J u s t i c e Re s e a c h

National Institute of Justice

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

F EBRUARY 201 4 Greg Ridgeway • Acting Director, NIJ Robert L. Listenbee • Administrator, OJJDP

DELAYS IN YOUTH JUSTICE

Historically, the American juvenile justice system has sought to take 

an individualized approach to each case, focusing more on solving 

problems than on punishing offenders. But solving problems related 

to human behavior takes time and can collide with the principles of swift and 

certain intervention. Delays in the processing of youth through the justice 

system can have negative results not only for the youth themselves but also for 

their families and communities. 

Improving the timeliness of the justice process is far more than a technical 

matter for managers and judges; it is a critical part of policy and practice in 

ensuring the juvenile justice system fulfills its basic mission. 

This bulletin reviews a research effort in juvenile case processing that looked 

at two information sources, a nationwide sample of counties and an indepth 

investigation of three Midwestern courts: 

• The researchers examined case-level data from the National Juvenile Court

Data Archive, comparing trends in caseloads and case-processing times

from two time periods: a) 1985-1994 (examined in an earlier study) and b)

1995-2004. The comparison shows that caseloads and case-processing times

in juvenile courts increased during the first 10-year period but decreased

during the second.

• The researchers studied the case management strategies employed by three well-respected Midwestern

courts of varying sizes: Hamilton County (Cincinnati, Ohio), Kent County (Grand Rapids, Mich.)

and Peoria County (Peoria, Ill.). The efforts to

control youth justice delays in these three counties,

as in all jurisdictions, focus on managerial, legal

and professional issues. All three sites used different tactics, tailored to the size of their jurisdictions

and their available financial, human, and computing resources, and all three had success.

Standards for Timely 

Case Processing

Unlike adults, juveniles do not have a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial under the U.S. Constitution. A few states have encouraged speediness using 

statutes, court rules or both. Others have issued 

standards for timely case processing. The standards, 

however, are rarely compulsory. Table 1 shows suggested time limits proposed by various professional 

organizations. Many jurisdictions still exceed even 

This publication summarizes Delays in Youth Justice the most tolerant of these standards. by Jeffrey A. Butts, Gretchen 

Ruth Cusick and Benjamin Adams, NCJ 228493, available at NCJRS.gov. 

Delays in Youth Justice is the final report for NIJ award number 2005-IJCX-0041. This summary was written by Phil Bulman, a staff writer at NIJ.
2 n J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h

TABLE 1: Standard time limitations suggested by professional organizations 

Suggested Standards

Maximum Number of Days

From Referral

 to Adjudication

From Adjudication 

to Disposition Total

Detained Juveniles

IJA/ABA standards (1977-80) 15 15 30

NAC/OJJDP standards (1980) 18 15 33

ABA standard 2.52 (1984) 15a 15 30a

NDAA standard 19.2 (1989) 30 30 60

NCJFCJ/OJJDP standards (2005) 10b 10 20

Released Juveniles

IJA/ABA standards (1977-80) 30 30 60

NAC/OJJDP standards (1980) 65 15 80

ABA standard 2.52 (1984) 30c 15 45c

NDAA standard 19.2 (1989) 60 30 90

NCJFCJ/OJJDP standards (2005) 20b 20 40

Note: IJA = Institute of Judicial Administration; ABA = American Bar Association; NAC = National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention; OJJDP = Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; NDAA = National District Attorneys Association; NCJFCJ = National Council of 

Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

a. Deadline triggered by detention admission.

b. Deadline triggered by initial hearing.

c. Deadline triggered by filing of delinquency petition.

Key Findings From a Nationwide 

Data Sample

To examine the larger context of juvenile justice 

delays, researchers examined case-level delinquency 

data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive.1 

The analysis included information from a large sample of juvenile courts and cases handled from 1995 

to 2004. The researchers compared these data with 

data from an earlier study that analyzed delinquency 

processing from 1985 to 1994.2

From 1985 to 1994, median processing times increased by 26 percent and total caseload increased 57 

percent. From 1995 to 2004, median processing times 

decreased 10 percent and total caseload decreased 8 

percent. 

In both periods, processing time was related to 

jurisdiction size. As shown in table 2, for example, by 

the end of the 1995-2004 period, the median time to 

disposition was:

• 49 days in large counties.

• 40 days in midsize jurisdictions. 

• 34 days in small jurisdictions.

During this period, the median processing time in 

large jurisdictions decreased, regardless of changes 

in caseload size, while in midsize and small 

jurisdictions, processing time increased only when 

caseloads increased. 

Longer processing times were associated with 

formally charged cases that did not result in adjudication. Forty-five percent of these cases took more 

than 90 days to finish. These were likely cases held 

open awaiting other actions, such as when a juvenile 

is completing a program of voluntary services and 

sanctions.
J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h n 3

TABLE 2: Days elapsed between referral and final disposition for delinquency cases, 1995 and 2004 

Case Type

Number of Cases

Median Days to 

Disposition

Percentage of Cases 

Over 90 Days

1995 2004 1995 2004 1995 2004

Total Delinquency Cases 600,415 552,600 49 44 32% 29%

Small county (under 100,000) 74,228 75,743 32 34 20 23

Midsize county 

(100,000-400,000) 126,876 128,471 46 40 29 26

Large county (over 400,000) 399,311 348,386 55 49 34 32

No use of detention 282,827 141,558 58 49 35 33

Detention used 55,549 37,006 53 48 31 29

Informal (nonpetitioned cases) 280,094 235,720 24 19 17 15

Formal (petitioned cases) 320,321 316,880 78 70 44 39

Formal Cases

Small county (under 100,000) 34,206 38,351 55 54 31% 31%

Midsize county 

(100,000-400,000) 63,411 66,606 67 63 38 36

Large county (over 400,000) 222,704 211,923 85 75 48 42

No use of detention 134,753 56,769 90 83 50 47

Detention used 46,319 30,416 60 55 34 32

Informal (nonpetitioned cases) 143,388 110,321 86 79 48 45

Formal (petitioned cases) 176,200 201,782 72 65 41 37

Person offense cases 77,692 82,777 83 76 46 42

Property offense cases 146,501 108,154 84 78 47 44

Drug law violations 36,575 40,550 76 70 43 39

Public order offenses 59,553 85,399 58 54 34 31

Adjudicated Cases

Placed out of the home 53,082 56,980 67 56 38% 34%

Probation or other supervision 102,261 130,451 77 70 43 39

Other 20,857 14,351 62 53 37 30

Notes: Detail may not add to total because of missing data for some variables. Cases were handled by juvenile courts in 392 U.S. counties with populations 

greater than 20,000.

Data Source: National Juvenile Court Data Archive, National Center for Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
4 n J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h

Between 1995 and 2004, processing time decreased 

the most (11 percent) in large jurisdictions with 

declining delinquency rates, but there was no easy 

link between jurisdiction size, caseload size and 

processing time. 

The formal delinquency caseload in small counties increased by 12 percent, but processing times 

remained unchanged. In large counties, the caseload 

decreased by 5 percent, but median processing times 

fell 12 percent. Even in large counties that experienced a 50-percent increase in their formal caseloads, 

median time to disposition fell 11 percent. 

In sum, case-processing times decreased between 

1995 and 2004, with the sharpest declines in large 

counties, counties with large proportions of formally 

processed cases involving secure detention, and counties with large proportions of public order offenses. 

There may be a number of reasons for these patterns. 

One explanation could be that these counties likely 

experienced the sharpest increases in case-processing 

times during the late 1980s and early 1990s when 

serious juvenile crime was on the rise. When juvenile 

crime began decreasing, the counties might have 

been able to speed up their processing times. 

Findings From Three Case Studies

The three jurisdictions in the case studies took different approaches to reducing juvenile court delays, and 

each was effective. Researchers interviewed judges 

and other staff, watched proceedings, and reviewed 

court records and statistical reports.

Two common themes emerged:

• Success in addressing court delay requires leadership in the form of a court culture that is committed to case management. 

• Routine and shared communication is vital for any 

successful case management system, no matter 

how automated that system may be. 

The case studies illustrate a variety of successful 

case management systems, from a highly automated 

system in the largest jurisdiction to a largely paperdriven system that uses a simple tracking database in 

the smallest.

The Hamilton County juvenile court uses a sophisticated, expensive, automated case management system 

to control delays and manage its work. The court has 

been successful at reducing delays. Although this 

system works, it could be expensive for cash-strapped 

jurisdictions.

The Kent County juvenile court relies on guidelines 

and time standards to avoid delays and to check its 

performance. Strong judicial leadership and able 

court management have been important in this 

county. A team oversees and tracks performance. This 

approach depends on a strong local court culture that 

stresses self-evaluation. The strategy works and could 

be effective in smaller jurisdictions that cannot afford 

expensive, automated systems.

Peoria County is a small jurisdiction with a small 

court staff. Previously, the judiciary identified lagging 

cases, but staff cuts made it difficult to improve timeliness. The probation department then developed a 

simple database to track cases, which provided useful 

information about caseloads and placements. Judges’ 

motivation to reduce delay and the county’s stable 

courtroom workgroups also contributed to efficiency. 

Peoria’s experience shows that simple information 

management helps to offset the constraints of limited 

budgets and staff.

Conclusion

The causes of delay in the juvenile justice system are 

complex. Researchers have linked court delays to a 

wide range of causes, including workload, jurisdiction size, case characteristics such as offense type 

and severity, procedural reasons, management and 

organization, and the informal norms and values of 

a court. 

Processing times in adult courts have been studied 

more than those in juvenile courts, but those studies 

may be of limited value in understanding juvenile 

justice delays. The individualized approach of juvenile 

court proceedings is more complicated than adult 

proceedings and often takes more time.

Youth justice delays have clearly not disappeared in 

U.S. juvenile courts. Many jurisdictions still exceed 

even the most tolerant standards issued by national organizations and commissions. Courts today 
J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h n 5

NCJ 237149

struggle with shrinking budgets and staff losses and 

processing delays are likely to continue. With sound 

leadership and creative management of information, however, courts of all sizes can battle delay and 

deliver timely and effective justice. 

Endnotes

1. The National Center for Juvenile Justice manages 

the archive for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

2. Jeffrey Butts and Gregory Halemba, Waiting for 

Justice: Moving Young Offenders Through the Juvenile 

Court Process, Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for 

Juvenile Justice, 1996.

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

represent the official position or policies of NIJ, 

OJJDP, or the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice and the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

are components of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics; the Office for Victims of Crime; 

and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, 

and Tracking (SMART).