommendations

to the judge. The prosecutor and the

youth may also present dispositional

recommendations. After considering the

recommendations, the judge orders a disposition in the case. 

Most cases placed on

probation also receive

other dispositions 

Most juvenile dispositions are multifaceted and involve some sort of supervised

probation. In 1998, formal probation was

the most severe disposition ordered in

58% of the cases in which the youth was

adjudicated delinquent. 

A probation order often includes additional requirements such as drug counseling,

weekend confinement in the local detention center, or restitution to the community or victim. The term of probation may

be for a specified period or may be openended. Review hearings are held to monitor the juvenile’s progress. After conditions of probation have been successfully

met, the judge terminates the case. 

The judge may order

residential placement 

In 1998, juvenile courts ordered residential placement in 26% of the cases in

which the youth was adjudicated delinquent. Residential commitment may be

for a specific or indeterminate time period. The facility may be publicly or privately operated and may have a secure,

prisonlike environment or a more open

(even homelike) setting. In many states,

when the judge commits a juvenile to the

state department of juvenile corrections,

the department determines where the

juvenile will be placed and when the juvenile will be released. In other states, the

judge controls the type and length of

stay; in these situations, review hearings

are held to assess the juvenile’s progress. 

Juvenile aftercare is

similar to adult parole 

On release from an institution, the juvenile is often ordered to a period of aftercare or parole. During this period, the

juvenile is under supervision of the court

or the juvenile corrections department

and must meet certain conditions. If the

juvenile does not follow the conditions of

aftercare, he or she may be recommitted

to the same facility or may be committed

to another facility. 

Status offense and

delinquency case

processing differ 

A delinquent offense is an act committed

by a juvenile for which an adult could be

prosecuted in criminal court. There are,

however, behaviors that are law violations

only for juveniles and/or young adults

because of their status. These “status

offenses” may include behaviors such as

running away from home, truancy, alcohol possession or use, ungovernability,

and curfew violations. 

In many ways, the processing of status

offense cases parallels that of delinquency cases. Not all states, however, consider all of the behaviors noted above to be

law violations. Many states view such

behaviors as indicators that the child is in

need of supervision. These states handle

status offense matters more like dependency cases than delinquency cases, responding to the behaviors by providing

social services. 

Although many status offenders enter 

the juvenile justice system through law

enforcement, in many states the initial

official contact is a child welfare agency.

In 1998, about half of all status offense

cases referred to juvenile court came

from law enforcement agencies. 

The federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act discourages the

holding of status offenders in secure

juvenile facilities for detention or placement. This policy has been labeled “deinstitutionalization of status offenders.”

There is an exception to the general policy:

a status offender may be confined in a

secure juvenile facility if he or she has

violated a valid court order, such as a

probation order requiring the youth to

attend school or observe a curfew. 

A juvenile court by

any other name is

still a juvenile court 

Every state has at least one court with

juvenile jurisdiction but, in most states,

it is not actually called juvenile court.

The names of the courts with juvenile

jurisdiction vary by state—district,

superior, circuit, county, family, or probate court, to name a few. Often the

court of juvenile jurisdiction has a

separate division for juvenile matters.

Courts with juvenile jurisdiction generally have jurisdiction over delinquency,

status offense, and abuse/neglect matters and may also have jurisdiction in

other matters such as adoption, termination of parental rights, and emancipation. Whatever their name, courts

with juvenile jurisdiction are generically referred to as juvenile courts.
June 2003 5

Statutes set age limits

for original jurisdiction

of the juvenile court

In most states, the juvenile court has

original jurisdiction over all youth

charged with a law violation who were

younger than age 18 at the time of the

offense, arrest, or referral to court. Since

1975, four states have changed their age

criteria: Alabama raised its upper age

from 15 to 16 in 1976 and to 17 in 1977;

Wyoming lowered its upper age from 18

to 17 in 1993; and New Hampshire and

Wisconsin lowered their upper age from

17 to 16 in 1996. 

Oldest age for original juvenile court jurisdiction in delinquency matters:

Age State

15 Connecticut, New York, North Carolina

16 Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,

New Hampshire, South Carolina,

Texas, Wisconsin 

17 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,

California, Colorado, Delaware, District

of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,

Maine, Maryland, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,

Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,

North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,

Vermont, Virginia, Washington,

West Virginia, Wyoming

Many states have higher upper ages 

of juvenile court jurisdiction in status

offense, abuse, neglect, or dependency

matters—typically through age 20. 

In many states, the juvenile court has

original jurisdiction over young adults

who committed offenses while juveniles.

Many states exclude married or otherwise

emancipated juveniles from juvenile court

jurisdiction. States often have statutory

exceptions to basic age criteria. The

exceptions, related to the youth’s age,

alleged offense, and/or prior court history,

place certain youth under the original

jurisdiction of the criminal court. In some

states, a combination of the youth’s age,

offense, and prior record places the youth

under the original jurisdiction of both the

juvenile and criminal courts. In these

states, the prosecutor has the authority

to decide which court will initially handle

the case. 

At the end of the 1999 legislative session,

16 states had statutes that set the lowest

age of juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction. Other states rely on case law or

common law. Children younger than a

certain age are presumed to be incapable

of criminal intent and, therefore, are exempt from prosecution and punishment.

Youngest age for original juvenile court

jurisdiction in delinquency matters:

Age State

6 North Carolina

7 Maryland, Massachusetts, New York

8 Arizona

10 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas,

Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas,

Vermont, Wisconsin

Juvenile court authority

over youth may extend

beyond the upper age

of original jurisdiction

Through extended jurisdiction mechanisms, legislatures enable the court to

provide sanctions and services for a

duration of time that is in the best interests of the juvenile and the public, even

for older juveniles who have reached the

age at which original juvenile court jurisdiction ends. At the end of the 1999

legislative session, statutes in 35 states

extended juvenile court jurisdiction in

delinquency cases until the 21st birthday.

Oldest age over which the juvenile court

may retain jurisdiction for disposition purposes in delinquency matters:

Age State

18 Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska,

Oklahoma, Tennessee

19 Mississippi, North Dakota

20 Alabama, Arizona,* Arkansas,

Connecticut, Delaware, District of

Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,

Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New

Hampshire, New Mexico, New York,

North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, South Carolina, South

Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,

Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming

22 Kansas

24 California, Montana, Oregon,

Wisconsin

** Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey

Note: Extended jurisdiction may be restricted to

certain offenses or juveniles.

*Arizona statute extends jurisdiction through

age 20, but a 1979 state Supreme Court decision held that juvenile court jurisdiction terminates at age 18.

**Until the full term of the disposition order.

In some states, the juvenile court may

impose adult correctional sanctions on

certain adjudicated delinquents that

extend the term of confinement well

beyond the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction. Such sentencing options are included in the set of dispositional options

known as blended sentencing.

State statutes define who is under juvenile court

jurisdiction
6 National Report Series Bulletin

All states allow juveniles to be tried as adults in

criminal court under certain circumstances

Transferring juveniles

to criminal court is not

a new phenomenon 

In some states, provisions that enabled

transfer of certain juveniles to criminal

court were in place before the 1920s.

Other states have permitted transfers

since at least the 1940s. For many years,

all states have had at least one provision

for trying certain youth of juvenile age as

adults in criminal court. Such provisions

are typically limited by age and offense

criteria. Transfer mechanisms vary

regarding where the responsibility for

transfer decisionmaking lies. Transfer

provisions fall into three general

categories: 

Judicial waiver: The juvenile court judge

has the authority to waive juvenile court

jurisdiction and transfer the case to criminal court. States may use terms other

than judicial waiver. Some call the process

certification, remand, or bind over for

criminal prosecution. Others transfer or

decline rather than waive jurisdiction.

Concurrent jurisdiction: Original jurisdiction for certain cases is shared by both

criminal and juvenile courts, and the

prosecutor has discretion to file such

cases in either court. Transfer under concurrent jurisdiction provisions is also

known as prosecutorial waiver, prosecutor discretion, or direct file.

Statutory exclusion: State statute excludes certain juvenile offenders from

juvenile court jurisdiction. Under statutory

exclusion provisions, cases originate in

criminal rather than juvenile court. Statutory exclusion is also known as legislative

exclusion.

Most states have multiple ways to impose adult sanctions on juveniles

Statutes at the end of the 1999 legislative session

Once an

adult,

Judicial waiver Concurrent Statutory Reverse always Blended

State Discretionary Presumptive Mandatory jurisdiction exclusion waiver an adult sentencing

Total States 46 16 15 15 29 24 34 22

Alabama ■ ■■

Alaska ■■ ■ ■

Arizona ■ ■ ■■■■

Arkansas ■ ■■■

California ■ ■ ■ ■■

Colorado ■ ■ ■■■

Connecticut ■ ■■

Delaware ■ ■ ■■■

Dist. of Columbia ■■ ■ ■

Florida ■ ■■ ■■

Georgia ■ ■ ■■■

Hawaii ■ ■

Idaho ■ ■ ■■

Illinois ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■

Indiana ■ ■ ■■

Iowa ■ ■■■■

Kansas ■ ■ ■■

Kentucky ■■ ■

Louisiana ■ ■ ■■

Maine ■■ ■

Maryland ■ ■■■

Massachusetts ■■ ■

Michigan ■ ■ ■■

Minnesota ■ ■ ■ ■■

Mississippi ■ ■■■

Missouri ■ ■ ■

Montana ■ ■■■

Nebraska ■ ■

Nevada ■ ■ ■■■

New Hampshire ■■ ■

New Jersey ■■■

New Mexico ■ ■

New York ■ ■

North Carolina ■■ ■

North Dakota ■■■ ■

Ohio ■■ ■

Oklahoma ■ ■■■■■

Oregon ■ ■■■

Pennsylvania ■ ■ ■■■

Rhode Island ■ ■ ■ ■■

South Carolina ■ ■ ■■ ■

South Dakota ■ ■■■

Tennessee ■ ■■

Texas ■ ■ ■

Utah ■■ ■ ■

Vermont ■ ■■■ ■

Virginia ■ ■■ ■■■

Washington ■ ■■

West Virginia ■■ ■

Wisconsin ■ ■■■

Wyoming ■ ■■

■ In states with a combination of provisions for transferring juveniles to criminal court, the exclusion, mandatory waiver, or concurrent jurisdiction provisions generally target the oldest juveniles

and/or those charged with the most serious offenses, while those charged with relatively less

serious offenses and/or younger juveniles may be eligible for discretionary waiver.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Griffin’s State Juvenile Justice Profiles.
June 2003 7

Nearly all states have

expanded their transfer

provisions recently

Traditionally, discretionary judicial waiver

was the transfer mechanism on which

most states relied. Beginning in the 1970s

and continuing through the present, however, state legislatures have increasingly

moved juvenile offenders into criminal

court based on age and/or offense seriousness, without the case-specific consideration offered by the discretionary

juvenile court judicial waiver process.

State transfer provisions changed extensively in the 1990s. From 1992 through

1999, 49 states and the District of Columbia enacted or expanded their transfer

provisions. Nebraska was the only exception. An increasing number of state

legislatures have enacted mandatory

waiver or exclusion statutes. Less common, then and now, are concurrent jurisdiction provisions.

Criminal courts may

send transferred cases

to juvenile court

Several states have provisions for sending transferred cases from criminal to

juvenile court for adjudication under

certain circumstances. This procedure,

sometimes referred to as “reverse waiver,”

generally applies to cases initiated in

criminal court under statutory exclusion

or concurrent jurisdiction provisions. Of

the 36 states with such provisions at the

end of the 1999 legislative session, 21

also have provisions that allow certain

transferred juveniles to petition for a

“reverse.” Reverse decision criteria often

parallel a state’s discretionary waiver criteria. In some states, transfers convicted

in criminal court may be reversed to juvenile court for disposition.

Most states have “once

an adult, always an

adult” provisions

In 34 states, juveniles who have been

tried as adults must be prosecuted in

criminal court for any subsequent offenses. Nearly all of these “once an adult,

always an adult” provisions require that

the youth must have been convicted of

the offenses that triggered the initial criminal prosecution.

Laws in 22 states allow

blended sentencing

Blended sentencing statutes allow courts

to impose juvenile and/or adult correctional sanctions on certain young offenders. In some states, blended sentencing

authority lies with the juvenile court, in

others with the criminal court. 

Blended sentencing authority specified by

statute, 1999:

Court State

Juvenile Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut,

Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota,

New Mexico, Rhode Island,

South Carolina, Texas

Criminal Arkansas, California, Colorado,

Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan,

Missouri, Oklahoma, Vermont,

Virginia, West Virginia

Blended sentencing has been referred to

as a “middle ground” between traditional

juvenile and adult sanctions. Judges have

flexibility to choose from a broader array

of punishments. In some states, the adult

sanction may be suspended but can be

reinstated if the terms of the juvenile

sanction are violated. A blended sentence,

therefore, is seen as one last chance for

the juvenile to avoid adult sanctions.

Judicial waiver remains

the most common

transfer provision 

In the District of Columbia and all states

except Massachusetts, Nebraska, New

Mexico, and New York, juvenile court

judges may waive jurisdiction over certain cases and transfer them to criminal

court. Such action is usually in response

to a request by the prosecutor; in several

states, however, juveniles or their parents

may request judicial waiver. In most states,

laws limit waiver by age and offense.

Waiver provisions vary in terms of the

degree of decisionmaking flexibility

allowed. The decision may be entirely

discretionary, there may be a rebuttable

presumption in favor of waiver, or waiver

may be mandatory. Some provisions

mandate that waiver is required once the

juvenile court judge determines that certain statutory criteria have been met.

Mandatory waiver provisions are distinguished from statutory exclusion provisions in that the case originates in juvenile rather than criminal court.

Statutes establish

waiver criteria other

than age and offense 

In some states, waiver provisions target

youth charged with offenses involving

firearms or other weapons. Most state

statutes also limit judicial waiver to juveniles who are “no longer amenable to

treatment.” The specific factors that determine lack of amenability vary, but they

typically include the juvenile’s offense

history and previous dispositional outcomes. Such amenability criteria are generally not included in statutory exclusion

or concurrent jurisdiction provisions.

Many statutes instruct juvenile courts

to consider other factors when making
8 National Report Series Bulletin

waiver decisions, such as the availability

of dispositional alternatives for treating

the juvenile, the time available for sanctions, public safety, and the best interest

of the child. The waiver process must

also adhere to certain constitutional principles of due process.

Transfer decisionmaking

has changed

Studies of transfer in the 1990s found

that, independent of law changes, waiver

decisions have changed. One Pennsylvania

study found that waiver was more likely

for youth in 1994 than for youth in 1986.

Although Pennsylvania’s waiver law did

not change, the waiver criteria seemed to

change. Analysis showed that both the

1986 and 1994 groups had similar numbers of prior adjudications and residential

placements. However, juveniles with

cases waived in 1994 had gone through

the court’s full range of sanctions with

less serious offense histories than youth

with cases waived in 1986. 

Two other studies focused on cases judicially waived in South Carolina and in

Utah in the mid-1980s through the mid1990s. Analyses found that juvenile court

judges granted most waiver requests.

Overall, judges approved approximately 8

out of 10 waiver requests made by prosecutors. In South Carolina, the proportion

of waiver requests granted rose from about

70% in the mid-1980s to 96% in 1994.

Two factors distinguished cases that

judges waived from those not waived: the

seriousness of the juvenile’s crime and

the extent of his or her court history. The

cases most likely to be waived, regardless

of the offenders’ court history, involved

serious person offenders who used weapons and injured someone. Even first-time

offenders were waived if they injured their

victim. For other cases, the court took into

account the youth’s history; those with

In most states, juvenile court judges may waive juvenile court

jurisdiction over certain cases and transfer them to criminal court 

Minimum Judicial waiver offense and minimum age criteria, 1999

age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certain

judicial criminal Certain Capital person property drug weapon

State waiver offense felonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offenses

Alabama 14 14

Alaska NS NS NS

Arizona NS NS

Arkansas 14 14 14 14 14 14

California 14 16 16 14 14 14 14

Colorado 12 12 12 12

Connecticut 14 14 14 14

Delaware NS NS 15 NS NS 16 16

Dist. of Columbia NS 16 15 15 15 15 NS

Florida 14 14

Georgia 13 15 13 14 14 15

Hawaii NS 14 NS

Idaho NS 14 NS NS NS NS NS

Illinois 13 13 15

Indiana NS 14 NS 10 16

Iowa 14 14 15

Kansas 10 10 14 14 14

Kentucky 14 14 14

Louisiana 14 14 14

Maine NS NS NS NS

Maryland NS 15 NS

Michigan 14 14

Minnesota 14 14

Mississippi 13 13

Missouri 12 12

Montana NS NS

Nevada 14 14 14 14

New Hampshire 13 15 13 13 15

New Jersey 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

North Carolina 13 13 13

North Dakota 14 16 14 14 14 14

Ohio 14 14 14 16 16

Oklahoma NS NS

Oregon NS 15 NS NS 15

Pennsylvania 14 14 15 15

Rhode Island NS 16 NS 17 17

South Carolina NS 16 14 NS NS 14 14

South Dakota NS NS

Tennessee NS 16 NS NS

Texas 14 14 14 14

Utah 14 14 16 16 16 16

Vermont 10 10 10 10

Virginia 14 14 14 14

Washington NS NS

West Virginia NS NS NS NS NS NS

Wisconsin 14 15 14 14 14 14 14

Wyoming 13 13

Note: Ages in the minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions but represent

the youngest possible age at which a juvenile may be judicially waived to criminal court. “NS”

indicates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified.

Examples: Alabama allows waiver for juveniles age 14 or older charged with any criminal

offense. Maryland allows waiver for any juvenile charged with a capital crime (an act punishable by death or life imprisonment) and for juveniles age 15 or older charged with any criminal

offense.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Griffin’s State Juvenile Justice Profiles.
June 2003 9

longer histories were more likely to be

waived. This coincides closely with

the waiver criteria outlined in the U.S.

Supreme Court’s Kent decision. The

Court stated that, “An offense . . . will be

waived if . . . it is heinous or of an aggravated character, or—even though less

serious—if it represents a pattern of

repeated offenses. . . .”

Few states allow

prosecutorial discretion

At the end of the 1999 legislative session,

15 states had concurrent jurisdiction provisions, which gave both juvenile court

and criminal court original jurisdiction in

certain cases. Under such provisions,

prosecutors have discretion to file eligible

cases in either court. 

Concurrent jurisdiction is typically limited by age and offense criteria. Often

concurrent jurisdiction is limited to cases

involving violent or repeat crimes or

offenses involving firearms or other

weapons. Juvenile and criminal courts

often also share jurisdiction over minor

offenses such as traffic, watercraft, or

local ordinance violations.

No national data exist on the number of

juvenile cases tried in criminal court under concurrent jurisdiction provisions. In

Florida, which has a fairly broad concurrent jurisdiction provision, prosecutors

sent more than 4,000 youth to criminal

court in fiscal year 1998–99. In comparison, juvenile court judges nationwide

waived an estimated 8,100 cases to

criminal court in 1998. 

State appellate courts have taken the view

that prosecutorial discretion is equivalent

to the routine charging decisions prosecutors make in criminal cases. Thus,

prosecutorial transfer is considered an

executive function, which is not subject

to judicial review and is not required to

meet the due process standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Some

states, however, do have written guidelines for prosecutorial transfer.

In most states, laws

allow transfer of certain

very young offenders 

At the end of the 1999 legislative session,

in 23 states and the District of Columbia,

no minimum age was specified in at least

one judicial waiver, concurrent jurisdiction, or statutory exclusion provision for

transferring juveniles to criminal court.

For example, Pennsylvania’s murder

exclusion has no minimum age specified.

Other transfer provisions in Pennsylvania

have age minimums set at 14 or 15.

Among states where statutes specify age

limits for all transfer provisions, age 14 is

the most common minimum age specified across provisions.

Minimum transfer age specified in statute:

Age State

None Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, District

of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,

Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine,

Maryland, Montana, Nebraska,

Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, South Carolina,

South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,

Washington, West Virginia, and

Wisconsin

10 Kansas and Vermont 

12 Colorado and Missouri

13 Illinois, Mississippi,

New Hampshire, New York,

North Carolina, and Wyoming

14 Alabama, Arkansas, California,

Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,

New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio,

Utah, and Virginia

15 New Mexico

In states with concurrent jurisdiction, the prosecutor has discretion to

file certain cases in either criminal court or juvenile court

Minimum Concurrent jurisdiction offense and minimum age criteria, 1999

age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certain

concurrent criminal Certain Capital person property drug weapon

State jurisdiction offense felonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offenses

Arizona 14 14

Arkansas 14 16 14 14 14

Colorado 14 14 14 14 14 14

Dist. of Columbia 16 16 16 16

Florida NS 16 NS 14 14 14 14

Georgia NS NS

Louisiana 15 15 15 15 15

Massachusetts 14 14 14 14

Michigan 14 14 14 14 14 14

Montana 12 12 12 16 16 16

Nebraska NS 16 NS

Oklahoma 15 15 15 15 16 15

Vermont 16 16

Virginia 14 14 14

Wyoming 14 14

Note: Ages in the minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions but represent

the youngest possible age at which a juvenile may be filed directly in criminal court. “NS” indicates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified.

Examples: In Arizona, prosecutors have discretion to file directly in criminal court those cases

involving juveniles age 14 or older charged with certain felonies (defined by state statutes). In

Florida, prosecutors may “direct file” cases involving juveniles age 16 or older charged with a

misdemeanor (if they have a prior adjudication) or a felony offense and those age 14 or older

charged with murder or certain person, property, or weapon offenses; no minimum age is specified for cases in which a grand jury indicts a juvenile for a capital offense (punishable by death

or life imprisonment).

Source: Author’s adaptation of Griffin’s State Juvenile Justice Profiles.
10 National Report Series Bulletin

Statutory exclusion

accounts for the largest

number of transfers

Legislatures “transfer” large numbers 

of young offenders to criminal court by

enacting statutes that exclude certain

cases from juvenile court jurisdiction. At

the end of the 1999 legislative session,

29 states had statutory exclusion provisions. State laws typically set age and

offense limits for excluded offenses. The

offenses most often excluded are murder,

capital crimes in general (offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment),

and other serious offenses against persons. (Minor offenses such as traffic,

watercraft, and wildlife violations are

often excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction in states where they are not

covered by concurrent jurisdiction

provisions.)

Although not typically thought of as

transfers, large numbers of youth

younger than age 18 are tried in criminal

court in the 13 states where the upper

age of juvenile court jurisdiction is set at

15 or 16. Nearly 2 million 16- and 17-

year-olds live in these 13 states. If these

youth are referred to criminal court at the

same rate that 16- and 17-year-olds elsewhere are referred to juvenile court, then

a large number of youth younger than

age 18 face trial in criminal court because

they are defined as adults under state

laws. In fact, it is possible that more

youth younger than age 18 are tried in

criminal court in this way than by all

other transfer mechanisms combined.

In states with statutory exclusion provisions, certain cases involving

juveniles originate in criminal court rather than juvenile court

Minimum Statutory exclusion offense and minimum age criteria, 1999

age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certain

statutory criminal Certain Capital person property drug weapon

State exclusion offense felonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offenses

Alabama 16 16 16 16

Alaska 16 16 16

Arizona 15 15 15 15

California 16 16 16 16

Delaware 15 15

Florida NS NS NS

Georgia 13 13 13

Idaho 14 14 14 14 14

Illinois 13 15 13 15 15 15

Indiana 16 16 16 16 16 16

Iowa 16 16 16 16

Louisiana 15 15 15

Maryland 14 14 16 16 16

Massachusetts 14 14

Minnesota 16 16

Mississippi 13 13 13

Montana 17 17 17 17 17 17

Nevada NS 16 NS NS 16

New Mexico 15 15

New York 13 13 14 14 14

Oklahoma 13 13

Oregon 15 15 15

Pennsylvania NS NS 15

South Carolina 16 16

South Dakota 16 16

Utah 16 16 16

Vermont 14 14 14 14

Washington 16 16 16 16

Wisconsin NS 10 NS

Note: Ages in the minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions but represent

the youngest possible age at which a juvenile may be excluded from juvenile court. “NS” indicates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified.

Examples: In California, cases involving juveniles age 16 or older charged with capital crimes

(punishable by death or life imprisonment), murder, or certain other person offenses must be

filed in criminal court. In Delaware, cases involving juveniles age 15 or older charged with certain felonies must be initiated in criminal court.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Griffin’s State Juvenile Justice Profiles.
June 2003 11

The Juvenile Court Statistics series details the

activities of U.S. juvenile courts

Juvenile Court Statistics

has provided data since

the late 1920s

The Juvenile Court Statistics series is the

primary source of information on the

activities of the nation’s juvenile courts.

The first Juvenile Court Statistics report,

published in 1929 by the Children’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labor,

described cases handled in 1927 by 42

courts. In the 1950s, the U.S. Department

of Health, Education and Welfare took

over the work, and, in 1974, the newly

established Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) took on

the project. Since 1975, the National

Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) has

been responsible for this OJJDP project.

Throughout its history, the Juvenile Court

Statistics series has depended on the voluntary support of courts with juvenile

jurisdiction. Courts contribute data originally compiled to meet their own information needs. The data received are not

uniform but reflect the natural variation

that exists across court information systems. To develop national estimates,

NCJJ restructures compatible data into a

common format. In 1998, juvenile courts

with jurisdiction over virtually 100% of

the U.S. juvenile population contributed

at least some data to the national reporting program. Because not all contributed

data can support the national reporting

requirements, the national estimates for

1998 were based on data from more than

2,100 jurisdictions containing nearly 70%

of the nation’s juvenile population (i.e.,

youth age 10 through the upper age of

original juvenile court jurisdiction in each

state).

Juvenile Court Statistics

documents the number

of cases courts handled

Just as the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program counts arrests made by law

enforcement (i.e., a workload measure,

not a crime measure), the Juvenile Court

Statistics series counts delinquency and

status offense cases handled by courts

with juvenile jurisdiction during the year.

Each case represents the initial disposition of a new referral to juvenile court for

one or more offenses. A youth may be

involved in more than one case in a year.

Therefore, the Juvenile Court Statistics

series does not provide a count of individual juveniles brought before juvenile

courts.

Cases involving multiple

charges are categorized

by their most serious

offense

In a single case where a juvenile is

charged with robbery, simple assault, 

and a weapons law violation, the case is

counted as a robbery case (similar to the

FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s

hierarchy rule). Thus, the Juvenile Court

Statistics series does not provide a count

of the number of crimes committed by

juveniles. In addition, given that only the

most serious offense is used to classify

the case, counts of—and trends for—

less serious offenses must be interpreted

cautiously.

Similarly, cases are categorized by their

most severe or restrictive disposition. 

For example, a case in which the judge

orders the youth to a training school and

to pay restitution to the victim would be

characterized as a case in which the juvenile was placed in a residential facility.

Juvenile Court Statistics

describes delinquency

and status offense

caseloads

The Juvenile Court Statistics series provides annual estimates of the number of

delinquency and formally processed status offense cases handled by juvenile

courts. The reports provide demographic

profiles of the youth referred and the

reasons for the referrals (offenses). The

series documents the juvenile courts’ differential use of petition, detention, adjudication, and disposition alternatives by

case type. The series also can identify

trends in the volume and characteristics

of court activity.

Care should be exercised when interpreting gender, age, or racial differences in

the analysis of juvenile delinquency or

status offense cases because reported

statistics do not control for the seriousness of the behavior leading to each

charge or the extent of a youth’s court

history.

The series does not provide national estimates of the number of youth referred to

court, their prior court histories, or their

future recidivism. Nor does it provide

data on criminal court processing of juvenile cases. Criminal court cases involving youth younger than age 18 who are

defined as adults in their state are not

included. The series was designed to produce national estimates of juvenile court

activity, not to describe the law-violating

careers of juveniles.
12 National Report Series Bulletin

Juvenile courts handled 1.8 million delinquency

cases in 1998—about the same as in 1997

Juvenile court caseloads

have grown and changed

In 1998, U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction handled an estimated 1.8 million

cases in which the juvenile was charged

with a delinquency offense—an offense

for which an adult could be prosecuted in

criminal court. Thus, U.S. juvenile courts

handled more than 4,800 delinquency

cases per day in 1998. In comparison,

approximately 1,100 delinquency cases

were processed daily in 1960.

Changes in the juvenile court delinquency

caseload in recent years have strained the

courts’ resources and programs. The volume of cases handled by juvenile courts

increased 44% between 1989 and 1998.

Courts were asked to respond not only to

more cases but also to a different type of

caseload. 

Most delinquency cases

are referred to court by

law enforcement

Delinquency cases are referred to juvenile courts from a number of different

sources, including law enforcement agencies, social services agencies, victims,

probation officers, schools, and parents.

In 1998, 84% of delinquency cases were

referred by law enforcement agencies.

This proportion has changed little over

the past decade. 

Percentage of delinquency cases referred by

law enforcement agencies:

Offense 1998

Delinquency 84%

Person 86

Property 90

Drugs 92

Public order 63

Youth were charged with a property offense in nearly half of the

delinquency cases handled by juvenile courts in 1998

Number Percentage of Percent change

Most serious offense of cases total cases 1989–98 1997–98

Delinquency 1,757,400 100% 44% –3%

Person offenses 403,800 23 88 1

Criminal homicide 2,000 <1 6 –2

Forcible rape 6,000 <1 26 –7

Robbery 29,600 2 29 –12

Aggravated assault 65,100 4 36 –6

Simple assault 262,400 15 128 3

Other violent sex offenses 10,500 1 53 –1

Other person offenses 28,200 2 87 26

Property offenses 797,600 45 11 –8

Burglary 125,800 7 –7 –9

Larceny-theft 370,500 21 13 –10

Motor vehicle theft 44,200 3 –34 –11

Arson 8,400 0 27 –9

Vandalism 118,700 7 40 0

Trespassing 64,000 4 26 –5

Stolen property offenses 34,000 2 35 3

Other property offenses 32,100 2 37 –3

Drug law violations 192,500 11 148 1

Public order offenses 363,500 21 73 0

Weapons offenses 40,700 2 61 4

Obstruction of justice 152,000 9 102 2

Disorderly conduct 92,100 5 100 –4

Liquor law violations 19,600 1 29 59

Nonviolent sex offenses 10,900 1 –13 –3

Other public order offenses 48,100 3 36 –10

Violent Crime Index* 102,600 6 33 –8

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

■ Juvenile court delinquency caseloads increased 44% from 1989 to 1998. The juvenile

population increased just 15% in that time.

■ Although a substantial portion of the growth in court referrals is related to arrests,

changes in juvenile court caseloads are also influenced by other forces. Between 1989

and 1998, the overall growth in juvenile court cases (44%) was greater than the growth

in arrests of persons younger than age 18 (24%). During the same period, Violent

Crime Index arrests rose 15%, arrests for Property Crime Index offenses dropped 12%,

and drug arrests rose 86%.

*The FBI’s Violent Crime Index includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and

aggravated assault.

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

and arson.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent change calculations are

based on unrounded numbers.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Puzzanchera et al.’s Juvenile Court Statistics 1998.
June 2003 13

Within detailed offenses,

there is a range of

offense seriousness

The four general offense categories—

person, property, drugs, and public

order—are each very broad in terms of

the seriousness of the offenses they

comprise. Within these general categories, individual offenses (e.g., aggravated assault, robbery) may encompass a

wide range of seriousness. For example:

Aggravated assault is the 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. Aggravated assault

includes the following situations:

■ A gang attempts to kill a rival gang

member in a drive-by shooting, but

he survives the attack.

■ A son fights with his father, causing

injuries that require treatment at a

hospital.

■ A student raises a chair and threatens

to throw it at a teacher but does not.

Robbery is the unlawful taking or attempted taking of property in the immediate

possession of another person by force

or threat of force. Robbery includes the

following situations:

■ Masked gunmen with automatic

weapons demand cash from a bank.

■ A gang of young men beat up a tourist

and steal his wallet and valuables.

■ A school bully says to another student,

“Give me your lunch money, or I’ll

punch you.”

Juvenile courts handled more than four times as many delinquency

cases in 1998 as in 1960

■ Between 1989 and 1998, the volume of cases handled by juvenile courts increased across

all four general offense categories. Person offense cases rose 88%, property cases rose

11%, drug cases rose 148%, and public order cases rose 73%.

■ Although increases occurred in all four general offense categories, the trend patterns were

different. Person and public order cases increased steadily from 1989 through 1998; drug

cases were initially flat, then increased sharply in the mid-1990s, and then leveled off;

property offense cases changed relatively little during the time period.

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

60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98

0

400,000

800,000

1,200,000

1,600,000

2,000,000

Year

Number of cases

Delinquency

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Number of cases

Person

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

Number of cases

Property

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

Number of cases

Public order

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

Number of cases

Drugs

Delinquency cases, by offense category
14 National Report Series Bulletin

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Property

Person

Public order Drugs

Male

Caseloads grew faster

for females than males

The overall delinquency caseload for

females grew at an average rate of 7%

per year between 1989 and 1998, compared with 3% per year for males. The

result was an 83% overall increase in

female cases, compared with a 35%

increase for males.

Percent change in number of cases,

1989–98:

Offense Male Female

Delinquency 35% 83%

Person 71 157

Property 3 44

Drugs 142 182

Public order 65 105

Offense profiles were

similar for males and

females 

Compared with the offense profiles in

1989, both male and female delinquency

caseloads had greater proportions of person offense cases in 1998, and males had

a greater proportion of drug offense cases.

Offense profile of delinquency cases:

Offense Male Female

1998

Delinquency 100% 100%

Person 22 26

Property 45 45

Drugs 12 7

Public order 21 21

1989

Delinquency 100% 100%

Person 17 19

Property 59 58

Drugs 7 5

Public order 17 19

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Delinquency caseloads for both males and females

have increased sharply in recent years

As in 1989, the delinquency caseloads

for both males and females in 1998 consisted primarily of property offense

cases. Compared with males, females

Although case rates are much lower for females than for males, the

female rates have increased more sharply in the last decade

■ From 1989 to 1998, females had a greater relative change in case rates than males in

each of the four general offense categories. Drug case rates rose 145% for females and

111% for males; person case rates rose 124% for females and 49% for males; public

order case rates rose 79% for females and 43% for males; and property case rates rose

25% for females and dropped 10% for males.

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

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

4

8

12

16

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Property

Person

Public order

Drugs

Female

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent of cases involving females

Delinquency

The proportion of delinquency cases involving females was greater in

1998 than in 1989

■ The female proportion of delinquency cases increased from 19% in 1989 to 24% in

1998. The sharpest increase was seen among person offense cases. Females accounted

for 20% of person cases in 1989, compared with 28% in 1998.

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

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent of cases involving females

Person

Property

Public order

Drugs

had a greater proportion of person offense

cases and a smaller proportion of drug

offense cases.
June 2003 15

Black juveniles were referred to juvenile court at

a rate more than double that for white juveniles

A disproportionate

number of cases

involved black youth 

Although two-thirds of delinquency cases

involved white youth, a disproportionate

number of cases involved blacks (29%),

given their proportion of the juvenile population. In 1998, whites made up 79% of

the juvenile population, blacks 15%, and

youth of other races 5%.

Racial profile of delinquency cases:

Other

Offense White Black races Total

1998

Delinquency 67% 29% 4% 100%

Person 62 35 3 100

Property 70 26 4 100

Drugs 68 29 3 100

Public order 68 29 3 100

1989

Delinquency 68% 29% 3% 100%

Person 56 40 3 100

Property 72 25 4 100

Drugs 58 40 2 100

Public order 70 27 3 100

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding. All racial groups include Hispanics.

The racial profile of delinquency cases

overall was essentially the same in 1998

as in 1989, although there were noticeable changes in some offense categories.

The black proportion of person cases

dropped from 40% in 1989 to 35% in

1998, and the black proportion of drug

cases dropped from 40% in 1989 to 29%

in 1998.

Offense profiles for whites

and blacks differed

Delinquency caseloads of black juveniles

contained a greater proportion of person

offenses than did caseloads of white

juveniles and those of other races. For all

racial groups, property offenses accounted for the largest proportion of cases and

drug offenses the smallest proportion.

Compared with 1989, person and public

order offenses made up a larger share

and property offenses a smaller share of

delinquency cases for all racial groups 

in 1998. Among black juveniles, person

offenses rose 3 percentage points, public

order offenses rose 5 points, and property offenses dropped 10 points. Among

white juveniles, person offenses rose 6

percentage points, public order offenses

rose 3 points, and property offenses

dropped 15 points.

Offense profile of delinquency cases:

Other

Offense White Black races

1998

Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 21 28 19

Property 47 40 53

Drugs 11 11 8

Public order 21 21 20

1989

Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 15 25 16

Property 62 50 64

Drugs 5 9 4

Public order 18 16 17

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding. All racial groups include Hispanics.

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Black

White

Other races

1989

Case rates increased from 1989 to 1998 for all racial groups

■ In 1998, the overall delinquency case rate for black juveniles (115) was more than twice

the rate for whites (51) and nearly triple the rate for youth of other races (40).

■ In all four general offense categories, case rates were higher for blacks than for whites

and higher for whites than for youth of other races.

■ The differences in rates by race were more pronounced for person offenses than for the

other three general offense categories.

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

racial category.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Puzzanchera et al.’s Juvenile Court Statistics 1998.
16 National Report Series Bulletin

All age groups contributed to delinquency caseload

increases between 1989 and 1998

Delinquency case rates

rose between 1989 and

1998 for most ages 

In 1998, juvenile courts handled 60.4

delinquency cases for every 1,000 juveniles (youth subject to original juvenile

court jurisdiction) in the U.S. population.

The 1998 delinquency case rate was 25%

greater than the 1989 rate. For all but 

the youngest age groups, age-specific

case rates showed similar increases. 

The greatest increase was among 

17-year-olds. 

Most delinquency cases

involved older teens 

Juveniles age 15 and older made up 64%

of the delinquency caseload in 1998. Juveniles ages 13 and 14 were involved in

26% of delinquency cases, while juveniles age 12 and younger accounted for

10%. There was some variation in age

profiles across offenses. Juveniles age 

12 and younger accounted for greater

proportions of person (14%) and property (13%) cases than of drug (2%) or

public order (6%) cases. These proportions were not substantially different from

those in 1989.

Why do juvenile courts

handle more 16- than

17-year-olds?

Although comparable numbers of 17-

year-olds and 16-year-olds were arrested

in 1998, the number of juvenile court

cases involving 17-year-olds (286,700)

was lower than the number involving 16-

year-olds (411,600). The explanation lies

primarily in the fact that, in 13 states, 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

5.9 11.5

24.3

46.5

73.4

96.7

116.4 119.2

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 1998

Delinquency

Age at referral

Delinquency case rates generally increase with age

■ The delinquency case rate for 16-year-olds was 1.5 times the rate for 14-year-olds, the

rate for 14-year-olds was 3 times the rate for 12-year-olds, and the rate for 17-year-olds

was slightly greater than the rate for 16-year-olds.

■ Case rates increased through age 17 for drug and public order offenses, but for person

and property offenses, rates peaked for 16-year-olds and then declined for 17-year-olds.

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

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 1998

Property

Public order

Person

Age at referral

Drugs

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Ages 15–17

Ages 10–12

Ages 13–14

Person

Between 1989 and 1998, the pattern of change in case rates was

generally similar across age groups

■ Person case rates rose from 1989 through 1995; the rates then leveled off for older

youth but not for youth ages 10–12.

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

years since.

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

■ Public order case rates generally rose steadily for all age groups from 1989 to 1998.

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

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Ages 15–17

Ages 13–14

Ages 10–12

Property

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Ages 15–17

Ages 13–14

Ages 10–12

Drugs

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Ages 15–17

Ages 13–14

Ages 10–12

Public order
June 2003 17

17-year-olds are excluded from the original

jurisdiction of the juvenile court. In these

states, all 17-year-olds are legally adults

and are referred to criminal court rather

than to juvenile court. Thus, far fewer 17-

year-olds than 16-year-olds are subject to

original juvenile court jurisdiction in the U.S. 

Even after controlling for their differential

representation in the juvenile population,

the case rates for 16-year-olds are often

slightly greater than the rates for 17-yearolds. One reason may be state legislation

that targets certain older juveniles for

processing directly in criminal courts (via

either statutory exclusion or concurrent

jurisdiction provisions). In these situations, when a youth of juvenile age is

arrested, the matter goes before a criminal

court rather than before a juvenile court.

In 1998, the offense

profiles of younger and

older youth differed 

In 1998, the caseload of juveniles age 12

and younger had larger proportions of

person and property offenses and smaller

proportions of drug and public order

offenses, compared with caseloads of

older juveniles. In 1989, the proportions

of person offense cases were similar for

younger and older youth.

Offense profile of delinquency cases:

Age Age

12 and Ages 15 and

Offense younger 13–14 older

1998

Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 31 26 21

Property 54 49 42

Drugs 2 7 14

Public order 13 19 23

1989

Delinquency 100% 100% 100%

Person 19 19 17

Property 71 62 55

Drugs 1 4 8

Public order 9 15 20

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Age at referral

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 1998

Male

Female

Person

In 1998, overall delinquency case rates increased with age through

age 16 for both males and females

■ Although delinquency case rates for females were much lower than those for males,

the age-related increase in rates was greater for females than for males. For males, the

rate for 16-year-olds was 18 times the rate for 10-year-olds. For females, the rate for

16-year-olds was 28 times the rate for 10-year-olds.

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

■ The most striking age-related increase in rates was in drug cases. Drug case rates were

highest for 17-year-olds of both sexes. The drug case rate for male 17-year-olds was

more than 300 times the rate for male 10-year-olds. Among females, the magnitude of

difference was 500-fold.

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

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Age at referral

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 1998

Male

Female

Property

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Age at referral

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 1998

Delinquency

Male

Female

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

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Age at referral

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 1998

Male

Female

Drugs

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Age at referral

 

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 1998

Male

Female

Public order
18 National Report Series Bulletin

Most delinquency cases do not involve detention

between referral to court and disposition

When is secure

detention used?

A youth may be placed in a secure juvenile detention facility at various points

during the processing of his or her case.

Most delinquency cases, however, do not

involve detention. Although detention

practices vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, a general model of detention

practices is useful.

When a case is referred to juvenile court,

intake staff may decide to hold the youth

in a detention facility while the case is

being processed. In general, the youth

will be detained if there is reason to

believe he or she is a threat to the community, will be at risk if returned to the

community, or may fail to appear at an

upcoming hearing. The youth may also be

detained for diagnostic evaluation purposes.

In all states, legislation requires that a

detention hearing be held within a few

days (generally within 24 hours). At that

time, a judge reviews the decision to

detain the youth and either orders the

youth released or continues the detention.

National juvenile court statistics count the

number of cases that involve detention

during a calendar year. As a case is

processed, the youth may be detained

and released more than once between

case referral and disposition. Juvenile

court data do not count individual detentions, nor do they count the number of

youth detained. In addition, although in a

few states juveniles may be committed to

a detention facility as part of a disposition

order, the court data do not include such

placements in the count of cases involving detention.

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

Number of cases detained

Property

Person

Public order

Drugs

Although the percentage of cases involving detention dropped from

1989 to 1998, the number of cases involving detention increased

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

■ The number of delinquency cases involving detention rose 25% from 1989 to 1998.

Person offense cases had the largest relative increase in detained cases (63%). 

■ Although there was a 6% decline in detained property cases between 1989 and 1998,

they accounted for the largest volume of cases involving detention in every year.

■ In 1998, the percentage of cases that involved detention was lower for property offense

cases (15%) than for the other general offense categories (22–23%). 

■ For all four general offense categories, the probability of detention was lower in 1998

than in 1989. This was especially true for drug cases.

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

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Percent of cases detained

Drugs

Person

Public order

Property

White youth were least likely to be detained, but they accounted for

the largest volume of delinquency cases involving detention

■ The number of delinquency cases involving white youth who were detained rose 33%

from 1989 to 1998. For black youth and youth of other races, the increases in the

number of cases detained was smaller (15% and 19%, respectively).

■ Trends in the likelihood of detention followed similar patterns for all racial groups,

although the proportion of cases involving detention remained lower for white youth

than for black youth or youth of other races.

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

racial category.

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

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent of delinquency cases detained

White

Other races

Black

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

Number of cases detained

White

Black

Other races
June 2003 19

The detention caseload

has changed

Property offense cases continue to account for the largest proportion of delinquency cases involving detention, but

their share declined from 1989 to 1998.

Person offense cases had an increase

in their share of the detention caseload.

Offense profile of delinquency cases 

involving detention:

Offense 1989 1998

Delinquency 100% 100%

Person 21 27

Property 48 36

Drugs 11 13

Public order 21 24

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Relative to their share of the juvenile population, black youth were overrepresented

in the detention caseload in 1998. Black

youth made up 15% of the population 

but 35% of cases involving detention.

Compared with the detention caseload in

1989, however, the extent of their overrepresentation has diminished somewhat.

Youth of other races were not overrepresented in the detention caseload relative

to their proportion in the population.

Racial profile of delinquency cases involving

detention:

Race 1989 1998

All races 100% 100%

White 57 61

Black 39 35

Other races 4 4

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding. All racial groups include Hispanics.

Not only were black youth overrepresented among cases involving detention relative to their proportion of the juvenile

population, they were also overrepresented relative to their proportion of the overall delinquency caseload. Although black

juveniles made up 29% of all delinquency

cases processed in 1998, they accounted

for 35% of cases involving detention.

This overrepresentation was greatest for

drug cases. Black youth were involved

in 29% of all drug cases handled but in

44% of drug cases involving detention.

Percentage of cases that involved black

juveniles, 1998:

Detained

Offense All cases cases

Delinquency 29% 35%

Person 35 38

Property 26 34

Drugs 29 44

Public order 29 29

Juveniles age 15 or younger accounted

for 53% of cases involving detention in

1998. Those age 12 or younger made up

5% of the detention caseload that year.

The age profile for detained delinquency

cases changed only slightly between

1989 and 1998.

Age profile of delinquency cases involving

detention:

Age 1989 1998

All ages 100% 100%

10 or younger 1 1

11 1 1

12 4 3

13 9 9

14 16 15

15 24 24

16 26 26

17 or older 19 21

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Males were more likely

than females to be

detained

Overall, the youth was detained in 20%

of delinquency cases involving males

in 1998. In comparison, females were

detained in 14% of their delinquency

cases. Both males and females were least

likely to be detained in property offense

cases. 

Percentage of delinquency cases involving

detention, 1998:

Offense Male Female

Delinquency 20% 14%

Person 24 18

Property 16 9

Drugs 23 19

Public order 22 19

With the exception of drug cases, the use

of detention for both males and females

declined a few percentage points from

1989 to 1998. For males, the proportion

of drug cases involving detention was

15 points higher in 1989 than in 1998;

for females, it was 9 points higher.

Detention was used more frequently for older juveniles than for

younger juveniles in 1998

Percentage of delinquency cases detained, 

by age at referral, 1998

Offense 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

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

Person 7 10 17 18 21 25 25 28

Property 6 6 9 13 15 16 17 17

Drugs * 9 13 18 21 24 23 25

Public order 11 9 13 19 22 23 23 23

*Too few cases to obtain a reliable percentage.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Puzzanchera et al.’s Juvenile Court Statistics 1998.
20 National Report Series Bulletin

Formal case handling was more likely in 1998 than

in 1989, and more cases were adjudicated

In a formally processed

case, petitioners ask the

court to order sanctions 

Formal case handling involves the filing

of a petition requesting that the court

hold an adjudicatory or waiver hearing.

Informal case handling is considered

when the decisionmaker (police, probation, intake, prosecutor, or other screening officer) believes that accountability

and rehabilitation can be achieved without formal court intervention. Compared

with informally handled cases, formally

processed delinquency cases tend to

involve more serious offenses, older juveniles, and juveniles with longer court

histories. 

If the court decides to handle the matter

informally, the offender agrees to comply with one or more sanctions such as

community service, victim restitution, or

voluntary probation supervision. Informal

cases are generally held open pending

the successful completion of the disposition. If the court’s conditions are met, the

charges are dismissed. If, however, the

offender does not fulfill the conditions,

the case is likely to be petitioned for

formal processing.

The use of formal 

handling has increased

In 1989, juvenile courts formally processed

50% of delinquency cases. By 1998, that

proportion had increased to 57%. Compared with the likelihood of formal processing in 1989, cases in three of the four

general offense categories were more likely to be handled formally in 1998. Only the

percentage of drug offense cases remained

virtually the same. 

In 1998, juvenile courts petitioned nearly 6 of 10 delinquency cases

and adjudicated youth delinquent in more than 6 of 10 of those

petitioned cases 

Percentage of

Petitioned cases, 1998 petitioned cases

Most serious offense Number Percent adjudicated

Delinquency 1,000,300 57% 63%

Person offenses 236,500 59 61

Criminal homicide 1,700 86 40

Forcible rape 4,600 77 66

Robbery 26,000 88 62

Aggravated assault 47,200 73 64

Simple assault 131,800 50 60

Other violent sex offenses 7,900 75 61

Other person offenses 17,400 62 55

Property offenses 422,600 53 65

Burglary 96,600 77 71

Larceny-theft 153,400 41 64

Motor vehicle theft 33,500 76 71

Arson 5,100 61 65

Vandalism 60,100 51 61

Trespassing 27,600 43 58

Stolen property offenses 22,900 67 59

Other property offenses 23,500 73 58

Drug law violations 121,100 63 63

Public order offenses 220,100 61 63

Weapons offenses 26,000 64 65

Obstruction of justice 111,500 73 70

Disorderly conduct 37,100 40 54

Liquor law violations 8,700 45 55

Nonviolent sex offenses 6,400 59 66

Other public order offenses 30,300 63 50

Violent Crime Index* 79,500 77 63

Property Crime Index** 288,500 53 67

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

*The FBI’s Violent Crime Index includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and

aggravated assault.

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

and arson.

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

Source: Author’s adaptation of Puzzanchera et al.’s Juvenile Court Statistics 1998.
June 2003 21

In 1998, drug offense cases were the

most likely to be petitioned for formal

handling, and property offense cases

were the least likely. 

Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned:

Offense 1989 1998

Delinquency 50% 57%

Person 56 59

Property 48 53

Drugs 62 63

Public order 50 61

The percentage of cases

petitioned increased for

all demographic groups 

The likelihood of formal case processing

increased between 1989 and 1998 for

both genders and for all ages and races. 

Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned:

Characteristic 1989 1998

Gender

Male 53% 60%

Female 40 48

Race

White 46 54

Black 61 65

Other races 50 52

Age

15 or younger 48 54

16 or older 54 61

Note: All racial groups include Hispanics.

Males were more likely to have their cases

petitioned than were females. This was

true for each of the general offenses.

Black youth had a higher proportion of

cases petitioned than white youth or

youth of other races. This also was found

in each of the general offenses. Juveniles

age 16 or older were more likely to have

their cases petitioned than were younger

juveniles (overall and across offenses).

Adjudication was more

likely for some types of

cases than for others

Youth were adjudicated delinquent in a

smaller proportion of person offense

cases than in cases involving other types

of offenses. This lower rate of adjudication in person offense cases may reflect,

in part, reluctance to divert these cases

from the formal juvenile justice system

until a judge has had a chance to review

them. In addition, person offense cases

are more likely than other cases to be

judicially waived to criminal court.

In the majority of formally processed

cases involving males in 1998, the youth

was adjudicated delinquent. The likelihood of adjudication was somewhat

lower for females. This pattern held even

when controlling for offense category.

Percentage of petitioned cases in which the

juvenile was adjudicated delinquent, 1998:

Offense Male Female

Delinquency 64% 61%

Person 62 58

Property 66 61

Drugs 64 61

Public order 63 63

The proportion of cases adjudicated

in 1998 also varied by the race of the

youth. Black youth were less likely to be

adjudicated than were white youth or

youth of other races.

Percentage of petitioned cases in which the

juvenile was adjudicated delinquent, 1998:

Other

Offense White Black races

Delinquency 65% 60% 66%

Person 63 58 65

Property 66 61 66

Drugs 65 60 71

Public order 64 61 66

Note: All racial groups include Hispanics.

Cases involving younger youth were

more likely to result in adjudication than

were cases involving older youth.

Percentage of petitioned cases in which the

juvenile was adjudicated delinquent, 1998:

Age 15 or Age 16 or

Offense younger older

Delinquency 65% 62%

Person 62 59

Property 66 63

Drugs 66 62

Public order 65 61

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Number of cases adjudicated

Property

Person

Public order

Drugs

1989

Delinquency adjudications grew 65% between 1989 and 1998

■ The number of adjudicated delinquency cases increased 146% for drug cases,

111% for person cases, 105% for public order cases, and 26% for property cases.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Puzzanchera et al.’s Juvenile Court Statistics 1998.
22 National Report Series Bulletin

Most adjudicated delinquency cases in 1998 resulted

in residential placement or formal probation

Probation was more

likely than residential

placement 

In 26% of adjudicated delinquency cases,

the court ordered the youth to residential

placement such as a training school,

treatment center, boot camp, drug treatment or private placement facility, or

group home. In 58% of adjudicated delinquency cases, probation was the most

severe sanction ordered. 

Once adjudicated, females were less likely

to be ordered to residential placement

than were males, and white youth were

less likely than were black youth or youth

of other races. Demographic patterns in

the use of residential placement and probation, however, do not control for criminal histories and other risk factors related

to dispositional decisions and increased

severity of sanctions.

Percentage of adjudicated delinquency

cases, 1998:

Residential Formal

Characteristic placement probation

All cases 26% 58%

Gender

Male 27 57

Female 20 63

Race

White 24 58

Black 30 57

Other races 25 57

Age

12 and younger 16 67

13 23 63

14 26 60

15 28 58

16 28 55

17 and older 25 53

Note: All racial groups include Hispanics.

In 1998, residential placement or formal probation was ordered in

84% of delinquency cases; in 1989, the proportion was 86%

Percentage of 

adjudicated delinquency cases

Residential placement Formal probation

Most serious offense 1989 1998 1989 1998

Delinquency 31% 26% 55% 58%

Person offenses 33 27 54 58

Criminal homicide 64 51 33 39

Forcible rape 46 40 47 45

Robbery 45 43 43 47

Aggravated assault 33 30 54 56

Simple assault 28 23 58 61

Other violent sex offenses 29 33 61 55

Other person offenses 26 21 59 61

Property offenses 27 24 57 59

Burglary 34 29 57 59

Larceny-theft 22 22 59 61

Motor vehicle theft 36 39 51 52

Arson 27 25 58 57

Vandalism 18 17 61 62

Trespassing 23 20 55 60

Stolen property offenses 31 30 56 52

Other property offenses 25 16 58 64

Drug law violations 36 23 54 59

Public order offenses 38 28 50 54

Weapons offenses 27 26 63 62

Obstruction of justice 49 36 45 51

Disorderly conduct 20 15 58 64

Liquor law violations 18 9 57 52

Nonviolent sex offenses 37 34 56 58

Other public order offenses 23 13 49 46

Violent Crime Index* 39 35 49 52

Property Crime Index** 29 26 57 59

■ Cases involving youth adjudicated for serious person offenses, such as homicide, rape,

or robbery, were most likely to result in residential placement.

■ The relatively high residential placement rate for public order cases stems from that category’s inclusion of certain obstruction of justice offenses that have a high likelihood of

placement (e.g., escapes from confinement and violations of probation or parole).

*The FBI’s Violent Crime Index includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and

aggravated assault.

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

and arson.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Puzzanchera et al.’s Juvenile Court Statistics 1998.
June 2003 23

Residential placement

and probation caseloads

increased between

1989 and 1998

The total number of delinquency cases 

in which youth were placed out of the

home (including informal/voluntary and

formal placements) rose 41% between

1989 and 1998, from 125,700 to

176,700. The number of adjudicated

cases ordered to residential placement

increased 37% in that period, from

119,700 to 163,800. 

The total number of delinquency cases

receiving probation (either formal or

informal) as the most severe initial disposition increased 56% between 1989 and

1998, from 425,900 to 665,500. The number of cases adjudicated and ordered to

formal probation increased 73% in that

time, from 211,400 to 366,100. The

growth in probation caseloads was greater

than the growth in delinquency caseloads

at referral (44%) and adjudication (65%).

In addition, an increasing number of youth

received other sanctions (e.g., community service, restitution) as their most

severe disposition. Cases receiving other

sanctions represented 17% of cases disposed in 1998. The majority (77%) of

such cases were handled informally.

Overall, the number of cases receiving

other sanctions as their most severe disposition increased 61% from 1989 to

1998. The number of adjudicated cases

receiving other sanctions as their most

severe disposition rose 85% in this time,

from 38,400 to 71,000. 

Probation conditions 

are designed to control

and rehabilitate

Probation is the oldest and most widely

used community-based corrections

program. Probation is used both for 

first-time, low-risk offenders and as an

alternative to institutional confinement for

more serious offenders. During a period

of probation supervision, a juvenile offender remains in the community and can continue normal activities such as school

and work. However, the juvenile must

comply with certain conditions.

This compliance may be voluntary: the

youth agrees to conditions in lieu of formal adjudication. Or compliance may be

mandatory following adjudication: the

youth is formally ordered to a term of

probation and must comply with the conditions established by the court. More

than half (55%) of juvenile probation

dispositions in 1998 were formal (i.e.,

enacted under court order following

adjudication).

In addition to being required to meet

regularly with a probation officer, a juvenile may be ordered to adhere to a curfew, complete a specified period of community service, or pay restitution. More

serious offenders may be placed on

intensive supervision requiring more frequent contact with their probation officer

and stricter conditions. Typically, probation can be revoked if the juvenile violates

the probation conditions. If probation is

revoked, the court may reconsider its disposition and impose stricter sanctions.

The profiles of adjudicated cases ordered to residential placement

and those ordered to probation changed between 1989 and 1998

Percentage of residential Percentage of formal

placement cases probation cases

Characteristic 1989 1998 1989 1998

Most serious offense 100% 100% 100% 100%

Person 19 24 17 23

Property 50 41 59 45

Drugs 9 11 8 12

Public order 22 24 16 21

Gender 100% 100% 100% 100%

Male 88 85 85 79

Female 12 15 15 21

Race 100% 100% 100% 100%

White 60 61 63 66

Black 36 36 33 31

Other races 4 3 4 3

Age 100% 100% 100% 100%

12 and younger 5 4 8 8

13 9 9 10 10

14 17 17 17 17

15 25 25 23 23

16 26 27 24 24

17 and older 18 19 18 18

■ Compared with 1989, the profiles of residential placement and probation cases in 1998

contained greater proportions of person offenses and females. 

■ Compared with the profile of cases that resulted in residential placement in 1998, cases

that resulted in formal probation involved a greater proportion of property offenses

(45% versus 41%), females (21% versus 15%), whites (66% versus 61%), and youth

age 13 or younger (18% versus 13%).

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding. Juveniles of Hispanic ethnicity can be of

any race, but most are included in the white racial category.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Puzzanchera et al.’s Juvenile Court Statistics 1998.
24 National Report Series Bulletin

The processing of delinquency cases varied more

by offense than by gender

■ Although juvenile courts handled more

than 4 in 10 cases without the filing of a

petition, more than half of these cases

received some form of court sanction.

These sanctions included informal probation or other dispositions such as restitution, community service, or referral to

another agency for services.

■ In many formally handled delinquency

cases that did not result in adjudication,

the youth agreed to informal sanctions,

including out-of-home placement, informal

probation, or other dispositions such as

restitution.

Of every 1,000 delinquency cases handled in 1998, 208 resulted in court-ordered probation, 93 resulted in

court-ordered residential placement, and 5 were waived to criminal court

Compared with simple assault cases, aggravated assault cases were more likely to receive formal sanctions

or to be waived to criminal court

■ Juvenile courts ordered formal sanctions

or waived more than 4 in 10 aggravated

assault cases and fewer than 3 in 10 simple assault cases.

■ Juvenile courts waived 11 of 1,000 aggravated assault cases to criminal court. The

figure for simple assault cases was 2 of

1,000.

■ Of a typical 1,000 aggravated assault

cases, 139 were ordered to residential

placement, and 259 were ordered to

formal probation following adjudication.

■ Of a typical 1,000 simple assault cases,

69 were ordered to residential placement,

and 185 were ordered to formal probation

following adjudication.

■ Among aggravated assault cases, 138 of

1,000 were dismissed at intake, and 178

were dismissed following an adjudicatory

hearing. For simple assault cases, 239 of

1,000 were dismissed at intake, and 143

were dismissed following an adjudicatory

hearing.

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

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

139 Placed

11 Waived

A typical 1,000 259 Probation

aggravated assault cases 464 Adjudicated

39 Other sanction

725 Petitioned 27 Released

137 Informal 72 Informal 

275 Not petitioned 250 Not adjudicated

138 Dismissed 178 Dismissed

69 Placed

2 Waived

A typical 1,000 185 Probation

simple assault cases 302 Adjudicated

30 Other sanction

502 Petitioned 18 Released

259 Informal 56 Informal 

498 Not petitioned 198 Not adjudicated

239 Dismissed 143 Dismissed

93 Placed

5 Waived

A typical 1,000 208 Probation

delinquency cases 361 Adjudicated

40 Other sanction

19 Released

569 Petitioned

5 Placed 

2 Placed

30 Probation

140 Probation 204 Not adjudicated

431 Not petitioned 32 Other sanction

101 Other sanction

137 Dismissed

187 Dismissed
June 2003 25

Juvenile courts’ handling of assault cases varied more by offense severity (aggravated assault versus simple

assault) than by gender

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

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

■ The proportion of aggravated assault cases

that were petitioned was similar for males

(730 of 1,000) and females (711 of 1,000).

■ Of a typical 1,000 aggravated assault cases

involving males, 151 were ordered to residential placement and 255 were ordered to

formal probation following adjudication. 

■ Among females, 105 of 1,000 aggravated

assault cases resulted in court-ordered

residential placement and 271 in formal

probation.

■ Juvenile court processing of simple assault

cases involving males and those involving

females was substantially different from its

handling of aggravated assault cases.

■ Of a typical 1,000 simple assault cases

involving males, 80 were ordered to residential placement and 190 were ordered to

formal probation following adjudication. 

■ Among females, 47 of 1,000 simple

assault cases resulted in court-ordered

residential placement and 175 in formal

probation.

■ Among males, juvenile courts waived to

criminal court 13 of 1,000 aggravated

assault cases and 2 of 1,000 simple

assault cases.

■ In comparison, among females, juvenile

courts waived to criminal court 4 of 1,000

aggravated assault cases and 1 of 1,000

simple assault cases.

151 Placed

13 Waived

A typical 1,000 male 255 Probation

aggravated assault cases 473 Adjudicated

40 Other sanction

730 Petitioned 27 Released

131 Informal 71 Informal 

270 Not petitioned 244 Not adjudicated

139 Dismissed 173 Dismissed

105 Placed

4 Waived

A typical 1,000 female 271 Probation

aggravated assault cases 439 Adjudicated

36 Other sanction

711 Petitioned 27 Released

152 Informal 77 Informal 

289 Not petitioned 269 Not adjudicated

136 Dismissed 192 Dismissed

80 Placed

2 Waived

A typical 1,000 male 190 Probation

simple assault cases 321 Adjudicated

32 Other sanction

523 Petitioned 19 Released

248 Informal 57 Informal 

477 Not petitioned 200 Not adjudicated

229 Dismissed 143 Dismissed

47 Placed

1 Waived

A typical 1,000 female 175 Probation

simple assault cases 262 Adjudicated

26 Other sanction

457 Petitioned 14 Released

284 Informal 52 Informal 

543 Not petitioned 195 Not adjudicated

259 Dismissed 143 Dismissed
26 National Report Series Bulletin

The juvenile court’s use of judicial waiver has

changed over the past decade

The profile of waived

cases has changed 

In 1989, property cases were nearly half

of all delinquency cases judicially waived

from juvenile court to criminal court. In

1994, waived cases had a greater proportion of person offense cases than property cases (44% versus 37%). By 1998,

property cases once again accounted for

the largest proportion of waived cases

(40% versus 36% for person cases). In

comparison, drug and public order cases

made up smaller proportions of waived

cases in 1998 (16% and 8%, respectively).

Offense profile of judicially waived cases:

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Waived cases 100% 100% 100%

Person 28 44 36

Property 49 37 40

Drugs 16 11 16

Public order 7 8 8

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

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

The demographic characteristics of judicially waived cases have also changed

somewhat over the past decade.

Percentage of formally handled cases judicially waived to criminal court:

Characteristic 1989 1998

Gender 100% 100%

Male 95 93

Female 5 7

Race 100% 100%

White 49 55

Black 49 42

Other races 2 3

Age 100% 100%

15 or younger 11 13

16 or older 89 87

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding. All racial groups include Hispanics.

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

Delinquency

Juvenile courts waived 33% fewer delinquency cases to criminal

court in 1998 than in 1994

■ The number of delinquency cases waived to criminal court grew 51% between 1989

and 1994, from 8,000 to about 12,000. By 1998, waived cases were down 33%, nearly

to the 1989 level.

■ From 1993 through 1997, person offenses outnumbered property offenses among

waived cases. In 1998, property offenses outnumbered person offenses among waived

cases, as they had prior to 1993.

■ The number of waived person offense cases increased 133% from 1989 to 1994 and

then decreased 45% by 1998, for an overall increase of 28% from 1989 to 1998.

■ The number of waived drug cases was relatively flat, other than a 1-year jump in 1991

when the number of drug cases waived was nearly 40% greater than the average for all

other years between 1989 and 1998.

■ The overall proportion of petitioned delinquency cases waived was 1.3% in 1989,

peaked at 1.5% in 1991, and then dropped to 0.8% by 1998. 

■ From 1989 through 1992, drug cases were the most likely type of case to be waived.

From 1993 through 1998, person offense cases were the most likely type of case to be

waived. 

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

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

Person

Property

Drugs

Public order

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Percent of petitioned cases judicially

waived to criminal court

Drugs

Person

Property

Public order
June 2003 27

Although the proportions of judicially

waived cases involving females and

younger juveniles increased slightly

between 1989 and 1998, the vast majority of waived cases involved males age 

16 or older. However, the proportion of

older males among judicially waived

cases decreased somewhat, from 85%

in 1989 to 81% in 1998.

The likelihood of waiver

varied across case

characteristics

In 1998, a greater proportion of cases

involving males was waived than cases

involving females. This was true in each

of the four general offense categories. 

For example, males charged with person

offenses were four times as likely as

females charged with person offenses to

have their cases waived to criminal court.

However, this comparison does not control for male-female differences in the

seriousness of offenses within the person

offense category. 

Percentage of formally handled cases judicially waived to criminal court, 1998:

Offense Male Female

Delinquency 0.9% 0.3%

Person 1.5 0.4

Property 0.9 0.3

Drugs 1.2 0.5

Public order 0.4 0.1

For delinquency cases overall, a larger

proportion of cases involving black youth

was waived than cases involving white

youth or youth of other races. More

specifically, black youth were more likely

to be waived than other youth for person

and drug offenses. For white youth and

youth of other races, waiver was most

likely in person offense cases; for black

youth, it was most likely in drug offense

cases. 

Percentage of formally handled cases judicially waived to criminal court, 1998:

Other

Offense White Black races

Delinquency 0.7% 1.0% 0.8%

Person 1.1 1.4 2.2

Property 0.8 0.8 0.4

Drugs 0.6 2.0 0.4

Public order 0.2 0.4 0.4

Note: All racial groups include Hispanics.

In general, cases involving younger juveniles were less likely to be waived than

were cases involving older juveniles. This

was true for each of the four general

offense categories and across racial groups.

Percentage of formally handled cases judicially waived to criminal court, 1998:

Age 15 Age 16

Offense/race or younger or older

Delinquency 0.2% 1.6%

White 0.1 1.3

Black 0.3 2.1

Other races 0.1 1.6

Person 0.3 2.6

White 0.2 2.3

Black 0.5 3.0

Other races 0.6 4.2

Property 0.1 1.6

White 0.1 1.6

Black 0.2 1.8

Other races 0.0 1.1

Drugs 0.3 1.6

White 0.1 0.9

Black 0.5 2.9

Other races 0.0 0.8

Public order 0.1 0.5

White 0.1 0.4

Black 0.1 0.8

Other races 0.0 0.9

Note: All racial groups include Hispanics.

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

Property

Person

Public order Drugs

White

Racial differences in waiver stem primarily from differences in the

use of waiver for person and drug offense cases

■ The likelihood of waiver was greater for black than for white juveniles in each of the

four general offense categories. These data, however, do not control for racial differences in offense seriousness within those categories or in juveniles’ offense histories.

Note: All racial groups include Hispanics.

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

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

Person

Property

Drugs

Public order

Black

■ Both whites and blacks experienced sharp increases in person cases waived between

1989 and 1994; and substantially fewer person cases waived in 1998 than in 1994.

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

Percent of petitioned cases judicially

waived to criminal court

Person

Drugs

Property

Public order

White

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Percent of petitioned cases judicially

waived to criminal court

Drugs

Person

Property

Public order

Black
28 National Report Series Bulletin

Convicted transfers did not always receive 

harsher sanctions than adults received

Convicted juvenile

transfers differ from

adult felons

The National Judicial Reporting Program

compiles information on sentences that

felons receive in state courts nationwide

and on the felons’ characteristics. Data

are collected on a sample basis every

other year. The term “felony,” although

not uniformly defined or used across the

country, is often defined as crimes for

which a convicted offender can be sentenced to more than 1 year in prison. 

Juvenile-age felony defendants convicted

in criminal court were identified in 1996

data from a nationally representative

sample of 344 counties. These juvenile

transfers included those whose cases

were statutorily excluded from juvenile

court jurisdiction, filed in criminal court

at the discretion of prosecutors, and judicially waived from juvenile court to criminal court. The sample of transfers was

large, although not statistically representative of all juvenile transfers. 

Compared with adult felons, juvenile transfers were more likely to be male than female

and more likely to be black than white.

Percentage of convicted felons:

Transferred

Characteristic juvenile Adult

Gender 100% 100%

Male 96 84

Female 4 16

Race 100% 100%

White 43 53

Black 55 45

Other races 2 2

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding. All racial groups include Hispanics.

Juvenile transfers were

more likely than adults

to be convicted of a

person offense

In most states, provisions for transferring juveniles to criminal court target the

most serious offenses and the most serious juvenile offenders. The result is that,

compared with adult felons, transferred

juveniles had a substantially greater proportion of person offense convictions

(especially robbery and aggravated

assault) and a smaller proportion of

drug convictions.

Percentage of convicted felons:

Most serious Transferred

conviction offense juvenile Adult

All felonies 100% 100%

Person 53% 17%

Murder 7 1

Sexual assault 4 3

Robbery 23 4

Aggravated assault 17 7

Other person 1 1

Property 27% 30%

Burglary 19 9

Larceny 8 12

Fraud 1 8

Drugs 11% 37%

Possession 3 15

Trafficking 8 22

Weapons 3% 3%

Other offenses 6% 14%

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of

rounding.

Some transfers received

harsher sanctions than

adults; others did not

Among defendants convicted of burglary,

larceny, or weapons offenses, juvenile

transfers were more likely to be sentenced

to prison than were adult felons convicted

of similar offenses.

Percentage of convicted felons sentenced to

prison:

Most serious Transferred

conviction offense juvenile Adult

All felonies 60% 37%

Person 75% 78%

Murder 96 95

Sexual assault 73 75

Robbery 79 78

Aggravated assault 67 75

Property 46% 18%

Burglary 50 20

Larceny 37 17

Drugs 31% 34%

Possession 21 28

Trafficking 34 37

Weapons 55% 39%

Among defendants convicted of murder

or weapons offenses, transfers received

longer prison terms than adults. However,

among those convicted of sexual assault,

burglary, or drug offenses, transfers

received shorter prison terms than adults.

Mean maximum sentence length (in months)

for convicted felons sentenced to prison:

Most serious Transferred

conviction offense juvenile Adult

All felonies 91 59

Person 118 101

Murder 277 250

Sexual assault 105 117

Robbery 101 95

Aggravated assault 80 66

Property 39 46

Burglary 41 57

Larceny 33 38

Drugs 30 47

Possession 21 38

Trafficking 32 52

Weapons 48 42
June 2003 29

Those who begin offending as young children are

more likely to become violent offenders

Early-onset offenders

will place a burden on

justice resources

Snyder (2001) studied the juvenile court

records of more than 150,000 urban juveniles who aged out of the juvenile justice

system (i.e., turned age 18) between

1980 and 1995. The study found that the

earlier a youth enters the juvenile justice

system, the more likely he or she is to

acquire an extensive juvenile court record. The younger the juvenile is at first

referral to court, the more likely he or she

is to have at least four separate referrals

to juvenile court intake, at least one referral for a serious offense, and at least one

referral for a violent offense by the time

he or she reaches age 18. As a result,

early-onset youth will consume a disproportionate amount of the court’s resources.

Most early-onset offenders, however, do

not become serious, violent, or chronic

offenders. For example, 84% of youth

first referred to court intake at age 9 were

never referred to juvenile court for a violent offense. They were far more likely,

however, to be referred to juvenile court

for a violent crime eventually. 

Juvenile court career patterns differ depending on when offenders began their

careers, before or after age 13.

Number of youth out of a typical 1,000:

First referral

Before Age 13

Career type age 13 or older

Single referral 411 629

Serious 473 312

Chronic 317 116

Violent 130 72

Chronic and violent 104 31

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Age at first referral

16%

14%

13%

12%

11%

10%

7%

6%

4%

Percent of careers with a violent referral

The likelihood of becoming a violent offender declines with the age

at first referral to juvenile court

■ Of those referred to juvenile court for the first time at age 9, 16% had at least one 

referral for a violent offense before they turned 18.

Child Offenders

(first referral before age 13)

Chronic

Serious

Violent

Child offenders had a greater proportion of serious, violent, and 

chronic careers than older-onset youth

■ Those outside the serious, violent, and chronic inner circles were referred to court

between 1 and 3 times but never for a serious offense. Overlaps represent careers with

multiple attributes. The circles and their overlaps are drawn in proportion to the number

of careers with those attributes.

Violent offenses: murder, kidnapping, violent sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Serious offenses: violent offenses plus burglary, serious larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson,

weapons offenses, and drug trafficking.

Chronic offenders: 4 or more referrals in court career.

Note: If these circles were drawn to scale, the child offender circle would be one sixth of the

circle for older onset offenders—roughly the size of the small circle in the center.

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

Older-Onset Offenders

(first referral at age 13 or older)

Chronic

Serious

Violent
30 National Report Series Bulletin

The formal status offense caseload differs 

substantially from the delinquency caseload

What are status offenses?

Status offenses are those behaviors that

are law violations only if committed by a

person of juvenile status. Such behaviors

include running away from home, ungovernability (being beyond the control of parents or guardians), truancy, curfew violations, and underage drinking (which also

applies to young adults through age 20).

Police refer few truancy,

ungovernability, or

runaway cases to court

Law enforcement agencies referred 4 in

10 runaway cases formally handled in

juvenile court between 1989 and 1998*

and just 1 in 10 truancy and ungovernability cases. Law enforcement agencies

were more likely to be the referral source

for status liquor law violation cases than

for other status offense cases.

Percentage of formal status offense cases

referred by law enforcement agencies: 

Offense 1989–98

Runaway 40%

Truancy 10

Ungovernability 11

Liquor 92

Females account for

most runaway cases 

Another major difference between delinquency and status offense cases is the

large proportion of cases that involve

females. 

Percentage of formal status offense cases

involving females:

Offense 1989–98

Runaway 61%

Truancy 46

Ungovernability 45

Liquor 29

The proportion of cases

adjudicated varied by

status offense category

Truancy and ungovernability cases were

more likely to be adjudicated than other

types of status offense cases. 

Percentage of formal status offense cases

adjudicated, 1989–98:

Offense Total Male Female

Runaway 45% 46% 45%

Truancy 60 60 60

Ungovernability 61 61 60

Liquor 59 60 55

In most adjudicated

status offense cases, the

court ordered probation

From 1989 through 1998, among adjudicated runaway, truancy, ungovernability,

and liquor law violation cases, formal

probation was the most likely disposition.

A few cases were ordered to out-of-home

placement, and some (primarily liquor

law violation cases) resulted in other

sanctions such as fines, community

service, restitution, or referrals to other

agencies for services. The remaining few

were released with no additional sanction.

Percentage of adjudicated status offense

cases receiving disposition, 1989–98:

Residential Formal

Offense placement probation

Runaway 26% 56%

Truancy 11 78

Ungovernability 26 64

Liquor 7 57

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Age at referral

Percent of cases within offense category, 1989–98

Liquor

Truancy

Runaway

Ungovernability

During the 10-year period 1989–98, the volume of petitioned 

truancy, runaway, and ungovernability cases peaked at age 15

■ For liquor law violation cases, the proportion of cases increased substantially throughout

the juvenile years.

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

*Available data cannot support national estimates

of the trends and volume of petitioned status

offense cases. Data are, therefore, presented as

sample-based profiles of cases disposed during

the 10-year period 1989–98.
June 2003 31

During the 10-year period from 1989 through 1998, juvenile courts were less likely to order formal probation

in runaway cases than in other types of status offense cases

■ Of a typical 1,000 petitioned runaway

cases, 251 were ordered to formal

probation. In comparison, the figure

was 471 for truancy cases, 388 for

ungovernability cases, and 333 for

liquor law violation cases.

■ Among petitioned runaway cases, the

youth was not adjudicated in 548 of 

a typical 1,000 cases. Of these 548

cases, 172 received informal sanctions

or were referred to a social services

agency for handling, and 376 were

dismissed.

■ Of a typical 1,000 petitioned truancy

cases, 603 were adjudicated, and 585

received some sort of formal sanction. 

■ Use of informal sanctions was relatively

uncommon in formally processed truancy cases (89 of 1,000).

■ Juvenile courts were more likely to

order youth to residential placement in

petitioned ungovernability cases (157

of 1,000) than in other types of status

offenses, but formal probation was the

most likely court-ordered disposition

for ungovernability cases (388 of

1,000). 

■ Among petitioned liquor law violation

cases, the most likely outcome was

formal probation (333 of 1,000), although the court often ordered formal

sanctions other than residential placement or probation (195 of 1,000).

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

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

117 Placed

251 Probation

Runaway 452 Adjudicated

44 Other sanction

A typical 1,000 petitioned

runaway cases 40 Released

172 Informal 

548 Not adjudicated

376 Dismissed

65 Placed

471 Probation

Truancy 603 Adjudicated

49 Other sanction

A typical 1,000 petitioned

truancy cases 19 Released

89 Informal 

397 Not adjudicated

308 Dismissed

157 Placed

388 Probation

Ungovernability 607 Adjudicated

41 Other sanction

A typical 1,000 petitioned

ungovernability cases 20 Released

93 Informal 

393 Not adjudicated

300 Dismissed

42 Placed

333 Probation

Liquor law violation 588 Adjudicated

195 Other sanction

A typical 1,000 petitioned

liquor law violation cases 18 Released

210 Informal 

412 Not adjudicated

202 Dismissed
National Report Series Bulletin NCJ 195420

This Bulletin was prepared under cooperative agreement number 95–JN–FX–K008 from the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily

represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or

the U.S. Department of Justice.

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by Melissa

Sickmund, Senior Research Associate at

the National Center for Juvenile Justice,

with funds provided by OJJDP to support

the Juvenile Justice Statistics and Systems

Development Program and the National

Juvenile Justice Data Analysis Program.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention is a component of the Office of

Justice Programs, which also includes the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of

Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Sources

Griffin, P. 2000. State Juvenile Justice Profiles.

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/.

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

(1966). 

Levin, D., Langan, P., and Brown, J. 2000. State

Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 1975–1986.

Juvenile Court Statistics (1973 through 1984).

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2000. National

Juvenile Court Data Archive: Juvenile Court Case

Records 1975–1997 [machine-readable data file].

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2001. National

Juvenile Court Data Archive: Juvenile Court Case

Records 1989–1998 [machine-readable data file].

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A.L., Finnegan, T.A., Tierney,

N., and Snyder, H.N. 2003. Juvenile Court Statistics

1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H. 2001. Epidemiology of official offending.

In Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention, 

and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber and D.

Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Snyder, H., Finnegan, T., Stahl, A., and Poole, R.

2000. Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics:

1989–1998 [data presentation and analysis package].

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention. ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/

ezajcs98.

Snyder, H., Sickmund, M., and Poe-Yamagata, E.

2000. Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the

1990’s: Lessons Learned From Four Studies.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

1962–1974. Juvenile Court Statistics (1960 through

1972). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

*ncj~195420*