Juvenile Court Statistics 2000

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Charles Puzzanchera
December 1, 2004
0
No votes yet
Your rating: None

The National Juvenile Court
Data Archive online
The Archive web site was developed to inform researchers about available data
sets and the procedures for use and access. Visitors can view and download user
guides to data sets housed in the Archive and search for data sets that meet
specific research interests. In addition, the site includes links to publications
based on analyses of Archive data.
Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics is an interactive web-based application
that allows users to analyze the actual databases that are used to produce the
Juvenile Court Statistics report. Users can explore in detail trends of and
relationships among a youth?s demographics and referral offenses, and the
court?s detention, adjudication, and disposition decisions. Results of analyses
can be saved and imported into spreadsheet and word processing software. This
application is available from the ?Links? section on the Archive web site.
Easy Access to State and County Juvenile Court Case Counts gives users quick
access to multiple years of state and county juvenile court case counts for
delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases. This application is available
from the ?Links? section on the Archive web site.
The annual Juvenile Court
Statistics report series is
one of many products
supported by the National
Juvenile Court Data
Archive. To learn more,
visit the Archive web site.
ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/njcda/
Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 i
Juvenile Court
Statistics 2000
Report
Charles Puzzanchera
Anne L. Stahl
Terrence A. Finnegan
Nancy Tierney
Howard N. Snyder
National Center for Juvenile Justice
December 2004
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General
Tracy A. Henke
Acting Assistant Attorney General
J. Robert Flores
Administrator
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Office of Justice Programs
Partnerships for Safer Communities
www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp
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 2004, National Center for Juvenile Justice, 3700 South Water Street, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA,
15203?2363, 412?227?6950 (phone). ISSN 0091?3278.
Suggested citation: Puzzanchera, Charles, Anne L. Stahl, Terrence A. Finnegan, Nancy Tierney, and Howard
N. Snyder. 2004. Juvenile Court Statistics 2000. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the
National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 iii
For more than a century, the juvenile court has played a leading role in the
fight against juvenile crime and violence, protecting society and reforming
young offenders by holding them accountable for their delinquent acts. Its influence
on a child's development can last a lifetime.
To ensure informed decisionmaking, the juvenile court must stay abreast of
evolving social trends. The court must understand the types of offenders who
come before it and the nature of the resources required to help them.
As its predecessors, Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 addresses these and other
significant issues, profiling the more than 1.6 million delinquency cases handled
by courts with juvenile jurisdiction in 2000 and reviewing judicial trends
since 1985.
By tracking juvenile court caseloads and providing a broad array of data about
the court's work, this Report offers a detailed portrait of the juvenile court and
a reference guide to policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and others who
share concern for the future of our youth.
J. Robert Flores
Administrator
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Foreword

Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 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:
Jennifer Catalfamo, Research Assistant
Terrence A. Finnegan, Senior
Computer Programmer
Paul Harms, Research Associate
Tricia Mastrangelo, Data Librarian
Rowen Poole, Computer Programmer
Charles Puzzanchera, Manager of Data
Analysis and Report Production
Katie Richardson, Research Assistant
Anthony Sladky, Computer
Programmer
Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., Project
Director
Anne L. Stahl, Manager of Data
Collection
Nancy Tierney, Administrative
Assistant
Daniel Wilt, 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?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, Criminal Justice Statistics
Center; and the following county probation
departments: Alameda, Los
Angeles, Marin, Orange, San Bernardino,
San Diego, San Francisco, San
Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara,
Stanislaus, and Ventura.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 vi
Colorado?Colorado Judicial
Department.
Connecticut?Judicial Branch Administration,
Court Support Services
Division.
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 Services
Division; and the Juvenile Court of
Cook County.
Indiana?Supreme Court of Indiana,
Division of State Court Administration;
and Marion County Superior Court.
Iowa?State Court Administrator; and
the Department of Human Rights.
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; and Public
Safety and Corrections.
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 Child 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?Children, Youth and
Family Department.
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 Court
Administration.
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 2000 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 ...................................................................................................................... 18
Source of Referral ................................................................................................ 24
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing ........................ 25
Detention .............................................................................................................. 26
Intake Decision .................................................................................................... 30
Waiver .................................................................................................................... 34
Adjudication ........................................................................................................ 39
Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement .............................................................. 44
Dispositions: Probation ...................................................................................... 48
Case Processing
Overview ........................................................................................................ 52
By Offense Category ...................................................................................... 54
By Age ............................................................................................................ 56
By Gender ...................................................................................................... 57
By Race ............................................................................................................ 58
By FBI Offense Category .............................................................................. 60
By Selected Individual Offense .................................................................... 61
Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases .......................................... 65
Age ........................................................................................................................ 66
Gender and Race .................................................................................................. 67
Detention .............................................................................................................. 68
Adjudication ........................................................................................................ 70
Disposition ............................................................................................................ 71
Case Processing .................................................................................................. 72
Appendix A: Methods .............................................................................................. 73
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms .............................................................................. 79
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County ...... 85
Index of Tables and Figures .................................................................................... 113

Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 ix
Preface
This is the 74th report in the Juvenile
Court Statistics series. It describes the
delinquency and status offense cases
handled between 1985 and 2000 by
U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction.
National estimates of juvenile court
delinquency caseloads in 2000 were
based on analyses of 932,550 automated
case records and court-level
statistics summarizing an additional
108,293 cases. Status offense case
profiles were based on 16 years of
petitioned status offense case
records, including 2000 data submitted
on 88,112 automated case-level
records and court-level summary statistics
on an additional 19,386 cases.
The data used in the analyses were
contributed to the National Juvenile
Court Data Archive by over 2,000
courts with jurisdiction over 71% of
the juvenile population in 2000.
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 case-level 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.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 x
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
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.
Preface
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
This Report describes delinquency
and status offense cases handled between
1985 and 2000 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.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 2
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
in the JCS series of formally handled
delinquency cases and adequate coverage
of informally handled delinquency
cases and formally handled
status offense cases, 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 National Juvenile Court Data
Archive [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
court-ordered placement is
available).
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
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 2000 3
Chapter 1: Introduction
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 delinquency 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 2000 are based
on analyses of individual case records
from more than 1,700 courts and
aggregate court-level data on cases
from more than 300 additional courts.
Together, these courts had jurisdiction
over 71% of the U.S. juvenile
population in 2000. 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
courts? responses 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 2000 and also analyze caseload
trends from 1985. 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 1985 and 2000. 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 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 2000, by state and county.
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.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 4
Chapter 1: Introduction
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.
This Report utilizes a format that
combines tables, figures, and text
highlights for presentation of the
data. A detailed index of tables and
figures appears at the end of the
Report.
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
cross-jurisdictional 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.
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 1985?2000, 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 2000 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. This chapter documents
the volume 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.
Analysis of case rates permits comparisons
of juvenile court activity
over time while controlling for differences
in the juvenile population.
Rates are calculated as the number
of cases for every 1,000 juveniles in
the population?those age 10 or older
who were under the jurisdiction of a
juvenile court.1
The chapter focuses on cases disposed
in 2000 and examines trends
since 1985.
1 The upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction
is defined by statute in each state. See
appendix B, the ?Glossary of Terms,? 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.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 6
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
? In 2000, courts with juvenile jurisdiction
handled an estimated 1,633,300
delinquency cases.
? On any given day in 2000, juvenile
courts handled roughly 4,500 delinquency
cases. In 1960, approximately
1,100 delinquency cases were processed
daily.
? Between 1985 and 2000, the number
of delinquency cases processed by
juvenile courts increased 43%.
? After its peak in 1997, the delinquency
caseload declined 10% between
1997 and 2000.
? The number of drug law violation
cases increased 164% between 1985
and 2000, person offense cases
increased 107%, and public order
offense cases increased 106%. In
comparison, property offense cases
declined 3% during this period.
? Person and public order offense
cases accounted for 80% of the
growth in the delinquency caseload
between 1985 and 2000.
Offense profile of delinquency
cases
Most serious
offense 1985 2000
Person 16% 23%
Property 61 41
Drugs 6 12
Public order 17 23
Total 100% 100%
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
? Although the majority of delinquency
cases are property offenses, their
relative proportion decreased
between 1985 and 2000.
Between 1985 and 2000, caseloads more than doubled for person,
drug, and public order offenses; in contrast, the property offense
caseload declined 3%
Juvenile courts handled more than 4 times as many delinquency
cases in 2000 as in 1960
Counts and Trends
1985 1990 1995 2000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
Number of cases
Person
60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
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
Number of cases
Total delinquency
1985 1990 1995 2000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
Number of cases
Property
1985 1990 1995 2000
0
40,000
80,000
120,000
160,000
200,000
Number of cases
Drugs
1985 1990 1995 2000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
Number of cases
Public order
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 7
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
The number of cases handled by juvenile courts decreased in recent
years in almost every offense category
Percent change
Most serious Number 1985? 1991? 1996? 1999?
offense of cases 2000 2000 2000 2000
Total delinquency 1,633,300 43% 16% ?9% ?2%
Total person 375,600 107 35 ?1 ?3
Criminal homicide 1,700 36 ?32 ?39 ?16
Forcible rape 4,700 7 ?15 ?25 11
Robbery 22,600 ?8 ?29 ?41 ?12
Aggravated assault 51,200 43 ?23 ?36 ?5
Simple assault 255,800 160 79 15 ?1
Other violent sex offenses 12,500 96 42 20 9
Other person offenses 27,200 165 32 35 ?15
Total property 668,600 ?3 ?21 ?23 ?4
Burglary 108,600 ?23 ?30 ?25 ?3
Larceny?theft 303,200 ?7 ?21 ?27 ?5
Motor vehicle theft 38,300 3 ?46 ?29 ?3
Arson 8,300 22 14 ?7 ?2
Vandalism 106,800 26 ?5 ?13 ?3
Trespassing 49,400 ?7 ?17 ?25 ?15
Stolen property offenses 25,200 ?8 ?15 ?22 ?4
Other property offenses 28,900 61 ?9 ?7 9
Drug law violations 194,200 164 197 5 2
Public order offenses 395,000 106 79 11 2
Obstruction of justice 179,200 175 142 20 5
Disorderly conduct 90,200 103 54 0 1
Weapons offenses 37,500 94 12 ?15 ?6
Liquor law violations 27,000 50 126 110 37
Nonviolent sex offenses 14,900 12 31 23 8
Other public order offenses 46,200 47 46 ?4 ?11
Violent Crime Index* 80,100 22 ?25 ?37 ?7
Property Crime Index** 458,300 ?10 ?26 ?26 ?4
* 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.
? Compared with 1985, juvenile courts
in 2000 handled 175% more obstruction
of justice cases, 160% more simple
assault cases, 103% more disorderly
conduct cases, and 94% more
weapons offense cases.
? Between 1996 and 2000, caseloads
dropped in several offense categories,
including robbery (41%), criminal
homicide (39%), aggravated
assault (36%), and burglary (25%).
? Trends in juvenile court cases paralleled
trends in arrests of persons
younger than 18. The number of juvenile
court cases involving offenses
included in the FBI's Violent Crime
Index2 (criminal homicide, forcible
rape, robbery, and aggravated
assault) declined 37% between 1996
and 2000. The FBI reported that the
number of arrests involving persons
younger than age 18 charged with
Violent Crime Index offenses
decreased 23% during this same
period.
? Between 1996 and 2000, the volume
of juvenile court cases involving
Property Crime Index offenses (burglary,
larceny-theft, motor vehicle
theft, and arson) declined 26%, and
the FBI reported that arrests of persons
under age 18 for Property
Crime Index offenses decreased 28%.
? According to the FBI, the number of
arrests of persons under age 18 for
homicide decreased 55% between
1996 and 2000, a change that corresponds
to the trend in juvenile court
cases involving homicide charges
(down 39% during the same period).
2 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 Statesseries tracks changes in the
general nature of arrests through the use of
two indexes, the Violent Crime Index and the
Property Crime Index. Although they do not
contain 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 2000.
Counts and Trends
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 8
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Case Rates
? In 2000, more than 30 million youth
were under juvenile court jurisdiction.
Eight in 10 (80%) of these youth were
between the ages of 10 and 15, 12%
were age 16, and 8% were age 17.
The small proportion of 17-year-olds
among the juvenile court population
is related to the upper age of juvenile
court jurisdiction, which varies by
state. In 2000, youth age 17 in 13
states were under the original jurisdiction
of the criminal court.
? In 2000, juvenile courts processed
53.2 delinquency cases for every
1,000 juveniles in the population?
those age 10 or older who were under
the jurisdiction of a juvenile court.
? The total delinquency case rate
increased 43% between 1985 and
1996 and then declined 14% through
2000.3
? Between 1985 and 2000, case rates
increased in three of the four general
offense categories: drug law violations
by 126%, person offenses by
78%, and public order offenses by
76%.
? In contrast to other offense categories,
case rates for property offenses
declined 17% between 1985 and
2000.
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 43.3 cases per 1,000 juveniles in
1985 to 53.2 cases per 1,000 in 2000
Case rates for drug offenses more than doubled between 1985 and
2000?from 2.8 to 6.3
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10?upper age
Total delinquency
1985 1990 1995 2000
0
4
8
12
16
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10?17
Person
1985 1990 1995 2000
0
10
20
30
40
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10?17
Property
1985 1990 1995 2000
0
2
4
6
8
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10?17
Drugs
1985 1990 1995 2000
0
4
8
12
16
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10?17
Public order
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 9
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Age at Referral
? In 2000, 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 juveniles accounted
for a smaller proportion of drug and
public order cases than of person
and property offense cases.
? Age-specific case rates in 2000 were
above the rates in 1985 but were
below the 1997 peak. On average,
age-specific case rates in 2000 were
12% below their corresponding rates
in 1997.
Offense profiles of delinquency
cases by age group:
Most serious Age 15 Age 16
offense or younger or older
2000
Person 26% 19%
Property 43 38
Drugs 8 17
Public order 23 26
Total 100% 100%
1985
Person 16% 15%
Property 64 55
Drugs 5 9
Public order 15 20
Total 100% 100%
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
? Compared with the delinquency
caseload involving older juveniles,
the caseload of youth age 15 or
younger in 2000 included larger proportions
of person and property offense
cases and smaller proportions
of drug and public order offense
cases.
? Compared with 1985, a greater proportion
of the caseloads in 2000 of
both older and younger juveniles
involved a drug offense.
With the exception of 10-year-olds, case rates were higher in 2000
than in 1985 for all age groups
Case rate
Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age
Year 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1985 5.9 9.9 18.2 33.1 50.0 65.8 78.8 80.0
1986 5.7 9.2 17.7 33.5 52.4 69.2 84.4 84.5
1987 5.7 9.8 18.3 34.3 54.4 70.9 84.4 85.4
1988 6.0 9.7 19.3 35.4 56.7 73.0 86.9 87.6
1989 6.1 10.8 20.3 39.0 59.0 77.9 91.7 88.3
1990 6.3 11.1 21.9 41.3 65.3 83.4 99.8 96.3
1991 6.6 11.8 23.2 45.0 68.1 89.9 103.0 101.8
1992 6.3 11.8 23.4 45.7 72.1 90.1 106.6 103.0
1993 5.7 10.8 22.7 44.9 71.5 93.4 106.3 106.8
1994 6.2 11.5 23.9 48.6 75.4 98.4 116.1 111.0
1995 6.1 11.9 25.2 48.8 78.6 100.4 120.2 117.3
1996 5.9 11.4 24.5 47.8 75.7 102.1 120.2 122.8
1997 5.6 11.3 24.4 47.5 75.5 99.3 122.8 122.3
1998 5.5 10.8 23.3 44.9 71.6 94.8 114.2 119.8
1999 5.1 10.3 22.4 42.8 66.4 89.5 108.7 110.7
2000 5.1 10.2 21.3 41.0 65.0 85.7 104.7 111.5
Case rate = Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group.
More than half of all delinquency cases involved juveniles younger
than 16

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent of cases involving juveniles younger than age 16
Property Person
Public order
Drugs
Delinquency
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 10
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Case rates generally increased with age for all offenses in 2000
? Although comparable numbers of
17-year-olds and 16-year-olds were
arrested in 2000, the number of juvenile
court cases involving 17-yearolds
(276,900) was lower than the
number involving 16-year-olds
(375,500). 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-yearolds
are legally adults and are referred
to criminal court rather than
to juvenile court. Thus, far fewer
17-year-olds than 16-year-olds are
subject to original juvenile court
jurisdiction.
? In 2000, the case rate for 16-yearolds
was 1.6 times the rate for 14-
year-olds, and the rate for 14-yearolds
was more than 3 times the rate
for 12-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 public order offenses, the case
rate for 17-year-olds was more than
3 times the rate for 13-year-olds and
the property offense case rate for 17-
year-olds was more than twice the
rate for 13-year-olds.
Age at Referral

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Age
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Property
Public order
Person
Drugs
In 2000, delinquency case rates increased with the age of the
referred juvenile
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Age
5.1
10.2
21.3
41.0
65.0
85.7
104.7
111.5
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 11
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Overall, the increase in delinquency case rates between 1985 and 2000 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 rates increased steadily
between 1985 and 2000 for all age groups?increasing
more than 75% for each age group.
? Unlike person and property offenses, case rates for
public order offenses have not declined in recent
years.
? Drug offense case rates increased between 1991 and
1997; during this time, case rates more than doubled
for each age group. As a result, case rates in 2000
were considerably higher than the rates in 1985 for all
age groups.
? Since 1997, however, case rates have declined for all
but 17-year-olds.
? In contrast to trends for other offenses, property
offense case rates peaked in the early 1990s and then
generally declined through 2000 for all age groups.
Between 1991 and 2000, case rates for each age
group fell more than 25%.
? As a result of these declines, property offense case
rates were lower in 2000 than in 1985 for each age
group.
? With the exception of 10?12-year-olds, person
offense case rates increased from 1985 into the mid-
1990s and then declined through 2000. For youth
ages 10?12, case rates increased through 1999.
? Across age groups, case rates were considerably
higher in 2000 than in 1985. For example, in 2000,
the case rate for juveniles ages 10?12 was 109%
above the rate in 1985 and the rate for juveniles
ages 13?15 was 92% above the rate in 1985.
Person offense case rates Property offense case rates
Drug offense case rates Public order offense case rates

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 16 Age 17
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 16
Age 17
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 16
Age 17
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x5)

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 16
Age 17
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x5)
Note: Due to the relatively low volume of cases involving youth ages 10?12 for drug offenses and public order offenses, their case rates are
inflated to display the trend over time. The inflation multiplier is noted in parentheses next to the label.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 12
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Number of cases
Property
Person
Public order
Drugs
Male
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
Number of cases
Male
Female
Delinquency
Between 1985 and 2000, the number of delinquency cases involving
males increased 34%, while the number of cases involving females
increased 83%
? The overall female delinquency caseload
grew at an average rate of 4%
per year between 1985 and 2000,
compared with 2% per year for
males.
? The relative increase in female cases
outpaced the growth for males in
three of the four general offense categories
between 1985 and 2000: person
(185% vs. 88%), property (28%
vs. ?11%), and public order (144%
vs. 96%).
? Only drug offense cases showed a
larger increase for males than
females between 1985 and 2000
(166% and 152%, respectively).
Gender

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
Number of cases
Property
Person
Public order
Drugs
Female
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 13
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
? One-quarter (25%) of all delinquency
cases handled in 2000 involved a
female juvenile, compared with 19%
in 1985.
? The sharpest increase was seen
among person offenses. Females
accounted for 27% of person offense
cases in 2000, compared wth 20% in
1985.
Offense profiles of delinquency
cases for males and females:
Most serious
offense Male Female
2000
Person 22% 26%
Property 41 41
Drugs 13 8
Public order 24 25
Total 100% 100%
1985
Person 16% 16%
Property 61 59
Drugs 7 6
Public order 16 19
Total 100% 100%
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
? In 2000, the male caseload contained
a greater proportion of drug offenses
and a smaller proportion of person
offenses than the female caseload.
? Compared with the offense profiles in
1985, both male and female delinquency
caseloads in 2000 had
greater proportions of person, drug,
and public order offense cases and
smaller proportions of property
offense cases.
Most delinquency cases involve males, but the proportion of cases
involving females was greater in 2000 than in 1985
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Percent of cases involving females
Delinquency
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Percent of cases involving females
Person
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Percent of cases involving females
Property
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Percent of cases involving females
Drugs
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Percent of cases involving females
Public order
Gender
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 14
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10?upper age
Property
Person
Public order
Drugs
Female

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10?upper age
Property
Person
Public order
Drugs
Male
Gender
? Trends in the overall delinquency
case rate followed similar patterns for
males and females. For both groups,
the case rate increased from 1985
into the mid-1990s. For males, the
rate increased 38% to reach a peak
in 1995, then fell 17% by 2000. The
female rate grew 72% between 1985
and 1997, then dropped 9% through
2000.
? The disparity between male and
female delinquency case rates
declined between 1985 and 2000. In
1985, the delinquency case rate for
males was 4 times greater than the
rate for females; by 2000, the male
rate was less than 3 times the female
rate?78.1 compared with 26.9.
? The largest disparity in offensespecific
case rates was for drug
offenses. In 2000, the drug offense
case rate for males was nearly 5
times higher than the rate for
females.
Percent change in case rates by
gender, 1985?2000:
Most serious
offense Male Female
Delinquency 14% 58%
Person 61 145
Property ?24 10
Drugs 127 117
Public order 67 109
? Between 1985 and 2000, the percent
change in case rates was greater for
females than for males in each general
offense category except drugs.
Although case rates are much lower for females than for males,
female case rates have increased more sharply since 1985
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10?upper age
Male
Female
Delinquency
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 15
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Gender
? Although delinquency case rates
generally increased with age, the
increase was more pronounced for
females than for males. On average,
the female case rate increased 75%
from one age group to the next, compared
with a 57% increase in the
male case rate.
? The difference between male and
female delinquency case rates was
greatest for the youngest and oldest
age groups. For 13- and 14-year-old
youth, the male rate was 2.5 times
the female rate, while for 10-yearolds,
the male rate was 5 times the
female rate and for 17-year-olds the
male rate was 3.4 times the female
rate.
? Male case rates increased continuously
through age 17 in all four delinquency
offense categories. For
females, only the case rate for drug
offenses increased through age 17.
? The most striking age-related
increase in rates was for drug
offense cases. Drug case rates were
highest for 17-year-olds of both
sexes. The drug case rate for 17-
year-old males was 29 times the rate
for 12-year-old males. Among
females, the rate for 17-year-olds
was 16 times the rate for 12-yearolds.
.
In 2000, the delinquency case rate for males increased through age
17, while the female case rate peaked at age 16
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Age
8.3
1.6
15.9
4.2
31.1
11.0
57.8
23.3
91.4
37.1
122.9
46.3
155.1
51.1
169.2
49.6
Female
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 2000
Male
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Age
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 2000
Person
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Age
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 2000
Property
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Age
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 2000
Drugs
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
10
20
30
40
50
Age
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 2000
Public order
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 16
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Gender

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17 Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12
Male

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
20
40
60
80
100
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12
Male
Across age, offense, and year, case rates for males were much higher than the rates for females
Person offense case rates Property offense case rates

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x2)
Female

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12
Female
? For males, person offense case rates increased for all
age groups between 1985 and 2000. The rate for youth
ages 10?12 doubled during this period, while the rate
for youth ages 13?15 increased 73%, and the rates for
youth age 16 and youth age 17 each grew about 50%.
? Age-specific trends for females followed a similar pattern,
but the increases were much greater for females
than for males. For example, person offense case rates
for females increased more than 150% for each age
group between 1985 and 2000.
? For all age groups, property offense case rates for
males increased between 1985 and 1991 and then
declined through 2000. As a result, age-specific property
offense case rates in 2000 were at their lowest
levels since 1985.
? For females, property offense case rates for youth
ages 10?12 and youth ages 13?15 reached a peak in
1995 and rates for the oldest youth peaked in 1997.
Following their respective peaks, rates for all age
groups dropped steadily through 2000.
? With the exception of youth ages 10?12, age-specific
property offense case rates for females were higher in
2000 than in 1985.
Note: Due to the relatively low volume of cases involving female youth ages 10?12 for person offenses, their case rates are inflated to display
the trend over time. The inflation multiplier is noted in parentheses next to the label.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 17
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Gender
Drug offense case rates Public order offense case rates

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x5)
Male

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x5)
Male

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x5)
Female

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x5)
Female
? With the exception of youth ages 10?12, female drug
offense case rates increased more than 240% for each
age group between 1991 and 2000.
? Age-specific drug offense case rates for males
followed a similar pattern, but the increases were much
less for males than for females. For males, drug
offense case rates increased more than 150% for each
age group between 1991 and 2000.
? Across age groups, male public order case rates
increased more than 65% between 1985 and 2000.
? After a period of stability between 1985 and 1991,
female public order case rates increased steadily for all
age groups between 1991 and 2000. During this period,
female public order offense case rates increased
more than 90% for each age group.
Note: Due to the relatively low volume of cases involving male and female youth ages 10?12 for drug offenses and public order offenses,
their case rates are inflated to display the trends over time. The inflation multiplier is noted in parentheses next to the label.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 18
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Percent change in number of
cases by race, 1985?2000:
Most serious Other
offense White4 Black races
Delinquency 36% 61% 93%
Person 120 85 165
Property ?9 10 50
Drugs 149 231 145
Public order 88 165 179
? Trends in the volume of cases differed
somewhat across racial groups. For
black juveniles and white juveniles,
drug offense cases showed the
largest percent increase between
1985 and 2000 (231% and 149%,
respectively); for youth of other races,
public order cases showed the largest
percent increase (179%).
Offense profile of delinquency
cases by race:
Most serious Other
offense White Black races
2000
Person 21% 29% 20%
Property 42 38 49
Drugs 13 9 8
Public order 25 23 22
Total 100% 100% 100%
1985
Person 13% 25% 15%
Property 62 56 63
Drugs 7 5 7
Public order 18 14 16
Total 100% 100% 100%
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
? For all racial groups, a property offense
was the most common charge
involved in delinquency cases
disposed in both 1985 and 2000.
4 Throughout this Report, juveniles of Hispanic
ethnicity can be of any race; however, most
are included in the white racial category.
Race

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
Number of cases
White
Black
Other races
The number of cases involving white youth increased 36% between
1985 and 2000, while cases involving black youth increased 61% and
those involving youth of other races increased 93%

1985 1990 1995 2000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Number of cases
Property
Public order Person
Drugs
White

1985 1990 1995 2000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Number of cases
Property
Public order
Person
Drugs
Black

1985 1990 1995 2000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Number of cases
Property
Public order
Person
Drugs
Other races
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 19
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Race
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Proportion of cases
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Proportion of cases
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Proportion of cases
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Proportion of cases
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
White Black Other races
Proportion of delinquency cases
More than two-thirds of all delinquency cases handled in 2000
involved white youth
? Although white youth represent the
largest share of the delinquency caseload,
their relative contribution
declined between 1985 and 2000,
from 72% to 68%.
? In contrast, the proportion of
delinquency cases involving black
youth increased during this time period,
from 23% to 26%.
? In all offense categories, youth of
other races made up less than 5% of
all cases processed; this was true for
each year between 1985 and 2000.
Person offense cases Property offense cases
Drug offense cases Public order offense cases
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 20
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
? The total delinquency case rate for
black juveniles in 2000 (95.6) was
more than twice the rate for white juveniles
(46.3) and nearly 3 times the
rate for youth of other races (32.5).
? The delinquency case rate for youth
of other races reached a peak in
1996 and then declined 26% by
2000. For black juveniles, the case
rate peaked in 1995 and then fell
23% by 2000, while the rate for white
juveniles in 2000 was down 12%
from its 1997 peak.
? Between 1985 and 2000, the person
case rate increased more for white
youth (96%) than for black youth
(49%) or youth of other races (46%).
? In 2000, the person offense case rate
for black juveniles was nearly 3 times
the rate for white juveniles and more
than 4 times the rate for youth of
other races.
? For all racial groups, property offense
case rates have declined since the
early 1990s. Between 1991 and
2000, the rate for black juveniles fell
35%, and the rates for both white
juveniles and youth of other races
declined 32%. As a result, the rates
in 2000 were lower than in 1985 for
each racial group.
? The drug offense case rate for black
juveniles increased sharply from
1985 to 1988, leveled off, then
increased again to reach a peak in
1996?291% above the rate in 1985.
The rate fell between 1996 and 2000,
returning to its level of the early
1990s.
? The increase in the public order case
rates between 1985 and 2000 was
greater for black juveniles (113%)
than for white juveniles (67%) or
juveniles of other races (54%).

1985 1990 1995 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10?upper age
Black
White
Other races
Person

1985 1990 1995 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10?upper age
Black
White
Other races
Property

1985 1990 1995 2000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10?upper age
Black
White
Other races
Drugs

1985 1990 1995 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10?upper age
Black
White
Other races
Public order

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
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, delinquency case rates increased from 1985
to the mid-1990s and then declined through 2000
Race
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 21
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Age-specific case rates for juveniles increased with age for all racial
groups in 2000
Race
? Within each age group, the
delinquency case rate for black juveniles
was more than twice the rate
for white juveniles and more than 3
times the rate for youth of other
races.
? Across racial groups, delinquency
case rates increased sharply from
age 10 to age 13. The case rate for
13-year-olds was about 8 times the
rate for 10-year-olds for each racial
group.
? On average, age-specific person
offense rates for black juveniles were
more than 3 times the rates for white
juveniles and nearly 5 times the
rates for youth of other races.
? Within each racial group, the person
offense case rate for 16-year-olds
was nearly twice the rate for 13-yearolds.
? Across racial groups, age-specific
case rates for property offenses
were higher than the rates for other
offense categories.
? On average, property offense case
rates for black juveniles at each age
were more than twice the rates for
white juveniles or youth of other
races.
? Age-specific drug offense case rates
were similar for white juveniles and
black juveniles through age 13. After
age 13, the racial disparity in drug
offense case rates increased so that
by age 17 the black drug offense
case rate was almost double the
white rate and about 6 times the rate
of other races.
? Within each age group, the case rate
for public order offenses involving
black youth was more than twice the
rate for white youth and more than 3
times the rate for youth of other
races.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
50
100
150
200
250
Age
White Black Other races
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 2000
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
10
20
30
40
50
Age
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 2000
Person
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Age
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 2000
Property
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
10
20
30
40
Age
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 2000
Drugs
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0
10
20
30
40
50
Age
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group, 2000
Public order
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 22
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Race
While age-related increases in delinquency case rates occurred for each racial group within all offense
categories, there were variations across the 12 offense-race combinations
? Age-specific property offense case rates declined for all
races during the 1990s, with most of the decline occurring
between 1996 and 2000.
? Across age groups, person offense case rates increased
more for white youth between 1985 and 2000 than for
black youth or youth of other races.
.
Person offense case rates Property offense case rates

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
4
8
12
16
20
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12
White

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12
White

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12
Black

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12
Other races

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12
Black

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12
Other races
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 23
Chapter 2: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases
Race
Drug offense case rates

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
4
8
12
16
20
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x5)
White
Public order offense case rates

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x5)
White
? Across age groups, public order case rates for black
youth more than doubled between 1985 and 2000. By
way of comparison, the rate for white youth increased
more than 65% for each age group during the same
period.
? Drug offense case rates for all races increased for all
age groups from 1991 into the late 1990s. Rates for
white youth continued to increased through 2000, while
rates for youth of other races leveled off and rates for
black youth decreased.

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x5)
Black

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x5)
Other races

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x5)
Black

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
4
8
12
16
20
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
Age 17
Age 16
Ages 13?15
Ages 10?12 (x5)
Other races
Note: Due to the relatively low volume of cases involving youth of all races ages 10?12 for drug offenses and public order offenses, their
case rates are inflated to display the trends over time. The inflation multiplier is noted in parentheses next to the label.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 24
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 2000, for example,
84% of delinquency cases were
referred by law enforcement.
? There is some variation across the
four major offense categories in the
proportion of cases referred by law
enforcement.
? In 2000, law enforcement agencies
referred 89% of drug law violation
cases, 92% of property cases, and
89% of person offense cases.
? Law enforcement agencies referred a
smaller proportion of public order offense
cases (63%), perhaps because
this offense category contains probation
violations and contempt-of-court
cases, which are referred most often
by court personnel.
Source of Referal

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of cases referred by law enforcement
Person
Drugs
Public order
Property
Most delinquency cases are referred to court by law enforcement
agencies
Data Table
Public
Total Person Property Drugs order
1985 83% 80% 89% 91% 64%
1986 84 81 90 91 67
1987 84 82 90 92 64
1988 84 82 90 92 63
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 87 91 94 70
1994 86 87 91 94 69
1995 87 88 91 94 69
1996 86 87 91 93 68
1997 85 87 91 93 65
1998 84 87 91 92 62
1999 84 87 91 90 63
2000 84 89 92 89 63
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 25
Chapter 3
National Estimates of
Delinquency Case Processing
This chapter quantifies the flow of
delinquency cases through each of
the following stages of the juvenile
court system.
Detention: Juvenile courts sometimes
hold youth in secure detention
facilities during court processing to
protect the community, to ensure a
juvenile?s appearance at subsequent
court hearings, to secure the juvenile?s
own safety, or for the purpose
of evaluating the juvenile. This
Report describes the use of detention
only between court referral and
case disposition, although juveniles
can be detained by police prior to
referral and also after disposition
while awaiting placement elsewhere.
Intake: 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.
Waiver: 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: prosecutors
may have the authority to file
certain juvenile cases directly in
criminal court; state statute may govern
that cases meeting certain age
and offense criteria be excluded from
juvenile court jurisdiction and filed
directly in criminal court; and a juvenile
court judge may waive juvenile
court jurisdiction in certain juvenile
cases, thus authorizing a transfer to
criminal court. This Report describes
those cases that were transferred to
criminal court by judicial waiver only.
Adjudication: At an adjudicatory
hearing, a youth may be adjudicated
(judged) a delinquent if the juvenile
court determines that the youth did
commit the offense(s) charged in the
petition. If the youth is adjudicated,
the case proceeds to a disposition
hearing. Alternatively, a case can be
dismissed or continued in contemplation
of dismissal. In these cases
where the youth is not adjudicated
delinquent, the court can recommend
that the youth take some actions
prior to the final adjudication decision,
such as paying restitution or
voluntarily attending drug counseling.
Disposition: Disposition options
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. For example,
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.
This chapter describes case processing
by offense and by demographics
(age, gender, and race) of the juveniles
involved, focusing on cases disposed
in 2000 and examining trends
from 1985 through 2000.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 26
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
? The number of delinquency cases
involving detention increased 41%
between 1985 and 2000, from
234,600 to 329,800. The largest relative
increase was for drug offense
cases (139%), followed by person
cases (100%), and public order
cases (78%). In contrast, the number
of detained property offense cases
declined 10% during this period.
? Despite the decline in the number of
detained property cases, these cases
still accounted for the largest volume
of cases involving detention.
? Despite the growth in the volume of
delinquency cases involving detention,
the proportion of cases detained
was about the same in 2000 as in
1985 (20% vs. 21%).
? For person, property, and public
order offense cases, the proportion
of cases involving detention changed
very little between 1985 and 2000?
varying 6 to 9 percentage points, with
1990 being the peak year.
? The use of detention for drug offense
cases reached a peak in 1990 when
38% of such cases were detained
prior to disposition.
Offense profile of detained
delinquency cases:
Most serious
offense 1985 2000
Person 19% 28%
Property 52 33
Drugs 7 11
Public order 22 28
Total 100% 100%
Number of
cases 234,600 329,800
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
? Compared with 1985, the 2000 detention
caseload contained greater
proportions of person, drug, and public
order offense cases and a smaller
proportion of property offense cases.
Detention
The number of drug offense and person offense cases involving
detention more than doubled between 1985 and 2000
In 2000, juveniles were detained between referral and disposition in
20% of all delinquency cases processed

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Cases detained
Property
Person
Public order
Drugs

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Percent of cases detained
Public order
Drugs
Person
Property
Total delinquency
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 27
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
? Although black youth were involved
in 28% of all delinquency cases processed
in 2000, they were involved in
35% of detained cases.
? This overrepresentation was greatest
for drug offense cases: blacks accounted
for 22% of all drug cases
processed but 37% of drug cases
detained.
? The proportion of detained
delinquency cases involving black
youth has changed little between the
late 1980s and 2000.
? In all offense categories, youth of
other races made up less than 5% of
all cases processed and of those involving
detention. 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Percent of cases involving black juveniles
Detained delinquency cases
All delinquency cases
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percent of cases involving black juveniles
Detained cases
All cases
Person
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Percent of cases involving black juveniles
Detained cases
All cases
Property
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent of cases involving black juveniles
Detained cases
All cases
Drugs
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Percent of cases involving black juveniles
Detained cases
All cases
Public order
Black youth were overrepresented in the detention caseload
compared with their proportions in the overall delinquency caseload
Detention
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 28
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Age
? In each year from 1985 through
2000, delinquency cases involving
youth age 16 or older were more likely
to be detained than were cases
involving youth age 15 or younger.
This same pattern held for person
and property offense cases.
? For both age groups, drug offense
cases were more likely to involve
detention than were other offense
cases between 1987 and 1992. By
2000, however, person offense and
public order offense cases were more
likely to involve detention than were
drug offense cases.
Gender
? Delinquency cases involving males
were more likely to involve detention
than were cases involving females
during each year from 1985 through
2000. With few exceptions, this pattern
was true across the four general
offense categories.
Across offense categories, detention was more likely in cases
involving older youth than younger youth, males than females, and
black juveniles than white juveniles
Percentage of delinquency cases detained by age group:
15 or younger 16 or older
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 19% 23% 16% 20% 28% 23% 28% 21% 22% 26%
1986 19 24 16 24 27 23 28 20 26 24
1987 18 22 15 29 26 22 26 19 29 24
1988 19 23 15 34 26 22 27 19 32 23
1989 20 24 16 37 27 24 28 19 36 25
1990 22 26 18 39 28 25 30 21 37 26
1991 20 24 16 39 25 22 28 19 36 23
1992 19 22 16 36 24 22 27 18 33 22
1993 18 21 15 29 22 21 27 17 27 22
1994 18 21 14 25 22 21 27 17 24 21
1995 16 20 12 21 18 18 25 15 20 19
1996 16 21 12 20 18 18 26 14 20 19
1997 17 22 13 19 21 20 27 16 21 22
1998 17 21 14 21 20 21 26 17 24 23
1999 19 22 15 21 22 22 28 19 24 23
2000 19 22 15 17 22 22 28 18 21 25
Percentage of delinquency cases detained by gender:
Male Female
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 21% 27% 19% 22% 26% 17% 18% 13% 19% 29%
1986 22 27 19 26 26 17 19 13 21 27
1987 21 25 17 30 25 16 17 11 23 25
1988 21 26 18 33 25 16 18 12 26 25
1989 22 27 18 38 26 17 19 12 28 25
1990 24 29 20 39 28 18 20 14 28 26
1991 22 27 18 38 25 15 18 12 27 21
1992 21 26 18 35 23 15 17 12 26 23
1993 20 25 17 29 23 14 17 11 22 19
1994 20 25 17 26 23 14 17 11 18 18
1995 18 23 15 22 20 12 17 8 16 15
1996 18 24 14 21 19 12 19 8 13 16
1997 20 25 16 21 22 14 19 9 16 19
1998 20 24 17 24 22 15 18 10 20 18
1999 22 25 18 23 23 17 20 12 20 20
2000 21 26 18 20 24 17 20 12 15 22
Detention
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 29
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Percentage of delinquency cases detained by race:
White Black
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 18% 21% 16% 18% 25% 26% 30% 23% 33% 31%
1986 18 21 15 20 24 28 31 24 43 32
1987 17 19 14 20 23 27 29 22 48 30
1988 17 20 14 21 23 28 30 23 51 30
1989 18 22 15 23 24 29 30 23 56 30
1990 20 24 17 27 26 29 31 24 52 31
1991 18 22 15 25 23 27 30 22 49 27
1992 18 21 15 25 23 25 27 21 45 24
1993 17 21 14 20 21 24 26 19 39 24
1994 17 21 14 18 21 23 26 18 36 22
1995 14 19 12 14 17 22 25 17 34 20
1996 14 20 11 13 17 22 26 17 34 21
1997 16 21 12 14 20 23 27 18 34 23
1998 17 21 13 18 21 23 25 20 34 21
1999 18 22 15 17 20 25 26 20 38 28
2000 18 23 15 15 21 25 25 21 32 29
Other race
Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order
1985 25% 31% 21% 26% 36%
1986 25 34 21 20 32
1987 24 31 21 29 30
1988 26 32 24 31 29
1989 27 31 24 32 30
1990 29 38 25 35 33
1991 24 30 21 33 27
1992 22 28 21 22 22
1993 22 31 18 18 27
1994 22 30 18 19 27
1995 21 29 16 17 29
1996 21 31 15 20 31
1997 22 32 16 19 32
1998 22 30 16 22 31
1999 23 32 17 21 29
2000 24 32 18 22 28
Race
? Each year between 1985 and 2000,
the use of detention was more likely
for delinquency cases involving black
youth than for cases involving white
youth or youth of other races.
? Regardless of offense, cases involving
black youth were more likely to
be detained than cases involving
white youth in each year between
1985 and 2000, except for public
order in 1998.
? For white youth and youth of other
races, person offense cases were
more likely to involve detention than
were other offense cases in 2000.
? With few exceptions, property offense
cases were least likely to involve
detention within each race group
between 1985 and 2000.
Detention
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 30
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Intake Decision
? The overall delinquency caseload
increased 43% between 1985 and
2000, while the number of nonpetitioned
delinquency cases increased
just 12%. This means that over the
period form 1985 to 2000, the likelihood
that a delinquency case would
be handled informally declined.
? Since 1992, petitioned cases have
outnumbered nonpetitioned cases.
In 2000, there were 36% more petitioned
than nonpetitioned delinquency
cases.
? The number of petitioned drug
offense cases increased 275%
between 1985 and 2000?more than
any other offense category.
? Unlike the trends for other offense
categories, the number of formally
handled property offense cases
peaked in 1996 and then declined
through 2000.
Offense profile of delinquency
cases, 2000:
Most serious
offense Nonpetitioned Petitioned
Person 21% 24%
Property 44 39
Drugs 11 13
Public order 23 25
Total 100% 100%
Number
of cases 693,000 940,300
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
? Compared with nonpetitioned cases,
petitioned cases in 2000 involved
higher proportions of person, drug,
and public order offenses and a lower
proportion of property offenses.
Between 1985 and 2000, the petitioned caseload increased for all
offense categories

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
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 81% between
1985 and 2000
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
Delinquency cases
Petitioned
Nonpetitioned
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 31
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Intake Decision
Between 1985 and 2000, the use of formal processing increased for
all four general offense categories

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent of cases petitioned
Property
Person
Public order Drugs
Delinquency
? Analysis of referral offenses showed
that the likelihood of formal handling
was greater for more serious offenses
within the same general offense
category. In 2000, for example, 72%
of aggravated assault cases were
handled formally, compared with
54% of simple assault cases. Similarly,
more than three-quarters of
burglary and motor vehicle theft
cases were handled formally by juvenile
courts, compared with 43% of
larceny-theft and 51% of vandalism
cases.
? Between 1985 and 2000, the use of
formal processing increased for all
four general offense categories?
increasing more for drug offense
cases than for any of the other
general offense categories. The likelihood
of formal processing increased
18 percentage points for drug
offense cases (from 43% to 61%),
compared with a 6-percentage point
increase for person offense cases
(from 54% to 60%).
? In each year between 1988 and
2000, drug offense cases were more
likely than other offense cases to be
handled formally.
In 2000, juvenile courts petitioned nearly 6 in 10 delinquency cases
Number of Petitioned cases as
Most serious offense petitioned cases a percent of all cases
Total Delinquency 940,300 58%
Person offenses 227,000 60
Criminal homicide 1,400 82
Forcible rape 3,700 78
Robbery 19,300 86
Aggravated assault 36,700 72
Simple assault 139,200 54
Other violent sex offenses 9,800 78
Other person offenses 16,900 62
Property offenses 363,000 54
Burglary 84,200 78
Larceny-theft 129,700 43
Motor vehicle theft 29,400 77
Arson 5,300 64
Vandalism 54,900 51
Trespassing 22,700 46
Stolen property offenses 17,600 70
Other property offenses 19,200 67
Drug law violations 117,800 61
Public order offenses 232,600 59
Obstruction of justice 127,100 71
Disorderly conduct 36,200 40
Weapons offenses 22,600 60
Liquor law violations 8,900 33
Nonviolent sex offenses 7,900 53
Other public order offenses 29,900 65
Violent Crime Index* 61,000 76
Property Crime Index** 248,500 54
* 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.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 32
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
The likelihood of formal handling increased between 1985 and 2000
for all demographic categories
Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned by age group:
15 or younger 16 or older
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 42% 51% 40% 38% 45% 50% 59% 50% 46% 46%
1986 44 52 42 46 45 50 59 50 51 46
1987 44 51 41 52 46 51 59 50 55 47
1988 45 52 42 57 47 52 58 51 59 49
1989 48 53 45 62 50 54 60 53 62 50
1990 47 52 44 66 50 54 59 52 65 51
1991 47 52 44 68 49 54 59 52 68 50
1992 48 52 45 66 50 55 58 52 66 53
1993 50 54 46 62 52 57 61 54 64 56
1994 50 54 47 59 52 58 62 55 61 57
1995 51 55 47 58 54 59 63 56 62 60
1996 53 57 50 58 55 60 64 57 62 60
1997 53 56 50 57 55 59 63 57 61 60
1998 54 57 51 59 56 60 63 57 63 61
1999 55 58 51 59 56 60 64 57 62 61
2000 55 58 52 59 57 61 65 58 62 61
Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned by gender:
Male Female
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 48% 57% 47% 45% 46% 35% 41% 31% 33% 44%
1986 49 58 48 51 46 36 43 32 38 43
1987 50 57 48 56 47 36 42 31 43 43
1988 51 57 49 60 49 37 43 32 46 44
1989 53 58 51 64 51 40 45 35 48 47
1990 52 58 50 68 51 38 43 33 52 46
1991 53 58 50 70 51 39 44 34 53 47
1992 53 57 51 68 52 39 43 34 50 47
1993 55 60 53 65 55 41 46 36 48 49
1994 56 60 53 63 56 43 47 38 46 50
1995 57 61 53 62 58 43 49 38 48 51
1996 59 63 56 62 58 46 51 40 49 52
1997 59 61 56 61 59 46 51 41 50 53
1998 59 62 57 63 60 48 52 42 52 54
1999 60 62 57 63 60 48 53 42 52 53
2000 60 63 58 62 61 49 53 42 52 54
Age
? In each year between 1985 and
2000, delinquency cases involving juveniles
age 16 or older were more
likely to be petitioned than were cases
involving younger juveniles.
? In 2000, 55% of delinquency cases
involving youth age 15 or younger
were petitioned, compared with 61%
of cases involving older youth.
? Since 1991, the proportion of drug
offense cases petitioned declined for
both age groups.
? Among youth age 15 or younger,
drug offense cases were most likely
to be handled formally of any offense
category between 1987 and 2000
while property offense cases were
least likely to be handled formally
during this period.
Gender
? Across all offenses, the proportion of
delinquency cases petitioned
increased for males and females
between 1985 and 2000.
? Regardless of offense, juvenile courts
were more likely to petition cases
involving males than females.
? For both males and females, property
offense cases were least likely to be
petitioned than cases involving other
offense categories.
Intake Decision
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 33
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned by race:
White Black
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 42% 47% 41% 39% 42% 56% 64% 52% 60% 55%
1986 43 49 43 43 42 57 63 53 69 56
1987 43 48 42 45 42 59 64 54 74 60
1988 44 48 43 48 44 58 63 53 76 59
1989 46 50 45 49 46 61 64 57 80 60
1990 45 49 44 53 46 60 62 54 82 61
1991 46 50 44 53 45 59 62 54 83 60
1992 47 50 45 52 48 58 61 53 81 58
1993 49 52 47 51 51 60 64 55 80 60
1994 49 52 48 50 52 61 65 56 78 60
1995 51 54 48 52 55 61 64 55 77 61
1996 53 57 51 52 55 62 65 57 78 61
1997 53 55 51 52 56 62 64 57 77 62
1998 54 56 52 54 56 65 65 59 80 65
1999 54 56 52 54 56 65 67 60 80 65
2000 55 58 52 56 57 64 66 60 78 65
Other race
Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order
1985 45% 59% 42% 33% 45%
1986 47 61 45 41 44
1987 47 60 45 37 45
1988 49 61 48 44 45
1989 50 59 48 43 48
1990 51 60 48 43 53
1991 51 58 49 44 48
1992 50 56 48 44 51
1993 49 59 47 50 47
1994 50 60 48 49 48
1995 52 59 49 48 51
1996 51 60 47 54 56
1997 51 58 47 52 55
1998 52 56 47 54 58
1999 52 57 48 56 58
2000 55 59 51 57 59
Race
? The proportion of delinquency cases
petitioned increased for all racial
groups between 1985 and 2000.
? Delinquency cases involving black juveniles
were more likely to be petitioned
than were cases involving
white youth or youth of other races.
? In 2000, racial differences in the likelihood
of petitioning were greatest for
drug offense cases: 78% of drug
cases involving black juveniles were
petitioned, compared with 57% for
juveniles of other races and 56% for
white juveniles.
? For black juveniles, drug offense
cases were more likely to be handled
formally than any other offense category
between 1985 and 2000.
Property offense cases were least
likely to be handled formally during
this period.
Intake Decision
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 34
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Although the number of waived cases has dropped in recent years,
the number was higher in 2000 than in 1985 for drug offense cases

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Cases judicially waived to criminal court
Property
Person
Public order
Drugs
? The number of delinquency cases
judicially waived to criminal court in
1994 was 70% greater than the number
waived in 1985. This increase
was followed by a 54% decline
between 1994 and 2000. As a result,
the number of cases waived in 2000
was 21% less than the number
waived in 1985.
? The number of judicially waived person
offense cases more than doubled
between 1985 and 1994 and then
declined 58% through 2000. As a
result, the number of person offense
cases judicially waived in 2000 was
6% less than the number waived in
1985.
? The number of drug offense cases
judicially waived increased sharply
through 1991. The number of waived
drug offense cases stabilized
between 1992 and 2000, averaging
about 1,200 cases per year.
? The number of waived property
offense cases declined 55% between
1994 and 2000. By 2000, the number
of waived property offense cases was
47% less than the number waived in
1985.
? For public order offenses, the number
of cases waived in 2000 was 6% less
than the number waived in 1985.
? One probable reason for the decline
in the number of judicial waivers after
1994 was the large increase in the
number of states that passed legislation
excluding certain serious offenses
from juvenile court jurisdiction and
legislation permitting the prosecutor
to file certain cases directly in criminal
court.
Waiver
The number of cases judicially waived to criminal court peaked in
1994 at 12,100 cases
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Cases judicially waived to criminal court
Total delinquency
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 35
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Waiver
Between 1985 and 2000, person offense cases were most likely to be
judicially waived?except for 1989 through 1992, when drug offense
cases were most likely to be waived

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
Percent of petitioned cases waived to criminal court
Property
Person
Public order
Drugs
The offense profile of cases judicially waived to criminal court
changed considerably between 1985 and 2000
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Person Property Drugs Public order
Proportion of waived delinquency cases
? The proportion of all waived delinquency
cases that involved a property
offense as the most serious charge
declined from 54% in 1985 to 36% in
2000.
? The proportion of person offenses
among judicially waived cases grew
from 28% in 1987 to a peak of 47%
in 1995, and then dropped to 40% in
2000.
? The waived caseload contained a
larger share of drug offenses in 2000
(14%) than in 1985 (5%).
? On average, public order offense
cases accounted for 8% of the
waived caseload between 1985 and
2000.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 36
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Age
? In 2000, 1.2% of all petitioned delinquency
cases involving juveniles age
16 or older were waived to criminal
court, compared with 0.1% of cases
involving younger juveniles.
? For older juveniles, the probability of
waiver peaked in 1991 at 3.2% and
then declined through 2000. 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 1.0% by
2000.
? Regardless of offense, less than 1%
of all petitioned delinquency cases
involving juveniles age 15 or younger
were waived to criminal court
between 1985 and 2000.
Gender
? Regardless of offense, cases involving
males were more likely to be
judicially waived than cases involving
females.
? For both males and females, the proportion
of petitioned drug offense
cases judicially waived increased
sharply between 1985 and 1991 and
then declined through 2000.
? For males, the use of judicial waiver
for petitioned drug offense cases
showed a substantial decline between
1991 and 2000 (from 4.3% to
0.7%). Petitioned drug offense cases
involving females followed the same
pattern, decreasing from 2.2% in
1991 to 0.4% in 2000.
? Females were 4% to 7% of the judicially
waived caseload between 1985
and 2000.
Waiver
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 judicially waived by age group:
15 or younger 16 or older
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 2.9% 5.1% 2.9% 1.6% 1.4%
1986 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.7 4.5 2.7 1.9 1.2
1987 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.4 3.7 2.5 2.3 0.9
1988 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.3 3.7 2.4 2.3 1.0
1989 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 2.6 3.9 2.5 4.2 1.0
1990 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 2.6 4.1 2.4 4.0 1.1
1991 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 3.2 4.8 2.7 6.5 1.2
1992 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 2.8 5.0 2.3 3.9 1.3
1993 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 2.9 5.6 2.3 3.3 1.2
1994 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 2.8 5.4 2.4 2.7 1.1
1995 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.1 2.1 4.4 1.7 2.0 0.6
1996 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.1 4.3 1.8 2.0 0.6
1997 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.7 3.6 1.6 1.7 0.5
1998 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.6 2.8 1.6 1.6 0.5
1999 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.4 2.7 1.4 1.5 0.5
2000 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 2.1 1.2 1.0 0.4
Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases judicially waived by gender:
Male Female
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 1.5% 2.7% 1.4% 1.1% 0.8% 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2%
1986 1.5 2.4 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.2
1987 1.4 2.1 1.3 1.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3
1988 1.3 2.0 1.2 1.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.1
1989 1.5 2.2 1.3 2.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.2
1990 1.4 2.2 1.2 2.8 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.3 0.1
1991 1.7 2.6 1.3 4.3 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.3 2.2 0.0
1992 1.6 2.8 1.1 2.6 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.2
1993 1.6 3.0 1.2 2.3 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.1
1994 1.6 3.1 1.2 1.8 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.1
1995 1.3 2.6 0.9 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1
1996 1.3 2.6 1.0 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.0
1997 1.1 2.1 0.9 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1
1998 1.0 1.6 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.1
1999 0.9 1.5 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.1
2000 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 37
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Waiver
Race
? Overall, delinquency cases involving
black youth were more likely to be
waived than were cases involving
white youth or youth of other races
each year between 1985 and 2000.
? Regardless of offense, cases involving
black youth were more likely to
be judicially waived than were cases
involving white youth each year
between 1985 and 2000.
? For white youth and youth of other
races, person offense cases were
most likely to be judicially waived of
any offense category between 1985
and 2000. For black youth, drug
offense cases were most likely to be
judicially waived during this period.
? Among black juveniles, the use of
waiver to criminal court for cases involving
drug offenses peaked in
1991 (5.8%) and then declined
through 2000.
Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases judicially waived by race:
White Black
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 1.2% 2.1% 1.2% 0.6% 0.6% 1.8% 2.7% 1.5% 2.1% 1.1%
1986 1.1 1.7 1.2 0.8 0.6 1.8 2.7 1.5 2.0 0.9
1987 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.4 1.5 2.1 1.3 2.2 0.7
1988 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.5 1.5 2.1 1.2 2.0 0.6
1989 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.3 0.4 1.8 2.4 1.3 4.0 0.8
1990 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.9 2.6 1.2 4.0 1.0
1991 1.2 1.9 1.1 1.5 0.5 2.1 2.8 1.3 5.8 0.9
1992 1.1 1.9 0.9 1.0 0.5 1.9 2.9 1.3 3.5 1.1
1993 1.1 1.9 1.0 1.1 0.5 2.0 3.4 1.3 3.0 1.0
1994 1.1 2.1 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.8 3.1 1.1 2.4 0.7
1995 0.8 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 1.6 2.8 1.0 2.2 0.6
1996 0.9 1.9 0.8 0.8 0.2 1.4 2.5 1.0 2.0 0.5
1997 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.2 1.2 2.0 0.8 1.8 0.5
1998 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.2 1.1 1.5 0.8 1.9 0.4
1999 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.3 1.0 1.4 0.8 1.7 0.4
2000 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.8 1.2 0.6 1.5 0.3
Other race
Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order
1985 0.9% 1.7% 0.7% 0.9% 0.5%
1986 0.7 2.3 0.3 1.7 0.0
1987 1.0 2.5 0.6 0.2 1.0
1988 0.8 1.7 0.8 0.1 0.2
1989 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.2
1990 0.9 2.5 0.6 0.2 0.2
1991 0.8 2.1 0.5 0.5 0.0
1992 1.2 3.2 0.6 1.9 0.4
1993 1.1 2.9 0.7 0.6 0.5
1994 1.5 3.4 0.8 1.2 1.0
1995 1.1 3.1 0.5 0.4 0.3
1996 0.9 2.2 0.6 0.9 0.2
1997 1.2 2.9 0.8 1.1 0.4
1998 0.8 2.2 0.4 0.3 0.4
1999 0.6 1.9 0.3 0.2 0.2
2000 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.2
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 38
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
? For white juveniles, the number of
judicially waived cases increased
51% between 1985 and 1994. By
2000, the number of waived cases
fell 48% from the 1994 peak.
? For black juveniles, the number of
judicially waived cases nearly doubled
between 1985 and 1993, then
declined 56% through 2000.
? For both white and black juveniles,
the number of cases waived in 2000
was less than the number waived in
1985.
? Among white juveniles, the number of
judicially waived person offense
cases reached a peak in 1996 ?
130% higher than the number of
cases waived in 1985. By 2000, the
number of waived person offense
cases had declined 60% from the
1996 peak.
? Among black juveniles, the number
of person offense cases waived
increased 121% between 1985 and
1994. This increase was followed by
a 64% decline through 2000.
Offense profile of waived cases:
Most serious
offense 1985 2000
White
Person 26% 31%
Property 62 48
Drugs 4 9
Public order 8 11
Total 100% 100%
Black
Person 43% 39%
Property 43 29
Drugs 6 21
Public order 9 10
Total 100% 100%
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
? From 1985 through 2000, 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 1985 to 2000.
Among both white juveniles and black juveniles, the number of
delinquency cases judicially waived to criminal court peaked in the
mid-1990s and then declined
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Delinquency cases judicially waived
Black
White
Waiver
1985 1990 1995 2000
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Cases judicially waived to criminal court
Black
White
Person
1985 1990 1995 2000
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Cases judicially waived to criminal court
White
Black
Property
1985 1990 1995 2000
0
400
800
1,200
1,600
Cases judicially waived to criminal court
White
Black
Drugs
1985 1990 1995 2000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Cases judicially waived to criminal court
White
Black
Public order
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 39
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Adjudication
? In 1985, 30% of all delinquency
cases resulted in either adjudication
of delinquency or waiver to criminal
court. By 2000, this proportion had
increased to 39%.
? The likelihood of being adjudicated
delinquent was greater for more serious
offenses within the same general
offense category. In 2000, for
example, 66% of petitioned aggravated
assault cases were adjudicated
delinquent, compared with 62% of
simple assault cases. Similarly, nearly
three-quarters (73%) of petitioned
burglary and motor vehicle theft
cases were adjudicated delinquent,
compared with 66% of larceny-theft
and 65% of arson cases.
Between 1993 and 2000, as the use of formal processing increased,
so did the proportion of delinquency cases that resulted in a
delinquency adjudication or were judicially waived to criminal court
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Petitioned: adjudicated delinquent or judicially waived
Petitioned: not adjudicated delinquent
Nonpetitioned
Proportion of delinquency cases
In 2000, youth were adjudicated delinquent in two-thirds of all
petitioned delinquency cases
Percentage of
Number of cases petitioned cases
Most serious offense adjudicated delinquent adjudicated delinquent
Total delinquency 624,400 66%
Person 142,300 63
Criminal homicide 700 54
Forcible rape 2,300 64
Robbery 13,000 67
Aggravated assault 24,100 66
Simple assault 85,800 62
Other violent sex offenses 6,400 65
Other person offenses 10,000 59
Property 243,800 67
Burglary 61,700 73
Larceny-theft 85,500 66
Motor vehicle theft 21,500 73
Arson 3,500 65
Vandalism 34,600 63
Trespassing 13,500 60
Stolen property offenses 11,000 63
Other property offenses 12,600 65
Drug law violations 80,200 68
Public order offenses 158,200 68
Obstruction of justice 93,600 74
Disorderly conduct 21,100 58
Weapons offenses 15,600 69
Liquor law violations 5,500 62
Nonviolent sex offenses 5,500 70
Other public order offenses 16,800 56
Violent Crime Index 40,100 66
Property Crime Index 172,100 69
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 40
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Adjudication
? Between 1997 and 2000, the number
of delinquency cases in which the
youth was adjudicated delinquent
leveled off at approximately 627,000
cases
? Between 1985 and 2000, drug
offense cases had the greatest percent
increase in the number adjudicated
delinquent (268%), followed by
public order cases (165%), person
cases (156%), and property cases
(21%).
Offense profile of cases
adjudicated delinquent:
Most serious
offense 1985 2000
Person 16% 23%
Property 59 39
Drugs 6 13
Public order 18 25
Total 100% 100%
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
? Compared with 1985, the 2000 adjudicated
delinquent caseload included
greater proportions of public order,
person, and drug offense cases and
a smaller proportion of property
offense cases.
The number of cases adjudicated delinquent increased for all four
general offense categories between 1985 and 2000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Cases adjudicated delinquent
Property
Person
Public order
Drugs
The number of cases in which the youth was adjudicated delinquent
increased 85% between 1985 and 2000
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Cases adjudicated delinquent
Total delinquency
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 41
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Adjudication
? Following a slight decline between
the late 1980s and the mid-1990s,
the likelihood of delinquency adjudication
increased 7 percentage points
between 1996 and 2000 (from 59%
to 66%).
? The likelihood of a delinquency adjudication
was about the same in 2000
as in 1985 for property, drug, and
public order offense cases. In contrast,
the likelihood of a delinquency
adjudication for person offense cases
was greater in 2000 than in 1985
(63% vs. 57%).
? Despite their increased likelihood of
delinquency adjudication, person
offense cases processed in 2000
were less likely to result in a delinquency
adjudication than were cases
in the other general offense categories.
In fact, person offense cases
were less likely to result in delinquency
adjudication than property,
drug, or public order offense cases
each year between 1985 and 2000.
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
Total delinquency
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
Person
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
Property
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
Drugs
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
Public order
After increases in recent years, the likelihood of petitioned cases
resulting in an adjudication of delinquency in 2000 was similar to
the likelihood in 1985
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 42
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Age
? In each year from 1985 through
2000, juveniles age 15 or younger
were more likely than older juveniles
to be adjudicated delinquent, regardless
of offense.
? Regardless of age, person offense
cases were less likely than other
offense categories to be adjudicated
delinquent?this was true during
each year between 1985 and 2000.
Gender
? In each year from 1985 through
2000, petitioned person and property
offense cases involving males were
more likely to result in a delinquency
adjudication than were cases involving
females.
? For both male and female juveniles,
the likelihood of a delinquency adjudication
increased more for person
offense cases than for other offenses.
? For females, public order offense
cases were more likely to result in a
delinquency adjudication than were
any other offense category cases
between 1987 and 1998.
The likelihood of delinquency adjudication varied by demographic group
Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent by age group:
15 or younger 16 or older
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 66% 58% 67% 72% 71% 64% 55% 66% 68% 66%
1986 65 59 66 70 68 63 56 65 66 64
1987 64 58 65 66 68 62 57 63 62 63
1988 62 55 63 62 66 59 54 61 57 61
1989 63 57 64 67 67 62 56 63 63 62
1990 61 56 62 63 65 59 53 61 56 60
1991 60 55 61 62 62 58 53 60 56 58
1992 59 54 60 60 62 57 53 59 57 57
1993 60 56 61 61 65 58 53 59 58 60
1994 60 56 60 60 63 57 53 58 57 59
1995 59 56 60 60 62 57 53 58 57 57
1996 60 56 61 62 62 57 54 58 58 58
1997 62 59 63 65 65 60 56 61 61 62
1998 65 63 66 67 65 62 59 64 63 62
1999 68 65 69 70 69 65 61 66 66 65
2000 68 64 68 70 70 65 61 66 67 66
Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent by gender:
Male Female
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 66% 58% 67% 70% 69% 62% 51% 62% 66% 68%
1986 65 59 66 68 66 60 51 61 66 65
1987 64 58 65 64 66 59 53 59 60 65
1988 61 56 63 59 63 57 51 56 56 63
1989 63 58 64 65 65 58 52 58 61 63
1990 61 55 63 59 62 57 52 57 56 61
1991 60 55 61 58 60 54 49 54 55 58
1992 59 54 60 58 60 53 50 54 53 56
1993 60 56 61 59 63 55 51 54 55 61
1994 59 55 61 59 62 54 52 53 55 59
1995 59 55 60 59 60 54 51 53 56 58
1996 60 57 61 60 61 54 51 54 56 59
1997 62 59 63 63 63 57 54 56 60 62
1998 65 62 66 65 63 61 58 62 62 63
1999 67 64 68 67 67 64 61 64 68 67
2000 67 63 68 68 68 64 60 63 68 68
Adjudication
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 43
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Race
? In each year between 1985 and
2000, cases involving black youth
were less likely to result in a delinquency
adjudication than were cases
involving either white youth or youth
of other races.
? For white juveniles and black juveniles,
the likelihood of a delinquency
adjudication for person offense
cases was greater in 2000 than in
1985.
? For youth of other races, the likelihood
of a delinquency adjudication
was lower in 2000 than in 1985
across all offense categories.
? Between 1985 and 2000, with few
exceptions, petitioned cases involving
youth of other races were more
likely to result in a delinquency adjudication
than cases involving either
white youth or black youth.
Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent by race:
White Black
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 67% 59% 68% 71% 70% 60% 53% 61% 65% 65%
1986 66 60 67 69 67 60 55 62 65 63
1987 65 59 65 66 67 59 56 60 60 62
1988 62 56 63 62 65 57 53 59 55 59
1989 63 58 64 64 66 60 55 61 65 62
1990 62 57 63 61 64 57 52 59 57 58
1991 60 55 61 60 60 56 52 57 57 58
1992 60 56 61 60 60 55 51 56 56 58
1993 62 58 62 61 65 55 51 55 57 59
1994 61 58 62 61 64 53 50 54 55 57
1995 60 57 60 60 61 54 51 54 56 56
1996 61 57 61 61 62 55 52 56 58 57
1997 63 59 63 64 64 58 55 58 59 60
1998 65 63 67 66 64 61 59 62 61 61
1999 68 66 69 70 68 63 60 65 63 65
2000 67 64 68 70 68 64 61 66 64 67
Other race
Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order
1985 73% 69% 74% 77% 73%
1986 73 67 74 74 75
1987 71 65 72 68 74
1988 68 63 68 65 71
1989 69 66 69 68 71
1990 70 64 71 69 73
1991 68 66 69 64 71
1992 67 64 68 68 65
1993 65 64 65 67 64
1994 65 65 65 71 65
1995 65 63 66 68 63
1996 64 61 65 64 67
1997 68 69 67 72 68
1998 67 66 67 73 67
1999 69 68 68 75 69
2000 67 64 67 70 68
Adjudication
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 44
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement
? The number of drug offense cases
adjudicated delinquent that resulted
in out-of-home placement increased
more than 200% between 1985 and
2000. During this period, the number
of person and public order offense
cases that resulted in out-of-home
placement doubled. For property
offense cases, the number of out-ofhome
placements did not change.
Offense profile of cases
adjudicated delinquent resulting
in out-of-home placement:
Most serious
offense 1985 2000
Person 18% 24%
Property 55 36
Drugs 5 11
Public order 22 29
Total 100% 100%
Cases resulting
in out-of-home
placement 100,000 149,200
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
? Property offense cases are the
largest share of cases adjudicated
delinquent that result in out-of-home
placement.
? The offense profile of cases resulting
in out-of-home placement changed
between 1985 and 2000. The proportion
of out-of-home placement cases
that involved person, drug, and public
order offenses increased, while the
proportion involving property offenses
declined.
Between 1985 and 2000, the number of out-of-home placements increased
for person, drug, and public order offense cases and
decreased for property offense cases

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement
Property
Person
Public order
Drugs
The number of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-ofhome
placement increased between 1985 and 2000
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement
Total delinquency
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 45
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement
The court ordered out-of-home placement in 24% of all cases
adjudicated delinquent in 2000, down from 30% in 1985
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement
Total delinquency
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent
resulting in out-of-home placement
Person
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Property
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent
resulting in out-of-home placement
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Drugs
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent
resulting in out-of-home placement
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Public order
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent
resulting in out-of-home placement
? The relatively high rate of out-ofhome
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 cases
adjudicated delinquent resulting in
out-of-home placement declined
between 1985 and 2000 for all four
of the major offense categories, the
number of cases adjudicated delinquent
resulting in out-of-home
placement increased 49%.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 46
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Age
? In each year from 1985 through
2000, person and property offense
cases involving juveniles age 16 or
older adjudicated delinquent were
more likely to result in out-of-home
placement than were cases involving
youth age 15 or younger.
? For youth age 15 or younger, the use
of out-of-home placement declined
more for public order offense cases
than for any other offense category
between 1985 and 2000. During that
period, the likelihood of out-of-home
placement fell 13 percentage points
for public order offense cases (from
39% to 26%), compared with an 8-
percentage point decline for person
offense cases (from 31% to 23%).
Gender
? Since 1985, person, property, and
drug offense cases involving males
adjudicated delinquent were more
likely to result in out-of-home placement
than were cases involving
females.
? For females, public order offense
cases adjudicated delinquent were
more likely to result in out-of-home
placement than were other offense
cases. This was true in each year
between 1985 and 2000.
? For both male and female juveniles,
the use of out-of-home placement
declined more for public order
offense cases than for any other
offense category between 1985 and
2000. During that period, the likelihood
of out-of-home placement for
public order offense cases fell 14
percentage points for females and 7
percentage points for males.
The likelihood of out-of-home placement declined between 1985 and
2000 for all demographic groups
Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement by
age group:
15 or younger 16 or older
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 30% 31% 27% 24% 39% 30% 33% 28% 22% 33%
1986 30 32 27 31 40 31 34 29 29 34
1987 30 31 27 34 40 30 32 28 29 35
1988 30 31 27 36 39 30 32 28 31 35
1989 31 33 27 38 40 31 34 28 34 36
1990 32 34 28 39 40 32 35 29 34 35
1991 30 34 26 39 38 30 35 27 34 32
1992 30 32 27 36 36 31 35 28 33 34
1993 28 30 25 32 32 29 33 27 29 30
1994 28 30 25 30 32 29 32 27 28 30
1995 26 28 24 25 31 27 31 26 23 29
1996 25 28 23 24 28 27 31 25 22 28
1997 24 26 22 22 28 26 30 25 21 29
1998 24 25 22 22 26 26 29 25 22 29
1999 23 24 21 21 26 26 28 24 22 28
2000 23 23 21 19 26 26 28 24 21 30
Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement by
gender:
Male Female
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 30% 33% 29% 23% 36% 26% 26% 21% 21% 37%
1986 31 34 29 30 37 26 25 21 27 38
1987 31 33 28 32 37 25 21 21 26 37
1988 31 33 28 34 37 24 22 20 29 35
1989 32 35 28 36 39 26 24 21 31 36
1990 33 36 29 37 38 26 24 21 33 36
1991 31 36 28 37 36 24 25 20 29 35
1992 31 35 28 35 35 24 25 20 29 32
1993 29 33 27 31 32 22 24 19 26 28
1994 29 33 27 29 32 22 22 20 25 27
1995 28 31 26 24 31 20 21 18 16 26
1996 27 31 25 24 29 20 21 17 17 23
1997 27 30 25 22 30 19 20 16 15 24
1998 26 29 25 23 29 19 19 16 16 23
1999 25 27 24 23 28 18 19 15 15 23
2000 25 27 24 21 29 19 20 15 14 23
Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 47
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Race
? In each year between 1995 and
2000, property, drug, and public
order offense cases involving black
juveniles adjudicated delinquent
were more likely to result in out-ofhome
placement than were cases
involving white juveniles or youth of
other races.
? With one exception, the proportion of
cases adjudicated delinquent that
resulted in out-of-home placement
was smaller in 2000 than in 1985 for
all races and across all offenses.
? Counter to the general decline in the
use of out-of-home placement, the
likelihood of out-of-home placement
for drug offense cases involving
black juveniles adjudicated
delinquent was greater in 2000
(31%) than in 1985 (28%).
Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement by
race:
White Black
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 29% 31% 27% 21% 37% 31% 32% 29% 28% 36%
1986 29 30 27 26 37 34 36 31 38 37
1987 29 30 26 27 37 33 34 31 37 38
1988 29 30 26 29 37 33 32 30 38 37
1989 30 33 26 31 38 33 34 30 40 38
1990 30 33 26 31 38 35 37 32 41 38
1991 27 31 24 30 35 35 37 32 40 36
1992 27 31 24 29 34 34 36 32 38 35
1993 25 28 23 24 30 33 35 32 36 33
1994 25 28 24 23 29 33 35 31 35 34
1995 24 27 23 18 29 31 31 30 31 33
1996 23 27 22 17 26 31 32 29 32 33
1997 23 26 22 16 27 30 30 28 31 33
1998 23 26 22 16 26 29 28 26 33 31
1999 22 25 21 16 26 28 27 25 32 29
2000 23 25 21 16 27 27 26 25 31 29
Other race
Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order
1985 32% 35% 28% 32% 40%
1986 31 35 28 33 37
1987 30 34 27 31 36
1988 30 31 28 26 35
1989 33 35 30 30 39
1990 32 34 30 37 38
1991 34 41 30 43 38
1992 37 41 35 32 40
1993 33 40 31 20 34
1994 32 37 31 28 33
1995 28 32 27 23 30
1996 29 37 27 25 29
1997 26 28 25 16 28
1998 26 31 26 19 25
1999 24 28 24 15 24
2000 22 25 22 20 22
Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 48
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Dispositions: Probation
The number of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in a
disposition of probation increased 108% between 1985 and 2000
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
Cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation
Total delinquency
? Overall, between 1985 and 2000, the
number of cases adjudicated delinquent
that resulted in an order of
probation more than doubled, compared
with a 49% increase in the
number of cases resulting in out-ofhome
placement. This demonstrates
the juvenile court?s relatively greater
use of community sanctions in 2000
than in 1985.
? Since 1985, the largest percent
increase in the number of cases
adjudicated delinquent that received
probation was for drug offense cases
(267%), followed by public order
offenses (214%), person offenses
(193%), and property offenses
(38%).
Offense profile of cases
adjudicated delinquent that
resulted in probation:
Most serious
offense 1985 2000
Person 16% 23%
Property 61 40
Drugs 7 13
Public order 16 24
Total 100% 100%
Cases resulting in
formal probation 189,500 393,300
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.
? In 2000, 40% of cases adjudicated
delinquent that resulted in probation
involved property offenses
? The offense characteristics of cases
adjudicated delinquent that resulted
in probation changed somewhat
between 1985 and 2000, with an increase
in the proportion of cases involving
person, drug, and public order
offenses and a decrease in the
proportion involving property offenses.
The number of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in a
disposition of probation increased for all offense categories
between 1985 and 2000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation
Property
Person Public order
Drugs
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 49
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Dispositions: Probation
Probation remains the most likely sanction imposed by juvenile courts ? Probation was the most restrictive
disposition used in 393,300 cases
adjudicated delinquent in 2000?
63% of all such cases handled by juvenile
courts.
? The likelihood of probation for cases
adjudicated delinquent increased for
person, property, and public order
offense categories between 1985
and 2000.
? Counter to the pattern for the other
offense categories, the use of probation
for drug offense cases adjudicated
delinquent was the same in
2000 as in 1985.
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation
Total delinquency
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent
resulting in probation
Person
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent
resulting in probation
Property
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent
resulting in probation
Drugs
1985 1990 1995 2000
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent
resulting in probation
Public order
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 50
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Between 1985 and 2000, the likelihood of probation increased for all
demographic groups
Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation by age group:
15 or younger 16 or older
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 57% 57% 59% 64% 51% 54% 53% 55% 62% 50%
1986 57 58 59 59 50 53 53 54 58 49
1987 57 56 60 58 50 53 51 54 59 48
1988 57 56 59 57 51 53 51 54 56 49
1989 57 56 59 54 51 53 50 55 53 49
1990 57 56 60 54 52 54 52 56 55 52
1991 57 55 60 52 52 54 51 56 50 51
1992 57 56 59 54 53 52 50 55 51 49
1993 56 56 58 53 53 51 49 53 51 49
1994 56 55 57 54 52 50 49 52 50 47
1995 57 56 58 57 52 51 49 53 52 47
1996 60 58 62 59 57 53 51 55 54 50
1997 62 62 63 63 57 55 55 57 58 51
1998 63 63 65 65 61 56 55 58 58 52
1999 66 65 67 66 64 58 58 60 60 55
2000 66 66 67 66 65 59 59 61 60 55
Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation by gender:
Male Female
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 56% 55% 57% 62% 50% 58% 59% 60% 64% 51%
1986 55 55 57 58 50 57 60 60 61 49
1987 55 53 57 58 49 57 61 59 64 50
1988 54 53 56 56 49 58 59 60 59 52
1989 54 52 57 53 49 59 60 61 60 53
1990 55 53 58 54 51 60 63 62 59 53
1991 55 52 58 50 51 60 61 63 57 54
1992 54 52 57 51 50 60 60 62 59 55
1993 53 52 55 51 50 59 59 60 56 56
1994 52 51 55 51 49 58 60 59 58 54
1995 53 52 55 53 49 59 60 60 59 54
1996 56 54 58 56 53 61 63 63 61 57
1997 58 57 60 59 53 63 67 65 65 58
1998 59 58 61 60 55 65 67 66 66 61
1999 61 61 63 61 58 67 68 69 68 63
2000 62 62 64 62 59 68 69 70 66 64
Age
? Once adjudicated delinquent,
younger juveniles were more likely
than older juveniles to be placed on
probation. In 2000, 66% of cases involving
youth age 15 or younger adjudicated
delinquent resulted in probation,
compared with 59% for youth
age 16 or older.
? For both age groups, cases involving
property offenses were generally
more likely than cases in other
offense categories to result in probation
following a delinquency
adjudication.
Gender
? For all offenses, females were more
likely to be placed on probation following
a delinquency adjudication
than were males. In 2000, probation
was ordered in 68% of cases adjudicated
delinquent involving females
and 62% of those involving males.
? For males, property offense cases
adjudicated delinquent were more
likely to result in probation than any
other offense between 1989 and
2000.
Dispositions: Probation
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 51
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation by race:
White Black
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 55% 55% 56% 62% 49% 58% 56% 60% 63% 54%
1986 55 56 57 60 48 57 55 59 55 54
1987 56 56 57 60 48 55 52 58 56 51
1988 55 55 57 58 48 55 52 57 54 53
1989 56 55 57 58 49 54 52 57 50 52
1990 57 56 58 59 51 55 53 58 51 53
1991 57 55 59 54 50 55 52 59 48 54
1992 56 55 58 55 50 55 53 57 49 54
1993 55 55 57 54 50 53 52 55 49 54
1994 55 56 56 56 50 51 50 53 46 51
1995 55 55 57 58 50 52 51 55 47 51
1996 58 57 60 61 54 54 53 57 49 51
1997 60 61 62 64 55 56 57 59 52 53
1998 61 60 62 65 56 59 59 62 52 57
1999 63 63 64 66 59 61 62 64 55 61
2000 63 64 65 64 60 62 62 64 56 60
Other race
Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order
1985 54% 49% 54% 62% 55%
1986 53 54 53 60 53
1987 54 51 55 59 53
1988 51 55 49 64 54
1989 53 53 53 66 52
1990 55 54 55 57 57
1991 49 44 49 57 51
1992 46 45 47 57 42
1993 49 45 50 65 48
1994 49 50 49 51 48
1995 53 53 53 56 52
1996 53 52 53 58 54
1997 58 60 56 68 56
1998 58 58 57 63 58
1999 63 62 61 73 62
2000 64 65 62 68 63
Race
? Overall, the use of probation in
cases adjudicated delinquent was
about the same for all racial groups
in 2000. For drug offense cases
adjudicated delinquent, however,
black youth were much less likely to
receive probation (56%) than were
white youth or youth of other races
(64% and 68%, respectively).
? The use of probation for drug offense
cases adjudicated delinquent involving
black youth declined 7 percentage
points between 1985 and 2000.
? For youth of other races, drug
offense cases adjudicated delinquent
were generally more likely to result in
probation than any other offense category
between 1985 and 2000.
Dispositions: Probation
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 52
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
? In 63% of all cases adjudicated delinquent
in 2000, formal probation was
the most severe sanction ordered by
the court.
? Nearly one-quarter (24%) of cases
adjudicated delinquent resulted in
placement outside the home.
? In 11% of cases adjudicated delinquent,
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
(3%), the juvenile was adjudicated
delinquent but was released with no
further sanction or consequence.
? In 33% of all petitioned delinquency
cases in 2000, the youth was not
subsequently adjudicated delinquent.
The court dismissed most of these
cases (67%), but 12% resulted in
some form of informal probation, 1%
in voluntary out-of-home placements,
and 19% in other voluntary dispositions.
? The court dismissed 40% of the informally
handled (nonpetitioned)
delinquency cases in 2000. A small
proportion of the remaining nonpetitioned
cases involved voluntary outof-
home placements; most, however,
resulted in voluntary probation or
other dispositions.
Case Processing Overview, 2000
Placed
1,633,300 estimated Waived 149,200 24%
delinquency cases 5,600 1%
Probation
393,300 63%
Adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
624,400 66% 65,900 11%
Released
16,000 3%
Petitioned
940,300 58%
Placed
4,400 1%
Not adjudicated
delinquent Probation
310,300 33% 37,800 12%
Other sanction
58,800 19%
Placed Dismissed
2,900 <1% 209,400 67%
Not petitioned Probation
693,000 42% 227,700 33%
Other sanction
185,100 27%
Dismissed
277,300 40%
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2000 are available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 53
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
? For every 1,000 delinquency cases
processed in 2000, 576 (58%) were
petitioned for formal processing and
424 (42%) were handled informally.
? In many petitioned delinquency
cases that did not result in a delinquency
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 (10 of
1,000), the juvenile was adjudicated
delinquent 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 3 Waived 91 Placed
delinquency cases
241 Probation
Adjudicated
382 delinquent 40 Other sanction
576 Petitioned 10 Released
3 Placed
Not adjudicated
190 delinquent 23 Probation
36 Other sanction
2 Placed 128 Dismissed
424 Not petitioned 139 Probation
113 Other sanction
170 Dismissed
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
add to totals because of rounding.
Case Processing Overview, 2000
Placed
Person offenses Waived 35,700 25%
375,600 2,200 1%
Probation
90,400 64%
Adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
142,300 63% 11,700 8%
Released
4,500 3%
Petitioned
227,000 60%
Placed
1,200 1%
Not adjudicated
delinquent Probation
82,500 36% 10,200 12%
Other sanction
12,700 15%
Placed Dismissed
200 <1% 58,300 71%
Not petitioned Probation
148,600 40% 48,000 32%
Other sanction
31,400 21%
Dismissed
68,900 46%
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 54
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Case Processing by Offense Category, 2000
Placed
Property offenses Waived 54,000 22%
668,600 2,000 1%
Probation
158,200 65%
Adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
243,800 67% 26,000 11%
Released
5,600 2%
Petitioned
363,000 54%
Placed
2,000 2%
Not adjudicated
delinquent Probation
117,100 32% 16,800 14%
Other sanction
23,200 20%
Placed Dismissed
500 <1% 75,000 64%
Not petitioned Probation
305,600 46% 101,500 33%
Other sanction
91,900 30%
Dismissed
111,700 37%
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2000 are available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
Person Offense Cases
? In 2000, more than 6 in 10 formally
processed person offense cases
resulted in the youth being adjudicated
delinquent.
? Most person offense cases adjudicated
delinquent resulted in some formal
sanction, such as probation
(64%) or out-of-home placement
(25%) following adjudication. Only a
small proportion (3%) of these cases
were released.
Property Offense Cases
? Juvenile courts handled 46% of all
property offense cases without the
filing of a petition. Nearly two-thirds of
these cases received some form of
court sanction, including probation,
restitution, community service, or
referral to another agency.
? Of the four general offense
categories, property offense cases
were least likely to be petitioned for
formal processing. Once petitioned,
however, property offense cases
were more likely to result in the youth
being adjudicated delinquent than
were cases involving person offenses
(67% vs. 63%).
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 55
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Placed
Drug offenses Waived 16,000 20%
194,200 800 1%
Probation
49,900 62%
Adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
80,200 68% 11,600 14%
Released
2,600 3%
Petitioned
117,800 61%
Placed
700 2%
Not adjudicated
delinquent Probation
36,800 31% 5,300 14%
Other sanction
6,200 17%
Placed Dismissed
200 <1% 24,600 67%
Not petitioned Probation
76,400 39% 26,400 35%
Other sanction
23,500 31%
Dismissed
26,200 34%
Placed
Public order offenses Waived 43,500 27%
395,000 600 <1%
Probation
94,800 60%
Adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
158,200 68% 16,600 11%
Released
3,200 2%
Petitioned
232,600 59%
Placed
400 1%
Not adjudicated
delinquent Probation
73,800 32% 5,300 7%
Other sanction
16,600 22%
Placed Dismissed
1,900 1% 51,500 70%
Not petitioned Probation
162,400 41% 51,700 32%
Other sanction
38,300 24%
Dismissed
70,500 43%
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2000 are available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
Case Processing by Offense Category, 2000
Drug Offense Cases
? In 2000, 34% of informally handled
drug offense cases were dismissed,
while the remaining 66% received
some sort of service or sanction.
? In 2000, 68% of all petitioned drug
offense cases resulted in the youth
being adjudicated delinquent.
? Juvenile courts ordered formal sanctions
or waived jurisdiction in 67% of
all petitioned drug offense cases in
2000.
Public Order Offense Cases
? In 2000, 41% of all public order
offense cases were handled informally;
more than 40% 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.
? Once adjudicated delinquent, public
order offense cases were more likely
to result in the youth being placed
out of the home in a residential facility
(27%) than were person (25%),
property (22%), or drug (20%)
offense cases.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 56
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Case Processing by Age, 2000
Placed
Age 15 or younger Waived 79,300 23%
943,100 700 <1%
Probation
233,000 66%
Adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
351,200 68% 30,600 9%
Released
8,300 2%
Petitioned
519,400 55%
Placed
1,900 1%
Not adjudicated
delinquent Probation
167,600 32% 21,700 13%
Other sanction
30,400 18%
Placed Dismissed
1,400 <1% 113,500 68%
Not petitioned Probation
423,700 45% 143,400 34%
Other sanction
111,900 26%
Dismissed
167,100 39%
Placed
Age 16 or older Waived 69,900 26%
690,200 4,800 1%
Probation
160,300 59%
Adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
273,300 65% 35,300 13%
Released
7,700 3%
Petitioned
420,900 61%
Placed
2,500 2%
Not adjudicated
delinquent Probation
142,700 34% 16,000 11%
Other sanction
28,300 20%
Placed Dismissed
1,500 1% 95,900 67%
Not petitioned Probation
269,300 39% 84,400 31%
Other sanction
73,300 27%
Dismissed
110,200 41%
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2000 are available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
? Forty-five percent (45%) of all delinquency
cases involving youth age 15
or younger were handled informally
without the filing of a petition. Informal
handling was less common in
cases involving older youth (39%).
? Youth age 15 or younger were adjudicated
delinquent in 68% of all formally
processed cases in 2000. In
comparison, youth age 16 or older
were adjudicated delinquent in 65%
of all such cases.
? The proportion of petitioned cases
waived to criminal court was less
than half of 1% for youth age 15 or
younger, compared with 1% for youth
age 16 or older.
? In 2000, out-of-home placement
resulted for 26% of cases adjudicated
delinquent involving youth age 16
or older and 23% of cases adjudicated
delinquent involving youth age 15
or younger.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 57
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Case Processing by Gender, 2000
Placed
Male Waived 125,800 25%
1,231,200 5,200 1%
Probation
308,700 62%
Adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
499,200 67% 51,800 10%
Released
12,900 3%
Petitioned
744,400 60%
Placed
4,200 2%
Not adjudicated
delinquent Probation
240,000 32% 29,200 12%
Other sanction
44,300 18%
Placed Dismissed
2,100 <1% 162,300 68%
Not petitioned Probation
486,700 40% 158,300 33%
Other sanction
126,000 26%
Dismissed
200,300 41%
Placed
Female Waived 23,400 19%
402,200 400 <1%
Probation
84,600 68%
Adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
125,200 64% 14,100 11%
Released
3,100 3%
Petitioned
195,900 49%
Placed
200 <1%
Not adjudicated
delinquent Probation
70,300 36% 8,500 12%
Other sanction
14,500 21%
Placed Dismissed
800 <1% 47,000 67%
Not petitioned Probation
206,300 51% 69,400 34%
Other sanction
59,100 29%
Dismissed
77,000 37%
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2000 are available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
? Sixty-three percent (63%) of informally
handled delinquency cases involving
females and 59% involving males
resulted in some form of court sanction,
including probation, restitution,
community service, or referral to
another agency.
? In 2000, 6 of every 10 cases involving
males were petitioned, compared
with nearly 5 of every 10 cases
involving females.
? Once petitioned, cases involving
males were somewhat more likely to
result in a delinquency adjudication
than were cases involving females
(67% vs. 64%).
? Cases adjudicated delinquent involving
males were more likely to result
in out-of-home placement than were
those involving females (25% versus
19%).
.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 58
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Placed
White Waived 93,700 23%
1,117,100 3,000 <1%
Probation
262,800 63%
Adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
413,900 67% 48,300 12%
Released
9,100 2%
Petitioned
614,000 55%
Placed
3,600 2%
Not adjudicated
delinquent Probation
197,100 32% 29,000 15%
Other sanction
41,700 21%
Placed Dismissed
2,400 <1% 123,000 62%
Not petitioned Probation
503,000 45% 169,700 34%
Other sanction
136,200 27%
Dismissed
194,800 39%
Placed
Black Waived 50,900 27%
459,600 2,400 1%
Probation
117,200 62%
Adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
189,800 64% 15,000 8%
Released
6,600 4%
Petitioned
295,100 64%
Placed
700 1%
Not adjudicated
delinquent Probation
103,000 35% 7,200 7%
Other sanction
15,900 15%
Placed Dismissed
400 <1% 79,200 77%
Not petitioned Probation
164,500 36% 52,800 32%
Other sanction
43,000 26%
Dismissed
68,200 41%
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2000 are available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
Case Processing by Race, 2000
? Black youth were more likely than
white youth or youth of other races to
have their delinquency cases handled
formally (petitioned).
? Once petitioned, 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
(about 1%) of cases resulted in
waiver to criminal court.
? Once adjudicated delinquent, 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. More
specifically, once adjudicated delinquent,
27% of black cases, 23% of
white cases, and 22% of other race
cases resulted in out-of-home placement
in 2000.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 59
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
Placed
Other races Waived 4,700 22%
56,700 200 <1%
Probation
13,300 64%
Adjudicated
delinquent Other sanction
20,800 67% 2,600 13%
Released
300 1%
Petitioned
31,100 55%
Placed
100 1%
Not adjudicated
delinquent Probation
10,200 33% 1,600 16%
Other sanction
1,200 12%
Placed Dismissed
<100 <1% 7,200 71%
Not petitioned Probation
25,500 45% 5,200 20%
Other sanction
6,000 23%
Dismissed
14,300 56%
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2000 are available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
Case Processing by Race, 2000
? Forty-five percent (45%) of all cases
involving youth of other races were
handled informally. More than half of
these cases were dismissed.
? Juvenile courts ordered formal sanctions
or waived jurisdiction in 67% of
all petitioned cases involving youth of
other races. In comparison, 63% of
all petitioned cases involving black
youth and 66% of petitioned cases
involving white youth were waived or
received formal sanctions.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 60
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
A typical 1,000 20 Waived 160 Placed
Violent Crime Index cases
286 Probation
Adjudicated
501 delinquent 38 Other sanction
762 Petitioned 17 Released
5 Placed
Not adjudicated
241 delinquent 24 Probation
36 Other sanction
1 Placed 176 Dismissed
238 Not petitioned 54 Probation
59 Other sanction
124 Dismissed
A typical 1,000 4 Waived 89 Placed
Property Crime Index cases
244 Probation
Adjudicated
376 delinquent 35 Other sanction
542 Petitioned 8 Released
3 Placed
Not adjudicated
163 delinquent 24 Probation
35 Other sanction
1 Placed 101 Dismissed
458 Not petitioned 155 Probation
148 Other sanction
154 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. Annual case processing flow diagrams
for 1985 through 2000 are available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
Violent Crime Index Cases
? In 2000, juvenile courts waived 20 of
every 1,000 Violent Crime Index
offense cases to criminal court.
? Juvenile courts ordered formal sanctions
or waived jurisdiction in half
(504 of 1,000) of Violent Crime Index
offense cases handled in 2000.
? Cases involving juveniles adjudicated
delinquent for Violent Crime Index
offenses were more likely to result in
out-of-home placement (160 of
1,000) than were Property Crime
Index offense cases (89 of 1,000).
? Cases that are not petitioned and
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 nearly 70%
(682 of every 1,000) of the Violent
Crime Index offense cases handled
in 2000.
Property Crime Index Cases
? Juveniles received informal sanctions
in 37% of Property Crime Index
offense cases processed in 2000.
? Juvenile courts waived 4 of every
1,000 Property Crime Index offense
cases to criminal court in 2000.
? Cases involving juveniles adjudicated
delinquent 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, 2000
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 61
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
A typical 1,000 8 Waived 120 Placed
aggravated assault cases
295 Probation
Adjudicated
471 delinquent 37 Other sanction
717 Petitioned 19 Released
4 Placed
Not adjudicated
239 delinquent 27 Probation
38 Other sanction
1 Placed 170 Dismissed
283 Not petitioned 75 Probation
74 Other sanction
132 Dismissed
A typical 1,000 1 Waived 75 Placed
simple assault cases
222 Probation
Adjudicated
335 delinquent 28 Other sanction
544 Petitioned 10 Released
3 Placed
Not adjudicated
207 delinquent 27 Probation
34 Other sanction
1 Placed 144 Dismissed
456 Not petitioned 151 Probation
97 Other sanction
207 Dismissed
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2000 are available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
Aggravated Assault Cases
? In 2000, 32% of aggravated assault
cases (321 of 1,000) were eventually
released or dismissed by the court.
? More than one-fifth of aggravated
assault cases (219 of 1,000) resulted
in some sort of informal sanction.
? Almost half of aggravated assault
cases (479 of 1,000) resulted in
some formal sanction or were waived
to criminal court.
? In 2000, 12% of aggravated assault
cases (120 of 1,000) resulted in a
formal sanction of out-of-home placement
and nearly 30% (295 of 1,000)
were placed on formal probation.
? In 2000, juvenile courts waived 8 of
every 1,000 aggravated assault
cases to criminal court. In comparison,
1 of every 1,000 simple assault
cases were waived to criminal court.
Simple Assault Cases
? Compared with aggravated assault
cases, simple assault cases were
less likely to result in court-ordered
sanctions or waiver to criminal court.
? Of every 1,000 simple assault cases
handled in 2000, 313 resulted in the
youth agreeing to informal sanctions
and 326 resulted in formal sanctions.
Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2000
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 62
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
A typical 1,000 31 Waived 233 Placed
robbery cases
288 Probation
Adjudicated
574 delinquent 38 Other sanction
855 Petitioned 15 Released
5 Placed
Not adjudicated
250 delinquent 21 Probation
31 Other sanction
0 Placed 194 Dismissed
145 Not petitioned 18 Probation
29 Other sanction
98 Dismissed
A typical 1,000 8 Waived 147 Placed
burglary cases
367 Probation
Adjudicated
568 delinquent 42 Other sanction
775 Petitioned 12 Released
3 Placed
Not adjudicated
199 delinquent 34 Probation
41 Other sanction
0 Placed 120 Dismissed
225 Not petitioned 59 Probation
68 Other sanction
97 Dismissed
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may
not add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2000 are available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
Robbery Cases
? In 2000, juvenile courts waived 31 of
every 1,000 robbery cases to criminal
court.
? Juvenile courts ordered formal sanctions
or waived jurisdiction in nearly
60% of all robbery cases (590 of
1,000).
? About 14% of all robbery cases were
not petitioned. Two-thirds (67%) of
these cases were dismissed (98 of
145 cases).
Burglary Cases
? In 2000, nearly one-quarter of all burglary
cases (225 of 1,000) were handled
informally.
? Nearly three-fourths of all petitioned
burglary cases (568 of 775) resulted
in the youth being adjudicated
delinquent.
? Juvenile courts waived 8 of every
1,000 burglary cases to criminal
court in 2000.
? Juvenile courts ordered formal sanctions
or waived jurisdiction in more
than half of all burglary cases (564 of
1,000).
Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2000
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 63
Chapter 3: National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing
A typical 1,000 5 Waived 188 Placed
motor vehicle theft cases
332 Probation
Adjudicated
562 delinquent 35 Other sanction
769 Petitioned 8 Released
7 Placed
Not adjudicated
202 delinquent 27 Probation
42 Other sanction
0 Placed 126 Dismissed
231 Not petitioned 47 Probation
49 Other sanction
134 Dismissed
A typical 1,000 1 Waived 53 Placed
vandalism cases
214 Probation
Adjudicated
324 delinquent 49 Other sanction
514 Petitioned 7 Released
3 Placed
Not adjudicated
189 delinquent 30 Probation
28 Other sanction
0 Placed 128 Dismissed
486 Not petitioned 160 Probation
120 Other sanction
205 Dismissed
Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
through 2000 are available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
Motor Vehicle Theft Cases
? More than one-fifth of motor vehicle
theft cases (231 of 1,000) were not
petitioned. More than 40% of these
cases received some form of court
sanction, including probation, out-ofhome
placement, restitution, community
service, or referral to another
agency.
? In 2000, 73% of all petitioned motor
vehicle theft cases (560 of 769)
resulted in formal court sanctions or
waiver to criminal court.
? In 2000, about one-third of motor
vehicle cases adjudicated delinquent
(188 of 562) resulted in out-of-home
placement.
Vandalism Cases
? Juvenile courts handled 486 of every
1,000 vandalism cases informally
(i.e., without a petition) in 2000.Youth
received informal sanctions in 281
(58%) of these nonpetitioned cases.
? Juvenile courts formally ordered
sanctions such as community service
and restitution in 49 of every 1,000
vandalism cases, compared with 35
of every 1,000 motor vehicle theft
cases.
? About 1 of every 6 vandalism cases
adjudicated delinquent (53 of 324)
resulted in out-of-home placement.
Case Processing by Selected Individual Offense, 2000

Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 65
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. 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.
Agencies other than juvenile courts
are responsible for processing status
offense cases in many jurisdictions.
In some communities, for example,
family crisis units, county attorneys,
and social service agencies have
assumed this responsibility. When a
juvenile charged with a status offense
is referred to juvenile court, the court
may divert the juvenile away from
the formal justice system to other
agencies for service or may decide to
process the juvenile formally with
the filing of a petition. The analyses
in this Report are limited to petitioned
cases.
The manner in which status offense
cases come to the attention of the
juvenile court varies by offense. For
example, law enforcement agencies
referred 40% of runaway cases that
were formally handled in juvenile
court between 1985 and 2000 and
just 10% of truancy and 11% of ungovernability
cases. Law enforcement
agencies were more likely to be
the referral source for liquor law violations
than for other status offense
cases, referring 92% of such cases
that were formally handled in juvenile
court between 1985 and 2000.
Juvenile courts may adjudicate 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
secure detention of status
offenders. States holding status
offenders in secure detention risk
losing a significant portion of their
juvenile justice block grant awards.)
Because of variations in data collection
and storage, the available data
cannot support national estimates of
the volume of petitioned status
offense cases and trends in these
cases. Therefore, this chapter presents
a sample-based profile of cases
disposed between 1985 and 2000, 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.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 66
Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases
Age
The volume of petitioned truancy, runaway, and ungovernability
cases peaked at age 15
? Youth age 15 or younger comprised
two-thirds of all runaway cases.
? For liquor law violation cases, the
proportion of cases increased substantially
throughout the juvenile
years. Nearly three-fourths of liquor
offense cases involved youth age 16
or older.
Data Table
Age Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
10 0% 1% 1% 0%
11 1 2 3 0
12 4 6 6 0
13 11 14 14 2
14 22 24 22 7
15 28 31 26 16
16 24 15 20 32
17 10 6 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, 1985?2000
Liquor
Runaway
Truancy
Ungovernability
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 67
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
White juveniles accounted for the majority of petitioned status
offense cases
Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
71%
29%
54%
46%
54%
46%
39%
61%
Male Female
Percent of cases within offense category, 1985?2000
Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
91%
4%
5%
72%
26%
2%
72%
24%
4%
75%
22%
3%
White Black Other races
Percent of cases within offense category, 1985?2000
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.
? The male and female proportions of
petitioned truancy and ungovernability
cases were roughly similar to
their representation in the general
population.
? Petitioned liquor law violation cases
were disproportionately male and
runaway cases were disproportionately
female.
? 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.
(See page 13 for the proportion of
delinquency cases involving
females.)
? 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.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 68
Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases
Detention
Except for liquor offense cases, youth age 15 or younger accounted
for the majority of status offense cases involving detention
Percentage of petitioned status
offense cases detained:
Most serious
offense 1985?2000
Runaway 17%
Truancy 3
Ungovernability 10
Liquor 7
? Formally processed runaway cases
were more likely to involve a stay in
detention than were other status
offense cases between 1985 and
2000.
Percentage of petitioned status
offense cases detained by age,
1985?2000:
Most serious Age 15 Age 16
offense or younger or older
Runaway 17% 17%
Truancy 3 3
Ungovernability 10 11
Liquor 8 7
? Older teens and younger juveniles
were equally likely to be detained in
formally processed status offense
cases.
? Cases involving youth age 16 or
older accounted for nearly threefourths
(73%) of all liquor offense
cases involving detention. All other
categories of status offense cases
involving detention had a higher proportion
of younger juveniles (age 15
or younger) than older juveniles.
Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
27%
73%
70%
30%
80%
20%
66%
34%
15 or younger 16 or older
Percent of detained cases within offense category, 1985?2000
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 69
Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases
Detention
Status offense cases involving detention had greater proportions of
males than females
The proportion of white youth in detained status offense cases was
greater than the proportions of black youth and youth of other races
Percentage of petitioned status
offense cases detained by gender,
1985?2000:
Most serious
offense Male Female
Runaway 19% 15%
Truancy 3 3
Ungovernability 10 10
Liquor 8 5
? For runaway and liquor law violation
offenses, males were more likely to
be detained than females.
Percentage of petitioned status
offense cases detained by race,
1985?2000:
Most serious Other
offense White Black races
Runaway 16% 18% 18%
Truancy 3 3 4
Ungovernability 10 10 12
Liquor 7 14 6
? Youth in all racial groups were more
likely to be detained for runaway
cases than other case types.
Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
54%
46%
54%
46%
54%
46%
59%
41%
Male Female
Percent of detained cases within offense category, 1985?2000
Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
71%
26%
3%
72%
26%
2%
72%
24%
4%
69%
26%
5%
White Black Other races
Percent of detained cases within offense category, 1985?2000
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 70
Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases
Age
? Across offenses, petitioned status
offense cases involving younger juveniles
were more likely than those
involving older juveniles to result in
the youth being adjudicated a status
offender.
? For both age groups, petitioned runaway
cases were least likely to result
in the youth being adjudicated a status
offender.
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
? Except for liquor law violation cases,
the proportion of petitioned status
offense cases in which the youth was
adjudicated a status offender was
similar for white and black youth. In
liquor cases, white youth were more
likely than black youth to be adjudicated
a status offender.
? For all four offense categories, adjudication
was more likely for petitioned
cases involving youth of other races
than for cases involving white youth
and black youth.
In most petitioned status offense cases, except for runaway cases, the
youth was adjudicated
Percentage of petitioned status offense cases adjudicated, 1985?2000:
Most serious offense
Demographic Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
All 48% 63% 64% 61%
Age
15 or younger 50 63 66 63
16 or older 44 61 61 60
Gender
Male 48 63 65 62
Female 47 63 64 57
Race
White 47 62 65 60
Black 47 64 61 51
Other races 55 65 74 75
Adjudication
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 71
Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases
Age
? Adjudicated status offense cases involving
younger juveniles were
somewhat more likely to result in outof-
home placement than were cases
involving older juveniles.
? For both age groups, out-of-home
placement was more likely for adjudicated
runaway and ungovernability
cases than for truancy and liquor offense
cases.
Gender
? Only in runaway cases were adjudicated
males more likely than adjudicated
females to be ordered to outof-
home placement.
? For both males and females, out-ofhome
placement was more likely for
adjudicated runaway and ungovernability
cases than for truancy or
liquor law cases.
Race
? Adjudicated runaway 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. The same pattern
held for liquor cases.
? Across racial groups, truancy cases
were most likely to result in
probation.
Probation was the most common disposition for adjudicated status
offense cases
Percentage of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in out-of-home placement,
1985?2000:
Most serious offense
Demographic Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
All 27% 10% 27% 8%
Age
15 or younger 27 11 28 9
16 or older 26 7 24 7
Gender
Male 30 11 27 8
Female 25 10 27 8
Race
White 26 10 28 7
Black 31 11 24 15
Other races 24 10 26 10
Percentage of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in probation, 1985?2000:
Most serious offense
Demographic Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
All 57% 78% 64% 56%
Age
15 or younger 57 77 63 61
16 or older 56 81 65 55
Gender
Male 54 77 63 56
Female 59 79 64 58
Race
White 56 77 62 56
Black 58 81 69 63
Other races 65 84 66 56
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
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 72
Chapter 4: Profile of Petitioned Status Offense Cases
Runaway Cases
? For every 1,000 petitioned runaway
cases, 271 resulted in formal probation
following adjudication and 128
resulted in out-of-home placement.
? Among petitioned runaway cases,
youth were not adjudicated a status
offender in 524 of a typical 1,000
cases. Of these 524 cases, most
were dismissed (349).
Truancy Cases
? Of a typical 1,000 formal truancy
cases, 491 resulted in formal
probation and 65 resulted in out-ofhome
placement.
Ungovernability Cases
? Juvenile courts were far more likely
to order youth to out-of-home placement
in petitioned ungovernability
cases (172 of 1,000 cases) than in
other types of status offense cases.
However, formal probation was the
most likely outcome (408 of 1,000).
Liquor Law Violation Cases
? Among petitioned liquor law violation
cases, the most likely outcome was
formal probation (342 of 1,000). The
court often ordered formal sanctions
other than residential placement or
probation (204 of 1,000) in these
cases. In fact, the use of out-of-home
placement was less likely in liquor
cases than in the other three types of
status offense cases.
Case Processing
128 Placed
Runaway 271 Probation
Adjudicated a
476 status offender 44 Other sanction
A typical 1,000 petitioned
runaway cases 33 Released
Not adjudicated 175 Informal sanction
524 a status offender
349 Dismissed
Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
add to totals because of rounding.
65 Placed
Truancy 491 Probation
Adjudicated a
629 status offender 55 Other sanction
A typical 1,000 petitioned
truancy cases 17 Released
Not adjudicated 82 Informal sanction
371 a status offender
290 Dismissed
172 Placed
Ungovernability 408 Probation
Adjudicated a
643 status offender 45 Other sanction
A typical 1,000 petitioned
ungovernability cases 18 Released
Not adjudicated 78 Informal sanction
357 a status offender
279 Dismissed
46 Placed
Liquor law violation 342 Probation
Adjudicated a
606 status offender 204 Other sanction
A typical 1,000 petitioned
liquor law violation cases 14 Released
Not adjudicated 191 Informal sanction
394 a status offender
203 Dismissed
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 73
Appendix A
Methods
Juvenile Court Statistics (JCS) uses
data provided to the National Juvenile
Court Data Archive (the 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 and petitioning
decisions; 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 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
used in the development of national
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 74
Appendix A: Methods
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 2000, case-level data describing
932,550 delinquency cases handled
by 1,678 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,
North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
Washington, and West Virginia. These
courts had jurisdiction over 59% of
the nation?s juvenile population in
2000. Compatible court-level aggregate
statistics on an additional
108,293 delinquency cases from 313
jurisdictions were reported from the
District of Columbia and the states of
California, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, New York, Oklahoma, and
Vermont. In all, the Archive received
compatible case-level data and courtlevel
statistics on delinquency cases
from 1,990 jurisdictions containing
71% of the nation?s juvenile population
in 2000 (table A?1).
Case-level data describing 88,112 formally
handled status offense cases
from 1,753 jurisdictions in 27 states
met the criteria for inclusion in the
sample for 2000. The contributing
states were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Connecticut,
Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Table A?1: 2000 Stratum Profiles for Delinquency Data
Counties reporting compatible data
Number of counties Number of Count i es
County population Counties Case- Court- Percentage of
Stratum ages 10?17 in stratum level level Total* juvenile population
1 Fewer than 12,000 2,576 1,428 248 1,676 64%
2 12,000?50,390 368 173 45 218 63
3 50,391?126,050 108 53 13 66 64
4 More than 126,050 33 24 7 30 94
Total 3,085 1,678 313 1,990 71
* 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.
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North
Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington,
and West Virginia. These courts had
jurisdiction over 57% of the juvenile
population. An additional 312 jurisdictions
in 7 states (California, Hawaii,
Idaho, Indiana, New York,
Oklahoma, and Vermont) and the District
of Columbia reported compatible
court-level aggregate statistics on
19,386 petitioned status offense cases.
Altogether, compatible case-level
and court-level data on petitioned
status offense cases were available
from 2,065 jurisdictions containing
69% of the U.S. juvenile population in
2000 (table A?2). Additionally, petitioned
status offense case profiles in
the Report include case-level data
describing 915,843 cases and courtlevel
aggregate data describing
103,769 cases for the years 1985
through 1999.
Table A?2: 2000 Stratum Profiles for Status Offense Data
Counties reporting compatible data
Number of counties Number of Count i es
County population Counties Case- Court- Percentage of
Stratum ages 10?17 in stratum level level Total juvenile population
1 Fewer than 12,000 2,576 1,516 248 1,764 67%
2 12,000?50,390 368 169 45 214 60
3 50,391?126,050 108 44 13 57 56
4 More than 126,050 33 24 6 30 94
Total 3,085 1,753 312 2,065 69
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 75
Appendix A: Methods
A list of states contributing caselevel
data (either delinquency or
petitioned status offense data), the
variables each reports, and the percentage
of cases containing each variable
are presented in Table A?3.
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
below the upper age of original
jurisdiction.
Table A?3: Content of Case-Level Data Sources, 2000
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
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
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 ?
New Jersey NJ NJ NJ ? NJ ? NJ NJ NJ
North Dakota 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 TN
Texas TX TX TX TX TX ? TX TX TX
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% 95% 67% 97% 34% 100% 91% 91%
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 2000 76
Appendix A: Methods
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 races2 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.
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.
?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
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; and the age, gender, and
race profile of the youth involved in
juvenile court cases.
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 develops
independent estimates for the
number of petitioned delinquency
cases and the number of nonpetitioned
delinquency 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 age-byrace
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
2,497,000 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
1 County-level intercensal estimates
were obtained for the years 1985?2000.
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. 2003.
1990?1999 Intercensal State and County
Characteristics Population Estimates with
1990-Base Race Groups [machine-readable
data files]. Available online: http://
eire.census.gov/popest/estimates_
dataset.php [released on 6/23/2003].
National Center for Health Statistics.
2003. Estimates of the July 1, 2000?July
1, 2002 United States Resident Population
from the Vintage 2002 Postcensal Series
by Year, Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic
Origin [machine-readable data file].
Prepared under a collaborative agreement
with the U.S. Bureau of the
Census. Available online: http://
www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/
popbridge.htm [released on 8/1/2003].
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 2000,
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.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 77
Appendix A: Methods
juvenile courts in these counties handled
45,898 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 18.4, or:
(45,898/2,497,000) x 1,000 = 18.4
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 (49.8 and
17.1, 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:
(18.4 x 12,000) / [(18.4 x 12,000) +
(49.8 x 6,000) + (17.1 x 2,000)] = 0.40
Black:
(49.8 x 6,000) / [(18.4 x 12,000) +
(49.8 x 6,000) + (17.1 x 2,000)] = 0.54
Other:
(17.1 x 2,000) / [(18.4 x 12,000) +
(49.8 x 6,000) + (17.1 x 2,000)] = 0.06
The jurisdiction?s total caseload of
600 would then be allocated based on
these proportions. In this example,
40% of all cases reported in the jurisdiction?s
aggregate statistics involved
white youth, 54% involved black
youth, and the remaining 6% 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 240 white youth, 324 black
youth, and 36 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 41,688 petitioned delinquency
cases involving white 16-yearolds
from stratum 2 juvenile courts.
Assume also that the national caselevel
database for that year contained
22,330 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 1.87, because:
41,688/22,330 = 1.87
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
2000 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 on request from the
National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 79
Appendix B
Glossary of Terms
Adjudication: Judicial determination
(judgment) that a juvenile is or is not
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 consequence anticipated.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 80
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
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 race?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 the 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 which murder/
nonnegligent manslaughter
does not include negligent
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 81
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
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 controlled
or prohibited substance or drug
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 82
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
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
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 83
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
crime and property crime categories
defined below.
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 2000 85
Appendix C
Reported Juvenile Court
Cases Disposed in 2000,
by County
Information on the juvenile 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 is
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
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 86
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
in this table should not be used to
make comparisons among the delinquency,
status offense, or dependency
workloads of 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 2000, several reporting
jurisdictions were not able to
aggregate data for this timeframe. In
those instances, the data cover fiscal
year 2000. The period of coverage is
indicated in the notes.
For a complete county listing of juvenile
court case counts, readers are
encouraged to visit Easy Access to
State and County Juvenile Court Case
Counts, a Web-based version of this
appendix, available from OJJDP?s
Statistical Briefing Book at
ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/index.html.
Unlike this appendix, the Web version
does not aggregate data from the
smaller counties in each state.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 87
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Alabama ? 67 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Baldwin 141,400 16,200 34,200 1,108 47 260 64 3 ? ?
Calhoun 111,400 11,900 25,900 665 269 99 93 110 ? ?
Coffee 43,500 5,100 10,700 417 0 118 0 2 ? ?
Colbert 55,000 5,900 12,900 184 0 45 0 8 ? ?
Cullman 77,600 8,600 18,600 525 73 66 449 0 ? ?
Dale 49,100 5,600 13,000 430 0 328 0 1 ? ?
Dallas 46,200 6,200 13,000 415 0 269 4 12 ? ?
De Kalb 64,700 6,900 15,800 293 0 18 0 9 ? ?
Elmore 66,300 7,700 16,900 479 0 103 0 2 ? ?
Etowah 103,300 11,200 24,300 575 1 71 0 0 ? ?
Houston 88,900 10,500 22,700 1,023 75 302 39 0 ? ?
Jackson 54,000 6,000 12,900 299 0 145 0 2 ? ?
Jefferson 662,100 74,400 162,100 2,091 649 270 275 0 ? ?
Lauderdale 88,000 9,300 20,000 632 62 168 199 25 ? ?
Lee 115,500 11,900 26,600 717 167 390 180 82 ? ?
Limestone 65,900 7,300 16,200 265 68 21 7 5 ? ?
Madison 277,600 31,700 70,500 1,357 734 91 462 55 ? ?
Marshall 82,300 9,000 20,300 813 94 276 479 49 ? ?
Mobile 400,100 49,000 108,600 2,892 1,751 411 1,572 239 ? ?
Montgomery 223,400 25,600 56,700 2,015 192 53 3 53 ? ?
Morgan 111,200 12,700 27,900 750 89 181 398 56 ? ?
Russell 49,700 5,800 13,000 382 0 362 0 38 ? ?
St. Clair 65,100 7,600 16,300 190 0 309 0 1 ? ?
Shelby 144,500 16,200 37,500 475 154 137 301 35 ? ?
Talladega 80,400 9,400 19,800 485 0 270 0 3 ? ?
Tuscaloosa 165,100 17,000 38,100 1,185 287 104 102 137 ? ?
Walker 70,700 7,500 16,400 390 0 402 0 2 ? ?
40 Small Counties 949,000 111,400 239,600 5,404 214 2,134 231 168 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 26,456 4,926 7,403 4,858 1,097 ? ?
Population Represented 4,452,000 507,500 1,110,800 507,500 507,500 507,500 507,500 1,110,800 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 52.13 9.71 14.59 9.57 0.99 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 67 67 67 ? ?
Alaska ? 27 Jurisdictions
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Anchorage 260,600 34,200 76,300 835 2,164 ? ? ? ? ?
Bethel 16,100 2,800 6,300 194 235 ? ? ? ? ?
Fairbanks North Star 82,800 11,200 24,900 212 514 ? ? ? ? ?
Juneau 30,700 4,100 8,400 107 200 ? ? ? ? ?
Kenai Peninsula 49,700 7,500 14,700 129 375 ? ? ? ? ?
Ketchikan Gateway 14,000 1,800 3,900 97 176 ? ? ? ? ?
Kodiak Island 14,000 2,000 4,500 83 74 ? ? ? ? ?
Matanuska-Susitna 59,900 9,800 19,200 169 406 ? ? ? ? ?
Valdez-Cordova 10,200 1,500 3,000 61 60 ? ? ? ? ?
18 Small Jurisdictions 89,800 14,300 28,900 354 853 ? ? ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 2,241 5,057 ? ? ? ? ?
Population Represented 627,700 89,300 189,900 89,300 89,300 ? ? ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Jurisdictions 25.09 56.62 ? ? ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Jurisdictions 27 27 ? ? ? ? ?
Arizona ? 15 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Apache 69,200 13,000 26,900 173 275 13 115 ? ? ?
Cochise 118,100 15,100 32,100 671 1,334 78 722 ? ? ?
Coconino 116,700 16,300 34,400 773 1,177 187 729 ? ? ?
Maricopa 3,097,300 361,800 861,200 12,700 8,866 3,399 7,488 ? ? ?
Mohave 156,300 16,800 37,200 800 1,263 38 779 ? ? ?
Navajo 98,000 16,900 35,300 620 559 115 701 ? ? ?
Pima 848,800 96,700 215,700 5,730 5,992 134 4,697 ? ? ?
Pinal 181,500 21,000 46,700 1,648 932 162 632 ? ? ?
2000 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
2000 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 2000 88
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Yavapai 169,000 17,900 36,800 1,013 1,045 167 612 ? ? ?
Yuma 160,700 20,800 47,500 2,281 794 203 1,101 ? ? ?
5 Small Counties 151,700 20,600 43,600 1,346 956 291 738 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 27,755 23,193 4,787 18,314 ? ? ?
Population Represented 5,167,100 616,900 1,417,500 616,900 616,900 616,900 616,900 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 44.99 37.60 7.76 29.69 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 15 15 15 15 ? ? ?
Arkansas ? 75 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Benton 154,800 17,900 41,200 259 ? 221 ? 157 ? ?
Craighead 82,500 8,600 19,900 292 ? 348 ? 68 ? ?
Crittenden 51,000 7,100 15,800 371 ? 149 ? 36 ? ?
Faulkner 86,400 10,000 22,100 300 ? 324 ? 97 ? ?
Garland 88,400 8,900 18,900 483 ? 322 ? 162 ? ?
Jefferson 84,200 10,300 22,000 752 ? 308 ? 230 ? ?
Mississippi 51,900 6,900 15,300 338 ? 160 ? 47 ? ?
Pulaski 361,700 40,100 91,400 1,879 ? 465 ? 290 ? ?
Saline 83,900 10,000 21,400 233 ? 137 ? 58 ? ?
Sebastian 115,600 13,400 30,200 454 ? 473 ? 179 ? ?
Washington 158,700 17,200 40,000 765 ? 573 ? 82 ? ?
White 67,400 7,600 16,400 99 ? 178 ? 51 ? ?
63 Small Counties 1,292,100 153,900 326,100 4,274 ? 2,985 ? 1,266 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 10,499 ? 6,643 ? 2,723 ? ?
Population Represented 2,678,700 311,800 680,600 311,800 ? 311,800 ? 680,600 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 33.67 ? 21.30 ? 4.00 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 75 ? 75 ? 75 ? ?
California ? 58 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Alameda 1,451,000 153,600 358,400 1,791 3,657 4 81 1,259 ? ?
Butte 203,800 24,000 49,300 995 586 47 72 381 ? ?
Contra Costa 953,800 114,400 255,500 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
El Dorado 157,200 20,600 41,200 609 439 11 53 49 ? ?
Fresno 802,300 114,700 256,700 3,602 3,958 18 123 1,065 ? ?
Humboldt 126,300 14,500 29,600 186 375 35 229 69 ? ?
Imperial 142,600 21,100 44,500 746 228 105 44 114 ? ?
Kern 663,900 94,800 212,200 991 1,187 2 594 2,089 ? ?
Kings 129,900 16,300 37,700 416 ? 0 ? 116 ? ?
Lake 58,600 7,100 14,200 181 209 1 8 61 ? ?
Los Angeles 9,549,100 1,132,900 2,665,100 18,226 ? 290 ? 11,796 ? ?
Madera 123,700 16,600 36,600 574 737 11 159 154 ? ?
Marin 247,700 22,700 50,700 650 ? 28 ? 91 ? ?
Mendocino 86,400 11,000 22,200 189 ? 0 ? 70 ? ?
Merced 211,700 33,100 73,100 485 754 155 411 116 ? ?
Monterey 403,200 49,800 114,900 196 128 8 6 131 ? ?
Napa 124,600 14,000 30,200 254 134 9 17 30 ? ?
Nevada 92,500 11,300 21,500 241 ? 1 ? 71 ? ?
Orange 2,857,300 322,700 770,600 8,754 3,186 99 310 2,507 ? ?
Placer 251,300 31,600 67,000 172 513 8 12 304 ? ?
Riverside 1,560,200 210,900 474,700 3,704 ? 1 ? 1,571 ? ?
Sacramento 1,230,500 152,400 344,100 3,894 817 4 8 2,592 ? ?
San Bernardino 1,719,300 247,900 556,600 4,174 3,059 950 78 5,237 ? ?
San Diego 2,825,500 316,400 732,100 7,053 3,597 822 232 1,456 ? ?
San Francisco 776,900 49,600 112,400 1,033 1,757 10 12 682 ? ?
San Joaquin 568,400 80,400 176,900 3,351 3,257 11 1,152 547 ? ?
San Luis Obispo 247,700 26,500 53,800 578 ? 0 ? 174 ? ?
San Mateo 708,600 70,400 163,100 1,873 731 31 42 392 ? ?
Santa Barbara 399,800 44,400 100,000 1,876 1,575 128 640 0 ? ?
Santa Clara 1,687,000 177,000 416,400 2,236 4,072 5 186 953 ? ?
Santa Cruz 255,800 28,400 61,200 563 ? 0 ? 283 ? ?
Shasta 163,800 21,700 43,100 822 940 4 185 97 ? ?
Solano 397,300 52,100 114,600 2,149 431 19 26 157 ? ?
Sonoma 460,400 53,400 113,600 1,663 ? 0 ? 295 ? ?
Stanislaus 449,900 64,400 140,800 1,599 1,203 7 135 313 ? ?
2000 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 2000 89
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Sutter 79,200 10,600 23,000 293 297 3 53 148 ? ?
Tehama 56,200 7,600 15,400 115 169 6 38 70 ? ?
Tulare 369,000 55,800 124,200 1,964 ? 25 ? 85 ? ?
Tuolumne 54,700 5,900 11,300 149 153 2 102 68 ? ?
Ventura 756,800 95,700 215,800 3,210 2,880 296 1,721 389 ? ?
Yolo 169,800 19,500 43,000 533 ? 0 ? 293 ? ?
Yuba 60,400 8,500 18,900 185 ? 0 ? 176 ? ?
16 Small Counties 376,500 47,600 95,000 1,123 1,184 54 268 298 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 83,398 42,213 3,210 6,997 36,749 ? ?
Population Represented 34,010,400 4,073,800 9,301,500 3,955,500 2,346,200 3,955,500 2,346,200 9,034,900 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 21.08 17.99 0.81 2.98 4.07 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 56 38 56 38 55 ? ?
Colorado ? 64 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Adams 351,200 42,600 101,500 1,088 ? ? ? 335 ? ?
Arapahoe 490,700 61,800 134,000 1,847 ? ? ? 319 ? ?
Boulder 271,300 28,200 62,400 1,396 ? ? ? 163 ? ?
Denver 556,600 50,700 124,600 2,408 ? ? ? 596 ? ?
Douglas 180,400 22,800 58,000 618 ? ? ? 7 ? ?
El Paso 519,400 65,000 147,100 2,455 ? ? ? 573 ? ?
Jefferson 526,500 64,200 135,400 1,861 ? ? ? 236 ? ?
Larimer 252,900 28,700 61,200 1,050 ? ? ? 122 ? ?
Mesa 116,800 14,200 29,600 449 ? ? ? 100 ? ?
Pueblo 141,800 17,000 37,000 829 ? ? ? 327 ? ?
Weld 183,100 23,200 52,300 1,071 ? ? ? 100 ? ?
Broomfield 39,400 5,300 11,700 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
52 Small Counties 696,500 82,600 172,300 2,697 ? ? ? 551 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 17,769 ? ? ? 3,429 ? ?
Population Represented 4,326,800 506,200 1,127,300 500,900 ? ? ? 1,115,600 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 35.47 ? ? ? 3.07 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 63 ? ? ? 63 ? ?
Connecticut ? 13 Venue Districts
Upper age of jurisdiction: 15
Bridgeport ? ? ? 922 480 242 187 ? ? ?
Danbury ? ? ? 192 219 65 88 ? ? ?
Hartford ? ? ? 1,301 980 191 293 ? ? ?
Middletown ? ? ? 401 297 103 152 ? ? ?
Montville ? ? ? 631 440 151 194 ? ? ?
New Haven ? ? ? 1,824 934 398 338 ? ? ?
Norwalk ? ? ? 283 138 60 65 ? ? ?
Plainville ? ? ? 944 417 275 207 ? ? ?
Stamford ? ? ? 333 177 31 74 ? ? ?
Talcottville ? ? ? 472 324 124 177 ? ? ?
Torrington ? ? ? 248 183 96 140 ? ? ?
Waterbury ? ? ? 1,035 607 459 263 ? ? ?
Willimantic ? ? ? 419 333 117 145 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 9,005 5,529 2,312 2,323 ? ? ?
Population Represented 3,412,000 294,000 769,000 294,000 294,000 294,000 294,000 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Venue Districts 30.63 18.81 7.86 7.90 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Venue Districts 13 13 13 13 ? ? ?
Delaware ? 3 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Kent 127,100 15,400 33,900 1,768 ? ? ? 263 ? ?
New Castle 501,900 54,200 121,800 6,245 ? ? ? 908 ? ?
Sussex 157,500 16,000 34,500 2,021 ? ? ? 97 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 10,034 ? ? ? 1,268 ? ?
Population Represented 786,500 85,700 190,200 85,700 ? ? ? 190,200 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 117.08 ? ? ? 6.67 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 3 ? ? ? 3 ? ?
2000 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 2000 90
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
District of Columbia ? 1 District
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
District of Columbia 571,600 45,000 109,700 1,617 765 74 39 1,219 198 ?
Number of Reported Cases 1,617 765 74 39 1,219 198 ?
Population Represented 571,600 45,000 109,700 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 109,700 109,700 ?
Rates for Reporting District 35.95 17.01 1.65 0.87 11.11 1.81 ?
Number of Reporting Districts 1 1 1 1 1 1 ?
Florida ? 67 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Alachua 218,300 21,300 45,400 1,512 703 9 21 ? ? ?
Bay 148,200 17,100 36,800 1,011 704 21 302 ? ? ?
Brevard 477,900 52,100 108,400 2,834 1,302 37 58 ? ? ?
Broward 1,633,000 175,800 396,600 6,694 4,147 20 27 ? ? ?
Charlotte 142,300 11,200 23,000 449 350 2 8 ? ? ?
Citrus 118,600 10,700 21,000 390 318 0 6 ? ? ?
Clay 141,700 19,800 40,900 855 731 14 27 ? ? ?
Collier 254,200 22,900 51,900 1,342 566 39 132 ? ? ?
Columbia 56,800 7,000 14,800 382 156 5 2 ? ? ?
Duval 779,800 93,500 211,000 4,072 3,235 15 21 ? ? ?
Escambia 294,300 32,800 71,400 2,962 709 29 41 ? ? ?
Hernando 131,500 12,400 25,600 475 172 2 0 ? ? ?
Highlands 87,500 8,100 17,200 352 424 1 24 ? ? ?
Hillsborough 1,003,300 115,500 261,700 7,012 4,122 55 46 ? ? ?
Indian River 113,400 10,800 22,400 570 269 16 10 ? ? ?
Lake 212,800 20,200 44,400 1,286 583 17 13 ? ? ?
Lee 443,800 40,600 89,600 2,313 1,298 40 48 ? ? ?
Leon 240,000 23,900 52,500 1,586 574 36 38 ? ? ?
Manatee 265,700 25,200 56,700 1,776 550 7 10 ? ? ?
Marion 260,300 27,500 57,300 1,432 596 15 15 ? ? ?
Martin 127,100 11,600 24,400 621 501 37 7 ? ? ?
Miami-Dade 2,261,700 262,000 573,100 10,125 5,018 38 26 ? ? ?
Monroe 79,500 6,500 14,000 386 173 7 6 ? ? ?
Nassau 58,000 7,200 14,900 328 156 10 16 ? ? ?
Okaloosa 171,000 20,400 43,900 1,347 449 15 92 ? ? ?
Orange 902,500 103,300 234,900 7,059 1,614 21 19 ? ? ?
Osceola 174,200 22,100 48,100 1,332 302 4 0 ? ? ?
Palm Beach 1,136,100 112,500 248,300 4,791 3,501 18 112 ? ? ?
Pasco 347,400 32,900 72,300 1,845 478 9 7 ? ? ?
Pinellas 922,200 84,000 183,500 6,470 2,496 61 44 ? ? ?
Polk 485,500 55,500 121,800 3,778 2,153 29 82 ? ? ?
Putnam 70,400 8,300 17,700 346 236 0 0 ? ? ?
St. Johns 124,400 14,300 29,500 670 432 11 33 ? ? ?
St. Lucie 193,500 21,100 44,900 1,223 407 10 4 ? ? ?
Santa Rosa 118,500 15,700 32,400 910 342 56 64 ? ? ?
Sarasota 327,000 26,000 54,600 1,400 469 23 18 ? ? ?
Seminole 367,000 44,800 95,900 1,668 867 17 33 ? ? ?
Volusia 445,000 44,600 92,900 3,315 1,575 124 107 ? ? ?
29 Small Counties 717,200 81,100 169,300 3,810 2,049 44 69 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 90,729 44,727 914 1,588 ? ? ?
Population Represented 16,051,400 1,722,600 3,765,000 1,722,600 1,722,600 1,722,600 1,722,600 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 52.67 25.96 0.53 0.92 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 67 67 ? ? ?
Georgia ? 159 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Baldwin 44,800 4,100 9,000 371 ? 75 ? 131 ? ?
Bartow 76,700 8,300 20,600 1,189 ? 521 ? 232 ? ?
Bibb 153,800 15,800 38,900 1,860 ? 261 ? 1,064 ? ?
Bulloch 56,200 5,200 11,900 204 ? 43 ? 26 ? ?
Carroll 88,000 9,000 21,900 920 ? 305 ? 213 ? ?
Catoosa 53,700 5,500 13,300 315 ? 133 ? 13 ? ?
Chatham 232,000 22,900 55,400 2,498 ? 486 ? 467 ? ?
Cherokee 143,800 15,400 39,300 676 ? 251 ? 329 ? ?
Clarke 101,800 6,800 17,300 613 ? 186 ? 213 ? ?
2000 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 2000 91
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Clayton 238,600 27,200 68,300 3,149 ? 566 ? 1,519 ? ?
Cobb 615,200 62,700 153,700 2,818 ? 620 ? 1,110 ? ?
Columbia 89,800 11,400 25,300 586 ? 19 ? 42 ? ?
Coweta 90,100 9,900 24,900 398 ? 71 ? 323 ? ?
De Kalb 668,700 62,000 156,600 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Dougherty 95,900 10,300 24,900 1,149 ? 195 ? 210 ? ?
Douglas 92,700 10,300 24,500 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Fayette 92,100 12,400 25,300 673 ? 216 ? 222 ? ?
Floyd 90,800 8,900 21,300 758 ? 471 ? 341 ? ?
Forsyth 100,500 9,300 27,200 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Fulton 817,600 74,900 190,500 7,309 ? 1,362 ? 3,305 ? ?
Glynn 67,700 7,000 16,200 545 ? 249 ? 69 ? ?
Gwinnett 596,700 64,400 161,100 2,553 ? 1,090 ? 666 ? ?
Hall 141,000 14,000 36,300 769 ? 276 ? 253 ? ?
Henry 121,600 13,800 34,200 587 ? 90 ? 160 ? ?
Houston 111,300 13,000 30,000 1,460 ? 1,126 ? 420 ? ?
Laurens 45,000 4,900 11,400 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Liberty 61,400 6,800 19,100 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Lowndes 92,100 9,600 23,100 383 ? 94 ? 10 ? ?
Muscogee 186,500 19,300 47,500 1,774 ? 619 ? 675 ? ?
Newton 62,900 6,600 16,700 696 ? 299 ? 84 ? ?
Paulding 83,100 9,200 24,800 491 ? 196 ? 170 ? ?
Richmond 199,600 21,300 51,000 956 ? 17 ? 534 ? ?
Rockdale 70,600 8,400 18,400 610 ? 115 ? 172 ? ?
Spalding 58,500 6,200 15,200 299 ? 26 ? 694 ? ?
Thomas 42,900 4,900 11,000 387 ? 56 ? 98 ? ?
Troup 58,900 6,600 15,600 749 ? 113 ? 215 ? ?
Walker 61,100 6,200 14,500 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Walton 61,600 6,800 16,700 804 ? 383 ? 133 ? ?
Whitfield 84,100 8,600 22,000 617 ? 240 ? 308 ? ?
120 Small Counties 2,085,100 225,400 526,600 9,250 ? 2,931 ? 3,287 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 48,416 ? 13,701 ? 17,708 ? ?
Population Represented 8,234,400 855,200 2,081,500 712,200 ? 710,000 ? 1,725,800 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 67.98 ? 19.30 ? 10.26 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 125 ? 124 ? 125 ? ?
Hawaii ? 5 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Hawaii 149,300 19,300 40,400 459 526 102 718 ? ? ?
Honolulu 875,900 89,200 203,200 1,362 314 619 2,106 ? ? ?
Kalawao 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? ?
Kauai 58,600 7,400 15,400 434 65 70 286 ? ? ?
Maui 128,800 15,000 32,600 427 180 109 299 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 2,682 1,085 900 3,409 ? ? ?
Population Represented 1,212,700 131,000 291,600 131,000 131,000 131,000 131,000 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 20.47 8.28 6.87 26.02 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 5 5 5 5 ? ? ?
Idaho ? 44 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Ada 303,000 36,500 83,300 2,603 463 ? ? 113 85 ?
Bannock 75,600 9,500 21,300 1,288 151 ? ? 110 0 ?
Bonneville 82,900 12,600 26,700 453 220 ? ? 42 10 ?
Canyon 133,100 17,400 41,200 1,359 99 ? ? 89 3 ?
Kootenai 109,500 13,900 29,800 776 73 ? ? 76 14 ?
Twin Falls 64,400 8,500 17,900 611 134 ? ? 258 5 ?
38 Small Counties 531,200 73,100 151,300 3,992 898 ? ? 334 82 ?
Number of Reported Cases 11,082 2,038 ? ? 1,022 199 ?
Population Represented 1,299,700 171,600 371,600 171,600 171,600 ? ? 371,600 371,600 ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 64.58 11.88 ? ? 2.75 0.54 ?
Number of Reporting Counties 44 44 ? ? 44 44 ?
2000 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 2000 92
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Illinois ? 102 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Adams 68,200 7,000 15,900 110 ? 8 ? 67 ? ?
Champaign 179,900 14,800 35,900 151 ? 11 ? 88 ? ?
Coles 53,000 4,200 9,700 120 ? 5 ? 30 ? ?
Cook 5,378,700 525,300 1,311,000 11,481 ? ? ? 2,184 ? ?
De Kalb 89,300 8,000 19,400 158 ? 16 ? 56 ? ?
Du Page 906,900 93,600 227,900 871 ? 2 ? 54 ? ?
Henry 51,000 5,500 12,000 47 ? 5 ? 27 ? ?
Jackson 59,600 4,600 10,700 70 ? 0 ? 20 ? ?
Kane 407,800 45,800 116,600 880 ? 0 ? 101 ? ?
Kankakee 103,900 11,200 26,500 311 ? 40 ? 54 ? ?
Knox 55,800 5,000 11,600 86 ? 0 ? 21 ? ?
Lake 648,500 71,100 180,100 857 ? 0 ? 321 ? ?
La Salle 111,500 11,600 26,200 222 ? 28 ? 59 ? ?
McHenry 261,700 30,300 74,500 258 ? 17 ? 68 ? ?
McLean 150,900 13,600 33,600 147 ? 25 ? 145 ? ?
Macon 114,500 11,300 26,600 322 ? 0 ? 67 ? ?
Madison 259,100 26,400 60,500 806 ? 1 ? 267 ? ?
Peoria 183,200 17,700 43,600 630 ? 9 ? 299 ? ?
Rock Island 149,100 14,200 33,300 149 ? 0 ? 88 ? ?
St. Clair 256,300 29,100 66,600 664 ? 119 ? 108 ? ?
Sangamon 189,000 18,900 44,400 121 ? 0 ? 194 ? ?
Tazewell 128,500 12,700 29,300 225 ? 0 ? 88 ? ?
Vermilion 83,800 8,200 19,600 214 ? 81 ? 91 ? ?
Whiteside 60,700 6,100 14,200 105 ? 3 ? 14 ? ?
Will 508,300 57,300 144,200 499 ? 3 ? 91 ? ?
Williamson 61,200 5,700 13,100 80 ? 10 ? 62 ? ?
Winnebago 279,000 29,000 69,600 436 ? 0 ? 260 ? ?
75 Small Counties 1,641,500 168,000 375,800 4,021 ? 175 ? 767 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 24,041 ? 561 ? 5,691 ? ?
Population Represented 12,440,800 1,256,200 3,052,500 1,256,200 ? 1,256,200 ? 3,052,500 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 19.14 ? 0.45 ? 1.86 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 102 ? 102 ? 102 ? ?
Indiana ? 92 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Allen 332,700 40,800 93,200 2,627 968 1,084 310 369 ? ?
Bartholomew 71,700 8,300 19,100 230 115 50 93 16 ? ?
Clark 96,800 10,500 23,700 161 127 42 29 213 ? ?
Delaware 118,700 12,100 26,400 262 75 14 161 157 ? ?
Elkhart 183,500 23,400 53,500 476 520 207 524 82 ? ?
Floyd 70,900 8,500 18,500 371 28 151 15 0 ? ?
Grant 73,300 8,000 17,400 343 71 44 82 50 ? ?
Hamilton 185,400 23,500 57,400 774 176 130 23 465 ? ?
Hancock 55,700 6,900 14,800 90 78 3 28 15 ? ?
Hendricks 105,400 13,400 29,600 443 336 191 116 12 ? ?
Henry 48,500 5,400 11,700 51 26 8 22 44 ? ?
Howard 85,000 9,800 22,000 406 117 94 21 134 ? ?
Johnson 116,000 14,000 31,600 597 64 20 10 60 ? ?
Knox 39,200 4,300 9,000 39 28 30 41 15 ? ?
Kosciusko 74,200 9,400 20,700 133 112 0 12 15 ? ?
Lake 484,700 58,800 130,100 1,924 0 213 0 601 ? ?
La Porte 110,200 12,400 27,200 462 23 84 34 52 ? ?
Lawrence 45,900 5,100 11,300 129 55 17 36 16 ? ?
Madison 133,300 14,300 31,900 777 15 389 82 64 ? ?
Marion 860,600 96,000 223,800 5,094 80 984 29 1,270 ? ?
Marshall 45,300 5,900 12,700 76 15 41 8 113 ? ?
Monroe 120,700 9,700 21,800 229 86 97 37 131 ? ?
Morgan 66,900 8,400 18,200 186 43 44 42 31 ? ?
Porter 147,200 18,200 38,000 293 73 39 104 175 ? ?
St. Joseph 265,900 30,600 69,200 1,173 255 192 4 334 ? ?
Shelby 43,600 5,500 11,700 139 18 10 16 48 ? ?
Tippecanoe 149,300 13,700 31,400 303 53 486 65 128 ? ?
Vanderburgh 171,800 18,200 40,100 254 61 33 32 201 ? ?
2000 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 2000 93
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Vigo 105,700 11,000 24,400 262 13 76 75 104 ? ?
Warrick 52,600 6,700 14,200 101 48 26 27 14 ? ?
Wayne 71,000 8,200 17,400 102 40 11 7 81 ? ?
61 Small Counties 1,560,400 192,600 413,900 5,360 1,951 779 1,189 2,140 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 23,867 5,670 5,589 3,274 7,150 ? ?
Population Represented 6,092,000 713,700 1,585,900 713,700 713,700 713,700 713,700 1,585,900 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 33.44 7.94 7.83 4.59 4.51 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 92 92 92 92 92 ? ?
Iowa ? 99 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Black Hawk 128,000 13,300 28,900 246 ? ? ? 105 ? ?
Cerro Gordo 46,300 5,100 10,800 61 ? ? ? 95 ? ?
Clinton 50,100 6,000 12,500 124 ? ? ? 56 ? ?
Des Moines 42,300 4,700 10,100 184 ? ? ? 59 ? ?
Dubuque 89,300 10,300 22,200 135 ? ? ? 85 ? ?
Johnson 111,400 9,500 21,900 212 ? ? ? 127 ? ?
Linn 192,200 20,700 47,700 509 ? ? ? 291 ? ?
Muscatine 41,800 5,000 10,900 104 ? ? ? 51 ? ?
Polk 375,900 40,500 94,600 1,291 ? ? ? 973 ? ?
Pottawattamie 88,000 10,500 22,300 297 ? ? ? 115 ? ?
Scott 158,700 19,200 41,300 409 ? ? ? 243 ? ?
Story 80,200 6,900 14,800 64 ? ? ? 30 ? ?
Warren 40,800 5,100 10,700 86 ? ? ? 34 ? ?
Woodbury 103,900 12,200 27,800 202 ? ? ? 169 ? ?
85 Small Counties 1,380,100 166,600 339,300 2,651 ? ? ? 1,794 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 6,575 ? ? ? 4,227 ? ?
Population Represented 2,928,700 335,600 716,000 335,600 ? ? ? 716,000 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 19.59 ? ? ? 5.90 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 99 ? ? ? 99 ? ?
Kansas ? 105 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Butler 59,700 8,200 16,800 ? ? ? ? ? ? 107
Douglas 100,200 9,100 20,200 ? ? ? ? ? ? 127
Johnson 454,200 54,100 121,100 ? ? ? ? ? ? 515
Leavenworth 68,900 8,400 18,200 ? ? ? ? ? ? 252
Reno 64,700 7,400 15,500 ? ? ? ? ? ? 307
Riley 62,900 5,000 11,700 ? ? ? ? ? ? 88
Saline 53,600 6,400 13,900 ? ? ? ? ? ? 263
Sedgwick 453,600 55,000 126,200 ? ? ? ? ? ? 746
Shawnee 170,100 19,500 42,600 ? ? ? ? ? ? 804
Wyandotte 157,900 19,300 44,300 ? ? ? ? ? ? 667
95 Small Counties 1,046,900 132,300 272,700 ? ? ? ? ? ? 2,699
Number of Reported Cases ? ? ? ? ? ? 6,575
Population Represented 2,692,600 324,700 703,300 ? ? ? ? ? ? 324,700
Rates for Reporting Counties ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties ? ? ? ? ? ? 105
Louisiana ? 64 Parishes
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Acadia 58,800 7,000 16,200 ? ? ? ? ? ? 303
Ascension 77,400 9,000 21,600 ? ? ? ? ? ? 598
Bossier 98,600 10,900 25,800 ? ? ? ? ? ? 704
Caddo 252,000 27,100 62,200 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Calcasieu 183,500 19,800 46,500 ? ? ? ? ? ? 731
East Baton Rouge 412,800 41,700 99,700 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Iberia 73,300 8,700 20,400 ? ? ? ? ? ? 1,364
Jefferson 454,800 45,400 106,500 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Lafayette 190,600 20,600 48,300 ? ? ? ? ? ? 1,758
Lafourche 90,000 9,900 22,700 ? ? ? ? ? ? 628
Livingston 92,600 10,900 25,300 ? ? ? ? ? ? 274
Orleans 483,700 50,400 119,000 ? ? ? ? ? ? 500
Ouachita 147,200 16,500 38,000 ? ? ? ? ? ? 1,135
2000 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 2000 94
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Rapides 126,400 13,700 31,800 ? ? ? ? ? ? 1,906
St. Bernard 67,000 6,900 15,700 ? ? ? ? ? ? 494
St. Landry 87,800 10,400 23,900 ? ? ? ? ? ? 512
St. Mary 53,300 6,400 14,600 ? ? ? ? ? ? 987
St. Tammany 192,300 22,500 51,000 ? ? ? ? ? ? 1,509
Tangipahoa 100,800 11,100 25,800 ? ? ? ? ? ? 241
Terrebonne 104,500 12,200 28,100 ? ? ? ? ? ? 623
Vermilion 53,800 6,100 13,900 ? ? ? ? ? ? 292
Vernon 52,500 5,200 14,600 ? ? ? ? ? ? 481
42 Small Parishes 1,016,100 112,100 256,200 ? ? ? ? ? ? 9,416
Number of Reported Cases ? ? ? ? ? ? 24,456
Population Represented 4,469,800 484,600 1,128,000 ? ? ? ? ? ? 370,300
Rates for Reporting Parishes ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Parishes ? ? ? ? ? ? 61
Maryland ? 24 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Allegany 74,800 7,500 15,400 193 736 ? 109 ? ? ?
Anne Arundel 491,400 56,100 124,600 1,375 3,024 ? 197 ? ? ?
Baltimore 756,000 83,100 178,700 3,841 3,415 ? 134 ? ? ?
Calvert 75,200 10,700 22,300 274 186 ? 127 ? ? ?
Carroll 151,600 19,600 42,000 81 612 ? 53 ? ? ?
Cecil 86,500 11,100 24,000 336 593 ? 35 ? ? ?
Charles 121,300 16,300 35,000 345 1,007 ? 99 ? ? ?
Frederick 196,600 24,500 54,500 1,051 795 ? 209 ? ? ?
Harford 219,500 27,900 61,500 592 844 ? 290 ? ? ?
Howard 249,600 30,900 70,400 392 1,237 ? 130 ? ? ?
Montgomery 877,900 99,000 223,300 1,406 1,745 ? 56 ? ? ?
Prince George?s 804,000 93,000 214,100 1,945 3,073 ? 90 ? ? ?
St. Mary?s 86,500 11,000 24,300 371 591 ? 119 ? ? ?
Washington 132,100 14,200 31,000 282 922 ? 23 ? ? ?
Wicomico 84,900 9,800 21,000 160 1,311 ? 205 ? ? ?
Baltimore City 648,800 72,600 159,600 4,377 2,239 ? 6 ? ? ?
8 Small Counties 255,700 27,900 58,400 639 2,849 ? 409 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 17,660 25,179 ? 2,291 ? ? ?
Population Represented 5,312,500 615,300 1,360,200 615,300 615,300 ? 615,300 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 28.70 40.92 ? 3.72 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 24 24 ? 24 ? ? ?
Massachusetts ? 14 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Barnstable 223,200 19,100 41,900 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Berkshire 134,800 12,600 27,500 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Bristol 535,900 51,400 121,800 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Dukes 15,100 1,500 3,100 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Essex 725,200 70,500 169,800 413 ? 70 ? 11 ? ?
Franklin 71,500 7,300 15,400 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Hampden 456,500 47,700 109,700 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Hampshire 152,500 12,400 27,300 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Middlesex 1,467,900 123,200 304,500 2,684 ? 842 ? 291 ? ?
Nantucket 9,600 700 1,700 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Norfolk 651,200 57,700 140,600 1,402 ? 363 ? 82 ? ?
Plymouth 474,500 49,700 117,300 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Suffolk 690,100 52,000 128,300 26 ? ? ? ? ? ?
Worcester 753,600 74,900 178,400 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 4,525 ? 1,275 ? 384 ? ?
Population Represented 6,361,700 580,600 1,387,300 303,300 ? 251,400 ? 614,900 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 14.92 ? 5.07 ? 0.62 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 4 ? 3 ? 3 ? ?
Michigan ? 83 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Allegan 106,100 12,600 28,600 734 ? 100 ? 42 ? ?
Barry 56,900 6,400 14,400 405 ? 0 ? 40 ? ?
2000 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 2000 95
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Bay 110,100 10,900 25,000 777 ? 32 ? 59 ? ?
Berrien 162,600 17,200 39,500 1,467 ? 261 ? 162 ? ?
Calhoun 138,100 14,500 33,600 1,768 ? 49 ? 162 ? ?
Cass 51,200 5,500 12,200 443 ? 172 ? 80 ? ?
Clinton 65,000 7,400 17,000 359 ? 2 ? 28 ? ?
Eaton 103,900 11,400 25,300 696 ? 0 ? 51 ? ?
Genesee 436,900 46,200 112,500 1,558 ? 169 ? 1,234 ? ?
Grand Traverse 78,000 8,300 18,400 819 ? 22 ? 59 ? ?
Ingham 279,500 25,600 61,900 1,169 ? 46 ? 615 ? ?
Ionia 61,700 6,700 15,400 345 ? 86 ? 32 ? ?
Isabella 63,400 5,200 11,900 408 ? 49 ? 105 ? ?
Jackson 158,700 16,200 38,200 1,428 ? 172 ? 126 ? ?
Kalamazoo 238,900 22,500 54,200 2,735 ? 332 ? 741 ? ?
Kent 576,300 63,100 153,200 4,173 ? 329 ? 497 ? ?
Lapeer 88,300 10,200 22,900 551 ? 89 ? 32 ? ?
Lenawee 99,000 10,700 23,900 883 ? 0 ? 27 ? ?
Livingston 158,500 18,600 42,500 743 ? 251 ? 30 ? ?
Macomb 790,900 74,200 178,500 2,268 ? 279 ? 422 ? ?
Marquette 64,600 5,900 12,700 433 ? 80 ? 24 ? ?
Midland 83,000 9,100 20,800 456 ? 18 ? 65 ? ?
Monroe 146,500 16,800 37,400 1,254 ? 168 ? 115 ? ?
Montcalm 61,400 6,800 15,400 320 ? 12 ? 56 ? ?
Muskegon 170,500 19,300 44,100 1,881 ? 24 ? 182 ? ?
Oakland 1,196,500 117,600 282,300 4,285 ? 175 ? 349 ? ?
Ottawa 239,500 27,200 64,500 2,983 ? 129 ? 133 ? ?
Saginaw 209,900 22,100 52,200 1,085 ? 22 ? 331 ? ?
St. Clair 164,700 17,900 41,200 224 ? 19 ? 12 ? ?
St. Joseph 62,500 7,000 16,100 98 ? 13 ? 19 ? ?
Shiawassee 71,700 7,700 17,900 470 ? 113 ? 92 ? ?
Tuscola 58,300 6,700 14,300 178 ? 16 ? 14 ? ?
Van Buren 76,400 9,000 20,000 815 ? 94 ? 52 ? ?
Washtenaw 324,500 27,200 67,700 1,479 ? 116 ? 148 ? ?
Wayne 2,059,500 219,300 541,400 5,412 ? 2,164 ? 5,425 ? ?
48 Small Counties 1,142,500 117,600 255,300 10,347 ? 1,625 ? 1,120 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 55,449 ? 7,228 ? 12,681 ? ?
Population Represented 9,956,100 1,030,900 2,432,300 1,030,900 ? 1,030,900 ? 2,432,300 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 53.79 ? 7.01 ? 5.21 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 83 ? 83 ? 83 ? ?
Minnesota ? 87 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Anoka 299,800 38,800 85,700 1,964 ? 938 ? ? ? ?
Blue Earth 55,900 5,700 11,700 533 ? 264 ? ? ? ?
Clay 51,300 6,100 12,600 587 ? 200 ? ? ? ?
Dakota 357,900 46,500 103,300 3,848 ? 1,834 ? ? ? ?
Hennepin 1,117,900 117,700 265,900 11,201 ? 7,064 ? ? ? ?
Olmsted 124,800 15,500 33,200 1,135 ? 850 ? ? ? ?
Otter Tail 57,200 7,300 14,000 436 ? 128 ? ? ? ?
Ramsey 511,500 58,200 129,400 4,293 ? 926 ? ? ? ?
Rice 56,800 6,900 14,100 417 ? 220 ? ? ? ?
St. Louis 200,400 22,200 44,100 2,208 ? 962 ? ? ? ?
Scott 91,100 11,500 28,000 866 ? 366 ? ? ? ?
Stearns 133,600 16,500 33,800 1,414 ? 709 ? ? ? ?
Washington 202,600 26,800 58,800 1,143 ? 297 ? ? ? ?
Wright 90,800 12,700 27,700 1,139 ? 387 ? ? ? ?
73 Small Counties 1,582,500 203,900 410,100 17,784 ? 8,012 ? ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 48,968 ? 23,157 ? ? ? ?
Population Represented 4,934,200 596,000 1,272,500 596,000 ? 596,000 ? ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 82.16 ? 38.85 ? ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 87 ? 87 ? ? ? ?
Missouri ? 115 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Boone 135,800 12,000 29,100 354 535 302 667 109 251 ?
Buchanan 86,000 8,400 19,500 149 641 129 699 127 96 ?
2000 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 2000 96
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Cape Girardeau 68,800 6,500 15,000 95 602 8 241 33 4 ?
Cass 82,600 9,400 21,900 79 444 52 457 21 18 ?
Clay 184,800 18,200 44,500 233 934 61 235 72 110 ?
Cole 71,500 6,800 16,100 101 508 52 462 199 255 ?
Franklin 94,100 10,400 23,800 116 594 52 301 376 0 ?
Greene 240,600 20,700 49,900 176 2,388 6 683 125 578 ?
Jackson 655,700 65,800 157,900 1,505 2,153 462 648 691 273 ?
Jasper 105,000 10,300 25,300 156 511 82 1,070 183 198 ?
Jefferson 198,800 22,200 51,300 225 1,167 96 621 106 24 ?
Platte 74,200 7,600 17,800 39 233 8 58 15 5 ?
St. Charles 286,200 32,800 77,400 604 2,338 171 1,105 142 36 ?
St. Francois 55,800 5,400 12,300 96 351 8 158 15 37 ?
St. Louis 1,016,500 103,300 237,100 1,526 6,568 231 3,483 913 493 ?
St. Louis City 346,900 33,900 82,700 980 3,451 156 1,262 928 264 ?
99 Small Counties 1,901,800 196,300 445,500 2,527 13,368 1,126 10,648 1,374 3,185 ?
Number of Reported Cases 8,961 36,786 3,002 22,798 5,429 5,827 ?
Population Represented 5,605,100 569,900 1,327,000 569,900 569,900 569,900 569,900 1,327,000 1,327,000 ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 15.73 64.55 5.27 40.01 4.09 4.39 ?
Number of Reporting Counties 115 115 115 115 115 115 ?
Montana ? 56 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Cascade 80,200 9,600 20,400 128 1,509 30 644 ? ? ?
Flathead 74,700 9,400 18,800 17 1,106 1 84 ? ? ?
Gallatin 68,300 6,800 14,500 55 361 3 29 ? ? ?
Missoula 96,100 10,300 21,400 207 958 39 433 ? ? ?
Yellowstone 129,600 15,000 32,300 208 1,147 0 0 ? ? ?
51 Small Counties 454,600 59,400 116,200 356 3,348 16 952 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 971 8,429 89 2,142 ? ? ?
Population Represented 903,400 110,500 223,600 110,500 110,500 110,500 110,500 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 8.78 76.25 0.81 19.38 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 56 56 56 56 ? ? ?
Nebraska ? 93 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Buffalo 42,300 4,900 10,400 165 ? 53 ? 64 ? ?
Dodge 36,200 4,200 8,800 60 ? 19 ? 45 ? ?
Douglas 464,600 54,200 122,100 1,039 ? 317 ? 609 ? ?
Hall 53,500 6,300 14,300 316 ? 64 ? 106 ? ?
Lancaster 251,200 25,800 58,500 1,088 ? 285 ? 1 ? ?
Sarpy 123,200 16,600 37,300 178 ? 73 ? 0 ? ?
Scotts Bluff 37,000 4,400 9,400 92 ? 31 ? 4 ? ?
86 Small Counties 705,300 90,800 183,400 1,715 ? 904 ? 353 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 4,653 ? 1,746 ? 1,182 ? ?
Population Represented 1,713,400 207,100 444,100 207,100 ? 207,100 ? 444,100 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 22.46 ? 8.43 ? 2.66 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 93 ? 93 ? 93 ? ?
Nevada ? 17 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Churchill 24,000 3,200 7,300 190 76 34 134 ? ? ?
Clark 1,393,800 154,300 375,400 2,589 6,439 232 3,118 ? ? ?
Douglas 41,500 5,400 10,400 179 463 5 133 ? ? ?
Elko 45,300 7,100 15,200 248 220 3 152 ? ? ?
Esmeralda 1,000 100 200 2 1 0 0 ? ? ?
Humboldt 15,900 2,400 5,200 37 73 0 81 ? ? ?
Mineral 5,000 700 1,200 48 33 11 14 ? ? ?
Storey 3,400 400 700 13 31 0 25 ? ? ?
2000 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 2000 97
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Washoe 341,400 39,000 89,300 2,042 3,119 159 2,247 ? ? ?
White Pine 9,000 1,100 2,200 9 52 0 14 ? ? ?
7 Small Counties 138,600 17,000 36,200 748 920 175 485 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 6,105 11,427 619 6,403 ? ? ?
Population Represented 2,018,800 230,600 543,400 230,600 230,600 230,600 230,600 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 26.48 49.56 2.68 27.77 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 17 17 17 17 ? ? ?
New Hampshire ? 10 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Cheshire 74,000 7,600 16,100 420 ? 140 ? 82 ? ?
Grafton 81,800 7,800 16,700 403 ? 112 ? 88 ? ?
Hillsborough 382,300 40,300 95,000 1,720 ? 369 ? 211 ? ?
Merrimack 136,700 14,400 32,100 693 ? 133 ? 68 ? ?
Rockingham 278,700 30,200 69,600 1,463 ? 228 ? 204 ? ?
Strafford 112,700 10,900 25,100 616 ? 138 ? 85 ? ?
4 Small Counties 174,200 17,700 37,800 1,134 ? 228 ? 208 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 6,449 ? 1,348 ? 946 ? ?
Population Represented 1,240,500 128,800 292,400 128,800 ? 128,800 ? 292,400 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 50.05 ? 10.46 ? 3.24 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 10 ? 10 ? 10 ? ?
New York ? 62 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 15
Albany 294,600 23,100 58,100 428 337 271 373 1,010 ? ?
Allegany 49,900 4,500 10,500 37 63 71 63 151 ? ?
Bronx 1,334,100 126,400 351,800 1,270 350 540 1,073 3,386 ? ?
Broome 200,300 16,400 40,300 178 179 176 202 295 ? ?
Cattaraugus 83,900 8,100 18,900 148 94 95 154 342 ? ?
Cayuga 81,900 7,500 17,700 107 ? 46 ? 137 ? ?
Chautauqua 139,600 12,200 29,500 231 ? 129 ? 210 ? ?
Chemung 91,000 7,900 19,300 132 12 179 48 255 ? ?
Chenango 51,400 4,900 11,600 48 69 42 31 96 ? ?
Clinton 79,900 6,700 15,800 35 54 22 118 156 ? ?
Columbia 63,100 5,600 13,000 46 63 64 101 348 ? ?
Dutchess 280,800 24,500 61,900 241 154 172 266 194 ? ?
Erie 949,400 80,000 201,300 942 566 646 1,063 1,132 ? ?
Fulton 55,000 4,800 11,700 50 45 96 52 362 ? ?
Genesee 60,300 5,600 13,600 70 31 53 36 85 ? ?
Herkimer 64,400 5,600 13,500 58 105 42 96 127 ? ?
Jefferson 111,500 9,600 26,000 172 100 91 170 204 ? ?
Kings 2,467,800 214,900 577,900 1,633 297 781 932 3,403 ? ?
Livingston 64,400 5,500 13,000 74 69 45 72 64 ? ?
Madison 69,400 6,200 14,900 31 79 111 36 163 ? ?
Monroe 735,800 65,600 165,700 750 393 462 197 633 ? ?
Montgomery 49,700 4,300 10,500 67 104 37 21 167 ? ?
Nassau 1,336,600 109,600 288,700 570 392 344 792 774 ? ?
New York 1,539,300 81,300 228,700 1,314 147 151 435 2,348 ? ?
Niagara 219,600 19,300 47,300 241 268 248 322 183 ? ?
Oneida 235,300 20,100 48,700 192 265 195 225 257 ? ?
Onondaga 458,500 40,700 104,000 1,143 423 484 318 662 ? ?
Ontario 100,400 9,000 22,200 82 131 26 94 98 ? ?
Orange 343,100 33,700 88,100 204 266 244 411 411 ? ?
Oswego 122,500 11,800 28,500 284 109 135 198 212 ? ?
Otsego 61,700 5,200 11,800 22 39 21 58 103 ? ?
Putnam 96,100 8,500 22,400 15 30 49 37 53 ? ?
Queens 2,231,800 162,600 443,200 1,123 294 485 469 2,320 ? ?
Rensselaer 152,600 12,900 32,300 216 96 284 220 236 ? ?
Richmond 445,500 37,800 99,600 307 64 142 144 430 ? ?
Rockland 287,500 26,700 70,600 97 68 113 106 307 ? ?
St. Lawrence 111,900 9,400 22,500 44 209 42 160 140 ? ?
Saratoga 201,500 17,200 44,200 137 140 206 75 326 ? ?
Schenectady 146,500 12,300 31,500 82 219 141 169 519 ? ?
Steuben 98,800 9,200 22,300 211 123 110 172 219 ? ?
Suffolk 1,424,300 121,700 328,500 1,134 579 652 727 2,220 ? ?
2000 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 2000 98
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Sullivan 74,100 6,500 15,900 108 3 107 3 192 ? ?
Tioga 51,800 5,100 12,100 97 16 33 21 185 ? ?
Tompkins 96,700 6,500 15,700 62 58 47 107 165 ? ?
Ulster 177,900 14,900 36,500 142 ? 212 ? 358 ? ?
Warren 63,300 5,500 13,100 34 50 81 67 42 ? ?
Washington 61,000 5,600 13,000 82 65 40 144 106 ? ?
Wayne 93,800 9,100 22,500 110 105 84 142 170 ? ?
Westchester 925,800 74,400 204,500 492 ? 324 ? 448 ? ?
13 Small Counties 463,600 40,600 96,200 432 504 424 421 737 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 15,725 7,827 9,595 11,141 27,141 ? ?
Population Represented 18,999,800 1,567,500 4,111,000 1,567,500 1,458,500 1,567,500 1,458,500 4,110,100 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 10.03 5.37 6.12 7.64 6.60 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 62 58 62 58 61 ? ?
North Carolina ? 100 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 15
Alamance 131,500 10,900 28,600 733 ? 40 ? 67 ? ?
Brunswick 73,800 5,600 14,100 269 ? 8 ? 94 ? ?
Buncombe 207,000 16,100 41,000 379 ? 195 ? 190 ? ?
Burke 89,300 7,500 19,300 236 ? 44 ? 113 ? ?
Cabarrus 132,200 11,600 31,100 373 ? 20 ? 60 ? ?
Caldwell 77,600 6,200 16,600 195 ? 42 ? 230 ? ?
Carteret 59,400 4,600 11,000 191 ? 8 ? 63 ? ?
Catawba 142,500 11,800 31,500 419 ? 137 ? 210 ? ?
Cleveland 96,600 8,400 22,200 250 ? 15 ? 136 ? ?
Columbus 54,800 4,900 12,400 104 ? 14 ? 27 ? ?
Craven 91,600 7,300 20,600 302 ? 110 ? 33 ? ?
Cumberland 302,800 27,800 78,100 1,470 ? 63 ? 625 ? ?
Davidson 147,600 12,300 32,500 431 ? 14 ? 326 ? ?
Durham 224,600 16,600 47,300 396 ? 82 ? 313 ? ?
Edgecombe 55,300 5,400 13,400 410 ? 9 ? 61 ? ?
Forsyth 306,900 24,600 67,100 893 ? 184 ? 218 ? ?
Gaston 190,700 16,200 42,800 623 ? 223 ? 177 ? ?
Guilford 422,400 33,900 91,500 1,437 ? 328 ? 257 ? ?
Halifax 57,300 5,500 13,400 184 ? 4 ? 63 ? ?
Harnett 91,600 8,200 22,600 441 ? 10 ? 84 ? ?
Henderson 89,600 6,500 16,900 181 ? 3 ? 109 ? ?
Iredell 123,600 10,600 28,800 368 ? 26 ? 127 ? ?
Johnston 123,400 10,100 29,500 267 ? 34 ? 194 ? ?
Lenoir 59,500 5,200 13,400 160 ? 20 ? 90 ? ?
Lincoln 64,100 5,600 14,500 241 ? 23 ? 58 ? ?
Mecklenburg 700,500 57,500 161,000 1,333 ? 1,155 ? 302 ? ?
Moore 75,200 6,000 15,000 252 ? 7 ? 105 ? ?
Nash 87,800 7,700 20,100 311 ? 89 ? 102 ? ?
New Hanover 160,700 11,500 30,600 936 ? 35 ? 368 ? ?
Onslow 150,200 12,100 36,700 523 ? 18 ? 146 ? ?
Orange 118,700 8,800 21,900 208 ? 9 ? 81 ? ?
Pitt 134,200 10,900 28,800 471 ? 3 ? 121 ? ?
Randolph 131,100 11,300 29,900 389 ? 144 ? 127 ? ?
Robeson 123,600 12,000 32,000 692 ? 116 ? 358 ? ?
Rockingham 92,000 7,500 19,500 476 ? 38 ? 44 ? ?
Rowan 130,700 11,400 29,300 271 ? 37 ? 189 ? ?
Rutherford 63,000 5,200 13,600 262 ? 34 ? 90 ? ?
Stanly 58,200 5,200 13,100 182 ? 65 ? 27 ? ?
Surry 71,200 5,700 15,200 258 ? 44 ? 89 ? ?
Union 125,600 11,700 32,500 543 ? 72 ? 129 ? ?
Wake 633,200 52,900 146,500 1,302 ? 147 ? 90 ? ?
Wayne 113,300 10,400 26,800 490 ? 133 ? 125 ? ?
Wilkes 65,800 5,000 13,500 269 ? 77 ? 228 ? ?
Wilson 73,900 6,400 17,000 395 ? 13 ? 120 ? ?
56 Small Counties 1,557,600 129,600 331,300 4,687 ? 756 ? 1,756 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 25,203 ? 4,648 ? 8,522 ? ?
Population Represented 8,082,300 672,200 1,794,400 672,200 ? 672,200 ? 1,794,400 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 37.49 ? 6.91 ? 4.75 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 100 ? 100 ? 100 ? ?
2000 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 2000 99
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
North Dakota ? 53 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Burleigh 69,500 8,000 16,500 91 572 48 588 0 15 ?
Cass 123,400 12,300 27,700 249 719 109 665 3 26 ?
Grand Forks 65,900 6,900 15,100 233 514 87 560 1 1 ?
Ward 58,600 6,600 14,900 112 396 59 441 12 0 ?
49 Small Counties 323,700 41,700 79,700 604 1,753 329 2,280 51 34 ?
Number of Reported Cases 1,289 3,954 632 4,534 67 76 ?
Population Represented 641,100 75,500 153,800 75,500 75,500 75,500 75,500 153,800 153,800 ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 17.08 52.40 8.37 60.08 0.44 0.49 ?
Number of Reporting Counties 53 53 53 53 53 53 ?
Ohio ? 88 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Allen 108,600 13,000 28,100 1,024 ? 313 ? 430 ? ?
Ashtabula 102,800 12,600 26,800 958 ? 550 ? 41 ? ?
Athens 62,400 5,300 11,300 322 ? 131 ? 83 ? ?
Belmont 70,100 7,600 15,100 763 ? 117 ? 42 ? ?
Butler 333,700 38,900 86,000 3,428 ? 738 ? 865 ? ?
Clark 144,600 16,700 36,200 2,253 ? 287 ? 412 ? ?
Clermont 178,600 22,100 49,500 1,521 ? 332 ? 102 ? ?
Columbiana 112,100 13,000 27,000 529 ? 144 ? 101 ? ?
Cuyahoga 1,392,300 155,000 345,000 4,795 ? 689 ? 2,464 ? ?
Darke 53,300 6,600 13,900 519 ? 46 ? 76 ? ?
Delaware 111,700 13,400 31,400 429 ? 155 ? 80 ? ?
Erie 79,600 9,400 19,700 1,904 ? 759 ? 163 ? ?
Fairfield 123,300 15,100 32,800 619 ? 76 ? 330 ? ?
Franklin 1,071,900 113,800 268,700 7,749 ? 1,636 ? 3,001 ? ?
Geauga 91,200 12,300 25,600 383 ? 77 ? 38 ? ?
Greene 148,200 16,800 35,300 1,495 ? 216 ? 133 ? ?
Hamilton 844,100 100,500 216,400 12,237 ? 3,593 ? 572 ? ?
Hancock 71,300 8,300 18,200 1,025 ? 277 ? 40 ? ?
Huron 59,600 7,600 16,700 527 ? 151 ? 120 ? ?
Jefferson 73,700 7,600 15,700 345 ? 163 ? 185 ? ?
Lake 227,600 25,500 54,700 1,959 ? 623 ? 293 ? ?
Lawrence 62,300 7,100 15,100 331 ? 210 ? 41 ? ?
Licking 145,900 17,400 37,800 1,218 ? 124 ? 510 ? ?
Lorain 285,200 33,400 74,800 2,593 ? 176 ? 752 ? ?
Lucas 454,900 53,900 119,300 4,166 ? 552 ? 261 ? ?
Mahoning 257,100 28,200 60,600 1,522 ? 205 ? 385 ? ?
Marion 66,100 7,600 16,000 1,964 ? 120 ? 246 ? ?
Medina 151,900 19,100 41,400 991 ? 142 ? 60 ? ?
Miami 99,000 12,200 25,500 1,443 ? 414 ? 227 ? ?
Montgomery 558,500 61,700 137,300 4,569 ? 731 ? 1,648 ? ?
Muskingum 84,700 10,100 22,000 942 ? 217 ? 136 ? ?
Portage 152,400 16,600 36,000 983 ? 148 ? 172 ? ?
Richland 128,800 14,900 31,900 2,624 ? 486 ? 203 ? ?
Ross 73,400 8,200 17,500 752 ? 565 ? 110 ? ?
Sandusky 61,800 7,700 16,100 784 ? 211 ? 140 ? ?
Scioto 79,100 9,200 19,200 557 ? 210 ? 85 ? ?
Seneca 58,600 7,300 15,200 1,043 ? 279 ? 112 ? ?
Stark 378,100 43,300 93,800 2,194 ? 422 ? 803 ? ?
Summit 543,600 60,700 135,500 3,717 ? 1,217 ? 530 ? ?
Trumbull 224,900 25,500 54,400 1,908 ? 782 ? 467 ? ?
Tuscarawas 91,000 10,800 22,900 641 ? 168 ? 38 ? ?
Warren 160,700 19,100 44,200 1,491 ? 346 ? 89 ? ?
Washington 63,200 7,000 14,700 444 ? 116 ? 21 ? ?
Wayne 111,700 14,300 30,400 770 ? 178 ? 87 ? ?
Wood 121,200 13,700 28,500 1,600 ? 214 ? 237 ? ?
43 Small Counties 1,488,600 184,000 390,900 15,338 ? 4,331 ? 1,797 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 99,369 ? 23,637 ? 18,728 ? ?
Population Represented 11,363,600 1,314,000 2,875,200 1,314,000 ? 1,314,000 ? 2,875,200 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 75.62 ? 17.99 ? 6.51 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 88 ? 88 ? 88 ? ?
2000 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 2000 100
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Oklahoma ? 77 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Canadian 88,200 11,900 24,300 186 109 5 ? ? ? ?
Carter 45,600 5,500 11,800 72 167 8 29 ? ? ?
Cherokee 42,700 5,200 11,000 134 270 21 76 ? ? ?
Cleveland 208,400 23,800 50,400 330 843 2 192 ? ? ?
Comanche 114,600 13,700 31,800 251 816 6 1,432 ? ? ?
Creek 67,600 8,700 18,200 41 130 1 5 ? ? ?
Garfield 57,700 6,600 14,300 144 96 6 4 ? ? ?
Grady 45,600 5,800 12,000 143 105 32 43 ? ? ?
Kay 48,000 5,800 12,400 151 152 ? 1 ? ? ?
Le Flore 48,200 5,800 12,400 25 88 ? 21 ? ? ?
Muskogee 69,500 8,100 17,700 160 151 52 140 ? ? ?
Oklahoma 661,700 73,600 167,500 2,369 2,805 135 95 ? ? ?
Osage 44,600 5,700 11,600 83 134 7 40 ? ? ?
Payne 68,300 6,000 13,100 148 148 22 15 ? ? ?
Pittsburg 44,000 5,000 10,200 82 129 1 4 ? ? ?
Pottawatomie 65,700 7,700 16,700 177 476 11 88 ? ? ?
Rogers 71,400 9,800 20,200 139 208 12 64 ? ? ?
Stephens 43,100 5,000 10,400 39 293 ? 19 ? ? ?
Tulsa 563,800 64,000 146,300 2,013 2,935 195 965 ? ? ?
Wagoner 57,700 7,500 16,000 79 199 33 21 ? ? ?
Washington 49,000 5,900 12,100 176 426 18 112 ? ? ?
56 Small Counties 949,400 115,400 240,500 1,748 3,455 113 723 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 8,690 14,135 680 4,089 ? ? ?
Population Represented 3,454,400 406,300 880,800 405,600 406,300 341,900 386,500 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 21.43 34.79 1.99 10.58 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 76 77 46 70 ? ? ?
Oregon ? 36 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Benton 78,200 8,300 16,800 ? ? ? ? ? ? 278
Clackamas 339,600 42,300 89,400 ? ? ? ? ? ? 1,321
Coos 62,700 7,200 13,800 ? ? ? ? ? ? 771
Deschutes 116,600 13,800 29,000 ? ? ? ? ? ? 559
Douglas 100,500 12,100 24,200 ? ? ? ? ? ? 653
Jackson 181,800 21,400 44,700 ? ? ? ? ? ? 1,267
Josephine 75,900 8,700 17,600 ? ? ? ? ? ? 580
Klamath 63,900 7,800 16,600 ? ? ? ? ? ? 829
Lane 323,400 35,600 74,600 ? ? ? ? ? ? 1,222
Linn 103,000 12,500 26,900 ? ? ? ? ? ? 704
Marion 285,700 34,700 78,600 ? ? ? ? ? ? 2,412
Multnomah 661,600 64,500 149,900 ? ? ? ? ? ? 3,124
Polk 62,700 7,700 16,000 ? ? ? ? ? ? 445
Umatilla 70,700 8,800 19,600 ? ? ? ? ? ? 646
Washington 448,500 50,900 121,600 ? ? ? ? ? ? 1,249
Yamhill 85,300 10,700 23,000 ? ? ? ? ? ? 936
20 Small Counties 371,200 45,800 93,000 ? ? ? ? ? ? 3,708
Number of Reported Cases ? ? ? ? ? ? 20,704
Population Represented 3,431,100 392,800 855,000 ? ? ? ? ? ? 392,800
Rates for Reporting Counties ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties ? ? ? ? ? ? 36
Pennsylvania ? 67 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Adams 91,600 10,900 22,600 246 59 ? ? ? ? ?
Allegheny 1,280,000 129,900 278,500 3,515 828 ? ? ? ? ?
Armstrong 72,300 8,000 16,400 98 81 ? ? ? ? ?
Beaver 181,200 19,500 40,700 355 117 ? ? ? ? ?
Bedford 50,000 5,500 11,600 36 4 ? ? ? ? ?
Berks 374,500 42,200 91,500 1,293 273 ? ? ? ? ?
Blair 129,000 13,800 29,000 262 104 ? ? ? ? ?
Bradford 62,800 7,700 15,800 94 20 ? ? ? ? ?
Bucks 599,400 71,700 152,500 1,644 564 ? ? ? ? ?
Butler 174,600 19,500 42,500 315 42 ? ? ? ? ?
2000 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 2000 101
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Cambria 152,200 15,400 31,700 669 14 ? ? ? ? ?
Carbon 58,800 6,400 12,900 122 119 ? ? ? ? ?
Centre 136,000 11,200 24,200 209 1 ? ? ? ? ?
Chester 435,800 51,700 113,100 1,848 1,209 ? ? ? ? ?
Clearfield 83,400 9,000 18,700 160 64 ? ? ? ? ?
Columbia 64,100 6,500 13,200 82 63 ? ? ? ? ?
Crawford 90,400 10,700 22,100 186 21 ? ? ? ? ?
Cumberland 214,000 22,000 46,600 224 369 ? ? ? ? ?
Dauphin 251,800 27,800 61,000 1,298 160 ? ? ? ? ?
Delaware 551,100 63,400 135,500 1,661 0 ? ? ? ? ?
Erie 280,700 32,700 69,900 948 234 ? ? ? ? ?
Fayette 148,500 15,800 33,500 162 223 ? ? ? ? ?
Franklin 129,500 14,200 30,900 353 129 ? ? ? ? ?
Indiana 89,500 9,200 18,600 162 5 ? ? ? ? ?
Jefferson 45,900 5,300 10,700 53 16 ? ? ? ? ?
Lackawanna 212,900 22,100 45,900 349 123 ? ? ? ? ?
Lancaster 471,700 56,500 124,700 1,065 401 ? ? ? ? ?
Lawrence 94,600 10,400 21,700 155 51 ? ? ? ? ?
Lebanon 120,400 13,100 28,300 249 60 ? ? ? ? ?
Lehigh 312,600 34,500 74,500 1,089 25 ? ? ? ? ?
Luzerne 318,600 32,400 66,200 498 155 ? ? ? ? ?
Lycoming 119,900 13,500 27,800 440 46 ? ? ? ? ?
McKean 45,800 5,200 10,700 107 14 ? ? ? ? ?
Mercer 120,200 13,600 28,000 140 64 ? ? ? ? ?
Mifflin 46,500 5,300 11,400 33 0 ? ? ? ? ?
Monroe 139,800 18,300 37,300 299 48 ? ? ? ? ?
Montgomery 752,100 82,300 180,000 976 415 ? ? ? ? ?
Northampton 267,500 29,600 61,900 451 258 ? ? ? ? ?
Northumberland 94,500 10,400 20,500 261 203 ? ? ? ? ?
Philadelphia 1,514,000 171,600 377,000 10,888 0 ? ? ? ? ?
Schuylkill 150,100 15,100 30,900 166 199 ? ? ? ? ?
Somerset 80,000 8,700 17,600 126 14 ? ? ? ? ?
Venango 57,500 6,900 13,800 110 4 ? ? ? ? ?
Warren 43,800 5,200 10,500 113 7 ? ? ? ? ?
Washington 203,000 20,900 44,700 343 161 ? ? ? ? ?
Westmoreland 369,800 38,900 80,400 752 0 ? ? ? ? ?
York 382,700 43,700 93,600 780 397 ? ? ? ? ?
20 Small Counties 621,000 71,200 145,300 1,156 231 ? ? ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 36,541 7,595 ? ? ? ? ?
Population Represented 12,286,100 1,359,600 2,896,300 1,359,600 1,359,600 ? ? ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 26.88 5.59 ? ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 ? ? ? ? ?
Rhode Island ? 1 State
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
State Total 1,050,700 110,800 243,500 ? ? ? ? ? ? 8,201
Number of Reported Cases ? ? ? ? ? ? 8,201
Population Represented 1,050,700 110,800 243,500 ? ? ? ? ? ? 110,800
Rates for Reporting State ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Number of Reporting States ? ? ? ? ? ? 1
South Carolina ? 46 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Aiken 142,800 14,600 34,100 396 328 55 49 ? ? ?
Anderson 166,300 15,600 37,600 506 441 0 0 ? ? ?
Beaufort 122,000 10,400 26,200 125 200 12 11 ? ? ?
Berkeley 143,000 16,000 36,800 332 585 161 101 ? ? ?
Charleston 310,700 28,600 67,700 841 1,731 34 101 ? ? ?
Darlington 67,500 6,600 16,200 131 154 54 50 ? ? ?
Dorchester 96,800 11,600 25,700 167 350 76 31 ? ? ?
Florence 125,800 13,000 29,700 119 657 13 225 ? ? ?
Greenville 381,100 35,300 86,200 428 984 135 240 ? ? ?
Greenwood 66,300 6,400 15,400 153 300 49 33 ? ? ?
Horry 198,000 16,100 38,600 600 1,096 113 94 ? ? ?
Lancaster 61,400 6,000 14,300 99 307 1 59 ? ? ?
2000 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 2000 102
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Laurens 69,700 7,000 16,100 115 214 43 30 ? ? ?
Lexington 216,900 21,900 52,000 396 883 233 76 ? ? ?
Oconee 66,400 5,900 13,900 58 144 4 14 ? ? ?
Orangeburg 91,600 9,500 21,500 336 352 164 38 ? ? ?
Pickens 111,100 9,400 22,700 172 175 77 5 ? ? ?
Richland 321,400 30,200 71,100 910 253 71 20 ? ? ?
Spartanburg 254,400 24,000 58,000 519 583 200 72 ? ? ?
Sumter 104,800 11,400 26,900 107 311 6 94 ? ? ?
York 165,700 17,100 40,000 327 636 6 424 ? ? ?
25 Small Counties 740,100 76,700 175,800 1,519 2,310 618 593 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 8,356 12,994 2,125 2,360 ? ? ?
Population Represented 4,023,700 393,200 926,600 393,200 393,200 393,200 393,200 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 21.25 33.04 5.40 6.00 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 46 46 46 46 ? ? ?
South Dakota ? 66 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Beadle 17,000 2,100 4,100 81 12 16 3 ? ? ?
Brookings 28,300 2,700 5,800 38 11 16 8 ? ? ?
Brown 35,400 3,800 8,200 94 61 39 36 ? ? ?
Codington 25,900 3,200 6,800 112 75 29 2 ? ? ?
Davison 18,700 2,200 4,600 65 30 42 16 ? ? ?
Hughes 16,500 2,300 4,500 33 57 17 46 ? ? ?
Lawrence 21,800 2,600 4,900 51 12 22 12 ? ? ?
Lincoln 24,500 3,300 7,200 95 20 29 6 ? ? ?
Meade 24,200 3,200 6,800 77 0 16 0 ? ? ?
Minnehaha 149,000 17,200 38,600 840 339 421 259 ? ? ?
Pennington 88,800 11,000 23,400 544 5 203 6 ? ? ?
Yankton 21,600 2,600 5,500 123 20 60 42 ? ? ?
54 Small Counties 284,100 39,700 79,100 640 165 192 315 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 2,793 807 1,102 751 ? ? ?
Population Represented 755,800 95,700 199,500 95,700 95,700 95,700 95,700 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 29.19 8.43 11.52 7.85 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 66 66 66 66 ? ? ?
Tennessee ? 95 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Anderson 71,300 7,800 16,400 408 22 120 31 1 0 ?
Blount 106,200 11,100 24,100 110 77 49 40 4 1 ?
Bradley 88,200 9,100 20,700 61 658 31 488 0 2 ?
Carter 56,800 5,600 12,100 455 18 288 18 40 3 ?
Davidson 570,100 52,800 126,000 4,841 1,900 810 1,115 1,105 1,405 ?
Greene 63,000 6,400 13,900 246 242 115 37 20 7 ?
Hamblen 58,200 5,900 13,500 211 211 63 102 37 9 ?
Hamilton 308,000 32,800 71,000 769 1,722 841 525 70 164 ?
Knox 382,800 37,700 84,900 1,176 608 188 281 444 19 ?
Madison 92,000 10,500 23,600 643 107 86 269 0 0 ?
Maury 69,700 8,600 18,200 739 73 293 42 34 21 ?
Montgomery 135,400 15,900 38,800 484 624 187 258 11 5 ?
Putnam 62,500 6,200 13,800 532 198 116 90 18 7 ?
Rutherford 183,400 20,800 48,400 902 296 429 59 0 0 ?
Sevier 71,700 7,500 16,400 435 351 168 123 27 23 ?
Shelby 898,400 110,700 250,000 10,684 10 4,385 1 1,581 0 ?
Sullivan 152,900 15,300 33,100 504 624 146 282 173 51 ?
Sumner 131,100 16,100 34,300 989 303 553 241 16 68 ?
Washington 107,500 10,100 22,800 388 277 160 138 22 25 ?
Williamson 128,100 17,600 37,500 486 176 365 54 16 15 ?
Wilson 89,300 10,700 23,300 380 81 115 94 25 27 ?
74 Small Counties 1,876,400 207,000 449,200 10,012 2,586 4,858 2,027 742 351 ?
Number of Reported Cases 35,455 11,164 14,366 6,315 4,386 2,203 ?
Population Represented 5,703,200 626,400 1,391,800 626,400 626,400 626,400 626,400 1,391,800 1,391,800 ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 56.60 17.82 22.94 10.08 3.15 1.58 ?
Number of Reporting Counties 95 95 95 95 95 95 ?
2000 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 2000 103
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Texas ? 254 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Anderson 55,100 4,700 10,900 106 79 28 22 ? ? ?
Angelina 80,300 8,800 21,100 159 177 5 6 ? ? ?
Bell 239,000 25,600 67,400 567 526 15 276 ? ? ?
Bexar 1,398,000 155,500 380,300 1,725 2,246 78 503 ? ? ?
Bowie 89,300 9,000 21,100 94 553 0 134 ? ? ?
Brazoria 243,300 27,700 66,500 754 834 16 328 ? ? ?
Brazos 152,800 12,500 31,200 701 608 116 171 ? ? ?
Cameron 336,900 43,500 108,100 895 523 31 200 ? ? ?
Collin 500,000 52,700 139,200 538 499 27 155 ? ? ?
Comal 78,800 8,800 19,200 142 215 23 64 ? ? ?
Coryell 75,200 7,400 19,400 100 114 1 48 ? ? ?
Dallas 2,226,800 232,300 594,900 4,117 4,167 12 1,092 ? ? ?
Denton 438,900 45,900 117,500 1,101 329 134 121 ? ? ?
Ector 120,700 14,800 34,700 212 519 1 2 ? ? ?
Ellis 112,500 14,500 32,400 196 126 1 7 ? ? ?
El Paso 681,900 84,800 207,500 1,736 898 0 4 ? ? ?
Fort Bend 359,000 49,000 109,200 794 529 91 66 ? ? ?
Galveston 250,800 27,100 63,900 1,044 398 12 115 ? ? ?
Grayson 111,000 11,600 26,800 154 368 1 69 ? ? ?
Gregg 111,300 12,000 28,300 432 350 22 83 ? ? ?
Guadalupe 89,900 10,600 24,400 250 479 15 103 ? ? ?
Harris 3,416,800 375,600 945,600 9,301 3,597 13 4,902 ? ? ?
Harrison 62,100 7,200 15,800 179 73 59 14 ? ? ?
Hays 99,000 10,100 23,000 256 357 6 84 ? ? ?
Henderson 73,600 7,400 17,100 210 116 8 34 ? ? ?
Hidalgo 574,200 75,200 193,000 719 833 61 222 ? ? ?
Hunt 77,000 8,600 19,500 216 177 4 65 ? ? ?
Jefferson 251,700 26,500 61,800 372 811 8 156 ? ? ?
Johnson 128,000 15,500 35,300 398 223 37 198 ? ? ?
Kaufman 72,200 8,900 20,100 106 163 0 22 ? ? ?
Liberty 70,600 8,000 18,700 46 152 2 48 ? ? ?
Lubbock 242,900 24,600 59,500 965 648 107 141 ? ? ?
McLennan 214,000 23,100 54,300 812 649 19 223 ? ? ?
Midland 115,500 14,700 33,100 386 588 0 5 ? ? ?
Montgomery 297,600 35,500 84,100 465 773 17 157 ? ? ?
Nacogdoches 59,200 5,700 13,600 121 77 1 102 ? ? ?
Nueces 313,400 35,200 84,500 832 1,341 91 968 ? ? ?
Orange 85,000 9,700 22,000 173 192 11 97 ? ? ?
Parker 89,300 10,800 23,400 105 175 3 187 ? ? ?
Potter 113,700 11,900 30,600 275 564 21 287 ? ? ?
Randall 104,700 11,200 26,000 282 168 30 79 ? ? ?
San Patricio 67,300 8,500 19,900 179 242 1 163 ? ? ?
Smith 175,400 18,800 44,500 645 262 42 42 ? ? ?
Tarrant 1,454,900 158,000 393,200 4,282 2,464 285 541 ? ? ?
Taylor 126,500 13,600 32,300 266 532 2 12 ? ? ?
Tom Green 104,000 11,100 25,800 422 450 44 142 ? ? ?
Travis 820,100 71,500 187,600 1,665 2,808 52 248 ? ? ?
Victoria 84,000 10,000 23,200 183 899 28 203 ? ? ?
Walker 61,700 4,300 10,400 78 96 1 2 ? ? ?
Webb 194,800 25,500 67,200 619 749 19 208 ? ? ?
Wichita 131,400 13,000 31,600 390 506 1 23 ? ? ?
Williamson 255,000 29,500 73,800 560 544 14 115 ? ? ?
202 Small Counties 3,268,300 370,800 835,500 6,490 8,100 450 3,351 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 47,815 43,866 2,066 16,610 ? ? ?
Population Represented 20,955,200 2,318,500 5,649,800 2,318,500 2,318,500 2,318,500 2,318,500 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 20.62 18.92 0.89 7.16 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 254 254 254 254 ? ? ?
Utah ? 29 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Cache 91,700 12,000 28,200 614 459 133 1,011 59 1 ?
Davis 240,300 37,600 83,300 1,601 1,294 266 948 255 18 ?
Salt Lake 900,800 117,900 270,400 7,789 4,339 1,973 1,774 762 9 ?
Utah 370,900 50,600 124,400 2,784 1,744 1,155 739 291 36 ?
2000 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 2000 104
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Washington 91,200 12,400 28,000 637 821 418 448 72 1 ?
Weber 197,400 26,400 60,200 1,663 1,700 425 1,058 726 8 ?
23 Small Counties 351,000 54,800 116,500 2,866 2,401 1,409 1,948 468 8 ?
Number of Reported Cases 17,954 12,758 5,779 7,926 2,633 81 ?
Population Represented 2,243,400 311,700 711,000 311,700 311,700 311,700 311,700 711,000 711,000 ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 57.60 40.93 18.54 25.43 3.70 0.11 ?
Number of Reporting Counties 29 29 29 29 29 29 ?
Vermont ? 14 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Chittenden 147,000 15,800 33,800 413 ? 37 ? 180 ? ?
Rutland 63,400 7,300 14,300 182 ? 34 ? 35 ? ?
Washington 58,100 6,600 13,300 159 ? 26 ? 32 ? ?
Windsor 57,500 6,800 13,000 146 ? 7 ? 56 ? ?
10 Small Counties 284,000 34,600 69,300 876 ? 112 ? 195 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 1,776 ? 216 ? 498 ? ?
Population Represented 610,000 71,100 143,700 71,100 ? 71,100 ? 143,700 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 24.98 ? 3.04 ? 3.47 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 14 ? 14 ? 14 ? ?
Virginia ? 134 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Albemarle 79,600 9,200 19,800 323 105 59 28 ? ? ?
Arlington 189,400 12,200 31,400 752 19 66 75 ? ? ?
Augusta 65,800 7,500 15,600 299 9 41 22 ? ? ?
Chesterfield 261,000 35,500 73,700 1,879 1,065 34 526 ? ? ?
Fairfax 975,600 109,500 248,900 280 20 31 28 ? ? ?
Fauquier 55,600 7,200 14,900 276 0 12 0 ? ? ?
Hanover 87,000 11,100 23,500 443 63 60 11 ? ? ?
Henrico 263,300 28,200 64,900 1,719 463 190 48 ? ? ?
Henry 57,900 6,200 12,900 258 174 21 53 ? ? ?
Loudoun 174,000 19,500 52,300 750 64 29 72 ? ? ?
Montgomery 83,800 6,400 14,300 286 17 48 7 ? ? ?
Pittsylvania 61,800 6,900 14,200 259 43 61 13 ? ? ?
Prince William 283,900 37,700 87,400 1,902 444 118 6 ? ? ?
Roanoke 85,800 9,400 19,500 592 47 47 182 ? ? ?
Rockingham 67,800 7,800 16,700 231 5 59 0 ? ? ?
Spotsylvania 91,600 12,600 27,600 801 77 115 71 ? ? ?
Stafford 93,600 13,700 29,800 803 245 54 44 ? ? ?
Alexandria City 129,200 7,700 21,800 547 115 152 69 ? ? ?
Chesapeake City 200,500 27,200 57,800 1,492 79 12 10 ? ? ?
Danville City 48,300 5,200 11,100 407 262 24 77 ? ? ?
Hampton City 146,500 16,300 35,600 938 429 38 162 ? ? ?
Lynchburg City 65,200 6,600 14,500 640 45 89 61 ? ? ?
Newport News City 180,100 21,100 49,900 1,373 146 159 74 ? ? ?
Norfolk City 234,500 23,500 56,500 1,649 482 382 259 ? ? ?
Portsmouth City 100,400 11,400 25,700 915 15 46 55 ? ? ?
Richmond City 197,500 18,000 42,700 2,013 423 172 204 ? ? ?
Roanoke City 94,800 8,900 21,500 891 244 15 104 ? ? ?
Suffolk City 64,200 8,200 17,900 385 0 7 2 ? ? ?
Virginia Beach City 426,700 53,400 118,300 2,034 26 100 27 ? ? ?
105 Small Counties 2,240,500 239,700 508,300 13,846 1,617 1,992 1,142 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 38,703 6,723 4,202 3,404 ? ? ?
Population Represented 7,105,900 787,700 1,749,000 678,200 678,200 678,200 678,200 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 57.07 9.91 6.20 5.02 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 133 133 133 133 ? ? ?
Washington ? 39 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Benton 143,100 19,900 42,100 866 1,456 91 817 55 ? ?
Chelan 66,700 8,700 18,400 435 477 41 234 31 ? ?
Clallam 64,700 7,100 14,000 215 580 68 683 41 ? ?
Clark 347,600 44,000 99,200 1,258 1,823 100 494 89 ? ?
Cowlitz 93,000 11,500 24,600 502 865 88 756 90 ? ?
2000 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 2000 105
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Grant 75,000 10,800 23,700 687 823 112 285 32 ? ?
Grays Harbor 67,200 8,400 17,100 234 810 59 540 104 ? ?
Island 71,800 8,300 18,300 219 563 34 263 28 ? ?
King 1,739,100 174,200 390,400 4,264 1,887 271 220 840 ? ?
Kitsap 232,500 29,300 62,600 858 1,365 78 188 220 ? ?
Lewis 68,600 9,000 18,000 276 443 31 232 109 ? ?
Pierce 704,000 87,800 193,500 2,023 3,706 58 322 338 ? ?
Skagit 103,500 12,800 26,900 511 777 34 104 36 ? ?
Snohomish 609,200 75,300 166,300 1,766 2,898 59 1,925 450 ? ?
Spokane 418,700 50,200 107,100 172 3,301 1 781 361 ? ?
Thurston 208,400 25,400 52,800 1,193 924 98 640 87 ? ?
Walla Walla 55,300 6,400 13,400 238 281 34 66 50 ? ?
Whatcom 167,600 18,700 40,100 1,087 616 25 255 44 ? ?
Yakima 222,800 30,800 69,800 1,264 1,838 74 506 267 ? ?
20 Small Counties 452,700 55,800 114,500 1,444 2,331 292 1,284 383 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 19,512 27,764 1,648 10,595 3,655 ? ?
Population Represented 5,911,800 694,200 1,512,600 686,100 686,100 686,100 686,100 1,512,600 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 28.44 40.46 2.40 15.44 2.42 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 36 36 36 36 39 ? ?
West Virginia ? 55 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Berkeley 76,400 9,000 19,700 82 99 4 75 ? ? ?
Cabell 96,700 8,700 19,300 554 177 4 0 ? ? ?
Harrison 68,600 7,400 15,700 86 78 16 25 ? ? ?
Kanawha 199,700 19,300 42,400 460 520 50 83 ? ? ?
Marion 56,500 5,500 11,600 88 46 41 151 ? ? ?
Mercer 62,900 5,900 13,100 88 293 0 92 ? ? ?
Monongalia 81,900 6,700 14,900 5 65 12 87 ? ? ?
Ohio 47,300 4,800 10,000 94 213 9 150 ? ? ?
Raleigh 79,100 8,000 16,900 140 95 88 99 ? ? ?
Wood 87,900 9,500 20,100 101 370 1 301 ? ? ?
45 Small Counties 950,300 103,200 215,400 1,213 857 576 908 ? ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 2,911 2,813 801 1,971 ? ? ?
Population Represented 1,807,300 188,100 399,100 188,100 188,100 188,100 188,100 ? ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 15.48 14.95 4.26 10.48 ? ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 55 55 55 55 ? ? ?
Wyoming ? 23 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Albany 31,800 2,600 5,700 20 ? 9 ? 12 ? ?
Campbell 34,000 5,200 10,300 47 ? 7 ? 21 ? ?
Carbon 15,600 1,900 3,600 33 ? 8 ? 19 ? ?
Fremont 35,800 4,800 9,500 28 ? 2 ? 12 ? ?
Laramie 81,700 9,600 20,900 148 ? 53 ? 44 ? ?
Natrona 66,600 8,200 17,000 115 ? 17 ? 47 ? ?
Park 25,800 3,200 6,200 88 ? 6 ? 27 ? ?
Sheridan 26,600 3,300 6,300 39 ? 34 ? 18 ? ?
Sweetwater 37,500 5,300 10,600 167 ? 44 ? 23 ? ?
Uinta 19,700 3,300 6,400 95 ? 6 ? 11 ? ?
13 Small Counties 118,900 15,300 29,700 213 ? 35 ? 51 ? ?
Number of Reported Cases 993 ? 221 ? 285 ? ?
Population Represented 494,100 62,700 126,200 62,700 ? 62,700 ? 126,200 ? ?
Rates for Reporting Counties 15.85 ? 3.53 ? 2.26 ? ?
Number of Reporting Counties 23 ? 23 ? 23 ? ?
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 106
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Alabama
Source: State of Alabama, 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.
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: Automated data file
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: California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center
Mode: Automated data file (delinquency and status cases)
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed. Delinquency data provided for all counties except Alameda,
Alpine, Amador, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Kings, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Mono, Nevada, Plumas,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Sonoma, Ventura,
Yolo, and Yuba.
2. Status figures are cases disposed. Status offense data provided for all counties except Alameda, Alpine,
Amador, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Kings, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Mono, Nevada, Plumas,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Sonoma, Ventura,
Yolo, and Yuba.
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 2000 for the following counties:
Alpine, Amador, Del Norte, Kings, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Riverside, San
Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Sonoma, Yolo, and Yuba.
2. Status figures are cases disposed with a petition in calendar year 2000 for the following counties: Alpine,
Amador, Del Norte, Kings, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Riverside, San Luis
Obispo, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Sonoma, Yolo, and Yuba.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed with a petition in calendar year 2000. 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.
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.
Table Notes
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 107
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, 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 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 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: Ventura County Probation 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 2000 Annual Report: Statistical Supplement
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitioned case filings for fiscal year 2000. 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 2000.
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. Juvenile venue districts established by the state report data.
Delaware
Source: State of Delaware Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: 2000 Statistical Report
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are filings in calendar year 2000.
2. There is no statute on status offenders in this state; therefore, the court handles no status offense cases.
3. Dependency figures are filings in calendar year 2000.
District of Columbia
Source: Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Mode: JCS survey form
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
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
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 108
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
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 2000, 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. On October 1, 1994, Juvenile Justice separated from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
to become the Department of Juvenile Justice.
Georgia
Source: Judicial Council of Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: AOC Research Review, Caseload of the Georgia Courts 2000
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 2000.
2. Status figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 2000.
3. Dependency figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 2000.
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 2000 Annual Report Appendix
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are reported with delinquency cases.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
Illinois
Source: Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, Probation Services Division
Mode: 2000 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.
Illinois: Cook County
Source: Juvenile Court of Cook County
Mode: Automated data file (delinquency cases)
Data: Delinquency cases are cases disposed.
Indiana
Source: Supreme Court of Indiana, Division of State Court Administration
Mode: 2000 Indiana Judicial Service Report, Volume II (petitioned); and 2000 Indiana Judicial Service Report,
Probation Report (nonpetitioned)
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 109
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Iowa
Source: State Court Administrator
Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are the number of petitions.
2. Dependency, which consists of CINA and FINA figures, are the number of petitions.
Kansas
Source: Supreme Court of Kansas, Office of Judicial Administration
Mode: Annual Report of the Courts of Kansas
Data: Total figures are filings in the care of children for fiscal year 2000.
Louisiana
Source: Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of Louisiana
Mode: 2000 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 Orleans Parish include juvenile felony, misdemeanor, and status offense cases referred
through an administrative remedy process.
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 2000
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 Suffolk and Essex Counties are incomplete because the units of count 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.
5. A charge is a single count alleged in a juvenile complaint.
Michigan
Source: State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Supreme Court
Mode: Michigan?s One Court of Justice 2000 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.
Minnesota
Source: Minnesota Supreme Court Information System
Mode: Automated data file
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
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.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 110
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
Montana
Source: Montana Board of Crime Control
Mode: Automated data file
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 cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
4. In Douglas County, only those cases processed through the county attorney?s office were reported.
Nevada
Source: Division of Child 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 juvenile filings.
2. Status figures are juvenile filings.
3. Dependency figures are juvenile filings.
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
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 2000.
2. Status figures are offenses alleged in juvenile petitions during fiscal year 2000.
3. Dependency figures are conditions alleged in juvenile petitions during fiscal year 2000. 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, 2000
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petition terminations.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 111
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, by County
2. Status figures are unruly petition terminations.
3. Dependency figures include dependency, neglect, and abuse petition terminations.
Oklahoma:
Source: Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs
Mode: Statistical pages supplied to NCJJ
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 2000 Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Disposition
Report, due to differing units of count.
Rhode Island
Source: Administrative Office of State Courts
Mode: Report on the Judiciary 2000
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 2000 112
Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court Cases Disposed in 2000, 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 Court Administration
Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are 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.
4. Data for 2000 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 Superior Court 2000 Annual Caseload Report
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2 Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Franklin County reports with Benton County.
4. King County reports only delinquency data that contribute to an individual?s criminal history record
information.
5. Differences in data entry practices among the juvenile courts may contribute to variations in the data.
6. Dependency figures are cases disposed. They may include dependency, termination of parent/child relationship,
truancy, at-risk youth, and alternative residential placement cases
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 2000 Caseload Statistics
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitions filed.
2. Status figures are petitions filed.
3. Dependency figures are petitions filed.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000 113
Delinquency
Adjudication
Age, 42
Gender, 42
Offense, 39?43
Race, 43
Trends, 39?43
Age
Adjudication, 42
Case flow diagram, 56
Case rates, 9?11, 15?17, 21?23
Detention, 28
Gender, 15?17
Manner of handling, 32
Offense, 9?11, 15?17, 21?23, 28, 32, 36,
42, 46, 50
Placement, 46
Probation, 50
Race, 21?23
Trends, 9, 11, 16, 17, 22, 23, 28, 32, 36,
42, 46, 50
Waiver, 36
Case counts
Case flow diagrams, 52, 54?59
Detention, 26
Gender, 12
Manner of handling, 30, 31
Offense, 6, 7, 12, 18, 26, 30, 31, 34, 38?40,
44, 48
Placement, 44
Probation, 48
Race, 18, 38
Trends, 6, 7, 12, 18, 26, 30, 32, 38, 40,
44, 48
Waiver, 34, 38
Case flow diagrams, 52?63
Age, 56
Gender, 57
Offense, 54, 55, 60?63
Race, 58, 59
Case rates
Age, 9?11, 15?17, 21?23
Gender, 14?17
Offense, 8, 10, 11, 14?17, 20?23
Race, 20?23
Trends, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23
Detention
Age, 28
Case counts, 26
Gender, 28
Offense, 26, 27
Race, 27, 29
Trends, 26?29
Gender
Adjudication, 42
Age, 15?17
Case counts, 12
Case flow diagram, 57
Case rates, 14?17
Detention, 28
Manner of handling, 32
Offense, 12?17, 28, 32, 36, 42, 46, 50
Placement, 46
Probation, 50
Trends, 12?14, 16, 17, 28, 32, 36, 42,
46, 50
Waiver, 36
Manner of handling (petitioned,
nonpetitioned)
Age, 32
Case counts, 30, 31
Gender, 32
Offense, 30?33
Race, 33
Trends, 30?33, 39
Offense
Adjudication, 39?43
Age, 9?11, 15?17, 21?23, 28, 32, 36, 42,
46, 50
Case counts, 6, 7, 12, 18, 26, 30, 31, 34,
38?40, 44, 48
Case flow diagrams, 54, 55, 60?63
Case rates, 8, 10, 11, 14?17, 20?23
Detention, 26, 27
Gender, 12?17, 28, 32, 36, 42, 46, 50
Manner of handling, 30?33
Placement, 44?47
Probation, 48?51
Race, 18?23, 29, 33, 37, 38, 43, 47, 51
Source of referral, 24
Trends, 6?9, 11?14, 16?20, 22?24, 26?38,
40?51
Waiver, 34?38
Petitioned and nonpetitioned, see
Manner of handling
Placement (out-of-home)
Age, 46
Case counts, 44
Gender, 46
Offense, 44?47
Race, 47
Trends, 44?47
Probation
Age, 50
Case counts, 48
Gender, 50
Offense, 48?51
Race, 51
Trends, 48?51
Race
Adjudication, 43
Age, 21?23
Case counts, 18, 38
Case flow diagram, 58, 59
Case rates, 20?23
Detention, 27, 29
Manner of handling, 33
Offense, 18?23, 29, 33, 37, 38, 43, 47, 51
Placement, 47
Probation, 51
Trends, 18?20, 22, 23, 29, 33, 37, 38, 43,
47, 51
Waiver, 37, 38
Source of referral, 24
Transfer to criminal court, see Waiver
Trends
Adjudication, 39?43
Age, 9, 11, 16, 17, 22, 23, 28, 32, 36,
42, 46, 50
Case counts, 6, 7, 12, 18, 26, 30, 32, 38,
40, 44, 48
Case rates, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23
Detention, 26?29
Gender, 12?14, 16, 17, 28, 32, 36, 42, 46, 50
Manner of handling, 30?33, 39
Offense, 6?9, 11?14, 16?20, 22?24,
26?38, 40?51
Placement, 44?47
Probation, 48?51
Race, 18?20, 22, 23, 29, 33, 37, 38, 43,
47, 51
Source of referral, 24
Waiver, 34?38
Waiver
Age, 36
Case counts, 34, 38
Gender, 36
Offense, 34?38
Race, 37, 38
Trends, 34?38
Status Offense
Adjudication
Age, 70
Gender, 70
Offense, 70
Race, 70
Age
Adjudication, 70
Detention, 68
Offense, 66, 68, 70, 71
Placement, 71
Probation, 71
Case flow diagram, 72
Detention
Age, 68
Gender, 69
Offense, 68, 69
Race, 69
Gender
Adjudication, 70
Detention, 69
Offense, 67, 69?71
Placement, 71
Probation, 71
Offense
Adjudication, 70
Age, 66, 68, 70, 71
Case flow diagram, 72
Detention, 68, 69
Gender, 67, 69?71
Placement, 71
Probation, 71
Race, 67, 69?71
Placement (out-of-home)
Age, 71
Gender, 71
Offense, 71
Race, 71
Probation
Age, 71
Gender, 71
Offense, 71
Race, 71
Race
Adjudication, 70
Detention, 69
Offense, 67, 69?71
Placement, 71
Probation, 71
Index of Tables and Figures

The Briefing Book is a comprehensive online resource describing various topics
related to delinquency and the juvenile justice system, including the latest
information on juveniles living in poverty, teen birth rates, juvenile victims of
violent crime, trends in juvenile arrest rates, and youth in residential placement
facilities. The Briefing Book is also a repository for more detailed presentations of
juvenile court data than are found in the annual Juvenile Court Statistics report.
Under the ?Juveniles in Court? section of the Statistical Briefing Book users will find
the latest statistical information on trends in the volume of cases handled by the
nation?s juvenile courts and the court?s response (e.g., detention, adjudication, and
disposition decisions) to these cases. Juvenile court data are displayed in an easy-toread,
ready-to-use format, using tables and graphs.
The Briefing Book?s ?Juveniles in Court? section includes an interactive tool that
describes how specific types of delinquency cases typically flow through the juvenile
justice system. Annual summaries are available from 1985 to present for more than
25 offense categories, and include separate presentations for males and females.
OJJDP?s Statistical
Briefing Book online
The State Juvenile Justice Profiles web site features rich, descriptive
information regarding the laws, policies, and practices of each state?s
juvenile justice system, with links to individuals and agencies in the
field. National overviews summarize information across states.
State Juvenile Justice Profiles
ncjj.org/stateprofiles/
ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/

Share this SparkAction Link: click here to shorten
copy http://sparkaction.org/node/30729
0 Comments
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

connect

get weekly updates

Spark Tweets