U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Research and Program Development Division

develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile

delinquency; supports a program for data collection

and information sharing that incorporates elements

of statistical and systems development; identifies the

pathways to delinquency and the best methods to

prevent, intervene in, and treat it; and analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice system.

Training and Technical Assistance Division provides

juvenile justice training and technical assistance to

federal, state, and local governments; law enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel; and private

agencies, educational institutions, and community

organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary

funds to public and private agencies, organizations,

and individuals to develop and support programs and

replicate tested approaches to delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in such pertinent areas as 

mentoring, gangs, chronic juvenile offending, and

community-based sanctions.

State and Tribal Assistance Division provides funds

for state, local, and tribal governments to help them

achieve the system improvement goals of the JJDP

Act, address underage drinking, conduct state challenge activities, implement prevention programs, and

support initiatives to hold juvenile offenders accountable. This Division also provides training and technical assistance, including support to jurisdictions that

are implementing OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy

for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.

Information Dissemination and Planning Unit

produces and distributes information resources on

juvenile justice research, statistics, and programs and

coordinates the Office’s program planning and competitive award activities. Information that meets the

needs of juvenile justice professionals and policymakers is provided through print and online publications,

videotapes, CD–ROMs, electronic listservs, and the

Office’s Web site. As part of the program planning

and award process, IDPU identifies program priorities,

publishes solicitations and application kits, and facilitates peer reviews for discretionary funding awards.

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program promotes

interagency cooperation and coordination among 

federal agencies with responsibilities in the area of

juvenile justice. The Program primarily carries out

this responsibility through the Coordinating Council

on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an

independent body within the executive branch that

was established by Congress through the JJDP Act.

Child Protection Division administers programs related to crimes against children and children’s exposure

to violence. The Division provides leadership and

funding to promote effective policies and procedures to

address the problems of missing and exploited children,

abused or neglected children, and children exposed to

domestic or community violence. CPD program activities include supporting research; providing information,

training, and technical assistance on programs to prevent and respond to child victims, witnesses, and their

families; developing and demonstrating effective child

protection initiatives; and supporting the National

Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and 

Congress through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93–415,

as amended. Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP’s goal is

to provide national leadership in addressing the issues of preventing and controlling juvenile delinquency and

improving the juvenile justice system.

OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, demonstration, and training initiatives to improve state and local

juvenile programs and to benefit private youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by seven

components within OJJDP, described below.

The mission of OJJDP is to provide national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to

juvenile offending and child victimization. OJJDP accomplishes its mission by supporting states, local communities, and tribal jurisdictions in their efforts to develop and implement effective, multidisciplinary prevention

and intervention programs and improve the capacity of the juvenile justice system to protect public safety, hold

offenders accountable, and provide treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of individual juveniles and their families.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 i

Juvenile Court

Statistics 1998

Report

Charles Puzzanchera

Anne L. Stahl

Terrence A. Finnegan

Nancy Tierney

Howard N. Snyder

National Center for Juvenile Justice

June 2003

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

NCJ 193696
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels

Assistant Attorney General

J. Robert Flores

Administrator

This report was prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and was supported by grant number 1999–MU–MU–0020 from the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright 2002, National Center for Juvenile Justice, 710 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219–3000,

412–227–6950. ISSN 0091–3278.

Suggested citation: Puzzanchera, Charles, Anne L. Stahl, Terrence A. Finnegan, Nancy Tierney, and Howard N.

Snyder. 2003. Juvenile Court Statistics 1998. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

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.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 iii

As a critical institution in America’s response to delinquency, the juvenile court

plays a major role in the lives of many children. It works to protect society by

imposing appropriate sanctions on juvenile offenders and to reform these

youth by promoting accountability and responsibility. Clearly, the court is on

the front line of the fight against violence.

What issues face the juvenile court? Which types of offenders appear before it?

What are the resources available to the court?

The first Juvenile Court Statistics described cases handled by 42 courts in 1927.

Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 profiles the 1.8 million delinquency cases handled

by nearly 2,000 courts with jurisdiction over 71% of the juvenile population in

1998 and examines trends in case processing since 1989.

The challenges faced by the juvenile court are considerable. This Report serves

as a reference guide to help policymakers, researchers, and other concerned

citizens to better understand the juvenile justice system. By documenting

trends in juvenile court workloads, it also helps us plan for the future of the

court and the programs and services that the court provides. In this way, it can

enhance our Nation’s response to juvenile delinquency.

J. Robert Flores

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Foreword
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 v

Acknowledgments

This Report is a product of the National Juvenile Court Data Archive,

which is funded by grants to the National Center for Juvenile Justice from

the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),

U.S. Department of Justice. Janet

Chiancone is the OJJDP Program

Manager for the project.

The entire staff of the National Juvenile Court Data Archive contributes to

the collection and processing of the

data presented in this Report:

Terrence A. Finnegan, Senior

Computer Programmer

Rowen S. Poole, Computer

Programmer

Charles Puzzanchera, Research

Analyst

Melissa Sickmund, Ph.D., Senior

Research Analyst

Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., Project

Director

Anne L. Stahl, Manager of Data

Collection

Dennis P. Sullivan, Data Analyst

Nancy Tierney, Administrative

Assistant

Yichun Wan, Computer Programmer

Juvenile Court Statistics would not be

possible were it not for the State and

local agencies that take the time each

year to honor our requests for data

and documentation. The following

agencies contributed case-level data

or court-level aggregate statistics for

this Report:

Alabama—Alabama Department of

Youth Services; and State of Alabama,

Administrative Office of the Courts.

Alaska—Alaska Division of Juvenile

Justice and the Alaska Court System.

Arizona—Supreme Court, State of

Arizona, Administrative Office of the

Courts; and the Maricopa County

Juvenile Court Center.

Arkansas—Administrative Office of

the Courts, State of Arkansas.

California—Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the

Courts, the California Department of

Justice, and the following county probation departments: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, San Bernardino,

San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin,

Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and

Ventura.

Colorado—Colorado Judicial

Department.

Connecticut—Judicial Branch Administration, Court Support Services

Division.
vi Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Delaware—State of Delaware Administrative Office of the Courts.

District of Columbia—Superior Court

of the District of Columbia.

Florida—State of Florida Department

of Juvenile Justice.

Georgia—Judicial Council of Georgia

Administrative Office of the Courts.

Hawaii—Family Court of the First Circuit, The Judiciary, State of Hawaii.

Idaho—Idaho Supreme Court.

Illinois—Administrative Office of the

Illinois Courts, Probation Division;

and the Juvenile Court of Cook

County.

Indiana—Supreme Court of Indiana,

Division of State Court Administration.

Iowa—State Court Administrator.

Kansas—Supreme Court of Kansas,

Office of Judicial Administration.

Kentucky—Kentucky Administrative

Office of the Courts.

Louisiana—Judicial Council of the

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Maine—Administrative Office of the

Courts.

Maryland—Department of Juvenile

Justice.

Massachusetts—Administrative Office

of the Courts.

Michigan—State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Supreme Court.

Minnesota—Minnesota Supreme

Court Information System.

Mississippi—Mississippi Department

of Human Services, Division of Youth

Services.

Missouri—Department of Social

Services, Division of Youth Services.

Montana—Montana Board of Crime

Control.

Nebraska—Nebraska Crime

Commission.

Nevada—Division of Children and

Family Services, Juvenile Justice

Programs Office.

New Hampshire—New Hampshire Supreme Court, Administrative Office of

the Courts.

New Jersey—Administrative Office of

the Courts.

New Mexico—New Mexico Supreme

Court.

New York—Office of Court Administration; and the State of New York, Division of Probation and Correctional

Alternatives.

North Carolina—Administrative

Office of the Courts.

North Dakota—Supreme Court, Office

of State Court Administrator.

Ohio—Supreme Court of Ohio, Ohio

Department of Youth Services; and

the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court

Division.

Oklahoma—Oklahoma Office of

Juvenile Affairs.

Oregon—Judicial Department.

Pennsylvania—Juvenile Court

Judges’ Commission.

Rhode Island—Administrative Office

of State Courts and Rhode Island

Family Court.

South Carolina—Department of Juvenile Justice.

South Dakota—Unified Judicial

System.

Tennessee—Tennessee Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Texas—Texas Juvenile Probation

Commission.

Utah—Utah Administrative Office of

the Courts.

Vermont—Supreme Court of Vermont,

Office of the Court Administrator.

Virginia—Department of Juvenile Justice and the Virginia Supreme Court.

Washington—Office of the Administrator for the Courts.

West Virginia—Criminal Justice

Statistical Analysis Center.

Wyoming—Supreme Court of Wyoming Court Services.

Acknowledgments
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 vii

Table of Contents

Foreword ..................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................... v

Preface ......................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases............................................. 5

Counts and Trends ................................................................................................ 6

Case Rates .............................................................................................................. 8

Age at Referral ....................................................................................................... 9

Gender .................................................................................................................. 12

Race ....................................................................................................................... 15

Source of Referral ................................................................................................ 19

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing ........................ 21

Detention .............................................................................................................. 22

Intake Decision .................................................................................................... 26

Waiver ................................................................................................................... 28

Adjudication ......................................................................................................... 32

Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement .............................................................. 34

Dispositions: Probation ...................................................................................... 36

Case Processing

Overview......................................................................................................... 38

By Offense Category...................................................................................... 40

By Age ............................................................................................................. 42

By Gender ....................................................................................................... 43

By Race ........................................................................................................... 44

By FBI Offense Category ............................................................................... 46

By Selected Individual Offense .................................................................... 47

Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases .......................................... 51

Age ......................................................................................................................... 52

Gender and Race ................................................................................................. 53

Detention .............................................................................................................. 54

Adjudication ......................................................................................................... 56

Disposition ........................................................................................................... 57

Case Processing ................................................................................................... 58

Appendix A: Methods ............................................................................................... 59

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms ............................................................................... 65

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County ...... 71

Index of Tables and Figures ................................................................................... 105
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 ix

Preface

This is the 72nd report in the Juvenile

Court Statistics series. It describes the

delinquency and status offense cases

handled between 1989 and 1998 by

U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction.

National estimates of juvenile court

caseloads in 1998 were based on

analyses of approximately 905,300 automated case records and court-level

statistics summarizing an additional

217,200 cases. The data used in the

analyses were contributed to the National Juvenile Court Data Archive by

nearly 2,000 courts with jurisdiction

over 70% of the juvenile population in

1998.

The first Juvenile Court Statistics report was published in 1929 by the U.S.

Department of Labor and described

cases handled by 42 courts during

1927. During the next decade, Juvenile

Court Statistics reports were based on

statistics cards completed for each

delinquency, status offense, and dependency case handled by the courts

participating in the reporting series.

The Children’s Bureau (within the U.S.

Department of Labor) tabulated the

information on each card, including

age, gender, and race of the juvenile;

the reason for referral; the manner of

dealing with the case; and the final

disposition of the case. During the

1940s, however, the collection of caselevel data was abandoned because of

its high cost. From the 1940s until the

mid-1970s, Juvenile Court Statistics

reports were based on the simple,

annual case counts reported to the

Children’s Bureau by participating

courts.

In 1957, the Children’s Bureau initiated a new data collection design that

enabled the Juvenile Court Statistics

series to develop statistically sound,

national estimates. The Children’s Bureau, which had been transferred to

the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), developed a

probability sample of more than 500

courts. Each court in the sample was

asked to submit annual counts of delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases. This design proved difficult to sustain as courts began to

drop out of the sample. At the same

time, a growing number of courts outside the sample began to compile

comparable statistics. By the late

1960s, HEW ended the sample-based

effort and returned to the policy of

collecting annual case counts from

any court able to provide them. The

Juvenile Court Statistics series, however, continued to generate national

estimates based on data from these

nonprobability samples.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) became

responsible for Juvenile Court Statistics following the passage of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. In 1975, OJJDP
x Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

awarded the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) a grant to continue

the report series. Although NCJJ

agreed to use the procedures established by HEW to ensure reporting

continuity, NCJJ also began to investigate methods of improving the quality

and detail of national statistics. A

critical innovation was made possible

by the proliferation of computers during the 1970s. As NCJJ asked agencies

across the country to complete the

annual juvenile court statistics form,

some agencies began offering to send

the automated case-level data collected by their management information systems. NCJJ learned to combine these automated records to produce a detailed national portrait of

juvenile court activity—the original

objective of the Juvenile Court

Statistics series.

The project’s transition from using

annual case counts to analyzing automated case-level data was completed

with the production of Juvenile Court

Statistics 1984. For the first time since

the 1930s, Juvenile Court Statistics contained detailed, case-level descriptions of the delinquency and status

offense cases handled by U.S. juvenile

courts. This case-level detail continues to be the emphasis of the reporting series.

Data Access

The data used in this Report are

stored in the National Juvenile Court

Data Archive at NCJJ in Pittsburgh,

PA. The Archive contains the most detailed information available on juveniles involved in the juvenile justice

system and on the activities of U.S.

juvenile courts. Designed to facilitate

research on the juvenile justice system, the Archive’s data files are available to policymakers, researchers,

and students. In addition to national

data files, State and local data can be

provided to researchers. With the assistance of Archive staff, researchers

can merge selected files for crossjurisdictional and longitudinal analyses. Upon request, project staff are

also available to perform special

analyses of the Archive’s data files.

Researchers are encouraged to explore the National Juvenile Court Data

Archive Web site at ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

ojstatbb/njcda/ for a summary of

Archive holdings and procedures for

data access. Researchers may also

contact the Archive directly at

412–227–6950.

Preface
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

This Report describes delinquency

and status offense cases handled between 1989 and 1998 by U.S. courts

with juvenile jurisdiction. Courts with

juvenile jurisdiction may handle a

variety of matters, including child

abuse and neglect, traffic violations,

child support, and adoptions. This

Report focuses on cases involving juveniles charged with law violations

(delinquency or status offenses).

Unit of Count

In measuring the activity of juvenile

courts, one could count the number

of offenses referred; the number of

cases referred; the actual filings of offenses, cases, or petitions; the number of disposition hearings; or the

number of juveniles handled. Each

“unit of count” has its own merits

and disadvantages. The unit of count

used in Juvenile Court Statistics (JCS)

is the number of “cases disposed.”

A “case” represents a juvenile processed by a juvenile court on a new

referral, regardless of the number

of law violations contained in the referral. A juvenile charged with four

burglaries in a single referral would

represent a single case. A juvenile

referred for three burglaries and referred again the following week on

another burglary charge would represent two cases, even if the court

eventually merged the two referrals

for more efficient processing.

The fact that a case is “disposed”

means that a definite action was

taken as the result of the referral—

i.e., a plan of treatment was selected

or initiated. It does not mean necessarily that a case was closed or terminated in the sense that all contact

between the court and the juvenile

ceased. For example, a case is considered to be disposed when the court

orders probation, not when a term of

probation supervision is completed.

Coverage

A basic question for this reporting

series is what constitutes a referral

to juvenile court. The answer partly

depends on how each jurisdiction

organizes its case-screening function.

In many communities, all juvenile

matters are first screened by an

intake unit within the juvenile court.

The intake unit determines whether

the matter should be handled informally (i.e., diverted) or petitioned for

formal handling. In data files from

communities using this type of system, a delinquency or status offense

case is defined as a court referral at

the point of initial screening, regardless of whether it is handled formally

or informally.
2 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 1: Introduction

In other communities, the juvenile

court is not involved in delinquency

or status offense matters until another agency (e.g., the prosecutor’s

office or a social service agency)

has first screened the case. In other

words, the intake function is performed outside the court, and some

matters are diverted to other agencies without the court ever handling

them. Status offense cases, in particular, tend to be diverted from court

processing in this manner.

Since its inception, Juvenile Court Statistics has adapted to the changing

structure of juvenile court processing

nationwide. As court processing became more diverse, the JCS series

broadened its definition of the juvenile court to incorporate other agencies that perform what can generically be considered juvenile court

functions. In some communities, data

collection has expanded to include

departments of youth services, child

welfare agencies, and prosecutors’

offices. In other communities, this expansion has not been possible. Therefore, while there is complete coverage

of formally handled delinquency and

status offense cases and adequate

coverage of informally handled delinquency cases in the JCS series, the

coverage of informally handled status

offense cases is not sufficient to support the generation of national estimates. For this reason, JCS reports do

not present national estimates of informally handled status offense cases.

(Subnational analyses of these cases

are available from the Archive.)

Juvenile Court Processing

Any attempt to describe juvenile

court caseloads at the national level

must be based on a generic model of

court processing to serve as a common framework. In order to analyze

and present data about juvenile court

activities in diverse jurisdictions, the

Archive strives to fit the processing

characteristics of all jurisdictions into

the following general model:

Intake. Referred cases are first

screened by an intake department

(either within or outside the court).

The intake department may decide to

dismiss the case for lack of legal sufficiency or to resolve the matter formally or informally. Informal (i.e., nonpetitioned) dispositions may include

a voluntary referral to a social service

agency, informal probation, or the

payment of fines or some form of voluntary restitution. Formally handled

cases are petitioned and scheduled

for an adjudicatory or waiver hearing.

Judicial Waiver. The intake department may decide that a case should

be removed from juvenile court and

handled instead in criminal (adult)

court. In such cases, a petition is usually filed in juvenile court asking the

juvenile court judge to waive jurisdiction over the case. The juvenile court

judge decides whether the case merits criminal prosecution.1 When a

waiver request is denied, the matter

is usually scheduled for an adjudicatory hearing in the juvenile court.

Petitioning. If the intake department

decides that a case should be handled

formally within the juvenile court, a petition is filed and the case is placed on

the court calendar (or docket) for an

adjudicatory hearing. A small number

of petitions are dismissed for various

reasons before an adjudicatory hearing is actually held.

Adjudication. At the adjudicatory

hearing, a juvenile may be adjudicated (judged) a delinquent or status

offender, and the case would then

proceed to a disposition hearing. Alternatively, a case can be dismissed

or continued in contemplation of dismissal. In these cases, the court often

recommends that the juvenile take

some actions prior to the final adjudication decision, such as paying restitution or voluntarily attending drug

counseling.

Disposition. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court judge determines the most appropriate sanction,

generally after reviewing a predisposition report prepared by a probation

department. The range of options

available to a court typically includes

commitment to an institution; placement

in a group or foster home or other

residential facility; probation (either

regular or intensive supervision); referral to an outside agency, day treatment, or mental health program; or

imposition of a fine, community service, or restitution.

Detention. A juvenile may be placed

in a detention facility at different

points as a case progresses through

the juvenile justice system. Detention

practices also vary from jurisdiction

to jurisdiction. A judicial decision to

detain or continue detention may

occur before or after adjudication or

disposition. This Report includes only

those detention actions that result in

a juvenile being placed in a restrictive

facility under court authority while

awaiting the outcome of the court

process. This Report does not include

detention decisions made by law enforcement officials prior to court intake or those occurring after the disposition of a case (e.g., temporary

holding of a juvenile in a detention

facility until a facility for the courtordered placement is available).

1Mechanisms of transfer to criminal

court vary by State. In some States, a

prosecutor has the authority to file juvenile cases that meet specified criteria

directly in criminal court. This Report,

however, includes only cases that were

transferred as a result of judicial waiver.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 3

Chapter 1: Introduction

Data Quality

Juvenile Court Statistics relies on the

secondary analysis of data originally

compiled by juvenile courts or juvenile justice agencies to meet their

own information and reporting needs.

Although these incoming data files

are not uniform across jurisdictions,

they are likely to be more detailed

and accurate than data files compiled by local jurisdictions merely

complying with a mandated national

reporting program.

The heterogeneity of the contributed

data files greatly increases the complexity of the Archive’s data processing tasks. Contributing jurisdictions

collect and report information using

their own definitions and coding

categories. Therefore, the detail reported in some data sets is not contained in others. Even when similar

data elements are used, they may

have inconsistent definitions or overlapping coding categories. The Archive restructures contributed data

into standardized coding categories

in order to combine information from

multiple sources. The standardization

process requires an intimate understanding of the development, structure, and content of each data set

received. Codebooks and operation

manuals are studied, data suppliers

interviewed, and data files analyzed

to maximize the understanding of

each information system. Every attempt is made to ensure that only

compatible information from the various data sets is used in standardized

data files.

While the heterogeneity of the data

adds complexity to the development

of a national data file, it has proven to

be valuable in other applications. The

diversity of the data stored in the National Juvenile Court Data Archive

enables the data to support a wider

range of research efforts than would a

uniform, and probably more general,

data collection form. For example, the

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s

(FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reporting

(UCR) Program is limited by necessity

to a small number of relatively broad

offense codes. The UCR offense code

for larceny-theft combines shoplifting

with a number of other larcenies.

Thus, the data are useless for studies

of shoplifting. In comparison, many of

the Archive’s data sets are sufficiently

detailed to enable a researcher to distinguish offenses that are often combined in other reporting series—

shoplifting can be distinguished from

other larcenies, joyriding from motor

vehicle theft, and armed robbery

from unarmed robbery. The diversity

of these coding structures allows researchers to construct data sets that

contain the detail demanded by their

research designs.

Validity of the Estimates

The national estimates presented in

this Report were generated with data

from a large nonprobability sample of

juvenile courts. Therefore, statistical

confidence in the estimates cannot be

mathematically determined. Although

statistical confidence would be greater

if a probability sampling design were

used, the cost of such an effort has

long been considered prohibitive.

Secondary analysis of available data

is the best practical alternative for

developing an understanding of the

Nation’s juvenile courts.2

National estimates for 1998 are based

on analyses of individual case records

from nearly 1,500 courts with jurisdiction over more than half of the U.S.

juvenile population, and of aggregate

court-level data on cases from more

than 500 additional jurisdictions. The

weighting procedures that generate

national estimates from this sample

control for many factors: the size of a

community; the demographic composition of its juvenile population; the

volume of cases referred to the reporting courts; the age, gender, and

race of the juveniles involved; the offense characteristics of the cases; the

court’s response to the cases (manner of handling, detention, adjudication, and disposition); and the nature

of each court’s jurisdictional responsibilities (i.e., upper age of original

jurisdiction).

Structure of the Report

Chapters 2 and 3 of this Report

present national estimates of delinquency cases handled by the juvenile

courts in 1998 and also analyze

caseload trends from 1989. Chapter 2

describes the volume and rate of delinquency cases, sources of referral,

demographic characteristics of the

juveniles involved (age, gender, and

race), and offenses charged. Chapter

3 traces the flow of delinquency cases

through the courts, examining each

decision point (i.e., detention, intake

decision, judicial decision, and judicial disposition) and including data

by demographic characteristics and

offense. Together, these two chapters

provide a detailed national portrait of

delinquency cases.

Chapter 4 presents a sample-based

profile of status offense cases formally handled by the juvenile courts

between 1989 and 1998. It includes

data on demographic characteristics,

offenses charged, and case processing.

Appendix A describes the statistical

procedure used to generate these estimates. Readers are encouraged to

consult appendix B for definitions of

key terms used throughout the Report. Few terms in the field of juvenile

justice have widely accepted definitions.

The terminology used in this Report

2 For more detailed analyses of the JCS

national estimates and their accuracy,

see: Jeffrey A. Butts and Howard N.

Snyder. 1995. A Study to Assess the Validity of the National Estimates Developed

for the Juvenile Court Statistics Series.

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
4 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 1: Introduction

has been carefully developed to communicate the findings of the work as

precisely as possible without sacrificing

applicability to multiple jurisdictions.

Finally, appendix C presents a detailed table showing the number of

delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases handled by juvenile

courts in 1998, by State and county.

Table notes, at the end of the appendix, indicate the source of the data

and the unit of count. Because courts

report their statistical data using

various units of count (e.g., cases disposed, offenses referred, petitions),

the reader is cautioned against making cross-jurisdictional comparisons

before studying the table notes.

Changes Introduced in This Report

Past editions in the JCS series presented national estimates of the volume, demographic characteristics,

case processing characteristics, and

trends of formally handled status

offense cases. In recent years, the

agencies that process status offense

cases have changed in many jurisdictions. In some communities, for example, family crisis units, county attorneys, and social service agencies

have assumed this responsibility.

Because of the variations in data collection and storage, the National Juvenile Court Data Archive project continues to encounter problems obtaining

a complete and reliable portrait of the

volume and characteristics of formally

handled status offense cases. Although

the available data cannot support national estimates of the trends and

volume of petitioned status offense

cases, they can be used to describe

the typical demographic (age, gender,

and race) and processing characteristics of these cases. Therefore, this

edition of JCS presents a samplebased profile of petitioned status

offense cases disposed during the

10-year period 1989–98 for the offenses of running away, truancy, ungovernability, and underage liquor

law violations.

In the next year, the project will survey reporting jurisdictions to determine the structure of their data collection and reporting practices with

regard to petitioned status offense

cases. Once a clearer understanding

of this process is available, we will revisit our decision about preparing annual national estimates of petitioned

status offense cases.

This edition of JCS also introduces a

new format that combines tables,

figures, and text highlights for a more

accessible presentation of the data.

A detailed index of tables and figures

appears at the end of the Report.

Other Sources of Juvenile Court

Data

With support from OJJDP, NCJJ has

developed two Web-based data analysis and dissemination applications

that provide access to the data used

for this Report. The first of these applications, Easy Access to Juvenile

Court Statistics 1989–1998, was developed to facilitate independent analysis of the national delinquency estimates presented in this Report while

eliminating the need for statistical

analysis software. The second application, Easy Access to State and

County Juvenile Court Case Counts, is a

Web-based version of the information

presented in appendix C of this

Report. This application presents annual counts of the delinquency, status, and dependency cases processed

in juvenile courts, by State and

county. Both applications are available from OJJDP’s Statistical Briefing

Book at ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/

index.html.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 5

Chapter 2

National Estimates of

Delinquency Cases

Delinquency offenses are acts committed by juveniles that, if committed

by an adult, could result in criminal

prosecution. In 1998, courts with juvenile jurisdiction handled nearly 1.8

million delinquency cases. Most of

these cases were referred to juvenile

courts by law enforcement agencies.

This chapter documents the volume

and rate of delinquency cases referred to juvenile court and examines

the characteristics of these cases, including types of offenses charged, demographic characteristics of the juveniles involved (age, gender, and race),

and sources of referral. The chapter

focuses on cases disposed in 1998

and also examines trends.
6 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

In 1998, courts with juvenile

jurisdiction handled an estimated

1,757,400 delinquency cases

■ Between 1989 and 1998, the number of delinquency cases processed by juvenile courts increased

44%.

■ The number of person offense

cases increased 88% between 1989

and 1998, property offense cases

increased 11%, drug law violation

cases increased 148%, and public

order offense cases increased

73%.

■ Compared with 1989, juvenile

courts in 1998 handled 128% more

simple assault cases, 100% more

disorderly conduct cases, 102%

more obstruction of justice cases,

61% more weapons offense cases,

36% more aggravated assault

cases, and 29% more robbery

cases.

■ Between 1997 and 1998, caseloads

dropped in several offense categories, including aggravated assault

(6%), criminal homicide (2%), robbery (12%), and burglary (9%).

The relative proportion of person

offenses increased between 1989

and 1998, while the proportion of

property offenses declined

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Person 18% 22% 23%

Property 59 52 45

Drugs 6 8 11

Public Order 17 18 21

Total 100% 100% 100%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Caseloads increased between 1989 and 1998 for all four major

offense categories—person, property, drug law violations, and public

order

Juvenile courts handled more than four times as many delinquency

cases in 1998 as in 1960

Counts and Trends

●

●

● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

Delinquency cases

Property

Person

Public Order

Drugs

■ On any given day in 1998, juvenile courts handled roughly 4,800 delinquency

cases. In 1960, approximately 1,100 delinquency cases were processed daily.

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

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

Year

Delinquency cases

Total Delinquency
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 7

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Youth were charged with a property offense in nearly half the

delinquency cases handled by juvenile courts in 1998

Most Serious Number Percent Change

Offense of Cases 1989–98 1994–98 1997–98

Total Delinquency 1,757,400 44% 5% –3%

Person Offense 403,800 88 12 1

Criminal Homicide 2,000 6 –36 –2

Forcible Rape 6,000 26 –9 –7

Robbery 29,600 29 –23 –12

Aggravated Assault 65,100 36 –22 –6

Simple Assault 262,400 128 33 3

Other Violent Sex Offense 10,500 53 2 –1

Other Person Offense 28,200 87 35 26

Property Offense 797,600 11 –8 –8

Burglary 125,800 –7 –14 –9

Larceny-Theft 370,500 13 –5 –10

Motor Vehicle Theft 44,200 –34 –28 –11

Arson 8,400 27 –13 –9

Vandalism 118,700 40 –9 0

Trespassing 64,000 26 –3 –5

Stolen Property Offense 34,000 35 0 3

Other Property Offense 32,100 37 13 –3

Drug Law Violation 192,500 148 47 1

Public Order Offense 363,500 73 19 0

Obstruction of Justice 152,000 102 38 2

Disorderly Conduct 92,100 100 10 –4

Weapons Offense 40,700 61 –20 4

Liquor Law Violation 19,600 29 32 59

Nonviolent Sex Offense 10,900 –13 2 –3

Other Public Order Offense 48,100 36 34 –10

Violent Crime Index* 102,600 33 –22 –8

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

* Includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

** Includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

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

based on unrounded numbers.

Trends in juvenile court cases

paralleled trends in arrests of

persons younger than 18

■ The number of cases involving offenses included in the FBI’s Violent

Crime Index1 (criminal homicide,

forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) increased 33%

between 1989 and 1998 but decreased 8% between 1997 and

1998.

■ The volume of cases involving

Property Crime Index offenses

(burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson) increased

3% between 1989 and 1998 but

decreased 10% between 1997

and 1998.

■ Between 1994 and 1998, the FBI reported that the number of arrests

involving persons younger than 18

charged with Violent Crime Index

offenses decreased 19%, while arrests of youth for Property Crime

Index offenses decreased 17%.

■ According to the FBI, the number

of juvenile arrests for homicide

decreased 48% between 1994 and

1998, a change that corresponds

to the trend in juvenile court cases

involving homicide charges.

1 The annual series of reports from the

FBI, Crime in the United States, provides

information on arrests in offense categories that have become part of the

common vocabulary of criminal justice

statistics. The Crime in the United States

series tracks changes in the general nature of arrests through the use of two

indexes, the Violent Crime Index and

the Property Crime Index. While not

containing all violent or all property offenses, the indexes serve as a barometer of criminal activity in the United

States. The arrest trends reported

above are from Crime in the United

States 1998.

Counts and Trends
8 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Case Rates

Analysis of case rates permits

comparisons of juvenile court

activity over time while controlling

for differences in the juvenile

population

■ In 1998, juvenile courts processed

60.4 delinquency cases for every

1,000 juveniles in the population—

those age 10 or older who were under the jurisdiction of a juvenile

court.2

■ The total delinquency case rate

rose 25% from 1989 to 1998.3

■ During the same time period, case

rates increased in three of the four

general offense categories: person

offenses by 64%, drug law violations by 115%, and public order

offenses by 51%.

■ In contrast to other offense categories, case rates for property offenses declined 4% between 1989

and 1998.

2 The upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction is defined by statute in each

State. See the Glossary of Terms section

for a more detailed discussion on upper

age of juvenile court jurisdiction. Case

rates presented in this Report control for

State variations in juvenile population.

3 The percent change in the number of

cases disposed may not be equal to the

percent change in case rates, because

of the changing size of the juvenile

population.

Delinquency case rates rose from 48.3 cases per 1,000 juveniles in

1989 to 60.4 cases per 1,000 in 1998

Case rates for drug offenses doubled between 1989 and 1998—from

3.1 to 6.6

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Total Delinquency

●

●

● ●

● ● ● ●

●

●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Property

Person

Public Order

Drugs

f
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 9

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Age at Referral

More than half of all delinquency

cases involved youth younger

than 16

Percentage of delinquency cases involving

youth age 15 or younger:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Delinquency 59% 60% 58%

Person 62 64 64

Property 63 64 62

Drugs 40 43 40

Public Order 52 55 52

■ In 1998, 58% of all delinquency

cases processed by the juvenile

courts involved youth age 15 or

younger at the time of referral.

■ The proportion of cases involving

juveniles age 15 or younger varied

by offense: younger youth accounted for a smaller proportion

of drug and public order cases

than of person and property offenses cases.

Offense profiles differed for

younger and older youth

Offense profile of delinquency cases, 1998:

Most Serious Age 15 Age 16

Offense or Younger or Older

Person 25% 20%

Property 48 41

Drugs 8 16

Public Order 19 23

Total 100% 100%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

■ Compared with the delinquency

caseload involving older juveniles

in 1998, the caseload of youth age

15 or younger included larger proportions of person and property

offense cases and smaller proportions of drug and public order offense cases.

In 1998, delinquency case rates increased with the age of the

juvenile

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Age

5.9 11.5

24.3

46.5

73.4

96.7

116.4 119.2

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

For all age groups 12 and older, delinquency case rates increased

19% or more between 1989 and 1998

Age at Case Rate Percent Change

Referral 1989 1994 1998 1989–98 1994–98

10 6.1 6.2 5.9 –3% –5%

11 10.8 11.6 11.5 7 –1

12 20.3 24.1 24.3 20 1

13 39.0 49.1 46.5 19 –5

14 59.0 76.2 73.4 24 –4

15 77.9 99.5 96.7 24 –3

16 91.7 117.2 116.4 27 –1

17 88.3 112.1 119.2 35 6

Case rate = Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group.

■ Delinquency case rates increased between 1989 and 1998 for each age with

the exception of 10-year-olds. The case rate for 10-year-olds decreased 3%

between 1989 and 1998.

Note: Percent change calculations are based on unrounded numbers.

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

rate for 14-year-olds was 3 times the rate for 12-year-olds. fg
10 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Patterns of age-specific case rates varied among individual offense

categories in 1998

■ Case rates increased continuously with age for drug and public order offenses;

however, rates for person and property offenses peaked in the 16-year-old age

group and then declined slightly for 17-year-olds.

■ The increase in case rates between age 13 and age 17 was sharpest for drug

offenses. The case rate for drug offenses for 17-year-old juveniles was more

than 8 times the rate for 13-year-olds.

■ For person offenses, the case rate for 17-year-olds was 81% greater than that

for 13-year-olds. For property offenses, the difference in case rates between

these two ages was 104%. For public order offenses, the difference was 247%.

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, 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.

Even after controlling for their different representation in the juvenile

population, the case rates for 16-yearolds were still slightly greater than

the rates for 17-year-olds in some offense categories. 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). These juveniles include those charged with serious offenses, those with lengthy records of

prior offenses, and those who are unreceptive to treatment in the juvenile

justice system. In these situations,

when a youth of juvenile age is arrested, the matter goes before a

criminal court rather than before a

juvenile court.

Age at Referral

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

✦ ✦ ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦ ✦

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Property

Person

Public Order

Drugs

Age
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 11

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Overall, the increase in delinquency case rates between 1989 and 1998 was less among youth ages 10–12

than among youth in older age groups, but the pattern varied across offenses

Age at Referral

■ The public order offense case rate generally increased

among all age groups between 1989 and 1998.

■ Across all years, the public order case rate among

youth ages 15–17 was more than double the rate for

youth ages 13–14 and more than 13 times the rate for

youth ages 10–12.

■ For all age groups, the drug offense case rate in 1998

was more than double the rate in 1989.

■ In 1998, the drug offense case rate for youth ages 15–

17 was 45 times the rate for youth ages 10–12 and

nearly 4 times the rate for youth ages 13–14.

■ The property offense case rate for youth ages 15–17

increased from 1989 through 1991, then declined and

leveled off through 1996. Between 1996 and 1998, the

rate again declined. The same general pattern was

found for youth in younger age groups.

■ For all age groups, property offense case rates were

lower in 1998 than in 1989.

■ Person offense case rates generally increased from

1989 to 1998. However, among the oldest youth, the

person offense case rate peaked in 1995 and then

leveled off through 1998.

■ On average, the case rate for youth ages 15–17 was

56% greater than the rate for youth ages 13–14 between 1989 and 1998.

Person offense case rates Property offense case rates

Drug offense case rates Public order offense case rates

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Ages 15–17

Ages 13–14

Ages 10–12

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 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

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 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

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Ages 15–17

Ages 13–14

Ages 10–12
12 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

● ●

●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Delinquency cases 

Property

Person

Public Order

Drugs

●

●

● ●

● ● ● ●

●

●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Delinquency cases 

Property

Person

Public Order

Drugs

Between 1989 and 1998, the number of delinquency cases involving

males increased 35%, while the number of cases involving females

increased 83%

Most delinquency cases involve

males, but the proportion of cases

involving females was greater in

1998 than in 1989

Percentage of delinquency cases involving

males:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Delinquency 81% 79% 76%

Person 80 77 72

Property 81 79 76

Drugs 86 86 84

Public Order 79 79 75

■ Nearly one-quarter (24%) of all delinquency cases handled in 1998

involved a female juvenile, compared with 19% in 1989.

■ In 1989, 20% of all person offense

cases involved a female juvenile;

this proportion increased to 28%

by 1998.

Offense profiles were similar for

males and females

Offense profile of delinquency cases, 1998:

Most Serious

Offense Male Female

Person 22% 26%

Property 45 45

Drugs 12 7

Public Order 21 21

Total 100% 100%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

■ In 1998, the male caseload contained a greater proportion of

drug offenses and a smaller proportion of person offenses than

the female caseload.

■ The overall female delinquency caseload grew at an average rate of 7% per

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

■ The growth in person offense cases was greater for females (157%) than for

males (71%) between 1989 and 1998.

■ For both males and females, the largest percent growth between 1989 and

1998 was in drug offense cases (142% and 187%, respectively).

Gender

Female

Male
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 13

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

● ●

●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Property

Person

Public Order

Drugs

●

●

● ●

● ● ● ●

●

●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Property

Person

Public Order

Drugs

Gender

Between 1989 and 1998, the

percent change in case rates was

greater for females than for males

in each general offense category

Percent change in case rates, 1989–98:

Most Serious

Offense Male Female

Delinquency 17% 26%

Person 49 124

Property –10 25

Drugs 111 145

Public Order 43 79

Across all offense categories, gender-specific case rates were higher

in 1998 than in 1989, with the exception of the property offense case

rate for males

Male

Female

■ In 1989, the delinquency case rate for males was 4 times greater than the rate

for females. By 1998, the male rate was less than 3 times greater than the female rate—89.4 compared with 30.0.

■ On average, the drug offense case rate for males was 6 times higher than the

rate for females between 1989 and 1998.
14 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

✦ ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦ ✦

✦

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Property

Person

Public Order

Drugs

Age

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

✦ ✦ ✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

✦

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Property

Person

Public Order

Drugs

Gender

Age-specific case rates for males

and females varied by offense

■ On average, male delinquency

rates were more than 3 times the

female rates within age groups.

■ Although delinquency case rates

generally increased with age, the

increase was more pronounced for

females than for males. For example, among females, the case

rate for 12-year-olds was more

than 6 times the rate for 10-yearolds; for males, the case rate for

12-year-olds was 3.5 times the rate

for 10-year-olds.

■ Male case rates increased continuously through age 17 in two of the

four delinquency offense categories: drug law violations and public order. For females, only the

drug offense case rate increased

continuously through age 17.

■ Within each age group, the drug

offense case rate for males was 5

times the rate for females. For person, property, and public order

offense cases, the male case rate

was 3 times the rate for females

within each age group.

In 1998, the delinquency case rate for males increased through

age 17, while the female case rate peaked at age 16

Female

Male

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Age

9.7

2.0

18.0

4.7

35.5

12.6

66.1

26.1

103.9

41.3

140.2

50.9

173.9

55.2

181.8

52.0

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Male

Female
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 15

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

The number of cases involving white youth increased 43% between

1989 and 1998, while cases involving black youth increased 44%, and

those involving youth of other races increased 54%

Most Serious Number of Cases Percent Change

Offense 1989 1994 1998 1989–98 1994–98

White 827,700 1,093,100 1,185,400 43% 8%

Person 121,000 209,700 250,200 107 19

Property 515,700 605,300 558,100 8 –8

Drugs 45,100 79,600 131,500 192 65

Public Order 146,000 198,500 245,600 68 24

Black 352,200 512,100 508,200 44% –1%

Person 86,800 139,400 141,600 63 2

Property 177,600 226,600 205,400 16 –9

Drugs 31,100 49,000 56,000 80 14

Public Order 56,700 97,100 105,200 86 8

Other Races 41,400 61,500 63,800 54% 4%

Person 6,500 11,700 12,000 84 3

Property 26,400 36,100 34,100 29 –6

Drugs 1,500 2,600 5,000 228 91

Public Order 6,900 11,100 12,700 83 15

■ Trends differed somewhat across racial groups. For all three groups, the smallest percent increase was in property cases.

■ For black juveniles, public order cases showed the largest percent increase

(86%); for white juveniles and for youth of other races, drug cases showed the

largest percent increase (192% and 228%, respectively).

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

based on unrounded numbers.

For all racial groups, a property

offense was the most common

charge involved in delinquency

cases disposed in 1998

Offense profile of delinquency cases, 1998:

Most Serious Other

Offense White* Black Races

Person 21% 28% 19%

Property 47 40 53

Drugs 11 11 8

Public Order 21 21 20

Total 100% 100% 100%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

White youth accounted for 67% of

the delinquency cases disposed in

1998

Race profile of delinquency cases, 1998:

Most Serious Other

Offense White Black Races Total

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

Juvenile

Population 80% 15% 5% 100%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Between 1989 and 1998, the

percent change in case rates was

greater for white youth and black

youth than for youth of other races

Percent Change

in Case Rate

Race 1989–98 1994–98

White 26% 4%

Black 25 –6

Other Races 10 –7

Race

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

1989 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

For each racial group, the case rate reached a peak in 1996 and then

declined

■ The total case rate for black juveniles in 1998 (115.2) was more than twice the

rate for white juveniles (51.4) and nearly three times the rate for youth of other

races (40.3).

* Throughout this Report, juveniles of

Hispanic ethnicity can be of any race;

however, most are included in the white

racial category.
16 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Race

Between 1989 and 1998, case rates increased for all racial groups in all offense categories except

property offenses

■ Between 1989 and 1998, the public order case rates

for whites and other races were less than half the rates

for blacks.

■ The increase in the public order case rate between

1989 and 1998 was greater for black juveniles (60%)

than for white juveniles (48%) or juveniles of other

races (31%).

■ Between 1989 and 1991, the drug case rate remained

virtually unchanged for black youth but dropped for white

youth (31%) and youth of other races (17%). Since 1991,

however, drug case rates have increased for all racial

groups: whites (271%), blacks (56%), and other races

(182%).

■ The 1998 drug case rate for blacks (12.7) was twice the

rate for whites (5.7) and four times the rate for youth of

other races (3.1).

Drug offense case rates Public order offense case rates

■ From 1989 through 1998, the property offense case rates

for whites and other races were about half the rates for

blacks.

■ For all racial groups, property offense case rates were at

their peak in the early 1990s. Since 1994, property case

rates have declined for each racial group: whites (11%),

blacks (15%), and other races (16%).

■ Each year between 1989 and 1998, the person offense

case rate for black juveniles was more than 3 times the

rates for white juveniles and juveniles of other races.

■ Between 1989 and 1998, the person case rate increased more for white youth (82%) than for black youth

(41%) or youth of other races (31%).

Person offense case rates Property offense case rates

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Black

White

Other Races

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ●

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Black

White

Other Races

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Black

White

Other Races

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age

Black

White

Other Races
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 17

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Overall, delinquency case rates increased with age in all racial

groups in 1998

Race

■ Within each age group, the case

rate for black youth was more

than twice the rate for white

youth and for youth of other

races.

■ Case rates increased through

age 17 for white youth and for

black youth but peaked at age 16

for youth of other races.

Data Table

Age White Black Other Races

10 4.6 13.1 4.4

11 8.9 25.7 8.7

12 19.0 53.4 18.0

13 38.2 93.9 32.6

14 61.4 142.6 50.6

15 81.3 187.9 65.4

16 100.3 220.3 74.0

17 105.2 232.5 69.3

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

50

100

150

200

250

Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

White

Black

Other Races
18 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

Race

Age-related increases in delinquency case rates occurred for each racial group within all offense

categories, although there were variations across the 12 offense-race combinations

■ Case rates for drug offenses increased continuously with

age for each racial group.

■ Drug offense case rates increased sharply after age 13

for white youth and black youth.

■ For black youth, the drug offense case rate for 16-yearolds was 9 times the rate for 13-year-olds.

Person offense case rates, 1998 Property offense case rates, 1998

Drug offense case rates, 1998 Public order offense case rates, 1998

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Black

White

Other Races ● ●

●

●

●

● ● ●

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Black

White

Other Races

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Black

White

Other Races ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ●

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Age

Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group

Black

White

Other Races

■ Regardless of race, person offense case rates increased

with age and reached a peak at age 16.

■ Within each racial group, the person offense case

rate for 16-year-olds was nearly twice the rate for

13-year-olds.

■ Similar to the pattern of person offense case rates, property offense case rates for all racial groups peaked at age

16 and then declined.

■ For each age group, the property case rate for black youth

was more than twice the rates for white youth and youth of

other races.

■ Case rates for public order offenses increased through

age 17 for white youth and black youth, while the rate for

youth of other races peaked at age 16 and then declined.

■ Within each age group, the case rate for public order

offenses involving black youth was more than twice

the rates for white youth and youth of other races.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 19

Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

■ Delinquency cases can be referred

to court intake by a number of

sources, including law enforcement agencies, social service agencies, schools, parents, probation

officers, and victims.

■ Law enforcement agencies are traditionally the source of most delinquency referrals. In 1998, for example, 84% of delinquency cases

were referred by law enforcement.

That percentage was the same in

1989.

■ There is some variation across the

four major offense categories in

the proportion of cases referred

by law enforcement.

■ In 1998, law enforcement agencies

referred 92% of drug law violation

cases, 90% of property cases, and

86% of person offense cases.

■ Law enforcement agencies referred a smaller proportion of

public order offense cases (64%),

perhaps because this offense category contains probation violations and contempt-of-court cases,

which are referred most often by

court personnel.

Source of Referral

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Person Property Drugs Public Order

Percent of cases referred by law enforcement

Most delinquency cases are referred to court by law enforcement

agencies

Data Table

Public

Year Total Person Property Drugs Order

1989 84% 82% 90% 92% 62%

1990 86 86 91 92 69

1991 84 81 89 88 69

1992 86 85 90 93 71

1993 87 88 91 94 70

1994 87 87 91 94 69

1995 87 88 91 94 69

1996 86 87 91 93 68

1997 85 86 91 93 65

1998 84 86 90 92 64
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 21

Chapter 3

National Estimates of

Delinquency Case Processing

Juvenile courts may divert some juveniles away from the formal justice

system to other agencies for service

or may decide to process juveniles

formally with the filing of a petition.

Juvenile courts may adjudicate these

formal cases and may order probation or residential placement, or they

may waive jurisdiction and transfer

certain cases from juvenile court to

criminal court. While their cases are

being processed, juveniles may be

held in secure detention.

This chapter quantifies the flow of delinquency cases through each stage of

the juvenile court system by offense

and by demographics (age, gender,

and race) of the juveniles involved.

The chapter focuses on cases disposed in 1998 and also examines

trends from 1989.
22 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

When are youth detained?

Juvenile courts sometimes hold

youth in secure detention facilities

during court processing. Depending

on the State’s detention laws, the

court may decide detention is necessary to protect the community, to ensure a juvenile’s appearance at subsequent court hearings, or to secure the

juvenile’s own safety. Detention may

also be ordered for the purpose of

evaluating the juvenile. This Report

describes the use of detention only

between referral to court and case

disposition, although juveniles can be

detained by police prior to referral

and also after disposition while awaiting placement elsewhere.

The offense profile of detained

delinquency cases has changed

since 1989

Offense profile of detained delinquency

cases:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Person 21% 27% 27%

Property 48 42 36

Drugs 11 10 13

Public Order 21 21 24

Total 100% 100% 100%

Number of

Cases 261,500 308,000 327,700

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

■ Compared with 1989, the 1998

detention caseload contained a

greater proportion of person offense cases and a smaller share of

property offense cases.

■ In 1998, the percentage of cases

involving detention was lower for

property offenses than for any

other offense category. Nevertheless, property cases accounted for

the largest share of all cases involving detention, because they

represented the largest share of

the juvenile court caseload.

Detention

Although the percentage of delinquency cases involving detention

decreased between 1989 and 1998, the number of such cases

increased

In 1998, juveniles were detained between referral and disposition

in 19% of all delinquency cases processed

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

1998 than in 1989. This pattern was most pronounced for drug cases.

■ Property offense cases were least likely to involve detention.

●

● ● ●

● ●

● ●

● ●

✦ ✦

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Delinquency cases detained

Property

Person

Public Order

Drugs

●

●

● ●

● ●

● ●

● ●

✦ ✦

✦ ✦

✦ ✦

✦ ✦

✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Percent of cases detained

Drugs

Public Order

Person

Property

All Delinquency

■ The number of delinquency cases involving detention increased 25% between

1989 and 1998. Person cases had the largest percent increase in the number

of detained cases (63%), followed by drug cases (55%) and public order cases

(44%). In contrast, the number of detained property cases declined 6%.

■ Despite the decline in the number of detained property cases, these cases still

accounted for the largest volume of cases involving detention in 1998.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 23

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Juveniles younger than 16

accounted for 53% of cases

involving detention in 1998

Age profile of detained delinquency cases:

Age at

Referral 1989 1994 1998

10 or Younger 1% 1% 1%

11 111

12 443

13 999

14 16 17 15

15 24 25 24

16 26 26 26

17 or Older 19 18 21

Total 100% 100% 100%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

■ The age profile for detention cases

changed only slightly between

1989 and 1998.

In 1998, 20% of male delinquency

cases and 14% of female cases

involved detention

Percentage of delinquency cases detained:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Male 23% 20% 20%

Person 27 25 24

Property 18 16 16

Drugs 38 25 23

Public Order 26 22 22

Female 17% 14% 14%

Person 19 17 18

Property 12 10 9

Drugs 28 18 19

Public Order 25 18 19

■ Between 1989 and 1998, changes

in the likelihood of detention were

generally comparable for males

and females.

■ For both males and females, the

greatest decline in the use of detention was for drug cases (15 and

9 percentage points, respectively).

■ In 1998, both males and females

were least likely to be detained in

cases involving property offenses

(16% and 9%, respectively).

In 1998, detention was used more frequently for older juveniles

than for younger juveniles

Percentage of delinquency cases detained:

Most Serious Age at Referral

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.

■ Overall, the likelihood of detention increased through age 17.

■ Across all ages, property offense cases were less likely to involve detention

than were cases in any other offense category.

Detention

The number of cases involving detention increased 20% among males

and 56% among females between 1989 and 1998

■ Although the percent increase in cases involving detention was greater for females than for males, the number of cases involving detention remained much

greater for males than for females. In 1998, males accounted for 81% of cases

involving detention.

■ Between 1989 and 1998, the percent increase in cases detained was greater for

females than for males in every offense category. For example, the number of

person offense cases involving detention increased 138% for females and 49%

for males.

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Delinquency cases detained

Male

Female
24 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Detention

Trends in the use of detention

varied by race and offense

Percentage of delinquency cases detained:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

White 18% 16% 17%

Person 22 20 21

Property 15 14 13

Drugs 23 17 18

Public Order 24 20 21

Black 29% 22% 23%

Person 30 26 24

Property 23 18 19

Drugs 56 36 35

Public Order 30 22 21

Other Races 27% 21% 21%

Person 31 29 29

Property 24 17 15

Drugs 32 23 20

Public Order 30 27 28

■ In 1998, youth were detained at

some point between referral and

disposition in 17% of delinquency

cases involving white juveniles,

23% of cases involving blacks, and

21% of cases involving youth of

other races.

■ The largest racial variation in detention use in 1998 was for cases

involving drug law violations. Detention was used in 18% of drug

cases involving white juveniles,

35% of cases involving blacks, and

20% of cases involving youth of

other races.

■ The proportion of cases involving

detention decreased for all racial

groups between 1989 and 1998,

but the decline was only 1 percentage point for white youth, compared with 6 percentage points for

black youth and youth of other

races.

■ For all racial groups, the greatest

decline in the use of detention between 1989 and 1998 was for drug

cases (down 5 percentage points

for white youth, 21 for black

youth, and 12 for youth of other

races).

For each racial group, the likelihood of detention was lower in 1998

than in 1989

■ For white juveniles, the number of delinquency cases involving detention increased 33% from 1989 to 1998. For black juveniles, the increase was 15%.

For youth of other races, the increase was 19%.

Between 1989 and 1998, the percent increase in the number of cases

involving detention was twice as great for white juveniles as for

black juveniles

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

Delinquency cases detained

White

Black

Other Races

●

●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent of delinquency cases detained

Black

White

Other Races
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 25

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Black youth were overrepresented

in detention caseloads in 1998

Black youth were overrepresented in

the detention caseload, compared

with their proportions in the overall

delinquency caseload. Although black

youth made up 29% of all delinquency

cases processed in 1998, they were

involved in 35% of detained cases.

This overrepresentation was greatest

for drug offenses: blacks accounted

for 29% of all drug cases processed

but 44% of drug cases detained.

Percentage of cases that involved black

juveniles in 1998:

Most Serious All Detained

Offense Cases Cases

Delinquency 29% 35%

Person 35 38

Property 26 34

Drugs 29 44

Public Order 29 29

In all offense categories, youth of

other races made up less than 5% of

all cases processed and of those involving detention.

Detention

Black juveniles accounted for a smaller share of delinquency cases

involving detention in 1998 than in 1989

■ In 1989, blacks accounted for 39% of the detention caseload; by 1998, their

proportion had decreased to 35%. Juveniles of other races remained at 4% of

the detention caseload from 1989 through 1998.

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Proportion of detained delinquency cases

White Black Other Races

Data Table

Other

Year White Black Races Total

1989 57% 39% 4% 100%

1990 57 38 4 100

1991 56 40 4 100

1992 58 38 4 100

1993 57 39 4 100

1994 58 37 4 100

1995 57 39 4 100

1996 56 39 5 100

1997 58 38 4 100

1998 61 35 4 100

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.
26 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Intake Decision

In 1998, 57% of all delinquency

cases were formally processed

Formal processing of a case involves

the filing of a petition that requests an

adjudicatory or waiver hearing. Informally processed cases, on the other

hand, are handled without a petition

and without an adjudicatory or

waiver hearing.

Percentage of delinquency cases

petitioned:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Delinquency 50% 53% 57%

Person 56 57 59

Property 48 50 53

Drugs 62 61 63

Public Order 50 55 61

■ In each year between 1989 and

1998, drug offense cases were

more likely than other cases to be

handled formally.

Offense profile of delinquency cases, 1998:

Most Serious

Offense Nonpetitioned Petitioned

Person 22% 24%

Property 50 42

Drugs 9 12

Public Order 19 22

Total 100% 100%

Number

of Cases 757,100 1,000,300

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

■ Compared with nonpetitioned

cases, petitioned cases in 1998 involved higher proportions of person, drug, and public order offenses and a lower proportion of

property offenses.

■ The number of petitioned drug offense cases increased 152% between 1989

and 1998—more than any other offense category.

Between 1989 and 1998, the petitioned caseload increased for all

offense categories

● ●

● ● ●

● ●

● ●

●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Petitioned delinquency cases

Property

Person Public Order

Drugs

The number of petitioned delinquency cases increased 62% between

1989 and 1998

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Petitioned

Nonpetitioned

Delinquency cases

■ Between 1989 and 1998, the number of nonpetitioned cases increased 25%,

and the overall delinquency caseload increased 44%.

■ Since 1992, petitioned cases have outnumbered nonpetitioned cases. In 1998,

there were 32% more petitioned than nonpetitioned delinquency cases.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 27

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

The likelihood of formal handling

increased between 1989 and 1998

for all demographic categories

Percentage of delinquency cases

petitioned:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Age

15 or Younger 48% 50% 54%

Person 53 54 56

Property 45 47 50

Drugs 62 59 61

Public Order 50 52 58

16 or Older 54% 58% 61%

Person 60 62 63

Property 53 55 58

Drugs 62 61 64

Public Order 50 57 63

Gender

Male 53% 56% 60%

Person 59 60 61

Property 51 53 57

Drugs 64 63 65

Public Order 51 56 62

Female 40% 43% 48%

Person 45 47 51

Property 35 38 41

Drugs 48 47 53

Public Order 47 50 56

Race

White 46% 49% 54%

Person 50 52 55

Property 45 48 51

Drugs 50 50 55

Public Order 46 52 58

Black 61% 61% 65%

Person 64 65 65

Property 57 56 59

Drugs 81 78 81

Public Order 60 60 67

Other Races 50% 51% 52%

Person 60 60 57

Property 48 48 48

Drugs 44 50 55

Public Order 48 49 58

Age

■ In each year between 1989 and 1998, delinquency cases involving juveniles age 16 or older were more likely to be petitioned than were cases

involving younger juveniles.

■ In 1998, 54% of delinquency cases involving youth age 15 or younger were

petitioned, compared with 61% of cases involving older youth.

■ Between 1989 and 1998, both age groups had a large increase in the proportion of public order cases petitioned.

Gender

■ In 1998, juvenile courts were less likely to petition delinquency cases

involving females (48%) than cases involving males (60%).

■ In 1998, for females, the cases most likely to be petitioned were those

involving public order offenses (56%), whereas for males, drug law

violation cases were the most likely to be petitioned (65%).

Race

■ Delinquency cases involving black juveniles were more likely to be petitioned than were cases involving white youth or youth of other races.

■ In 1998, racial differences in the likelihood of petitioning were greatest for

drug law violation cases: 81% of drug cases involving black juveniles were

petitioned, compared with 55% for both white juveniles and juveniles of

other races.

Intake Decision
28 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

The mechanisms used to transfer

responsibility for a case to the

criminal court vary by State

One of the first decisions made at intake is whether a case should be processed in the criminal (adult) justice

system rather than in the juvenile

court. Most States have more than

one mechanism for transferring cases

to criminal court. In some States,

prosecutors may have the authority

to file certain juvenile cases directly

in criminal court. In an increasing

number of States, cases that meet certain age and offense criteria are excluded by statute from juvenile court

jurisdiction and are thus filed directly

in criminal court. Most States also

have statutory provisions for judicial

waiver, whereby a juvenile court

judge may waive juvenile court jurisdiction in certain juvenile cases, thus

authorizing a transfer to criminal

court. In most instances, when a

waiver request is denied, the case is

then scheduled for an adjudicatory

hearing in juvenile court. This Report

describes only those cases that were

transferred to criminal court by judicial waiver.

Judicial waiver provisions vary from

State to State. In some States, these

provisions target youth charged with

violent offenses and offenses involving firearms. Most State statutes also

limit judicial waiver to juveniles who

are “no longer amenable to treatment.” The factors that determine

lack of amenability vary but typically

include the juvenile’s offense history

and previous dispositional outcomes. In

addition, many State statutes instruct

juvenile courts to consider other factors, such as the availability of dispositional alternatives for treatment, the

time available for sanctions, public

safety, and the best interests of the

child. Although these factors play an

important role in the likelihood of a

case being judicially waived to criminal

court, they are not controlled for in

this Report because of the nature of

the data collection.

Waiver

Juvenile courts waived 33% fewer delinquency cases to criminal

court in 1998 than in 1994

About 1% of petitioned delinquency cases are waived, but trends in

the use of waiver vary by offense

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court

Drugs

Person

Property

Public Order

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

Total Delinquency

■ Between 1989 and 1992, drug offense cases were the most likely to be waived

to criminal court. Since 1993, however, person offense cases have been the

most likely to be waived.

■ The number of delinquency cases judicially waived to criminal court in 1994

was 51% greater than the number waived in 1989. By 1998, the number of

waived cases declined 33%, returning to the 1989 level.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 29

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Waiver

Although the number of waived cases has dropped in recent years,

the number was slightly higher in 1998 than in 1989 for all offenses

except property

The offense profile of cases

judicially waived to criminal court

changed considerably between

1989 and 1998

Offense profile of waived delinquency

cases:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Person 28% 44% 36%

Property 49 37 40

Drugs 16 11 16

Public Order 7 8 8

Total 100% 100% 100%

Number of

Waived Cases 8,000 12,100 8,100

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

■ The proportion of all waived delinquency cases that involved a

property offense as the most serious charge declined from 49% in

1989 to 40% in 1998.

■ The proportion of person offenses

among judicially waived cases

grew from 28% in 1989 to a peak of

47% in 1995 and then dropped to

36% in 1998.

● ●

●

● ● ●

●

●

● ●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 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

■ The number of judicially waived person offense cases increased 133% from

1989 to 1994 and then declined 45%, for a net increase of 28% between 1989

and 1998.

■ For drug offenses, the number of waived cases increased 40% from 1989

through 1991, declined 35% in 1992, and then rose 13% between 1992 and

1998. The net result was that the number of judicially waived drug offense

cases increased 3% between 1989 and 1998.

■ Waived property offense cases increased 18% between 1989 and 1991. After

1991, the number of waived property cases generally declined, so that the

number in 1998 was 17% less than that in 1989.

■ For public order offenses, the number of waived cases increased 75% between

1989 and 1994 and then declined 32% through 1998, for a net increase of 19%

between 1989 and 1998.
30 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

The probability of waiver to

criminal court is substantially

greater for cases involving older

juveniles than for cases involving

younger juveniles

Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases

waived to criminal court:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Age

15 or Younger 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

Person 0.5 0.7 0.3

Property 0.2 0.2 0.1

Drugs 0.4 0.3 0.3

Public Order 0.1 0.1 0.1

16 or Older 2.6% 2.8% 1.6%

Person 3.9 5.4 2.6

Property 2.5 2.4 1.6

Drugs 4.2 2.7 1.6

Public Order 1.0 1.1 0.5

Gender

Male 1.5% 1.6% 0.9%

Person 2.2 3.1 1.5

Property 1.3 1.2 0.9

Drugs 2.9 1.8 1.2

Public Order 0.6 0.7 0.4

Female 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%

Person 0.4 0.5 0.4

Property 0.4 0.4 0.3

Drugs 1.1 0.5 0.5

Public Order 0.2 0.1 0.1

Race

White 1.0% 1.1% 0.7%

Person 1.5 2.1 1.1

Property 1.1 1.0 0.8

Drugs 1.3 1.0 0.6

Public Order 0.4 0.5 0.2

Black 1.8% 1.8% 1.0%

Person 2.4 3.1 1.4

Property 1.3 1.1 0.8

Drugs 4.0 2.4 2.0

Public Order 0.9 0.7 0.4

Other Races 0.6% 1.5% 0.8%

Person 1.1 3.4 2.2

Property 0.6 0.8 0.4

Drugs 0.0 1.1 0.4

Public Order 0.2 1.2 0.4

Age

■ In 1998, 1.6% of all petitioned delinquency cases involving juveniles age 16

or older were waived to criminal court, compared with 0.2% of cases involving younger juveniles.

■ For older juveniles, the probability of waiver peaked in 1991 at 3.2% and

then declined through 1998. This pattern was most marked in waivers for

older juveniles charged with drug offenses, which peaked at 6.5% in 1991

and then dropped to 1.6% by 1998.

■ For younger juveniles, the overall use of waiver remained relatively unchanged, although there were some variations across offense categories.

Gender

■ In 1998, delinquency cases involving males were three times more likely to

be judicially waived to criminal court than were cases involving females:

0.9% of petitioned cases involving males were waived to criminal court,

compared with 0.3% of cases involving females.

■ For both males and females, the proportion of cases waived to criminal

court was smaller in 1998 than in 1989.

■ For males, judicial waivers for petitioned cases involving drug offenses

showed a substantial increase between 1989 and 1991 (from 2.9% to 4.3%)

and then declined considerably through 1998 (1.2%).

■ Drug cases involving females followed the same pattern, increasing from

1.1% in 1989 to 2.2% in 1991 and then declining to 0.5% in 1998.

Race

■ Among black juveniles, the use of waiver to criminal court for cases involving drug offenses peaked in 1991 (5.8%) and then declined through 1998.

■ For person offense cases, youth of other races were more likely to be

judicially waived than white or black youth.

Waiver
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 31

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

● ●

● ● ●

●

●

●

● ●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

Person

Property

Drugs

Public Order

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

● ●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

Property

Person

Public Order Drugs

Between 1989 and 1998, the

number of waived cases increased

12% for white youth and declined

13% for black youth

Percent Change

in Waived Cases

1989–98

Most Serious

Offense White Black

Delinquency 12% –13%

Person 65 –5

Property –12 –27

Drugs 52 –12

Public Order 26 6

The offense profile of waived

cases differed for whites and

blacks

Offense profile of waived cases:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1998

White

Person 23% 33%

Property 63 49

Drugs 7 10

Public Order 7 8

Total 100% 100%

Black

Person 33% 37%

Property 34 29

Drugs 25 26

Public Order 7 9

Total 100% 100%

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

■ From 1990 through 1998, person

offense cases made up the largest

share of the waived caseload for

black youth.

■ In comparison, property offense

cases made up the largest share

of the waived caseload for white

youth each year from 1989 to

1998.

Waiver

Among both white juveniles and black juveniles, the number of

person offense cases judicially waived to criminal court increased

sharply between 1989 and 1994

White

Black

■ Among black juveniles, the number of person offense cases waived rose 109%

between 1989 and 1994. This increase was followed by a 55% drop through

1998.

■ Among white juveniles, the number of property offense cases waived in 1998

exceeded the number of person offense cases waived, despite the 65% increase in waived person offense cases between 1989 and 1998.
32 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Adjudication

Both the overall proportion of petitioned delinquency cases and the

proportion of cases resulting in adjudication or waiver have grown

since 1993

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

A youth may be adjudicated delinquent after admitting to the charges in a

case or after the court finds sufficient

evidence to judge the youth delinquent.

The proportion of petitioned

delinquency cases in which

the juvenile was adjudicated

delinquent was about the same

in 1998 as in 1989

Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases

adjudicated:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Delinquency 62% 59% 63%

Person 57 55 61

Property 63 59 65

Drugs 65 58 63

Public Order 65 61 63

■ Adjudications as a percentage of

petitioned delinquency cases declined between 1989 (62%) and

1995 (58%). This decline was followed by an increase through 1998

(63%).

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

32%

18%

50%

31%

19%

50%

30%

20%

50%

30%

20%

50%

32%

21%

48%

32%

21%

47%

32%

22%

46%

33%

22%

45%

34%

21%

44%

37%

20%

43% Nonpetitioned

Petitioned —

Not adjudicated

Petitioned —

Adjudicated or

transferred

■ In 1989, 32% of all delinquency cases resulted in either adjudication of delinquency or waiver to criminal court. By 1998, this proportion had increased to

37%.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 33

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

The likelihood of adjudication

varied by demographic group

Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases

adjudicated:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Age

15 or Younger 63% 60% 65%

Person 57 56 62

Property 64 60 66

Drugs 67 60 66

Public Order 67 63 65

16 or Older 62% 57% 62%

Person 56 53 59

Property 63 58 63

Drugs 63 57 62

Public Order 62 59 61

Gender

Male 63% 59% 64%

Person 58 55 62

Property 64 61 66

Drugs 65 59 64

Public Order 65 62 63

Female 58% 54% 61%

Person 52 52 58

Property 58 53 61

Drugs 61 55 61

Public Order 63 59 63

Race

White 63% 61% 65%

Person 58 58 63

Property 64 62 66

Drugs 64 61 65

Public Order 66 64 64

Black 60% 53% 60%

Person 55 50 58

Property 61 54 61

Drugs 65 55 60

Public Order 62 57 61

Other Races 69% 65% 66%

Person 66 65 65

Property 69 65 66

Drugs 68 72 71

Public Order 70 65 66

Age

■ In each year from 1989 through 1998, juveniles age 15 or younger were

more likely than older juveniles to be adjudicated delinquent, regardless

of offense.

■ Between 1989 and 1998, the overall proportion of petitioned cases that resulted in adjudication increased for youth age 15 or younger but remained

the same for older youth.

■ For both age groups, the likelihood of adjudication increased for person

offense cases and remained the same for drug and public order offense

cases during this period.

Gender

■ Petitioned cases involving male juveniles were more likely to be adjudicated than were those involving females.

■ In 1998, the probability of adjudication for males was greatest in cases involving property offenses (66%); for females, the probability was greatest

in cases involving public order offenses (63%).

■ For both males and females, petitioned person and property cases were

more likely to be adjudicated in 1998 than in 1989.

Race

■ In 1998, petitioned cases involving black juveniles were less likely to be adjudicated than were cases involving white juveniles or juveniles of other

races.

■ Between 1989 and 1998, the likelihood of adjudication for petitioned delinquency cases increased for white youth but remained the same for black

youth and declined for youth of other races.

■ In drug cases, the likelihood of adjudication decreased for cases involving

black youth (from 65% to 60%) but increased for youth of other races

(from 68% to 71%).

Adjudication
34 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

The largest proportion of adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home

placement involve property offenses

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Person 19% 24% 24%

Property 50 46 41

Drug 9 9 11

Public Order 22 22 24

Total 100% 100% 100%

Cases Resulting in Outof-Home Placement 119,700 145,700 163,800

■ The offense profile of cases resulting in out-of-home placement changed somewhat between 1989 and 1998. The proportion of out-of-home placement cases

that involved person, drug, and public order offenses increased, while the proportion involving property offenses declined.

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

In dispositional hearings, juvenile

court judges determine the most appropriate sanction for delinquent

youth, generally after reviewing reports from the probation department.

The range of disposition options may

include commitment to an institution

or other residential facility, probation

supervision, or a variety of other

sanctions, such as community service, restitution or fines, or referral

to an outside agency or treatment

program.

This Report characterizes case disposition by the most severe or restrictive sanction. Although most youth in

out-of-home placements are also technically on probation, in this Report

cases resulting in placement are not

included in the probation group.

The court ordered out-of-home

placement in 26% of all

adjudicated delinquency

cases in 1998

Percentage of adjudicated delinquency

cases that resulted in out-of-home

placement:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Delinquency 31% 28% 26%

Person 33 31 27

Property 27 26 24

Drug 36 28 23

Public Order 38 31 28

■ The relatively high rate of placement in public order offense cases

may be related to the fact that this

offense category includes escapes

from institutions, weapons offenses, and probation and parole

violations.

■ Although the percentage of adjudicated delinquency cases resulting

in out-of-home placement declined

between 1989 and 1998 for all four

of the major offense categories,

the number of adjudicated delinquency cases resulting in out-ofhome placement increased 37%.

Between 1989 and 1998, placements increased more for person and

public order offense cases than for property offense cases

●

● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

✦

✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Adjudicated cases resulting in out-of-home placement

Property

Person

Public Order

Drugs

■ The number of adjudicated person offense cases that resulted in out-of-home

placement increased 73% between 1989 and 1998. During this period, the

number of drug offense cases that resulted in out-of-home placement increased 59%, public order offense cases increased 52%, and property offense

cases increased 12%.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 35

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

The likelihood of out-of-home

placement declined between 1989

and 1998 for all demographic

groups and offenses

Percentage of adjudicated delinquency

cases that resulted in out-of-home

placement:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Age

15 or Younger 31% 28% 25%

Person 33 30 26

Property 27 25 23

Drugs 38 30 24

Public Order 40 32 28

16 or Older 31% 29% 27%

Person 34 32 29

Property 28 27 26

Drugs 34 28 23

Public Order 36 30 29

Gender

Male 32% 29% 27%

Person 35 33 29

Property 28 27 26

Drugs 36 29 24

Public Order 39 32 30

Female 26% 22% 20%

Person 24 22 20

Property 21 20 17

Drugs 31 24 17

Public Order 36 27 24

Race

White 30% 25% 24%

Person 33 28 27

Property 26 24 23

Drugs 31 23 17

Public Order 38 29 27

Black 33% 33% 30%

Person 34 35 28

Property 30 31 28

Drugs 40 35 34

Public Order 38 34 32

Other Races 33% 32% 25%

Person 35 36 30

Property 30 30 25

Drugs 30 26 18

Public Order 39 33 24

Age

■ In 1998, about one quarter of adjudicated cases resulted in placement

outside the home for both juveniles age 15 or younger and those age 16

or older.

■ For both age groups, the use of out-of-home placement in adjudicated

drug offense cases decreased substantially between 1989 and 1998,

declining more than 10 percentage points.

Gender

■ Adjudicated cases involving male delinquents were more likely than those

involving females to result in out-of-home placement. In 1998, placement

was the most restrictive disposition in 27% of adjudicated cases involving

males and 20% of those involving females.

■ For both males and females, higher proportions of person and public order cases resulted in out-of-home placement in 1998 than did property or

drug cases.

Race

■ In 1998, adjudicated cases involving black youth were more likely to result in out-of-home placement than were cases involving white youth or

youth of other races. These data, however, do not control for offense

seriousness, offending history, or prior dispositions.

■ Between 1989 and 1998, the likelihood of placement in adjudicated drug

offense and public order offense cases declined for all racial groups,

especially for white youth and youth of other races.
36 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Dispositions: Probation

Nearly half of adjudicated delinquency cases that resulted in

probation in 1998 involved property offenses

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Person 17% 22% 23%

Property 59 51 45

Drugs 8 9 12

Public Order 16 19 21

Total 100% 100% 100%

Cases Resulting in

Formal Probation 211,400 275,500 366,100

■ The offense characteristics of adjudicated delinquency cases resulting in

probation changed somewhat between 1989 and 1998, with an increase in

the proportion of cases involving person, drug, and public order offenses

and a decrease in the proportion involving property offenses.

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

Probation remains the most likely

sanction imposed by juvenile

courts

Percentage of adjudicated delinquency

cases that resulted in probation:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Delinquency 55% 53% 58%

Person 54 53 58

Property 57 55 59

Drugs 54 51 59

Public Order 50 50 54

■ Probation was the most restrictive

disposition used in 366,100 adjudicated delinquency cases in 1998—

58% of all such cases handled by

juvenile courts

■ The likelihood of probation for adjudicated delinquency cases increased for all offense categories

between 1989 and 1998.

The number of adjudicated cases resulting in a disposition of

probation increased 73% between 1989 and 1998

● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

✦ ✦ ✦

✦ ✦ ✦

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Adjudicated cases resulting in probation

Property

Person Public Order

Drugs

■ Since 1989, the largest percent increase in the number of adjudicated cases

receiving probation was for drug offenses (169%), followed by person offenses

(128%), public order offenses (122%), and property offenses (31%).
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 37

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Dispositions: Probation

Between 1989 and 1998, the

likelihood of probation increased

for all demographic groups

Percentage of adjudicated delinquency

cases that resulted in probation:

Most Serious

Offense 1989 1994 1998

Age

15 or Younger 57% 55% 61%

Person 56 55 60

Property 59 57 62

Drugs 54 53 62

Public Order 51 52 58

16 or Older 53% 50% 54%

Person 50 49 53

Property 55 52 56

Drugs 53 50 57

Public Order 49 47 50

Gender

Male 55% 52% 57%

Person 52 51 56

Property 57 55 58

Drugs 53 51 58

Public Order 49 49 53

Female 59% 58% 63%

Person 60 59 65

Property 61 59 64

Drugs 60 57 64

Public Order 52 54 58

Race

White 56% 55% 58%

Person 55 55 58

Property 57 56 59

Drugs 58 56 63

Public Order 49 50 53

Black 55% 51% 57%

Person 52 49 58

Property 57 53 60

Drugs 50 46 51

Public Order 52 51 55

Other Races 53% 48% 57%

Person 53 48 56

Property 52 48 56

Drugs 66 49 60

Public Order 52 46 57

Age

■ Once adjudicated, younger juveniles were more likely than older juveniles

to be placed on probation. In 1998, 61% of adjudicated cases involving

youth age 15 or younger resulted in probation, compared with 54% for

youth age 16 or older.

■ For both age groups, cases involving property offenses and drug offenses

were more likely to result in probation following adjudication than were

cases involving person offenses or public order offenses.

Gender

■ For all offenses, females were more likely to be placed on probation following adjudication than were males. In 1998, probation was ordered in 63%

of adjudicated delinquency cases involving females and 57% of those involving males.

Race

■ Overall, the use of probation in adjudicated delinquency cases was about

the same for all racial groups in 1998. Probation was ordered in 58% of

adjudicated cases involving white youth and 57% of cases involving

black youth and youth of other races.
38 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

■ In more than half (58%) of all adjudicated delinquency cases in

1998, formal probation was the

most severe sanction ordered by

the court.

■ More than one-quarter (26%) of

adjudicated cases resulted in

placement outside the home in

a residential facility.

■ In 11% of adjudicated delinquency cases, the court ordered

the juvenile to pay restitution

or a fine, to participate in some

form of community service, or to

enter a treatment or counseling

program—dispositions with

minimal continuing supervision

by probation staff.

■ In a relatively small number of

cases (5%), the juvenile was

adjudicated but was released

with no further sanction or

consequence.

■ In 36% of all petitioned delinquency cases in 1998, the youth

was not subsequently adjudicated delinquent. The court

dismissed most of these cases

(67%), but 15% resulted in some

form of informal probation, 2% in

voluntary out-of-home placements, and 16% in other voluntary dispositions.

■ The court dismissed nearly

half of the informally handled

(nonpetitioned) delinquency

cases in 1998. A small proportion

of the remaining nonpetitioned

cases involved voluntary out-ofhome placements; most, however, resulted in voluntary probation or other dispositions.

Case Processing Overview, 1998

Placed

1,757,400 estimated Waived 163,800 26%

delinquency cases 8,100 1%

Probation

366,100 58%

Adjudicated Other sanction

634,100 63% 71,000 11%

Released

33,100 5%

Petitioned

1,000,300 57%

Placed

8,500 2%

Not adjudicated Probation

358,100 36% 52,600 15%

Other sanction

56,500 16%

Placed Dismissed

4,300 1% 240,500 67%

Not petitioned Probation

757,100 43% 246,800 33%

Other sanction

178,100 24%

Dismissed

327,800 43%

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 39

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

■ For every 1,000 delinquency cases

processed in 1998, 569 (57%) were

petitioned for formal processing

and 431 (43%) were handled

informally.

■ In many petitioned delinquency

cases that did not result in juvenile court adjudication, the youth

agreed to informal services or

sanctions, including out-of-home

placement, informal probation,

and other dispositions such as

restitution.

■ In a small number of cases (19 of

1,000), the juvenile was adjudicated but the court closed the

case with a stayed or suspended

sentence, warned and released the

youth, or perhaps required the

youth to write an essay. In such

cases, the juvenile is not under

any continuing court supervision.

■ Although juvenile courts handled

more than 4 in 10 delinquency

cases without the filing of a formal

petition, more than half of these

cases received some form of court

sanction, including probation or

other dispositions such as restitution, community service, or referral to another agency.

A typical 1,000 5 Waived 93 Placed

delinquency cases

208 Probation

361 Adjudicated 40 Other sanction

569 Petitioned 19 Released

5 Placed

204 Not adjudicated 30 Probation

32 Other sanction

2 Placed 137 Dismissed

431 Not petitioned 140 Probation

101 Other sanction

187 Dismissed

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

Case Processing Overview, 1998
40 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Offense Category, 1998

Placed

Person offenses Waived 39,300 27%

 403,800 cases 2,900 1%

Probation

83,000 58%

Adjudicated Other sanction

143,800 61% 13,300 9%

Released

8,200 6%

Petitioned

236,500 59%

Placed

2,200 2%

Not adjudicated Probation

89,800 38% 12,500 14%

Other sanction

10,800 12%

Placed Dismissed

300 <1% 64,300 72%

Not petitioned Probation

167,300 41% 56,600 34%

Other sanction

30,000 18%

Dismissed

80,400 48%

Placed

Property offenses Waived 67,100 24%

797,600 cases 3,200 1%

Probation

162,900 59%

Adjudicated Other sanction

274,400 65% 32,400 12%

Released

12,000 4%

Petitioned

422,600 53%

Placed

3,500 2%

Not adjudicated Probation

145,000 34% 24,700 17%

Other sanction

22,700 16%

Placed Dismissed

900 <1% 94,000 65%

Not petitioned Probation

375,000 47% 126,400 34%

Other sanction

101,100 27%

Dismissed

146,500 39%

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

Person Offense Cases

■ In 1998, more than 6 in 10 petitioned person offense cases resulted in the youth being adjudicated delinquent.

■ Most adjudicated person cases

resulted in some formal sanction,

such as probation (58%) or outof-home placement (27%). Only a

small proportion (6%) of these

cases were released.

Property Offense Cases

■ Of the four general offense categories, property offense cases were

least likely to be petitioned for

formal processing. However, once

petitioned, property offense cases

were more likely to result in the

youth being adjudicated than were

cases involving person, drug, or

public order offenses.

■ Juvenile courts handled 47% of all

property offense cases without

the filing of a petition. More than

60% of these cases received some

form of court sanction, including

probation, restitution, community

service, or referral to another

agency.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 41

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Placed

Drug offenses Waived 17,800 23%

192,500 cases 1,300 1%

Probation

45,100 59%

Adjudicated Other sanction

76,700 63% 8,400 11%

Released

5,400 7%

Petitioned

121,100 63%

Placed

900 2%

Not adjudicated Probation

43,000 36% 6,500 15%

Other sanction

6,800 16%

Placed Dismissed

300 <1% 28,800 67%

Not petitioned Probation

71,400 37% 27,000 38%

Other sanction

16,600 23%

Dismissed

27,600 39%

Placed

Public order offenses Waived 39,600 28%

363,500 cases 700 <1%

Probation

75,100 54%

Adjudicated Other sanction

139,100 63% 16,900 12%

Released

7,600 5%

Petitioned

220,100 61%

Placed

1,800 2%

Not adjudicated Probation

80,300 36% 8,900 11%

Other sanction

16,200 20%

Placed Dismissed

2,800 2% 53,400 66%

Not petitioned Probation

143,400 39% 36,800 26%

Other sanction

30,500 21%

Dismissed

73,300 51%

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

Case Processing by Offense Category, 1998

Drug Offense Cases

■ In 1998, 63% of all petitioned drug

offense cases resulted in the youth

being adjudicated delinquent.

■ Juvenile courts ordered formal

sanctions or waived jurisdiction

in 60% of all petitioned drug offense cases.

Public Order Offense Cases

■ In 1998, 39% of all public order

offense cases were not petitioned;

more than half of these cases were

dismissed, while the remaining

cases resulted in some form of

court sanction, including probation, restitution, community service, or referral to another agency.
42 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Age, 1998

Placed

Age 15 or younger Waived 89,100 25%

1,017,100 cases 1,000 <1%

Probation

215,400 61%

Adjudicated Other sanction

355,700 65% 33,900 10%

Released

17,400 5%

Petitioned

548,600 54%

Placed

3,800 2%

Not adjudicated Probation

191,800 35% 31,400 16%

Other sanction

27,500 14%

Placed Dismissed

2,200 <1% 129,200 67%

Not petitioned Probation

468,500 46% 161,200 34%

Other sanction

104,600 22%

Dismissed

200,600 43%

Placed

Age 16 or older Waived 74,800 27%

740,300 cases 7,100 2%

Probation

150,800 54%

Adjudicated Other sanction

278,300 62% 37,100 13%

Released

15,700 6%

Petitioned

451,700 61%

Placed

4,700 3%

Not adjudicated Probation

166,200 37% 21,200 13%

Other sanction

29,000 17%

Placed Dismissed

2,200 1% 111,300 67%

Not petitioned Probation

288,600 39% 85,600 30%

Other sanction

73,600 25%

Dismissed

127,200 44%

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

■ Youth age 15 or younger were adjudicated delinquent in 65% of all

petitioned cases in 1998. In comparison, youth age 16 or older

were adjudicated delinquent in

62% of petitioned cases.

■ The proportion of petitioned

cases waived to criminal court

was less than 1% for youth age 15

or younger, compared with 2% for

older youth.

■ Nearly half of all cases involving

youth age 15 or younger were

handled without the filing of a petition. Of these cases, 43% were

dismissed without sanction.

■ In 37% of all petitioned cases involving youth age 16 or older, the

youth was not subsequently adjudicated delinquent. The court dismissed two-thirds of these cases,

but 13% resulted in informal probation, 3% in voluntary out-ofhome placement, and 17% in other

voluntary dispositions.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 43

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Case Processing by Gender, 1998

Placed

Male Waived 139,800 27%

1,333,300 cases 7,500 1%

Probation

289,100 57%

Adjudicated Other sanction

511,200 64% 56,100 11%

Released

26,200 5%

Petitioned

797,300 60%

Placed

7,700 3%

Not adjudicated Probation

278,600 35% 39,800 14%

Other sanction

43,100 15%

Placed Dismissed

3,400 1% 187,900 67%

Not petitioned Probation

535,900 40% 174,400 33%

Other sanction

121,600 23%

Dismissed

236,500 44%

Placed

Female Waived 24,000 20%

424,100 cases 600 <1%

Probation

77,000 63%

Adjudicated Other sanction

122,800 61% 14,900 12%

Released

6,900 6%

Petitioned

202,900 48%

Placed

800 1%

Not adjudicated Probation

79,500 39% 12,700 16%

Other sanction

13,400 17%

Placed Dismissed

900 <1% 52,600 66%

Not petitioned Probation

221,200 52% 72,400 33%

Other sanction

56,500 26%

Dismissed

91,400 41%

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

■ In 1998, 6 of every 10 cases involving males were petitioned. Of

these cases, 1% were waived to

criminal court and 64% resulted

in the youth being adjudicated

delinquent.

■ More than half of all cases involving females (52%) were handled informally. One-third of these cases

resulted in voluntary probation,

and 41% were dismissed without

sanction.

■ Adjudicated cases involving males

were more likely to result in out-ofhome placement than those involving females (27% versus 20%).
44 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Placed

White Waived 99,800 24%

1,185,400 cases 4,500 1%

Probation

240,300 58%

Adjudicated Other sanction

414,100 65% 53,200 13%

Released

20,700 5%

Petitioned

637,300 54%

Placed

5,000 2%

Not adjudicated Probation

218,800 34% 35,900 16%

Other sanction

39,800 18%

Placed Dismissed

3,600 1% 138,000 63%

Not petitioned Probation

548,100 46% 182,200 33%

Other sanction

129,000 24%

Dismissed

233,300 43%

Placed

Black Waived 58,400 30%

508,200 cases 3,400 1%

Probation

113,300 57%

Adjudicated Other sanction

198,000 60% 14,800 7%

Released

11,500 6%

Petitioned

329,800 65%

Placed

3,400 3%

Not adjudicated Probation

128,400 39% 15,200 12%

Other sanction

14,800 12%

Placed Dismissed

700 <1% 94,900 74%

Not petitioned Probation

178,400 35% 59,000 33%

Other sanction

42,200 24%

Dismissed

76,500 43%

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

Case Processing by Race, 1998

■ Cases involving black youth were

more likely to be petitioned than

were cases involving white youth

or youth of other races. Once petitioned, however, cases involving

black youth were less likely to be

adjudicated delinquent than were

cases involving white youth or

youth of other races.

■ For all racial groups, a small proportion of cases resulted in waiver

to criminal court.

■ Once adjudicated, cases involving

black youth were more likely to

result in out-of-home placement

than were cases involving white

youth or youth of other races.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 45

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

Placed

Other races Waived 5,600 25%

63,800 cases 300 1%

Probation

12,500 57%

Adjudicated Other sanction

22,000 66% 3,000 14%

Released

900 4%

Petitioned

33,200 52%

Placed

100 1%

Not adjudicated Probation

10,900 33% 1,400 13%

Other sanction

1,800 16%

Placed Dismissed

<100 <1% 7,600 69%

Not petitioned Probation

30,700 48% 5,600 18%

Other sanction

7,000 23%

Dismissed

18,000 59%

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

Case Processing by Race, 1998

■ Nearly half of cases involving

youth of other races were not petitioned. Most of these cases were

dismissed.

■ Juvenile courts ordered formal

sanctions or waived jurisdiction in

21,400 cases (64% of all petitioned

cases) involving youth of other

races.
46 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

A typical 1,000 22 Waived 171 Placed

Violent Crime Index cases

254 Probation

488 Adjudicated 38 Other sanction

774 Petitioned 26 Released

9 Placed

264 Not adjudicated 32 Probation

30 Other sanction

1 Placed 194 Dismissed

226 Not petitioned 51 Probation

55 Other sanction

119 Dismissed

A typical 1,000 5 Waived 94 Placed

Property Crime Index cases

210 Probation

355 Adjudicated 37 Other sanction

526 Petitioned 14 Released

4 Placed

166 Not adjudicated 30 Probation

27 Other sanction

1 Placed 105 Dismissed

474 Not petitioned 160 Probation

141 Other sanction

171 Dismissed

Notes: The Violent Crime Index includes criminal homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated

assault. The Property Crime Index includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and

arson. Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

Violent Crime Index Cases

■ In 1998, juvenile courts waived 22

of every 1,000 Violent Crime Index

offense cases to criminal court.

■ Juvenile courts ordered formal

sanctions or waived jurisdiction

in nearly half of all Violent Crime

Index offense cases.

■ Cases involving juveniles adjudicated for Violent Crime Index offenses were more likely to result in

out-of-home placement than were

Property Crime Index offense

cases.

■ Cases in which juveniles are not

adjudicated delinquent may result

in informal sanctions. Thus, juvenile courts imposed some sort of

sanction—formal or informal—in

two-thirds of the petitioned Violent Crime Index offense cases in

1998.

Property Crime Index Cases

■ Juveniles received informal sanctions in 36% of Property Crime

Index offense cases in 1998.

■ Juvenile courts waived 5 of every

1,000 Property Crime Index offense cases to criminal court.

■ Cases involving juveniles adjudicated for Property Crime Index offenses were more likely to result in

probation than were Violent Crime

Index offense cases.

Case Processing by FBI Offense Category, 1998
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 47

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

A typical 1,000 11 Waived 139 Placed

aggravated assault cases

259 Probation

464 Adjudicated 39 Other sanction

725 Petitioned 27 Released

7 Placed

250 Not adjudicated 36 Probation

29 Other sanction

0 Placed 178 Dismissed

275 Not petitioned 69 Probation

67 Other sanction

138 Dismissed

A typical 1,000 2 Waived 69 Placed

simple assault cases

185 Probation

302 Adjudicated 30 Other sanction

502 Petitioned 18 Released

4 Placed

198 Not adjudicated 27 Probation

25 Other sanction

1 Placed 143 Dismissed

498 Not petitioned 173 Probation

85 Other sanction

239 Dismissed

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

Aggravated Assault Cases

■ In 1998, juvenile courts waived

11 of every 1,000 aggravated assault cases to criminal court.

■ More than 60% of aggravated assault cases resulted in some sort

of sanction or in waiver to criminal court.

■ Juveniles received informal

sanctions (sanctions resulting

from cases not petitioned or not

adjudicated) in one-fifth of aggravated assault cases.

Simple Assault Cases

■ Compared with aggravated assault cases, simple assault cases

were less likely to result in courtordered sanctions or waiver to

criminal court.

■ Of every 1,000 simple assault

cases handled in 1998, more

than 300 resulted in informal

sanctions.

Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 1998
48 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

A typical 1,000 31 Waived 234 Placed

robbery cases

256 Probation

548 Adjudicated 35 Other sanction

879 Petitioned 23 Released

10 Placed

300 Not adjudicated 25 Probation

31 Other sanction

0 Placed 235 Dismissed

121 Not petitioned 19 Probation

33 Other sanction

70 Dismissed

A typical 1,000 11 Waived 156 Placed

burglary cases

323 Probation

548 Adjudicated 46 Other sanction

768 Petitioned 22 Released

5 Placed

209 Not adjudicated 40 Probation

33 Other sanction

1 Placed 132 Dismissed

232 Not petitioned 62 Probation

62 Other sanction

106 Dismissed

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

Robbery Cases

■ In 1998, juvenile courts waived

31 of every 1,000 robbery cases

to criminal court.

■ Juvenile courts ordered formal

sanctions or waived jurisdiction

in more than half of robbery

cases.

■ Juvenile courts imposed some

sort of sanction in nearly twothirds of robbery cases.

Burglary Cases

■ Juvenile courts waived 11 of

every 1,000 burglary cases to

criminal court in 1998.

■ Juvenile courts ordered formal

sanctions or waived jurisdiction

in more than half of all burglary

cases.

Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 1998
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 49

Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing

A typical 1,000 7 Waived 212 Placed

motor vehicle theft cases

276 Probation

536 Adjudicated 34 Other sanction

757 Petitioned 14 Released

11 Placed

214 Not adjudicated 25 Probation

27 Other sanction

1 Placed 151 Dismissed

243 Not petitioned 49 Probation

58 Other sanction

136 Dismissed

A typical 1,000 1 Waived 53 Placed

vandalism cases

190 Probation

307 Adjudicated 49 Other sanction

506 Petitioned 16 Released

4 Placed

197 Not adjudicated 32 Probation

26 Other sanction

0 Placed 136 Dismissed

494 Not petitioned 176 Probation

91 Other sanction

227 Dismissed

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

Motor Vehicle Theft Cases

■ In 1998, out-of-home placement

was ordered in more than 200

of every 1,000 cases involving

charges of motor vehicle theft.

■ Less than 1% of petitioned motor vehicle theft cases were

waived to criminal court.

Vandalism Cases

■ Juvenile courts handled about

500 of every 1,000 vandalism

cases informally (i.e., without a

petition) in 1998. Youth received

informal sanctions in 267 of

these informal cases.

■ Juvenile courts formally ordered

sanctions such as community

service and restitution in 49 of

every 1,000 vandalism cases,

compared with 34 of every 1,000

motor vehicle theft cases.

Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 1998
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 51

Chapter 4

Profile of Petitioned Status

Offense Cases

Status offenses are acts that are illegal only because the person committing them is of juvenile status. In

other words, adults cannot be arrested for status offenses. The four

major status offense categories used

in this Report are running away, truancy, ungovernability (also known as

incorrigibility or being beyond the

control of one’s parents), and underage liquor law violations (e.g., a minor in possession of alcohol, underage drinking). A number of other

behaviors may be considered status

offenses (e.g., curfew violations,

tobacco offenses), but they are not

discussed in this Report.

Juvenile courts may divert some juveniles charged with status offenses

away from the formal justice system

to other agencies for service or may

decide to process juveniles formally

with the filing of a petition. The analyses in this Report are limited to petitioned cases.

Juvenile courts may adjudicate these

petitioned status offense cases and

may order sanctions such as probation or out-of-home placement. While

their cases are being processed, juveniles charged with status offenses are

sometimes held in secure detention.

(Note that the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act discourages detention of status offenders.

States holding status offenders in secure detention risk losing a significant portion of their juvenile justice

block grant awards.)

This edition of JCS differs from previous editions in its presentation of statistics on petitioned status offense

cases. Whereas previous editions

presented national estimates of case

volume and trends, this edition presents a sample-based profile of cases

disposed between 1989 and 1998, including demographic characteristics

of the juveniles involved (age, gender, and race), types of offenses

charged, and the flow of cases as

they move through juvenile court

processing. The reasons for this

change are discussed on page 4.
52 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Age

The volume of petitioned truancy, runaway, and ungovernability cases

peaked at age 15

■ For liquor law violation cases, however, the proportion of cases increased substantially throughout the juvenile years. Three-fourths of liquor offense cases

involved youth age 16 or older.

Police referred few truancy,

ungovernability, or runaway cases

to juvenile 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 liquor law violations

than other status offense cases.

Percentage referred by law enforcement:

Most Serious

Offense 1989–98

Runaway 40%

Truancy 10

Ungovernability 11

Liquor 92

Data Table

Age Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor

10 0% 1% 1% 0%

11 1 3 3 0

12 4 6 6 1

13 11 14 14 2

14 22 24 22 7

15 27 30 25 16

16 24 15 20 33

17 10 7 9 42

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

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%

40%

45%

Age

Percent of cases within offense category, 1989–98

Liquor

Truancy

Runaway

Ungovernability
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 53

Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Gender and Race

The proportion of females was greater in petitioned status offense

cases than in delinquency cases

■ Females accounted for 61% of petitioned runaway cases. In no other offense

category (status or delinquency) was the female share of cases greater than

the male share.

Note: See pages 12–14 for delinquency case data by gender.

White juveniles accounted for the majority of petitioned status

offense cases

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

Gender and race representation in

status offense cases did not

always mirror representation in

the general population

■ The male and female proportions

of petitioned truancy and ungovernability cases were similar to

their representation in the general

population.

■ Petitioned liquor law violation

cases were disproportionately

male and runaway cases were

disproportionately female.

■ Compared with their representation in the general population,

white juveniles were overrepresented in petitioned liquor law

violation cases and underrepresented in the other three

status offense categories.

Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

71%

29%

55%

45%

54%

46%

39%

61%

Percent of cases within offense category, 1989–98

Male Female

Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

89%

5%

6%

71%

27%

3%

71%

26%

4%

74%

22%

4%

Percent of cases within offense category, 1989–98

White Black Other Races
54 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Detention

Paralleling the general caseload, youth age 15 or younger accounted

for a high proportion of status offense cases involving detention

■ Liquor law violations were the exception. Cases involving youth age 16 or older

accounted for nearly three-fourths (73%) of all liquor offense cases involving

detention.

Few youth involved in petitioned

status offense cases were held in

detention

Youth involved in truancy cases were

the least likely to be detained at some

point between referral and case disposition. Youth involved in runaway

cases were the most likely to be

detained.

Percentage of petitioned status offense

cases detained:

Most Serious

Offense 1989–98

Runaway 13%

Truancy 2

Ungovernability 8

Liquor 7

Older teens were more likely than

younger juveniles to be detained

in truancy and ungovernability

offense cases

Percentage of petitioned status offense

cases detained, 1989–98:

Most Serious Age 15 Age 16

Offense or Younger or Older

Runaway 13% 13%

Truancy 2 3

Ungovernability 7 9

Liquor 7 7

Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

27%

73%

66%

34%

73%

27%

65%

35%

Percent of detained cases within offense category, 1989–98

15 or younger 16 or older
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 55

Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Detention

Status offense cases involving detention had greater proportions of

males than females

As in the general caseload, the proportion of white youth among

status offense cases involving detention was greater than the

proportions of black youth and youth of other races

For all status offense categories,

males were more likely to be

detained than females

Percentage of petitioned status offense

cases detained, 1989–98:

Most Serious

Offense Male Female

Runaway 15% 11%

Truancy 3 2

Ungovernability 8 7

Liquor 8 5

Youth in all racial groups were

more likely to be detained for

runaway cases than other case

types

Percentage of petitioned status offense

cases detained, 1989–98:

Most Serious Other

Offense White Black Races

Runaway 12% 15% 16%

Truancy 2 3 3

Ungovernability 7 8 12

Liquor 6 14 6

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

Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

57%

43%

54%

46%

54%

46%

61%

39%

Percent of detained cases within offense category, 1989–98

Male Female

Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

68%

27%

4%

71%

26%

3%

71%

26%

4%

65%

31%

5%

Percent of detained cases within offense category, 1989–98

White Black Other Races
56 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

In most petitioned status offense

cases, the youth was adjudicated

Percentage of petitioned status offense

cases adjudicated:

Most Serious

Offense 1989–98

Runaway 45%

Truancy 60

Ungovernability 61

Liquor 59

Age

15 or Younger

Runaway 47%

Truancy 61

Ungovernability 62

Liquor 62

16 or Older

Runaway 41%

Truancy 57

Ungovernability 57

Liquor 58

Gender

Male

Runaway 46%

Truancy 60

Ungovernability 61

Liquor 60

Female

Runaway 45%

Truancy 60

Ungovernability 60

Liquor 55

Race

White

Runaway 45%

Truancy 60

Ungovernability 61

Liquor 58

Black

Runaway 43%

Truancy 62

Ungovernability 58

Liquor 50

Other Races

Runaway 53%

Truancy 61

Ungovernability 72

Liquor 75

Age

■ Across offenses, petitioned status offense cases involving younger juveniles were more likely than those involving older juveniles to result in

adjudication.

■ For both age groups, petitioned runaway cases were least likely to result

in adjudication.

Gender

■ With the exception of liquor law violation cases, the likelihood of adjudication was about the same for males and females. In liquor offense cases,

adjudication was more likely for males than females.

Race

■ Petitioned runaway cases involving black youth were less likely to result in

adjudication than cases involving white youth or youth of other races.

■ For three of the four offense categories (runaway, ungovernability, and

liquor law), adjudication was more likely for petitioned cases involving

youth of other races than for cases involving white youth and black youth.

For truancy cases, however, the likelihood of adjudication was similar for

all racial groups.

Adjudication
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 57

Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Age

■ With the exception of runaway cases, adjudicated status offense cases

involving younger juveniles were more likely to result in out-of-home

placement than were cases involving older juveniles. For runaway cases,

out-of-home placement was equally likely for the two age groups.

■ For both age groups, placement was more likely for adjudicated runaway

and ungovernability cases than for truancy and liquor offense cases.

Gender

■ With the exception of ungovernability cases, adjudicated status offense

cases involving males were more likely to result in out-of-home placement

than were cases involving females. For ungovernability cases, out-ofhome placement was as likely for males as for females. The same pattern

was seen for probation.

■ For both males and females, out-of-home placement was more likely for

adjudicated runaway and ungovernability cases than for truancy or liquor law cases.

Race

■ Across racial groups, more than half of all adjudicated liquor offense

cases resulted in probation.

■ Adjudicated runaway cases involving black youth were more likely to

result in placement than were cases involving white youth or youth of

other races.

Probation was the most common

disposition for adjudicated status

offense cases

Percentage of adjudicated status offense

cases, 1989–98:

Most Serious

Offense Placed Probation

Runaway 26% 56%

Truancy 11 78

Ungovernability 26 64

Liquor 7 57

Age

15 or Younger

Runaway 26% 56%

Truancy 12 77

Ungovernability 27 64

Liquor 9 60

16 or Older

Runaway 26% 54%

Truancy 8 80

Ungovernability 24 65

Liquor 7 55

Gender

Male

Runaway 28% 52%

Truancy 12 77

Ungovernability 26 64

Liquor 8 56

Female

Runaway 24% 58%

Truancy 10 79

Ungovernability 26 64

Liquor 4 59

Race

White

Runaway 25% 55%

Truancy 10 77

Ungovernability 26 62

Liquor 7 57

Black

Runaway 30% 55%

Truancy 12 81

Ungovernability 24 69

Liquor 16 52

Other Races

Runaway 22% 62%

Truancy 11 81

Ungovernability 25 63

Liquor 9 51

Note: In addition to out-of-home placement

and probation, possible dispositions for adjudicated status offense cases include other sanctions (e.g., fines) and release.

Disposition
58 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases

Runaway Cases

■ For every 1,000 petitioned runaway cases, 251 resulted in formal

probation following adjudication.

■ Among petitioned runaway cases,

youth were not adjudicated in 548

of a typical 1,000 cases. Of these

548 cases, most were dismissed

(376).

Truancy Cases

■ Of a typical 1,000 formal truancy

cases, 471 resulted in formal

probation.

■ Use of informal sanctions was

relatively uncommon in petitioned

truancy cases.

Ungovernability Cases

■ Juvenile courts were more likely

to order youth to out-of-home

placement in petitioned ungovernability cases (157 of 1,000 cases)

than in other types of status offense cases, but formal probation

was the most likely outcome (388

of 1,000).

Liquor Law Violation Cases

■ Among petitioned liquor law violation cases, the most likely outcome was formal probation (333

of 1,000), although the court often

ordered formal sanctions (e.g.,

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

Case Processing

117 Placed

Runaway 251 Probation

452 Adjudicated 44 Other sanction

A typical 1,000 petitioned

runaway cases 40 Released

172 Informal sanctions

548 Not adjudicated

376 Dismissed

65 Placed

Truancy 471 Probation

603 Adjudicated 49 Other sanction

A typical 1,000 petitioned

truancy cases 19 Released

89 Informal sanctions

397 Not adjudicated

308 Dismissed

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not

add to totals because of rounding.

157 Placed

Ungovernability 388 Probation

607 Adjudicated 41 Other sanction

A typical 1,000 petitioned

ungovernability cases 20 Released

93 Informal sanctions

393 Not adjudicated

300 Dismissed

42 Placed

Liquor law violation 333 Probation

588 Adjudicated 195 Other sanction

A typical 1,000 petitioned

liquor law violation cases 18 Released

210 Informal sanctions

412 Not adjudicated

202 Dismissed
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 59

Appendix A

Methods

Juvenile Court Statistics (JCS) uses

data provided to the National Juvenile

Court Data Archive by State and

county agencies responsible for collecting and/or disseminating information on the processing of youth in juvenile courts. These data are not the

result of a uniform data collection effort. They are not derived from a complete census of juvenile courts or obtained from a probability sample of

courts. The national estimates presented in this Report are developed

by using compatible information from

all courts that are able to provide

data to the Archive.

Sources of Data

The Archive collects data in two

forms: court-level aggregate statistics

and detailed case-level data. Courtlevel aggregate statistics either are

abstracted from the annual reports of

State and local courts or are contributed directly to the Archive. Courtlevel statistics typically provide

counts of the delinquency and status

offense cases handled by courts in a

defined time period (calendar or fiscal

year).

Case-level data are usually generated

by automated client-tracking systems

or case-reporting systems managed

by juvenile courts or other juvenile

justice agencies. These systems provide detailed data on the characteristics of each delinquency and status

offense case handled by courts, generally including the age, gender, and

race of the youth referred; the date

and source of referral; the offenses

charged; detention; petitioning; and

the date and type of disposition.

The structure of each data set contributed to the Archive is unique,

having been designed to meet the

information needs of a particular

jurisdiction. Archive staff study the

structure and content of each data set

in order to design an automated restructuring procedure that will transform each jurisdiction’s data into a

common case-level format.

The aggregation of these standardized case-level data files constitutes

the Archive’s national case-level database. The compiled data from jurisdictions that contribute only courtlevel statistics constitute the national

court-level database. Together, these

two multijurisdictional databases are

used to generate the Archive’s national estimates of delinquency cases

and to provide the sample of petitioned status offense cases.

Each year, juvenile courts with jurisdiction over more than 98% of the

U.S. juvenile population contribute

either case-level data or court-level

aggregate statistics to the Archive.

However, not all of this information

can be used to generate the national

estimates contained in JCS. To be
60 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix A: Methods

used in the development of national

estimates, the data must be in a compatible unit of count (i.e., case disposed), the data source must demonstrate a pattern of consistent reporting over time (at least 2 years), and

the data file contributed to the

Archive must represent a complete

count of delinquency and/or status offense cases disposed in a jurisdiction

during a given year.

In 1998, case-level data describing

905,319 delinquency cases handled by

1,476 jurisdictions in 28 States met

the Archive’s criteria for inclusion in

the development of national estimates.

Compatible data were available from

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,

California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New

York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington,

and West Virginia. These courts had

jurisdiction over 54% of the Nation’s

juvenile population in 1998. Compatible court-level aggregate statistics on

an additional 217,232 delinquency

cases from 581 jurisdictions were reported from the District of Columbia

and the States of California, Hawaii,

Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, New York,

Oklahoma, Texas, and Vermont. In all,

the Archive received compatible caselevel data and court-level statistics on

delinquency cases from 1,998 jurisdictions containing 70% of the Nation’s

juvenile population in 1998 (table A–1).

Case-level data describing 86,438 formally handled status offense cases

Table A–1: 1998 Stratum Profiles for Delinquency Data

Counties Reporting Compatible Data

Number of Counties

County Population Counties Case- Court- Percentage of

Stratum Ages 10–17 in Stratum Level Level Total* Juvenile Population

1 Less than 10,565 2,542 1,234 461 1,665 64%

2 10,565–44,575 393 165 85 232 61

3 44,576–110,519 114 51 23 69 63

4 More than 110,519 36 26 12 32 92

Total 3,085 1,476 581 1,998 70

* Some counties reported both case-level and court-level data; therefore, the total number of counties reporting delinquency data is not

equal to the number of counties reporting case-level data plus the number of counties reporting court-level data.

Table A–2: 1998 Stratum Profiles for Status Offense Data

Counties Reporting Compatible Data

Number of Counties

County Population Counties Case- Court- Percentage of

Stratum Ages 10–17 in Stratum Level Level Total Juvenile Population

1 Less than 10,565 2,542 1,320 429 1,749 67%

2 10,565–44,575 393 164 66 230 61

3 44,576–110,519 114 40 18 58 54

4 More than 110,519 36 26 5 31 90

Total 3,085 1,550 518 2,068 68

from 1,550 jurisdictions in 26 States

met the criteria for inclusion in the

sample for 1998. The contributing

States were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida,

Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North

Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,

Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West

Virginia. These courts had jurisdiction over 52% of the juvenile population. An additional 518 jurisdictions

in 7 States (California, Hawaii, Idaho,

Indiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia

reported compatible court-level aggregate statistics on 14,885 petitioned

status offense cases. Altogether, compatible case-level and court-level data

on petitioned status offense cases
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 61

Appendix A: Methods

were available from 2,068 jurisdictions containing 68% of the U.S. juvenile population in 1998 (table A–2). Additionally, petitioned status offense

case profiles in the Report include

case-level data describing 571,214

cases and court-level aggregate data

describing 74,874 cases for the years

1989 through 1997.

Juvenile Population

The volume and characteristics of juvenile court caseloads are partly a

function of the size and demographic

composition of a jurisdiction’s population. Therefore, a critical element in

the Archive’s development of national

estimates is the population of youth

that generate the juvenile court referrals in each jurisdiction—i.e., the “juvenile” population of every U.S.

county.

A survey of the Archive’s case-level

data shows that very few delinquency

or status offense cases involve youth

younger than 10. Therefore, the lower

age limit of the juvenile population is

set at 10 years for all jurisdictions. On

the other hand, the upper age limit

varies by State. Every State defines

an upper age limit for youth who will

come under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court if they commit an illegal

act. (See “upper age of jurisdiction”

in the “Glossary of Terms” section.)

Most States define this age to be 17

years, although some States have set

the age at 15 or 16. States often enact

exceptions to this simple age criterion (e.g., youthful offender legislation and concurrent jurisdiction or

extended jurisdiction provisions).

In general, however, juvenile courts

have responsibility for all law violations committed by youth at or

younger than the upper age of original jurisdiction.

For the purposes of this Report,

therefore, the juvenile population is

defined as the number of youth living

in a jurisdiction who are at least 10

years old but who are not older than

the upper age of original juvenile

court jurisdiction. For example, in

New York, where the upper age of

juvenile court jurisdiction is 15, the

juvenile population is the number

of youth residing in a county who

are between the ages of 10 and 15.

The juvenile population estimates

used in this Report were developed

with data from the Bureau of the Census.1 The estimates, separated into

single-year age groups, reflect the

number of whites, blacks, and individuals of other races who reside in

each county in the Nation and who

are between the ages of 10 and the

upper age of original juvenile court

jurisdiction.2

Estimation Procedure

National estimates are developed by

using the national case-level database, the national court-level database, and the Archive’s juvenile population estimates for every U.S. county.

1 County-level intercensal estimates

were obtained from the Bureau of the

Census for the years 1989–1998. The

following data files were used:

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1994. 1980–

1989 Preliminary Estimates of the Population of Counties by Age, Sex, and Race

[machine-readable data file]. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. Estimates of the Population of Counties by

Age and Gender: 1990–1998 [machinereadable data file]. Washington, DC: U.S.

Bureau of the Census.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. Estimates of the Population of Counties by

Age, Sex, and Race/Hispanic Origin:

1990–1998 [machine-readable data file].

Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the

Census.

2 “Other races” are Asians, American Indians, and Pacific Islanders. Most individuals of Hispanic ancestry are coded

as white.

3 The only information used in this

Report that cannot be aggregated by

county is data contributed by the

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice,

which identifies only the district in

which each case is handled. To use the

Florida data, the aggregation criterion

is relaxed to include districts. In 1998,

there were 3,141 counties in the United

States. By replacing Florida’s counties

with districts, the total number of aggregation units for this Report becomes

3,085. Therefore, while the Report uses

the term “county” to describe its aggregation unit, the reader should be aware

of the exception made for Florida’s data.

“County” was selected as the unit of

aggregation because (1) most juvenile

court jurisdictions in the United

States are concurrent with county

boundaries, (2) most data contributed by juvenile courts include

the county in which the case was

handled, and (3) youth population

estimates can be developed at the

county level.3

The Archive’s national estimates are

generated by analyzing the data obtained from its nonprobability sample

of juvenile courts and then weighting

(multiplying) those cases to represent

the number of cases handled by juvenile courts nationwide. The Archive

employs an elaborate multivariate

weighting procedure that adjusts for

a number of factors related to juvenile court caseloads: the court’s jurisdictional responsibilities (upper age);

the size and demographic composition of the community; the age, gender, and race profile of the youth involved in juvenile court cases; and

the offenses charged against the

youth.

The basic assumption underlying the

estimation procedure is that similar

legal and demographic factors shape

the volume and characteristics of

cases in reporting and nonreporting

counties of comparable size and features. The estimation procedure de-
62 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix A: Methods

velops independent estimates for the

number of petitioned delinquency

cases, the number of nonpetitioned

delinquency cases, and the number

of petitioned status offense cases

handled by juvenile courts nationwide. Identical procedures are used

to develop all case estimates.

The first step in the estimation procedure is to place all U.S. counties into

one of four strata based on the population of youth between the ages of 10

and 17. The lower and upper population limits of the four strata are defined each year so that each stratum

contains one-quarter of the national

population of youth between the

ages of 10 and 17. In each of the four

strata, the Archive determines the

number of juveniles in three age

groups: 10- through 15-year-olds, 16-

year-olds, and 17-year-olds. The three

age groups are further subdivided

into three racial groups: white, black,

and other. Thus, juvenile population

estimates are developed for nine ageby-race categories in each stratum of

counties.

The next step is to identify within

each stratum the jurisdictions that

contributed to the Archive case-level

data consistent with JCS reporting requirements. The national case-level

database is summarized to determine

within each stratum the number of

court cases that involved youth in

each of the nine age/race population

groups. Case rates (number of cases

per 1,000 juveniles in the population)

are developed for the nine age/race

groups within each of the four strata.

For example, assume that a total of

2,099,000 white youth between the

ages of 10 and 15 resided in the

stratum 2 counties that reported

case-level data to the Archive. If the

Archive’s case-level database shows

that the juvenile courts in these counties handled 41,685 petitioned delinquency cases involving white youth

between the ages of 10 and 15, the

number of cases per 1,000 white

youth ages 10 to 15 for stratum 2

would be 19.9, or:

(41,685/2,099,000) x 1,000 = 19.9

Comparable analyses are then used to

establish the stratum 2 case rates for

black youth and youth of other races

in the same age group (61.0 and 24.0,

respectively).

Next, information contained in the

national court-level database is introduced, and case rates are adjusted

accordingly. First, each court-level

statistic is disaggregated into the nine

age/race groups. This separation is

accomplished by assuming that for

each jurisdiction, the relationships

among the stratum’s nine age/race

case rates (developed from the caselevel data) are paralleled in the aggregate statistic.

For example, assume that a jurisdiction in stratum 2 with an upper age of

15 processed 600 cases during the

year and that this jurisdiction had a

juvenile population of 12,000 white

youth, 6,000 black youth, and 2,000

youth of other races. The stratum 2

case rates for each racial group in the

10–15 age group would be multiplied

by the corresponding population to

develop estimates of the proportion

of the court’s caseload that came

from each age/race group, as follows:

White:

(19.9 x 12,000) / [(19.9 x 12,000) +

(61.0 x 6,000) + (24.0 x 2,000)] = 0.37

Black:

(61.0 x 6,000) / [(19.9 x 12,000) +

(61.0 x 6,000) + (24.0 x 2,000)] = 0.56

Other:

(24.0 x 2,000) / [(19.9 x 12,000) +

(61.0 x 6,000) + (24.0 x 2,000)] = 0.07

The jurisdiction’s total caseload of

600 would then be allocated based on

these proportions. In this example,

37% of all cases reported in the

jurisdiction’s aggregate statistics involved white youth, 56% involved

black youth, and the remaining 7% involved youth of other races. When

these proportions are applied to a

reported aggregate statistic of 600

cases, this jurisdiction is estimated to

have handled 222 white youth, 336

black youth, and 42 youth of other

races age 15 or younger. The same

method is used to develop case

counts for all nine age/race groups

for each jurisdiction reporting only

aggregate court-level statistics.

The disaggregated court-level counts

are added to the counts developed

from case-level data to produce an estimate of the number of cases involving each of the nine age/race groups

handled by reporting courts in each

of the four strata. The juvenile population figures for the entire sample

are also compiled. Together, the case

counts and the juvenile population

figures are used to generate a revised

set of case rates for each of the nine

age/race groups within the four

strata.

Stratum estimates for the total number of cases involving each age/race

group are then calculated by multiplying the revised case rate for each of

the nine age/race groups in a stratum

by the corresponding juvenile population in all counties belonging to that

stratum (both reporting and

nonreporting).

After the national estimate for the total number of cases in each age/race

group in each stratum has been calculated, the next step is to generate estimates of their case characteristics.

This estimate is accomplished by

weighting the individual case-level

records stored in the Archive’s national case-level database. For example, assume that the Archive

generates an estimate of 44,552

petitioned delinquency cases involving white 16-year-olds from stratum 2
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 63

Appendix A: Methods

juvenile courts. Assume also that the

national case-level database for that

year contained 18,843 petitioned delinquency cases involving white 16-

year-olds from stratum 2 counties. In

the Archive’s national estimation

database, each stratum 2 petitioned

delinquency case that involved a

white 16-year-old would be weighted

by 2.36, because:

44,552/18,843 = 2.36

The final step in the estimation procedure is to impute missing data on

individual case records. Table A–3

indicates the standardized data

elements that were available from

each jurisdiction’s 1998 data set. The

procedures to adjust for missing

data assume that case records with

missing data are similar in structure

to those without missing data. For example, assume that among cases from

a particular stratum, detention information was missing on 100 cases involving 16-year-old white males who

were petitioned to court, adjudicated

for a property offense, and then

placed on probation. If similar cases

from the same stratum showed that

20% of these cases involved detention,

then it would be assumed that 20% of

the 100 cases missing detention information also involved detention. Thus,

missing data are imputed within each

stratum by reviewing the characteristics of cases with similar case attributes (i.e., the age, gender, and race

of the youth; the offense charged; and

the court’s decisions on detention, petition, adjudication, and disposition).

More detailed information about the

Archive’s national estimation methodology is available upon request from

the National Center for Juvenile Justice.
64 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix A: Methods

Table A–3: Content of Case-Level Data Sources, 1998

Age at Referral Referral Secure Manner of

Data Source Referral Gender Race Source Reason Detention Handling Adjudication Disposition

Alabama AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL

Alaska AK AK AK – AK AK AK AK AK

Arizona AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ

Arkansas AR AR AR – AR – AR AR AR

California CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA

Connecticut CT CT CT CT CT – CT CT CT

Florida FL FL FL – FL – FL FL FL

Illinois1 IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL

Kentucky KY KY KY – KY – KY – –

Maryland MD MD MD MD MD – MD MD MD

Minnesota MN MN MN MN MN – MN MN MN

Mississippi MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

Missouri MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO

Montana MT MT MT MT MT – MT MT MT

Nebraska NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

Nevada NV NV NV – NV NV NV NV NV

New Jersey NJ NJ NJ – NJ – NJ NJ NJ

New York NY NY – NY NY NY NY NY NY

North Dakota ND ND ND ND ND – ND ND ND

Ohio2 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH

Pennsylvania PA PA PA PA PA – PA PA PA

South Carolina SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC

South Dakota SD SD SD – SD SD SD SD SD

Tennessee TN TN TN TN TN – TN TN TN

Utah UT UT UT UT UT – UT UT UT

Virginia VA VA VA – VA – VA – VA

Washington WA WA WA WA WA – WA WA WA

West Virginia WV WV WV WV WV WV WV – WV

Percentage of

Estimation Sample 99% 100% 92% 67% 94% 35% 100% 90% 92%

Note: The symbol “–” indicates that compatible data for this variable are not reported by this State.

1 Data from Cook County only.

2

 Data from Cuyahoga County only.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 65

Appendix B

Glossary of Terms

Adjudication: Judicial determination

(judgment) that a juvenile is responsible for the delinquency or status

offense charged in a petition.

Age: Age at the time of referral to

juvenile court.

Case rate: Number of cases disposed

per 1,000 juveniles in the population.

The population base used to calculate

the case rate varies. For example, the

population base for the male case

rate is the total number of male youth

age 10 or older under the jurisdiction

of the juvenile courts. (See “juvenile

population.”)

Delinquency: Acts or conduct in violation of criminal law. (See “reason for

referral.”)

Delinquent act: An act committed by

a juvenile which, if committed by an

adult, would be a criminal act. The

juvenile court has jurisdiction over

delinquent acts. Delinquent acts include crimes against persons, crimes

against property, drug offenses, and

crimes against public order.

Dependency case: Those cases involving neglect or inadequate care on

the part of parents or guardians, such

as abandonment or desertion; abuse

or cruel treatment; improper or inadequate conditions in the home; and

insufficient care or support resulting

from death, absence, or physical or

mental incapacity of parents.

Detention: The placement of a youth

in a secure facility under court authority at some point between the

time of referral to court intake and

case disposition. This Report does

not include detention decisions made

by law enforcement officials prior to

court referral or those occurring after

the disposition of a case.

Disposition: Sanction ordered or treatment plan decided on or initiated in a

particular case. Case dispositions are

coded into the following categories:

◆ Waived to criminal court—Cases

that were transferred to criminal

court as the result of a judicial

waiver hearing in juvenile court.

◆ Placement—Cases in which youth

were placed in a residential facility

for delinquents or status offenders

or cases in which youth were otherwise removed from their homes

and placed elsewhere.

◆ Probation—Cases in which youth

were placed on informal/voluntary

or formal/court-ordered supervision.

◆ Dismissed/released—Cases dismissed or otherwise released (including those warned and counseled) with no further sanction or
66 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

consequence anticipated. Among

cases handled informally (see

“manner of handling”), some cases

may be dismissed by the juvenile

court because the matter is being

handled in another court or

agency.

◆ Other—Miscellaneous dispositions

not included above. These dispositions include fines, restitution,

community service, referrals outside the court for services with

minimal or no further court involvement anticipated, and dispositions coded as “other” in a

jurisdiction’s original data.

Formal handling: See “manner of

handling.”

Informal handling: See “manner of

handling.”

Intake decision: The decision made

by juvenile court intake that results in

the case either being handled informally at the intake level or being petitioned and scheduled for an adjudicatory or transfer hearing.

Judicial decision: The decision made

in response to a petition that asks the

court to adjudicate or transfer the

youth. This decision is generally

made by a juvenile court judge or

referee.

Judicial disposition: The disposition

rendered in a case after the judicial

decision has been made.

Juvenile: Youth at or below the upper

age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. (See “juvenile population” and

“upper age of jurisdiction.”)

Juvenile court: Any court that has

jurisdiction over matters involving

juveniles.

Juvenile population: For delinquency

and status offense matters, the juvenile population is defined as the number of children between the age of 10

and the upper age of jurisdiction. For

dependency matters, it is defined as

the number of children at or below

the upper age of jurisdiction. In all

States, the upper age of jurisdiction

is defined by statute. Thus, when the

upper age of jurisdiction is 17, the delinquency and status offense juvenile

population is equal to the number of

children ages 10 through 17 living

within the geographical area serviced

by the court. (See “upper age of

jurisdiction.”)

Manner of handling: A general classification of case processing within the

court system. Petitioned (formally

handled) cases are those that appear

on the official court calendar in response to the filing of a petition,

complaint, or other legal instrument

requesting the court to adjudicate

a youth as a delinquent, status offender, or dependent child or to waive

jurisdiction and transfer a youth to

criminal court for processing as a

criminal offender. In nonpetitioned

(informally handled) cases, duly

authorized court personnel, having

screened the case, decide not to file

a formal petition. Such personnel include judges, referees, probation

officers, other officers of the court,

and/or agencies statutorily designated to conduct petition screening

for the juvenile court.

Nonpetitioned case: See “manner of

handling.”

Petition: A document filed in juvenile

court alleging that a juvenile is a delinquent or a status offender and asking that the court assume jurisdiction

over the juvenile or that an alleged

delinquent be transferred to criminal

court for prosecution as an adult.

Petitioned case: See “manner of

handling.”

Race: The race of the youth referred,

as determined by the youth or by

court personnel.

◆ White—A person having origins in

any of the indigenous peoples of

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle

East. (In both the population and

court data, nearly all youth of Hispanic ethnicity were included in

the white racial category.)

◆ Black—A person having origins in

any of the black racial groups of

Africa.

◆ Other—A person having origins in

any of the indigenous peoples of

North America, the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent,

or the Pacific Islands.

Reason for referral: The most serious

offense for which a youth is referred

to court intake. Attempts to commit

an offense are included under that offense, except attempted murder,

which is included in the aggravated

assault category.

◆ Crimes against persons—Includes

criminal homicide, forcible rape,

robbery, aggravated assault,

simple assault, and other person

offenses as defined below.

● Criminal homicide—Causing

the death of another person

without legal justification or

excuse. Criminal homicide is a

summary category, not a single

codified offense. In law, the

term embraces all homicides in

which the perpetrator intentionally kills someone without legal

justification or accidentally kills

someone as a consequence of

reckless or grossly negligent

conduct. It includes all conduct

encompassed by the terms murder, nonnegligent (voluntary)

manslaughter, negligent (involuntary) manslaughter, and vehicular manslaughter. The term

is broader than the Crime Index

category used in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s)

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), in
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 67

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

which murder/nonnegligent

manslaughter does not include

negligent manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter.

● Forcible rape—Sexual intercourse or attempted sexual intercourse with a female against

her will by force or threat of

force. The term is used in the

same sense as in the UCR Crime

Index. Some States have enacted

gender-neutral rape or sexual

assault statutes that prohibit

forced sexual penetration of either sex. Data reported by such

States do not distinguish between forcible rape of females

as defined above and other

sexual assaults. (Other violent

sex offenses are classified as

“other offenses against persons.”)

● Robbery—Unlawful taking or attempted taking of property that

is in the immediate possession

of another by force or threat of

force. The term is used in the

same sense as in the UCR Crime

Index and includes forcible

purse snatching.

● Assault—Unlawful intentional

infliction, or attempted or

threatened infliction, of injury

upon the person of another.

* Aggravated assault—Unlawful

intentional infliction of serious

bodily injury or unlawful

threat or attempt to inflict

bodily injury or death by

means of a deadly or dangerous weapon with or without

actual infliction of any injury.

The term is used in the same

sense as in the UCR Crime

Index. It includes conduct encompassed under the statutory names aggravated assault

and battery, aggravated battery, assault with intent to kill,

assault with intent to commit

murder or manslaughter, atrocious assault, attempted murder, felonious assault, and

assault with a deadly weapon.

* Simple assault—Unlawful

intentional infliction or attempted or threatened infliction of less than serious bodily

injury without a deadly or

dangerous weapon. The term

is used in the same sense as in

UCR reporting. Simple assault

is not often distinctly named

in statutes because it encompasses all assaults not explicitly named and defined as serious. Unspecified assaults are

classified as “other offenses

against persons.”

● Other offenses against persons—Includes kidnapping, violent sex acts other than forcible

rape (e.g., incest, sodomy),

custody interference, unlawful

restraint, false imprisonment,

reckless endangerment, harassment, and attempts to commit

any such acts.

◆ Crimes against property—

Includes burglary, larceny, motor

vehicle theft, arson, vandalism,

stolen property offenses, trespassing, and other property offenses as

defined below.

● Burglary—Unlawful entry or

attempted entry of any fixed

structure, vehicle, or vessel

used for regular residence, industry, or business, with or

without force, with intent to

commit a felony or larceny. The

term is used in the same sense

as in the UCR Crime Index.

● Larceny—Unlawful taking or

attempted taking of property

(other than a motor vehicle)

from the possession of another

by stealth, without force and

without deceit, with intent to

permanently deprive the owner

of the property. This term is

used in the same sense as in the

UCR Crime Index. It includes

shoplifting and purse snatching

without force.

● Motor vehicle theft—Unlawful

taking or attempted taking of

a self-propelled road vehicle

owned by another with the intent to deprive the owner of it

permanently or temporarily.

The term is used in the same

sense as in the UCR Crime Index. It includes joyriding or unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as well as grand theft auto.

● Arson—Intentional damage or

destruction by means of fire or

explosion of the property of another without the owner’s consent or of any property with intent to defraud, or attempting

the above acts. The term is used

in the same sense as in the UCR

Crime Index.

● Vandalism—Destroying, damaging, or attempting to destroy or

damage public property or the

property of another without the

owner’s consent, except by

burning.

● Stolen property offenses—Unlawfully and knowingly receiving, buying, or possessing stolen

property or attempting any of

the above. The term is used in

the same sense as the UCR category “stolen property: buying,

receiving, possessing.”

● Trespassing—Unlawful entry or

attempted entry of the property

of another with the intent to

commit a misdemeanor other

than larceny or without intent to

commit a crime.

● Other property offenses—

Includes extortion and all fraud

offenses, such as forgery, counterfeiting, embezzlement, check

or credit card fraud, and attempts to commit any such

offenses.

◆ Drug law violations—Includes unlawful sale, purchase, distribution,

manufacture, cultivation, transport, possession, or use of a
68 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

controlled or prohibited substance

or drug or drug paraphernalia, or

attempt to commit these acts. Sniffing of glue, paint, gasoline, and

other inhalants is also included.

Hence, the term is broader than

the UCR category “drug abuse

violations.”

◆ Offenses against public order—

Includes weapons offenses; nonviolent sex offenses; liquor law violations, not status; disorderly conduct; obstruction of justice; and

other offenses against public order

as defined below.

● Weapons offenses—Unlawful

sale, distribution, manufacture,

alteration, transportation, possession, or use of a deadly or

dangerous weapon or accessory, or attempt to commit any

of these acts. The term is used

in the same sense as the UCR

category “weapons: carrying,

possessing, etc.”

● Sex offenses—All offenses having a sexual element not involving violence. The term combines

the meaning of the UCR categories “prostitution and commercialized vice” and “sex offenses.” It includes offenses

such as statutory rape, indecent

exposure, prostitution, solicitation, pimping, lewdness, fornication, and adultery.

● Liquor law violations, not

status—Being in a public place

while intoxicated through consumption of alcohol. It includes

public intoxication, drunkenness, and other liquor law violations. It does not include driving

under the influence. The term is

used in the same sense as the

UCR category of the same name.

Some States treat public drunkenness of juveniles as a status

offense rather than delinquency.

Hence, some of these offenses

may appear under the status

offense code “status liquor law

violations.” (When a person who

is publicly intoxicated performs

acts that cause a disturbance,

he or she may be charged with

disorderly conduct.)

● Disorderly conduct—Unlawful

interruption of the peace, quiet,

or order of a community, including offenses called disturbing

the peace, vagrancy, loitering,

unlawful assembly, and riot.

● Obstruction of justice—Intentionally obstructing court or law

enforcement efforts in the administration of justice, acting

in a way calculated to lessen

the authority or dignity of the

court, failing to obey the lawful

order of a court, escaping from

confinement, and violating

probation or parole. This term

includes contempt, perjury,

bribery of witnesses, failure to

report a crime, and nonviolent

resistance of arrest.

● Other offenses against public

order—Other offenses against

government administration or

regulation, such as bribery; violations of laws pertaining to fish

and game, gambling, health,

hitchhiking, and immigration;

and false fire alarms.

◆ Status offenses—Includes acts or

types of conduct that are offenses

only when committed or engaged

in by a juvenile and that can be adjudicated only by a juvenile court.

Although State statutes defining

status offenses vary and some

States may classify cases involving

these offenses as dependency

cases, for the purposes of this Report the following types of offenses

are classified as status offenses:

● Runaway—Leaving the custody

and home of parents, guardians,

or custodians without permission and failing to return within

a reasonable length of time, in

violation of a statute regulating

the conduct of youth.

● Truancy—Violation of a compulsory school attendance law.

● Ungovernability—Being beyond

the control of parents, guardians, or custodians or being disobedient of parental authority.

This classification is referred to

in various juvenile codes as

unruly, unmanageable, and

incorrigible.

● Status liquor law violations—

Violation of laws regulating the

possession, purchase, or consumption of liquor by minors.

Some States treat consumption

of alcohol and public drunkenness of juveniles as status offenses rather than delinquency.

Hence, some of these offenses

may appear under this status

offense code.

● Miscellaneous status offenses—

Numerous status offenses not

included above (e.g., tobacco

violation, curfew violation, and

violation of a court order in a

status offense proceeding) and

those offenses coded as “other”

in a jurisdiction’s original data.

◆ Dependency offenses—Includes

actions that come to the attention

of a juvenile court involving neglect or inadequate care of minors

on the part of the parents or guardians, such as abandonment or desertion; abuse or cruel treatment;

improper or inadequate conditions

in the home; and insufficient care

or support resulting from death,

absence, or physical or mental

incapacity of the parents.

Offenses may also be grouped into

categories commonly used in the

FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. These

groupings are:

◆ Crime Index—Includes all offenses

contained within the violent crime

and property crime categories

defined below.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 69

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

● Violent Crime Index—Includes

the offenses of murder/

nonnegligent manslaughter,

forcible rape, robbery, and

aggravated assault.

● Property Crime Index—

Includes the offenses of

burglary, larceny-theft, motor

vehicle theft, and arson.

Source of referral: The agency or

individual filing a complaint with intake that initiates court processing.

◆ Law enforcement agency—

Includes metropolitan police,

State police, park police, sheriffs,

constables, police assigned to the

juvenile court for special duty,

and all others performing a police

function, with the exception of

probation officers and officers of

the court.

◆ Other—Includes the youth’s own

parents, foster parents, adoptive

parents, stepparents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, other legal

guardians, counselors, teachers,

principals, attendance officers,

social agencies, district attorneys,

probation officers, victims, other

private citizens, and miscellaneous

sources of referral often only defined by the code other in the original data.

Status offense: Behavior that is considered an offense only when committed by a juvenile (e.g., running away

from home). (See “reason for referral.”)

Unit of count: A case disposed by a

court with juvenile jurisdiction during

the calendar year. Each case represents a youth referred to the juvenile

court for a new referral for one or

more offenses. (See “reason for referral.”) The term disposed means that

during the year some definite action

was taken or some treatment plan

was decided on or initiated. (See

“disposition.”) Under this definition, a

youth could be involved in more than

one case during a calendar year.

Upper age of jurisdiction: The oldest

age at which a juvenile court has

original jurisdiction over an individual

for law-violating behavior. For the

time period covered by this Report,

the upper age of jurisdiction was 15 in

3 States (Connecticut, New York, and

North Carolina), and 16 in 10 States

(Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New

Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas,

and Wisconsin). In the remaining 37

States and the District of Columbia,

the upper age of jurisdiction was 17.

It must be noted that within most

States, there are exceptions in which

youth at or below the State’s upper

age of jurisdiction can be placed under the original jurisdiction of the

adult criminal court. For example, in

most States, if a youth of a certain age

is charged with an offense from a defined list of “excluded offenses,” the

case must originate in the adult criminal court. In addition, in a number of

States, the district attorney is given

the discretion of filing certain cases in

either the juvenile court or the criminal court. Therefore, while the upper

age of jurisdiction is commonly recognized in all States, there are numerous

exceptions to this age criterion.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 71

Appendix C

Reported Juvenile Court

Cases Disposed in 1998,

by County

Information on the courts’ petitioned

and nonpetitioned delinquency, status, and dependency caseloads for

the year is presented in the following

table. The total population of each reporting jurisdiction, its population

age 10 through the upper age of jurisdiction, and its population age 0

through the upper age of jurisdiction

are also presented. Case rates (the

number of cases per 1,000 juveniles

in the population) are presented for

each case type for the State (or jurisdiction). Delinquency and status offense case rates are based on the

population age 10 through upper age,

while rates for dependency cases are

based on the population age 0

through upper age.

Table notes follow the table. The

notes associated with each data presentation identify the source of the

data, the mode of transmission, and

the characteristics of data reported.

State and local agencies responsible

for the collection of their juvenile

court statistics compiled the data in

this table. Agencies transmitted these

juvenile court caseload data to the

National Juvenile Court Data Archive

in one of four modes. First, many jurisdictions provided the project with

an automated data file that contained

a detailed description of each case

processed by their juvenile courts.

Second, some agencies completed a

juvenile court statistics (JCS) survey

form provided by the project. The

survey requested information about

each county jurisdiction, asking for

the number of delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases disposed and for the number of petition

and nonpetition cases. Third, statistics for some jurisdictions were abstracted from their annual reports. In

these instances, the report name and

the page containing the information

are listed. Finally, a few States simply

sent statistical pages to the National

Center for Juvenile Justice that contained counts of their courts’ handling of juvenile matters.

The units of count for the court

statistics vary across jurisdictions.

Although many States used cases

disposed as the unit of count, other

States reported cases filed, children

disposed, petitions filed, hearings, juvenile arraignments, and charges. The

unit of count is identified in the notes

for each data set. The unit of count

for each source should be reviewed

before any attempt is made to compare statistics either across or within

data sets. Variations in administrative

practices, differences in upper ages of

jurisdiction, and wide ranges in available community resources affect the

number of cases handled by individual counties and States. Therefore,

the data displayed in this table should

not be used to make comparisons

among the delinquency, status

offense, or dependency workloads of
72 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

counties or States without carefully

studying the definitions of the statistics presented. States that have indicated incomplete reporting of data

also are noted.

Furthermore, caution must be taken

when interpreting the case rates appearing at the end of each State table.

Case rate is defined as the number of

juvenile court cases per 1,000 juveniles in the population in the reporting counties. For example, not all California counties reported statistics on

nonpetitioned delinquency cases. The

California nonpetitioned delinquency

case rate was generated from the

total number of nonpetitioned delinquency cases from reporting

counties.

The figures within a column relate

only to the specific case type. However, some jurisdictions were unable

to provide statistics that distinguish

delinquency and status offense cases

from dependency matters or, at times,

from other court activities. Such information is presented in this appendix in a column labeled “All Reported

Cases.” By its nature, this column

contains a heterogeneous mixture of

units of count and case types. These

variations are identified in the notes

associated with each presentation of

data. Furthermore, due to the nature

of these data, case rates are not calculated for the “All Reported Cases”

column.

Finally, although the majority of the

data presented in the appendix are

for calendar year 1998, several reporting jurisdictions were not able to aggregate data for this timeframe. In

those instances, the data cover fiscal

year 1998. The period of coverage is

indicated in the notes.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 73

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

Alabama - 67 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Baldwin 132,900 14,900 32,700 685 40 195 42 — — —

Calhoun 117,100 12,900 27,800 726 403 98 116 — — —

Coffee 42,200 4,800 10,100 347 0 113 0 — — —

Colbert 52,900 5,400 12,000 78 0 24 0 — — —

Cullman 74,900 8,200 18,000 363 53 84 443 — — —

Dale 48,900 5,200 12,900 397 0 378 0 — — —

Dallas 46,800 6,300 13,700 395 0 159 0 — — —

De Kalb 58,300 6,800 14,100 251 0 46 0 — — —

Elmore 62,000 7,100 15,500 429 0 88 0 — — —

Etowah 103,900 11,600 24,200 375 25 53 153 — — —

Houston 85,600 10,200 22,600 926 138 268 85 — — —

Jackson 51,300 6,000 12,400 329 0 126 0 — — —

Jefferson 660,000 67,000 154,000 3,521 835 313 1,459 — — —

Lauderdale 84,200 8,500 19,000 596 83 143 271 — — —

Lee 100,500 9,400 21,500 757 143 242 57 — — —

Limestone 62,200 6,700 14,800 153 26 20 1 — — —

Madison 278,000 26,400 63,900 1,438 415 59 374 — — —

Marshall 80,200 8,600 18,800 486 56 198 311 — — —

Mobile 398,900 47,100 107,200 3,116 1,079 319 1,109 — — —

Montgomery 217,400 24,100 55,900 2,610 354 101 21 — — —

Morgan 109,200 12,000 26,800 881 81 229 493 — — —

Russell 50,400 5,500 12,500 423 0 453 0 — — —

St. Clair 62,000 7,100 15,800 164 0 167 0 — — —

Shelby 140,900 15,100 36,900 487 124 154 226 — — —

Talladega 77,000 9,600 20,100 504 0 382 0 — — —

Tuscaloosa 160,800 16,500 36,700 1,071 338 203 104 — — —

Walker 71,000 8,200 17,100 337 0 356 0 — — —

40 Small Counties 921,500 111,700 238,200 5,257 232 2,366 219 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 27,102 4,425 7,337 5,484 — — —

Population Represented 4,351,000 483,000 1,075,200 483,000 483,000 483,000 483,000 — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 56.11 9.16 15.19 11.35 — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 67 67 — — —

Alaska - 25 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Anchorage Borough 255,600 33,400 73,300 851 2,050 — — — — —

Bethel Census Area 16,000 3,000 6,800 177 292 — — — — —

Fairbanks North Star Borough 84,300 11,500 26,300 272 750 — — — — —

Juneau Borough 30,100 4,000 8,800 123 279 — — — — —

Kenai Peninsula Borough 48,300 7,500 15,200 105 480 — — — — —

Ketchikan Gateway 14,200 2,000 4,200 158 171 — — — — —

Kodiak Island Borough 14,500 2,100 4,700 41 100 — — — — —

Matanuska-Susitna 55,800 9,400 19,300 222 491 — — — — —

Valdez-Cordova Census 10,300 1,400 3,000 53 81 — — — — —

16 Small Counties 86,100 13,900 31,800 417 909 — — — — —

Number of Reported Cases 2,419 5,603 — — — — —

Population Represented 615,200 88,100 193,500 88,100 88,100 — — — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 27.47 63.63 — — — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 25 25 — — — — —

Arizona - 15 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Apache 68,700 12,800 28,000 198 288 10 143 — — —

Cochise 112,400 14,600 32,100 806 1,510 46 829 — — —

Coconino 114,100 16,400 36,200 1,023 1,642 153 827 — — —

Maricopa 2,783,800 317,400 763,400 13,984 12,052 1,083 9,922 — — —

Mohave 130,600 13,000 29,500 872 1,185 14 609 — — —

Navajo 96,800 16,700 36,700 713 861 53 435 — — —

Pima 790,300 85,900 204,500 5,901 6,909 4 5,519 — — —

Pinal 146,900 18,700 43,600 1,106 928 30 424 — — —

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases
74 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Yavapai 148,700 15,000 32,700 942 1,108 94 649 — — —

Yuma 131,900 17,100 40,400 2,202 1,177 225 1,360 — — —

5 Small Counties 142,900 20,000 44,100 1,644 1,241 237 851 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 29,391 28,901 1,949 21,568 — — —

Population Represented 4,667,300 547,600 1,291,200 547,600 547,600 547,600 547,600 — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 53.67 52.78 3.56 39.39 — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 15 15 15 15 — — —

Arkansas - 75 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Benton 133,900 14,900 34,100 313 — 280 — 77 — —

Craighead 77,200 8,500 19,000 545 — 353 — 61 — —

Crittenden 49,800 6,900 15,500 433 — 115 — 55 — —

Faulkner 78,200 9,100 20,300 238 — 265 — 47 — —

Garland 83,700 8,100 17,600 572 — 241 — 72 — —

Jefferson 81,600 10,200 22,300 486 — 120 — 59 — —

Mississippi 50,500 7,000 15,700 389 — 119 — 19 — —

Pulaski 348,800 39,400 90,000 2,228 — 147 — 250 — —

Saline 77,200 9,900 20,700 182 — 188 — 41 — —

Sebastian 105,900 12,300 27,800 425 — 364 — 116 — —

Washington 145,000 15,800 36,300 1,139 — 227 — 98 — —

White 64,600 7,600 16,200 120 — 165 — 23 — —

63 Small Counties 1,241,800 153,400 325,200 4,732 — 2,666 — 1,105 — —

Number of Reported Cases 11,802 — 5,250 — 2,023 — —

Population Represented 2,538,200 303,000 660,700 303,000 — 303,000 — 660,700 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 38.95 — 17.33 — 3.06 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 75 — 75 — 75 — —

California - 58 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Alameda 1,397,000 144,100 346,200 2,254 4,270 6 122 1,707 — —

Butte 194,300 20,600 49,200 1,203 — 0 — 450 — —

Contra Costa 918,000 100,100 234,900 1,500 — 78 — 231 — —

El Dorado 158,300 18,200 42,800 427 — 0 — 55 — —

Fresno 755,100 98,900 247,700 3,547 — 0 — 1,251 — —

Humboldt 122,200 13,800 32,300 149 — 0 — 1 — —

Imperial 143,700 21,100 48,000 547 — 2 — 122 — —

Kern 631,600 80,900 204,600 2,543 — 0 — 1,984 — —

Kings 118,700 14,800 37,200 541 — 0 — 118 — —

Lake 55,100 6,000 13,900 217 — 0 — 47 — —

Los Angeles 9,223,800 1,027,700 2,521,200 22,461 — 391 — 13,073 — —

Madera 114,500 15,000 34,500 990 — 1 — 101 — —

Marin 236,400 19,200 45,100 743 — 29 — 81 — —

Mendocino 83,800 10,400 23,500 494 — 1 — 253 — —

Merced 197,300 28,100 71,100 1,242 — 1 — 58 — —

Monterey 366,600 42,500 106,800 1,153 — 0 — 24 — —

Napa 119,500 12,200 28,900 221 — 0 — 37 — —

Nevada 91,100 10,100 22,500 270 — 2 — 62 — —

Orange 2,723,800 291,100 702,200 7,592 4,234 90 302 2,593 — —

Placer 229,200 26,700 61,800 861 — 0 — 480 — —

Riverside 1,480,700 175,800 446,600 4,268 — 0 — 2,226 — —

Sacramento 1,166,700 132,300 319,900 5,004 — 1 — 3,075 — —

San Bernardino 1,636,000 211,500 531,800 3,971 4,223 6 108 3,985 — —

San Diego 2,766,100 291,300 719,600 5,179 3,790 12 204 2,301 — —

San Francisco 745,800 56,500 126,500 1,620 3,602 5 19 896 — —

San Joaquin 549,700 70,300 171,700 2,942 3,695 10 960 633 — —

San Luis Obispo 234,100 22,500 54,100 606 — 8 — 269 — —

San Mateo 701,100 65,600 158,800 2,397 — 0 — 278 — —

Santa Barbara 389,500 38,300 96,400 2,082 1,672 71 303 161 — —

Santa Clara 1,641,800 168,300 408,100 3,163 4,069 20 230 1,053 — —

Santa Cruz 243,200 25,500 62,200 506 — 0 — 143 — —

Shasta 164,200 20,400 46,300 1,036 — 0 — 119 — —

Solano 376,700 46,100 110,800 1,155 — 0 — 116 — —
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 75

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Sonoma 433,800 46,400 111,900 1,505 — 0 — 190 — —

Stanislaus 426,900 56,000 138,000 1,325 — 0 — 263 — —

Sutter 77,100 9,700 22,800 310 — 0 — 131 — —

Tehama 54,000 6,900 15,400 3 — 250 — 106 — —

Tulare 354,500 51,300 124,600 1,674 — 0 — 696 — —

Tuolumne 53,000 5,500 12,000 158 — 0 — 42 — —

Ventura 732,100 88,000 208,100 2,581 5,192 177 1,019 345 — —

Yolo 153,300 16,000 39,700 535 — 0 — 480 — —

Yuba 60,000 7,600 20,000 364 — 0 — 169 — —

16 Small Counties 362,600 42,800 97,300 1,823 — 41 — 340 — —

Number of Reported Cases 93,162 34,747 1,202 3,267 40,745 — —

Population Represented 32,682,800 3,656,200 8,916,800 3,654,600 1,359,500 3,654,600 1,359,500 8,913,400 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 25.49 25.56 0.33 2.40 4.57 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 57 9 57 9 57 — —

Colorado - 63 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Adams 323,400 42,000 95,200 1,450 — — — 368 — —

Arapahoe 472,600 58,200 125,300 2,202 — — — 501 — —

Boulder 266,700 27,500 61,800 1,543 — — — 135 — —

Denver 498,400 48,000 116,800 2,835 — — — 464 — —

Douglas 141,400 19,300 43,500 662 — — — 8 — —

El Paso 490,000 60,700 134,900 2,232 — — — 656 — —

Jefferson 500,800 59,900 127,700 1,986 — — — 256 — —

Larimer 231,100 27,000 59,000 1,109 — — — 115 — —

Mesa 112,900 14,400 29,800 604 — — — 107 — —

Pueblo 134,900 17,200 36,100 616 — — — 209 — —

Weld 159,500 21,100 46,300 1,093 — — — 90 — —

52 Small Counties 637,200 79,900 169,300 2,882 — — — 566 — —

Number of Reported Cases 19,214 — — — 3,475 — —

Population Represented 3,969,000 475,100 1,045,600 475,100 — — — 1,045,600 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 40.44 — — — 3.32 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 63 — — — 63 — —

Connecticut - 13 Venue Districts

Upper age of jurisdiction: 15

Bridgeport — — — 861 511 279 251 — — —

Danbury — — — 210 191 75 103 — — —

Hartford — — — 1,187 849 167 188 — — —

Middletown — — — 493 284 117 150 — — —

Montville — — — 664 468 167 220 — — —

New Haven — — — 1,982 905 426 357 — — —

Norwalk — — — 302 136 32 75 — — —

Plainville — — — 909 453 182 246 — — —

Stamford — — — 311 209 18 82 — — —

Talcottville — — — 512 209 151 69 — — —

Torrington — — — 410 171 137 108 — — —

Waterbury — — — 873 768 205 291 — — —

Willimantic — — — 513 301 78 136 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 9,227 5,455 2,034 2,276 — — —

Population Represented 3,272,600 272,400 723,900 272,400 272,400 272,400 272,400 — — —

Rates for Reporting Venue Districts 33.88 20.03 7.47 8.36 — — —

Number of Reporting Venue Districts 13 13 13 13 — — —

Delaware - 3 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Kent 124,300 14,400 33,300 2,038 — — — 344 — —

New Castle 482,600 50,300 114,900 7,402 — — — 1,060 — —
76 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Sussex 137,200 14,200 31,800 2,335 — — — 110 — —

Number of Reported Cases 11,775 — — — 1,514 — —

Population Represented 744,100 78,900 180,000 78,900 — — — 180,000 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 149.32 — — — 8.41 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 3 — — — 3 — —

District of Columbia - 1 District

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

District of Columbia 521,400 37,300 98,800 2,161 1,052 103 22 1,798 199 —

Number of Reported Cases 2,161 1,052 103 22 1,798 199 —

Population Represented 521,400 37,300 98,800 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 98,800 98,800 —

Rates for Reporting District 57.94 28.21 2.76 0.59 18.21 2.02 —

Number of Reporting Districts 1 1 1 1 1 1 —

Florida - 15 Districts

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

District 1 607,700 73,300 163,200 3,857 1,670 83 162 — — —

District 2 600,400 73,700 157,200 4,380 2,244 97 170 — — —

District 3 468,700 54,500 119,200 2,647 2,555 31 51 — — —

District 4 1,064,800 129,800 295,900 5,620 5,291 41 105 — — —

District 5 1,202,400 108,900 240,900 8,608 3,406 104 46 — — —

District 6 1,165,000 126,900 291,400 6,860 5,955 67 91 — — —

District 7 1,765,500 197,300 447,900 10,935 7,200 122 168 — — —

District 8 1,093,500 95,400 216,100 5,887 3,351 102 140 — — —

District 9 1,032,900 92,000 218,200 3,918 4,391 9 94 — — —

District 10 1,507,800 148,200 344,400 6,794 4,962 45 57 — — —

District 11 2,231,700 238,300 551,100 9,288 7,377 32 55 — — —

District 12 467,700 44,500 98,300 4,025 2,579 64 101 — — —

District 13 725,100 70,300 152,900 3,985 2,713 58 47 — — —

District 14 548,600 61,500 136,600 4,590 2,856 42 94 — — —

District 15 426,400 41,700 94,300 2,706 1,557 56 52 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 84,100 58,107 953 1,433 — — —

Population Represented 14,908,200 1,556,100 3,527,500 1,556,100 1,556,100 1,556,100 1,556,100 — — —

Rates for Reporting Districts 54.05 37.34 0.61 0.92 — — —

Number of Reporting Districts 15 15 15 15 — — —

Georgia - 159 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 16

Baldwin 41,900 3,800 9,000 357 — 68 — 174 — —

Bartow 71,900 7,200 18,500 655 — 304 — 257 — —

Bibb 155,900 15,900 38,400 2,116 — 192 — 1,180 — —

Bulloch 50,600 4,600 11,300 233 — 80 — 20 — —

Carroll 82,900 8,600 20,800 1,097 — 205 — 419 — —

Catoosa 50,700 5,400 12,100 327 — 141 — 18 — —

Chatham 225,300 21,900 55,900 2,047 — 388 — 468 — —

Cherokee 134,400 12,900 35,800 — — — — — — —

Clarke 90,500 7,000 17,900 742 — 304 — 227 — —

Clayton 209,000 21,500 54,700 2,969 — 615 — 1,396 — —

Cobb 566,100 52,100 134,100 2,508 — 606 — 865 — —

Columbia 90,900 10,400 25,200 418 — 127 — 1 — —

Coweta 85,100 9,100 22,900 702 — 204 — 301 — —

De Kalb 592,900 53,100 133,200 6,989 — 1,848 — 1,518 — —

Dougherty 95,000 11,000 26,300 1,057 — 146 — 224 — —

Douglas 89,400 9,700 23,500 1,796 — 574 — 231 — —

Fayette 88,700 10,200 23,300 530 — 256 — 151 — —

Floyd 85,100 7,800 18,900 622 — 419 — 519 — —

Forsyth 86,400 8,300 21,100 293 — 187 — 194 — —

Fulton 737,200 65,400 169,000 6,476 — 1,805 — 3,270 — —

Glynn 67,200 6,500 16,100 463 — 204 — 69 — —

Gwinnett 522,700 51,600 137,700 2,679 — 1,258 — 804 — —

Hall 119,300 11,500 29,200 923 — 208 — 222 — —
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 77

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Henry 104,900 10,800 27,100 474 — 170 — 156 — —

Houston 105,600 11,000 27,500 1,778 — 1,109 — 349 — —

Laurens 43,700 4,900 11,600 620 — 310 — 60 — —

Liberty 59,100 5,700 18,200 674 — 310 — 205 — —

Lowndes 85,000 9,000 22,600 318 — 57 — 0 — —

Muscogee 182,400 17,800 45,900 2,060 — 801 — 617 — —

Newton 57,900 6,200 15,200 732 — 369 — 220 — —

Paulding 73,900 7,800 20,700 — — — — — — —

Richmond 191,400 18,900 47,700 2,309 — 28 — 355 — —

Rockdale 68,300 7,300 17,700 585 — 73 — 163 — —

Spalding 57,600 6,300 15,100 726 — 100 — 868 — —

Thomas 42,900 4,800 11,400 — — — — — — —

Troup 58,600 6,300 15,300 762 — 313 — 231 — —

Walker 62,700 6,600 14,700 148 — 80 — 62 — —

Walton 54,600 5,800 14,200 605 — 568 — 78 — —

Whitfield 82,000 8,500 20,200 535 — 302 — 326 — —

120 Small Counties 1,966,800 217,000 512,100 12,023 — 2,925 — 2,970 — —

Number of Reported Cases 60,348 — 17,654 — 19,188 — —

Population Represented 7,636,500 770,200 1,912,500 721,300 — 721,300 — 1,789,500 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 83.67 — 24.48 — 10.72 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 147 — 147 — 147 — —

Hawaii - 5 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Hawaii 141,800 17,300 39,900 467 511 94 611 — — —

Honolulu 871,800 87,600 208,100 1,943 494 590 2,043 — — —

Kalawao 100 0 0 — — — — — — —

Kauai 56,200 6,400 15,400 540 89 48 404 — — —

Maui 120,600 13,500 32,300 448 262 142 484 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 3,398 1,356 874 3,542 — — —

Population Represented 1,190,500 124,800 295,600 124,800 124,800 124,800 124,800 — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 27.22 10.86 7.00 28.37 — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 4 4 4 4 — — —

Idaho - 44 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Ada 275,600 33,300 73,200 3,112 337 — — 59 102 —

Bannock 74,300 10,600 22,300 1,252 182 — — 88 3 —

Bonneville 80,700 12,100 26,100 408 400 — — 36 18 —

Canyon 120,400 16,900 36,300 1,576 144 — — 80 8 —

Kootenai 101,300 12,000 25,500 707 87 — — 55 7 —

Twin Falls 62,200 8,400 17,600 623 108 — — 176 8 —

38 Small Counties 516,400 72,200 151,000 4,191 1,195 — — 286 84 —

Number of Reported Cases 11,869 2,453 — — 780 230 —

Population Represented 1,230,900 165,400 352,000 165,400 165,400 — — 352,000 352,000 —

Rates for Reporting Counties 71.74 14.83 — — 2.22 0.65 —

Number of Reporting Counties 44 44 — — 44 44 —

Illinois - 102 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 16

Adams 67,300 6,900 16,400 90 — 9 — 46 — —

Champaign 169,800 13,400 35,800 142 — 23 — 113 — —

Coles 52,000 4,400 10,200 165 — 7 — 20 — —

Cook 5,192,400 493,300 1,275,100 14,740 — 1 — 4,333 — —

De Kalb 85,900 7,000 17,900 148 — 9 — 99 — —

Du Page 881,000 85,200 220,300 1,287 — 2 — 1 — —

Henry 51,500 5,900 13,000 182 — 11 — 40 — —

Jackson 60,900 4,500 11,400 191 — 1 — 30 — —

Kane 391,700 44,600 114,700 889 — 0 — 0 — —

Kankakee 102,300 11,600 27,700 187 — 60 — 75 — —

Knox 55,600 5,500 12,200 86 — 0 — 10 — —
78 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Lake 608,300 61,400 160,800 638 — 0 — 0 — —

La Salle 110,200 11,300 26,600 439 — 44 — 142 — —

McHenry 241,000 26,500 67,100 347 — 15 — 48 — —

McLean 143,400 13,000 32,400 147 — 14 — 119 — —

Macon 113,700 12,000 27,500 245 — 0 — 0 — —

Madison 259,200 25,900 62,600 717 — 14 — 277 — —

Peoria 181,500 19,000 44,900 805 — 6 — 238 — —

Rock Island 147,900 15,100 35,700 166 — 1 — 113 — —

St. Clair 261,800 29,000 71,300 716 — 196 — 120 — —

Sangamon 191,500 19,100 46,600 134 — 2 — 0 — —

Tazewell 129,300 13,800 31,100 283 — 0 — 0 — —

Vermilion 84,500 9,000 20,500 218 — 87 — 129 — —

Whiteside 59,800 6,700 15,000 113 — 4 — 16 — —

Will 460,200 54,100 130,600 339 — 67 — 33 — —

Williamson 61,300 6,100 13,800 78 — 5 — 40 — —

Winnebago 267,700 27,000 66,600 471 — 0 — 0 — —

75 Small Counties 1,638,000 173,100 396,400 4,248 — 111 — 475 — —

Number of Reported Cases 28,211 — 689 — 6,517 — —

Population Represented 12,069,800 1,204,400 3,004,400 1,204,400 — 1,204,400 — 3,004,400 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 23.42 — 0.57 — 2.17 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 102 — 102 — 102 — —

Indiana - 92 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Allen 314,400 37,300 85,300 2,970 924 1,051 268 212 — —

Bartholomew 69,400 8,100 17,400 309 70 67 88 48 — —

Clark 94,000 11,200 23,400 146 41 54 8 137 — —

Delaware 116,300 11,500 25,000 404 82 1,682 132 205 — —

Elkhart 172,700 20,500 48,100 690 689 393 638 265 — —

Floyd 71,800 8,600 18,600 192 212 0 173 260 — —

Grant 72,700 8,100 17,000 330 89 70 158 43 — —

Hamilton 162,800 19,800 45,800 756 170 117 55 504 — —

Hancock 54,500 7,000 14,400 46 109 4 55 30 — —

Hendricks 95,500 12,100 25,400 401 256 231 98 11 — —

Henry 48,700 5,800 11,600 103 29 2 11 51 — —

Howard 83,400 9,900 21,300 446 90 92 27 63 — —

Johnson 109,400 13,600 28,800 487 20 21 10 33 — —

Knox 39,300 4,000 9,000 210 36 54 38 30 — —

Kosciusko 71,200 8,600 19,900 122 214 0 1 13 — —

Lake 481,000 61,100 131,300 2,425 0 93 2 757 — —

La Porte 109,800 12,500 26,900 547 94 69 89 37 — —

Lawrence 45,700 5,500 11,300 111 53 23 22 13 — —

Madison 131,200 15,000 31,400 727 57 349 169 47 — —

Marion 812,700 84,100 204,700 6,529 387 1,298 139 860 — —

Marshall 45,600 5,600 12,700 103 48 47 17 99 — —

Monroe 116,600 9,200 21,400 267 162 54 50 79 — —

Morgan 65,600 8,400 17,700 186 51 24 84 22 — —

Porter 146,300 18,500 39,000 354 89 72 75 153 — —

St. Joseph 258,200 28,000 64,400 903 186 169 24 233 — —

Shelby 43,300 5,300 11,500 131 20 12 12 49 — —

Tippecanoe 141,300 12,300 29,500 209 58 72 74 84 — —

Vanderburgh 167,700 16,500 38,700 309 89 25 25 199 — —

Vigo 105,000 10,800 24,000 386 27 81 12 55 — —

Warrick 51,600 6,800 14,100 100 45 22 20 28 — —

Wayne 71,500 8,400 17,500 171 95 23 26 94 — —

61 Small Counties 1,538,700 193,100 412,600 4,577 1,893 747 1,442 1,472 — —

Number of Reported Cases 25,647 6,385 7,018 4,042 6,186 — —

Population Represented 5,907,600 687,300 1,519,700 687,300 687,300 687,300 687,300 1,519,700 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 37.32 9.29 10.21 5.88 4.07 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 92 92 92 92 92 — —
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 79

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Iowa - 8 Districts

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

District 1 347,100 44,000 90,100 542 — — — 110 — —

District 2 468,500 54,100 112,700 694 — — — 122 — —

District 3 330,800 43,200 89,200 618 — — — 192 — —

District 4 187,300 23,700 48,400 341 — — — 72 — —

District 5 599,900 69,900 150,100 1,653 — — — 418 — —

District 6 364,200 39,700 85,600 1,004 — — — 152 — —

District 7 287,300 37,000 77,500 879 — — — 150 — —

District 8 276,000 33,600 68,900 1,194 — — — 113 — —

Number of Reported Cases 6,925 — — — 1,329 — —

Population Represented 2,861,000 345,200 722,500 345,200 — — — 722,500 — —

Rates for Reporting Districts 20.06 — — — 1.84 — —

Number of Reporting Districts 8 — — — 8 — —

Kansas - 105 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Butler 61,900 8,600 17,400 — — — — — — 115

Douglas 96,600 8,900 19,900 — — — — — — 127

Johnson 429,600 52,100 112,300 — — — — — — 264

Leavenworth 71,200 9,200 18,900 — — — — — — 272

Reno 63,200 7,600 15,800 — — — — — — 312

Riley 63,900 5,600 13,900 — — — — — — 45

Saline 51,400 6,200 13,300 — — — — — — 239

Sedgwick 447,800 55,100 123,300 — — — — — — 742

Shawnee 170,300 20,600 43,400 — — — — — — 753

Wyandotte 152,500 19,800 43,100 — — — — — — 777

95 Small Counties 1,030,100 132,800 276,300 — — — — — — 3,058

Number of Reported Cases — — — — — — 6,704

Population Represented 2,638,700 326,500 697,600 — — — — — — 326,500

Rates for Reporting Counties — — — — — — —

Number of Reporting Counties — — — — — — 105

Louisiana - 64 Parishes

Upper age of jurisdiction: 16

Acadia 57,800 7,100 16,400 — — — — — — 499

Ascension 71,700 8,900 20,600 — — — — — — 531

Bossier 92,300 9,800 23,700 — — — — — — 725

Caddo 242,500 26,100 61,000 — — — — — — 3,736

Calcasieu 180,100 19,800 46,200 — — — — — — 1,490

East Baton Rouge 393,700 39,700 95,500 — — — — — — 1,795

Iberia 72,900 9,000 21,000 — — — — — — 1,091

Jefferson 449,700 45,400 105,700 — — — — — — 3,716

Lafayette 186,200 19,300 48,000 — — — — — — 1,790

Lafourche 89,000 10,000 23,500 — — — — — — 847

Livingston 88,300 10,800 24,500 — — — — — — 261

Orleans 464,600 48,200 114,500 — — — — — — 4,045

Ouachita 146,800 16,900 38,500 — — — — — — 1,415

Rapides 126,500 14,100 32,500 — — — — — — 1,549

St. Bernard 65,800 6,700 15,400 — — — — — — 614

St. Landry 83,800 10,200 23,600 — — — — — — 689

St. Mary 57,200 6,800 16,300 — — — — — — 955

St. Tammany 188,700 21,800 50,200 — — — — — — 1,042

Tangipahoa 96,900 11,800 26,500 — — — — — — 302

Terrebonne 104,700 12,700 29,800 — — — — — — 747

Vermilion 52,100 6,100 14,200 — — — — — — 481

Vernon 51,400 4,400 12,700 — — — — — — 429

42 Small Parishes 1,000,000 114,400 262,800 — — — — — — 9,444

Number of Reported Cases — — — — — — 38,193

Population Represented 4,362,800 479,900 1,123,100 — — — — — — 479,900

Rates for Reporting Parishes — — — — — — —

Number of Reporting Parishes — — — — — — 64
80 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Maine - 16 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Androscoggin 101,300 11,800 24,300 556 — — — — — —

Aroostook 76,600 9,200 17,900 340 — — — — — —

Cumberland 254,400 26,700 55,900 1,110 — — — — — —

Kennebec 115,100 13,600 27,100 946 — — — — — —

Oxford 53,800 6,600 13,200 164 — — — — — —

Penobscot 144,400 16,700 33,000 664 — — — — — —

Somerset 52,400 7,000 13,500 516 — — — — — —

York 175,000 20,600 42,500 1,237 — — — — — —

8 Small Counties 274,400 32,400 65,000 1,424 — — — — — —

Number of Reported Cases 6,957 — — — — — —

Population Represented 1,247,600 144,500 292,400 144,500 — — — — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 48.14 — — — — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 16 — — — — — —

Maryland - 24 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Allegany 72,100 8,100 16,400 165 587 10 471 — — —

Anne Arundel 474,700 54,200 120,400 1,491 2,561 31 1,768 — — —

Baltimore 721,600 70,900 161,000 3,432 3,820 13 493 — — —

Calvert 71,800 9,700 20,900 226 333 4 245 — — —

Carroll 149,700 18,500 40,800 323 578 30 272 — — —

Cecil 82,300 11,100 23,400 380 582 12 140 — — —

Charles 118,100 16,200 35,700 385 1,023 27 261 — — —

Frederick 186,600 22,800 51,000 608 783 44 574 — — —

Harford 214,600 26,300 59,500 566 849 25 656 — — —

Howard 235,100 27,200 62,200 603 646 13 325 — — —

Montgomery 839,200 87,100 202,700 1,465 2,536 107 655 — — —

Prince George’s 776,900 86,100 196,800 1,660 3,228 14 410 — — —

St. Mary’s 87,600 11,300 26,100 262 435 5 247 — — —

Washington 127,500 13,800 30,000 342 700 11 300 — — —

Wicomico 79,400 9,300 20,400 276 831 7 203 — — —

Baltimore City 645,700 69,700 165,500 7,143 3,361 19 364 — — —

8 Small Counties 247,200 27,000 59,100 736 2,477 18 1,517 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 20,063 25,330 390 8,901 — — —

Population Represented 5,130,100 569,200 1,291,800 569,200 569,200 569,200 569,200 — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 35.25 44.50 0.69 15.64 — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 24 24 24 24 — — —

Massachusetts - 14 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 16

Barnstable 208,500 17,500 42,300 — — — — — — —

Berkshire 132,800 12,700 29,000 568 — 206 — 70 — —

Bristol 517,000 53,700 124,000 — — — — — — —

Dukes 13,900 1,200 3,100 — — — — — — —

Essex 700,400 66,000 164,900 2,744 — 804 — 317 — —

Franklin 70,600 7,200 17,000 566 — 124 — 35 — —

Hampden 439,300 44,400 110,300 778 — 219 — 81 — —

Hampshire 150,300 12,100 29,000 697 — 165 — 35 — —

Middlesex 1,422,500 119,000 292,200 3,619 — 822 — 322 — —

Nantucket 7,900 600 1,600 — — — — — — —

Norfolk 642,100 54,900 131,100 1,557 — 357 — 79 — —

Plymouth 467,000 51,000 119,700 — — — — — — —

Suffolk 641,300 49,300 137,900 1,685 — 0 — 0 — —

Worcester 730,800 72,400 177,900 2,283 — 636 — 138 — —

Number of Reported Cases 14,497 — 3,333 — 1,077 — —

Population Represented 6,144,400 562,200 1,380,100 438,100 — 438,100 — 1,089,300 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 33.09 — 7.61 — 0.99 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 9 — 9 — 9 — —
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 81

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Michigan - 83 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 16

Allegan 101,700 12,100 28,500 993 — 113 — 69 — —

Barry 54,500 6,200 13,900 458 — 0 — 25 — —

Bay 110,000 11,900 26,500 932 — 23 — 52 — —

Berrien 159,800 17,400 39,900 1,763 — 215 — 91 — —

Calhoun 140,800 15,000 34,800 1,575 — 114 — 177 — —

Cass 50,000 5,500 12,300 386 — 202 — 127 — —

Clinton 63,400 7,500 16,600 459 — 12 — 21 — —

Eaton 101,000 11,600 25,500 759 — 0 — 20 — —

Genesee 435,700 48,500 112,000 2,078 — 197 — 576 — —

Grand Traverse 74,200 7,900 18,600 717 — 0 — 72 — —

Ingham 285,900 26,100 65,500 2,184 — 59 — 692 — —

Ionia 66,700 7,100 16,300 258 — 68 — 36 — —

Isabella 58,400 5,500 12,800 483 — 86 — 67 — —

Jackson 156,100 16,200 37,300 1,114 — 461 — 161 — —

Kalamazoo 229,600 21,400 52,200 2,919 — 300 — 578 — —

Kent 544,800 57,200 145,500 5,831 — 380 — 417 — —

Lapeer 88,200 11,000 23,800 658 — 129 — 38 — —

Lenawee 98,600 11,500 25,400 1,078 — 1 — 51 — —

Livingston 146,300 17,300 38,200 623 — 211 — 21 — —

Macomb 786,900 73,900 170,100 2,286 — 243 — 216 — —

Marquette 62,600 6,400 14,800 562 — 145 — 39 — —

Midland 81,600 8,900 20,200 734 — 38 — 112 — —

Monroe 143,400 16,900 37,500 1,194 — 105 — 117 — —

Montcalm 60,600 7,000 16,000 345 — 22 — 27 — —

Muskegon 166,800 18,200 43,700 1,987 — 24 — 240 — —

Oakland 1,175,100 113,300 267,100 4,522 — 208 — 308 — —

Ottawa 225,400 25,400 61,600 2,909 — 10 — 115 — —

Saginaw 210,000 23,600 54,000 1,059 — 18 — 257 — —

St. Clair 159,500 18,000 40,900 1,402 — 132 — 214 — —

St. Joseph 61,100 7,100 16,300 743 — 181 — 83 — —

Shiawassee 72,500 8,800 18,900 542 — 112 — 37 — —

Tuscola 58,000 7,100 15,200 237 — 11 — 60 — —

Van Buren 75,600 9,000 20,600 832 — 116 — 46 — —

Washtenaw 302,800 24,300 61,500 1,703 — 318 — 354 — —

Wayne 2,116,500 218,900 531,600 6,849 — 4,442 — 6,402 — —

48 Small Counties 1,096,100 118,000 265,500 10,035 — 1,627 — 992 — —

Number of Reported Cases 63,209 — 10,323 — 12,910 — —

Population Represented 9,820,200 1,021,800 2,401,100 1,021,800 — 1,021,800 — 2,401,100 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 61.86 — 10.10 — 5.38 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 83 — 83 — 83 — —

Minnesota - 87 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Anoka 292,300 41,000 85,500 1,680 — 615 — — — —

Blue Earth 53,700 5,900 12,200 479 — 222 — — — —

Clay 51,500 6,200 12,900 597 — 275 — — — —

Dakota 342,100 45,500 100,500 3,501 — 1,814 — — — —

Hennepin 1,058,900 109,900 247,700 9,305 — 7,476 — — — —

Olmsted 116,900 14,300 31,800 900 — 396 — — — —

Otter Tail 54,800 7,200 14,300 543 — 197 — — — —

Ramsey 485,700 53,000 121,300 3,246 — 700 — — — —

Rice 54,200 6,900 14,100 633 — 281 — — — —

St. Louis 193,500 24,400 47,100 2,295 — 884 — — — —

Scott 79,100 11,200 24,500 905 — 234 — — — —

Stearns 128,700 17,500 35,800 1,318 — 522 — — — —

Washington 196,700 28,600 58,700 1,318 — 336 — — — —

Wright 85,000 13,200 27,600 988 — 393 — — — —

73 Small Counties 1,533,200 214,500 428,700 17,163 — 7,311 — — — —

Number of Reported Cases 44,871 — 21,656 — — — —

Population Represented 4,726,400 599,300 1,262,700 599,300 — 599,300 — — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 74.88 — 36.14 — — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 87 — 87 — — — —
82 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Mississippi - 82 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

De Soto 97,100 12,000 26,600 181 680 9 155 0 1 —

Forrest 74,500 8,000 18,600 91 431 1 103 0 3 —

Harrison 177,200 20,000 47,300 287 533 38 117 1 0 —

Hinds 247,300 28,400 64,700 406 615 33 123 327 0 —

Jackson 130,800 17,200 36,400 139 469 15 194 103 816 —

Jones 63,600 7,700 16,600 286 530 27 57 0 0 —

Lauderdale 76,100 9,000 20,200 499 393 168 272 0 0 —

Lee 74,600 8,800 20,200 211 489 17 38 0 0 —

Lowndes 61,000 7,500 17,200 198 93 46 53 0 0 —

Madison 72,900 8,700 20,600 299 62 56 34 14 2 —

Rankin 109,600 13,200 28,300 213 274 51 67 28 2 —

Washington 65,200 9,500 20,900 773 85 122 30 1 0 —

70 Small Counties 1,501,400 195,800 419,100 4,124 4,265 889 791 110 14 —

Number of Reported Cases 7,707 8,919 1,472 2,034 584 838 —

Population Represented 2,751,300 345,700 756,500 345,700 345,700 345,700 345,700 756,500 756,500 —

Rates for Reporting Counties 22.30 25.80 4.26 5.88 0.77 1.11 —

Number of Reporting Counties 82 82 82 82 82 82 —

Missouri - 115 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 16

Boone 129,000 11,000 28,300 487 944 303 771 171 304 —

Buchanan 81,800 8,600 20,000 179 831 92 859 79 77 —

Cape Girardeau 66,200 6,500 14,900 86 587 7 306 17 10 —

Cass 80,600 9,500 21,700 42 399 24 334 12 15 —

Clay 176,400 17,700 42,100 261 1,144 99 338 104 179 —

Cole 69,200 7,000 16,100 108 322 83 316 57 33 —

Franklin 91,900 10,600 24,500 123 984 30 465 0 9 —

Greene 226,600 21,100 48,400 165 2,436 9 528 86 614 —

Jackson 655,100 64,800 159,000 1,355 2,792 394 747 791 641 —

Jasper 99,600 10,700 23,900 118 469 27 497 101 154 —

Jefferson 195,500 22,700 54,000 268 987 99 713 101 1 —

Platte 70,000 7,300 16,900 49 273 2 47 16 0 —

St. Charles 272,100 30,800 75,600 582 2,028 243 1,129 49 9 —

St. Francois 55,400 6,000 13,100 117 397 7 125 24 108 —

St. Louis 997,300 96,300 226,900 1,792 7,085 346 4,903 1,018 613 —

St. Louis City 338,900 33,700 85,800 1,097 4,057 173 1,911 815 447 —

99 Small Counties 1,832,000 202,500 448,000 2,249 12,173 864 8,703 1,221 2,551 —

Number of Reported Cases 9,078 37,908 2,802 22,692 4,662 5,765 —

Population Represented 5,437,600 566,700 1,319,300 566,700 566,700 566,700 566,700 1,319,300 1,319,300 —

Rates for Reporting Counties 16.02 66.89 4.94 40.04 3.53 4.37 —

Number of Reporting Counties 115 115 115 115 115 115 —

Montana - 57 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Cascade 78,600 9,300 20,000 — — — — — — —

Flathead 71,900 9,500 18,700 1 871 0 32 — — —

Gallatin 62,600 6,600 14,100 58 362 1 16 — — —

Missoula 88,900 10,100 21,000 272 916 44 369 — — —

Yellowstone 126,200 15,500 31,400 158 704 1 1 — — —

52 Small Counties 451,400 61,600 120,900 615 5,482 39 1,535 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 1,104 8,335 85 1,953 — — —

Population Represented 879,500 112,600 226,000 103,300 103,300 103,300 103,300 — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 10.69 80.69 0.82 18.91 — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 56 56 56 56 — — —

Nebraska - 93 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Buffalo 40,300 4,900 10,300 156 — 41 — 34 — —

Dodge 35,300 4,300 8,900 68 — 30 — 58 — —
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 83

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Douglas 443,400 54,100 117,500 848 — 254 — 498 — —

Hall 51,700 7,100 14,600 371 — 53 — 112 — —

Lancaster 235,500 25,100 55,700 1,198 — 301 — 54 — —

Sarpy 120,300 17,300 37,400 241 — 53 — 0 — —

Scotts Bluff 36,000 5,000 10,200 163 — 26 — 0 — —

86 Small Counties 698,200 92,500 189,700 1,885 — 894 — 298 — —

Number of Reported Cases 4,930 — 1,652 — 1,054 — —

Population Represented 1,660,800 210,500 444,400 210,500 — 210,500 — 444,400 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 23.43 — 7.85 — 2.37 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 93 — 93 — 93 — —

Nevada - 17 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Churchill 23,100 3,100 7,100 184 113 191 123 — — —

Clark 1,161,300 130,000 310,300 700 6,731 53 3,062 — — —

Douglas 36,800 4,200 9,700 127 189 11 134 — — —

Elko 46,000 7,000 16,400 195 141 3 116 — — —

Esmeralda 1,200 100 300 11 5 1 1 — — —

Humboldt 18,100 2,600 6,100 33 115 1 72 — — —

Mineral 5,300 700 1,500 25 32 5 6 — — —

Storey 3,000 300 700 30 36 0 27 — — —

Washoe 313,000 32,800 79,500 1,996 2,696 79 2,105 — — —

White Pine 10,100 1,300 2,800 14 63 1 49 — — —

7 Small Counties 125,900 14,800 33,600 838 723 119 469 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 4,153 10,844 464 6,164 — — —

Population Represented 1,743,800 197,100 468,100 197,100 197,100 197,100 197,100 — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 21.07 55.03 2.35 31.28 — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 17 17 17 17 — — —

New Hampshire - 10 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 16

Cheshire 72,000 7,500 16,700 433 — 116 — 51 — —

Grafton 78,200 7,700 17,100 531 — 121 — 46 — —

Hillsborough 362,500 38,700 89,000 1,976 — 363 — 270 — —

Merrimack 127,900 13,800 31,000 797 — 158 — 85 — —

Rockingham 270,600 28,900 66,500 1,386 — 240 — 197 — —

Strafford 109,500 10,400 24,800 867 — 105 — 56 — —

4 Small Counties 165,100 18,300 38,800 1,025 — 172 — 168 — —

Number of Reported Cases 7,015 — 1,275 — 873 — —

Population Represented 1,185,800 125,400 283,900 125,400 — 125,400 — 283,900 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 55.96 — 10.17 — 3.07 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 10 — 10 — 10 — —

New Jersey - 21 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Atlantic 238,000 24,400 58,600 3,076 1,160 — — — — —

Bergen 854,400 81,600 183,400 2,532 1,356 — — — — —

Burlington 421,300 46,800 108,700 1,902 1,027 — — — — —

Camden 504,300 59,600 142,100 3,605 2,272 — — — — —

Cape May 98,000 9,600 23,200 1,052 1,101 — — — — —

Cumberland 140,400 16,900 38,800 1,963 1,139 — — — — —

Essex 748,300 83,000 191,300 6,802 2,711 — — — — —

Gloucester 248,000 30,300 69,800 1,478 1,330 — — — — —

Hudson 553,000 55,700 131,200 3,354 1,572 — — — — —

Hunterdon 122,400 13,400 30,600 306 120 — — — — —

Mercer 331,500 33,700 79,300 2,929 750 — — — — —

Middlesex 712,600 68,700 163,000 2,662 1,566 — — — — —

Monmouth 603,200 68,100 155,200 2,644 2,243 — — — — —

Morris 459,000 48,800 108,700 1,533 546 — — — — —

Ocean 490,100 51,100 118,500 1,798 1,523 — — — — —

Passaic 483,000 53,500 126,900 2,866 897 — — — — —
84 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Salem 64,900 7,900 17,300 679 301 — — — — —

Somerset 282,300 27,400 65,200 622 570 — — — — —

Sussex 143,100 17,700 41,600 779 254 — — — — —

Union 498,900 49,100 115,600 2,833 666 — — — — —

Warren 98,700 10,800 25,800 436 244 — — — — —

Number of Reported Cases 45,851 23,348 — — — — —

Population Represented 8,095,500 858,000 1,994,600 858,000 858,000 — — — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 53.44 27.21 — — — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 21 21 — — — — —

New Mexico - 13 Districts

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

District 1 178,900 21,700 47,400 838 — 5 — — — —

District 2 524,700 59,300 133,600 5,405 — 7 — — — —

District 3 169,000 22,800 50,600 611 — — — — — —

District 4 37,600 5,000 11,200 333 — 1 — — — —

District 5 172,500 25,200 53,000 1,421 — 14 — — — —

District 6 61,800 9,000 18,300 663 — 7 — — — —

District 7 46,200 6,200 12,700 321 — — — — — —

District 8 44,300 5,800 12,300 165 — 0 — — — —

District 9 62,700 8,600 18,600 482 — 2 — — — —

District 10 13,300 1,700 3,400 117 — 3 — — — —

District 11 173,500 28,900 63,100 1,334 — — — — — —

District 12 70,700 8,900 20,000 358 — — — — — —

District 13 178,400 24,600 55,600 811 — — — — — —

Number of Reported Cases 12,859 — 39 — — — —

Population Represented 1,733,500 227,700 499,700 227,700 — 136,300 — — — —

Rates for Reporting Districts 56.47 — 0.29 — — — —

Number of Reporting Districts 13 — 8 — — — —

New York - 62 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 15

Albany 293,000 20,700 58,200 516 400 303 390 933 — —

Allegany 50,600 4,700 11,900 42 58 87 47 217 — —

Bronx 1,191,300 104,700 316,600 1,448 247 858 1,120 3,369 — —

Broome 196,500 14,600 41,000 141 136 217 180 203 — —

Cattaraugus 84,900 8,100 21,600 179 130 115 119 410 — —

Cayuga 82,200 7,200 19,800 115 75 48 110 97 — —

Chautauqua 138,300 12,000 32,100 234 288 90 237 156 — —

Chemung 92,200 8,000 21,400 120 36 152 44 166 — —

Chenango 51,000 5,000 12,900 39 91 39 42 33 — —

Clinton 79,800 6,400 18,300 40 120 26 88 121 — —

Columbia 63,100 5,100 14,000 49 78 45 25 150 — —

Dutchess 265,400 20,900 58,200 334 130 133 196 222 — —

Erie 933,700 71,500 199,200 1,042 671 605 655 945 — —

Fulton 53,100 4,900 12,600 51 51 107 75 339 — —

Genesee 60,700 5,300 14,800 81 39 37 50 81 — —

Herkimer 64,000 5,700 15,100 61 102 50 125 81 — —

Jefferson 111,000 9,700 28,200 166 214 79 169 219 — —

Kings 2,266,200 199,500 556,900 1,684 287 801 967 3,138 — —

Livingston 65,600 5,300 14,600 54 74 45 80 64 — —

Madison 70,900 6,000 16,500 41 73 98 30 124 — —

Monroe 714,900 56,200 163,700 826 595 396 332 659 — —

Montgomery 50,800 4,200 11,700 61 101 37 39 212 — —

Nassau 1,301,000 97,900 258,000 795 478 273 704 650 — —

New York 1,546,500 85,200 253,000 1,317 52 258 161 2,162 — —

Niagara 217,800 18,300 49,700 161 314 253 326 252 — —

Oneida 230,700 18,300 50,700 165 389 201 269 275 — —

Onondaga 457,900 36,300 103,700 1,660 590 467 230 594 — —

Ontario 99,500 8,300 23,100 63 115 24 73 65 — —

Orange 329,800 29,900 85,600 261 443 227 447 469 — —

Oswego 123,800 12,000 32,200 183 112 100 178 256 — —

Otsego 60,600 4,800 13,000 28 65 15 30 97 — —
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 85

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Putnam 93,400 7,700 21,700 3 21 80 15 16 — —

Queens 1,993,200 140,600 397,000 1,109 335 498 678 1,655 — —

Rensselaer 152,200 12,000 33,400 228 144 248 194 173 — —

Richmond 406,900 33,700 93,300 378 107 146 141 375 — —

Rockland 281,000 25,300 65,600 121 83 85 137 263 — —

St. Lawrence 113,100 9,900 25,600 58 167 55 104 124 — —

Saratoga 197,400 17,000 46,100 225 126 186 73 137 — —

Schenectady 145,100 10,900 30,700 108 193 172 115 576 — —

Steuben 98,000 9,200 24,300 83 138 43 179 120 — —

Suffolk 1,370,500 116,600 307,100 1,122 790 631 681 2,447 — —

Sullivan 69,400 5,700 16,100 69 74 81 122 145 — —

Tioga 52,400 5,000 13,400 64 94 31 31 94 — —

Tompkins 97,200 6,100 17,700 49 82 43 77 230 — —

Ulster 166,800 12,600 35,500 199 215 224 69 325 — —

Warren 61,300 5,300 13,900 23 110 39 88 82 — —

Washington 60,200 5,400 14,100 65 82 35 176 65 — —

Wayne 95,100 8,800 24,500 113 170 64 130 130 — —

Westchester 900,900 64,700 181,800 686 535 376 506 463 — —

13 Small Counties 458,100 39,800 106,100 439 461 515 412 894 — —

Number of Reported Cases 17,099 10,481 9,738 11,466 25,073 — —

Population Represented 18,159,200 1,432,900 3,996,100 1,432,900 1,432,900 1,432,900 1,432,900 3,995,100 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 11.93 7.31 6.80 8.00 6.28 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 62 62 62 62 61 — —

North Carolina - 100 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 15

Alamance 119,700 9,000 24,400 478 — 12 — 61 — —

Brunswick 68,400 5,600 14,500 157 — 5 — 54 — —

Buncombe 194,500 15,400 40,600 273 — 256 — 229 — —

Burke 82,400 6,900 17,600 276 — 40 — 75 — —

Cabarrus 120,300 10,100 27,400 357 — 13 — 131 — —

Caldwell 75,900 6,400 16,400 206 — 42 — 147 — —

Carteret 59,800 4,600 12,400 205 — 3 — 54 — —

Catawba 132,400 11,400 29,400 450 — 102 — 317 — —

Cleveland 93,100 8,100 21,000 294 — 29 — 83 — —

Columbus 52,700 5,200 13,000 187 — 5 — 54 — —

Craven 88,800 7,600 22,300 325 — 97 — 70 — —

Cumberland 284,200 25,500 77,000 1,827 — 648 — 799 — —

Davidson 141,100 11,900 31,300 399 — 9 — 18 — —

Durham 202,300 15,300 43,900 621 — 8 — 222 — —

Edgecombe 55,000 5,600 14,200 177 — 0 — 71 — —

Forsyth 287,700 21,300 60,200 1,017 — 124 — 240 — —

Gaston 183,900 16,000 42,800 749 — 166 — 234 — —

Guilford 387,600 29,400 80,800 1,906 — 154 — 344 — —

Halifax 56,300 5,300 14,000 300 — 25 — 45 — —

Harnett 82,400 7,300 20,300 225 — 4 — 89 — —

Henderson 81,200 6,100 16,000 146 — 10 — 57 — —

Iredell 113,500 9,500 25,400 394 — 38 — 68 — —

Johnston 106,600 9,500 25,100 138 — 7 — 129 — —

Lenoir 58,900 5,600 13,800 199 — 6 — 68 — —

Lincoln 58,000 4,900 13,300 206 — 1 — 36 — —

Mecklenburg 630,800 49,400 145,500 3,311 — 638 — 312 — —

Moore 71,300 5,700 14,900 219 — 6 — 142 — —

Nash 90,900 8,100 20,800 305 — 52 — 98 — —

New Hanover 149,800 12,100 31,600 969 — 19 — 284 — —

Onslow 143,400 10,400 36,100 420 — 2 — 198 — —

Orange 109,900 7,300 20,800 255 — 0 — 68 — —

Pitt 126,600 10,800 29,400 509 — 4 — 152 — —

Randolph 121,400 10,100 27,300 440 — 111 — 179 — —

Robeson 115,700 12,600 32,200 575 — 94 — 241 — —

Rockingham 90,100 7,500 19,700 287 — 24 — 30 — —

Rowan 125,100 10,500 28,300 399 — 6 — 171 — —

Rutherford 60,900 5,500 13,800 146 — 40 — 124 — —

Stanly 55,800 4,700 12,900 109 — 13 — 35 — —
86 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Surry 67,300 5,600 14,200 204 — 29 — 52 — —

Union 110,200 10,500 28,400 575 — 81 — 91 — —

Wake 570,400 43,800 126,900 1,553 — 343 — 267 — —

Wayne 111,900 9,700 26,900 513 — 93 — 93 — —

Wilkes 62,800 5,500 13,500 321 — 30 — 43 — —

Wilson 68,200 6,400 16,100 287 — 12 — 177 — —

56 Small Counties 1,476,700 129,700 330,700 5,444 — 486 — 1,944 — —

Number of Reported Cases 28,353 — 3,887 — 8,396 — —

Population Represented 7,545,800 629,500 1,706,700 629,500 — 629,500 — 1,706,700 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 45.04 — 6.17 — 4.92 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 100 — 100 — 100 — —

North Dakota - 53 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Burleigh 66,900 8,400 17,000 101 638 29 722 18 19 —

Cass 116,900 12,900 27,300 410 522 148 573 155 39 —

Grand Forks 66,800 7,300 16,400 223 472 64 597 76 0 —

Ward 58,500 7,200 15,300 88 461 65 529 22 0 —

49 Small Counties 328,700 44,400 86,600 560 2,061 270 2,653 218 59 —

Number of Reported Cases 1,382 4,154 576 5,074 489 117 —

Population Represented 637,800 80,300 162,700 80,300 80,300 80,300 80,300 162,700 162,700 —

Rates for Reporting Counties 17.22 51.76 7.18 63.22 3.01 0.72 —

Number of Reporting Counties 53 53 53 53 53 53 —

Ohio - 88 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Allen 107,200 13,300 28,500 1,426 — 426 — 345 — —

Ashtabula 103,200 13,300 27,700 1,663 — 610 — 62 — —

Athens 61,600 6,000 12,700 509 — 169 — 77 — —

Belmont 71,900 8,000 16,000 706 — 138 — 56 — —

Butler 330,900 38,700 85,100 4,039 — 857 — 588 — —

Clark 145,300 17,200 36,300 1,617 — 256 — 387 — —

Clermont 175,800 23,300 50,600 1,750 — 404 — 155 — —

Columbiana 111,400 14,100 28,800 541 — 192 — 80 — —

Cuyahoga 1,380,400 145,000 329,000 10,422 93 1,095 746 5,175 0 —

Darke 54,100 7,000 14,400 474 — 70 — 75 — —

Delaware 98,200 12,300 26,400 579 — 160 — 75 — —

Erie 78,200 9,400 19,700 3,050 — 1,061 — 211 — —

Fairfield 123,900 16,000 32,700 801 — 130 — 214 — —

Franklin 1,021,600 106,900 250,900 8,206 — 1,144 — 3,213 — —

Geauga 88,600 11,100 23,500 512 — 100 — 45 — —

Greene 147,900 17,500 36,700 1,600 — 304 — 152 — —

Hamilton 847,200 94,000 217,800 12,984 — 3,870 — 548 — —

Hancock 69,000 8,400 18,100 1,022 — 291 — 21 — —

Huron 60,200 8,200 17,200 510 — 206 — 85 — —

Jefferson 74,600 8,600 16,800 397 — 125 — 54 — —

Lake 226,800 25,400 53,900 2,071 — 771 — 191 — —

Lawrence 64,400 8,500 16,900 316 — 238 — 31 — —

Licking 135,000 16,000 34,500 1,098 — 85 — 525 — —

Lorain 281,700 35,900 75,400 3,454 — 197 — 401 — —

Lucas 448,600 52,500 117,900 6,491 — 720 — 456 — —

Mahoning 255,300 29,200 61,200 1,097 — 75 — 356 — —

Marion 67,100 7,800 16,700 1,750 — 226 — 418 — —

Medina 143,900 19,000 39,300 1,179 — 155 — 62 — —

Miami 98,200 12,200 25,500 1,844 — 868 — 122 — —

Montgomery 570,100 60,700 138,100 4,751 — 611 — 1,360 — —

Muskingum 84,600 10,400 22,100 725 — 216 — 84 — —

Portage 150,800 17,200 36,600 1,197 — 346 — 139 — —

Richland 129,700 15,600 32,200 2,046 — 575 — 155 — —

Ross 75,400 9,000 18,400 914 — 555 — 112 — —

Sandusky 62,100 8,100 17,000 814 — 276 — 118 — —

Scioto 80,800 10,700 21,400 546 — 320 — 75 — —

Seneca 60,000 8,100 16,600 1,228 — 365 — 112 — —
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 87

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Stark 373,000 43,000 91,000 2,399 — 742 — 905 — —

Summit 537,200 58,700 129,700 3,738 — 1,368 — 955 — —

Trumbull 226,400 26,300 54,500 2,071 — 923 — 252 — —

Tuscarawas 88,500 10,700 22,700 853 — 185 — 32 — —

Warren 146,000 17,300 38,000 1,468 — 420 — 69 — —

Washington 63,300 7,800 15,700 463 — 139 — 25 — —

Wayne 110,200 14,000 30,400 966 — 166 — 129 — —

Wood 119,600 13,600 28,800 1,580 — 247 — 285 — —

43 Small Counties 1,487,700 193,900 403,000 15,785 — 4,843 — 1,856 — —

Number of Reported Cases 113,652 93 27,240 746 20,843 — —

Population Represented 11,237,800 1,310,000 2,846,500 1,310,000 145,000 1,310,000 145,000 2,846,500 329,000 —

Rates for Reporting Counties 86.76 0.64 20.79 5.15 7.32 0.00 —

Number of Reporting Counties 88 1 88 1 88 1 —

Oklahoma - 77 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Adair 20,400 3,100 6,100 27 100 1 222 — — —

Alfalfa 6,000 700 1,300 1 19 0 0 — — —

Atoka 13,300 1,800 3,400 22 35 0 2 — — —

Beaver 6,000 900 1,700 5 10 0 3 — — —

Beckham 19,900 2,700 5,700 72 97 10 37 — — —

Blaine 10,400 1,300 2,900 32 42 6 2 — — —

Bryan 34,700 4,300 8,700 83 158 0 1 — — —

Caddo 30,900 4,100 8,500 101 186 1 28 — — —

Canadian 85,400 12,000 25,300 111 130 24 6 — — —

Carter 44,400 5,900 12,000 98 423 3 48 — — —

Cherokee 39,000 5,000 10,400 119 309 15 89 — — —

Choctaw 15,100 2,100 4,200 15 83 0 0 — — —

Cimarron 3,000 400 800 1 0 0 0 — — —

Cleveland 201,000 24,500 52,600 407 1,814 6 732 — — —

Coal 6,000 900 1,600 19 33 4 1 — — —

Comanche 108,100 13,600 31,500 247 795 5 123 — — —

Cotton 6,600 800 1,700 15 21 1 0 — — —

Craig 14,500 1,700 3,300 25 76 6 29 — — —

Creek 67,100 8,800 18,100 39 320 1 0 — — —

Custer 25,600 3,100 6,900 107 140 1 15 — — —

Delaware 34,300 4,000 8,200 70 125 10 43 — — —

Dewey 4,900 700 1,300 1 9 0 1 — — —

Ellis 4,200 600 1,100 4 22 0 1 — — —

Garfield 56,900 6,900 14,800 108 170 4 9 — — —

Garvin 26,800 3,400 6,800 52 196 5 41 — — —

Grady 45,800 6,300 13,000 123 182 48 71 — — —

Grant 5,300 600 1,400 1 18 0 0 — — —

Greer 6,400 700 1,300 10 36 0 1 — — —

Harmon 3,500 500 1,000 1 20 0 0 — — —

Harper 3,600 500 900 1 10 0 0 — — —

Haskell 11,400 1,500 2,900 7 25 0 0 — — —

Hughes 14,100 1,800 3,300 56 56 0 15 — — —

Jackson 28,500 3,800 8,700 47 257 0 6 — — —

Jefferson 6,600 800 1,600 12 31 0 5 — — —

Johnston 10,300 1,400 2,800 16 50 0 6 — — —

Kay 46,600 5,600 12,200 116 259 5 0 — — —

Kingfisher 13,500 1,800 3,800 12 35 0 0 — — —

Kiowa 10,700 1,400 2,900 42 39 2 2 — — —

Latimer 10,300 1,400 2,800 17 76 0 1 — — —

Le Flore 46,700 6,400 12,800 25 162 0 11 — — —

Lincoln 31,300 4,400 8,800 20 35 0 2 — — —

Logan 30,100 4,000 8,200 63 271 0 18 — — —

Love 8,600 1,200 2,300 4 56 0 0 — — —

McClain 26,200 3,500 7,100 74 172 0 31 — — —

McCurtain 34,800 5,000 10,200 57 173 7 47 — — —

McIntosh 19,000 2,200 4,300 36 97 6 28 — — —

Major 7,800 1,000 2,100 4 35 0 1 — — —

Marshall 12,300 1,400 2,800 7 75 0 1 — — —
88 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Mayes 37,600 4,700 9,800 66 269 18 66 — — —

Murray 12,300 1,600 3,100 16 47 1 1 — — —

Muskogee 70,100 9,100 18,900 169 93 50 85 — — —

Noble 11,400 1,500 3,100 24 50 0 1 — — —

Nowata 10,000 1,200 2,500 8 58 5 21 — — —

Okfuskee 11,400 1,500 2,900 20 78 0 1 — — —

Oklahoma 632,900 72,700 165,000 2,342 1,594 137 42 — — —

Okmulgee 38,700 5,000 10,400 49 79 12 10 — — —

Osage 42,900 5,800 11,700 33 146 8 23 — — —

Ottawa 30,900 3,600 7,400 79 270 6 58 — — —

Pawnee 16,400 2,200 4,400 20 111 2 12 — — —

Payne 65,300 6,300 13,900 238 290 17 9 — — —

Pittsburg 43,000 5,300 10,300 92 203 3 9 — — —

Pontotoc 34,600 4,200 8,600 61 282 2 29 — — —

Pottawatomie 62,300 8,200 16,600 122 310 3 55 — — —

Pushmataha 11,500 1,400 2,900 9 35 0 0 — — —

Roger Mills 3,600 500 1,000 9 2 0 0 — — —

Rogers 68,000 8,900 18,300 165 344 6 80 — — —

Seminole 24,800 3,200 6,500 78 181 0 3 — — —

Sequoyah 37,500 5,300 10,400 29 138 1 27 — — —

Stephens 43,500 5,700 11,300 74 236 1 25 — — —

Texas 18,500 2,600 5,400 49 133 0 16 — — —

Tillman 9,500 1,300 2,800 36 69 0 2 — — —

Tulsa 543,400 62,100 141,000 1,951 4,020 206 1,472 — — —

Wagoner 55,200 8,200 16,300 100 334 22 62 — — —

Washington 47,500 5,600 11,900 172 300 17 102 — — —

Washita 11,800 1,500 3,200 31 65 1 4 — — —

Woods 8,300 900 1,800 12 32 0 3 — — —

Woodward 18,600 2,500 5,200 53 148 6 9 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 8,639 17,400 695 3,906 — — —

Population Represented 3,339,500 413,000 882,900 413,000 413,000 413,000 413,000 — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 20.92 42.13 1.68 9.46 — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 77 77 77 77 — — —

Oregon - 36 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Benton 77,800 7,900 17,100 — — — — — — 289

Clackamas 334,800 41,700 86,000 — — — — — — 1,366

Coos 62,200 7,100 14,700 — — — — — — 969

Deschutes 105,700 12,700 26,700 — — — — — — 478

Douglas 101,800 12,500 25,700 — — — — — — 536

Jackson 173,200 20,100 42,300 — — — — — — 1,308

Josephine 74,200 8,500 17,500 — — — — — — 573

Klamath 63,200 7,900 16,400 — — — — — — 671

Lane 313,300 34,800 74,200 — — — — — — 1,208

Linn 104,500 12,800 27,200 — — — — — — 784

Marion 268,900 33,000 72,400 — — — — — — 2,539

Multnomah 630,600 63,300 145,500 — — — — — — 3,944

Polk 61,400 7,400 15,600 — — — — — — 459

Umatilla 65,600 8,500 18,300 — — — — — — 390

Washington 400,700 47,000 106,100 — — — — — — 1,216

Yamhill 82,000 10,800 23,300 — — — — — — 991

20 Small Counties 362,200 44,600 93,600 — — — — — — 3,924

Number of Reported Cases — — — — — — 21,645

Population Represented 3,282,100 380,700 822,700 — — — — — — 380,700

Rates for Reporting Counties — — — — — — —

Number of Reporting Counties — — — — — — 36

Pennsylvania - 67 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Adams 86,700 10,200 21,900 212 52 — — — — —

Allegheny 1,268,000 122,200 271,300 3,132 985 — — — — —

Armstrong 73,300 8,800 17,700 99 92 — — — — —
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 89

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Beaver 184,300 20,500 42,900 387 214 — — — — —

Bedford 49,400 6,200 12,300 81 36 — — — — —

Berks 355,800 38,700 84,900 656 241 — — — — —

Blair 130,500 15,800 32,000 295 52 — — — — —

Bradford 62,400 8,200 16,900 121 13 — — — — —

Bucks 587,900 68,700 149,100 1,232 628 — — — — —

Butler 170,800 20,400 42,700 464 17 — — — — —

Cambria 155,600 18,500 36,000 546 40 — — — — —

Carbon 58,700 6,600 13,500 114 72 — — — — —

Centre 132,000 11,000 24,700 201 43 — — — — —

Chester 421,900 47,500 105,300 600 107 — — — — —

Clearfield 80,700 10,100 20,000 249 52 — — — — —

Columbia 63,900 6,700 14,000 121 59 — — — — —

Crawford 89,300 11,400 23,100 243 18 — — — — —

Cumberland 209,600 22,000 45,300 216 388 — — — — —

Dauphin 245,500 26,600 59,200 906 210 — — — — —

Delaware 542,600 56,500 127,100 1,584 2 — — — — —

Erie 278,100 33,900 72,700 838 180 — — — — —

Fayette 144,400 17,900 35,300 124 226 — — — — —

Franklin 128,300 15,100 31,200 251 128 — — — — —

Indiana 88,400 10,400 20,900 130 32 — — — — —

Jefferson 46,200 5,800 11,800 142 51 — — — — —

Lackawanna 208,400 22,300 46,100 338 28 — — — — —

Lancaster 456,700 54,700 121,800 796 313 — — — — —

Lawrence 94,900 10,900 22,400 151 54 — — — — —

Lebanon 117,600 13,600 28,600 283 58 — — — — —

Lehigh 298,800 30,600 68,100 599 124 — — — — —

Luzerne 314,600 32,700 67,700 960 400 — — — — —

Lycoming 117,400 13,800 29,300 292 126 — — — — —

McKean 46,300 5,700 11,500 123 30 — — — — —

Mercer 121,800 13,900 28,500 272 49 — — — — —

Mifflin 47,000 5,600 11,700 47 0 — — — — —

Monroe 125,400 14,400 32,000 300 49 — — — — —

Montgomery 719,600 72,500 161,300 697 452 — — — — —

Northampton 258,600 27,900 61,000 431 243 — — — — —

Northumberland 94,000 10,500 21,500 202 263 — — — — —

Philadelphia 1,435,000 160,200 366,000 9,240 0 — — — — —

Schuylkill 150,100 16,300 32,800 147 223 — — — — —

Somerset 80,200 9,800 19,500 111 26 — — — — —

Venango 57,800 7,400 14,900 128 14 — — — — —

Warren 43,800 5,300 10,900 106 14 — — — — —

Washington 205,300 23,100 46,500 165 200 — — — — —

Westmoreland 372,400 40,500 82,700 888 1 — — — — —

York 373,700 42,200 91,400 546 552 — — — — —

20 Small Counties 609,200 73,800 152,100 1,077 328 — — — — —

Number of Reported Cases 30,843 7,485 — — — — —

Population Represented 12,002,300 1,327,400 2,859,800 1,327,400 1,327,400 — — — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 23.23 5.64 — — — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 — — — — —

Rhode Island - 1 State

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

State Total 987,700 105,600 237,100 — — — — — — 8,650

Number of Reported Cases — — — — — — 8,650

Population Represented 987,700 105,600 237,100 — — — — — — 105,600

Rates for Reporting State — — — — — — —

Number of Reporting States — — — — — — 1

South Carolina - 46 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 16

Aiken 134,000 13,400 32,500 378 286 98 99 — — —

Anderson 160,700 15,500 35,700 571 484 0 8 — — —

Beaufort 110,100 8,500 24,500 211 304 33 25 — — —
90 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Berkeley 137,600 15,200 39,800 426 384 169 14 — — —

Charleston 316,600 26,100 72,100 808 2,062 58 180 — — —

Darlington 66,300 7,600 16,400 103 305 8 40 — — —

Dorchester 88,000 9,000 23,400 180 182 132 64 — — —

Florence 124,700 13,800 31,200 101 585 25 295 — — —

Greenville 354,000 31,700 78,400 576 613 215 84 — — —

Greenwood 63,600 6,000 14,200 213 243 98 56 — — —

Horry 174,600 15,500 36,900 390 661 99 170 — — —

Lancaster 58,900 5,900 14,000 156 434 1 100 — — —

Laurens 63,200 6,100 14,300 133 137 19 50 — — —

Lexington 205,000 20,300 48,700 369 734 124 90 — — —

Oconee 64,100 6,000 13,800 47 182 3 19 — — —

Orangeburg 87,700 9,100 21,300 287 450 113 84 — — —

Pickens 107,000 9,200 21,700 270 123 75 8 — — —

Richland 304,900 26,600 65,200 811 172 42 11 — — —

Spartanburg 247,200 22,800 54,300 599 781 191 71 — — —

Sumter 112,300 11,400 28,600 149 234 25 124 — — —

York 154,300 14,700 35,900 399 518 210 226 — — —

25 Small Counties 704,700 77,400 175,200 1,876 2,520 531 644 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 9,053 12,394 2,269 2,462 — — —

Population Represented 3,839,600 372,200 898,100 372,200 372,200 372,200 372,200 — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 24.33 33.30 6.10 6.62 — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 46 46 46 46 — — —

South Dakota - 66 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Beadle 17,100 2,100 4,300 72 13 11 0 — — —

Brookings 26,000 2,700 5,600 72 27 13 0 — — —

Brown 35,400 4,200 8,600 123 67 17 9 — — —

Codington 25,400 3,400 7,000 103 52 7 0 — — —

Davison 17,700 2,200 4,600 59 41 39 6 — — —

Hughes 15,300 2,100 4,300 41 78 10 34 — — —

Lawrence 21,900 2,800 5,600 71 6 38 0 — — —

Lincoln 20,400 3,100 6,200 81 19 8 0 — — —

Meade 21,600 3,200 6,700 70 0 8 0 — — —

Minnehaha 140,400 16,700 36,100 728 415 427 132 — — —

Pennington 87,300 10,600 24,100 811 31 51 12 — — —

Yankton 21,000 2,400 5,300 84 43 60 36 — — —

54 Small Counties 281,100 40,600 82,000 752 198 148 58 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 3,067 990 837 287 — — —

Population Represented 730,800 96,400 200,300 96,400 96,400 96,400 96,400 — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 31.82 10.27 8.68 2.98 — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 66 66 66 66 — — —

Tennessee - 95 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Anderson 70,900 7,500 16,400 71 167 31 94 1 0 —

Blount 101,200 10,400 22,900 167 66 87 37 4 5 —

Bradley 83,400 9,300 19,700 116 587 52 452 2 0 —

Carter 53,300 5,400 11,400 202 0 203 1 21 0 —

Davidson 533,300 49,500 120,800 4,010 4,377 279 1,504 668 1,588 —

Greene 60,300 6,300 13,200 242 58 96 10 4 3 —

Hamblen 54,000 5,800 12,400 123 193 63 31 0 0 —

Hamilton 294,500 31,000 69,100 1,812 648 617 518 241 45 —

Knox 374,700 35,700 83,000 944 382 120 196 499 1 —

Madison 85,800 9,900 22,300 692 145 95 60 0 0 —

Maury 69,600 8,100 18,100 563 96 267 6 19 75 —

Montgomery 127,200 13,600 34,900 397 390 166 223 4 0 —

Putnam 59,000 5,700 13,000 278 151 176 81 14 2 —

Rutherford 166,100 19,300 45,200 917 122 326 17 0 0 —

Sevier 64,400 6,900 14,800 442 533 172 99 5 3 —

Shelby 867,800 99,800 235,800 11,913 664 5,209 0 1,458 0 —

Sullivan 150,300 15,200 32,200 555 382 128 256 181 51 —
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 91

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Sumner 123,900 15,100 33,100 1,147 1,281 493 219 0 0 —

Washington 102,200 10,000 21,900 396 268 140 203 25 21 —

Williamson 117,700 14,800 32,900 535 427 318 82 13 13 —

Wilson 83,900 10,000 22,400 215 349 103 18 18 7 —

74 Small Counties 1,789,300 205,600 439,400 8,042 1,889 4,280 1,818 436 193 —

Number of Reported Cases 33,779 13,175 13,421 5,925 3,613 2,007 —

Population Represented 5,432,700 595,000 1,334,800 595,000 595,000 595,000 595,000 1,334,800 1,334,800 —

Rates for Reporting Counties 56.77 22.14 22.56 9.96 2.71 1.50 —

Number of Reporting Counties 95 95 95 95 95 95 —

Texas - 254 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 16

Anderson 52,100 4,900 11,300 79 50 23 14 — — —

Angelina 77,300 9,100 20,700 150 187 3 2 — — —

Bell 223,200 22,600 61,900 409 610 9 357 — — —

Bexar 1,354,800 148,000 377,100 5,740 3,837 252 2,788 — — —

Bowie 83,300 9,500 20,900 151 578 1 190 — — —

Brazoria 228,900 26,100 63,700 621 1,040 46 839 — — —

Brazos 132,900 10,500 28,400 511 637 57 177 — — —

Cameron 324,000 45,600 107,800 1,096 677 12 236 — — —

Collin 428,300 47,800 117,800 418 656 43 193 — — —

Comal 73,500 7,300 17,800 184 236 31 69 — — —

Coryell 73,800 7,300 19,600 92 106 2 66 — — —

Dallas 2,045,300 198,500 523,200 3,583 4,481 10 1,398 — — —

Denton 383,400 38,200 101,100 1,016 466 244 204 — — —

Ector 124,800 14,400 37,900 224 710 2 15 — — —

Ellis 103,700 12,700 30,400 152 278 211 53 — — —

El Paso 694,600 84,900 212,600 1,979 1,758 0 6 — — —

Fort Bend 336,800 41,400 103,800 494 719 58 198 — — —

Galveston 245,000 26,300 63,100 873 316 5 55 — — —

Grayson 102,000 10,700 24,700 235 383 0 35 — — —

Gregg 112,900 12,200 29,000 393 329 36 84 — — —

Guadalupe 80,500 8,900 22,000 234 412 17 138 — — —

Harris 3,202,000 336,800 867,500 10,069 3,829 7 4,744 — — —

Harrison 59,800 7,200 15,900 170 254 234 88 — — —

Hays 89,300 8,700 21,500 190 255 12 112 — — —

Henderson 69,000 6,800 15,400 104 130 7 54 — — —

Hidalgo 519,700 74,500 179,300 773 770 104 346 — — —

Hunt 70,200 7,400 17,500 118 308 11 147 — — —

Jefferson 241,200 25,100 59,400 359 1,032 21 177 — — —

Johnson 118,200 13,900 32,200 292 336 70 277 — — —

Kaufman 65,500 7,800 18,100 193 153 2 47 — — —

Liberty 65,200 7,500 16,900 47 160 4 63 — — —

Lubbock 228,200 22,900 58,200 814 667 82 142 — — —

McLennan 203,200 20,700 50,900 897 1,018 136 196 — — —

Midland 119,100 13,300 35,400 358 737 0 18 — — —

Montgomery 271,800 32,200 75,400 419 672 27 192 — — —

Nacogdoches 56,200 5,300 12,600 121 121 1 59 — — —

Nueces 315,700 36,500 90,700 1,035 1,362 112 1,173 — — —

Orange 84,800 10,000 22,100 140 251 8 72 — — —

Parker 82,300 9,200 21,300 92 148 2 138 — — —

Potter 108,300 10,900 29,000 355 460 80 234 — — —

Randall 98,800 11,200 26,400 309 321 30 129 — — —

San Patricio 70,700 8,600 20,900 193 321 1 76 — — —

Smith 168,100 17,500 41,600 934 217 108 98 — — —

Tarrant 1,354,000 133,100 353,000 2,152 4,606 83 671 — — —

Taylor 122,000 12,100 31,700 318 715 1 18 — — —

Tom Green 102,700 10,200 26,800 352 662 59 262 — — —

Travis 709,200 61,400 168,200 2,516 3,074 331 745 — — —

Victoria 81,700 9,400 23,300 121 759 136 46 — — —

Walker 54,800 4,300 10,000 68 72 0 5 — — —

Webb 186,800 25,400 64,600 332 1,035 23 219 — — —

Wichita 128,500 12,300 31,000 265 424 0 37 — — —

Williamson 223,700 27,100 67,000 232 711 27 176 — — —
92 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

202 Small Counties 3,160,400 357,500 838,700 6,169 9,320 569 3,444 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 49,141 53,366 3,350 21,322 — — —

Population Represented 19,712,400 2,133,800 5,337,500 2,133,800 2,133,800 2,133,800 2,133,800 — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 23.03 25.01 1.57 9.99 — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 254 254 254 254 — — —

Utah - 29 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Cache 87,200 12,200 29,100 557 627 133 866 41 0 —

Davis 233,600 38,100 85,300 1,814 1,805 368 1,417 226 13 —

Salt Lake 845,900 117,400 271,700 9,039 5,570 1,935 2,693 339 7 —

Utah 339,900 51,400 117,400 3,164 1,921 1,398 834 173 5 —

Washington 82,300 12,400 27,300 816 711 418 460 35 0 —

Weber 183,800 25,600 57,200 2,177 1,747 338 1,465 426 3 —

23 Small Counties 327,800 54,000 115,500 3,400 2,577 1,361 2,133 354 3 —

Number of Reported Cases 20,967 14,958 5,951 9,868 1,594 31 —

Population Represented 2,100,600 311,100 703,700 311,100 311,100 311,100 311,100 703,700 703,700 —

Rates for Reporting Counties 67.39 48.07 19.13 31.71 2.27 0.04 —

Number of Reporting Counties 29 29 29 29 29 29 —

Vermont - 14 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Chittenden 142,500 15,100 31,600 340 — 64 — 134 — —

Rutland 62,500 7,000 14,200 156 — 33 — 27 — —

Washington 56,200 6,600 13,400 130 — 10 — 23 — —

Windsor 55,400 6,200 12,700 103 — 21 — 57 — —

10 Small Counties 274,000 34,400 69,300 797 — 126 — 201 — —

Number of Reported Cases 1,526 — 254 — 442 — —

Population Represented 590,600 69,300 141,200 69,300 — 69,300 — 141,200 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 22.03 — 3.67 — 3.13 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 14 — 14 — 14 — —

Virginia - 136 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Albemarle 79,400 7,300 17,400 286 72 38 37 — — —

Arlington 174,600 10,900 28,800 0 0 0 0 — — —

Augusta 60,300 6,900 14,600 283 4 31 3 — — —

Chesterfield 250,200 33,000 72,800 1,035 921 12 312 — — —

Fairfax 927,900 99,800 224,600 — — — — — — —

Fauquier 53,900 6,100 14,200 216 2 22 4 — — —

Hanover 82,300 9,000 19,900 445 54 50 2 — — —

Henrico 241,800 24,100 55,300 2,169 1,109 94 111 — — —

Henry 55,800 6,000 12,500 233 106 18 43 — — —

Loudoun 144,500 15,800 39,000 660 29 151 53 — — —

Montgomery 76,900 6,100 14,200 350 0 59 1 — — —

Pittsylvania 56,500 6,600 13,500 232 5 2 10 — — —

Prince William 262,400 33,700 79,500 2,173 497 144 29 — — —

Roanoke 81,300 8,900 17,900 785 35 44 121 — — —

Rockingham 63,200 7,000 15,300 171 3 31 6 — — —

Spotsylvania 83,800 11,200 25,300 671 104 123 80 — — —

Stafford 89,700 11,900 27,000 701 190 50 59 — — —

Alexandria City 115,000 7,100 18,200 566 188 56 58 — — —

Chesapeake City 199,400 25,100 56,500 1,610 125 13 10 — — —

Danville City 51,700 5,200 11,400 403 158 5 23 — — —

Hampton City 136,700 14,100 33,500 1,176 688 49 167 — — —

Lynchburg City 64,300 6,200 13,900 541 60 42 106 — — —

Newport News City 178,000 19,300 48,900 1,126 453 94 156 — — —

Norfolk City 227,100 20,400 54,300 1,715 402 143 173 — — —

Portsmouth City 99,000 11,300 26,300 1,186 97 129 74 — — —

Richmond City 191,000 15,900 38,700 1,739 568 145 48 — — —

Roanoke City 93,800 8,600 20,300 1,203 348 23 100 — — —
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 93

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases

Suffolk City 62,700 7,800 17,000 449 3 6 1 — — —

Virginia Beach City 430,700 49,600 120,800 2,702 24 76 16 — — —

107 Small Counties 2,155,300 234,900 498,600 13,480 1,566 1,600 1,106 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 38,306 7,811 3,250 2,909 — — —

Population Represented 6,789,200 730,100 1,650,300 630,200 630,200 630,200 630,200 — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 60.78 12.39 5.16 4.62 — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 135 135 135 135 — — —

Washington - 39 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Benton 136,100 18,800 40,600 1,067 1,824 73 1,004 85 — —

Chelan 60,200 7,500 17,000 458 531 47 212 13 — —

Clallam 64,300 7,200 15,000 341 334 93 711 52 — —

Clark 327,400 44,600 92,700 1,272 2,004 90 464 130 — —

Cowlitz 91,400 11,800 24,500 774 673 115 701 97 — —

Grant 70,700 10,200 22,400 816 785 76 373 26 — —

Grays Harbor 67,500 8,600 17,900 279 881 31 391 28 — —

Island 71,700 7,900 18,800 260 513 34 291 22 — —

King 1,654,300 166,100 371,300 6,329 2,151 312 311 1,316 — —

Kitsap 232,900 29,400 64,600 949 1,670 102 177 164 — —

Lewis 68,100 9,500 19,100 312 540 22 285 102 — —

Pierce 676,000 81,300 183,100 2,604 4,688 51 312 311 — —

Skagit 99,400 12,100 26,100 407 864 36 133 23 — —

Snohomish 585,500 68,800 159,200 1,341 3,904 50 2,311 384 — —

Spokane 408,200 50,500 107,100 612 3,925 14 583 262 — —

Thurston 202,300 26,000 53,900 1,298 717 139 658 88 — —

Walla Walla 53,700 6,300 13,300 278 391 21 66 50 — —

Whatcom 157,200 18,700 39,300 1,047 678 192 586 37 — —

Yakima 218,800 31,500 69,400 1,149 1,801 33 290 183 — —

20 Small Counties 442,200 56,700 118,300 1,581 2,633 268 1,212 313 — —

Number of Reported Cases 23,174 31,507 1,799 11,071 3,686 — —

Population Represented 5,687,800 673,500 1,473,500 665,300 665,300 665,300 665,300 1,473,500 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 34.83 47.36 2.70 16.64 2.50 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 36 36 36 36 39 — —

West Virginia - 55 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Berkeley 71,000 7,300 17,100 57 76 8 27 — — —

Cabell 94,100 8,800 18,600 414 55 75 57 — — —

Harrison 70,800 7,500 16,000 96 115 23 52 — — —

Kanawha 201,500 19,900 42,400 557 482 22 65 — — —

Marion 56,500 5,700 11,800 98 56 37 56 — — —

Mercer 64,300 7,000 14,000 106 255 9 136 — — —

Monongalia 77,500 6,300 14,100 33 88 3 77 — — —

Ohio 48,200 4,400 9,700 74 152 23 51 — — —

Raleigh 79,200 9,800 19,100 102 187 56 153 — — —

Wood 86,700 8,900 19,300 59 352 1 259 — — —

45 Small Counties 961,900 110,700 227,400 1,374 873 650 529 — — —

Number of Reported Cases 2,970 2,691 907 1,462 — — —

Population Represented 1,811,700 196,200 409,600 196,200 196,200 196,200 196,200 — — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 15.14 13.71 4.62 7.45 — — —

Number of Reporting Counties 55 55 55 55 — — —

Wyoming - 23 Counties

Upper age of jurisdiction: 17

Albany 29,300 2,600 5,500 43 — 15 — 12 — —

Campbell 32,400 5,300 10,700 79 — 10 — 9 — —

Carbon 15,500 2,200 4,100 20 — 15 — 22 — —

Fremont 36,100 5,200 10,300 49 — 0 — 17 — —

Laramie 78,600 9,400 19,600 141 — 43 — 29 — —

Natrona 63,200 8,000 16,300 240 — 5 — 48 — —
94 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

Park 25,800 3,200 6,500 92 — 12 — 38 — —

Sheridan 25,200 3,300 6,000 49 — 2 — 13 — —

Sweetwater 39,700 6,400 12,400 164 — 40 — 21 — —

Uinta 20,400 3,800 7,600 49 — 2 — 13 — —

13 Small Counties 113,900 15,800 30,500 208 — 49 — 53 — —

Number of Reported Cases 1,134 — 193 — 275 — —

Population Represented 480,000 65,200 129,400 62,000 — 62,000 — 123,400 — —

Rates for Reporting Counties 18.29 — 3.11 — 2.23 — —

Number of Reporting Counties 21 — 21 — 21 — —

1998 Populations Delinquency Status Dependency All

10 Through 0 Through Non- Non- Non- Reported

Reporting County Total Upper Age Upper Age Petition petition Petition petition Petition petition Cases
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 95

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

Alabama

Source: Alabama Department of Youth Services

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Alaska

Source: Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

Arizona

Source: Supreme Court, State of Arizona, Administrative Office of the Courts

Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are complaints disposed.

2. Status figures are complaints disposed.

Arizona: Maricopa County

Source: Maricopa County Juvenile Court Center (delinquency and status cases)

Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status cases)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Arkansas

Source: Administrative Office of the Courts, State of Arkansas

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.

California

Source: Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts

Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed with a petition in calendar year 1998.

2. Status figures are cases disposed with a petition in calendar year 1998.

3. Dependency figures are cases disposed with a petition in calendar year 1998. The Judicial Council of

California supplied dependency figures for all counties, including those counties that independently

provided their automated delinquency and status offense data to NCJJ.

4. Data are incomplete for Humboldt, Monterey, Riverside, and Trinity counties due to reporting difficulties.

California: Alameda County

Source: Alameda County Probation Department (delinquency and status cases)

Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status cases)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

California: Orange County

Source: Orange County Probation Department (delinquency and status cases)

Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status cases)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Table notes
96 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

California: San Bernardino County

Source: San Bernardino County Probation Department (delinquency and status cases)

Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status cases)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

California: San Diego County

Source: San Diego County Probation Department (delinquency and status cases)

Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status cases)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

California: San Francisco County

Source: San Francisco County Juvenile Probation Department (delinquency and status cases)

Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status cases)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

California: San Joaquin County

Source: San Joaquin County Probation Department (delinquency and status cases)

Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status cases)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

California: Santa Barbara County

Source: Santa Barbara County Probation Department (delinquency and status cases)

Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status cases)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

California: Santa Clara County

Source: Santa Clara County Probation Department (delinquency and status cases)

Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status cases)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

California: Ventura County

Source: Correction Services Agency (delinquency and status cases)

Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status cases)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Colorado

Source: Colorado Judicial Department

Mode: FY 1998 Annual Report: Statistical Supplement

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitioned case filings for fiscal year 1998. They include delinquency and status

offense cases.

2. Status figures were reported with delinquency cases.

3. Dependency figures are petitioned case filings for fiscal year 1998.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 97

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

Connecticut

Source: Judicial Branch Administration, Court Support Services Division

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Data are reported by juvenile venue districts established by the State.

Delaware

Source: State of Delaware Administrative Office of the Courts

Mode: 1998 Statistical Report

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases filed in fiscal year 1998.

2. There is no statute on status offenders in this State; therefore, the court handles no status offense cases.

3. Dependency figures are cases filed in fiscal year 1998.

District of Columbia

Source: Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Mode: JCS survey form

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed. They include status offenses and interstate compact figures.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.

Florida

Source: State of Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed. They represent only those cases disposed by the Department of Juvenile

Justice. Cases disposed by the Florida Network, the Department of Juvenile Justice’s major contracted

provider of CINS/FINS centralized intake, are not included in these figures.

3. The figures represent the number of cases disposed by Intake during 1998, which captures only those

disposed cases reported to the Department of Children and Family Services by caseworkers correctly

completing and submitting a “Client Information Form—CINS/FINS and Delinquency Intake.” The Department of Children and Family Services, having a broad range of operations, reports information on other

childcare services not part of the typical juvenile court system. Therefore, the number of nonpetitioned

cases may appear higher and fluctuate more than those reported by other information systems that report

only juvenile court activity.

4. Florida reported its data by Department of Children and Family Services districts. Therefore, these districts were used as the reporting area. The following is a list of counties within districts. District 1:

Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton. District 2: Bay, Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Holmes,

Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Taylor, Wakulla, and Washington. District 3: Alachua, Bradford,

Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Putnam, Suwannee, and Union. District 4: Baker, Clay,

Duval, Nassau, and St. Johns. District 5: Pasco and Pinellas. District 6: Hillsborough and Manatee. District 7:

Brevard, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole. District 8: Charlotte, Collier, De Soto, Glades, Hendry, Lee, and

Sarasota. District 9: Palm Beach. District 10: Broward. District 11: Dade and Monroe. District 12: Flagler and

Volusia. District 13: Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Marion, and Sumter. District 14: Hardee, Highlands, and Polk.

District 15: Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, and St. Lucie.

5. On October 1, 1994, Juvenile Justice separated from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

to become the Department of Juvenile Justice.
98 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

Georgia

Source: Judicial Council of Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts

Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 1998.

2. Status figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 1998.

3. Dependency figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 1998.

4. Delinquency, status, and dependency figures may include a small percentage of children disposed without

a petition.

Hawaii

Source: Family Court of the First Circuit, The Judiciary, State of Hawaii

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Idaho

Source: Idaho Supreme Court

Mode: Idaho Courts 1998 Annual Report Appendix

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed. They include status offense cases.

2. Status figures are reported with delinquency cases.

3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.

Illinois

Source: Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, Probation Division

Mode: 1998 Probation Statistics

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are the number of petitions filed.

2. Status figures are the number of petitions filed. Minor requiring authoritative intervention (MRAI) and

truancy counts were summed to determine status figures.

3. Dependency figures are the number of petitions filed. Neglect/abuse and dependency counts were summed

to determine dependency figures.

Indiana

Source: Supreme Court of Indiana, Division of State Court Administration

Mode: 1998 Indiana Judicial Report, Volume II (petitioned) and 1998 Indiana Probation Report (nonpetitioned)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed.

Iowa

Source: State Court Administrator

Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are the number of petitions.

2. Dependency figures are the number of petitions.

3. Iowa reported its data by judicial district. The following is a list of counties within judicial districts. District

1: Allamakee, Black Hawk, Buchanan, Chickasaw, Clayton, Delaware, Dubuque, Fayette, Howard, and

Winneshiek. District 2: Boone, Bremer, Butler, Calhoun, Carroll, Cerro Gordo, Floyd, Franklin, Greene,

Grundy, Hamilton, Hancock, Hardin, Humboldt, Marshall, Mitchell, Pocahontas, Sac, Story, Webster,

Winnebago, Worth, and Wright. District 3: Buena Vista, Cherokee, Clay, Crawford, Dickinson, Emmet, Ida,

Kossuth, Lyon, Monona, O’Brien, Osceola, Palo Alto, Plymouth, Sioux, and Woodbury. District 4: Audubon,

Cass, Fremont, Harrison, Mills, Montgomery, Page, Pottawattamie, and Shelby. District 5: Adair, Adams,

Clarke, Dallas, Decatur, Guthrie, Jasper, Lucas, Madison, Marion, Polk, Ringgold, Taylor, Union, Warren, and

Wayne. District 6: Benton, Iowa, Johnson, Jones, Linn, and Tama. District 7: Cedar, Clinton, Jackson,

Muscatine, and Scott. District 8: Appanoose, Davis, Des Moines, Henry, Jefferson, Keokuk, Lee, Louisa,

Mahaska, Monroe, Poweshiek, Van Buren, Wapello, and Washington.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 99

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

Kansas

Source: Supreme Court of Kansas, Office of Judicial Administration

Mode: Annual Report of the Courts of Kansas

Data: 1. Total figures are filings in the care of children for fiscal year 1998.

Kentucky

Source: Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts

Mode: Automated data file and statistical pages sent to NCJJ

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Louisiana

Source: Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of Louisiana

Mode: 1998 Annual Report

Data: 1. Total figures are new cases filed in district court. They include petitioned and nonpetitioned delinquency,

dependency, status offense, special proceeding, and traffic cases.

2. Figures shown for Caddo, East Baton Rouge, Jefferson, and Orleans Parishes include juvenile felony and

misdemeanor charges and status offense cases filed.

Maine

Source: Administrative Office of the Courts

Mode: JCS survey form

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are all offenses committed by juveniles for fiscal year 1998 and include traffic cases

and civil violations.

2. Status offenses are not handled in the juvenile court system.

3. The numbers for the district courts were summed to determine county figures. The following is a list of

district courts within counties. Androscoggin: Lewiston and Livermore Falls. Aroostook: Caribou, Fort

Kent, Houlton, Madawaska, Presque Isle, and Van Buren. Cumberland: Bridgton and Portland. Franklin:

Farmington. Hancock: Bar Harbor and Ellsworth. Kennebec: Augusta and Waterville. Knox: Rockland.

Lincoln: Wiscasset. Oxford: Rumford and South Paris. Penobscot: Bangor, Lincoln, Millinocket, and Newport. Piscataquis: Dover-Foxcroft. Sagadahoc: Bath/Brunswick. Somerset: Skowhegan. Waldo: Belfast.

Washington: Calais and Machias. York: Biddeford, Springvale, and York.

Maryland

Source: Department of Juvenile Justice

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Massachusetts

Source: Administrative Office of the Courts

Mode: Annual Report on the State of Massachusetts Court System, FY 1998

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are complaints disposed and include motor vehicle violations.

2. Status figures are petitions disposed.

3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.

4. Figures for Bristol, Hampden, Suffolk, and Worcester Counties are incomplete because the units of counts

for the corresponding Juvenile Court Departments were not compatible with the rest of the courts’ unit of

count. Essex County data are incomplete because the Amesbury district court data were not reported.

Michigan

Source: State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Supreme Court

Mode: Michigan’s One Court of Justice 1998–99 Annual Report, Circuit Court Statistical Supplement

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitions filed.

2. Status figures are petitions filed.

3. Dependency figures are petitions filed.
100 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

Minnesota

Source: Minnesota Supreme Court Information System

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Mississippi

Source: Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are cases disposed. Only those dependency cases that came to the attention of the

Office of Youth Services via court processing are included.

Missouri

Source: Department of Social Services, Division of Youth Services

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.

Montana

Source: Montana Board of Crime Control

Mode: Automated data file (petitioned and nonpetitioned cases)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Nebraska

Source: Nebraska Crime Commission

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitioned cases disposed.

2. Status figures are petitioned cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed.

4. In Douglas County, only those cases processed through the county attorney’s office (petitioned cases) were

reported.

Nevada

Source: Division of Children and Family Services, Juvenile Justice Programs Office

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

New Hampshire

Source: New Hampshire Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts

Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitions filed.

2. Status figures are petitions filed.

3. Dependency figures are petitions filed.

New Jersey

Source: Administrative Office of the Courts

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 101

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

New Mexico

Source: New Mexico Supreme Court

Mode: New Mexico State Courts 1998 Annual Report

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitioned referrals for fiscal year 1998.

2. Status figures are petitioned referrals for fiscal year 1998.

3. New Mexico reported its data by judicial district. The following is the list of counties within judicial districts. District 1: Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, and Santa Fe. District 2: Bernalillo. District 3: Dona Ana. District

4: Guadalupe, Mora, and San Miguel. District 5: Chaves, Eddy, and Lea. District 6: Grant, Hidalgo, and Luna.

District 7: Catron, Sierra, Socorro, and Torrance. District 8: Colfax, Taos, and Union. District 9: Curry and

Roosevelt. District 10: De Baca, Harding, and Quay. District 11: McKinley and San Juan. District 12: Lincoln

and Otero. District 13: Cibola, Sandoval, and Valencia.

New York

Source: Office of Court Administration (petitioned cases) and the State of New York, Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (nonpetitioned cases)

Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ (petitioned cases) and JCS survey form (nonpetitioned cases)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.

4. The petition information reflects data reported to the Office of Court Administration. It may not necessarily

reflect the total number of cases processed through the court system.

North Carolina

Source: Administrative Office of the Courts

Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are offenses alleged in juvenile petitions during fiscal year 1998.

2. Status figures are offenses alleged in juvenile petitions during fiscal year 1998.

3. Dependency figures are conditions alleged in juvenile petitions during fiscal year 1998. They include

dependent, neglected, and abused conditions.

North Dakota

Source: Supreme Court, Office of State Court Administrator

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.

Ohio

Source: Supreme Court of Ohio

Mode: Ohio Courts Summary, 1998

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petition terminations.

2. Status figures are unruly petition terminations.

3. Dependency figures include dependency, neglect, and abuse petition terminations.

Ohio: Cuyahoga County

Source: Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Division

Mode: Statistical page sent to NCJJ

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
102 Juvenile Court Statistics 1998

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

Oklahoma:

Source: Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Oregon

Source: Judicial Department

Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ

Data: 1. Total figures are juvenile petitions filed. They include delinquency, status offense, dependency, special

proceedings, and termination of parental rights cases.

Pennsylvania

Source: Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status offenses in Pennsylvania are classified as dependency cases, which were not reported.

3. Figures presented here do not match those found in the 1998 Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Disposition

Report, due to differing units of count.

Rhode Island

Source: Administrative Office of State Courts

Mode: Report on the Judiciary 1998

Data: 1. Total figures are the number of wayward, delinquent, dependency, neglect, and abuse filings.

2. The data were reported at the State level; no county breakdown was available.

South Carolina

Source: Department of Juvenile Justice

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

South Dakota

Source: Unified Judicial System

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Shannon County is an American Indian reservation that handles juvenile matters in the tribal court, which

is not part of the State’s juvenile court system.

Tennessee

Source: Tennessee Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.

Texas

Source: Texas Juvenile Probation Commission

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 103

Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 1998, by County

Utah

Source: Utah Administrative Office of the Courts

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.

Vermont

Source: Supreme Court of Vermont, Office of the Court Administrator

Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitioned cases disposed.

2. Status figures are petitioned cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed.

Virginia

Source: Department of Juvenile Justice and the Virginia Supreme Court

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Fairfax City reports with Fairfax County; South Boston City reports with Halifax County.

4. Data for 1998 are incomplete due to reporting difficulties at the local level.

Washington

Source: Office of the Administrator for the Courts

Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status) and Caseloads of the Courts of Washington 1998

(dependency)

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2 Status figures are cases disposed.

3. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed. They include dependency, termination of parent/child

relationship, truancy, at-risk youth, and alternative residential placement cases.

4. Wakiakum County reports with Pacific County; Garfield County reports with Asotin County; Franklin

County reports with Benton County.

5. King County reports only delinquency data that contribute to an individual’s criminal history record

information.

6. Differences in data entry practices among the juvenile courts may contribute to variations in the data.

West Virginia

Source: Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center

Mode: Automated data file

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.

2. Status figures are cases disposed.

Wyoming

Source: Supreme Court of Wyoming Court Services

Mode: Wyoming District Courts 1998 Caseload Statistics

Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitions filed.

2. Status figures are petitions filed.

3. Dependency figures are petitions filed.
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 105

Delinquency

Adjudication

Age, 33

Gender, 33

Offense, 32, 33

Race, 33

Trends, 32, 33

Age

Adjudication, 33

Case flow diagram, 42

Case rates, 9–11, 14, 17, 18

Detention, 23

Gender, 14

Manner of handling, 27

Offense, 9–11, 14, 18, 23, 27, 30, 33, 35, 37

Placement, 35

Probation, 37

Race, 17, 18

Trends, 9, 11, 23, 27, 30, 33, 35, 37

Waiver, 30

Case counts

Case flow diagrams, 38, 40–45

Detention, 22–24

Gender, 12, 23

Manner of handling, 26

Offense, 6, 7, 12, 15, 22, 26, 29, 31, 34, 36

Placement, 34

Probation, 36

Race, 15, 24, 31

Trends, 6, 7, 12, 15, 22–24, 26, 28, 29,

31, 34, 36

Waiver, 28, 29, 31

Case flow diagrams, 38–49

Age, 42

Gender, 43

Offense, 40, 41, 46–49

Race, 44, 45

Case rates

Age, 9–11, 14, 17, 18

Gender, 13, 14

Offense, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18

Race, 15–18

Trends, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16

Detention

Age, 23

Case counts, 22–24

Gender, 23

Offense, 22–25

Race, 24, 25

Trends, 22–25

Gender

Adjudication, 33

Age, 14

Case counts, 12, 23

Case flow diagram, 43

Case rates, 13, 14

Detention, 23

Manner of handling, 27

Offense, 12–14, 23, 27, 30, 33, 35, 37

Placement, 35

Probation, 37

Trends, 12, 13, 23, 27, 30, 33, 35, 37

Waiver, 30

Manner of handling (petitioned, 

nonpetitioned)

Age, 27

Case counts, 26

Gender, 27

Offense, 26, 27

Race, 27

Trends, 26, 27, 32

Offense

Adjudication, 32, 33

Age, 9–11, 14, 18, 23, 27, 30, 33, 35, 37

Case counts, 6, 7, 12, 15, 22, 26, 29, 31,

34, 36

Case flow diagrams, 40, 41, 46–49

Case rates, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18

Detention, 22–25

Gender, 12–14, 23, 27, 30, 33, 35, 37

Manner of handling, 26, 27

Placement, 34, 35

Probation, 36, 37

Race, 15, 16, 18, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37

Source of referral, 19

Trends, 6–9, 11–13, 15, 16, 19, 22–24,

26–37

Waiver, 28–31

Petitioned and nonpetitioned, see

Manner of handling

Placement (out-of-home)

Age, 35

Case counts, 34

Gender, 35

Offense, 34, 35

Race, 35

Trends, 34, 35

Probation

Age, 37

Case counts, 36

Gender, 37

Offense, 36, 37

Race, 37

Trends, 36, 37

Race

Adjudication, 33

Age, 17, 18

Case counts, 15, 24, 31

Case flow diagram, 44, 45

Case rates, 15–18

Detention, 24, 25

Manner of handling, 27

Offense, 15, 16, 18, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 33,

35, 37

Placement, 35

Probation, 37

Trends, 15, 16, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 33,

35, 37

Waiver, 30, 31

Source of referral, 19

Transfer to criminal court, see Waiver

Trends

Adjudication, 32, 33

Age, 9, 11, 23, 27, 30, 33, 35, 37

Case counts, 6, 7, 12, 15, 22–24, 26, 28,

29, 31, 34, 36

Case rates, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16

Detention, 22–25

Gender, 12, 13, 23, 27, 30, 33, 35, 37

Manner of handling, 26, 27, 32

Offense, 6–9, 11–13, 15, 16, 19, 22–24,

26–37

Placement, 34, 35

Probation, 36, 37

Race, 15, 16, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37

Source of referral, 19

Waiver, 28–31

Waiver

Age, 30

Case counts, 28, 29, 31

Gender, 30

Offense, 28–31

Race, 30, 31

Trends, 28–31

Status Offense

Adjudication

Age, 56

Gender, 56

Offense, 56

Race, 56

Age

Adjudication, 56

Detention, 54

Offense, 52, 54, 56, 57

Placement, 57

Probation, 57

Case flow diagram, 58

Detention

Age, 54

Gender, 55

Offense, 54, 55

Race, 55

Gender

Adjudication, 56

Detention, 55

Offense, 53, 55–57

Placement, 57

Probation, 57

Offense

Adjudication, 56

Age, 52, 54, 56, 57

Case flow diagram, 58

Detention, 54, 55

Gender, 53, 55–57

Placement, 57

Probation, 57

Race, 53, 55–57

Source of referral, 52

Placement (out-of-home)

Age, 57

Gender, 57

Offense, 57

Race, 57

Probation

Age, 57

Gender, 57

Offense, 57

Race, 57

Race

Adjudication, 56

Detention, 55

Offense, 53, 55–57

Placement, 57

Probation, 57

Source of referral, 52

Index of Tables and Figures
Revised 01/15/2003

OJJDP produces a wide variety of materials,

including Bulletins, Fact Sheets, Reports, Summaries, videotapes, and the Juvenile Justice

journal. These materials and other resources

are available through OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse (JJC), as described below.

The following list of publications highlights the

latest and most popular information published

by OJJDP, grouped by topical areas:

Corrections and Detention

Implementation of the Intensive CommunityBased Aftercare Program. 2000, NCJ 181464

(20 pp.).

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000:

Selected Findings. 2002, NCJ 196595 (4 pp.).

Courts

Employment and Training for Court-Involved

Youth. 2000, NCJ 182787 (116 pp.).

Juvenile Court Statistics 1998. 2003,

NCJ 193696 (120 pp.).

Juvenile Drug Court Programs. 2001,

NCJ 184744 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Gun Courts: Promoting Accountability

and Providing Treatment. 2002, NCJ 187078

(12 pp.).

Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the

1990’s: Lessons Learned From Four Studies.

2000, NCJ 181301 (72 pp.).

Juveniles and the Death Penalty. 2000,

NCJ 184748 (16 pp.).

Teen Courts: A Focus on Research. 2000,

NCJ 183472 (16 pp.).

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and

Enforcement Act. 2001, NCJ 189181 (16 pp.).

Delinquency Prevention

2001 Report to Congress: Title V Community

Prevention Grants Program. 2002, NCJ 198482

(42 pp.).

Functional Family Therapy. 2000, NCJ 184743

(8 pp.).

Law Enforcement and Juvenile Crime. 2001,

NCJ 191031 (32 pp.).

The Nurturing Parenting Programs. 2000,

NCJ 172848 (12 pp.).

Prevention of Serious and Violent Juvenile

Offending. 2000, NCJ 178898 (16 pp.).

Restorative Justice Conferences as an Early

Response to Young Offenders. 2001,

NCJ 187769 (12 pp.).

Trends in Juvenile Violent Offending: An

Analysis of Victim Survey Data. 2002, NCJ

191052 (20 pp.).

Truancy Reduction: Keeping Students in

School. 2001, NCJ 188947 (16 pp.).

The YouthARTS Development Project. 2001,

NCJ 186668 (16 pp.).

Gangs

1998 National Youth Gang Survey. 2000,

NCJ 183109 (92 pp.).

Early Precursors of Gang Membership: A Study

of Seattle Youth. 2001, NCJ 190106 (6 pp.).

Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs. 2001,

NCJ 189916 (8 pp.).

Modern-Day Youth Gangs. 2002, NCJ 191524

(11 pp.).

General Juvenile Justice

The Community Assessment Center Concept.

2000, NCJ 178942 (12 pp.).

Juvenile Arrests 2000. 2002, NCJ 191729

(12 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (Mental Health Issue), Volume

VII, Number 1. 2000, NCJ 178256 (44 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (American Indian Issue),

Volume VII, Number 2. 2000, NCJ 184747

(40 pp.).

Special Education and the Juvenile Justice

System. 2000, NCJ 179359 (16 pp.).

Teenage Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior.

2000, NCJ 178899 (8 pp.).

Missing and Exploited Children

Child Abuse Reported to the Police. 2001,

NCJ 187238 (8 pp.).

Children Abducted by Family Members:

National Estimates and Characteristics. 2002,

NCJ 196466 (12 pp.).

The Criminal Justice System’s Response to

Parental Abduction. 2001, NCJ 186160 (16 pp.).

A Family Resource Guide on International

Parental Kidnapping. 2002, NCJ 190448

(148 pp.).

Issues in Resolving Cases of International

Child Abduction by Parents. 2001, NCJ 190105

(20 pp.).

A Law Enforcement Guide on International

Parental Kidnapping. 2002, NCJ 194639

(116 pp.).

National Estimates of Missing Children: An

Overview. 2002, NCJ 196465 (12 pp.).

Nonfamily Abducted Children: National

Estimates and Characteristics. 2002, NCJ

196467 (16 pp.).

Overview of the Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse: Update 2000. 2000,

NCJ 178893 (12 pp.).

Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National

Estimates and Characteristics. 2002, NCJ

196469 (12 pp.).

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. 2002, NCJ 170022 (94 pp.). Also available in Spanish. 2002, NCJ 178902.

Substance Abuse

The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 1998,

NCJ 173393 (24 pp.).

Developing a Policy for Controlled Substance

Testing of Juveniles. 2000, NCJ 178896

(12 pp.).

Family Skills Training for Parents and Children.

2000, NCJ 180140 (12 pp.).

Violence and Victimization

Addressing Youth Victimization. 2001,

NCJ 186667 (20 pp.).

Animal Abuse and Youth Violence. 2001,

NCJ 188677 (16 pp.).

Crimes Against Children by Babysitters. 2001,

NCJ 189102 (8 pp.).

Gun Use by Male Juveniles: Research and

Prevention. 2001, NCJ 188992 (12 pp.).

Homicides of Children and Youth. 2001,

NCJ 187239 (12 pp.).

Juvenile Delinquency and Serious Injury Victimization. 2001, NCJ 188676 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (School Violence Issue), Volume

VIII, Number 1. 2001, NCJ 188158 (40 pp.).

Offenders Incarcerated for Crimes Against

Juveniles. 2001, NCJ 191028 (12 pp.).

Protecting Children in Cyberspace: The ICAC

Task Force Program. 2002, NCJ 191213 (8 pp.).

Race, Ethnicity, and Serious and Violent

Juvenile Offending. 2000, NCJ 181202 (8 pp.).

Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Adolescent Victimization. 2002, NCJ 191210 (16 pp.).

Violent Victimization as a Risk Factor for Violent

Offending Among Juveniles. 2002, NCJ 195737

(12 pp.).

The materials listed on this page and many

other OJJDP publications and resources can

be accessed through the following methods:

Online:

To view or download materials, visit 

OJJDP’s home page: ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

To order materials online, visit JJC’s 24-

hour online store: puborder.ncjrs.org.

To ask questions about materials, e-mail

JJC: askjj@ncjrs.org.

To subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic mailing list, or OJJDP News @ a

Glance, the online bimonthly newsletter,

go to OJJDP’s Web site and click on the

appropriate icon.

Phone:

800–638–8736

(Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7 p.m. ET)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS,

P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000

JJC, through the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service, is the repository for

tens of thousands of criminal and juvenile

justice publications and resources from

around the world. An abstract for each

publication or resource is placed in a

database that you can search online:

www.ncjrs.org/search.html.

Publications From OJJDP
*NCJ~193696*

OJJDP Report