National 

Report Series

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

June 2004

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

Juveniles in 

Corrections

Melissa Sickmund

This Bulletin is part of the 

Juvenile Offenders and 

Victims National Report Series.

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.

A Message From OJJDP

The biennial Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement provides the nation with a detailed

picture of juveniles in custody—age, race, gender, offenses, adjudication status, and more.

Conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the census surveys both public and private juvenile residential placement facilities in every state.

This Bulletin presents the latest available national and state-level data from the census, portraying the 134,011 youth held in 2,939 facilities on October 27, 1999. Because the census

does not survey adult facilities, the Bulletin draws on other sources for statistics on offenders

younger than 18 who were held in jails and adult prisons. It also examines imposition of the

death penalty for crimes committed by offenders when they were younger than 18.

Clear, comprehensive, reliable statistical information on juveniles in custody, such as that

presented in this Bulletin, is an invaluable resource for policymakers and juvenile justice professionals. This information is essential not only for planning and operating juvenile residential facilities but also for understanding and preventing delinquency.

J. Robert Flores 

OJJDP Administrator

Office of Justice Programs

Partnerships for Safer Communities

www.ojp.usdoj.gov
2 National Report Series Bulletin

Detailed data are 

available on juveniles in

residential placement in

the United States

Information on residents in juvenile custody is drawn from the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP).

The U.S. Bureau of the Census administered the CJRP for the first time in 1997

for the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The

CJRP, which is conducted biennially, provides the nation with the most detailed

picture of juveniles in custody that has

ever been produced. It asks all juvenile

residential facilities in the U.S. to describe each youth assigned a bed in the

facility on the fourth Wednesday in October. The census does not include federal

facilities or those exclusively for drug or

mental health treatment or for abused/

neglected youth. 

The CJRP collects individual data on each

juvenile offender in residential placement,

including gender, date of birth, race,

placement authority, most serious offense

charged, court adjudication status, date

of admission, and security status. Facilities also provide information about the

housing of overflow detention populations, physical layout of the facility, separation of residents, counts of residents

age 21 and older, and the use of locked

doors and/or gates. These detailed data

are collected on residents who meet all

of the following inclusion criteria for the

census: 

■ Younger than 21.

■ Assigned a bed in a residential facility

at the end of the day on the fourth

Wednesday of October.

■ Charged with an offense or court

adjudicated for an offense.

■ In residential placement because of

that offense. 

CJRP does not capture data on juveniles

held in adult prisons or jails; therefore, in

the CJRP data, juveniles placed in juvenile facilities by criminal courts represent

an unknown proportion of juveniles incarcerated by criminal courts.

One-day count and

admission data give

different views of

residential populations 

The CJRP provides 1-day population

counts of juveniles in residential placement facilities. Such 1-day counts provide a picture of the standing population

in facilities. One-day counts are substantially different from annual admission and

release data, which provide a measure of

facility population flow. 

Juveniles may be committed to a facility

as part of a court-ordered disposition or

they may be detained prior to adjudication or after adjudication while awaiting

disposition or placement elsewhere. In

addition, a small proportion of juveniles

may be admitted voluntarily in lieu of

adjudication as part of a diversion agreement. Because detention stays tend to be

short compared with commitment placements, detained juveniles represent a

much larger share of population flow data

than of 1-day count data.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

profiles juvenile offenders in custody

State variations in upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction influence custody rates

Although state custody rate statistics

control for upper age of original juvenile

court jurisdiction, comparisons made

among states with different upper ages

are problematic. While 16- and 17-yearolds constitute approximately 25% of

the youth population ages 10–17, they

account for nearly 50% of arrests of

youth under age 18, nearly 40% of delinquency court cases, and more than 50%

of juveniles in residential placement. If

all other factors were equal, one would

expect higher juvenile custody rates in

states where older youth are under juvenile court jurisdiction.

In addition, differences in age limits of

extended jurisdiction influence custody

rates. Some states may keep a juvenile

in custody for several years beyond the

upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction; others cannot. Variations in provisions for transferring juveniles to criminal court also have an impact on juvenile

custody rates. If all other factors were

equal, states with broad transfer provisions would be expected to have lower

juvenile custody rates than other states.

Demographic variations should also be

considered when making jurisdictional

comparisons. The urbanicity and economics of an area are thought to be

related to crime and custody rates. Available bedspace also influences custody

rates, particularly in rural areas. 
June 2004 3

Nearly 8 in 10 residents

were juveniles held for

delinquency offenses

The vast majority of residents in juvenile

residential placement facilities on October

27, 1999, were juvenile offenders (81%).

Juvenile offenders held for delinquency

offenses accounted for 78% of all residents. Delinquency offenses are behaviors that would be criminal law violations

for adults. Status offenders accounted for

a small proportion of all residents (4%).

Status offenses are behaviors that are not

law violations for adults, such as running

away, truancy, and incorrigibility. Some

residents were held in the facility but

were not charged with or adjudicated for

an offense (e.g., youth referred for abuse,

neglect, emotional disturbance, or mental

retardation, or those referred by their

parents). Together, these other residents

and youth age 21 or older accounted for

19% of all residents. These proportions

changed little between 1997 and 1999.

Youth in facilities on 

Most the census reference day

serious Number Percent

offense 1997 1999 1997 1999

All residents 125,805 134,011 100%100%

Offenders 105,790 108,931 84 81

Delinquency 98,913 104,237 79 78

Person 35,357 38,005 28 28

Violent 26,498 27,221 21 20

Status 6,877 4,694 5 4

Incorrigibility 2,849 1,843 2 1

Runaway 1,497 1,083 1 1

Truancy 1,332 913 1 1

Other residents*20,015 25,080 16 19

*Includes youth age 21 or older and those held

in the facility but not charged with or adjudicated for an offense.

Note: The census reference dates were

October 29, 1997, and October 27, 1999. For

all tables in this Bulletin, detail may not add to

totals because of rounding and totals may

include categories not detailed.

Two out of three 

facilities are private,

but they hold fewer

than one in three

juvenile offenders

Private facilities are operated by private

nonprofit or for-profit corporations or

organizations; those who work in these

facilities are employees of the private corporation or organization. State or local

government agencies operate public facilities; those who work in these facilities

are state or local government employees.

Private facilities tend to be smaller than

public facilities. Thus, although there are

more private than public facilities nationwide, public facilities hold the majority of

juvenile offenders on any given day. In

1999, private facilities accounted for 61%

of facilities holding juvenile offenders;

however, they held just 29% of juvenile

offenders in residential placement on the

census reference day.

Percent

Facility Number change

operation 1997 1999 1997–99

Facilities

All facilities 2,844 2,939 3%

Public 1,108 1,136 3

Private 1,736 1,794 3

Tribal* – 9 –

Juvenile offenders

All facilities 105,790 108,931 3%

Public 76,335 77,158 1

Private 29,455 31,599 7

Tribal* – 174 –

* CJRP did not include tribal facilities in 1997.

Between 1997 and 1999, the number of

public facilities and the number of private

facilities holding juvenile offenders each

increased 3%. Overall, there was also a

3% increase between 1997 and 1999 in

the number of juvenile offenders in

custody. Private facilities, however, experienced a disproportionate increase in

their offender population (7%) compared

with public facilities (1%).

Private facilities are an

important custody

resource

Private facilities hold a different population of offenders than do public facilities.

Compared with public facilities, private

facilities have a greater proportion of

juveniles who have been committed to

the facility by the court and a smaller

proportion of juveniles who are detained

(pending adjudication, disposition, or

placement elsewhere). 

Custody status profile, 1999:

Custody Facility operation

status Total Public Private Tribal

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Diversion 0 0 1 2

Detained 25 30 14 45

Committed 74 70 85 53

Facility operation profile, 1999:

Custody Facility operation

status Total Public Private Tribal

Total 100% 72% 27% 0%

Diversion 100 29 71 1

Detained 100 85 15 0

Committed 100 68 31 0

Public facilities held most detained (85%)

and most committed juveniles (68%).

Private facilities, however, held the majority of juveniles who were in residential

placement as part of a diversion agreement in lieu of adjudication (71%). In

addition, although status offenders were

only 10% of offenders in private facilities,

65% of status offenders in residential

placement were held in private facilities.

The 1999 profile of residents in juvenile custody

facilities was similar to the 1997 profile
4 National Report Series Bulletin

Is the increase in the

custody population

real?

Compared with data reported by public

and private juvenile facilities in the 1991

Children in Custody census, the 1999

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement data show a 43% increase in the

number of juvenile offenders held and a

50% increase in the number of delinquents held. However, because the two

data collections are not strictly comparable, it is impossible to determine if any of

this apparent growth is actually an artifact of the change in methods. For example, the CJRP’s October census date may

have resulted in a larger count compared

with the CIC’s February date. In addition,

the CJRP’s roster format, more explicit

definitions, and use of electronic reporting

may have facilitated a more complete and

accurate accounting of facility residents.

The data give support

to the veracity of the

trends since 1991

The data do, however, provide a strong

indication that the changes are real. For

example, it seems unlikely that the new

CJRP method is merely counting more

residents than the CIC method given that

the population increases between the last

wave of CIC data and the first wave of

CJRP (i.e., between 1995 and 1997) were

not necessarily the greatest biennial

increases. In addition, the trends seen in

the custody data are comparable to the

trends observed in data from juvenile

courts. Most telling is the fact that the

CJRP data show an 8% drop in the number of status offenders held compared

Juvenile facilities reported more juvenile delinquents

in placement in 1999 than at any time since 1991

Custody status/ Percent change in the number of residents

facility operation 1991–93 1993–95 1995–97 1997–99 1991–99

Offenders

Public and private 4% 16% 16% 3% 43%

Public 5 14 12 1 36

Private –2 21 25 7 60

Delinquent offenders

Public and private 4% 16% 18% 5% 50%

Public 6 14 13 1 38

Private –1 24 37 17 98

Committed

Public and private 2% 14% 20% 8% 51%

Public 3 12 16 5 41

Private –1 23 31 13 79

Detained

Public and private 12% 20% 7% 1% 46%

Public 13 19 3 –5 31

Private 6 44 79 61 340

Note: Juvenile offenders are youth under age 21 charged with a law violation (i.e., either a

delinquency or a status offense). Committed juveniles are those in placement in the facility as

part of a juvenile or criminal court-ordered disposition. Detained juveniles are those held prior

to adjudication while awaiting an adjudication hearing in juvenile court, those held after adjudication while awaiting disposition or after disposition while awaiting placement elsewhere, and

those awaiting transfer to adult criminal court or awaiting a hearing or trial in adult criminal court.

Source: Author’s analysis of OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

[machine-readable data files] and Children in Custody Census of Public and Private Juvenile

Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities [machine-readable data files].

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Offenders in juvenile facilities

Public and private

Public

Private

Total

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Offenders in juvenile facilities

Public and private

Public

Private

Delinquent

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Delinquents in juvenile facilities

Public and private

Public

Private

Detained

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

Delinquents in juvenile facilities

Public and private

Public

Private

Committed

Juvenile facilities reported 51% more juvenile delinquents committed

to residential placement in 1999 than in 1991
June 2004 5

Source: Author’s analysis of OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

[machine-readable data files] and Children

in Custody Census of Public and Private

Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities [machine-readable data files].

with the last wave of CIC data. This provides even more evidence that the CJRP

method is not merely counting more individuals than the CIC method.

For most status offense

categories, fewer youth

were in custody in

1999 than in 1997

From 1997 to 1999, the number of status

offenders in both public and private facilities declined for all offense categories

except underage drinking. The number

of juveniles held in public facilities for

underage drinking rose 68%, which more

than offset the 12% decline in private

facilities.

Percent change in the number of 

residents, 1997–99:

Most serious Facility operation

offense Total Public Private

Status offense –32% –9% –40%

Incorrigibility –35 –10 –40

Runaway –28 –2 –40

Truancy –31 –25 –34

Underage drinking 18 68 –12

Curfew violation –46 * –57

Other status –46 –25 –58

* Too few juveniles to calculate a reliable 

percentage.

Some declines were seen in the number of juveniles held for

relatively serious offenses (such as homicide, robbery, and burglary) 

Percent change in the number of juveniles 

in residential placement, 1997–99

Most serious offense All facilities Public facilities Private facilities

Total juvenile offenders 3% 1% 7%

Delinquency 5 1 17

Person 7 2 24

Criminal homicide –21 –25 40

Sexual assault 34 29 46

Robbery –14 –11 –26

Aggravated assault 6 –3 54

Simple assault 12 8 18

Other person 50 40 82

Property –1 –1 1

Burglary –3 –4 1

Theft –5 –8 2

Auto theft –5 –5 –5

Arson 23 21 28

Other property 13 16 5

Drug 6 4 12

Drug trafficking 2 –3 18

Other drug 9 8 10

Public order 8 3 20

Weapons –4 –5 –1

Other public order 17 10 31

Technical violation* 12 1 63

Violent Crime Index† –3 –4 0

Property Crime Index‡ 3 –2 21

■ In public facilities, the number of juveniles held for simple assault rose 8% and the number held for other person offenses not included in the Violent Crime Index rose 40%. 

■ In private facilities, the number of juveniles held for simple assault rose 18% and the

number held for other person offenses not included in the Violent Crime Index rose 82%.

■ There was a 12% increase in the number of juveniles held for technical probation,

parole, or court order violations. The growth was driven by the change in private facilities (63%) rather than public facilities (1%).

* Technical violations = violations of probation, parole, and valid court order.

† Violent Crime Index = criminal homicide, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

‡ Property Crime Index = burglary, theft, auto theft, and arson.

Source: Author’s analysis of OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement [machinereadable data files].

Since 1995, the numbers of

status offenders in custody

have declined

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Offenders in juvenile facilities

Public and private

Private

Public

Status offenders
6 National Report Series Bulletin

The offense profiles were similar for those held in

public facilities and those held in private facilities

Public and private

facilities had different

status offender profiles

Incorrigibility was the most common status offense category, especially for juveniles in private facilities. Private facilities

held 77% of all incorrigibles in placement. Compared with private facilities, a

larger proportion of youth in public facilities were held for running away or underage drinking.

Juvenile offenders in custody, 1999:

Most serious Facility operation

offense Total Public Private

Status offense 4,694 1,623 3,063

Incorrigibility 1,843 414 1,425

Runaway 1,083 477 606

Truancy 913 300 612

Underage drinking 378 189 183

Curfew violation 105 57 48

Other status 372 183 189

Status offense profile of residents, 1999:

Most serious Facility operation

offense Total Public Private

Status offense 100% 100% 100%

Incorrigibility 39 26 47

Runaway 23 29 20

Truancy 19 18 20

Underage drinking 8 12 6

Curfew violation 2 4 2

Other status 8 11 6

Although public and private facility offense profiles were similar,

public facilities had a greater proportion of juveniles held for Violent

Crime Index offenses

Juvenile offenders in residential 

placement on October 27, 1999

All facilities Public facilities Private facilities

Most serious offense Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total juvenile offenders 108,931 100% 77,158 100% 31,599 100%

Delinquency 104,237 96 75,537 98 28,536 90

Person 38,005 35 28,056 36 9,897 31

Criminal homicide 1,514 1 1,368 2 141 <1

Sexual assault 7,511 7 5,154 7 2,352 7

Robbery 8,212 8 6,825 9 1,386 4

Aggravated assault 9,984 9 7,848 10 2,124 7

Simple assault 7,448 7 4,479 6 2,949 9

Other person 3,336 3 2,385 3 948 3

Property 31,817 29 22,725 29 9,051 29

Burglary 12,222 11 9,069 12 3,141 10

Theft 6,944 6 4,791 6 2,148 7

Auto theft 6,225 6 4,164 5 2,040 6

Arson 1,126 1 843 1 282 1

Other property 5,300 5 3,855 5 1,437 5

Drug 9,882 9 6,819 9 3,054 10

Drug trafficking 3,106 3 2,298 3 807 3

Other drug 6,776 6 4,521 6 2,247 7

Public order 10,487 10 7,380 10 3,087 10

Weapons 4,023 4 3,162 4 858 3

Other public order 6,464 6 4,215 5 2,229 7

Technical violation* 14,046 13 10,557 14 3,447 11

Violent Crime Index† 27,221 25 21,192 27 6,003 19

Property Crime Index‡ 26,517 24 18,870 24 7,614 24

Status offense 4,694 4 1,623 2 3,063 10

■ Compared with public facilities, private facilities held a smaller proportion of delinquent

offenders and a larger proportion of status offenders.

■ Juveniles held for aggravated assault made up 10% of offenders in public facilities and

7% of those in private facilities. Juveniles held for simple assault made up 6% of

offenders in public facilities and 9% of those in private facilities.

* Technical violations = violations of probation, parole, and valid court order.

† Violent Crime Index = criminal homicide, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

‡ Property Crime Index = burglary, theft, auto theft, and arson.

Source: Author’s analysis of OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement [machinereadable data files].
June 2004 7

The U.S. custody rate

did not change much

from 1997 to 1999

In 1999, the overall custody rate in the

United States was just 1% greater than

the 1997 rate. However, there was substantial variation from state to state. In 20

states, rates declined or remained stable;

rates increased in the rest of the country.

Percent change

in custody rate

State of offense 1997–99

Rhode Island –30%

Tennessee –28

Maine –25

Nevada –18

Missouri, Montana –17

North Dakota –11

Hawaii, Washington –8

Arizona, California –6

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin –5

Wyoming –4

Alabama, Iowa, Nebraska –3

Georgia –1

Kansas, Maryland 0

Alaska, Connecticut 1

Louisiana, West Virginia 2

New Jersey, New York 3

Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina,

Virginia 4

Dist. of Columbia, Indiana,

Massachusetts, Mississippi 6

Colorado, Delaware 8

Florida, New Hampshire 9

New Mexico 11

Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota,

North Carolina, Texas 13

Michigan 14

South Dakota 16

Arkansas 18

Utah 31

Vermont 36

Oklahoma 40

Idaho 52

State custody rates in 1999 showed a broad range—

from 96 to 632 per 100,000 juveniles

Nationwide in 1999, 371 offenders were held in juvenile facilities per

100,000 juveniles in the population

Juvenile offenders in Juvenile offenders in

residential placement residential placement

State of on October 27, 1999 State of on October 27, 1999

offense Number Rate offense Number Rate

U.S. total 108,931 371 Upper age 17 (continued)

Upper age 17 Oklahoma 1,123 273

Alabama 1,589 333 Oregon 1,549 404

Alaska 382 419 Pennsylvania 3,819 285

Arizona 1,901 334 Rhode Island 310 284

Arkansas 705 234 South Dakota 603 632

California 19,072 514 Tennessee 1,534 256

Colorado 1,979 407 Utah 985 320

Delaware 347 431 Vermont 67 96

Dist. of Columbia 259 704 Virginia 3,085 415

Florida 6,813 427 Washington 2,094 307

Hawaii 118 96 West Virginia 388 202

Idaho 360 220 Wyoming 310 488

Indiana 2,650 384 Upper age 16

Iowa 1,017 296 Georgia 3,729 475

Kansas 1,254 383 Illinois 3,885 322

Kentucky 1,188 270 Louisiana 2,745 580

Maine 242 167 Massachusetts 1,188 206

Maryland 1,579 269 Michigan 4,324 417

Minnesota 1,760 290 Missouri 1,161 205

Mississippi 784 229 New Hampshire 216 167

Montana 246 220 South Carolina 1,650 441

Nebraska 720 342 Texas 7,954 370

Nevada 789 378 Wisconsin 1,924 338

New Jersey 2,386 273 Upper age 15

New Mexico 855 378 Connecticut 1,466 513

North Dakota 235 297 New York 4,813 334

Ohio 4,531 345 North Carolina 1,429 221

Note: The rate is the number of juvenile offenders in residential placement per 100,000 juveniles age 10 through the upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction in each state. U.S.

total includes 2,645 juvenile offenders in private facilities for whom state of offense was not

reported and 174 juvenile offenders in tribal facilities.

Source: Author’s analysis of OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement [machinereadable data files].
8 National Report Series Bulletin

Person offenders were 35% of juvenile offenders in

custody nationwide; drug offenders were 9%

The offense profile for most states had a greater proportion of juveniles held for person crimes than for 

property crimes

Most serious offense Most serious offense

State of Violent Other Public State of Violent Other Public

offense Index person Property Drug order Status offense Index person Property Drug order Status

U.S. total 25% 10% 29% 9% 23% 4% Missouri 22% 7% 35% 7% 14% 16%

Alabama 9 13 27 7 32 11 Montana 20 12 41 5 20 2

Alaska 20 8 35 3 32 2 Nebraska 14 5 52 5 18 5

Arizona 9 14 32 17 26 3 Nevada 13 11 25 17 32 2

Arkansas 16 14 32 5 29 4 New Hampshire 15 40 25 1 11 7

California 34 7 28 7 23 1 New Jersey 24 5 20 22 21 9

Colorado 25 18 27 6 21 3 New Mexico 15 5 32 16 31 0

Connecticut 13 12 17 21 34 3 New York 32 7 26 11 10 14

Delaware 18 15 32 11 22 2 North Carolina 19 18 40 8 13 2

Dist. of Columbia 14 15 27 25 19 0 North Dakota 8 22 27 6 10 27

Florida 22 13 34 10 20 1 Ohio 27 8 31 8 22 4

Georgia 20 11 30 8 29 2 Oklahoma 33 6 37 6 13 5

Hawaii 23 13 36 3 23 3 Oregon 52 7 31 2 8 0

Idaho 21 15 28 3 31 3 Pennsylvania 18 13 20 12 31 5

Illinois 30 5 22 12 29 1 Rhode Island 29 11 21 17 20 1

Indiana 9 18 30 8 26 10 South Carolina 16 7 26 6 41 3

Iowa 16 19 35 8 17 5 South Dakota 11 10 33 5 35 6

Kansas 25 14 34 6 20 1 Tennessee 18 6 23 8 27 18

Kentucky 16 14 26 9 19 16 Texas 29 11 30 8 20 1

Louisiana 27 6 39 12 10 6 Utah 27 6 29 11 20 7

Maine 16 21 50 1 10 2 Vermont 27 18 31 0 9 13

Maryland 16 11 30 24 19 1 Virginia 21 11 26 7 30 4

Massachusetts 35 10 29 8 16 2 Washington 36 7 34 6 16 1

Michigan 27 9 30 5 18 12 West Virginia 19 10 29 8 20 14

Minnesota 21 12 28 5 26 8 Wisconsin 24 15 34 7 16 4

Mississippi 6 7 25 5 57 0 Wyoming 6 9 34 13 22 16

■ Nationally, 29% of juveniles in residential placement were being 

held for property crimes. In comparison, 35% were held for person

offenses (Violent Index plus other person offenses).

■ States with the highest proportions of Violent Crime Index offenders

were Oregon (52%), Washington (36%), Massachusetts (35%),

California (34%), and Oklahoma (33%). North Dakota (8%),

Mississippi (6%), and Wyoming (6%) had the lowest proportions.

■ The proportion of juveniles held for drug offenses ranged from 25%

in the District of Columbia to 1% in Maine and New Hampshire and

0% in Vermont.

Note: U.S. total includes 2,645 juvenile offenders in private facilities for

whom state of offense was not reported and 174 juvenile offenders in tribal

facilities.

Source: Author’s analysis of OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential

Placement 1999 [machine-readable data files].

District of

Columbia

0%–15%

15%–20%

20%–25%

25%–52%

Percent of juveniles held for Violent Crime Index offenses
June 2004 9

Minority youth accounted for 7 in 10 juveniles held

in custody for a violent offense in 1999

Non-Hispanic black youth accounted for 55% of juveniles held for

robbery and 65% of those held for drug trafficking

Racial/ethnic profile of juvenile offenders

in residential placement, 1999

American

Most serious offense Total White Black Hispanic Indian Asian

Total 100% 38% 39% 18% 2% 2%

Delinquency 100 37 40 19 2 2

Criminal homicide 100 23 44 24 3 6

Sexual assault 100 52 31 13 2 1

Robbery 100 19 55 22 1 3

Aggravated assault 100 29 40 25 2 3

Simple assault 100 43 37 15 2 1

Burglary 100 43 34 18 2 2

Theft 100 43 38 15 2 1

Auto theft 100 36 38 21 2 3

Drug trafficking 100 16 65 18 0 1

Other drug 100 30 47 20 1 1

Weapons 100 26 42 27 1 4

Technical violation* 100 39 39 18 2 2

Status 100 54 31 10 2 1

10% of non-Hispanic white youth in custody were held for a sexual

assault, compared with 5% of Hispanic and non-Hispanic black youth

Offense profile of juvenile offenders

in residential placement, 1999

American

Most serious offense Total White Black Hispanic Indian Asian

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Delinquency 96 94 97 98 95 98

Criminal homicide 1 1 2 2 2 4

Sexual assault 7 10 5 5 7 3

Robbery 8 4 11 9 4 11

Aggravated assault 9 7 9 13 10 15

Simple assault 7 8 6 6 8 5

Burglary 11 13 10 11 13 12

Theft 6 7 6 5 6 5

Auto theft 6 5 6 6 7 8

Drug trafficking 3 1 5 3 1 1

Other drug 6 5 7 7 5 4

Weapons 4 3 4 5 2 7

Technical violation* 13 13 13 13 14 10

Status 4 6 3 2 5 2

*Technical violations = violations of probation, parole, and valid court order.

Note: Race proportions do not include youth of Hispanic ethnicity. Totals include a small number of youth for whom race/ethnicity was not reported or was reported as “other.” Detail may

not total 100% because of rounding or because all offenses are not presented.

Source: Author’s analysis of OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement [machinereadable data files].

More than 6 in 10

juvenile offenders in

residential placement

were minority youth

On any given day in 1999, nearly twothirds (65%) of juvenile offenders in

placement in public facilities were minority youth. In private facilities the proportion of minority youth was just over half

(55%).

Racial profile of juvenile offenders in

residential placement, 1999:

Facility operation

Race/ethnicity Total Public Private

Total 100% 100% 100%

White 38 35 45

Minority 62 65 55

Black 39 40 38

Hispanic 18 21 12

American Indian 2 2 2

Asian 2 2 2

Note: The census reference date was 

October 27, 1999.

The racial/ethnic profile in 1999 was similar to the profile of juveniles in custody

in 1995. However, the 1999 data show a

somewhat smaller proportion of minority

youth in public facilities and a larger proportion in private facilities than the 1995

data.

Racial profile of juvenile offenders in

residential placement, 1995:

Facility operation

Race/ethnicity Total Public Private

Total 100% 100% 100%

White 37 32 53

Minority 63 68 47

Black 40 43 34

Hispanic 19 21 10

American Indian 2 1 2

Asian 2 3 1

Note: The census reference date was 

February 15, 1995.
10 National Report Series Bulletin

In nearly all states, a disproportionate number of

minorities were in residential placement in 1999

In 1999, minority youth accounted for 34% of the U.S. juvenile population and 62% of juveniles in custody

Minority proportion Minority proportion

State of Juvenile Total Committed State of Juvenile Total Committed

offense population CJRP Detained Public Private offense population CJRP Detained Public Private

U.S. total 34% 62% 62% 66% 55% Missouri 18% 41% 56% 37% *

Alabama 35 59 63 60 55 Montana 13 41 * 37 *

Alaska 34 56 * 52 * Nebraska 14 45 41 45 50

Arizona 43 60 58 63 52 Nevada 37 49 49 50 *

Arkansas 26 56 * 59 58 New Hampshire 4 13 * 22 *

California 59 79 72 84 70 New Jersey 37 84 81 87 60

Colorado 27 54 51 60 51 New Mexico 62 78 76 79 *

Connecticut 25 77 78 82 63 New York 41 70 81 76 58

Delaware 32 68 66 * * North Carolina 34 63 68 69 36

Dist. of Columbia 86 97 100 * * North Dakota 11 39 * * 34

Florida 41 58 63 58 55 Ohio 17 47 51 46 42

Georgia 41 66 65 67 66 Oklahoma 26 48 42 54 44

Hawaii 75 91 * * * Oregon 16 27 16 29 22

Idaho 12 19 * 22 * Pennsylvania 17 64 57 71 66

Illinois 35 69 75 70 53 Rhode Island 18 55 * 68 38

Indiana 15 38 42 41 29 South Carolina 40 67 78 67 65

Iowa 7 25 23 27 26 South Dakota 16 42 * 43 *

Kansas 17 48 52 49 38 Tennessee 24 50 39 53 42

Kentucky 11 37 53 39 25 Texas 52 74 74 74 74

Louisiana 44 78 74 82 74 Utah 12 27 30 28 25

Maine 3 4 * 4 * Vermont 3 * * * *

Maryland 40 70 61 73 75 Virginia 32 63 63 63 67

Massachusetts 20 62 58 75 54 Washington 22 41 42 40 *

Michigan 23 55 54 47 60 West Virginia 5 22 18 * 25

Minnesota 12 45 52 46 41 Wisconsin 15 59 58 65 47

Mississippi 47 73 74 73 * Wyoming 12 28 * 29 28

■ Minorities accounted for 66% of juveniles committed to public

facilities nationwide—a proportion nearly twice their proportion of 

the juvenile population (34%). 

■ In most states, minority proportions tended to be lower for youth 

committed to private rather than public facilities.

■ In six states and the District of Columbia, the minority proportion 

of the total population of juvenile offenders in residential placement

was greater than 75%.

*Too few juveniles in category to calculate a reliable percentage.

Note: The juvenile population is the number of juveniles age 10 through 

the upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction in each state. U.S. total

includes 2,645 juvenile offenders in private facilities for whom state of 

offense was not reported and 174 juvenile offenders in tribal facilities.

Minorities include blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, Asians/Pacific

Islanders, and those identified as “other race.”

Source: Author’s analysis of OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement 1999 [machine-readable data files].

0%–30%

30%–50%

50%–75%

75%–100%

Not calculated

District of

Columbia

Minority proportion of juveniles in residential placement
June 2004 11

Nationally, custody rates were highest for blacks

For every 100,000 non-Hispanic black juveniles living in the U.S., 1,004 were in a residential placement

facility on October 27, 1999—the rate was 485 for Hispanics and 212 for non-Hispanic whites

Custody rate (per 100,000) Custody rate (per 100,000)

State of American State of American

offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian offense White Black Hispanic Indian Asian

U.S. total 212 1,004 485 632 182 Missouri 146 554 161 265 145

Alabama 208 588 249 314 93 Montana 148 1,463 614 652 704

Alaska 281 612 421 799 290 Nebraska 220 1,552 744 1,648 290

Arizona 234 957 473 293 125 Nevada 305 1,019 312 511 249

Arkansas 139 575 137 0 256 New Hampshire 150 1,278 578 0 0

California 269 1,666 623 612 238 New Jersey 70 1,108 327 0 6

Colorado 257 1,436 719 789 223 New Mexico 211 1,011 520 257 111

Connecticut 160 2,143 1,243 518 196 New York 169 1,119 143 466 34

Delaware 203 1,143 304 0 0 North Carolina 123 466 152 238 123

Dist. of Columbia 173 855 369 0 0 North Dakota 204 1,136 544 1,187 847

Florida 306 964 200 202 87 Ohio 221 1,038 430 112 75

Georgia 273 878 163 861 72 Oklahoma 194 821 297 343 56

Hawaii 39 87 90 0 121 Oregon 353 1,689 478 1,074 270

Idaho 203 871 344 278 173 Pennsylvania 123 1,230 902 154 249

Illinois 152 1,005 271 590 37 Rhode Island 155 1,363 680 0 474

Indiana 280 1,260 370 168 46 South Carolina 244 772 50 293 421

Iowa 240 1,726 545 1,231 465 South Dakota 436 2,908 1,091 1,653 1,235

Kansas 239 1,691 642 612 295 Tennessee 170 576 132 0 91

Kentucky 192 1,030 133 0 182 Texas 204 965 391 140 96

Louisiana 223 1,127 290 249 139 Utah 267 1,043 692 946 366

Maine 166 390 272 332 0 Vermont 93 698 0 0 0

Maryland 136 575 131 0 12 Virginia 225 1,024 323 166 104

Massachusetts 93 648 806 0 232 Washington 232 1,507 323 827 249

Michigan 243 1,058 1,112 428 215 West Virginia 166 1,060 251 0 292

Minnesota 183 1,504 630 1,783 459 Wisconsin 164 1,965 725 845 398

Mississippi 118 300 3,454 0 113 Wyoming 396 2,752 847 939 482

■ In half of the states, the ratio of the minority custody rate to 

the nonminority white custody rate exceeded 3.3 to 1. In four

states (Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), the

ratio of minority to nonminority rates exceeded 8 to 1.

■ In Florida, Idaho, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Vermont, the 

ratio of minority to nonminority rates was less than 2 to 1.

Note: The custody rate is the number of juvenile offenders in residential

placement on October 27, 1999, per 100,000 juveniles age 10 through

the upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction in each state. U.S.

total includes 2,645 juvenile offenders in private facilities for whom state

of offense was not reported and 174 juvenile offenders in tribal facilities.

Minorities include blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, Asians/Pacific

Islanders, and those identified as “other race.”

Source: Author’s analysis of OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential

Placement 1999 [machine-readable data files].

1:1–2:1

2:1–3:1

3:1–4:1

4:1–5:1

5:1–10:1

District of

Columbia

Ratio of minority custody rate to nonminority white custody rate
12 National Report Series Bulletin

Minority disproportionality exists at various

decision points in the juvenile justice system

Federal requirements

on disproportionate

minority confinement

have changed

In 2002, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act broadened

the concept of disproportionate minority

confinement to encompass disproportionate minority contact at all stages of

the system. In 1999, when the data reported here were collected, the JJDP Act

required that states determine whether

the proportion of minorities in confinement exceeded their proportion in the

population. States had to determine the

extent of the problem and demonstrate

efforts to reduce it where it exists. 

Overrepresentation refers to a situation

in which a larger proportion of a particular group is present at various stages

within the juvenile justice system than

would be expected based on their proportion in the general population. 

Disparity means that the probability of

receiving a particular outcome (for example, being detained vs. not being detained)

differs for different groups. Disparity may

in turn lead to overrepresentation. 

Discrimination occurs if and when juvenile justice system decisionmakers treat

one group of juveniles differently from

another group based wholly or in part on

their gender, race, and/or ethnicity.

Discrimination is one possible explanation for disparity and overrepresentation.

This suggests that because of discrimination on the part of justice system 

decisionmakers, minority youth are more

likely to be arrested by the police, referred to court intake, held in detention,

histories, they will be overrepresented in

secure facilities even if no discrimination

by system decisionmakers occurred. Thus,

minority youth may be overrepresented

within the juvenile justice system because

of behavioral and legal factors.

In any given jurisdiction, one or more of

these causes of disparity may be operating. Detailed data analysis is necessary to

build a strong case for each causal scenario. However, on a national level, such

analysis is not possible with the data that

are available. For example, national data

use broad offense categories such as

robbery, which includes both felony and

petitioned for formal processing, adjudicated delinquent, and confined in a

secure juvenile facility. Thus, differential

actions throughout the justice system may

account for minority overrepresentation.

Disparity and overrepresentation, however, can result from factors other than

discrimination. Factors relating to the

nature and volume of crime committed

by minority youth may explain disproportionate minority confinement. This

suggests that if minority youth commit

proportionately more crimes than white

youth, are involved in more serious incidents, or have more extensive criminal

Black juveniles are overrepresented at all stages of the juvenile 

justice system compared with their proportion in the population

■ Nationally, for all stages of juvenile justice system processing, the black proportion was

smaller in 1998/99 than in 1990/91.

Source: Author’s analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census’ Estimates of the Population of States

by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1990–2000 [machine-readable data files] for 1991

and 1999; BJS’ National Crime Victimization Survey [machine-readable data files] for 1991

and 1998; FBI’s Crime in the United States for 1991 and 1999; OJJDP’s Juvenile Court Statistics for 1991 and 1998; OJJDP’s Children in Custody Census of Public and Private Juvenile

Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities 1990/91 [machine-readable data files]; and

OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles In Residential Placement 1999 [machine-readable data files].

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

Percent involving black juveniles

52%

42%

46%

39%

40%

36%

35%

31%

37%

33%

40%

35%

31%

29%

49%

41%

26%

25%

34%

28%

15%

16%

1990/91

1998/99

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

Juveniles in residential placement

Delinquency cases resulting in residential placement

Adjudicated delinquency cases

Petitioned delinquency cases

Delinquency cases involving detention

Delinquency cases in juvenile court

Juvenile arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses

All juvenile arrests

Violent juvenile offenders reported by victims

U.S. population ages 10–17
June 2004 13

nonfelony robberies. More severe outcomes would be expected for juveniles

charged with felony robbery. Disparity in

decisions regarding transfer to criminal

court would result if one group of offenders had a higher proportion of felony robberies than another group (since transfer

provisions are often limited to felony

offenses). 

The national data, however, do not support analysis that controls for offense at

the felony/nonfelony level of detail. Similarly, although prior criminal record is the

basis for many justice system decisions,

criminal history data are not available

nationally. Thus, at the national level,

questions regarding the causes of observed disparity and overrepresentation

remain unanswered.

NIBRS study reveals no direct evidence of racial

bias in arrests of juveniles for violent crime

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

data provide information on crime incidents reported to police, including characteristics of

the crime, the victim, and anyone arrested for the crime, along with the victim’s perception

of the offender. An analysis of NIBRS data by Pope and Snyder looked for evidence of

racial bias in the arrest of juveniles for violent crimes. Race was defined as white and

nonwhite (including black, American Indian, Asian, and Pacific Islander). Both white and

nonwhite racial categories included individuals of Hispanic ethnicity.

The study found that, for violent crimes, no difference in the overall likelihood of arrest of

white juveniles and nonwhite juveniles existed after controlling for all other incident characteristics. The likelihood of juvenile arrest was affected, however, by several other incident

characteristics independent of offender race. Arrest was more likely when there was a single offender, multiple victims, victim injury, or when the victim and offender were family

members (rather than strangers). The odds of arrest also increased when the offender was

male and when the victim was an adult or white. Because of the association of these other

incident characteristics with offender race, a greater proportion of white juvenile offenders

were arrested than were nonwhite juvenile offenders for most person offenses (e.g., robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault).

Recent analyses of National Crime Victimization Survey data for

1980 through 1998 compared the rates of offending for black and

white juveniles as reported by victims. The study focused on the

serious violent crimes of aggravated assault, robbery, and rape

because these are crimes in which victims have face-to-face

contact with offenders. 

Data from victims indicated that the serious violent offending rate

for black juveniles is higher than the rate for white juveniles. For

1980–98, the offending rate for black juveniles was,

on average, 4.1 times the offending rate for white

juveniles. In comparison, the black-to-white ratio of

arrest rates for these same serious offenses shows

greater disparity than was found for offending. The

average arrest rate for 1980–98 was 5.7 times

higher for black juveniles than for white juveniles.

For both offending rates and arrest rates, though,

the ratios of black to white rates have declined in

recent years. From 1992 to 1998, the black-towhite rate ratios were very similar for arrests and

For serious violent crime, data show that racial disproportionality begins

with offending levels

offending. On average, black juveniles had arrest rates that were

4.9 times greater and offending rates that were 4.6 times greater

than the rates for white juveniles.

Because the analyses included only serious violent crimes, the

findings cannot be generalized to nonviolent or less serious

offenses for which law enforcement may have considerably more

discretion in arrest decisions.

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Ratio of black rate to white rate

Arrest involving juveniles

Offending involving juveniles

Source: Lynch’s Trends in Juvenile Violent Offending: An Analysis of Victim Survey Data.
14 National Report Series Bulletin

Females make up a small portion of the juveniles

in custody, but require unique programming

Females accounted for

13% of juveniles in

residential placement

The juvenile justice system is dominated

by male offenders; this is especially true

of the custody population. In 1999, males

represented half of the juvenile population and were involved in approximately

three-quarters of juvenile arrests and

delinquency cases processed in juvenile

court, but they represented 87% of juveniles in residential placement. The small

proportion of female juveniles in residential placement was greater for private

facilities (16%) than for public facilities

(12%) and greater for detained juveniles

(18%) than committed juveniles (12%).

In comparison, the female proportion

among those admitted to placement under

a diversion agreement was large (40%). 

More than one-third of

females in residential

placement were held in

private facilities

Females in private facilities accounted for

35% of all females in residential placement in 1999. In comparison, private

facilities held 28% of males in residential

placement. 

The proportion of females placed in private facilities varied substantially by

offense category: 66% of all females held

for a status offense were in private facilities, as were 42% held for simple assault,

25% held for aggravated assault, and

15% held for robbery. In general for both

males and females, the less serious the

offense category, the greater the likelihood the resident was in a private facility. 

Females in residential

placement tended to be

younger than their male

counterparts

Of all youth in custody, 30% of females

were younger than 15 compared with

21% of males. For females in placement,

the peak ages were 15 and 16, each

accounting for approximately one-quarter

of all females in placement facilities. For

males, the peak ages were 16 and 17.

There was a greater proportion of offenders age 18 or older among males (14%)

than among females (5%).

Age profile of residents, 1999:

Age Total Male Female

Total 100% 100% 100%

12 and younger 4 4 5

13 6 6 9

14 12 11 17

15 19 19 24

16 24 24 24

17 22 23 17

18 and older 13 14 5

Females were more likely than males to be held for technical

violations or status offenses

Offense profile for juvenile offenders in

residential placement on October 27, 1999

All facilities Public facilities Private facilities

Most serious offense Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total juvenile offenders 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Delinquency 97 87 99 94 93 76

Person 36 30 37 32 32 27

Violent Crime Index* 27 15 29 18 21 9

Other person 9 15 8 14 11 17

Property 30 24 30 25 30 22

Property Crime Index† 25 20 25 20 25 19

Other property 5 4 5 4 5 3

Drug 10 6 9 6 10 7

Drug trafficking 3 1 3 1 3 1

Other drug 6 5 6 5 7 6

Public order 10 7 10 8 11 6

Technical violation‡ 12 20 12 23 10 15

Status offense 3 13 1 6 7 24

■ Status offenders were 13% of females in custody in 1999, down from 23% in 1997.

Person offenders were 30% of females in custody in 1999, up from 25% in 1997.

* Violent Crime Index = criminal homicide, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

† Property Crime Index = burglary, theft, auto theft, and arson.

‡ Technical violations = violations of probation, parole, and valid court order.

Source: Author’s analysis of OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement [machinereadable data files].
June 2004 15

Minorities made up a

smaller share of female

than male residents

In 1999, minority youth made up the

majority of males and females in residential placement. Non-Hispanic whites made

up 47% of female and 36% of male juvenile offenders in residential placement.

Among males, non-Hispanic black offenders represented the largest proportion

(40%). 

Nationally, the number of females in residential placement increased 2% from 1997 to 1999

1999 female Percent change Female 1999 female Percent change Female

State of custody 1997–99 proportion State of custody 1997–99 proportion

offense population Female Male 1999 offense population Female Male 1999

U.S. Total 14,561 2% 3% 13% Missouri 177 –22% –16% 15%

Alabama 297 2 –7 19 Montana 30 * –16 12

Alaska 60 * 14 16 Nebraska 180 –2 –3 25

Arizona 288 2 2 15 Nevada 147 –8 –8 19

Arkansas 132 * 5 19 New Hampshire 33 * 20 15

California 1,926 8 –5 10 New Jersey 189 7 6 8

Colorado 324 32 10 16 New Mexico 99 * 9 12

Connecticut 174 4 12 12 New York 921 –3 5 19

Delaware 45 * 4 13 North Carolina 162 –8 23 11

Dist. of Columbia 15 * 0 6 North Dakota 48 * –15 20

Florida 960 50 10 14 Ohio 561 2 5 12

Georgia 582 –3 4 16 Oklahoma 150 19 43 13

Hawaii 27 * –16 23 Oregon 192 –6 8 12

Idaho 51 * 45 14 Pennsylvania 411 –21 –1 11

Illinois 393 56 10 10 Rhode Island 21 * –25 7

Indiana 615 24 2 23 South Carolina 243 7 4 15

Iowa 171 –25 1 17 South Dakota 90 * 18 15

Kansas 222 –20 7 18 Tennessee 282 –28 –27 18

Kentucky 231 26 7 19 Texas 768 10 16 10

Louisiana 327 –10 0 12 Utah 132 26 29 13

Maine 39 * –27 16 Vermont 9 * * *

Maryland 156 16 4 10 Virginia 429 –13 11 14

Massachusetts 114 –21 17 10 Washington 261 –11 –5 12

Michigan 672 14 17 16 West Virginia 54 * –5 14

Minnesota 306 19 15 17 Wisconsin 264 –19 –2 14

Mississippi 57 * 3 7 Wyoming 132 –4 –10 43

■ In nearly all states, females represented a relatively small proportion of the 1999 custody population—10% or less in 8 states and the 

District of Columbia.

* Too few juveniles in category to calculate a reliable percentage.

Note: U.S. total includes 2,645 juvenile offenders in private facilities for whom state of offense was not reported and 174 juvenile offenders in tribal

facilities.

Source: Author’s analysis of OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement [machine-readable data files].

Racial profile of residents, 1999:

Race/ethnicity Total Male Female

Total 100% 100% 100%

White 38 36 47

Minority 62 64 53

Black 39 40 35

Hispanic 18 19 13

Other 4 4 5

Note: Total includes a small number of juveniles for whom race was not reported.

Females accounted for a smaller proportion of minorities overall (11%) than of

nonminority whites (17%) in residential

placement in 1999. 

Gender profile of residents, 1999:

Race/ethnicity Total Male Female

Total 100% 87% 13%

White 100 83 17

Minority 100 89 11

Black 100 88 12

Hispanic 100 91 9

Other 100 84 16

Note: Total includes a small number of juveniles for whom race was not reported.
16 National Report Series Bulletin

Seven in ten juvenile offenders in custody were

held in locked rather than staff-secure facilities

Security arrangements

varied by facility

characteristics

Juvenile residential placement facilities

vary in their degree of security. The use

of fences, walls, and surveillance equipment is increasingly common in juvenile

facilities, although security hardware in

juvenile facilities is generally not as elaborate as that found in adult jails and prisons. National accreditation standards for

juvenile facilities express a preference for

relying on staff, rather than on hardware,

to provide security. The guiding principle

is to house juvenile offenders in the

“least restrictive placement alternative.”

Staff security measures include periodically taking counts of the youth held,

using classification and separation procedures, and maintaining an adequate ratio

of security staff to juveniles.

For each juvenile offender reported to the

CJRP, respondents were asked if “locked

doors and/or gates confined THIS young

person within the facility and its grounds

during the afterschool, day-time hours.”

Facilities reported that 7 in 10 juveniles

were confined by at least one locked door

or gate. The vast majority of juveniles in

public facilities and in tribal facilities were

confined under locked arrangements. For

those in private facilities the reverse was

true.

Facility security profile, 1999:

Type of Stafffacility Total Locked secure

Total 100% 72% 28%

Public 100 87 13

Private 100 34 66

Tribal 100 91 9

As facility size increased, the proportion

of juveniles held under staff-secure

arrangements decreased. More than half

(54%) of those held in facilities housing

fewer than 40 residents were held under

staff-secure arrangements, compared

with 33% of those in facilities housing

40–109 residents and just 7% of those in

facilities housing more than 270 residents. However, the majority of youth

held in private facilities were housed

under staff-secure arrangements, even in

the largest facilities. In public facilities,

though, 98% of those held in facilities

with 270 or more residents were held

under locked arrangements. 

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:

Number of Staffresidents Total Locked secure

All facilities 100% 72% 28%

Fewer than 40 100 46 54

40–109 100 67 33

110–269 100 79 21

270 or more 100 93 7

Public facilities 100 87 13

Fewer than 39 100 69 31

40–109 100 81 19

110–269 100 89 11

270 or more 100 98 2

Private facilities 100 34 66

Fewer than 39 100 27 73

40–109 100 40 60

110–269 100 34 66

270 or more 100 47 53

Security arrangements

also varied by offense

and placement status 

A larger proportion of detained juveniles

than committed juveniles was held in

locked facilities.

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:

Type of Staffplacement Total Locked secure

Committed 100% 66% 34%

Detained 100 88 12

Other 100 45 55

Juveniles in residential placement for

homicide, robbery, and aggravated assault

were the most likely to be held behind

locked doors or gates. 

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:

Most serious Staffoffense Total Locked secure

Delinquency 100% 73% 27%

Person 100 76 24

Criminal homicide 100 90 10

Sexual assault 100 74 26

Robbery 100 82 18

Aggravated assault 100 79 21

Simple assault 100 63 37

Other person 100 74 26

Property 100 71 29

Burglary 100 74 26

Theft 100 68 32

Auto theft 100 69 31

Arson 100 76 24

Other property 100 69 31

Drug 100 70 30

Drug trafficking 100 77 23

Other drug 100 67 33

Public order 100 73 27

Weapons 100 77 23

Other public order 100 71 29

Technical violation 100 76 24

Status 100 29 71
June 2004 17

Most status offenders

were in staff-secure

facilities in 1999

Unlike juveniles held for delinquency

offenses, those in residential placement

for status offenses were more likely to be

confined under staff-secure than under

locked arrangements. Seven in ten status

offenders were confined under staffsecure arrangements. However, substantial variation existed within the status

offense categories. Juveniles held for

underage drinking or possession of alcohol were as likely to be held in locked

arrangements as in staff-secure arrangements. Among those held for running

away, curfew violations, and truancy, the

proportions of youth locked in were

smaller. Juveniles held for incorrigibility

were the least likely to be held under

locked security arrangements.

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:

Most serious Staffoffense Total Locked secure

All facilities

Status offense 100% 29% 71%

Underage drinking 100 51 49

Runaway 100 40 60

Curfew violation 100 40 60

Truancy 100 24 76

Incorrigibility 100 18 82

Other status 100 33 67

Public facilities

Status offense 100 55 45

Underage drinking 100 78 22

Runaway 100 60 40

Curfew violation 100 * *

Truancy 100 47 53

Incorrigibility 100 43 58

Other status 100 59 41

Private facilities

Status offense 100 14 86

Underage drinking 100 21 79

Runaway 100 23 77

Curfew violation 100 * *

Truancy 100 13 87

Incorrigibility 100 11 89

Other status 100 8 92

* Too few juveniles to calculate a reliable 

percentage.

Security arrangements

varied by demographic

characteristics 

Minority juveniles were more likely than

nonminority juveniles to be confined

behind locked doors. Among minorities,

black and Hispanic youth were more likely to be held under locked arrangements

than were other minorities.

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:

StaffRace/ethnicity Total Locked secure

White 100% 66% 34%

Minority 100 75 25

Black 100 75 25

Hispanic 100 76 24

Other 100 65 35

However, within more detailed offense

categories, the difference between the

proportion of white and minority youth

held under locked arrangements diminished. This was especially true for those

held for serious offenses. For example,

among those held for robbery, 80% of

white youth were confined by at least one

locked door or gate compared with 83%

of minority youth.

The proportion of juveniles held under

locked arrangements increased with age.

Although youth age 12 and younger were

much less likely to be locked in than 17-

year-olds, a substantial proportion of

these youngest youth were locked in

(63%).

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:

StaffAge Total Locked secure

12 and younger 100% 63% 37%

13 100 64 36

14 100 66 34

15 100 68 32

16 100 72 28

17 100 75 25

18 and older 100 81 19

Males were more likely than females to

be held under locked arrangements.

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:

StaffGender Total Locked secure

Male 100% 72% 28%

Female 100 65 35

Overall, much of the race/ethnicity, age,

and gender differences in the proportion

of juveniles held under locked rather than

staff-secure arrangements were largely

related to offense variations among the

demographic groups.

The Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency

Prevention Act

prohibits placement

of status offenders in

secure facilities

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Act of 2002 states that

“juveniles...charged with or who have

committed offenses that would not

be criminal if committed by an adult

or offenses which do not constitute

violations of valid court orders, or

alien juveniles in custody, or such nonoffenders as dependent or neglected

children, shall not be placed in secure

detention facilities or secure correctional facilities...”

Federal regulations have interpreted

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Act to permit accused

status offenders to be held in secure

juvenile facilities for up to 24 hours

following the initial contact with law

enforcement or the court.
18 National Report Series Bulletin

On June 30, 2000, 7,600 youth younger than 18

were held in adult jails nationwide

Youth younger than 18

were 1% of jail inmates

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Annual Survey of Jails, an estimated

7,600 youth younger than 18 were held

in adult jails on June 30, 2000. These

under-18 inmates accounted for 1.2% of

the total jail population and have been

less than 2% of the jail population since

1994. 

Most jail inmates younger than 18 were

convicted or awaiting trial as adult criminal offenders (80%). They were held as

adults because they were transferred to

criminal court or because they were in

states where all 17-year-olds (or all 16-

and 17-year-olds) are considered adults

for purposes of criminal prosecution.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act limits the placement of

juveniles in adult facilities

The Act states that “... juveniles alleged

to be or found to be delinquent,” as well

as status offenders and nonoffenders

“will not be detained or confined in any

institution in which they have contact

with adult inmates ....” This provision of

the Act is commonly referred to as the

“sight and sound separation requirement.” Subsequent regulations implementing the Act clarify this requirement

and provide that brief and inadvertent

contact in nonresidential areas is not a

violation. The Act also states that “... no

juvenile shall be detained or confined in

any jail or lockup for adults ....” This

provision is known as the jail and lockup

removal requirement. Regulations exempt juveniles being tried as criminals for

felonies or who have been convicted as

criminal felons from the jail and lockup

removal requirement. In institutions

other than adult jails or lockups or in

jails and lockups under temporary hold

exceptions, confinement of juvenile

offenders is permitted if juveniles and

adult inmates cannot see each other and

no conversation between them is possible. This reflects the sight and sound

separation requirement.

Some temporary hold exceptions to jail

and lockup removal exist: a 6-hour grace

period that allows adult jails and lockups

to hold alleged delinquents in secure

custody until other arrangements can be

made (including 6 hours before and after

court appearances) and a 48-hour exception, exclusive of weekends and holidays,

for rural facilities that meet statutory

conditions. 

Some jurisdictions have established juvenile detention centers that are collocated

with adult jails or lockups. A collocated

juvenile facility must meet specific criteria to establish that it is a separate and

distinct facility. The regulations allow

time-phased use of program areas in

collocated facilities. 

The number of youth younger than 18 in adult jails in 2000 was 19%

lower than in 1999, but 14% higher than in 1994

■ The number of jail inmates younger than 18 held as adults was 6,100 in 2000—down

29% from the peak of 9,500 in 1999, but up 20% from 1994. 

■ The number of jail inmates younger than 18 held as juveniles rose 50% from 1994 to a

peak of 2,400 in 1996, then dropped 38% between 1996 and 2000—a total decrease of

7% from 1994 to 2000. In comparison, the total jail inmate population (all ages) increased 28% between 1994 and 2000.

■ The vast majority of youth younger than 18 in adult jails in 2000 were convicted or

awaiting trial as adult criminal offenders (80%). In 1999 the proportion reached 90%,

but since 1994 it had not been below 70%.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Beck’s Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1999 and Beck and

Karberg’s Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2000.

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Inmates younger than 18 in adult jails

Total

Held as adults

Held as juveniles

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of jail inmates younger than 18

Held as adults
June 2004 19

Most youth sent to adult prisons are 17-year-olds,

males, minorities, and person offenders

Youth younger than 18

accounted for 2% of

new court commitments

to state adult prisons

Thirty-seven states reported 1999 data to

the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP). These states contain more

than 87% of the U.S. population ages

10–17. Based on NCRP data from participating states, an estimated 5,600 new

court commitments to state adult prison

systems nationwide in 1999 involved

youth younger than 18 at the time of

admission. These admissions accounted

for 2% of all new court commitments

during the year. More than 3 in 4 of these

youth were 17 years old at the time of

admission. States with an upper age of

original juvenile court jurisdiction below

17 made up half of all admissions of

youth younger than 18.

Youth younger than 18

were 6% of all new court

commitments to state

prisons for robbery 

In 1999, the proportion of new admissions involving youth younger than 18

was slightly higher for person offenses

than for other types of offenses. The proportion of under-18 new admissions was

6% for robbery and 4% for homicide. In

comparison, for most other offense categories the under-18 proportion of admissions was below 3%.

For youth younger than 18, the number of new admissions to state

prison was nearly 65% greater in 1999 than in 1985

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

New admissions to state prisons

All ages

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

 

New admissions to state prisons

Younger than 18

■ On average, new admissions for youth younger than 18 rose 5% per year between 1985

and 1999. However, new admissions of those in this age group peaked in 1995 and

dropped 26% by 1999.

■ In comparison, the total number of inmates newly admitted to state prisons rose

sharply from 1985 through 1990 (76%) and then leveled off.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Strom’s Profile of State Prisoners Under Age 18, 1985–97;

Hughes and Beck’s analyses of 1999 National Corrections Reporting Program data; and Beck

and Karberg’s Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2000.
20 National Report Series Bulletin

Of youth newly admitted

to state prisons, 6 in 10

had committed a person

offense

Compared with young adult inmates ages

18 through 24 at admission, new commitments involving youth younger than

18 had a substantially greater proportion

of person offenses (primarily robbery and

assault) and a smaller proportion of drug

offenses (notably drug trafficking).

Offense profile of new admissions to state

prison, 1999:

Age at admission

Most Younger

serious offense than 18 18–24

All offenses 100% 100%

Person offenses 62 36

Homicide 7 4

Sexual assault 5 4

Robbery 32 14

Assault 14 10

Property offenses 22 29

Burglary 13 15

Larceny-theft 3 5

Motor vehicle theft 3 3

Arson 1 1

Drug offenses 1 28

Trafficking 8 7

Possession 2 15

Public order offenses 5 7

Weapons 3 4

Note: General offense categories include

offenses not detailed.

The vast majority of

youth younger than 18

newly admitted to

prison were male

Males accounted for 96% of new court

commitments to prison involving youth

younger than 18. Commitments of

females younger than 18 primarily

involved charges of robbery, assault,

murder, burglary, and drugs.

The standing population of inmates younger than 18 held in state

prisons in 2000 was 70% greater than in 1985

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

One-day count of persons held in state prisons

All ages

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

One-day count of persons held in state prisons

Younger than 18

■ The 1-day count of state prisoners younger than 18 grew 135% between 1985 and

1997 and then fell 28% by 2000, for an overall increase of 70%. In contrast, the overall

prison population increased steadily from 1985 through 2000 (161%).

■ From 1985 through 2000, the proportion of inmates younger than 18 remained less

than 1%. 

Source: Author’s adaptation of Beck and Karberg’s Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2000.

Prisons differ from jails

■ Jails are generally local correctional facilities used to incarcerate both persons

detained pending adjudication and adjudicated/convicted offenders. The convicted

population usually consists of misdemeanants sentenced to a year or less. Under

certain circumstances, they may hold juveniles awaiting juvenile court hearings.

■ Prisons are generally state or federal facilities used to incarcerate offenders convicted in criminal court. The convicted population usually consists of felons sentenced to more than a year.
June 2004 21

Growth in under-18

prison admissions was

greater for black males

than for white males

From 1985 to 1999, prison admissions

increased 38% for white males younger

than 18 and 68% for black males in the

same age group. Since 1995, however,

the number of admissions in this age

group has generally declined for both

white and black males. During the period

Blacks outnumbered whites

nearly 2 to 1 among male

under-18 prison admissions

in 1999—the ratio was more

than 8 to 1 for drug offenses

New admissions

to state prisons,

Most serious under-18 males

offense White Black

All offenses 1,800 3,200

Person offenses 1,000 2,100

Homicide 130 170

Sexual assault 80 110

Robbery 400 1,200

Aggravated assault 280 430

Property offenses 650 490

Burglary 390 290

Larceny-theft 110 60

Motor vehicle theft 60 70

Drug offenses 60 490

Public order offenses 70 140

■ Black males accounted for 57%

of all new admissions of youth

younger than 18 to state prison

in 1999.

■ White males outnumbered black

males among youth younger than

18 admitted for burglary and

larceny-theft.

Note: General offense categories

include offenses not detailed.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Hughes

and Beck’s analyses of 1999 National

Corrections Reporting Program data.

Among inmates released from state prison in 1998 who were

younger than 18 when they were admitted, 78% were released

before their 21st birthday 

<18 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Age at release

 

Inmates younger than 18 at admission

Percent released, 1998

Other than person offenders

Person offenders

All offenders

■ Among inmates released from state prison in 1998 who were younger than 18 when

they were admitted, 95% were released before their 25th birthday.

■ A smaller proportion of person offenders younger than 18 were released from state

prison before age 21 (72%) than was the case for other inmates younger than 18 incarcerated for offenses other than person offenses (85%).

■ The average age at release among person offenders who were younger than 18 at

admission was 20 years 6 months. The average age at release among those held for

offenses other than person offenses who were younger than 18 at admission was 19

years 4 months.

■ The average time served for inmates admitted before age 18 was just over 2 years 8

months. For person offenders, it was 3 years 4 months and for other offenders, it was

about 2 years.

Source: Author’s analysis of BJS’ National Corrections Reporting Program 1993–1998

[machine-readable data files].

when the number of prison admissions

for youth younger than 18 was on the

rise, increases were greater for black

males and recent declines have been

greater for white males. 

Robbery and aggravated assault accounted for a large proportion of the increase

in prison admissions for both white and

black males younger than 18. Unlike their

white counterparts, however, black males

also saw a large increase in drug admissions (from 30 to 490). In comparison,

admissions of white males younger than

18 for drug offenses increased from 20

to 60. 

Person offenses

accounted for 66% of

new admissions for

young black males

Person offenses accounted for the majority of new admissions for both white and

black males younger than 18. For whites,

56% of admissions were for person

offenses—primarily robbery (22%) and

aggravated assault (16%). For blacks, the

proportion of admissions involving person offenses was higher (66%), stemming primarily from a greater proportion

of robbery admissions (38%).
22 National Report Series Bulletin

Imposition of the death penalty for crimes 

committed at age 17 or younger remains rare

Supreme Court

decisions prohibit the

death penalty for youth

younger than 16

The Supreme Court, in Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982), reversed the death sentence of a 16-year-old tried as an adult

in criminal court. The Court held that a

defendant’s young age, as well as mental

and emotional development, should be

considered a mitigating factor of great

weight in deciding whether to apply the

death penalty. The Court noted that adolescents are less mature, less responsible, and less self-disciplined than adults

and are also less able to consider the

long-range implications of their actions.

The Court, however, did not address the

question of whether imposing the death

sentence on the offender was prohibited

because he was only 16 years old at the

time the offense was committed.

In Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), the

issue before the Court was whether

imposing the death penalty on an offender who was 15 years old at the time of

the murder violated constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court concluded that the

eighth amendment prohibited application

of the death penalty to a person who was

younger than 16 at the time of the crime.

In Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), the Court

stated that, “We discern neither a historical nor a modern societal consensus

forbidding the imposition of capital punishment on any person who murders at

16 or 17 years of age. Accordingly, we

conclude that such punishment does not

offend the eighth amendment’s prohibition

against cruel and unusual punishment.” 

Youth younger than 18

are a small proportion

of those receiving the

death penalty

The Supreme Court decision in Furman v.

Georgia (1972) struck down all existing

death penalty statutes. Sentencing under

post-Furman statutes began in 1973. The

constitutionality of these current-era statutes was not determined by the Supreme

Court until the 1976 decision in Gregg v.

Georgia. Executions under the current-era

statutes began in 1977. From 1973

through December 31, 2000, 200 death

sentences have been handed down to

185 offenders who were younger than 18

at the time of their crimes. These death

sentences account for less than 3% of

the roughly 7,000 death sentences imposed on offenders of all ages since 1973. 

As with most death sentences, death sentences for offenders younger than 18 are

usually reversed. Since 1973, 95 offenders younger than 18 (51%) have had

their death sentences reversed, 17 (9%)

have been executed, and 73 (39%)

remain under sentence of death.

Most death penalty states that specify a minimum age for the death

penalty set the minimum at age 18

None specified Age 16 or younger Age 17 Age 18

Arizona Alabama Georgia California

Idaho Arkansas (14)a New Hampshire Colorado

Louisiana Delaware North Carolinab Connecticutc

Montanad Federal (military) Texas Federal (civilian)

Pennsylvania Florida Illinois

South Carolina Indiana Kansas

South Dakotae Kentucky Maryland

Mississippif Nebraska

Missouri New Jersey

Nevada New Mexico

Oklahoma New York

Utah (14) Ohio

Virginia (14)g Oregon

Wyoming Tennessee

Washington

a See Ark. Code Ann. 9–27–318(c)(2) (Supp. 1999). b Age required is 17 unless the murderer was incarcerated for murder when a subsequent

murder occurred; then the age may be 14. c See Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a–46a(g)(1). d Montana law specifies that offenders tried under the capital sexual assault statute be 18 or

older. Age may be a mitigating factor for other capital crimes. e Juveniles may be transferred to adult court; age can be a mitigating factor. f The minimum age defined by statute is 13, but the effective age is 16 based on interpretation of U.S. Supreme Court decisions by the Mississippi Supreme Court. g The minimum age for transfer to adult court by statute is 14, but the effective age is 16 based

on interpretation of U.S. Supreme Court decisions by the state attorney general’s office.

Note: Reporting by states reflects interpretations by offices of state attorneys general and may

differ from previously reported age minimums. States not listed do not have the death penalty.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Snell’s Capital Punishment 1999.
June 2004 23

At yearend 2000, 73

offenders were under

sentence of death for

under-18 crimes 

Of the 73 offenders under sentence of

death on December 31, 2000, for crimes

committed at age 17 or younger, 55 were

age 17 at the time of their offense and

the remaining 18 were 16. Nearly half of

these offenders (33 of 73) were not juveniles at the time of their offense—they

were legally adults because they were

older than their state’s upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. The majority of these (26 of 33) were 17-year-olds

from Texas, where original juvenile court

jurisdiction ends at age 16.

The youngest of these 73 offenders was

19 years old as of December 31, 2000,

the oldest was 42, and the average age

was 25. As of yearend 2000, an average

of 51/2 years had passed since the offender’s initial death sentence.

Most victims of these

offenders were adults 

More than 8 in 10 of the nearly 100 victims of these 73 offenders were adults.

Of the victims whose demographic information was reported, most were nonHispanic white (67%) and just over half

(51%) were female. The majority of

offenders were minorities (47 of 73); all

were male.

Racial relationship between offender and

victim, 2000:

Percent 

Offender race/victim race of victims

Minority/nonminority 35%

Nonminority/nonminority 30

Minority/minority 30

Nonminority/minority 4

Note: Nonminority race are all whites who are

not of Hispanic ethnicity; all others are minority.

1998 saw the first execution since 1973 of an offender who, under

state statute, was a juvenile at the time of his crime; 1999 saw the

first execution of an offender who was 16 at the time of his crime

Executions of under-18 offenders: 1973–2000

Year of Age at Age at Race/

Name execution State offense execution ethnicity

Charles Rumbaugh 1985 TX 17 28 White

James Terry Roach 1986 SC 17 25 White

Jay Kelly Pinkerton 1986 TX 17 24 White

Dalton Prejean 1990 LA 17 30 Black

Johnny Frank Garrett 1992 TX 17 28 White

Curtis Paul Harris 1993 TX 17 31 Black

Frederick Lashley 1993 MO 17 29 Black

Ruben Montoya Cantu 1993 TX 17 26 Hispanic

Christopher Burger 1993 GA 17 33 White

Joseph John Cannon 1998 TX 17 38 White

Robert Anthony Carter 1998 TX 17 34 Black

Dwayne A. Wright 1998 VA 17 26 Black

Sean R. Sellers 1999 OK 16 29 White

Douglas Christopher Thomas 2000 VA 17 26 Black

Steve E. Roach 2000 VA 17 23 White

Glen Charles McGinnis 2000 TX 17 27 Black

Gary Graham (Shaka Sankofa) 2000 TX 17 36 Black

■ All but 4 of the 17 offenders executed for crimes committed at age 17 or younger were

from states where the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction is 16 and were, therefore,

legally adults at the time of their crimes. 

■ In 1998, Virginia executed a juvenile who had been transferred to criminal court under

judicial waiver provisions. In 1999, Oklahoma executed a juvenile who was 16 at the

time of his crime. Oklahoma statutes excluded 16- or 17-year-old offenders charged

with murder from juvenile court. 

■ In 2000, four offenders were executed for crimes they committed at age 17.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Streib’s Death Sentences and Executions for Juvenile Crimes,

January 1, 1973–December 31, 2000.

Texas, Florida, and Alabama

account for more than half of

offenders sentenced to death

from 1973 through 2000 for

under-18 crimes

State Offenders

Total 185

Texas 49

Florida 24

Alabama 20

Louisiana 11

Mississippi 11

Georgia 8

South Carolina 7

Arizona 6

North Carolina 6

Ohio 6

Oklahoma 6

Pennsylvania 6

Virginia 5

Missouri 4

Indiana 3

Kentucky 3

Nevada 3

Arkansas 2

Maryland 2

Nebraska 1

New Jersey 1

Washington 1

Source: Author’s adaptation of Streib’s

Death Sentences and Executions for

Juvenile Crimes, January 1, 1973–

December 31, 2000.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

National Report Series Bulletin NCJ 202885

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

Beck, A. 2000. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear

1999. Bulletin. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Beck, A., and Karberg, J. 2001. Prison and Jail

Inmates at Midyear 2000. Bulletin. Washington, DC:

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999. National Crime

Victimization Survey for the years 1991 and 1998

[machine-readable data files]. Washington, DC: Bureau

of Justice Statistics.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2001. National Corrections Reporting Program 1993–1998 [machinereadable data files]. U.S. Bureau of the Census (producer). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for

Political and Social Research (producer and distributor). Online: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/ICPSRSDA/06823.xml.

Butts, J., Snyder, H., Finnegan, T., Aughenbaugh, A.,

Tierney, N., Sullivan, D., Poole, R., Sickmund, M.,

and Poe, E. 1994. Juvenile Court Statistics 1991.

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1992 and 1999. Crime

in the United States 1991 and 1999. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Greenfeld, L. 1989 and 1990. Capital Punishment 1988

and 1989. Bulletin. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice

Statistics. 

Hughes, T., and Beck, A. 2002. Analyses of 1999

National Corrections Reporting Program data.

Unpublished analysis. Washington, DC: Bureau of

Justice Statistics.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP)

Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–415, 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.)

as amended (1992).

Lynch, J. 2002. Trends in Juvenile Violent Offending:

An Analysis of Victim Survey Data. Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

1998 and 2001. Census of Juveniles in Residential

Placement 1997 and 1999 [machine-readable data

files]. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census

(producer).

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Various years. Children in Custody Census of Public

and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and

Shelter Facilities 1990/91, 1992/93, and 1994/95

[machine-readable data files]. Washington, DC: U.S.

Bureau of the Census (producer).

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Formula Grants, Final Rule 61. Federal Register 65132,

no. 238. (1996) (to be codified in 28 CFR Part 31).

Pope, C., and Feyerherm, W. 1990. Minority status and

juvenile justice processing. Criminal Justice Abstracts

22(2):327–336 (Part I); 22(3):527–542 (Part II). 

Pope, C., and Feyerherm, W. 1991. Minorities and the

Juvenile Justice System. Research Summary. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. 

Pope, C., and Snyder, H. 2002. Race as a Factor in

Juvenile Arrests. Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

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

and Snyder, H. 2003. Juvenile Court Statistics 1998.

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention. 

Snell, T. 2000. Capital Punishment 1999. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Streib, V. 2001. Death Sentences and Executions for

Juvenile Crimes, January 1, 1973–December 31,

2000. Juvenile Death Penalty Today. Ada, OH: Ohio

Northern University.

Strom, K. 2000. Profile of State Prisoners Under Age

18, 1985–97. Special Report. Washington, DC: Bureau

of Justice Statistics.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2001. Estimates of the

Population of States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic

Origin: 1990–2000 [machine-readable data files].

Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

This Bulletin was prepared under cooperative

agreement numbers 95–JN–FX–K008 and

1999–JN–FX–K002 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.

*NCJ~202885*