Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002
Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002
Juvenile Court Statistics 2001-2002
Statistics 2001–2002
The National Juvenile Court
Data Archive online
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/njcda/
◆ 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 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.
Juvenile Court
Statistics
2001–2002
Report
Anne L. Stahl
Charles Puzzanchera
Anthony Sladky
Terrence A. Finnegan
Nancy Tierney
Howard N. Snyder
Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General
Regina B. Schofield
Assistant Attorney General
J. Robert Flores
Administrator
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
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 2005, National Center for Juvenile Justice, 3700 South Water Street, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA,
15203–2363. ISSN 0091–3278.
Suggested citation: Stahl, Anne L., Charles Puzzanchera, Anthony Sladky, Terrence A. Finnegan, Nancy
Tierney, and Howard N. Snyder. 2005. Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002. 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.
Foreword
The Nation’s juvenile courts play a critical role in the response to juvenile
crime and the problems of offenders, victims, and the community. When
responding to delinquent behavior, the courts become significantly involved in
the lives of juveniles, and the impact of these interventions can last a lifetime.
Although courts do impose sanctions, they also provide the necessary
resources to increase the youth's competency to cope and succeed. The pur-
pose of the juvenile court is not only to protect society but also to afford juve-
nile offenders opportunities to develop into functioning members of society.
Juvenile Court Statistics 2001–2002 profiles more than 1.6 million delinquency
cases handled by courts with juvenile jurisdiction in 2002 and describes trends
since 1985. It also includes state- and county-level data for both 2001 and 2002.
The data in this report provide a detailed portrait of the juvenile court and a
frame of reference for 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
This is the 75th report in the Juvenile courts participating in the reporting
Court Statistics series. It describes the series. The Children’s Bureau (within
delinquency and status offense cases the U.S. Department of Labor) tabu-
handled between 1985 and 2002 by lated the information on each card,
U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction.1 including age, gender, and race of the
National estimates of juvenile court juvenile; the reason for referral; the
delinquency caseloads in 2002 were manner of dealing with the case; and
based on analyses of 1,047,793 auto- the final disposition of the case. Dur-
mated case records and court-level ing the 1940s, however, the collection
statistics summarizing an additional of case-level data was abandoned be-
69,633 cases. Status offense case pro- cause of its high cost. From the 1940s
files were based on 18 years of peti- until the mid-1970s, Juvenile Court
tioned status offense case records, Statistics reports were based on the
including 2002 data submitted on simple, annual case counts reported
101,812 automated case-level records to the Children’s Bureau by partici-
and court-level summary statistics on pating courts.
an additional 14,665 cases. The data
used in the analyses were contribut- In 1957, the Children’s Bureau initiat-
ed to the National Juvenile Court Da- ed a new data collection design that
ta Archive by more than 2,000 courts enabled the Juvenile Court Statistics
with jurisdiction over 75% of the juve- series to develop statistically sound,
nile population in 2002. national estimates. The Children’s Bu-
reau, which had been transferred to
The first Juvenile Court Statistics re- the U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
port was published in 1929 by the tion, and Welfare (HEW), developed a
U.S. Department of Labor and de- probability sample of more than 500
scribed cases handled by 42 courts courts. Each court in the sample was
during 1927. During the next decade, asked to submit annual counts of de-
Juvenile Court Statistics reports were linquency, status offense, and depen-
based on statistics cards completed dency cases. This design proved diffi-
for each delinquency, status offense, cult to sustain as courts began to
and dependency case handled by the drop out of the sample. At the same
time, a growing number of courts out-
side the sample began to compile
1 This Report is a combined edition for 2001 comparable statistics. By the late
and 2002. The national estimates and analy- 1960s, HEW ended the sample-based
ses focus on 2002, but the state- and county- effort and returned to the policy of
level caseload statistics in appendix C are collecting annual case counts from
presented separately for 2001 and 2002. any court able to provide them. The
Juvenile Court Statistics series, how- by HEW to ensure reporting continu- court activity—the original objective
ever, continued to generate national ity, NCJJ also began to investigate of the Juvenile Court Statistics series.
estimates based on data from these methods of improving the quality and
nonprobability samples. detail of national statistics. A critical The project’s transition from using
innovation was made possible by the annual case counts to analyzing auto-
The Office of Juvenile Justice and De- proliferation of computers during the mated case-level data was completed
linquency Prevention (OJJDP) be- 1970s. As NCJJ asked agencies across with the production of Juvenile Court
came responsible for Juvenile Court the country to complete the annual Statistics 1984. For the first time since
Statistics following the passage of the juvenile court statistics form, some the 1930s, Juvenile Court Statistics
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- agencies began offering to send the contained detailed, case-level de-
vention Act of 1974. In 1975, OJJDP automated case-level data collected scriptions of the delinquency and sta-
awarded the National Center for Juve- by their management information sys- tus offense cases handled by U.S. ju-
nile Justice (NCJJ) a grant to continue tems. NCJJ learned to combine these venile courts. This case-level detail
the report series. Although NCJJ automated records to produce a de- continues to be the emphasis of the
agreed to use procedures established tailed national portrait of juvenile reporting series.
Introduction
In other communities, the juvenile mon framework. In order to analyze Adjudication. At the adjudicatory
court is not involved in delinquency and present data about juvenile court hearing, a juvenile may be adjudicat-
or status offense matters until anoth- activities in diverse jurisdictions, the ed (judged) a delinquent or status
er agency (e.g., the prosecutor’s of- Archive strives to fit the processing offender, and the case would then
fice or a social service agency) has characteristics of all jurisdictions into proceed to a disposition hearing. Al-
first screened the case. In other the following general model: ternatively, a case can be dismissed
words, the intake function is per- or continued in contemplation of
formed outside the court, and some Intake. Referred cases are first dismissal. In these cases, the court
matters are diverted to other agen- screened by an intake department (ei- often recommends that the juvenile
cies without the court ever handling ther within or outside the court). The take some actions prior to the final
them. Status offense cases, in particu- intake department may decide to dis- adjudication decision, such as paying
lar, tend to be diverted from court miss the case for lack of legal suffi- restitution or voluntarily attending
processing in this manner. ciency or to resolve the matter for- drug counseling.
mally or informally. Informal (i.e.,
Since its inception, Juvenile Court nonpetitioned) dispositions may in- Disposition. At the disposition hear-
Statistics has adapted to the changing clude a voluntary referral to a social ing, the juvenile court judge deter-
structure of juvenile court processing service agency, informal probation, or mines the most appropriate sanction,
nationwide. As court processing be- the payment of fines or some form of generally after reviewing a predisposi-
came more diverse, the JCS series voluntary restitution. Formally han- tion report prepared by a probation
broadened its definition of the juve- dled cases are petitioned and sched- department. The range of options
nile court to incorporate other uled for an adjudicatory or waiver available to a court typically includes
agencies that perform what can ge- hearing. commitment to an institution; place-
nerically be considered juvenile court ment in a group or foster home or
functions. In some communities, data Judicial Waiver. The intake depart- other residential facility; probation
collection has expanded to include ment may decide that a case should (either regular or intensive supervi-
departments of youth services, child be removed from juvenile court and sion); referral to an outside agency,
welfare agencies, and prosecutors’ of- handled instead in criminal (adult) day treatment, or mental health pro-
fices. In other communities, this ex- court. In such cases, a petition is usu- gram; or imposition of a fine, commu-
pansion has not been possible. There- ally filed in juvenile court asking the nity service, or restitution.
fore, while there is extensive coverage juvenile court judge to waive jurisdic-
in the JCS series of formally handled tion over the case. The juvenile court Detention. A juvenile may be placed
delinquency cases and adequate cov- judge decides whether the case mer- in a detention facility at different
erage of informally handled delin- its criminal prosecution.1 When a points as a case progresses through
quency cases, the coverage of status waiver request is denied, the matter the juvenile justice system. Detention
offense cases is limited and is not suf- is usually scheduled for an adjudica- practices also vary from jurisdiction
ficient to support the generation of tory hearing in the juvenile court. to jurisdiction. A judicial decision to
national estimates. For this reason, detain or continue detention may oc-
JCS reports present national estimates Petitioning. If the intake department cur before or after adjudication or
of the volume and trends in delinquen- decides that a case should be han- disposition. This Report includes
cy cases, but present only sample- dled formally within the juvenile only those detention actions that
based profiles of formally processed court, a petition is filed and the case result in a juvenile being placed in a
status offense cases and do not pres- is placed on the court calendar (or restrictive facility under court author-
ent any information on informally docket) for an adjudicatory hearing. ity while awaiting the outcome of the
handled status offense cases. (Sub- A small number of petitions are dis- court process. This Report does not
national analyses of these cases are missed for various reasons before an include detention decisions made by
available from the National Juvenile adjudicatory hearing is actually held. law enforcement officials prior to
Court Data Archive [the Archive].) court intake or those occurring after
the disposition of a case (e.g., tempo-
Juvenile Court Processing 1Mechanisms of transfer to criminal court rary holding of a juvenile in a deten-
vary by state. In some states, a prosecutor tion facility until a facility for the
has the authority to file juvenile cases that court-ordered placement is
Any attempt to describe juvenile
meet specified criteria directly in criminal
court caseloads at the national level available).
court. This Report, however, includes only
must be based on a generic model of cases that were initially under juvenile court
court processing to serve as a com- jurisdiction and were transferred as a result
of judicial waiver.
Data Quality (UCR) Program is limited by necessi- population in 2002. The weighting
ty to a small number of relatively procedures that generate national es-
Juvenile Court Statistics relies on the broad offense codes. The UCR offense timates from this sample control for
secondary analysis of data originally code for larceny-theft combines many factors: the size of a communi-
compiled by juvenile courts or juve- shoplifting with a number of other ty; the demographic composition of
nile justice agencies to meet their larcenies. Thus, the data are useless its juvenile population; the volume of
own information and reporting needs. for studies of shoplifting. In compari- cases referred to the reporting
Although these incoming data files son, many of the Archive’s data sets courts; the age, gender, and race of
are not uniform across jurisdictions, are sufficiently detailed to enable a the juveniles involved; the offense
they are likely to be more detailed researcher to distinguish offenses characteristics of the cases; the
and accurate than data files compiled that are often combined in other courts’ responses to the cases (man-
by local jurisdictions merely comply- reporting series—shoplifting can be ner of handling, detention, adjudica-
ing with a mandated national report- distinguished from other larcenies, tion, and disposition); and the nature
ing program. joyriding from motor vehicle theft, of each court’s jurisdictional respon-
and armed robbery from unarmed sibilities (i.e., upper age of original
The heterogeneity of the contributed robbery. The diversity of these cod- jurisdiction).
data files greatly increases the com- ing structures allows researchers to
plexity of the Archive’s data process- construct data sets that contain the Structure of the Report
ing tasks. Contributing jurisdictions detail demanded by their research
collect and report information using designs. Chapters 2 and 3 of this Report pre-
their own definitions and coding cate- sent national estimates of delinquency
gories. Therefore, the detail reported Validity of the Estimates cases handled by the juvenile courts
in some data sets is not contained in in 2002 and also analyze caseload
others. Even when similar data ele- The national delinquency estimates trends from 1985. Chapter 2 describes
ments are used, they may have incon- presented in this Report were gener- the volume and rate of delinquency
sistent definitions or overlapping ated with data from a large nonproba- cases, sources of referral, demo-
coding categories. The Archive re- bility sample of juvenile courts. graphic characteristics of the juve-
structures contributed data into stan- Therefore, statistical confidence in niles involved (age, gender, and race),
dardized coding categories in order the estimates cannot be mathemati- and offenses charged. Chapter 3
to combine information from multiple cally determined. Although statistical traces the flow of delinquency cases
sources. The standardization process confidence would be greater if a prob- through the courts, examining each
requires an intimate understanding of ability sampling design were used, decision point (i.e., detention, intake
the development, structure, and con- the cost of such an effort has long decision, judicial decision, and judi-
tent of each data set received. Code- been considered prohibitive. Second- cial disposition) and including data
books and operation manuals are ary analysis of available data is the by demographic characteristics and
studied, data suppliers interviewed, best practical alternative for develop- offense. Together, these two chapters
and data files analyzed to maximize ing an understanding of the Nation’s provide a detailed national portrait of
the understanding of each informa- juvenile courts.2 delinquency cases.
tion system. Every attempt is made to
ensure that only compatible informa- National estimates for 2002 are based Chapter 4 presents a sample-based
tion from the various data sets is on analyses of individual case records profile of status offense cases formal-
used in standardized data files. from nearly 1,900 courts and aggre- ly handled by the juvenile courts
gate court-level data on cases from between 1985 and 2002. It includes
While the heterogeneity of the data more than 200 additional courts. data on demographic characteristics,
adds complexity to the development Together, these courts had jurisdic- offenses charged, and case processing.
of a national data file, it has proven to tion over 75% of the U.S. juvenile
be valuable in other applications. The Appendix A describes the statistical
diversity of the data stored in the Na- procedure used to generate these es-
2 For more detailed analyses of the JCS
tional Juvenile Court Data Archive en- timates. Readers are encouraged to
ables the data to support a wider national estimates and their accuracy, see:
Jeffrey A. Butts and Howard N. Snyder. 1995.
consult appendix B for definitions of
range of research efforts than would A Study to Assess the Validity of the National key terms used throughout the Re-
a uniform, and probably more gener- Estimates Developed for the Juvenile Court port. Few terms in the field of juve-
al, data collection form. For example, Statistics Series. Pittsburgh, PA: National nile justice have widely accepted defi-
the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Center for Juvenile Justice. nitions. The terminology used in this
(FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reporting Report has been carefully developed
to communicate the findings of the system, the Archive’s data files are has been limited to runaway, truancy,
work as precisely as possible without available to policymakers, research- ungovernability, and liquor law viola-
sacrificing applicability to multiple ers, and students. In addition to na- tion cases only. The total petitioned
jurisdictions. tional data files, state and local data status offense analyses in this Report
can be provided to researchers. With include miscellaneous offenses,
Appendix C presents a detailed table the assistance of Archive staff, re- which are not analyzed independent-
showing the number of delinquency, searchers can merge selected files for ly, to provide an overall description
status offense, and dependency cases cross-jurisdictional and longitudinal of formally handled status offense
handled by juvenile courts in 2001 analyses. Upon request, project staff cases.
and 2002, by state and county. Table are also available to perform special
notes, at the end of the appendix, in- analyses of the Archive’s data files. Other Sources of Juvenile Court
dicate the source of the data and the Data
unit of count. Because courts report Researchers are encouraged to ex-
their statistical data using various plore the National Juvenile Court Data With support from OJJDP, NCJJ has
units of count (e.g., cases disposed, Archive Web site at ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ developed two Web-based data analy-
offenses referred, petitions), the read- ojstatbb/njcda/ for a summary of Ar- sis and dissemination applications
er is cautioned against making cross- chive holdings and procedures for that provide access to the data used
jurisdictional comparisons before data access. Researchers may also for this Report. The first of these
studying the table notes. contact the Archive directly at applications, Easy Access to Juvenile
412–227–6950. Court Statistics 1985–2002, was
This Report utilizes a format that developed to facilitate independent
combines tables, figures, and text Changes Introduced in This analysis of the national delinquency
highlights for presentation of the Report estimates presented in this Report
data. A detailed index of tables and while eliminating the need for statisti-
figures appears at the end of the A 2001 version of Juvenile Court cal analysis software. The second ap-
Report. Statistics was not produced separate- plication, Easy Access to State and
ly. This Report is a combined edition County Juvenile Court Case Counts, is a
Data Access for 2001 and 2002. The national esti- Web-based version of the information
mates and analyses focus on 2002, presented in appendixes C and D of
The data used in this Report are but the state- and county-level case- this Report. This application presents
stored in the National Juvenile Court load statistics in appendix C are pre- annual counts of the delinquency, sta-
Data Archive at NCJJ in Pittsburgh, sented separately for 2001 and 2002. tus, and dependency cases processed
PA. The Archive contains the most in juvenile courts, by state and coun-
detailed information available on This Report includes descriptions of ty. Both applications are available
juveniles involved in the juvenile jus- total petitioned status offense cases from OJJDP’s Statistical Briefing Book
tice system and on the activities of handled by courts with juvenile juris- at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/
U.S. juvenile courts. Designed to facil- diction. In recent years, the descrip- index.html.
itate research on the juvenile justice tion of petitioned status offense cases
National Estimates of
Delinquency Cases
Delinquency offenses are acts com- number of cases for every 1,000 juve-
mitted by juveniles that, if committed niles in the population—those age 10
by an adult, could result in criminal or older who were under the jurisdic-
prosecution. This chapter documents tion of a juvenile court.1
the volume of delinquency cases
referred to juvenile court and exam- The chapter focuses on cases dis-
ines the characteristics of these posed in 2002 and examines trends
cases, including types of offenses since 1985.
charged, demographic characteris-
tics of the juveniles involved (age,
gender, and race), and sources of
1 The upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction
referral.
is defined by statute in each state. See
appendix B, the “Glossary of Terms,” for a
Analysis of case rates permits com- more detailed discussion on upper age of ju-
parisons of juvenile court activity venile court jurisdiction. Case rates present-
over time while controlling for differ- ed in this Report control for state variations
ences in the size and demographic in juvenile population.
characteristics of the juvenile popu-
lation. Rates are calculated as the
■ In 2002, courts with juvenile jurisdic- Between 1960 and 2002, juvenile court delinquency caseloads
tion handled an estimated 1,615,400 increased nearly 300%; in the last 5 years, caseloads have declined 8%
delinquency cases.
Delinquency cases
■ In 1960, approximately 1,100 delin-
2,000,000
quency cases were processed daily.
In 2002, juvenile courts handled 1,800,000
about 4,400 delinquency cases per 1,600,000
day. Total delinquency
1,400,000
■ The number of delinquency cases 1,200,000
processed by juvenile courts 1,000,000
increased 41% between 1985 and
2002. 800,000
600,000
■ Between its peak year 1997 and
400,000
2002, the delinquency caseload
declined 11%. 200,000
0
■ The number of drug law violation 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02
cases increased 159% between 1985
and 2002, while both person and
public order offense cases increased
113%. In comparison, property
offense cases decreased 10% during
this period. Between 1985 and 2002, delinquency caseloads involving person,
■ Public order offense cases accounted drug, and public order offenses more than doubled; in contrast, the
for nearly half (46%) of the growth in property offense caseload decreased 10%
the delinquency caseload between Number of cases Number of cases
1985 and 2002. Person offense 400,000 1,000,000
cases made up another 44% of the 800,000
increased number of delinquency 300,000
Person Property
cases processed during this time 600,000
200,000
period. 400,000
100,000 200,000
Offense profile of delinquency
0 0
cases: 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Most serious
offense 1985 2002 Number of cases Number of cases
250,000 500,000
Person 16% 24%
Property 61 39 200,000 400,000
Drugs Public order
Drugs 7 12 150,000 300,000
Public order 17 25
100,000 200,000
Total 100% 100%
50,000 100,000
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding. 0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ Compared with 1985, a much smaller
proportion of the court’s delinquency
caseload in 2002 was property
offenses.
In recent years, the number of cases handled by juvenile courts has ■ Compared with 1993, juvenile courts
decreased for most offense categories handled 110% more drug law viola-
tion cases in 2002, 93% more
Percent change obstruction of justice cases, 92%
Most serious Number of cases more liquor law violation cases, 56%
1993– 1998– 2001–
more disorderly conduct cases, and
offense 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002
52% more simple assault cases.
Total delinquency 1,620,800 1,615,400 6% –8% 0%
Total person 388,000 387,500 19 –2 0 ■ Between 1998 and 2002, caseloads
Criminal homicide 1,500 1,700 –40 –19 11 dropped in several offense
Forcible rape 5,000 4,700 –29 –9 –7 categories, including stolen property
Robbery 22,000 21,500 –38 –28 –2 offenses (31%), robbery (28%), bur-
Aggravated assault 49,400 47,400 –34 –21 –4 glary (23%), aggravated assault
Simple assault 270,000 270,700 52 4 0 (21%), trespassing (20%), larceny-
Other violent sex offenses 13,800 16,400 39 30 19 theft (20%), motor vehicle theft
Other person offenses 26,200 25,200 22 –1 –4 (20%), and criminal homicide (19%).
Total property 628,100 624,900 –25 –20 –1
Burglary 101,000 100,000 –33 –23 –1 ■ Trends in juvenile court cases paral-
Larceny–theft 286,500 284,400 –24 –20 –1 leled trends in arrests of persons
Motor vehicle theft 37,500 38,500 –39 –20 3 younger than 18. The number of juve-
Arson 8,300 8,100 5 –4 –3 nile court cases involving offenses
Vandalism 94,900 94,800 –20 –16 0 included in the FBI's Violent Crime
Trespassing 50,600 50,800 –20 –20 0 Index2 (criminal homicide, forcible
Stolen property offenses 23,600 22,100 –29 –31 –6 rape, robbery, and aggravated
Other property offenses 25,900 26,200 –9 –14 1 assault) declined 23% between 1998
Drug law violations 201,500 193,200 110 1 –4 and 2002. The FBI reported that the
Public order offenses 403,200 409,800 52 7 2 number of arrests involving persons
Obstruction of justice 187,100 182,600 93 7 –2 younger than age 18 charged with
Disorderly conduct 97,600 108,500 56 25 11 Violent Crime Index offenses
Weapons offenses 36,500 35,900 –24 –17 –1 decreased 17% during this same
Liquor law violations 26,500 28,200 92 20 6 period.
Nonviolent sex offenses 15,300 15,500 45 25 1
Other public order offenses 40,200 39,000 19 –19 –3 ■ Between 1998 and 2002, the volume
Violent Crime Index* 78,000 75,300 –35 –23 –3 of juvenile court cases involving
Property Crime Index offenses (bur-
Property Crime Index** 433,200 431,000 –27 –21 –1
glary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle
* Includes criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. theft, and arson) declined 21%, and
** Includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. the FBI reported arrests of persons
under age 18 for Property Crime
Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Percent change calculations are Index offenses decreased 23%.
based on unrounded numbers.
Case Rates
■ More than 31 million youth were Delinquency case rates rose from 43.6 to 62.2 per 1,000 juveniles
under juvenile court jurisdiction in between 1985 and 1996 and then steadily declined to 51.6 in 2002
2002. Of these youth, 8 in 10 (80%)
were between the ages of 10 and 15,
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
12% were age 16, and 8% were age
17. The small proportion of 16- and 70
17-year-olds among the juvenile court
60
population is related to the upper age
of juvenile court jurisdiction, which Total delinquency
50
varies by state. In 2002, youth age 16
in 3 states were under the original 40
jurisdiction of the criminal court, as
were youth age 17 in an additional 10 30
states.
20
■ In 2002, juvenile courts processed
51.6 delinquency cases for every 10
1,000 juveniles in the population—
those age 10 or older who were 0
under the jurisdiction of a juvenile 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
court.
Age at Referral
In 2002, juveniles younger than age 16 accounted for more than half ■ In 2002, 58% of all delinquency
of all delinquency cases, including nearly two-thirds of person cases processed by the juvenile
offense cases courts involved youth age 15 or
younger at the time of referral.
Percent of cases involving juveniles younger than age 16 ■ The proportion of cases involving
70% juveniles age 15 or younger varied by
Person
● Property ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
offense: younger juveniles accounted
60% ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● for a smaller proportion of drug and
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ public order cases than of person
◆ ◆ ◆
50% ◆ ◆
◆ Public order and property offense cases.
40% ■ With the exception of 10- and 11-
Drugs year-olds, age-specific case rates in
30% 2002 were above the rates in 1985;
however, in the 5 years between
20% 1998 and 2002, age-specific case
rates dropped 12% on average.
10%
Age at Referral
■ Although comparable numbers of 17- In 2002, delinquency case rates increased with the referral age of
year-olds and 16-year-olds were the juvenile
arrested in 2002, the number of juve-
nile court cases involving 17-year-
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
olds (271,600) was lower than the
number involving 16-year-olds 120
109.1
(376,900). The explanation lies pri- 102.9
marily in the fact that, in 13 states, 100
17-year-olds are excluded from the 84.3
original jurisdiction of the juvenile 80
court. In these states, all 17-year- 63.2
olds are legally adults and are 60
referred to criminal court rather than
to juvenile court. Thus, far fewer 17- 39.2
40
year-olds than 16-year-olds are
subject to original juvenile court 20.4
jurisdiction. 20
9.3
4.6
■ In 2002, the case rate for 16-year- 0
olds was 1.6 times the rate for 14- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
year-olds, and the rate for 14-year- Age
olds was 3.1 times the rate for
12-year-olds.
■ For cases involving person offenses, Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
the case rate for 17-year-olds (21.4) 40
● ●
was nearly double the rate for 13-
year-olds (11.6). 35
Property ●
■ For public order offenses in 2002, the 30 Public order ◆
◆
case rate for 17-year-olds was more 25 ●
than 3 times the rate for 13-year-olds ◆ Person
and the property offense case rate 20
for 17-year-olds was more than dou- ● ◆
ble the rate for 13-year-olds. 15
Drugs
10 ● ◆
5 ● ◆
● ◆
0◆
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age
Age at Referral
Trends in case rates were generally similar across age groups between 1985 and 2002 for each general
offense category
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
25 60
Age 16 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 16 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
◆ ◆ Age 17 ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ 50 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ Age 17 ◆
20 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
◆ ● ● ●
● ● ◆
● ● ● ● 40 ● ● ● ◆ ◆
● ● ● ●
15 ● ● Ages 13–15 ●
◆ ● ● ●
◆ ◆ ● ● ●
◆ ◆ Ages 13–15 ●
● 30 ●
●
● ● ●
10 ● ●
● ● 20
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ Across age groups, person offense case rates were ■ Property offense case rates peaked for all age groups
considerably higher in 2002 than in 1985. For exam- in 1991 and then generally declined through 2002. On
ple, in 2002, the case rate for juveniles ages 10–12 average, between 1991 and 2002, property offense
was 104% above the rate in 1985 and the rate for case rates fell across all age groups almost 40%.
juveniles ages 13–15 was 94% above the rate in
■ Property offense case rates were lower in 2002 than in
1985.
1985 for all age groups.
■ Person offense case rates were lower in 2002 than
in 1998 for all age groups.
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
25 30 ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
◆ ◆
Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆ 25 ◆
20 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆
◆ Age 16
20 Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
15 ◆
◆ ● ●
Age 16 15 ● ● ● ● ●
◆ ◆ Ages 13–15 ● ●
10 ◆ ◆ ◆ ●
●
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Ages 13–15 10 ● ●
● ●
● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
5 ●
5
● ● ● ● ● ● ● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
● ●
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ In 2002, drug offense case rates were 136% higher ■ Public order offense case rates nearly doubled for
than the rates in 1985 for juveniles ages 10–12, 124% each age group between 1985 and 1998 and, with the
higher for juveniles ages 13–15, 132% higher for 16- exception of juveniles ages 10-12, have remained rela-
year-olds, and 135% higher for youth age 17. tively constant at that level through 2002.
■ Drug offense case rates more than doubled for each ■ Between 1998 and 2002, public order offense case
age group between 1991 and 1997 and have remained rates increased nearly 20% for juveniles ages 10–12.
near the 1997 level through 2002 for each age group.
*Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving youth ages 10–12 for drug offenses and public order offenses, their case rates are
inflated by a factor of 5 to display the trend over time.
Gender
■ Overall, the female delinquency Between 1985 and 2002, the number of delinquency cases involving
caseload grew at an average rate of females increased 92% (from 220,600 to 423,100 cases); for males
4% per year between 1985 and the increase was 29% (from 925,200 to 1,192,300 cases)
2002, while the average rate
increase was 2% per year for males.
Number of cases
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the relative 1,400,000
increase in the female caseload out- Delinquency
paced that of the male caseload for 1,200,000
person offenses (202% vs. 91%), Male
1,000,000
public order offenses (171% vs.
97%), and drug offenses (171% vs.
800,000
156%).
600,000
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the male
property caseload decreased 19%,
400,000
while the number of property offense Female
cases involving females increased 200,000
27%.
0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Number of cases
700,000 ● ● ● ● ●
Male ● ●
●
600,000 ● ● ● ● ●
● Property
●
500,000 ●
● ●
400,000
300,000 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Person ◆
◆ ◆
◆
200,000 ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Public order
100,000
Drugs
0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Number of cases
250,000
Female
200,000 ● ● ●
Property ● ●
● ● ● ● ●
● ●
150,000 ●
● ● ● ●
●
◆ ◆
100,000 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
Person ◆
◆ Public order
◆
◆
50,000 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Drugs
0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Gender
The proportion of the delinquency caseload involving females ■ Females accounted for 20% of per-
increased from 19% in 1985 to 26% in 2002 son offense cases for each year
between 1985 and 1991. Between
1991 and 2002, the female proportion
Percent of cases involving females of the person offense caseload has
30% steadily increased to 28%.
25%
Offense profiles of delinquency
cases for males and females:
20% Most serious
Delinquency offense Male Female
15% 2002
Person 23% 26%
10% Property 39 39
Drugs 13 8
Public order 25 27
5%
Total 100% 100%
0% 1985
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Person 16% 16%
Property 61 59
Drugs 7 6
Public order 16 19
Gender
■ Overall, trends in delinquency case Although delinquency case rates are much higher for males than
rates revealed similar patterns for females, female rates increased more or decreased less than the
males and females. For both groups, male rates between 1985 and 2002
the case rate increased from 1985
into the mid-1990s. For males, the Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
rate increased 36% to its peak in
1996 then fell 21% by 2002. The 100
Delinquency
female rate grew 72% between 1985 90
and 1997 then dropped just 6% 80
through 2002. Male
70
■ Male and female delinquency case 60
rates converged between 1985 and
50
2002. In 1985, the delinquency case
rate for males was almost 4 times 40
greater than the rate for females; by 30
2002, the male rate was less than 3
20
times the female rate—74.3 Female
compared with 27.7. 10
0
■ For all years, the largest gender dis- 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
parity in offense-specific case rates
was for drug offenses. In 2002, the
drug offense case rate for males was Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
more than 4 times greater than the 60
rate for females. Male
● ●
50
■ Between 1998 and 2002, male case ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ●
rates declined for each of the four ●
Property ●
40 ●
general offense categories.
●
●
■ In contrast to male case rates, 30 ● ●
between 1998 and 2002, female case
rates increased for drug and public 20 Person ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
order offenses, remained relatively ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
unchanged for person offenses, and 10 ◆ Public order
declined less than male rates for Drugs
property offenses.
0
■ In 2002, female person offense case 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
rates were at their highest level since
1998, while male rates fell 8% Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
between 1998 and 2002.
16
Female
■ As female property offense case 14 ● ● ●
●
rates decreased 16% between 1998 ● ● ● ●
and 2002, rates for males decreased 12 ● ●
● ●
Property ● ● ●
26%. ● ●
10 ●
Gender
In 2002, the delinquency case rate for females peaked at age 16 while ■ Delinquency case rates generally
the male case rate increased through age 17 increased with age, but the increase
was more pronounced for females
than for males. In 2002, the average
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
female case rate increase from one
180 age group to the next was 77%, com-
163.8
160 150.3 pared with a 59% average increase
for males.
140
118.9 ■ The difference between male and
120
female delinquency case rates was
100 86.8 greatest for the youngest and oldest
80 age groups. In 2002, for youth ages
13 and 14, the male delinquency
60 53.7 53.0 51.2 case rate was about twice the female
48.1
38.5 rate; for 10-year-olds, the male rate
40 29.4
23.9 was nearly 5 times the female rate,
20 14.2 11.0
7.5 4.1 and for 17-year-olds, the male rate
1.6
0 was more than 3 times the female
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 rate.
Age
■ In 2002, male case rates increased
Male
continuously through age 17 in all
Female
four delinquency offense categories.
Gender
Across all age groups and offense categories, case rates for males exceed rates for females; however,
since 1998, female rates for drug and public order offense cases increased while male rates leveled off
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
40 100
Male Male
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
35 ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 16 ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆ 80 ◆ ◆
30 ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 17
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 16
● ● ◆
25 ● ●
● 60 ● ● ◆
◆ ◆ ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ● ● ● ● ● ●
20 ◆ ●
●
●
● ● ●
●
Ages 13–15 Ages 13–15
● 40 ●
15 ● ●
● ● ● ●
●
10
Ages 10–12 20 Ages 10–12
5
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
14 30
Female Age 17 Female Age 16
12 ◆ 25 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 16 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
10 ● ●
● ● ● ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 17 ◆
◆
● ● ● ◆ ◆ ◆
20 ◆ ●
◆
● Ages 13–15 ● ● ●
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ● ●
8 ◆
● ● Ages 13–15 ●
◆
◆
● 15 ◆ ●
●
● ● ● ●
◆ ● ● ● ●
6 ● ●
◆
●
◆ ◆ ◆
● 10
4◆
● ● ●
Ages 10–12 (x2)*
2 5 Ages 10–12
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ Between 1985 and 2002, male person offense case ■ Property offense case rates increased for males
rates increased for all age groups: 92% for youth ages across all age groups between 1985 and 1991 and
10–12, 73% for ages 13–15, 54% for age 16, and 52% then decreased through 2002 to their lowest level
for age 17. since 1985.
■ The age-specific trends between 1985 and 2002 in ■ In contrast to males, age-specific property offense
person offense case rates for females showed much case rates for females were higher in 2002 than in
greater increases than those for males. Case rates 1985 for all age groups except ages 10–12, whose rate
increased 157% for females ages 10–12, 167% for decreased 13%.
those ages 13–15, 165% for age 16, and 174% for
■ For females ages 16 and 17, property offense case
age 17.
rates peaked in 1997; for age groups 10–12 and
13–15, the peak year was 1995. Following their peaks,
female property case rates for all age groups dropped
steadily through 2002.
*Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving female youth ages 10–12 for person offenses, their case rates are inflated by a fac-
tor of 2 to display the trend over time.
Gender
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
35 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 50
◆ ◆ ◆ Male
Male ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
30 ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 17 40 ◆
Age 17 ◆ ◆
25 ◆
Age 16 ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 16
30 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
20 ◆ ◆
◆
◆ ◆
15 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
20
Ages 13–15 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Ages 13–15 ● ●
● ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
10 ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ●
●
●
10
5 ● ● ● ● ● ● Ages 10–12 (x5)* Ages 10–12 (x5)*
● ●
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
7 16
Female ◆ ◆
Female
◆ 14
6 ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 17 ◆ ◆ Age 16 ◆
12 ◆ ◆ Age 17
5 ◆ ◆ ●
◆ 10 ◆ ●
●
4 ◆ ● ● ●
Age 16 8 ◆ ●
◆ ◆ ●
3 ◆ ◆ ◆ ● Ages 13–15
◆ ● ● 6◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ●
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ● ● ● ●
●
◆ ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
2 ◆ ◆ 4●
● Ages 13–15 Ages 10–12 (x5)*
● ● ● ● ●
1 ● ● 2
● ●
Ages 10–12 (x5)*
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ For males, drug offense case rates increased more ■ Between 1985 and 2002, public order offense case
than 120% for each age group between 1985 and rates for male youth ages 10–12 increased 92%. Rates
2002. Between 1991 and 2002, drug offense case increased 76% for males ages 13–15, 67% for 16-
rates for male youth ages 10–12 increased 189%, year-olds, and 65% for 17-year-olds.
while the rate increases for each of the other age
■ With the exception of the 10–12 age group, age-specif-
groups averaged 120%.
ic public order offense case rates for males have
■ Between 1985 and 2002, female drug offense case remained relatively stable since 1996. However, for
rates increased more than 130% for each age group; males ages 10–12, public order offense case rates
between 1991 and 2002, the increase was more than increased 24% between 1996 and 2002.
250% for each age group.
■ Between 1991 and 2002, female public order offense
■ Between 1998 and 2002, drug offense case rates for case rates for youth ages 10–12 increased 121%.
female youth ages 10–12 increased 31%. Rates Rates increased 113% for females ages 13–15, 127%
increased 18% for females ages 13–15, 13% for 16- for 16-year-olds, and 129% for 17-year-olds.
year-olds, and 6% for 17-year-olds.
*Because of 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 by a factor of 5 to display the trends over time.
Race
Percent change in number of Between 1998 and 2002, the delinquency caseload decreased 9% for
cases by race, 1985–2002: white juveniles, 7% for black juveniles, and 3% for youth of other
Most serious Other
races
offense White4 Black races
Delinquency 31% 65% 89% Number of cases
Person 120 99 173 1,400,000
Property –18 7 35
Drugs 149 196 183 1,200,000
Public order 90 192 183 White
1,000,000
■ Although trends in the volume of
cases differed somewhat across 800,000
racial groups, the number of person,
drug, and public order offense cases 600,000
increased substantially between 1985 Black
and 2002 for all three racial groups. 400,000
200,000
Other races
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Offense profile of delinquency 0
cases by race: 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Most serious Other
offense White Black races
2002
Number of cases Number of cases
Person 22% 30% 22%
700,000 250,000
Property 39 36 45 White ● ● ● ●
● ● Black ● ● ● ● ●
600,000 ● ● ●
●
Drugs 13 9 10 ● ● 200,000 ●
Property
● ● ● ● ● ●
500,000 ● ● ● ● ●
Public order 26 25 23 Property ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
400,000 150,000
Total 100% 100% 100% Public order Person ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
300,000 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 100,000 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ Public order
◆ ◆ ◆
1985 200,000 ◆ Person ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 50,000 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆
Person 13% 25% 15% 100,000
Drugs Drugs
Property 62 56 63 0 0
Drugs 7 5 7 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Public order 18 14 16
Total 100% 100% 100%
Number of cases
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 40,000
rounding. Other races ● ●
● ● ●
●
30,000 ● ●
●
● Property ●
■ In 2002, the offense profile differed ● ●
●
● ●
Race
In 2002, more than two-thirds of all delinquency cases involved white ■ In 2002, white youth made up 78%
youth: 60% of person offense cases, 68% of property offense cases, of the U.S. population under juvenile
76% of drug offense cases, and 68% of public order offense cases court jurisdiction, black youth 16%,
and youth of other races 6%.
Race
■ In 2002, the total delinquency case Between 1997 and 2002, delinquency case rates declined for youth
rate for black juveniles (94.0) was of all racial groups: 15% for white juveniles, 22% for black juveniles,
more than double the rate for white and 12% for youth of other races
juveniles (44.4) and more than 3
times the rate for youth of other
races (30.9). Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
140
■ For white juveniles, the delinquency
case rate peaked in 1997 (52.4) then 120
fell 15% by 2002; the rate for black Black
juveniles in 2002 was down 24% 100
from its 1995 peak (123.5). The
80
delinquency case rate for youth of
other races peaked in 1994 (42.9)
60
then declined 28% by 2002. White
● ● ● ●
40 ● ● ● ●
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the person ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● Other races ●
offense case rate increased more for
20
white youth (93%) than for black
youth (53%) or youth of other races 0
(47%). 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
■ In 2002, the person offense case rate
for black juveniles (28.2) was nearly
3 times the rate for white juveniles
(9.5) and more than 4 times the rate Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
for youth of other races (6.7). 35 60
30
Person Property
Black 50
■ Property offense case rates have 25 Black
40
declined since the early 1990s for all 20 White
30
racial groups. Between 1991 and 15 ● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●
White 20 ● ● ● ●
●
2002, the rate for both white and 10 Other races ●
● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● 10
black juveniles fell 39%, and the rate 5 ●● ● ● Other races
for youth of other races fell 42%. As 0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
a result, the property offense case
rates in 2002 were lower than in
1985 for each racial group.
Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age Cases per 1,000 juveniles ages 10–upper age
■ The drug offense case rate for black 14 30
12
Drugs Public order
juveniles increased dramatically from 25
1985 to 1988, leveled off, then 10 20
Black Black
increased to reach a peak in 1996 8
15
6 White
(13.1) that was 263% above the rate White 10
4 ●
in 1985 (3.6). Between 1996 and ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
5 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
2 ● ● ● ● ● ● Other races
2002, the drug offense case rate for ● ● ● ● Other races
0 0
black juveniles declined 37% (8.2) 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
while the rate increased 14% for
white juveniles and 9% for youth of
other races.
Race
Case rates for juveniles generally increased with age regardless of ■ In 2002, delinquency case rates
race and offense category increased sharply from age 10 to
age 13 for all racial groups; the delin-
quency case rate for 13-year-olds
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group was more than 8 times the rate for
200 10-year-olds for each racial group.
Race
With the exception of property offenses, case rates in 2002 were higher than those in 1985 for all age
groups within each racial category
Person offense case rates Property offense case rates
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
20 ◆ 60
White ◆ ◆ Age 17
◆ ◆ White
18 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 16
◆ ◆ 50 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
16 ◆ Age 16 ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 17 ◆
14 40 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
12 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ◆ ◆
● ● ● ●
◆ ● Ages 13–15 ● ●
● ●
10 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ●
● 30 ●
● ● ●
●
● Ages 13–15 ●
8 ● ●
● ●
6● ● ● ● 20
4 Ages 10–12 10 Ages 10–12
2
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
70 120
Black Age 16 Black
◆
◆ ◆
60 ◆ ◆ 100 Age 16
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆
50 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 80 ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 17 ◆
● ● ◆ ● ◆
● ● ● ◆ ● ● ● ● ◆
40 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ● ● ●
● ● ● ◆ ◆
◆ ● ● ● ●
● Ages 13–15 60 ● ● ●
30 ● ● Ages 13–15 ●
● ● ●
● ● ●
● ● 40
●
20
Ages 10–12 Ages 10–12
10 20
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
16 50
◆ ◆ Other races
Other races ◆
14 ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ Age 16
Age 17 40 ◆ ◆
12 ◆ Age 16 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 17
◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ●
◆ ◆ ● ◆
10 ◆ ◆ ● ◆ ◆ ● ● ● ◆
● ● ● 30 ◆ ● ● ● ◆
◆ ◆ ● ◆ ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
●
● Ages 13–15 ● ◆ ◆
8 ● ● ● ● ◆ ◆
● Ages 13–15 ●
6 20 ●
● ● ●
● ● ●
4 Ages 10–12
Ages 10–12 10
2
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ For all years between 1985 and 2002, person offense ■ Between 1998 and 2002, age-specific property offense
case rates for blacks were well above those for other case rates decreased for all racial groups to a level
racial groups. In 2002, age-specific person offense case lower than that of 1985.
rates for black youth were 3 to 4 times higher than the
corresponding rates for white youth and 4 to 6 times
higher than those for youth of other races.
.
Race
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
20 ◆ ◆ 30
White ◆
◆ ◆ White Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 17 ◆ ◆ 25 ◆
16 ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ Age 16
20 ◆
◆
12 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 16 ◆
15 ◆
● ● ● ● ● ●
8◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Ages 13–15 ●
◆ Ages 13–15 ● ●
◆ ● 10 ●
◆ ◆ ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ●
4 ● 5
● ● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
● ● ● ● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
● ● ●
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
50 60 ◆
◆
Black Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Black ◆
◆ ◆
◆ ◆ 50 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
40 Age 17 ◆
◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ 40
30 ◆ ◆ ◆ Age 16
◆
Ages 13–15
◆ Age 16 ◆ ●
30 ◆ ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ●
◆ ●
20 ◆ ◆ ● ●
20 ●
◆ ●
Ages 13–15 ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
10 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 10
●
● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
● ●
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group Cases per 1,000 juveniles in age group
10 20
Other races ◆ ◆
Other races Age 17
8 ◆ 16
◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 17 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Age 16
6 ◆ 12 ◆
◆ Age 16 ◆
◆ ◆ Ages 13–15
◆ ● ● ● ●
4 8 ● ● ● ● ●
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Ages 13–15 ● ● ● ●
◆ ● ● ● ●
◆ ● ● ● ● ● ●
◆ ● ● ●
● ◆
2 ● Ages 10–12 (x5)* 4
● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● Ages 10–12 (x5)*
0 0
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ Drug offense case rates for black youth generally ■ Across age groups, public order offense case rates for
increased for all age groups through the mid 1990s then black youth more than doubled between 1985 and
declined steadily through 2002. For white youth and 2002. During the same time period, the rate for white
youth of other races, rates declined for all age groups youth increased more than 65% for each age group.
through the early 1990s then increased to their current
levels.
*Because of 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 by a factor of 5 to display the trends over time.
Source of Referral
■ Delinquency cases can be referred to Law enforcement agencies are the primary source of delinquency
court intake by a number of sources, referrals to juvenile court
including law enforcement agencies,
social service agencies, schools, par- Percent of cases referred by law enforcement
ents, probation officers, and victims. 100%
Drugs
90% ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
■ Law enforcement agencies were the
primary source of delinquency refer- 80% Property
Person
rals for each year between 1985 and ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
70% ◆
◆ ◆
2002. ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Public order ◆
◆ ◆ ◆
60% ◆ ◆
National Estimates of
Delinquency Case Processing
This chapter quantifies the flow of cases, thus authorizing a transfer to
delinquency cases through each of criminal court. This Report describes
the following stages of the juvenile those cases that were transferred to
court system. criminal court by judicial waiver only.
Detention
■ The number of delinquency cases The number of cases involving detention increased substantially
involving detention increased 42% between 1985 and 2002 for person, drug, and public order offenses
between 1985 and 2002, from but decreased for property offense cases
231,400 to 329,800. The largest rela-
tive increase was for drug offense Cases detained
cases (140%), followed by person
160,000
cases (122%) and public order cases
● ● ●
(72%). In contrast, the number of 140,000
●
detained property offense cases Property ●
●
● ● ● ● ●
declined 12% during this period. 120,000 ● ● ● ●
● ●
■ Despite the growth in the volume of 100,000 ◆ ●
Person ◆ ◆
delinquency cases involving deten- ◆ ◆ ◆
80,000
tion, the proportion of cases detained ◆ Public order
◆ ◆ ◆
was the same in 2002 as in 1985 60,000 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
(20%).
40,000
■ Although property offense cases Drugs
20,000
were the least likely to involve deten-
tion, they still accounted for the 0
largest volume of cases involving 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
detention.
■ The use of detention for public order The proportion of drug offense cases involving detention reached a
offense cases decreased between peak of 37% in 1990 and declined to 20% in 2002
1985 and 2002.
Percent of cases detained
Offense profile of detained 40%
delinquency cases: Drugs
35%
Most serious
30% Public order
offense 1985 2002 ◆
◆ ◆ Person
25% ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆ ◆
Person 19% 29% ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
◆ ◆
Property 52 32 20% ● ◆ ◆
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Drugs 7 11 ● ● ● ● ● ●
15% ●
Public order 22 27 Property ● ●
Total 100% 100% 10% Total delinquency
Number of
5%
cases 231,400 329,800
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of 0%
rounding. 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Detention
While black youth represented 29% of the overall delinquency ■ Between 1985 and 2002, the propor-
caseload in 2002, they made up 36% of the detention caseload tion of all delinquency cases that
involved black youth averaged 29%,
Percent of cases involving black juveniles while that average was 37% of all
40% detained cases.
Detention
Age For all years between 1985 and 2002, detention was more likely for
cases involving older youth than younger youth, males than females,
■ In each year from 1985 through and black youth than white youth
2002, delinquency cases involving
youth age 16 or older were more like- Percentage of delinquency cases detained by age group:
ly to be detained than were cases 15 or younger 16 or older
involving youth age 15 or younger.
Public Public
■ For both age groups, drug offense Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
cases were more likely to involve 1985 19% 22% 16% 20% 28% 22% 27% 20% 22% 26%
detention than were other offense 1986 19 23 16 24 27 22 26 19 26 24
cases between 1987 and the mid 1987 18 21 14 30 26 21 25 18 29 23
1990s. After that time, however, per- 1988 19 22 15 34 26 22 25 18 31 23
son offense and public order offense 1989 20 23 16 36 26 23 27 19 35 25
cases were more likely to involve
1990 21 25 18 39 29 24 29 21 36 26
detention than were drug offense
1991 19 23 16 38 25 22 27 18 34 23
cases. 1992 19 22 16 35 24 22 27 18 32 22
1993 18 21 14 28 22 21 26 17 27 22
■ In 2002, 16-year-olds accounted for
1994 17 21 14 25 21 20 26 17 24 21
25% of the cases that involved deten-
tion cases, a larger proportion of 1995 16 20 12 21 18 18 24 15 21 19
cases than any other single age 1996 16 21 12 20 19 18 25 15 20 19
group. 1997 17 22 13 19 21 21 27 16 21 23
1998 18 23 14 22 21 22 28 18 24 23
1999 20 23 16 23 24 24 29 19 25 25
2000 19 23 15 19 22 22 28 18 22 24
Gender 2001 19 24 15 18 20 21 27 17 21 22
2002 20 24 16 18 21 22 27 18 21 22
■ Male juveniles charged with
delinquency offenses were more like-
ly than females to be held in secure Percentage of delinquency cases detained by gender:
facilities while awaiting court disposi- Male Female
tion. Overall in 2002, 22% of male
Public Public
delinquency cases involved deten-
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
tion, compared with 17% of female
cases. 1985 21% 26% 18% 22% 26% 17% 17% 13% 19% 28%
1986 21 26 18 26 25 17 18 13 21 27
■ In 2002, both males and females 1987 20 24 17 30 24 15 16 11 23 25
were least likely to be detained in 1988 21 24 17 33 25 16 18 12 26 25
cases involving property offenses 1989 22 26 18 37 26 16 18 12 27 24
(19% and 12%, respectively). 1990 24 28 20 39 28 17 19 13 28 26
1991 22 26 18 36 24 15 18 12 26 21
1992 21 26 18 34 23 15 17 12 26 22
1993 20 25 17 28 23 14 16 11 21 18
1994 20 24 17 25 22 14 17 10 19 17
1995 18 23 15 22 20 12 16 8 15 15
1996 18 24 15 21 20 12 18 8 13 17
1997 20 26 16 21 23 14 19 9 16 19
1998 21 26 17 24 23 16 20 11 19 20
1999 23 26 19 25 26 18 22 12 21 22
2000 22 27 18 21 24 17 21 11 18 20
2001 21 26 17 20 22 16 21 11 17 18
2002 22 26 19 20 23 17 22 12 18 18
Detention
Intake Decision
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the likeli- Between 1985 and 1992, delinquency cases were more likely to be
hood that a delinquency case would handled without the filing of a petition; beginning in 1993, the
be handled informally (without filing a reverse was true
petition for adjudication) decreased.
While the overall delinquency case- Delinquency cases
load increased 41% between 1985 1,200,000
and 2002, the number of nonpeti-
tioned cases increased 9% and the
number of petitioned cases increased 1,000,000
80%. Petitioned
800,000
■ Between 1992 and 2002, the number Nonpetitioned
of cases handled with the filing of a 600,000
petition requesting an adjudicatory
hearing increased 27%, while the
400,000
number of nonpetitioned cases
declined 9%.
200,000
■ The largest increase in the number of
petitioned cases between 1985 and 0
2002 was seen in drug offense cases 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
(265%), followed by public order
offense cases (178%) and person
offense cases (137%).
Intake Decision
In 2002, juvenile courts petitioned nearly 6 of 10 delinquency cases ■ The overall likelihood of formal han-
dling was greater for more serious
Number of Petitioned cases as offenses within the same general
Most serious offense petitioned cases a percent of all cases offense category. In 2002, for exam-
Total delinquency 934,900 58% ple, 69% of aggravated assault
Total person 233,300 60 cases were handled formally, com-
Criminal homicide 1,400 82 pared with 55% of simple assault
Forcible rape 3,700 78 cases. Similarly, 78% of burglary
Robbery 18,600 86 cases and 79% of motor vehicle theft
Aggravated assault 32,700 69 cases were handled formally by juve-
Simple assault 147,900 55 nile courts, compared with 44% of
Other violent sex offenses 13,300 81 larceny-theft and 52% of vandalism
Other person offenses 15,800 63 cases.
Total property 343,500 55
Burglary 77,800 78 ■ Between 1985 and 2002, the likeli-
Larceny-theft 124,100 44 hood of formal processing increased:
Motor vehicle theft 30,300 79 from 43% to 61% for drug offense
Arson 5,400 67 cases, from 54% to 60% for person
Vandalism 49,100 52
offense cases, from 45% to 59% for
Trespassing 23,900 47
public order cases, and from 44% to
Stolen property offenses 16,500 75
Other property offenses 16,500 63
55% for property offense cases.
Drug law violations 117,100 61
■ Between 1987 and 1996, drug
Public order offenses 240,900 59
Obstruction of justice 129,500 71
offense cases were more likely than
Disorderly conduct 47,900 44 other cases to be handled formally.
Weapons offenses 21,400 60
■ Since 1996, person offense cases
Liquor law violations 9,800 35
Nonviolent sex offenses 8,500 55 have been as likely to be handled
Other public order offenses 23,800 61 formally as cases involving drug
Violent Crime Index* 56,400 75 offenses.
Property Crime Index** 237,600 55
* 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.
30%
20%
10%
0%
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Intake Decision
Age Between 1985 and 2002, the likelihood of formal handling increased
more for younger than older youth and for females than males
■ In each year between 1985 and
2002, delinquency cases involving Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned by age group:
juveniles age 16 or older were more 15 or younger 16 or older
likely to be petitioned than were
Public Public
cases involving younger juveniles. Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
■ In 2002, 55% of delinquency cases 1985 42% 51% 40% 38% 44% 50% 59% 50% 47% 46%
involving youth age 15 or younger 1986 44 52 42 47 45 50 58 49 51 45
were petitioned, compared with 61% 1987 44 51 41 53 45 51 58 50 56 47
of cases involving older youth. 1988 45 52 42 58 47 52 58 51 59 48
1989 47 53 44 62 49 54 59 52 62 49
■ Since 1991, the proportion of drug
offense cases petitioned has declined 1990 46 52 43 66 49 53 58 51 65 50
for both age groups, while the propor- 1991 47 52 43 68 49 54 59 51 68 50
tion of petitioned cases for each of 1992 47 52 44 66 49 54 58 51 65 52
the other general offense categories 1993 49 54 46 62 51 56 61 54 64 55
1994 50 54 46 59 52 57 62 55 62 56
has grown.
1995 51 56 47 59 54 58 63 55 62 58
■ Among youth age 15 or younger, 1996 53 58 50 58 54 59 64 56 62 59
drug offense cases were more likely 1997 54 57 50 58 56 59 63 56 61 60
to be handled formally than any other 1998 55 58 52 60 57 60 64 58 63 61
offense category between 1987 and 1999 55 59 52 59 56 60 64 57 63 60
1998. Since 1999, person offense
2000 55 59 52 59 57 61 65 58 62 61
cases have been as likely as or more
2001 55 58 51 56 56 60 64 58 62 61
likely than drug offense cases to be 2002 55 58 52 58 57 61 65 59 63 61
petitioned for adjudication.
■ Among youth age 16 or older, person Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned by gender:
offense cases were more likely to be
Male Female
handled formally than any other
offense category between 1995 and Public Public
2002. Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
1985 48% 57% 46% 45% 45% 35% 41% 31% 33% 44%
1986 49 58 48 52 46 36 43 31 39 43
1987 50 57 48 57 47 36 42 31 43 43
Gender 1988 51 57 48 61 49 37 43 32 46 44
1989 52 58 50 64 50 38 43 34 47 46
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the propor-
tion of delinquency cases petitioned 1990 52 57 49 68 51 37 42 32 51 45
1991 52 57 49 70 51 38 44 33 52 46
increased for males from 48% to
1992 53 57 50 68 52 38 43 33 49 46
61% and for females from 35% to
1993 55 60 52 65 55 40 46 35 48 48
50%.
1994 56 60 53 63 55 42 47 37 46 49
■ Regardless of offense, for each year 1995 57 61 53 63 57 43 49 37 48 50
between 1985 and 2002, juvenile 1996 58 63 56 62 58 45 51 40 49 52
courts were more likely to petition 1997 59 62 56 62 59 47 51 41 50 54
cases involving males than females. 1998 60 63 58 64 60 48 53 42 52 54
1999 60 63 58 63 60 49 54 42 52 53
2000 60 64 58 63 60 49 54 42 52 54
2001 60 62 58 61 60 48 53 41 51 53
2002 61 63 59 62 61 50 54 43 53 54
Intake Decision
Waiver
■ The number of delinquency cases There were slightly fewer cases judicially waived to criminal court in
judicially waived to criminal court in 2002 than in 1985
1994, the peak year, was 83%
greater than the number waived in Cases judicially waived to criminal court
1985. This increase was followed by a 14,000
46% decline between 1994 and 2002.
As a result, the number of cases 12,000
waived in 2002 was 1% below the
number waived in 1985. 10,000
Total delinquency
■ The number of judicially waived per- 8,000
son offense cases increased 130%
between 1985 and 1994 and then 6,000
declined 47% through 2002. The
number of person offense cases judi- 4,000
cially waived in 2002 was 23% more
than the number waived in 1985. 2,000
Waiver
Between 1989 and 1991, cases involving drug offenses were most ■ Between 1988 and 1991, the propor-
likely to be judicially waived; for all other years between 1985 and tion of judicially waived drug offense
2002, person offense cases were most likely to be waived cases increased sharply from 1.4% to
3.9%. After peaking in 1991, the pro-
Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived to criminal court portion of waived drug offense cases
4% decreased each year, with 0.8% of
drug cases being waived in 2002.
Waiver
Age Cases involving juveniles age 16 or older were much more likely to be
judicially waived to criminal court than those involving younger
■ In 2002, 1.5% of all petitioned delin- juveniles
quency cases involving juveniles age
16 or older were waived to criminal Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases judicially waived by age group:
court, compared with 0.2% of cases 15 or younger 16 or older
involving younger juveniles.
Public Public
■ For older juveniles, the probability of Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
waiver peaked in 1991 at 3.2%, hov-
1985 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 2.9% 5.2% 2.9% 1.7% 1.4%
ered around that level through 1994, 1986 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.7 4.5 2.7 1.8 1.2
and then declined. 1987 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.4 3.7 2.5 2.1 0.9
1988 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.3 3.7 2.4 2.2 1.0
■ This pattern was most marked in 1989 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 2.6 3.9 2.4 3.8 1.0
waivers for older juveniles charged
with drug offenses, which peaked at 1990 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 2.6 4.0 2.4 3.7 1.1
6.2% in 1991 and then steadily 1991 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 3.2 4.8 2.7 6.2 1.2
declined to 1.4% in 2002. 1992 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 2.9 5.0 2.4 3.8 1.3
1993 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 3.1 5.7 2.5 3.5 1.3
■ Regardless of offense, less than 1% 1994 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 3.1 5.6 2.6 3.2 1.3
of all petitioned delinquency cases 1995 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 2.3 4.6 2.0 2.4 0.8
involving juveniles age 15 or younger 1996 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.2 4.3 2.0 2.2 0.6
were waived to criminal court 1997 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.0 3.7 1.9 2.0 0.7
between 1985 and 2002. 1998 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 1.9 3.2 2.0 2.1 0.7
1999 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.7 3.1 1.7 1.9 0.6
2000 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.6 2.7 1.7 1.7 0.6
2001 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 2.5 1.3 1.2 0.4
Gender 2002 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.5 2.7 1.6 1.4 0.5
■ Regardless of offense, cases involv-
ing males were more likely to be Percentage of petitioned delinquency cases judicially waived by gender:
judicially waived than cases involving
females. Male Female
Public Public
■ Among males, the proportion of peti- Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
tioned drug offense cases judicially
waived increased substantially 1985 1.6% 2.7% 1.4% 1.2 0.9% 0.4% 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2%
between 1985 and 1991 (from 1.2% 1986 1.5 2.4 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.2
to 4.1%) and then declined dramati- 1987 1.3 2.1 1.3 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3
1988 1.3 2.0 1.2 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.1
cally. In 2002, the proportion of male
1989 1.4 2.2 1.2 2.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.2
drug offense cases that were judi-
cially waived was less than 1%. 1990 1.4 2.2 1.1 2.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.3 0.1
1991 1.7 2.6 1.3 4.1 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.3 2.3 0.0
■ Judicially waived drug offense cases 1992 1.6 2.8 1.2 2.5 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.2
involving females followed the same 1993 1.7 3.1 1.2 2.4 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.2
pattern, increasing sharply between 1994 1.7 3.2 1.3 2.1 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.3
1985 and 1991 (from 0.4% to 2.3%)
1995 1.4 2.7 1.0 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.2
and then declining sharply. In 2002, 1996 1.4 2.6 1.1 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.1
the proportion of female drug offense 1997 1.2 2.2 1.0 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.1
cases that were judicially waived was 1998 1.1 1.9 1.0 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.1
0.5%. 1999 1.1 1.8 0.9 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.1
■ Compared with 1985, the 2002 2000 1.0 1.6 0.9 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.1
waived caseload contained a slightly 2001 0.8 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1
larger proportion of females (7% vs. 2002 0.9 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.1
5%). This pattern was similar for all
four general offense categories.
Waiver
1990 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.8 2.6 1.2 3.6 0.9 ■ Between 1989 and 1993, delinquen-
1991 1.2 1.9 1.1 1.6 0.5 2.1 2.8 1.4 5.4 0.9 cy cases involving black juveniles
1992 1.1 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.9 2.9 1.3 3.3 1.0 were nearly twice as likely as those
1993 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.4 0.6 2.0 3.3 1.3 3.0 1.0 involving white juveniles to be judi-
1994 1.3 2.2 1.2 1.4 0.6 1.8 3.1 1.2 2.7 0.7 cially waived.
1995 1.0 1.8 0.9 1.0 0.4 1.6 2.7 1.0 2.2 0.6
1996 1.0 1.9 0.9 1.0 0.3 1.4 2.4 1.0 2.0 0.5 ■ In 2002, the overall likelihood of a
1997 0.9 1.6 0.8 0.9 0.3 1.3 2.0 0.9 1.8 0.5 youth being judicially waived to crim-
1998 0.9 1.5 0.9 1.0 0.3 1.1 1.6 0.9 2.0 0.4 inal court for a delinquent offense
1999 0.8 1.4 0.8 0.9 0.3 1.1 1.5 0.9 1.8 0.5 was similar for whites (0.7%), blacks
(0.8%), and other races (0.7%).
2000 0.8 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.9 1.3 0.8 1.7 0.3
2001 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.7 1.2 0.5 1.1 0.2 ■ In 2002, cases involving person
2002 0.7 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.8 1.3 0.6 1.2 0.3 offenses were most likely to be
waived for youth of all races: 1.2%
Other race
among white juveniles, 1.3% among
Public black juveniles, and 1.5% among
Year All Person Property Drugs order youth of other races.
1985 0.9% 1.6% 0.7% 0.9% 0.5% ■ Among black juveniles, the use of
1986 0.7 2.5 0.3 1.8 0.0
waiver to criminal court for cases
1987 0.9 2.4 0.6 0.2 0.9
involving drug offenses peaked in
1988 0.9 1.8 0.8 0.1 0.2
1991, when it was more than 3 times
1989 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.2
that of white youth (5.4% vs. 1.6%)
1990 0.9 2.5 0.6 0.2 0.3 and 6 times that of youth of other
1991 0.8 2.2 0.4 0.9 0.0 races (0.9%).
1992 1.2 3.2 0.7 2.6 0.4
1993 1.4 3.3 0.9 1.4 0.8 ■ For black youth in 2002, drug
1994 1.7 3.8 1.0 1.3 1.4 offense cases were nearly as likely
1995 1.3 3.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 as person offense cases to be judi-
1996 1.5 2.9 1.2 1.7 0.6 cially waived (1.2% and 1.3%,
1997 1.8 3.5 1.5 1.9 0.7 respectively).
1998 1.3 2.7 1.0 1.2 0.5
1999 1.1 2.4 0.7 1.3 0.7
2000 1.1 2.0 0.9 1.7 0.5
2001 0.9 2.1 0.7 1.2 0.4
2002 0.7 1.5 0.6 0.7 0.3
Waiver
■ The number of judicially waived Between 1985 and 2002, the number of cases judicially waived to
cases involving white juveniles criminal court increased 6% for cases involving white youth and
increased 67% between 1985 and decreased 16% for cases involving black youth
1994, from 4,200 to 6,900, and then
declined 36% to the 2002 level of
Delinquency cases judicially waived to criminal court
4,400.
7,000
■ For black juveniles, the number of White
judicially waived cases nearly dou- 6,000
bled between 1985 and 1994, from
5,000
2,900 to 5,700, then declined 57%
through 2002 to 2,500.
4,000
■ The number of judicially waived per- Black
3,000
son offense cases involving white
youth increased 130% between 1985
2,000
and 1996, from 1,100 to 2,500, then
declined 36% to 1,600 cases in 2002. 1,000
■ Similarly, among black juveniles, the
0
number of person offense cases 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
waived increased 123% between
1985 and 1994, from 1,300 to 2,800,
then decreased 57% to 1,200 cases
in 2002.
Cases judicially waived to criminal court Cases judicially waived to criminal court
Offense profile of waived cases: 3,000 4,000
Person Property
2,500
Most serious Black 3,000
2,000
offense 1985 2002 White
1,500 2,000
White White
1,000 Black
Person 26% 37% 1,000
500
Property 61 41
Drugs 4 13 0 0
Public order 9 9 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Adjudication
Between 1996 and 2002, the proportion of formally processed ■ In 1985, 30% of all delinquency
delinquency cases steadily increased; as did the proportion that cases resulted in either adjudication
resulted in a delinquency adjudication or waiver of delinquency or waiver to criminal
court. By 2002, this proportion had
Proportion of delinquency cases increased to 39%.
100%
■ Between 1995 and 2002, the number
90% of delinquency cases that resulted in
80% a delinquency adjudication or were
70%
judicially waived to criminal court
increased 16%, while the number of
60%
formally handled cases that were not
50% adjudicated delinquent decreased
40% 24%.
30%
■ The likelihood of being adjudicated
20% delinquent was greater for more seri-
10% ous offenses within the same gener-
0%
al offense category.
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
■ Within the 2002 person offense cate-
Nonpetitioned
gory, 67% of petitioned aggravated
Petitioned: not adjudicated delinquent assault cases were adjudicated
Petitioned: adjudicated delinquent or judicially waived delinquent, compared with 61% of
simple assault cases.
In 2002, youth were adjudicated delinquent in two-thirds of all ■ In the property offense category in
petitioned delinquency cases 2002, 75% of petitioned burglary
Percentage of cases were adjudicated delinquent,
Number of cases petitioned cases compared with 71% of motor vehicle
Most serious offense adjudicated delinquent adjudicated delinquent theft cases and 67% of larceny-theft
Total delinquency 624,500 67% cases.
Person 145,800 62
Criminal homicide 800 57 ■ Among public order offenses in
Forcible rape 2,500 68 2002, 69% of the weapons violations
Robbery 11,900 64 cases were adjudicated delinquent,
Aggravated assault 21,900 67 compared with 62% of disorderly
Simple assault 90,500 61 conduct cases and 61% of liquor law
Other violent sex offenses 9,100 68 violation cases.
Other person offenses 9,200 58
Property 233,600 68
Burglary 58,300 75
Larceny-theft 83,600 67
Motor vehicle theft 21,500 71
Arson 3,400 63
Vandalism 31,800 65
Trespassing 13,600 57
Stolen property offenses 10,200 62
Other property offenses 11,300 68
Drug law violations 79,100 68
Public order offenses 166,000 69
Obstruction of justice 92,800 72
Disorderly conduct 29,900 62
Weapons offenses 14,700 69
Liquor law violations 6,000 61
Nonviolent sex offenses 6,100 72
Other public order offenses 16,500 69
Violent Crime Index 37,000 66
Property Crime Index 166,700 70
Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.
Adjudication
■ Beginning in 1997 and continuing Between 1985 and 2002, the number of cases in which the youth was
through 2002, the annual number adjudicated delinquent increased 85% (from 337,900 to 624,500)
of delinquency cases in which the
youth was adjudicated delinquent Cases adjudicated delinquent
remained rather constant. In 2002, 700,000
624,500 cases were adjudicated
delinquent, compared with 337,900 600,000
cases in 1985.
500,000
■ Among person offense cases, the
Total delinquency
number of adjudicated cases 400,000
increased 162% between 1985 and
2002 (55,600 vs. 145,800). 300,000
■ The number of adjudicated cases 200,000
involving property offenses increased
16% between 1985 and 2002 100,000
(201,000 vs. 233,600).
0
■ Between 1985 and 2002, drug 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
offense cases had the greatest per-
cent increase in the number of cases
adjudicated delinquent. In 1985,
approximately 22,100 cases involving
drug offense violations were adjudi-
cated delinquent. By 2002, the num-
ber of adjudicated drug offense cases
had increased 257% to 79,100
cases. Between 1998 and 2002, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent
increased for cases involving person, drug, and public order
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the number offenses but decreased for cases involving property offenses
of public order offense cases adjudi-
cated delinquent increased 180%,
from 59,200 cases to 166,000 cases. Cases adjudicated delinquent
300,000
Offense profile of cases ● ● ●
● ● ●
adjudicated delinquent: 250,000 ● ●
● ● ●
● ●
● ● Property
Most serious 200,000 ● ● ●
offense 1985 2002 Public order
◆ ◆ ◆
Person 16% 23% 150,000 ◆
Property 59 37 ◆ ◆
Person ◆
Drugs 7 13
100,000 ◆ ◆
Public order 18 27 ◆
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Total 100% 100% ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
50,000
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of Drugs
rounding.
0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
■ Compared with 1985, the 2002 adju-
dicated delinquent caseload included
greater proportions of person, public
order, and drug offense cases and a
substantially smaller proportion of
property offense cases.
Adjudication
Between 1995 and 2002, the likelihood of petitioned cases resulting ■ The likelihood of delinquency adjudi-
in a delinquency adjudication steadily increased from 57% to 67% cation decreased from 65% to 57%
between 1985 and 1996 and then
increased to 67% in 2002.
Percent of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent
■ In 2002, the likelihood of a
70% delinquency adjudication for cases
involving property, drug, and public
60% order offenses was about the same
Total delinquency as in 1985. However, for cases
50%
involving a person offense, the likeli-
40% hood of a delinquency adjudication
was somewhat greater in 2002 than
30% in 1985 (62% vs. 57%).
Adjudication
Age Between 1997 and 2002, drug offense cases involving younger juveniles
were more likely to be adjudicated delinquent than those involving older
■ In each year from 1985 through juveniles
2002, juveniles age 15 or younger
were more likely than older juveniles Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent by age group:
to be adjudicated delinquent, regard- 15 or younger 16 or older
less of offense.
Public Public
■ Regardless of age, person offense Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
cases were less likely than other
1985 66% 58% 67% 71% 71% 64% 55% 66% 68% 66%
offense categories to be adjudicated
1986 65 58 66 69 67 62 56 64 65 63
delinquent for each year between 1987 64 58 65 66 67 62 57 63 62 63
1985 and 2002. 1988 62 55 63 62 65 59 54 61 57 61
1989 62 57 63 66 66 61 56 62 62 62
■ Between 1985 and 1995, the likeli-
hood of adjudication for drug offense 1990 61 56 62 62 64 59 53 61 56 60
cases involving juveniles 15 or 1991 59 54 61 60 61 57 53 59 54 58
younger decreased steadily from 1992 59 55 60 59 62 57 53 59 56 57
71% to 59%. After that time, the pro- 1993 60 55 61 59 63 57 51 58 56 58
portion increased. In 2002, 69% of 1994 59 55 60 59 62 56 51 57 56 57
drug offense cases involving juve- 1995 58 55 58 59 61 55 51 57 56 56
niles under age 16 resulted in a 1996 58 55 59 60 61 56 52 57 56 56
delinquency adjudication. 1997 60 57 61 63 62 58 54 59 59 59
1998 63 60 65 65 62 60 57 62 61 59
■ For drug offense cases involving 1999 66 63 67 68 67 62 59 64 64 63
juveniles age 16 and older, the likeli-
hood of adjudication decreased from 2000 69 64 70 71 71 66 61 67 67 68
68% to 56% between 1985 and 2001 67 62 68 70 68 65 60 66 66 68
2002 67 63 69 69 69 66 61 67 66 68
1996. In a trend similar to their
younger counterparts, the proportion
of drug offense cases involving older Percentage of petitioned cases adjudicated delinquent by gender:
juveniles that resulted in adjudication
increased to 66% in 2002. Male Female
Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
Gender
1985 66% 58% 67% 70% 69% 62% 51% 62% 66% 68%
■ Between 1985 and 2002, male 1986 64 58 66 67 66 60 51 60 66 64
cases generally were more likely to 1987 63 58 64 64 65 59 53 59 59 64
be adjudicated delinquent than were 1988 61 56 63 59 63 57 51 56 56 63
female cases. 1989 63 57 64 64 64 57 51 57 60 62
Adjudication
■ The number of cases adjudicated The number of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-
delinquent that resulted in out-of- home placement increased 59% between 1985 and 1998 and then
home placement increased 44% decreased 10% through 2002
between 1985 and 2002. During this
period, the number of cases involving Cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement
the use of out-of-home placement
180,000
increased 179% for drug offense
cases, 109% for person offense 160,000
cases, and 83% for public order
140,000
offense cases. Total delinquency
120,000
■ The number of cases involving out-
of-home placement peaked in 2000 100,000
at 161,700 cases. Between 2000 and 80,000
2002, the number of cases resulting
60,000
in out-of-home placement decreased
6% for cases involving person offens- 40,000
es, 12% for property offense cases,
20,000
and 13% for both drug offense cases
and cases involving public order 0
offenses. 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
The court ordered out-of-home placement in 23% of all cases ■ Although the likelihood that an adju-
adjudicated delinquent in 2002, down from 30% in 1985 dicated case would result in out-of-
home placement decreased
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement between 1985 and 2002 for each of
35% the four major offense categories,
the number of cases adjudicated
30% delinquent resulting in out-of-home
Total delinquency placement increased 44%.
25%
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the largest
20% decline in the proportion of adjudi-
cated cases resulting in out-of-home
15% placement was seen in cases
involving public order offenses (from
10% 37% to 24%). The proportion
decreased for person offense cases
5% from 32% to 25%, for drug offense
cases from 23% to 18%, and for
0% property offense cases from 28% to
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 23%.
30% 30%
Drugs Public order
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the use of Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in out-of-home placement by
out-of-home placement declined gender:
more for public order offense cases Male Female
than for any other offense category Public Public
for both males (11 percentage Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
points) and females (17 percentage 1985 30% 33% 29% 24% 36% 26% 26% 21% 21% 37%
points). 1986 31 34 29 31 37 26 25 21 27 38
1987 31 33 28 32 37 25 22 21 26 37
■ For males in 2002, person offense 1988 31 33 28 34 37 24 22 20 30 35
cases adjudicated delinquent were 1989 32 35 29 37 39 25 24 20 31 36
most likely to result in out-of-home
placement (27%), followed by public 1990 33 36 29 37 38 25 23 21 31 36
order offense cases (25%), property 1991 31 36 27 38 35 24 24 19 28 34
cases (24%), and cases involving 1992 31 35 28 35 35 23 24 19 28 31
drug offenses (19%). 1993 30 33 27 31 33 22 24 18 25 28
1994 30 33 27 29 32 22 22 19 23 27
■ For females in 2002, adjudicated 1995 29 32 27 25 32 21 22 18 17 27
public order offense cases were 1996 28 32 26 24 30 20 21 18 17 25
most likely to result in out-of-home 1997 28 31 26 23 32 20 20 17 15 26
placement (20%), followed by person 1998 27 30 26 23 30 19 20 17 16 24
cases (19%), property cases (16%), 1999 27 30 26 24 30 20 21 17 16 25
and drug offense cases (14%).
2000 27 30 26 22 29 20 22 17 14 24
2001 25 28 24 20 27 19 20 16 13 21
2002 25 27 24 19 25 18 19 16 14 20
Dispositions: Probation
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the number Between 1998 and 2002, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent
of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in probation remained relatively unchanged
resulting in an order of probation
increased 103%, compared with a Cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation
44% increase in the number of cases 400,000
resulting in out-of-home placement
350,000
■ Since 1985, the largest percent
increase in the number of cases 300,000
adjudicated delinquent receiving pro- Total delinquency
250,000
bation has been for drug offense
cases (267%), followed by public 200,000
order offenses (218%), person
offenses (198%), and property 150,000
offenses (28%). 100,000
■ Between 1998 and 2002, the number 50,000
of adjudicated cases resulting in an
order of probation increased 19% for 0
public order offense cases (from 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
79,700 to 95,200), 8% for drug
offense cases (from 47,200 to
50,900), and 6% for person offense
cases (from 86,700 to 92,000).
Dispositions: Probation
Probation remains the most likely sanction imposed by juvenile courts ■ Probation was the most restrictive
disposition used in 62% (385,400) of
the cases adjudicated delinquent in
Percent of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation 2002, compared with 56% (189,600)
70% of the adjudicated caseload in 1985.
60%
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the likeli-
Total delinquency hood of probation for cases adjudi-
50%
cated delinquent increased more for
40% person (from 56% to 63%), property
(from 57% to 63%), and public order
30% (from 51% to 57%) offense
categories than for cases involving
20% drug offenses (from 63% to 64%).
Dispositions: Probation
Age Between 1985 and 2000, the likelihood of probation being ordered
following an adjudication of delinquency increased for all
■ Among juveniles age 15 or younger, demographic groups
the overall likelihood of being placed
on formal probation increased from Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation by age group:
58% in 1985 to 65% in 2002; similar 15 or younger 16 or older
increases were seen across offense
categories. Public Public
Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
■ Among youth age 16 or older, the 1985 58% 58% 59% 64% 51% 54% 53% 55% 62% 50%
overall likelihood of being placed on 1986 58 58 59 60 50 53 53 54 58 49
formal probation increased between 1987 58 57 60 59 50 53 51 54 59 48
1985 and 2002 from 54% to 58%; 1988 57 56 59 57 51 53 51 54 56 49
similar increases were seen across 1989 57 56 59 55 51 54 51 56 55 50
offense categories. 1990 58 57 60 54 52 55 52 56 55 52
1991 58 55 60 52 53 54 51 56 50 52
■ For both age groups in 2002, adjudi- 1992 58 57 60 54 54 53 51 55 52 50
cated cases involving drug offenses 1993 58 58 60 55 56 53 51 55 53 51
were more likely to result in proba- 1994 58 58 59 56 55 52 51 54 52 49
tion than cases in other offense
categories. 1995 59 58 60 59 54 53 51 55 54 50
1996 62 60 63 62 59 55 53 57 57 52
1997 63 64 65 65 59 57 56 59 61 53
1998 65 64 67 67 62 59 57 61 61 54
1999 67 66 68 68 64 60 59 61 63 56
Gender
2000 65 65 66 67 63 58 57 60 61 54
■ Between 1985 and 2002, the overall 2001 65 65 66 67 62 57 57 59 62 52
likelihood of being placed on formal 2002 65 66 66 67 62 58 58 59 63 52
probation increased more for adjudi-
cated cases involving females (from
58% to 65%) than those involving Percentage of cases adjudicated delinquent resulting in probation by gender:
males (from 56% to 61%). Male Female
Public Public
■ For females in 2002, person offense Year All Person Property Drugs order All Person Property Drugs order
cases adjudicated delinquent were
1985 56% 55% 57% 62% 50% 58% 60% 60% 64% 51%
most likely to be placed on probation
1986 55 55 57 58 50 58 61 60 62 49
(69%), followed by drug offense
1987 55 53 57 59 49 57 61 59 64 50
cases (67%) and property offense 1988 55 53 56 56 49 58 59 60 59 52
cases (66%). Public order offense 1989 55 53 57 54 50 60 61 62 61 53
cases were least likely to result in
formal probation (60%). 1990 56 53 58 54 52 61 64 62 60 54
1991 55 52 58 50 52 61 62 63 58 56
■ Among males, drug offense cases 1992 55 53 57 52 51 61 62 62 60 56
adjudicated delinquent were most 1993 55 54 57 54 52 62 63 63 59 59
likely to be placed on probation 1994 54 53 56 53 51 61 63 62 61 58
(64%) in 2002, followed by property 1995 55 54 57 56 51 62 63 64 63 57
offense cases (62%) and person 1996 58 56 60 58 55 64 65 65 64 61
offense cases (61%). Public order 1997 59 59 61 61 55 66 69 68 68 60
offense cases were least likely to 1998 61 60 63 63 57 67 69 69 70 63
result in formal probation (56%). 1999 62 62 64 64 59 69 71 71 71 64
2000 61 60 62 63 57 66 68 68 67 62
2001 60 60 62 63 56 65 67 66 68 62
2002 61 61 62 64 56 65 69 66 67 60
Dispositions: Probation
Dismissed
68,700 45%
Placed
Property Offense Cases Property offenses Waived 52,700 23%
624,900 2,600 1%
Probation
■ Juvenile courts handled the majority 147,300 63%
(55%) of all property offense cases
formally in 2002. Of these formally Adjudicated Other sanction
handled cases, 233,600 (almost 7 in 233,600 68% 30,400 13%
10) were adjudicated delinquent. Released
3,200 1%
■ In 2002, 147,300 (63%) of the adjudi- Petitioned
cated property offense cases resulted 343,500 55%
in probation as the most severe sanc- Probation
9,300 9%
tion; another 23% (52,700) resulted
in out-of-home placement. Other Not adjudicated Other sanction
sanctions, such as restitution, com- 107,300 31% 23,400 22%
munity service, or referral to another Dismissed
agency, were ordered in 13% of the 74,600 70%
petitioned property offense cases
following adjudication, and about Probation
89,600 32%
3,200 (1%) were released.
Not petitioned Other sanction
■ Of the four general offense 281,400 45% 92,900 33%
categories, property offense cases
Dismissed
were least likely to be petitioned for 98,800 35%
formal processing. Once petitioned,
however, property offense cases
were more likely to result in the youth Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not
being adjudicated delinquent than add to totals because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985
were cases involving person offenses. through 2002 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
Placed
Public order offenses Waived 39,800 24% Public Order Offense Cases
409,800 600 <1%
Probation
95,200 57% ■ In 2002, the majority (59%) of all
public order offense cases were han-
Adjudicated Other sanction dled formally, with the filing of a peti-
166,000 69% 28,800 17% tion for adjudication.
Released
2,300 1% ■ Once adjudicated delinquent, 57% of
Petitioned public order offense cases in 2002
240,900 59% resulted in probation as the most
Probation severe sanction, 24% were placed
2,900 4%
out of home, and 17% resulted in
Not adjudicated Other sanction other sanctions.
74,300 31% 19,300 26%
■ In 2002, 41% of all public order
Dismissed
52,100 70% offense cases were handled informal-
ly. More than 40% of these cases
Probation were dismissed, while the remaining
47,200 28% cases resulted in some form of court
Not petitioned Other sanction sanction, including probation, restitu-
168,900 41% 49,800 29% tion, community service, or referral to
another agency.
Dismissed
71,900 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 2002 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
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 2002 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
Probation
66,700 31%
Dismissed
76,800 36%
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 2002 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
Released
■ In 2002, 45% of delinquency cases 2,700 2%
involving white youth were handled Petitioned
informally, compared with 35% of 306,000 65%
Probation
cases involving black youth and 42% 5,500 4%
of cases involving youth of other
races. Not adjudicated Other sanction
124,600 41% 29,900 24%
Dismissed
89,200 72%
Probation
47,900 29%
Dismissed
71,100 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 2002 are available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.
188 Dismissed
■ In 2002, 23% of robbery cases
received a formal sanction of out-of- 14 Probation
home placement (234 of 1,000) and
28% resulted in formal probation 135 Not petitioned 23 Other sanction
(278 of 1,000). 98 Dismissed
■ Of all robbery cases referred to juve-
nile court in 2002, 14% were not
petitioned; the majority (72%) of
these cases were dismissed.
Status offenses are acts that are ille- referred 43% of runaway cases that
gal only because the persons com- were formally handled in juvenile
mitting them are of juvenile status. court between 1985 and 2002 and
The four major status offense catego- just 11% of truancy and 16% of un-
ries used in this Report are running governability cases. Law enforce-
away, truancy, ungovernability (also ment agencies were more likely to be
known as incorrigibility or being the referral source for liquor law vio-
beyond the control of one’s parents), lations than for other status offense
and underage liquor law violations cases, referring 91% of such cases
(e.g., a minor in possession of alco- that were formally handled in juve-
hol, underage drinking). A number of nile court between 1985 and 2002.
other behaviors may be considered
status offenses (e.g., curfew viola- Juvenile courts may adjudicate peti-
tions, tobacco offenses). Because of tioned status offense cases and may
the heterogeneity of these miscella- order sanctions such as probation or
neous offenses, they are not discussed out-of-home placement. While their
independently in this Report but are cases are being processed, juveniles
included in discussions and displays charged with status offenses are
of petitioned status offense totals. sometimes held in secure detention.
(Note that the Juvenile Justice and
Agencies other than juvenile courts Delinquency Prevention Act discour-
are responsible for processing status ages secure detention of status
offense cases in many jurisdictions. offenders. States holding large num-
In some communities, for example, bers of status offenders in secure
family crisis units, county attorneys, detention risk losing a significant
and social service agencies have portion of their juvenile justice block
assumed this responsibility. When a grant awards.)
juvenile charged with a status offense
is referred to juvenile court, the court Because of variations in data collec-
may divert the juvenile away from tion and storage, the available data
the formal justice system to other cannot support national estimates of
agencies for service or may decide to the volume of petitioned status
process the juvenile formally with offense cases and trends in these
the filing of a petition. The analyses cases. Therefore, this chapter pre-
in this Report are limited to peti- sents a sample-based profile of cases
tioned cases. disposed between 1985 and 2002, in-
cluding demographic characteristics
The manner in which status offense of the juveniles involved, types of
cases come to the attention of the offenses charged, and the flow of
juvenile court varies by offense. For cases as they move through juvenile
example, law enforcement agencies court processing.
Age
■ Overall, the volume of petitioned sta- Unlike the other status offense categories, the volume of petitioned
tus offense cases peaked at age 15. liquor law violation cases continued to increase with age
■ Youth age 15 or younger accounted
for 59% of formally processed status Percent of cases, 1985–2002
offense cases disposed by the courts. 30%
This included 66% of all runaway
cases, 72% of ungovernability cases, 25%
78% of truancy cases, and 26% of
liquor law violation cases. 20%
■ Age-specific patterns differed among All status offenses
the individual status offense 15%
categories. Among cases involving
runaway, truancy, and ungovernability 10%
offenses, the proportions of the case-
loads peaked at age 15 and 5%
decreased substantially by age 17.
■ For cases involving liquor law viola- 0%
tions, the proportion of the caseload 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
increased continuously with age. Age
Youth age 14 accounted for 7% of the
petitioned status offense caseload
involving liquor law violations, while
15-year-olds accounted for 16%, 16- Percent of cases within offense category, 1985–2002
year-olds accounted for 32%, and 17- 45%
year-olds comprised 42% of the ◆
40%
liquor law violation caseload. Liquor
35%
◆
30% ●
Truancy
25% ● Runaway
20%
◆ ●
15% ●
10%
● ◆ Ungovernability ●
5%
●
● ◆
0% ◆ ◆ ◆
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age
Data Table
Age Total Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
10 1% 0% 1% 1% 0%
11 1 1 3 3 0
12 4 4 6 7 0
13 10 11 14 14 2
14 18 21 24 22 7
15 25 29 30 26 16
16 24 25 16 20 32
17 18 9 7 8 42
The proportion of females was greatest in petitioned runaway cases ■ Males were involved in 58% of the
total petitioned status offense case-
load.
Percent of cases within offense category, 1985–2002 ■ Males accounted for the large majori-
100%
ty (70%) of status liquor law violation
90% cases.
30%
80% ■ Females accounted for 61% of peti-
46% 46%
70% 58% 61% tioned runaway cases, the only sta-
60%
tus offense category In which
females represented a larger propor-
50% tion of the caseload than males.
40%
70% ■ Males represented a slight majority
30% of both petitioned truancy and
54% 54%
20% 42% 39% ungovernability cases (54% each).
10% ■ White youth represented 80% of the
0% population under juvenile court juris-
All status Runaway Truancy Ungovernable Liquor diction between 1985 and 2002.
During this period, they were
Male Female involved in 77% of all formally
processed status offense cases,
a proportion comparable to their
representation in the general juvenile
population.
■ While white youth were involved in
73% of both runaway and truancy
cases and 71% of ungovernability
cases, they represented 90% of the
petitioned liquor law violation case-
White juveniles accounted for the greatest proportion (90%) of
load.
petitioned status offense cases involving liquor law violations
Detention
■ Youth age 15 or younger accounted Youth age 15 or younger accounted for more than two-thirds of
for 58% of the petitioned status runaway cases involving detention
offense cases that involved detention.
■ Cases involving youth age 16 or Percent of detained cases within offense category, 1985–2002
older accounted for the large majority 100%
(72%) of liquor offense cases involv- 17%
90%
ing detention. 33% 29%
80% 42%
■ Cases involving youth age 15 or
70%
younger accounted for 83% of truan- 72%
cy cases, 71% of ungovernability 60%
cases, and 67% of runaway cases 50%
that involved detention. 83%
40%
67% 71%
30% 58%
Percentage of petitioned status 20%
offense cases detained: 28%
10%
0%
Most serious All status Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
offense 1985–2002
All status offenses 9% 15 or younger 16 or older
Runaway 16
Truancy 4
Ungovernability 10
Liquor 8
Detention
Females accounted for 58% of runaway cases involving detention ■ Males were involved in 59% of for-
mally processed status offense cases
Percent of detained cases within offense category, 1985–2002 that involved detention.
100%
90% 23%
Percentage of petitioned status
80% 41% 44% 46% offense cases detained by gender,
70% 58% 1985–2002:
60%
50% Most serious
offense Male Female
40% 77% All status offenses 9% 8%
30% 59% 56% Runaway 18 16
54%
20% 42% Truancy 4 3
Ungovernability 10 10
10% Liquor 8 6
0%
All status Runaway Truancy Ungovernable Liquor ■ The likelihood of detention in formally
processed status offense cases var-
Male Female ied little between males and females
among the offense categories.
Adjudication
Disposition
Probation was the most common disposition for adjudicated status ■ Among adjudicated status offense
offense cases cases, runaway and ungovernability
cases were most likely to result in
Percentage of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in out-of-home place- out-of-home placement; truancy
ment, 1985–2002: cases had the greatest likelihood of
Most serious offense resulting in a disposition of probation.
Demographic Total Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
Age
All 15% 27% 11% 26% 8%
■ Once adjudicated, status offense
Age cases involving younger juveniles
15 or younger 17 27 12 26 9
were somewhat more likely to result
16 or older 12 26 8 24 7
in out-of-home placement than were
Gender
cases involving older juveniles.
Male 15 29 11 26 9 ■ For both age groups, larger propor-
Female 15 25 10 25 5 tions of adjudicated runaway and
ungovernability cases resulted in out-
Race of-home placement than cases that
White 14 26 11 26 7
involved truancy and liquor offenses.
Black 20 29 11 23 15
Other races 14 21 13 26 10
Gender
Percentage of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in probation, 1985–2000: ■ Once adjudicated, runaway cases
Most serious offense involving males were more likely than
Demographic Total Runaway Truancy Ungovernability Liquor
those involving females to be
ordered to out-of-home placement
All 62% 61% 78% 66% 57% (29% vs. 25%) and less likely to
result in a formal probation order
Age (58% vs. 64%).
15 or younger 65 62 78 65 61
16 or older 57 60 77 67 56
Race
Gender
Male 60 58 77 66 57 ■ Adjudicated ungovernable cases
Female 59 64 79 66 59 involving black youth were much
more likely to result in formal proba-
Race tion (72%) than cases involving white
White 60 61 76 64 57 youth (64%) or youth of other races
Black 70 62 82 72 65 (65%); adjudicated ungovernable
Other races 61 71 79 65 55 cases involving black youth were less
likely to result in out-of-home place-
ment (23%) than cases involving
Note: In addition to out-of-home placement and probation, possible dispositions for adjudicat- white youth and youth of other races
ed status offense cases include other sanctions (e.g., fines) and release. (26% for both).
■ Adjudicated runaway cases involving
black youth were more likely to result
in out-of-home placement (29%) than
were cases involving white youth
(26%) or youth of other races (21%).
A similar pattern held true for adjudi-
cated liquor law violation cases.
122 Placed
Runaway Cases Runaway 282 Probation
Adjudicated a
459 status offender 37 Other sanction
■ For every 1,000 petitioned runaway A typical 1,000 petitioned
cases, 282 resulted in formal proba- runaway cases 18 Released
tion following adjudication and 122
were placed out of the home. Not adjudicated 150 Informal sanction
■ Among petitioned runaway cases, 541 a status offender
391 Dismissed
youth were not adjudicated a status
offender in 541 of a typical 1,000
cases. Of these 541 cases, most
were dismissed (72%).
68 Placed
Truancy Cases Truancy 488 Probation
Adjudicated a
629 status offender 61 Other sanction
■ Of a typical 1,000 formal truancy A typical 1,000 petitioned
cases, 488 resulted in formal proba- truancy cases 12 Released
tion and 68 were placed out of the
home.
Not adjudicated 74 Informal sanction
■ Among petitioned truancy cases, 371 a status offender
298 Dismissed
youth were not adjudicated a status
offender in 371 of a typical 1,000
cases. Of these 371 cases, 80%
were dismissed (298).
160 Placed
Ungovernability Cases Ungovernability 412 Probation
Adjudicated a
625 status offender 41 Other sanction
■ Among the four major status offense A typical 1,000 petitioned
categories, juvenile courts were most ungovernability cases 13 Released
likely to order youth to out-of-home
placement in petitioned ungovernabil-
Not adjudicated 67 Informal sanction
ity cases (160 of 1,000 cases), but 375 a status offender
formal probation was a more likely 307 Dismissed
outcome (412 of 1,000).
Methods
The Juvenile Court Statistics (JCS) tics of each delinquency and status
series uses data provided to the offense case handled by courts, gen-
National Juvenile Court Data Archive erally including the age, gender, and
(the Archive) by state and county race of the youth referred; the date
agencies responsible for collecting and source of referral; the offenses
and/or disseminating information on charged; detention and petitioning
the processing of youth in juvenile decisions; and the date and type of
courts. These data are not the result disposition.
of a uniform data collection effort.
They are not derived from a complete The structure of each data set con-
census of juvenile courts or obtained tributed to the Archive is unique,
from a probability sample of courts. having been designed to meet the in-
The national estimates presented in formation needs of a particular juris-
this Report are developed by using diction. Archive staff study the struc-
compatible information from all ture and content of each data set in
courts that are able to provide data order to design an automated restruc-
to the Archive. turing procedure that will transform
each jurisdiction’s data into a com-
Sources of Data mon case-level format.
Case-level data are usually generated Each year, many juvenile courts con-
by automated client-tracking systems tribute either case-level data or court-
or case-reporting systems managed level aggregate statistics to the
by juvenile courts or other juvenile Archive. However, not all of this infor-
justice agencies. These systems pro- mation can be used to generate the
vide detailed data on the characteris- national estimates contained in JCS.
To be used in the development of Wisconsin. These courts had jurisdic- Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington,
national estimates, the data must be tion over 66% of the nation’s juvenile West Virginia, and Wisconsin. These
in a compatible unit of count (i.e., population in 2002. Compatible court- courts had jurisdiction over 63% of
case disposed), the data source must level aggregate statistics on an addi- the juvenile population. An additional
demonstrate a pattern of consistent tional 69,633 delinquency cases from 325 jurisdictions in 6 states (Califor-
reporting over time (at least 2 years), 227 jurisdictions were reported from nia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, New York,
and the data file contributed to the the states of California, Idaho, Illinois, and Vermont) reported compatible
Archive must represent a complete Indiana, New York, and Vermont. In court-level aggregate statistics on
count of delinquency and/or status all, the Archive received compatible 14,665 petitioned status offense cas-
offense cases disposed in a jurisdic- case-level data and court-level statis- es. Altogether, compatible case-level
tion during a given year. tics on delinquency cases from 2,110 and court-level data on petitioned
jurisdictions containing 75% of the status offense cases were available
In 2002, case-level data describing Nation’s juvenile population in 2002 from 2,188 jurisdictions containing
1,047,793 delinquency cases handled (table A–1). 73% of the U.S. juvenile population in
by 1,884 jurisdictions in 35 states met 2002 (table A–2). Additionally, peti-
the Archive’s criteria for inclusion in Case-level data describing 101,812 tioned status offense case profiles in
the development of national esti- formally handled status offense cases the Report include case-level data
mates. Compatible data were avail- from 1,863 jurisdictions in 34 states describing 1,146,308 cases and court-
able from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, met the criteria for inclusion in the level aggregate data describing
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, sample for 2002. The contributing 114,527 cases for the years 1985
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, states were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, through 2001.
Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, California, Connecticut,
Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, A list of states contributing case-level
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, data (either delinquency or petitioned
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, status offense data), the variables
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Penn- Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, each reports, and the percentage of
sylvania, South Carolina, South Dako- Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, cases containing each variable are
ta, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South presented in Table A–3.
Washington, West Virginia, and Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Juvenile Population that generate the juvenile court refer- set at 10 years for all jurisdictions.
rals in each jurisdiction—i.e., the “ju- On the other hand, the upper age
The volume and characteristics of ju- venile” population of every U.S. county. limit varies by state. Every state de-
venile court caseloads are partly a fines an upper age limit for youth
function of the size and demographic A survey of the Archive’s case-level who will come under the jurisdiction
composition of a jurisdiction’s popu- data shows that very few delinquency of the juvenile court if they commit
lation. Therefore, a critical element in or status offense cases involve youth an illegal act. (See “upper age of juris-
the Archive’s development of national younger than 10. Therefore, the lower diction” in the “Glossary of Terms”
estimates is the population of youth age limit of the juvenile population is section.) Most states define this age
to be 17 years, although some states The estimates, separated into single- race profile of the youth involved in
have set the age at 15 or 16. States of- year age groups, reflect the number juvenile court cases.
ten enact exceptions to this simple of whites, blacks, and individuals of
age criterion (e.g., youthful offender other races2 who reside in each coun- The basic assumption underlying the
legislation and concurrent jurisdic- ty in the Nation and who are between estimation procedure is that similar
tion or extended jurisdiction provi- the ages of 10 and the upper age of legal and demographic factors shape
sions). In general, however, juvenile original juvenile court jurisdiction. the volume and characteristics of
courts have responsibility for all law cases in reporting and nonreporting
violations committed by youth at or Estimation Procedure counties of comparable size and fea-
below the upper age of original tures. The estimation procedure de-
jurisdiction. National estimates are developed by velops independent estimates for the
using the national case-level data- number of petitioned delinquency
For the purposes of this Report, base, the national court-level data- cases and the number of nonpetitioned
therefore, the juvenile population is base, and the Archive’s juvenile popu- delinquency cases handled by juve-
defined as the number of youth living lation estimates for every U.S. county. nile courts nationwide. Identical pro-
in a jurisdiction who are at least 10 “County” was selected as the unit of cedures are used to develop all case
years old but who are not older than aggregation because (1) most juvenile estimates.
the upper age of original juvenile court jurisdictions in the United
court jurisdiction. For example, in States are concurrent with county The first step in the estimation proce-
New York, where the upper age of ju- boundaries, (2) most data contributed dure is to place all U.S. counties into
venile court jurisdiction is 15, the ju- by juvenile courts include the county one of four strata based on the popu-
venile population is the number of in which the case was handled, and lation of youth between the ages of
youth residing in a county who are (3) youth population estimates can 10 and 17. The lower and upper popu-
between the ages of 10 and 15. be developed at the county level.3 lation limits of the four strata are de-
fined each year so that each stratum
The juvenile population estimates The Archive’s national estimates are contains one-quarter of the national
used in this Report were developed generated by analyzing the data ob- population of youth between the ages
with data from the Census Bureau.1 tained from its nonprobability sample of 10 and 17. In each of the four stra-
of juvenile courts and then weighting ta, the Archive determines the num-
those cases to represent the number ber of juveniles in three age groups:
1 County-level intercensal estimates were
of cases handled by juvenile courts 10- through 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds,
obtained for the years 1985–2002. The fol-
lowing data files were used: nationwide. The Archive employs an and 17-year-olds. The three age
elaborate multivariate weighting pro- groups are further subdivided into
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1994. 1980–1989 cedure that adjusts for a number of three racial groups: white, black, and
Preliminary Estimates of the Population of other. Thus, juvenile population esti-
factors related to juvenile court case-
Counties by Age, Sex, and Race [machine- mates are developed for nine age-by-
readable data file]. Washington, DC: U.S. loads: the court’s jurisdictional re-
Census Bureau. sponsibilities (upper age); the size race categories in each stratum of
and demographic composition of the counties.
National Center for Health Statistics. 2005. community; and the age, gender, and
Bridged-race intercensal estimates of the July The next step is to identify within
1, 1990–July 1, 1999 United States Resident each stratum the jurisdictions that
Population by County, Single-year of Age, Sex, 2 “Other races” are Asians, American Indi-
Race, and Hispanic Origin [machine-readable
contributed to the Archive case-level
data file]. Prepared by the U.S. Census ans, and Pacific Islanders. Most individuals data consistent with JCS reporting re-
Bureau with support from the National of Hispanic ancestry are coded as white. quirements. The national case-level
Cancer Institute. Available online: database is summarized to determine
www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/ 3 The only information used in this Report
within each stratum the number of
popbridge/popbridge.htm [released on that cannot be aggregated by county is data
court cases that involved youth in
7/26/2004]. contributed by the Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice, which identifies only the each of the nine age/race population
National Center for Health Statistics. 2004. district in which each case is handled. To groups. Case rates (number of cases
Estimates of the July 1, 2000–July 1, 2003 use the Florida data, the aggregation criteri- per 1,000 juveniles in the population)
United States Resident Population from the on is relaxed to include districts. In 2000, are developed for the nine age/race
Vintage 2003 Postcensal Series by Year, there were 3,140 counties in the United groups within each of the four strata.
County, Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin States. By replacing Florida’s counties with
[machine-readable data file]. Prepared under districts, the total number of aggregation
a collaborative arrangement with the U.S. units for this Report becomes 3,084. There- For example, assume that a total of
Census Bureau. Available online: fore, while the Report uses the term “coun- 2,870,000 white youth between the
www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/ ty” to describe its aggregation unit, the read- ages of 10 and 15 resided in the stra-
popbridge/popbridge.htm [released on er should be aware of the exception made for
tum 2 counties that reported case-level
9/14/2004]. Florida’s data.
data to the Archive. If the Archive’s The jurisdiction’s total caseload of 41,254 petitioned delinquency cases
case-level database shows that the 600 would then be allocated based on involving white 16-year-olds from
juvenile courts in these counties han- these proportions. In this example, stratum 2 counties. Assume also that
dled 50,523 petitioned delinquency 42% of all cases reported in the juris- the national case-level database for
cases involving white youth between diction’s aggregate statistics involved that year contained 25,758 petitioned
the ages of 10 and 15, the number of white youth, 51% involved black delinquency cases involving white 16-
cases per 1,000 white youth ages 10 youth, and the remaining 7% involved year-olds from stratum 2 counties. In
to 15 for stratum 2 would be 17.6, or: youth of other races. When these pro- the Archive’s national estimation da-
portions are applied to a reported ag- tabase, each stratum 2 petitioned de-
(50,523/2,870,000) x 1,000 = 17.6
gregate statistic of 600 cases, this ju- linquency case that involved a white
risdiction is estimated to have 16-year-old would be weighted by 1.60,
Comparable analyses are then used handled 252 cases involving white because:
to establish the stratum 2 case rates youth, 306 cases involving black
for black youth and youth of other 41,254/25,758 = 1.60
youth, and 42 cases involving youth
races in the same age group (50.7 and of other races age 15 or younger. The
16.2, respectively). same method is used to develop case The final step in the estimation proce-
counts for all nine age/race groups for dure is to impute missing data on in-
Next, information contained in the na- each jurisdiction reporting only aggre- dividual case records. Table A–3 indi-
tional court-level database is intro- gate court-level statistics. cates the standardized data elements
duced, and case rates are adjusted that were available from each juris-
accordingly. First, each court-level diction’s 2002 data set. The proce-
The disaggregated court-level counts
statistic is disaggregated into the nine dures to adjust for missing data as-
are added to the counts developed
age/race groups. This separation is sume that case records with missing
from case-level data to produce an es-
accomplished by assuming that, for data are similar in structure to those
timate of the number of cases involv-
each jurisdiction, the relationships without missing data. For example,
ing each of the nine age/race groups
among the stratum’s nine age/race assume that among cases from a par-
handled by reporting courts in each
case rates (developed from the case- ticular stratum, detention information
of the four strata. The juvenile popu-
level data) are paralleled in the aggre- was missing on 100 cases involving
lation figures for the entire sample are
gate statistic. 16-year-old white males who were pe-
also compiled. Together, the case
titioned to court, adjudicated for a
counts and the juvenile population
For example, assume that a jurisdic- property offense, and then placed on
figures are used to generate a revised
tion in stratum 2 with an upper age of probation. If similar cases from the
set of case rates for each of the nine
15 processed 600 cases during the same stratum showed that 20% of
age/race groups within the four strata.
year and that this jurisdiction had a these cases involved detention, then
juvenile population of 12,000 white it would be assumed that 20% of the
Stratum estimates for the total num-
youth, 5,000 black youth, and 2,000 100 cases missing detention informa-
ber of cases involving each age/race
youth of other races. The stratum 2 tion also involved detention. Thus,
group are then calculated by multiply-
case rates for each racial group in the missing data are imputed within each
ing the revised case rate for each of
10–15 age group would be multiplied stratum by reviewing the characteris-
the nine age/race groups in a stratum
by the corresponding population to tics of cases with similar case attri-
by the corresponding juvenile popula-
develop estimates of the proportion butes (i.e., the age, gender, and race
tion in all counties belonging to
of the court’s caseload that came of the youth; the offense charged; and
that stratum (both reporting and
from each age/race group, as follows: the court’s decisions on detention,
nonreporting).
petition, adjudication, and
White: disposition).
After the national estimate for the
(17.6 x 12,000) / [(17.6 x 12,000) + total number of cases in each
(50.7 x 5,000) + (16.2 x 2,000)] = 0.42 More detailed information about the
age/race group in each stratum has
Archive’s national estimation method-
been calculated, the next step is to
Black: ology is available on request from the
generate estimates of their case char-
(50.7 x 5,000) / [(17.6 x 12,000) + National Center for Juvenile Justice.
acteristics. This estimate is accom-
(50.7 x 5,000) + (16.2 x 2,000)] = 0.51 plished by weighting the individual
case-level records stored in the
Other: Archive’s national case-level data-
(16.2 x 2,000) / [(17.6 x 12,000) + base. For example, assume that the
(50.7 x 5,000) + (16.2 x 2,000)] = 0.07 Archive generates an estimate of
Glossary of Terms
Among cases handled informally dependency matters, it is defined as Europe, North Africa, or the Mid-
(see “manner of handling”), some the number of children at or below dle East. (In both the population
cases may be dismissed by the ju- the upper age of jurisdiction. In all and court data, nearly all youth of
venile court because the matter is states, the upper age of jurisdiction is Hispanic ethnicity were included
being handled in another court or defined by statute. Thus, when the in the white racial category.)
agency. upper age of jurisdiction is 17, the de-
■ Black—A person having origins in
linquency and status offense juvenile
■ Other—Miscellaneous disposi- any of the black racial groups of
population is equal to the number of
tions not included above. These Africa.
children ages 10 through 17 living
dispositions include fines, restitu-
within the geographical area serviced ■ Other race—A person having ori-
tion, community service, referrals
by the court. (See “upper age of gins in any of the indigenous peo-
outside the court for services or
jurisdiction.”) ples of North America, the Far
treatment programs with minimal
East, Southeast Asia, the Indian
or no further court involvement
Manner of handling: A general classi- Subcontinent, or the Pacific
anticipated, and dispositions
fication of case processing within the Islands.
coded as “other” in a jurisdiction’s
court system. Petitioned (formally
original data. Reason for referral: The most seri-
handled) cases are those that appear
ous offense for which the youth is re-
on the official court calendar in re-
Formal handling: See “manner of ferred to court intake. Attempts to
sponse to the filing of a petition, com-
handling.” commit an offense are included under
plaint, or other legal instrument re-
that offense, except attempted mur-
questing the court to adjudicate a
Informal handling: See “manner of der, which is included in the aggravat-
youth as a delinquent, status offend-
handling.” ed assault category.
er, or dependent child or to waive ju-
risdiction and transfer a youth to
Intake decision: The decision made ■ Crimes against persons—Includes
criminal court for processing as a
by juvenile court intake that results criminal homicide, forcible rape,
criminal offender. In nonpetitioned
in the case either being handled infor- robbery, aggravated assault, sim-
(informally handled) cases, duly au-
mally at the intake level or being peti- ple assault, and other person of-
thorized court personnel, having
tioned and scheduled for an adjudica- fenses as defined below.
screened the case, decide not to file a
tory or transfer hearing. formal petition. Such personnel in-
◆ Criminal homicide—Causing
clude judges, referees, probation of-
Judicial decision: The decision made ficers, other officers of the court, the death of another person
in response to a petition that asks the and/or agencies statutorily designat- without legal justification or
court to adjudicate or transfer the ed to conduct petition screening for excuse. Criminal homicide is a
youth. This decision is generally the juvenile court. summary category, not a single
made by a juvenile court judge or codified offense. In law, the
referee. term embraces all homicides in
Nonpetitioned case: See “manner of
which the perpetrator inten-
handling.”
Judicial disposition: The disposition tionally kills someone without
rendered in a case after the judicial legal justification or accidental-
Petition: A document filed in juvenile
decision has been made. ly kills someone as a conse-
court alleging that a juvenile is a de-
quence of reckless or grossly
linquent or a status offender and ask-
Juvenile: Youth at or below the up- negligent conduct. It includes
ing that the court assume jurisdiction
per age of original juvenile court ju- all conduct encompassed by
over the juvenile or that an alleged
risdiction. (See “juvenile population” the terms murder, nonnegli-
delinquent be transferred to criminal
and “upper age of jurisdiction.”) gent (voluntary) manslaughter,
court for prosecution as an adult.
negligent (involuntary) man-
Juvenile court: Any court that has ju- slaughter, and vehicular
Petitioned case: See “manner of
risdiction over matters involving manslaughter. The term is
handling.”
juveniles. broader than the Crime Index
category used in the Federal
Race: The race of the youth referred, Bureau of Investigation’s
Juvenile population: For delinquency as determined by the youth or by
and status offense matters, the juve- (FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reports
court personnel. (UCR), in which murder/
nile population is defined as the num-
ber of children between the age of 10 nonnegligent manslaughter
■ White—A person having origins in does not include negligent
and the upper age of jurisdiction. For any of the indigenous peoples of
◆ Violent Crime Index—Includes social agencies, district attorneys, time period covered by this Report,
the offenses of murder/nonneg- probation officers, victims, other the upper age of jurisdiction was 15
ligent manslaughter, forcible private citizens, and miscella- in 3 states (Connecticut, New York,
rape, robbery, and aggravated neous sources of referral often and North Carolina) and 16 in 10
assault. only defined by the code “other” states (Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana,
in the original data. Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,
◆ Property Crime Index—In-
New Hampshire, South Carolina, Tex-
cludes the offenses of burglary,
Status offense: Behavior that is con- as, and Wisconsin). In the remaining
larceny-theft, motor vehicle
sidered an offense only when commit- 37 states and the District of Colum-
theft, and arson.
ted by a juvenile (e.g., running away bia, the upper age of jurisdiction was
from home). (See “reason for referral.”) 17. It must be noted that within most
Source of referral: The agency or in-
states, there are exceptions in which
dividual filing a complaint with intake
Unit of count: A case disposed by a youth at or below the state’s upper
that initiates court processing.
court with juvenile jurisdiction during age of jurisdiction can be placed un-
the calendar year. Each case repre- der the original jurisdiction of the
■ Law enforcement agency—
sents a youth referred to the juvenile adult criminal court. For example, in
Includes metropolitan police, state most states, if a youth of a certain
court for a new referral for one or
police, park police, sheriffs, con- age is charged with an offense from a
more offenses. (See “reason for refer-
stables, police assigned to the ju- defined list of “excluded offenses,”
ral.”) The term disposed means that
venile court for special duty, and the case must originate in the adult
during the year some definite action
all others performing a police criminal court. In addition, in a num-
was taken or some treatment plan
function, with the exception of ber of states, the district attorney is
was decided on or initiated. (See “dis-
probation officers and officers of given the discretion of filing certain
position.”) Under this definition, a
the court. cases in either the juvenile court or
youth could be involved in more than
one case during a calendar year. the criminal court. Therefore, while
■ Other—Includes the youth’s own the upper age of jurisdiction is com-
parents, foster parents, adoptive monly recognized in all states, there
Upper age of jurisdiction: The oldest
parents, stepparents, grandpar- are numerous exceptions to this age
age at which a juvenile court has
ents, aunts, uncles, other legal criterion.
original jurisdiction over an individual
guardians, counselors, teachers,
for law-violating behavior. For the
principals, attendance officers,
states. Therefore, the data displayed California nonpetitioned delinquency Finally, although the majority of the
in this table should not be used to case rate was generated from the data presented in the appendix are
make comparisons among the delin- total number of nonpetitioned delin- for calendar years, several reporting
quency, status offense, or dependency quency cases from reporting counties. jurisdictions were not able to aggre-
workloads of counties or states with- gate data for this timeframe. In those
out carefully studying the definitions The figures within a column relate instances, the data cover fiscal years.
of the statistics presented. For rea- only to the specific case type. How- The period of coverage is indicated in
sons of confidentiality, case counts ever, some jurisdictions were unable the notes.
greater than 0 and less than 5 are not to provide statistics that distinguish
displayed in the table and are repre- delinquency and status offense cases For a complete county listing of juve-
sented with an asterisk (*). States from dependency matters or, at nile court case counts, readers are
that have indicated incomplete re- times, from other court activities. encouraged to visit Easy Access to
porting of data also are noted. Such information is presented in this State and County Juvenile Court Case
appendix in a column labeled “All Counts, a Web-based version of this
Furthermore, caution must be taken reported cases.” By its nature, this appendix, available from OJJDP’s
when interpreting the case rates ap- column contains a heterogeneous Statistical Briefing Book at
pearing at the end of each state table. mixture of units of count and case www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/
Case rate is defined as the number of types. These variations are identified index.html. Unlike this appendix, the
juvenile court cases per 1,000 juve- in the notes associated with each pre- Web version does not aggregate data
niles in the population in the report- sentation of data. Furthermore, due from the smaller counties in each
ing counties. For example, not all Cali- to the nature of these data, case rates state.
fornia counties reported statistics on are not calculated for the “All reported
nonpetitioned delinquency cases. The cases” column.
Alabama – 67 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Autauga 44,700 5,900 12,500 105 150 16 36 0 — —
Baldwin 144,900 16,600 34,800 613 48 278 139 * — —
Barbour 29,000 3,500 7,200 166 * 46 20 0 — —
Bibb 21,100 2,300 5,200 61 0 29 0 18 — —
Blount 52,200 5,900 13,100 190 0 217 68 * — —
Bullock 11,400 1,400 2,900 11 0 10 0 * — —
Butler 21,200 2,700 5,500 65 * * * 0 — —
Calhoun 111,200 11,800 25,800 553 282 77 174 96 — —
Chambers 36,400 4,000 8,800 136 6 72 7 0 — —
Coffee 43,600 5,100 10,600 217 0 121 0 * — —
Colbert 54,900 6,000 12,800 157 0 42 0 27 — —
Cullman 77,700 8,500 18,500 350 25 66 431 * — —
Dale 49,200 5,700 13,100 295 0 302 0 * — —
Dallas 46,000 6,100 13,000 439 0 262 0 16 — —
De Kalb 65,700 7,000 16,000 187 0 30 0 9 — —
Elmore 67,700 7,900 17,100 310 0 96 0 * — —
Etowah 103,000 11,200 24,300 386 0 84 0 0 — —
Houston 89,600 10,600 22,900 737 61 241 30 0 — —
Jackson 54,100 6,000 12,800 269 0 193 0 * — —
Jefferson 661,100 74,400 162,000 1,775 623 299 289 0 — —
Lauderdale 87,500 9,300 19,800 357 59 128 286 17 — —
Lee 116,500 12,000 26,400 561 162 401 248 68 — —
Limestone 66,900 7,400 16,400 183 66 13 10 22 — —
Madison 281,000 32,400 71,100 1,241 576 39 428 39 — —
Marshall 82,400 9,000 20,300 403 52 297 889 17 — —
Mobile 400,500 49,100 108,500 2,084 1,626 289 1,277 260 — —
Montgomery 222,800 25,600 57,000 1,620 183 55 * 58 — —
Morgan 111,700 12,800 27,800 692 75 170 462 55 — —
Russell 49,500 5,900 13,000 349 0 318 0 27 — —
St. Clair 66,300 7,800 16,500 175 0 396 0 0 — —
Shelby 149,200 17,000 38,700 331 123 160 269 14 — —
Talladega 80,300 9,300 19,700 464 24 97 90 * — —
Tuscaloosa 165,400 16,900 38,100 809 231 92 104 67 — —
Walker 70,800 7,500 16,500 374 0 494 0 * — —
33 Small Counties 732,600 85,700 182,900 2,828 54 2,107 80 178 — —
Number of Reported Cases 19,493 4,432 7,540 5,342 1,010 — —
Population Represented 4,468,000 510,300 1,111,700 510,300 510,300 510,300 510,300 1,111,700 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 38.20 8.68 14.77 10.47 0.91 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 67 67 67 — —
Alaska – 27 Districts
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
27 Small Districts 632,400 90,300 189,600 1,993 4,191 — — — — —
Number of Reported Cases 1,993 4,191 — — — — —
Population Represented 632,400 90,300 189,600 90,300 90,300 — — — — —
Rates for Reporting Districts 22.07 46.41 — — — — —
Number of Reporting Districts 27 27 — — — — —
Arizona – 15 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Apache 67,800 12,700 25,800 166 178 27 97 — — —
Cochise 118,800 14,900 31,700 617 1,327 60 557 — — —
Coconino 117,600 16,200 33,900 767 1,177 193 759 — — —
Maricopa 3,196,200 370,600 881,000 12,651 9,219 2,536 8,863 — — —
Mohave 160,000 17,300 37,500 783 1,204 27 608 — — —
Navajo 99,000 17,100 34,900 752 486 138 508 — — —
Pima 861,400 97,100 216,100 5,985 6,091 145 4,085 — — —
Pinal 186,900 21,600 47,600 1,352 902 110 738 — — —
Yavapai 173,700 18,200 37,100 928 1,016 102 607 — — —
Arkansas – 75 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Benton 159,400 18,700 42,400 278 — 240 — 104 — —
Craighead 83,000 8,700 20,000 238 — 304 — 16 — —
Crittenden 51,200 7,100 15,800 463 — 128 — 25 — —
Faulkner 88,400 10,200 22,400 307 — 333 — 106 — —
Garland 89,200 9,100 19,100 489 — 420 — 188 — —
Jefferson 83,700 10,100 21,800 543 — 292 — 137 — —
Mississippi 51,100 6,800 15,200 282 — 245 — 58 — —
Pulaski 362,400 40,000 91,800 1,805 — 519 — 323 — —
Saline 85,000 10,200 21,300 262 — 141 — 67 — —
Sebastian 116,300 13,400 30,400 436 — 480 — 185 — —
Washington 162,400 17,400 40,900 726 — 500 — 106 — —
White 68,500 7,700 16,600 111 — 135 — 43 — —
63 Small Counties 1,291,400 153,000 322,700 4,085 — 2,953 — 1,290 — —
Number of Reported Cases 10,025 — 6,690 — 2,648 — —
Population Represented 2,692,100 312,200 680,300 312,200 — 312,200 — 680,300 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 32.11 — 21.43 — 3.89 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 75 — 75 — 75 — —
California – 58 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Alameda 1,470,500 156,200 362,000 3,316 3,570 6 78 2,163 — —
Butte 205,900 24,000 48,500 1,096 591 18 26 407 — —
Contra Costa 976,900 117,600 257,900 0 0 0 0 9 — —
El Dorado 161,400 21,000 40,900 565 355 11 29 158 — —
Fresno 814,700 116,000 256,900 3,595 7,490 14 212 — — —
Humboldt 126,700 14,200 28,900 339 82 6 35 59 — —
Imperial 143,700 21,200 44,300 1,784 258 167 32 95 — —
Kern 675,900 96,100 212,800 5,001 3,166 12 2,652 2,225 — —
Kings 131,900 16,600 38,000 535 0 * 0 180 — —
Lake 60,600 7,400 14,400 254 274 * 11 138 — —
Los Angeles 9,656,400 1,158,100 2,680,400 16,808 14,490 273 335 10,004 — —
Madera 125,900 16,700 36,700 664 681 12 304 150 — —
Marin 248,400 23,000 50,600 494 173 22 52 52 — —
Mendocino 86,900 11,000 21,800 196 0 * 0 113 — —
Merced 218,200 34,000 74,200 749 803 188 403 191 — —
Monterey 408,300 50,700 115,900 1,127 1,338 23 27 30 — —
Napa 127,700 14,300 30,500 326 211 14 43 61 — —
Nevada 93,900 11,300 20,900 256 221 10 70 33 — —
Orange 2,895,800 329,300 776,400 8,214 3,016 92 242 2,254 — —
Placer 264,900 32,500 67,700 856 600 0 43 300 — —
Riverside 1,620,800 220,300 484,500 3,441 2,553 0 56 2,852 — —
Sacramento 1,266,500 157,200 349,400 5,075 798 8 * 1,384 — —
San Bernardino 1,765,600 255,700 561,500 6,320 3,340 814 82 4,691 — —
San Diego 2,858,900 322,800 738,600 7,015 2,444 884 232 2,637 — —
San Francisco 774,500 48,600 112,400 1,029 1,622 * 9 768 — —
San Joaquin 593,100 83,300 181,400 1,706 0 0 0 931 — —
San Luis Obispo 250,900 26,500 53,000 770 0 * 0 225 — —
San Mateo 707,400 70,400 162,400 1,786 793 18 29 338 — —
Santa Barbara 400,800 44,700 99,200 1,722 1,445 72 557 117 — —
Santa Clara 1,690,100 176,400 416,300 3,714 3,833 * 164 1,017 — —
Santa Cruz 255,300 28,200 60,400 587 0 0 0 199 — —
Shasta 167,300 21,800 42,500 988 957 11 136 116 — —
Solano 404,600 53,000 114,900 1,294 162 21 16 244 — —
Sonoma 465,700 53,800 112,600 1,321 945 * 195 198 — —
Stanislaus 465,300 66,400 142,700 1,769 1,926 16 348 369 — —
Sutter 80,100 10,700 22,800 216 347 * 29 139 — —
Colorado – 63 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Adams 377,100 45,400 107,500 1,172 — — — 398 — —
Arapahoe 503,200 62,300 135,000 1,729 — — — 342 — —
Boulder 298,900 31,500 69,300 1,356 — — — 135 — —
Denver 561,500 49,900 126,900 2,248 — — — 531 — —
Douglas 198,100 25,000 61,700 596 — — — 12 — —
El Paso 534,000 66,300 148,600 2,054 — — — 420 — —
Jefferson 531,800 64,200 134,300 2,148 — — — 301 — —
Larimer 259,600 29,000 61,700 940 — — — 101 — —
Mesa 119,200 14,200 29,600 408 — — — 141 — —
Pueblo 144,400 17,000 37,200 591 — — — 229 — —
Weld 193,600 24,000 54,100 1,123 — — — 131 — —
52 Small Counties 705,700 82,000 171,100 2,621 — — — 572 — —
Number of Reported Cases 16,986 — — — 3,313 — —
Population Represented 4,427,300 510,900 1,137,000 510,900 — — — 1,137,000 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 33.25 — — — 2.91 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 63 — — — 63 — —
Delaware – 3 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Kent 129,100 15,700 34,100 1,645 — — — 308 — —
New Castle 506,000 55,000 122,000 5,515 — — — 815 — —
Sussex 160,500 16,300 34,900 1,639 — — — 113 — —
Number of Reported Cases 8,799 — — — 1,236 — —
Population Represented 795,600 87,100 191,000 87,100 — — — 191,000 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 101.08 — — — 6.47 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 3 — — — 3 — —
Florida – 67 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Alachua 219,300 20,900 44,500 1,321 586 11 12 — — —
Bay 149,900 17,000 36,500 963 555 35 112 — — —
Brevard 486,500 52,700 107,700 2,493 1,314 22 36 — — —
Broward 1,670,800 180,600 404,100 7,157 3,416 41 26 — — —
Charlotte 146,200 11,500 23,300 605 395 6 13 — — —
Citrus 121,300 10,800 21,100 465 340 6 * — — —
Clay 146,000 20,000 40,500 976 605 9 22 — — —
Collier 264,400 23,800 53,700 1,288 542 36 64 — — —
Columbia 57,500 7,000 14,600 283 227 * * — — —
Duval 790,700 94,100 211,300 3,682 3,438 * 22 — — —
Escambia 296,500 32,300 70,100 2,889 767 20 23 — — —
Hernando 134,400 12,700 25,900 445 192 * 0 — — —
Highlands 88,600 8,100 17,200 439 471 * 16 — — —
Hillsborough 1,026,400 117,500 264,000 5,106 4,492 36 50 — — —
Indian River 115,400 10,800 22,400 507 207 11 10 — — —
Lake 224,200 21,300 46,100 1,450 500 13 23 — — —
Lee 459,100 42,200 92,600 2,342 943 34 45 — — —
Leon 239,200 23,500 51,800 1,251 595 26 38 — — —
Manatee 272,400 26,000 58,000 1,518 891 10 9 — — —
Marion 265,100 27,800 57,400 1,592 641 18 15 — — —
Martin 129,200 11,900 24,500 750 457 46 24 — — —
Miami-Dade 2,287,100 262,600 572,400 10,764 3,288 56 22 — — —
Monroe 79,200 6,400 13,700 270 233 * 16 — — —
Nassau 59,100 7,100 14,700 278 139 6 14 — — —
Okaloosa 171,700 20,100 43,200 1,508 423 92 44 — — —
Orange 926,200 105,300 238,900 6,799 1,574 31 13 — — —
Osceola 183,300 22,900 49,700 1,306 423 * * — — —
Palm Beach 1,158,800 115,200 251,300 4,669 3,783 19 80 — — —
Pasco 359,400 34,400 74,400 2,073 442 11 * — — —
Pinellas 923,800 84,700 182,700 6,229 2,387 67 36 — — —
Polk 492,100 55,900 122,200 3,723 2,314 45 79 — — —
Putnam 70,500 8,400 17,600 375 304 0 0 — — —
St. Johns 130,100 14,800 30,000 606 415 28 21 — — —
St. Lucie 198,200 21,500 45,200 1,133 289 8 * — — —
Santa Rosa 121,900 15,900 32,200 624 271 39 45 — — —
Sarasota 333,400 26,700 55,400 1,419 538 24 34 — — —
Seminole 373,400 44,900 95,100 2,014 985 30 51 — — —
Volusia 451,600 45,100 93,000 3,231 1,479 93 123 — — —
29 Small Counties 730,600 80,700 168,300 3,750 1,946 55 72 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 88,293 42,807 1,002 1,223 — — —
Population Represented 16,353,600 1,745,100 3,787,400 1,745,100 1,745,100 1,745,100 1,745,100 — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 50.59 24.53 0.57 0.70 — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 67 67 — — —
Hawaii – 5 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Hawaii 151,800 19,800 41,100 553 399 89 662 511 — —
Honolulu 879,400 89,900 204,200 1,616 415 359 1,974 1,179 — —
Kalawao 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — —
Kauai 59,100 7,500 15,400 353 72 42 210 64 — —
Maui 131,600 15,200 33,000 419 162 179 291 120 — —
Number of Reported Cases 2,941 1,048 669 3,137 1,874 — —
Population Represented 1,222,000 132,400 293,700 132,400 132,400 132,400 132,400 293,700 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 22.22 7.92 5.05 23.70 6.38 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 5 5 5 5 5 — —
Idaho – 44 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Ada 312,900 37,300 84,600 2,960 216 — — 117 72 —
Bannock 75,900 9,300 21,200 1,331 137 — — 163 * —
Bonneville 83,900 12,400 26,400 318 466 — — 27 36 —
Canyon 139,200 18,100 42,700 0 1,899 — — 0 155 —
Kootenai 111,800 14,100 29,900 0 971 — — 0 90 —
Twin Falls 64,600 8,300 17,700 708 159 — — 154 14 —
38 Small Counties 533,000 71,700 148,700 3,629 1,277 — — 417 129 —
Number of Reported Cases 8,946 5,125 — — 878 501 —
Population Represented 1,321,200 171,100 371,100 171,100 171,100 — — 371,100 371,100 —
Rates for Reporting Counties 52.28 29.95 — — 2.37 1.35 —
Number of Reporting Counties 44 44 — — 44 44 —
Indiana – 92 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Allen 335,200 41,200 93,700 2,567 979 1,244 378 353 — —
Bartholomew 72,000 8,500 19,200 190 61 55 52 24 — —
Clark 97,200 10,500 23,800 173 * 38 0 102 — —
Delaware 119,600 12,100 26,300 205 98 108 108 162 — —
Elkhart 185,500 23,800 54,200 708 596 149 377 88 — —
Floyd 71,400 8,700 18,500 160 141 63 81 * — —
Grant 72,900 8,000 17,300 363 99 59 74 39 — —
Hamilton 196,800 25,400 60,500 754 171 132 29 438 — —
Hancock 56,700 7,000 14,900 76 97 7 84 20 — —
Hendricks 109,900 14,000 30,500 449 312 124 80 10 — —
Henry 48,400 5,500 11,700 75 28 21 21 55 — —
Howard 85,000 9,800 22,000 348 40 94 17 83 — —
Johnson 118,700 14,500 32,100 586 62 40 11 65 — —
Knox 39,000 4,200 8,800 46 11 25 47 16 — —
Kosciusko 74,800 9,400 20,800 46 88 0 6 29 — —
Lake 485,400 58,600 129,500 2,183 0 210 0 661 — —
La Porte 110,300 12,500 27,100 465 7 98 22 68 — —
Lawrence 46,100 5,100 11,300 121 124 28 129 21 — —
Madison 132,400 14,400 31,600 725 57 402 89 83 — —
Marion 863,300 97,100 226,300 5,967 3,029 749 1,480 1,372 — —
Marshall 45,600 5,900 12,700 77 25 27 14 76 — —
Monroe 120,100 9,500 21,500 221 71 121 53 236 — —
Morgan 67,200 8,400 18,200 199 23 62 67 27 — —
Porter 148,800 18,100 37,900 746 121 108 32 323 — —
St. Joseph 266,000 30,900 69,400 1,062 353 130 * 303 — —
Shelby 43,900 5,500 11,700 84 22 7 19 34 — —
Tippecanoe 149,600 13,600 31,300 441 9 649 * 215 — —
Vanderburgh 171,900 18,200 40,200 413 115 64 75 297 — —
Iowa – 99 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Black Hawk 127,500 13,100 28,200 350 — — — 151 — —
Cerro Gordo 45,700 5,000 10,500 71 — — — 108 — —
Clinton 50,000 6,000 12,400 147 — — — 90 — —
Des Moines 42,000 4,700 10,000 126 — — — 94 — —
Dubuque 89,200 10,300 22,100 340 — — — 135 — —
Johnson 112,800 9,400 21,900 212 — — — 148 — —
Linn 193,900 20,900 48,100 407 — — — 337 — —
Muscatine 41,900 4,900 10,800 115 — — — 107 — —
Polk 380,200 41,100 96,000 1,175 — — — 1,377 — —
Pottawattamie 87,800 10,500 22,200 255 — — — 233 — —
Scott 158,700 19,000 40,900 351 — — — 293 — —
Story 79,600 6,600 14,500 91 — — — 26 — —
Warren 41,100 5,100 10,700 84 — — — 59 — —
Woodbury 103,500 12,100 27,800 264 — — — 325 — —
85 Small Counties 1,377,700 165,600 335,100 2,622 — — — 2,319 — —
Number of Reported Cases 6,610 — — — 5,802 — —
Population Represented 2,931,600 334,400 711,100 334,400 — — — 711,100 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 19.77 — — — 8.16 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 99 — — — 99 — —
Louisiana – 64 Parishes
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Acadia 58,900 7,000 16,200 — — — — — — 359
Ascension 79,600 9,300 22,100 — — — — — — 575
Bossier 99,700 11,100 26,000 — — — — — — 988
Caddo 251,300 27,100 62,200 — — — — — — 2,927
Calcasieu 183,100 19,500 46,200 — — — — — — 1,150
East Baton Rouge 410,800 41,700 99,500 — — — — — — 1,968
Iberia 73,500 8,700 20,400 — — — — — — 1,254
Jefferson 452,300 45,100 106,000 — — — — — — 6,277
Lafayette 191,100 20,600 48,200 — — — — — — 1,625
Lafourche 90,100 9,900 22,500 — — — — — — 603
Livingston 95,600 11,100 25,700 — — — — — — 331
Orleans 477,600 50,100 118,900 — — — — — — 936
Ouachita 146,400 16,600 38,100 — — — — — — 1,081
Maine – 16 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Androscoggin 104,300 11,800 24,300 417 — — — 69 — —
Aroostook 73,100 8,200 15,800 263 — — — 87 — —
Cumberland 268,000 29,000 60,700 986 — — — 110 — —
Kennebec 118,000 13,700 27,100 540 — — — 63 — —
Oxford 55,300 6,700 12,800 82 — — — 31 — —
Penobscot 145,900 16,100 32,000 517 — — — 131 — —
Somerset 50,900 6,200 12,100 212 — — — 56 — —
York 192,000 22,500 45,900 822 — — — 144 — —
8 Small Counties 279,100 32,100 62,400 1,169 — — — 226 — —
Number of Reported Cases 5,008 — — — 917 — —
Population Represented 1,286,600 146,300 293,200 146,300 — — — 293,200 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 34.23 — — — 3.13 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 16 — — — 16 — —
Maryland – 24 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Allegany 74,400 7,400 15,000 264 508 7 133 — — —
Anne Arundel 496,900 57,000 124,800 1,357 3,005 * 248 — — —
Baltimore 762,200 84,400 178,800 3,306 3,460 * 147 — — —
Calvert 77,700 11,100 22,400 412 282 * 135 — — —
Carroll 154,700 20,100 41,800 307 524 13 89 — — —
Cecil 88,400 11,300 23,900 386 565 * 20 — — —
Charles 125,000 16,700 35,400 476 965 * 88 — — —
Frederick 202,400 25,400 55,200 935 836 43 376 — — —
Harford 222,700 28,500 61,100 548 913 11 259 — — —
Howard 255,400 32,100 71,000 499 1,220 0 148 — — —
Montgomery 893,100 101,200 225,900 1,139 2,047 * 43 — — —
Prince George’s 817,300 95,600 217,500 1,854 2,522 * 258 — — —
St. Mary’s 87,500 11,100 24,100 304 525 0 157 — — —
Washington 133,000 14,300 30,900 387 777 * 150 — — —
Wicomico 85,400 9,700 20,900 188 1,084 * 176 — — —
Baltimore City 645,300 73,400 159,600 6,650 2,318 * 276 — — —
8 Small Counties 258,100 28,200 57,900 886 2,948 11 455 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 19,898 24,499 109 3,158 — — —
Population Represented 5,379,400 627,500 1,366,300 627,500 627,500 627,500 627,500 — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 31.71 39.04 0.17 5.03 — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 24 24 24 24 — — —
Massachusetts – 14 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Barnstable 225,400 19,500 41,700 3,008 — 546 — 95 — —
Berkshire 133,900 12,600 26,900 1,312 — 318 — 74 — —
Bristol 538,900 52,600 122,000 4,102 — 1,138 — 308 — —
Dukes 15,200 1,500 3,100 — — — — — — —
Essex 732,600 72,500 171,500 5,237 — 1,254 — 401 — —
Franklin 71,600 7,300 15,000 1,499 — 316 — 133 — —
Hampden 457,000 48,300 109,100 3,942 — 842 — 408 — —
Michigan – 83 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Allegan 108,000 12,800 28,600 782 — 150 — 84 — —
Barry 57,500 6,500 14,300 381 — 0 — 35 — —
Bay 109,700 10,900 24,800 602 — 26 — 40 — —
Berrien 162,100 17,200 39,200 2,471 — 334 — 160 — —
Calhoun 138,400 14,700 33,600 1,834 — 44 — 161 — —
Cass 51,400 5,600 12,000 368 — 133 — 90 — —
Clinton 65,700 7,500 16,800 405 — * — 37 — —
Eaton 104,700 11,300 25,000 749 — 0 — 41 — —
Genesee 439,000 47,300 112,500 1,729 — 146 — 1,379 — —
Grand Traverse 79,900 8,400 18,300 752 — 27 — 111 — —
Ingham 279,800 25,600 61,600 1,414 — 130 — 595 — —
Ionia 62,100 6,800 15,400 379 — 50 — 30 — —
Isabella 63,700 5,100 11,700 317 — 45 — 107 — —
Jackson 159,900 16,700 38,300 1,453 — 47 — 303 — —
Kalamazoo 239,100 22,800 54,100 2,733 — 391 — 824 — —
Kent 582,000 64,100 154,300 3,753 — 279 — 575 — —
Lapeer 89,500 10,400 22,800 478 — 84 — 58 — —
Lenawee 99,800 10,800 23,700 880 — 7 — 87 — —
Livingston 163,900 19,200 42,900 690 — 237 — 21 — —
Macomb 800,500 76,300 180,500 2,256 — 279 — 617 — —
Marquette 64,600 5,800 12,400 302 — 97 — 42 — —
Midland 83,600 9,300 20,600 434 — 19 — 79 — —
Monroe 148,000 17,000 37,100 1,103 — 172 — 175 — —
Montcalm 62,000 6,900 15,400 315 — 24 — 31 — —
Muskegon 171,500 19,400 43,900 1,244 — 14 — 280 — —
Oakland 1,202,400 119,900 283,100 4,031 — 213 — 335 — —
Ottawa 243,600 27,600 64,700 2,735 — 164 — 214 — —
Saginaw 209,700 22,500 51,800 1,081 — 44 — 367 — —
St. Clair 166,100 18,200 41,000 966 — 38 — 179 — —
St. Joseph 62,500 6,900 16,000 427 — 127 — 122 — —
Shiawassee 72,100 7,900 17,800 365 — 80 — 69 — —
Tuscola 58,400 6,700 14,200 190 — 17 — 50 — —
Van Buren 76,800 9,000 19,900 798 — 120 — 45 — —
Washtenaw 328,300 27,700 68,300 2,068 — 82 — 439 — —
Wayne 2,051,100 226,300 540,700 9,560 — 1,600 — 5,863 — —
48 Small Counties 1,147,300 117,400 252,100 8,385 — 1,183 — 1,036 — —
Number of Reported Cases 58,430 — 6,404 — 14,681 — —
Population Represented 10,004,700 1,048,700 2,429,200 1,048,700 — 1,048,700 — 2,429,200 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 55.72 — 6.11 — 6.04 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 83 — 83 — 83 — —
Minnesota – 87 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Anoka 305,600 39,600 86,200 1,584 — 793 — — — —
Blue Earth 56,300 5,500 11,500 316 — 153 — — — —
Clay 51,600 6,000 12,300 350 — 117 — — — —
Dakota 363,800 47,400 103,600 3,077 — 1,476 — — — —
Hennepin 1,123,200 118,200 266,100 9,116 — 8,197 — — — —
Olmsted 126,700 15,500 33,200 597 — 329 — — — —
Otter Tail 57,200 7,200 13,600 344 — 94 — — — —
Ramsey 512,100 58,200 129,100 3,671 — 789 — — — —
Mississippi – 82 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
De Soto 113,400 13,900 31,500 83 538 * 133 — — —
Forrest 73,100 7,700 17,600 87 292 * 44 — — —
Harrison 189,700 21,700 49,100 129 513 0 10 — — —
Hinds 249,800 30,800 68,300 91 1,216 * 142 — — —
Jackson 132,900 16,700 35,900 127 577 61 98 — — —
Jones 65,000 7,500 16,500 228 207 7 14 — — —
Lauderdale 77,600 9,100 20,300 581 328 106 76 — — —
Lee 76,700 9,400 21,000 184 504 0 14 — — —
Lowndes 61,100 7,700 17,100 77 54 11 16 — — —
Madison 76,500 9,600 21,500 359 34 84 8 — — —
Rankin 119,000 13,800 30,100 207 291 20 62 — — —
Washington 62,000 8,500 19,100 78 520 16 180 — — —
70 Small Counties 1,561,500 192,400 415,100 3,324 4,186 446 753 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 5,555 9,260 758 1,550 — — —
Population Represented 2,858,300 348,700 762,900 348,700 348,700 348,700 348,700 — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 15.93 26.56 2.17 4.45 — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 82 82 82 82 — — —
Montana – 56 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Cascade 79,900 9,500 20,000 254 1,266 14 516 — — —
Flathead 76,100 9,400 18,800 8 1,145 * 75 — — —
Nebraska – 93 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Buffalo 42,300 4,800 10,300 165 — 78 — 62 — —
Dodge 36,100 4,100 8,700 52 — 20 — 43 — —
Douglas 467,800 54,600 123,100 940 — 322 — 693 — —
Hall 53,600 6,300 14,300 223 — 42 — 77 — —
Lancaster 253,200 25,700 59,000 508 — 137 — 0 — —
Sarpy 126,200 16,900 37,800 119 — 52 — * — —
Scotts Bluff 36,600 4,300 9,300 205 — 93 — 55 — —
86 Small Counties 702,900 89,600 180,500 1,957 — 1,001 — 458 — —
Number of Reported Cases 4,169 — 1,745 — 1,389 — —
Population Represented 1,718,800 206,300 442,900 206,300 — 206,300 — 442,900 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 20.21 — 8.46 — 3.14 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 93 — 93 — 93 — —
Nevada – 17 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Churchill 24,500 3,200 7,300 220 183 58 127 — — —
Clark 1,456,300 160,000 384,800 2,864 6,647 304 3,357 — — —
Douglas 42,200 5,400 10,000 222 426 15 131 — — —
Elko 45,300 6,900 14,700 197 314 * 141 — — —
Esmeralda 1,000 100 200 7 * 0 0 — — —
Humboldt 16,000 2,400 5,000 46 46 0 56 — — —
Mineral 4,900 600 1,200 41 11 21 17 — — —
Storey 3,400 400 700 12 15 * * — — —
Washoe 351,700 39,500 89,900 1,430 3,179 133 1,706 — — —
White Pine 8,700 1,000 2,100 71 * * * — — —
7 Small Counties 141,400 17,100 35,800 823 897 200 368 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 5,933 11,726 736 5,910 — — —
Population Represented 2,095,200 236,600 551,600 236,600 236,600 236,600 236,600 — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 25.08 49.57 3.11 24.98 — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 17 17 17 17 — — —
New York 1,551,500 82,600 234,900 1,353 102 172 365 2,206 — —
Niagara 218,700 19,300 46,500 220 234 239 346 208 — —
Oneida 234,300 20,100 48,000 156 293 232 219 354 — —
Onondaga 458,400 41,100 103,100 1,183 363 449 293 628 — —
Ontario 101,100 9,200 22,000 77 187 20 85 113 — —
Orange 349,400 34,900 88,600 290 109 221 124 424 — —
Oswego 122,500 11,800 27,800 197 84 92 192 166 — —
Otsego 61,800 5,100 11,400 22 41 14 53 83 — —
Putnam 97,400 8,800 22,400 33 33 45 9 20 — —
Queens 2,241,200 165,300 449,100 863 234 514 593 1,814 — —
Rensselaer 152,400 13,000 32,000 178 — 243 — 196 — —
Richmond 450,700 39,100 100,300 263 50 128 205 290 — —
Rockland 289,300 27,200 71,100 164 32 103 31 181 — —
St. Lawrence 111,400 9,300 21,900 47 234 52 150 235 — —
Saratoga 204,300 17,500 44,100 185 132 195 55 374 — —
Schenectady 146,200 12,500 31,200 77 115 126 147 565 — —
Steuben 99,300 9,300 22,000 104 — 95 — 199 — —
Suffolk 1,442,000 126,300 331,900 950 407 614 621 2,144 — —
Sullivan 74,000 6,600 15,700 51 — 76 — 156 — —
Tioga 51,600 5,100 11,800 58 23 38 31 149 — —
Tompkins 97,500 6,400 15,300 50 66 60 113 134 — —
Ulster 178,700 15,200 36,000 191 — 200 — 267 — —
Warren 63,600 5,600 13,000 34 42 68 65 52 — —
Washington 61,300 5,600 12,800 58 68 43 156 122 — —
Wayne 93,900 9,200 22,100 104 124 52 121 182 — —
Westchester 933,200 77,300 207,600 579 — 311 — 558 — —
13 Small Counties 464,200 40,300 94,100 400 396 471 396 714 — —
Number of Reported Cases 15,875 7,494 9,451 10,793 24,676 — —
Population Represented 19,085,900 1,596,300 4,125,800 1,596,300 1,470,800 1,596,000 1,470,800 4,125,800 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 9.94 5.10 5.92 7.34 5.98 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 62 56 61 56 62 — —
Ohio – 88 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Allen 108,200 13,000 27,800 1,059 — 313 — 415 — —
Ashtabula 103,000 12,600 26,400 690 — 680 — 37 — —
Athens 62,700 5,100 11,100 407 — 113 — 45 — —
Belmont 69,500 7,400 14,600 612 — 146 — 80 — —
Butler 337,000 39,200 85,900 3,197 — 968 — 488 — —
Clark 144,100 16,500 35,700 2,205 — 289 — 346 — —
Clermont 180,900 22,500 49,500 1,467 — 95 — 132 — —
Columbiana 111,700 13,000 26,500 524 — 151 — 104 — —
Cuyahoga 1,383,100 155,400 340,200 9,173 1,160 809 1,664 6,719 — —
Darke 53,100 6,500 13,600 456 — 123 — 59 — —
Delaware 119,300 14,400 32,700 466 — 80 — 95 — —
Erie 79,400 9,200 19,200 1,855 — 975 — 107 — —
Fairfield 126,300 15,400 33,000 607 — 120 — 311 — —
Franklin 1,078,900 115,200 270,500 6,978 — 1,225 — 4,088 — —
Geauga 91,800 12,300 25,100 356 — 46 — 26 — —
Greene 148,600 16,700 34,600 1,228 — 182 — 112 — —
Hamilton 838,900 99,600 212,900 18,154 — 2,443 — 640 — —
Hancock 72,000 8,300 18,100 857 — 286 — 42 — —
Huron 59,600 7,600 16,500 561 — 197 — 121 — —
Jefferson 73,000 7,400 15,300 380 — 197 — 173 — —
Lake 229,100 25,600 54,200 1,856 — 615 — 213 — —
Lawrence 62,100 7,100 14,900 399 — 223 — 59 — —
Licking 147,400 17,400 37,700 1,345 — 331 — 495 — —
Lorain 286,100 33,400 74,000 2,465 — 156 — 512 — —
Lucas 454,700 54,100 118,200 6,426 — 548 — 502 — —
Mahoning 255,100 28,000 59,400 1,368 — 322 — 366 — —
Marion 66,100 7,900 16,100 1,836 — 96 — 240 — —
Medina 154,800 19,300 41,400 1,113 — 159 — 60 — —
Miami 99,300 12,100 25,100 1,835 — 437 — 176 — —
Montgomery 555,500 61,500 135,500 4,358 — 1,073 — 1,202 — —
Muskingum 84,800 10,100 21,600 1,005 — 284 — 133 — —
Portage 152,800 16,500 35,400 949 — 88 — 195 — —
Oklahoma – 77 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Adair 21,200 2,900 6,300 16 51 0 31 — — —
Alfalfa 6,000 600 1,100 7 16 0 19 — — —
Atoka 13,900 1,500 3,200 7 33 0 * — — —
Beaver 5,600 700 1,400 6 7 0 * — — —
Beckham 19,900 2,200 4,600 51 63 * 38 — — —
Blaine 12,100 1,400 2,800 42 60 * 32 — — —
Bryan 36,700 4,100 8,900 45 115 0 * — — —
Caddo 30,000 4,100 8,300 112 108 16 120 — — —
Canadian 89,700 11,900 24,100 134 161 21 16 — — —
Carter 45,700 5,500 11,700 54 212 * 26 — — —
Cherokee 42,900 5,100 11,000 88 128 14 56 — — —
Choctaw 15,200 1,900 3,900 18 18 0 * — — —
Cimarron 3,100 400 800 * 6 0 0 — — —
Cleveland 212,200 23,700 50,200 278 878 24 281 — — —
Coal 6,100 700 1,600 8 31 0 14 — — —
Comanche 112,200 13,400 31,400 275 578 * 910 — — —
Cotton 6,500 700 1,600 10 43 0 * — — —
Craig 14,800 1,700 3,500 15 49 0 11 — — —
Creek 68,100 8,700 18,100 41 89 0 * — — —
Custer 25,600 2,800 5,900 84 63 * * — — —
Delaware 37,700 4,400 9,100 40 76 * 21 — — —
Dewey 4,600 500 1,000 * * 0 * — — —
Ellis 3,900 400 800 * 8 0 0 — — —
Garfield 57,300 6,400 14,100 116 70 * * — — —
Garvin 27,100 3,100 6,600 60 102 11 46 — — —
Grady 45,900 5,700 11,800 109 83 40 48 — — —
Grant 5,100 700 1,200 6 21 * 0 — — —
Greer 5,900 500 1,100 10 12 0 7 — — —
Harmon 3,200 400 800 6 6 0 * — — —
Harper 3,400 400 800 12 * 0 0 — — —
Haskell 11,800 1,300 3,000 8 8 0 0 — — —
Hughes 13,900 1,500 3,100 22 51 0 * — — —
Jackson 27,900 3,500 8,100 48 86 0 16 — — —
Jefferson 6,600 700 1,500 10 40 0 * — — —
Johnston 10,400 1,200 2,600 7 8 * * — — —
Kay 47,500 5,700 12,300 139 153 0 * — — —
Kingfisher 13,900 1,800 3,600 * 24 * 7 — — —
Kiowa 10,100 1,200 2,400 38 41 * 16 — — —
Latimer 10,600 1,200 2,600 23 49 0 * — — —
Le Flore 48,200 5,700 12,500 24 108 * 25 — — —
Lincoln 32,100 4,200 8,500 14 62 0 * — — —
Logan 34,600 4,200 8,400 76 134 * 24 — — —
Love 8,800 1,100 2,200 * 19 0 * — — —
McClain 27,900 3,500 7,200 64 90 0 28 — — —
Oregon – 36 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Benton 77,800 8,100 16,300 — — — — — — 298
Clackamas 345,400 42,800 89,200 — — — — — — 1,168
Coos 62,400 7,000 13,400 — — — — — — 678
Deschutes 120,800 14,300 29,500 — — — — — — 671
Douglas 100,400 11,900 23,700 — — — — — — 711
Jackson 184,000 21,500 44,400 — — — — — — 1,149
Josephine 76,500 8,800 17,500 — — — — — — 597
Klamath 64,200 7,800 16,400 — — — — — — 678
Lane 324,500 35,100 73,500 — — — — — — 1,196
Linn 103,900 12,500 26,700 — — — — — — 688
Marion 289,400 34,800 78,900 — — — — — — 2,248
Multnomah 668,600 64,900 150,400 — — — — — — 2,715
Polk 63,800 7,700 15,900 — — — — — — 482
Umatilla 71,400 8,700 19,500 — — — — — — 532
Washington 462,600 52,300 124,200 — — — — — — 1,100
Yamhill 86,400 10,700 22,900 — — — — — — 933
20 Small Counties 371,900 45,400 91,700 — — — — — — 3,800
Number of Reported Cases — — — — — — 19,644
Population Represented 3,474,200 394,500 854,000 — — — — — — 394,500
Rates for Reporting Counties — — — — — — —
Number of Reporting Counties — — — — — — 36
Pennsylvania – 67 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Adams 92,900 11,000 22,600 254 60 — — — — —
Allegheny 1,272,800 130,100 276,000 2,665 588 — — — — —
Armstrong 72,000 7,900 16,100 70 54 — — — — —
Beaver 180,000 19,400 40,000 397 178 — — — — —
Bedford 49,900 5,500 11,500 52 9 — — — — —
Berks 377,800 43,100 91,900 1,091 179 — — — — —
Blair 128,500 13,700 28,600 247 74 — — — — —
Bradford 62,700 7,700 15,600 130 15 — — — — —
Bucks 604,300 72,600 151,800 1,420 525 — — — — —
Butler 176,100 19,700 42,500 377 31 — — — — —
Cambria 151,300 15,200 31,100 477 25 — — — — —
Carbon 59,200 6,500 12,900 152 72 — — — — —
Centre 136,200 11,200 23,800 180 0 — — — — —
Chester 442,400 52,900 113,800 2,554 912 — — — — —
Clearfield 83,200 9,000 18,300 163 21 — — — — —
Columbia 64,300 6,400 12,900 142 48 — — — — —
Crawford 90,200 10,500 21,800 266 36 — — — — —
Cumberland 215,200 22,300 46,500 313 194 — — — — —
Dauphin 251,700 28,200 60,800 1,213 188 — — — — —
Delaware 553,200 64,200 135,400 1,589 0 — — — — —
Erie 281,600 32,700 69,300 916 176 — — — — —
Fayette 147,300 15,700 32,800 200 276 — — — — —
Franklin 130,300 14,400 30,900 368 122 — — — — —
Indiana 89,300 9,000 18,100 171 23 — — — — —
Jefferson 45,800 5,200 10,500 66 38 — — — — —
Lackawanna 212,200 22,100 45,500 361 76 — — — — —
Lancaster 474,700 57,400 125,000 960 378 — — — — —
Lawrence 94,000 10,300 21,400 163 54 — — — — —
Lebanon 121,000 13,200 28,100 445 67 — — — — —
Lehigh 315,000 35,400 74,900 1,043 32 — — — — —
Luzerne 316,000 32,400 65,300 446 220 — — — — —
Lycoming 119,300 13,400 27,200 355 13 — — — — —
McKean 45,300 5,200 10,500 101 18 — — — — —
Mercer 120,000 13,600 27,600 257 66 — — — — —
Mifflin 46,500 5,400 11,300 68 * — — — — —
Monroe 144,000 19,000 37,800 294 43 — — — — —
Montgomery 758,500 83,900 181,100 1,176 484 — — — — —
Northampton 269,600 30,000 61,800 477 310 — — — — —
Northumberland 93,800 10,300 20,100 269 200 — — — — —
Philadelphia 1,498,600 172,300 374,000 9,764 2,578 — — — — —
Schuylkill 149,300 15,100 30,400 132 182 — — — — —
Somerset 79,500 8,600 17,300 153 12 — — — — —
Venango 57,200 6,800 13,600 138 * — — — — —
Warren 43,700 5,200 10,300 89 * — — — — —
Washington 203,600 21,000 44,300 226 139 — — — — —
Westmoreland 369,200 39,000 79,300 538 54 — — — — —
York 385,800 44,400 93,600 635 354 — — — — —
20 Small Counties 623,100 71,500 144,000 1,344 190 — — — — —
Number of Reported Cases 34,907 9,324 — — — — —
Population Represented 12,298,500 1,369,800 2,880,100 1,369,800 1,369,800 — — — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 25.48 6.81 — — — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 — — — — —
Tennessee – 95 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Anderson 71,500 7,800 16,300 458 0 83 * * 0 —
Blount 108,000 11,400 24,400 667 313 269 97 21 24 —
Bradley 88,900 9,200 20,700 68 839 15 437 0 * —
Carter 56,900 5,700 11,900 391 35 198 25 84 * —
Davidson 571,300 52,800 127,300 4,601 5,161 691 982 1,420 1,336 —
Greene 63,400 6,400 13,900 261 270 102 35 21 24 —
Hamblen 58,800 5,900 13,600 316 227 86 128 38 27 —
Hamilton 308,600 33,000 70,900 760 1,569 487 573 54 123 —
Knox 387,100 38,300 85,700 1,322 633 197 165 429 52 —
Madison 92,900 10,600 23,600 530 105 38 163 0 0 —
Maury 70,300 8,500 18,200 769 73 328 33 41 34 —
Montgomery 135,600 16,300 39,200 375 614 171 184 6 * —
Putnam 63,100 6,300 13,900 632 228 107 114 24 12 —
Utah – 29 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Cache 93,600 11,900 29,000 567 446 117 768 83 8 —
Davis 244,300 37,800 84,700 1,340 1,250 254 786 202 15 —
Salt Lake 910,100 118,200 276,300 8,323 4,472 2,217 1,855 831 18 —
Utah 382,500 51,600 130,500 2,790 1,295 1,045 486 267 90 —
Washington 94,600 12,800 29,200 669 672 410 390 101 * —
Weber 200,200 26,700 61,800 1,621 1,745 451 1,237 678 * —
23 Small Counties 355,900 55,100 118,300 2,788 2,113 1,392 1,608 499 11 —
Number of Reported Cases 18,098 11,993 5,886 7,130 2,661 146 —
Population Represented 2,281,200 314,200 729,800 314,200 314,200 314,200 314,200 729,800 729,800 —
Rates for Reporting Counties 57.60 38.17 18.73 22.69 3.65 0.20 —
Number of Reporting Counties 29 29 29 29 29 29 —
Vermont – 14 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Chittenden 147,800 15,900 33,300 387 — 24 — 240 — —
Rutland 63,300 7,200 14,100 139 — 54 — 39 — —
Washington 58,500 6,700 13,100 99 — 15 — 20 — —
Windsor 57,600 6,800 12,800 136 — 14 — 51 — —
10 Small Counties 285,700 34,600 68,200 750 — 116 — 198 — —
Number of Reported Cases 1,511 — 223 — 548 — —
Population Represented 613,000 71,200 141,600 71,200 — 71,200 — 141,600 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 21.23 — 3.13 — 3.87 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 14 — 14 — 14 — —
Washington – 39 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Benton 145,900 20,000 42,100 749 1,394 41 773 133 — —
Chelan 66,900 8,600 18,200 486 395 58 253 44 — —
Clallam 65,000 7,100 13,900 188 450 43 874 11 — —
Clark 359,100 45,500 101,000 1,184 1,820 97 440 154 — —
Cowlitz 93,800 11,600 24,500 455 924 53 904 113 — —
Grant 76,400 10,900 23,900 821 880 148 491 26 — —
Grays Harbor 68,100 8,300 16,700 201 883 52 558 63 — —
Island 73,800 8,500 18,400 138 351 23 272 31 — —
King 1,753,600 174,400 387,700 3,493 2,040 234 328 831 — —
Kitsap 234,500 29,400 61,700 852 1,324 80 397 179 — —
Lewis 69,000 8,800 17,800 290 464 36 237 73 — —
Pierce 718,400 89,300 194,000 1,976 3,802 72 327 329 — —
Skagit 105,100 12,900 27,000 353 779 29 122 51 — —
Snohomish 622,800 76,900 167,300 1,508 3,064 45 2,257 498 — —
Spokane 422,900 50,300 106,600 187 3,983 * 1,152 275 — —
Thurston 212,600 25,400 52,700 1,000 844 86 658 108 — —
Walla Walla 55,300 6,300 13,200 191 255 30 38 53 — —
Whatcom 170,600 18,900 40,000 812 677 * 509 128 — —
Yakima 223,400 30,900 69,800 1,054 1,978 51 1,097 223 — —
20 Small Counties 455,400 55,400 113,100 1,381 2,134 246 1,284 354 — —
Number of Reported Cases 17,319 28,441 1,429 12,971 3,677 — —
Population Represented 5,992,800 699,500 1,509,500 691,300 691,300 691,300 691,300 1,509,500 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 25.05 41.14 2.07 18.76 2.44 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 36 36 36 36 39 — —
Wyoming – 23 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Albany 31,800 2,500 5,700 27 — 7 — 15 — —
Campbell 34,700 5,200 10,300 40 — 8 — 15 — —
Carbon 15,300 1,800 3,500 14 — 7 — 13 — —
Fremont 35,800 4,700 9,500 39 — 0 — 25 — —
Laramie 82,400 9,700 20,900 199 — 37 — 35 — —
Natrona 66,900 8,100 16,900 82 — 16 — 45 — —
Alabama – 67 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Autauga 45,600 6,100 12,600 107 129 16 26 0 — —
Baldwin 148,100 17,000 35,200 584 60 304 929 * — —
Barbour 29,000 3,400 7,200 152 * 43 30 0 — —
Bibb 21,100 2,300 5,200 68 0 30 0 10 — —
Blount 53,100 6,100 13,200 159 40 101 324 6 — —
Bullock 11,300 1,300 2,800 11 0 8 0 * — —
Butler 20,800 2,600 5,300 51 0 9 0 0 — —
Calhoun 111,400 11,800 26,000 422 272 157 414 126 — —
Chambers 36,200 3,900 8,700 177 * 104 11 * — —
Coffee 44,000 5,100 10,700 240 0 105 0 * — —
Colbert 54,800 6,000 12,700 158 0 21 0 11 — —
Cullman 78,000 8,600 18,500 294 38 51 440 * — —
Dale 49,300 5,700 13,100 230 0 314 0 7 — —
Dallas 45,300 5,900 12,800 392 * 216 * 13 — —
De Kalb 65,700 7,100 16,000 110 0 40 0 9 — —
Elmore 69,100 8,100 17,300 363 0 84 0 0 — —
Etowah 103,000 11,100 24,200 302 0 71 0 0 — —
Houston 90,100 10,600 22,900 734 38 237 23 0 — —
Jackson 53,900 6,000 12,700 219 0 143 0 * — —
Jefferson 659,400 74,100 161,500 1,855 641 343 319 * — —
Lauderdale 87,100 9,200 19,500 322 64 139 213 13 — —
Lee 117,600 12,100 26,500 485 134 327 444 58 — —
Limestone 67,500 7,600 16,500 199 69 14 * 46 — —
Madison 285,400 33,100 71,600 1,105 766 37 442 24 — —
Marshall 83,300 9,200 20,700 372 65 293 704 0 — —
Mobile 399,700 49,200 108,200 2,225 1,431 346 1,228 301 — —
Montgomery 223,000 25,800 57,400 1,686 164 36 * 75 — —
Morgan 111,800 12,900 27,800 627 87 151 232 58 — —
Russell 49,300 5,900 12,900 485 0 570 0 60 — —
St. Clair 67,400 7,900 16,700 222 0 521 0 0 — —
Shelby 153,900 17,600 40,000 328 131 131 386 74 — —
Talladega 80,300 9,300 19,800 257 76 66 26 7 — —
Tuscaloosa 165,500 17,000 38,200 738 228 106 223 150 — —
Walker 70,600 7,500 16,300 368 0 490 0 13 — —
33 Small Counties 729,600 85,200 180,800 2,992 31 1,961 43 151 — —
Number of Reported Cases 19,039 4,469 7,585 6,464 1,233 — —
Population Represented 4,481,100 512,400 1,111,400 512,400 512,400 512,400 512,400 1,111,400 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 37.16 8.72 14.80 12.62 1.11 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 67 67 67 — —
Alaska – 27 Districts
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
27 Small Districts 640,800 91,200 190,000 1,969 3,771 — — — — —
Number of Reported Cases 1,969 3,771 — — — — —
Population Represented 640,800 91,200 190,000 91,200 91,200 — — — — —
Rates for Reporting Districts 21.59 41.35 — — — — —
Number of Reporting Districts 27 27 — — — — —
Arizona – 15 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Apache 67,500 12,600 25,300 153 209 7 74 — — —
Cochise 120,000 15,000 31,800 726 1,164 89 568 — — —
Coconino 120,000 16,300 34,200 898 1,083 172 672 — — —
Maricopa 3,293,600 386,100 914,000 12,152 8,970 1,878 7,936 — — —
Mohave 165,800 18,000 38,700 803 1,251 34 630 — — —
Navajo 102,100 17,500 35,400 710 517 127 438 — — —
Pima 877,500 99,500 220,200 5,993 5,954 119 3,504 — — —
Pinal 194,900 22,900 50,000 1,435 1,001 127 443 — — —
Arkansas – 75 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Benton 165,300 19,500 44,100 271 — 244 — 151 — —
Craighead 83,700 8,900 20,300 288 — 395 — 51 — —
Crittenden 51,200 7,100 15,800 406 — 112 — 45 — —
Faulkner 90,000 10,300 22,600 309 — 365 — 90 — —
Garland 90,000 9,000 19,200 455 — 448 — 119 — —
Jefferson 83,300 9,900 21,500 590 — 342 — 184 — —
Mississippi 50,200 6,600 14,900 390 — 114 — 88 — —
Pulaski 363,700 40,100 92,500 1,424 — 618 — 270 — —
Saline 86,200 10,300 21,300 252 — 122 — 77 — —
Sebastian 116,900 13,400 30,700 403 — 417 — 210 — —
Washington 165,600 17,700 41,900 655 — 486 — 111 — —
White 69,100 7,900 16,700 96 — 93 — 65 — —
63 Small Counties 1,292,200 152,200 320,500 3,618 — 2,855 — 1,156 — —
Number of Reported Cases 9,157 — 6,611 — 2,617 — —
Population Represented 2,707,500 313,000 682,300 313,000 — 313,000 — 682,300 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 29.26 — 21.12 — 3.84 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 75 — 75 — 75 — —
California – 58 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Alameda 1,463,900 156,200 358,900 3,244 2,950 10 68 1,228 — —
Butte 208,700 24,000 48,100 976 634 44 39 428 — —
Contra Costa 988,600 119,300 257,800 0 0 0 0 6 — —
El Dorado 165,800 21,200 40,600 1,305 202 20 43 350 — —
Fresno 832,100 117,900 258,200 4,927 6,577 60 188 0 — —
Humboldt 127,400 14,000 28,400 152 35 8 12 16 — —
Imperial 145,700 21,200 44,300 908 27 126 * 102 — —
Kern 693,100 98,000 214,300 2,917 2,018 * 1,078 2,617 — —
Kings 134,500 16,800 38,300 501 0 * — 218 — —
Lake 62,300 7,600 14,500 257 366 11 45 81 — —
Los Angeles 9,763,800 1,183,100 2,685,400 15,800 11,755 297 138 10,275 — —
Madera 128,800 17,000 37,100 721 548 8 346 144 — —
Marin 247,200 23,000 49,900 716 331 14 — 59 — —
Mendocino 87,600 10,900 21,400 359 0 * — 184 — —
Merced 224,900 34,800 75,000 638 1,143 115 514 256 — —
Monterey 411,600 51,000 116,100 1,156 1,441 182 31 24 — —
Napa 130,000 14,400 30,500 465 345 20 63 49 — —
Nevada 95,100 11,100 20,400 266 379 13 65 49 — —
Orange 2,927,900 336,200 778,500 7,904 3,273 84 217 2,316 — —
Placer 279,000 33,600 68,800 627 593 * 27 327 — —
Riverside 1,694,600 229,700 496,300 3,580 0 0 — 2,844 — —
Sacramento 1,301,700 162,100 355,000 4,985 484 * * 1,579 — —
San Bernardino 1,808,900 263,300 566,900 5,145 3,679 789 86 5,844 — —
San Diego 2,896,100 326,900 741,300 8,026 3,803 1,002 159 2,330 — —
San Francisco 762,000 46,700 109,700 787 1,486 7 13 969 — —
San Joaquin 612,600 85,600 184,400 1,842 0 0 — 992 — —
San Luis Obispo 252,100 26,300 51,900 579 0 * — 261 — —
San Mateo 701,300 69,700 160,400 2,150 868 23 39 367 — —
Santa Barbara 401,500 44,900 98,500 1,613 1,292 97 487 156 — —
Santa Clara 1,674,600 174,300 411,000 3,837 4,112 0 170 799 — —
Santa Cruz 253,400 27,800 59,000 589 0 0 — 141 — —
Shasta 171,900 21,800 42,300 1,069 497 7 33 151 — —
Solano 409,500 53,300 114,300 1,373 48 * — 128 — —
Sonoma 465,900 53,600 111,100 1,046 855 0 — 284 — —
Stanislaus 480,200 68,000 144,900 1,302 1,480 51 297 377 — —
Colorado – 63 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Adams 389,500 47,100 110,700 1,280 — — — 380 — —
Arapahoe 510,200 62,700 135,600 1,845 — — — 311 — —
Boulder 300,700 31,600 69,200 1,197 — — — 159 — —
Denver 557,700 49,300 128,400 2,412 — — — 578 — —
Douglas 211,700 26,900 64,700 582 — — — 15 — —
El Paso 541,800 66,900 149,700 2,094 — — — 417 — —
Jefferson 532,300 63,800 132,600 2,036 — — — 341 — —
Larimer 263,800 29,100 61,800 1,061 — — — 125 — —
Mesa 122,200 14,200 29,700 471 — — — 114 — —
Pueblo 147,400 17,300 37,500 692 — — — 310 — —
Weld 204,400 25,000 56,300 1,349 — — — 162 — —
52 Small Counties 716,500 81,700 170,900 2,526 — — — 615 — —
Number of Reported Cases 17,545 — — — 3,527 — —
Population Represented 4,498,100 515,800 1,147,100 515,800 — — — 1,147,100 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 34.02 — — — 3.07 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 63 — — — 63 — —
Delaware – 3 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Kent 131,600 16,200 34,900 1,435 — — — 308 — —
New Castle 510,200 56,500 124,500 5,083 — — — 829 — —
Sussex 164,200 16,800 36,000 1,718 — — — 80 — —
Number of Reported Cases 8,236 — — — 1,217 — —
Population Represented 806,100 89,400 195,400 89,400 — — — 195,400 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 92.09 — — — 6.23 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 3 — — — 3 — —
Florida – 67 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Alachua 220,800 20,900 44,400 1,243 607 * 25 — — —
Bay 152,200 17,200 36,500 941 616 17 522 — — —
Brevard 495,800 53,700 108,300 2,263 1,332 25 49 — — —
Broward 1,704,100 186,600 414,400 8,012 3,486 39 31 — — —
Charlotte 149,900 11,900 23,800 544 490 6 16 — — —
Citrus 123,700 11,200 21,400 475 256 8 18 — — —
Clay 151,600 20,500 41,100 919 551 13 11 — — —
Collier 275,700 25,000 56,600 1,216 530 23 46 — — —
Columbia 58,500 7,000 14,600 291 272 0 11 — — —
Duval 802,100 95,400 213,900 3,823 3,174 10 16 — — —
Escambia 296,800 32,300 70,200 2,576 857 14 64 — — —
Hernando 138,300 13,200 26,700 462 129 * * — — —
Highlands 90,100 8,200 17,400 581 433 * 18 — — —
Hillsborough 1,051,300 120,900 270,300 4,580 4,653 36 72 — — —
Indian River 118,000 11,000 22,800 607 252 18 14 — — —
Lake 235,000 22,400 48,200 1,252 559 10 14 — — —
Lee 475,500 44,100 96,700 2,476 1,048 34 34 — — —
Leon 239,800 23,300 51,700 1,093 653 22 38 — — —
Manatee 280,200 27,200 60,000 1,556 825 7 6 — — —
Marion 272,500 28,500 58,600 1,669 864 16 14 — — —
Martin 131,800 12,300 25,000 637 386 19 9 — — —
Miami-Dade 2,314,200 265,000 577,900 9,297 2,956 52 36 — — —
Monroe 79,000 6,400 13,700 245 265 6 18 — — —
Nassau 60,600 7,300 14,800 268 166 * 7 — — —
Okaloosa 175,200 20,100 43,600 1,299 418 90 18 — — —
Orange 944,800 107,800 244,400 6,685 1,678 20 16 — — —
Osceola 194,100 24,200 52,200 1,209 346 * 0 — — —
Palm Beach 1,187,500 119,200 257,900 4,342 3,697 18 63 — — —
Pasco 373,000 36,200 77,600 2,376 446 25 * — — —
Pinellas 924,800 86,100 183,500 6,226 2,417 87 35 — — —
Polk 500,200 56,900 124,000 3,606 2,674 40 56 — — —
Putnam 71,200 8,500 17,600 544 343 * * — — —
St. Johns 136,400 15,400 30,800 680 432 11 28 — — —
St. Lucie 205,300 22,400 46,600 1,449 262 7 * — — —
Santa Rosa 127,300 16,200 32,700 796 290 49 47 — — —
Sarasota 340,100 27,700 56,900 1,399 592 12 13 — — —
Seminole 381,000 45,700 95,800 1,914 1,056 27 37 — — —
Volusia 459,500 46,000 94,100 3,224 1,919 27 70 — — —
29 Small Counties 743,000 81,400 169,900 3,681 2,001 30 84 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 86,456 43,931 836 1,567 — — —
Population Represented 16,681,100 1,785,600 3,856,700 1,785,600 1,785,600 1,785,600 1,785,600 — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 48.42 24.60 0.47 0.88 — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 67 67 67 67 — — —
Hawaii – 5 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Hawaii 154,900 20,000 41,100 517 559 150 615 453 — —
Honolulu 886,200 90,200 205,600 1,617 438 384 2,167 — — —
Kalawao 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 — — —
Kauai 60,000 7,500 15,400 260 69 39 315 — — —
Maui 133,300 15,200 33,100 433 234 183 380 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 2,827 1,300 756 3,477 453 — —
Population Represented 1,234,500 132,800 295,100 132,800 132,800 132,800 132,800 41,100 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 21.28 9.79 5.69 26.18 11.02 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 5 5 5 5 1 — —
Idaho – 44 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Ada 319,800 38,000 85,900 2,350 307 — — 120 69 —
Bannock 75,800 9,100 21,100 0 2,062 — — 0 144 —
Bonneville 85,300 12,300 26,400 0 593 — — 0 65 —
Canyon 145,500 18,900 44,500 0 1,486 — — 0 165 —
Kootenai 114,300 14,300 30,000 0 1,002 — — 0 120 —
Twin Falls 65,500 8,200 17,700 0 1,614 — — 0 63 —
38 Small Counties 536,900 70,600 147,100 3,556 1,809 — — 317 140 —
Number of Reported Cases 5,906 8,873 — — 437 766 —
Population Represented 1,343,200 171,300 372,700 171,300 171,300 — — 372,700 372,700 —
Rates for Reporting Counties 34.48 51.80 — — 1.17 2.06 —
Number of Reporting Counties 44 44 — — 44 44 —
Indiana – 92 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Allen 337,600 42,100 94,900 2,538 854 1,051 328 295 — —
Bartholomew 71,900 8,600 19,200 159 63 27 71 16 — —
Clark 98,000 10,600 24,000 193 15 54 10 79 — —
Delaware 118,900 12,100 26,000 271 53 202 77 114 — —
Elkhart 185,900 24,000 54,400 860 569 152 396 109 — —
Floyd 71,500 8,800 18,400 63 359 18 201 51 — —
Grant 72,400 8,100 17,100 401 163 36 35 28 — —
Hamilton 208,600 27,500 63,700 774 121 105 25 402 — —
Hancock 58,300 7,200 15,100 95 115 6 37 29 — —
Hendricks 115,000 14,700 31,500 428 258 114 132 11 — —
Henry 48,100 5,500 11,600 85 24 21 25 75 — —
Howard 84,700 9,800 22,000 444 80 100 18 71 — —
Johnson 121,600 15,000 32,700 602 12 35 * 70 — —
Knox 39,000 4,200 8,700 44 32 30 12 7 — —
Kosciusko 75,000 9,500 20,700 69 34 0 15 11 — —
Lake 486,100 59,200 129,700 2,027 0 196 156 634 — —
La Porte 110,200 12,500 27,100 643 * 116 21 108 — —
Lawrence 46,100 5,100 11,200 123 15 51 10 9 — —
Madison 132,000 14,500 31,700 743 17 311 23 157 — —
Marion 862,500 98,300 229,100 5,935 2,474 817 1,556 * — —
Marshall 45,800 5,900 12,700 71 15 26 * 78 — —
Monroe 119,900 9,400 21,300 242 74 124 57 205 — —
Morgan 68,000 8,600 18,200 240 24 48 31 15 — —
Porter 150,700 18,200 37,900 384 96 46 60 145 — —
St. Joseph 266,000 31,100 69,600 1,048 312 142 13 344 — —
Shelby 43,800 5,500 11,600 131 60 21 24 26 — —
Tippecanoe 149,900 13,700 31,400 378 65 476 26 165 — —
Vanderburgh 172,100 18,200 40,400 487 79 106 63 309 — —
Iowa – 99 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Black Hawk 126,500 12,700 27,700 378 — — — 129 — —
Cerro Gordo 45,400 4,900 10,200 68 — — — 114 — —
Clinton 49,900 5,900 12,200 105 — — — 63 — —
Des Moines 41,500 4,600 9,800 129 — — — 88 — —
Dubuque 89,500 10,300 21,900 331 — — — 125 — —
Johnson 113,800 9,400 21,900 222 — — — 89 — —
Linn 195,200 21,300 48,100 440 — — — 341 — —
Muscatine 42,100 5,000 10,800 40 — — — 90 — —
Polk 384,700 41,700 97,300 1,126 — — — 1,159 — —
Pottawattamie 88,200 10,500 22,100 386 — — — 321 — —
Scott 159,100 18,900 40,700 411 — — — 271 — —
Story 80,700 6,400 14,200 59 — — — 72 — —
Warren 41,400 5,100 10,500 76 — — — 47 — —
Woodbury 103,400 12,200 27,800 207 — — — 298 — —
85 Small Counties 1,373,500 162,700 328,000 2,460 — — — 2,354 — —
Number of Reported Cases 6,438 — — — 5,561 — —
Population Represented 2,934,800 331,600 703,200 331,600 — — — 703,200 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 19.41 — — — 7.91 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 99 — — — 99 — —
Louisiana – 64 Parishes
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Acadia 59,100 6,900 16,000 — — — — — — 362
Ascension 81,800 9,400 22,400 — — — — — — 388
Bossier 100,800 11,100 26,000 — — — — — — 1,253
Caddo 250,500 26,600 61,400 — — — — — — 4,167
Calcasieu 183,200 19,100 45,600 — — — — — — 1,213
East Baton Rouge 410,300 41,000 98,300 — — — — — — 1,692
Iberia 73,700 8,600 20,200 — — — — — — 1,324
Jefferson 451,900 44,600 105,000 — — — — — — 4,526
Lafayette 192,800 20,400 48,100 — — — — — — 1,533
Lafourche 90,800 9,900 22,200 — — — — — — 601
Livingston 99,000 11,300 25,900 — — — — — — 287
Orleans 472,500 49,100 116,600 — — — — — — 445
Ouachita 147,100 16,500 37,900 — — — — — — 905
Maine – 16 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Androscoggin 105,200 11,800 24,300 599 — — — 68 — —
Aroostook 73,200 8,100 15,500 250 — — — 57 — —
Cumberland 269,900 29,300 60,500 983 — — — 138 — —
Kennebec 118,700 13,700 26,800 516 — — — 73 — —
Oxford 55,800 6,600 12,600 107 — — — 17 — —
Penobscot 146,900 16,000 31,700 451 — — — 140 — —
Somerset 51,000 6,100 11,900 212 — — — 58 — —
York 195,700 22,900 46,000 764 — — — 121 — —
8 Small Counties 281,400 32,000 61,700 1,019 — — — 210 — —
Number of Reported Cases 4,901 — — — 882 — —
Population Represented 1,297,800 146,600 291,000 146,600 — — — 291,000 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 33.43 — — — 3.03 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 16 — — — 16 — —
Maryland – 24 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Allegany 74,000 7,300 14,700 216 585 13 205 — — —
Anne Arundel 502,100 57,700 125,200 1,511 3,377 0 223 — — —
Baltimore 768,600 85,400 178,900 3,315 3,159 * 206 — — —
Calvert 80,900 11,400 22,600 324 419 0 122 — — —
Carroll 159,300 20,700 42,000 378 500 31 196 — — —
Cecil 90,400 11,600 24,000 404 610 0 32 — — —
Charles 128,200 17,200 35,800 489 863 0 101 — — —
Frederick 209,100 26,200 56,200 914 867 29 327 — — —
Harford 227,400 29,200 61,300 533 1,138 9 252 — — —
Howard 259,900 32,800 71,400 577 901 0 90 — — —
Montgomery 906,000 103,200 228,600 1,186 1,962 0 45 — — —
Prince George’s 827,700 98,100 220,000 1,676 2,496 * 178 — — —
St. Mary’s 90,000 11,400 24,500 197 527 0 90 — — —
Washington 134,800 14,600 31,000 400 747 0 181 — — —
Wicomico 86,200 9,700 20,800 188 969 0 189 — — —
Baltimore City 636,100 73,100 158,100 6,839 4,232 * 200 — — —
8 Small Counties 260,900 28,400 57,700 738 2,887 13 472 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 19,885 26,239 107 3,109 — — —
Population Represented 5,441,500 638,100 1,372,900 638,100 638,100 638,100 638,100 — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 31.16 41.12 0.17 4.87 — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 24 24 24 24 — — —
Massachusetts – 14 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Barnstable 227,600 19,700 41,600 2,924 — 529 — 95 — —
Berkshire 133,300 12,400 26,400 1,083 — 257 — 95 — —
Bristol 543,900 53,300 122,500 4,459 — 1,194 — 280 — —
Dukes 15,400 1,500 3,100 — — — — — — —
Essex 736,500 73,700 173,200 5,315 — 1,155 — 367 — —
Franklin 71,900 7,200 14,800 1,311 — 307 — 99 — —
Hampden 459,600 48,700 109,000 4,500 — 961 — 367 — —
Michigan – 83 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Allegan 109,300 12,800 28,300 897 — — — 70 — —
Barry 58,200 6,500 14,200 476 — — — 52 — —
Bay 109,700 10,900 24,500 766 — — — 33 — —
Berrien 162,500 17,300 38,900 1,517 — — — 117 — —
Calhoun 138,700 14,700 33,300 1,445 — — — 81 — —
Cass 51,500 5,600 11,800 414 — — — 127 — —
Clinton 66,800 7,500 16,600 269 — — — 29 — —
Eaton 105,500 11,200 24,700 655 — — — 18 — —
Genesee 440,900 48,000 112,100 1,290 — — — 535 — —
Grand Traverse 81,100 8,400 18,200 754 — — — 55 — —
Ingham 280,100 25,500 61,100 1,531 — — — 884 — —
Ionia 63,200 6,700 15,200 554 — — — 43 — —
Isabella 64,000 5,100 11,700 410 — — — 71 — —
Jackson 161,200 17,000 38,100 2,070 — — — 216 — —
Kalamazoo 240,400 23,000 54,100 3,019 — — — 563 — —
Kent 586,600 64,300 154,400 4,262 — — — 520 — —
Lapeer 90,800 10,400 22,400 485 — — — 31 — —
Lenawee 100,500 10,800 23,500 880 — — — 46 — —
Livingston 169,000 19,500 42,900 876 — — — 34 — —
Macomb 808,000 77,300 181,200 3,115 — — — 294 — —
Marquette 64,700 5,500 12,000 473 — — — 36 — —
Midland 83,800 9,300 20,300 522 — — — 62 — —
Monroe 149,300 17,100 36,600 1,765 — — — 56 — —
Montcalm 62,600 6,900 15,200 365 — — — 52 — —
Muskegon 172,200 19,400 43,400 1,298 — — — 159 — —
Oakland 1,203,300 120,600 281,400 4,065 — — — 289 — —
Ottawa 246,400 27,800 64,300 2,288 — — — 106 — —
Saginaw 209,900 22,700 51,300 596 — — — 249 — —
St. Clair 167,400 18,200 40,500 742 — — — 141 — —
St. Joseph 62,400 6,800 15,700 567 — — — 82 — —
Shiawassee 72,200 7,800 17,500 485 — — — 38 — —
Tuscola 58,300 6,600 13,800 229 — — — 28 — —
Van Buren 77,500 8,900 19,700 813 — — — 51 — —
Washtenaw 332,400 28,000 68,800 1,274 — — — 157 — —
Wayne 2,040,200 230,400 537,400 9,736 — — — 2,106 — —
48 Small Counties 1,151,900 116,000 247,700 9,626 — — — 882 — —
Number of Reported Cases 60,529 — — — 8,313 — —
Population Represented 10,042,500 1,054,400 2,412,700 1,054,400 — — — 2,412,700 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 57.41 — — — 3.45 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 83 — — — 83 — —
Minnesota – 87 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Anoka 310,300 40,100 86,300 1,588 — 664 — — — —
Blue Earth 56,700 5,400 11,400 353 — 149 — — — —
Clay 51,800 6,000 12,100 385 — 137 — — — —
Dakota 369,000 48,000 103,800 3,335 — 1,418 — — — —
Hennepin 1,120,400 117,900 265,400 7,892 — 7,246 — — — —
Olmsted 129,100 15,500 33,500 699 — 299 — — — —
Otter Tail 57,500 7,000 13,200 276 — 95 — — — —
Ramsey 509,500 58,100 128,100 3,415 — 682 — — — —
Montana – 56 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Cascade 79,800 9,400 19,800 273 1,890 18 1,006 — — —
Flathead 77,500 9,500 18,900 * 1,207 0 65 — — —
Gallatin 71,100 6,900 14,900 98 355 7 29 — — —
Missoula 97,800 10,300 21,300 223 894 34 400 — — —
Yellowstone 132,000 15,200 32,300 311 621 0 69 — — —
51 Small Counties 452,500 57,300 111,700 418 3,439 18 1,118 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 1,327 8,406 77 2,687 — — —
Population Represented 910,700 108,600 218,900 108,600 108,600 108,600 108,600 — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 12.22 77.40 0.71 24.74 — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 56 56 56 56 — — —
Nebraska – 93 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Buffalo 42,800 4,800 10,300 213 — 52 — 59 — —
Dodge 36,000 4,000 8,600 78 — 44 — 46 — —
Douglas 471,400 55,000 124,600 964 — 335 — 521 — —
Hall 53,800 6,300 14,500 203 — 72 — 73 — —
Lancaster 256,400 25,700 59,700 821 — 194 — * — —
Sarpy 129,200 17,300 38,400 130 — 44 — 0 — —
Scotts Bluff 36,700 4,300 9,300 200 — 89 — 41 — —
86 Small Counties 700,100 88,000 177,300 2,282 — 1,307 — 514 — —
Number of Reported Cases 4,891 — 2,137 — 1,256 — —
Population Represented 1,726,400 205,500 442,700 205,500 — 205,500 — 442,700 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 23.80 — 10.40 — 2.84 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 93 — 93 — 93 — —
Nevada – 17 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Churchill 24,300 3,100 7,300 230 224 42 186 — — —
Clark 1,515,800 168,300 398,800 3,277 6,026 304 3,737 — — —
Douglas 43,200 5,400 9,800 193 498 21 158 — — —
Elko 44,600 6,800 14,100 154 249 0 165 — — —
Esmeralda 900 100 200 * 0 0 0 — — —
Humboldt 16,100 2,400 5,000 92 31 0 67 — — —
Mineral 4,800 600 1,100 26 15 * * — — —
Storey 3,400 300 600 26 27 0 7 — — —
Washoe 361,700 40,700 91,600 1,298 3,460 83 1,375 — — —
White Pine 8,600 1,000 2,000 47 * * 0 — — —
7 Small Counties 144,800 17,300 35,900 851 805 214 292 — — —
Number of Reported Cases 6,195 11,338 667 5,989 — — —
Population Represented 2,168,300 246,000 566,300 246,000 246,000 246,000 246,000 — — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 25.18 46.09 2.71 24.34 — — —
Number of Reporting Counties 17 17 17 17 — — —
Ohio – 88 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Allen 108,100 13,000 27,500 913 — 191 — 396 — —
Ashtabula 103,000 12,600 26,100 689 — 621 — 29 — —
Athens 62,900 5,100 11,000 474 — 129 — 91 — —
Belmont 69,700 7,300 14,500 663 — 167 — 53 — —
Butler 339,700 39,400 85,900 2,930 — 978 — 625 — —
Clark 143,800 16,500 35,400 2,111 — 343 — 376 — —
Clermont 183,300 22,600 49,500 1,456 — 97 — 141 — —
Columbiana 111,600 12,900 26,100 384 — 92 — 184 — —
Cuyahoga 1,372,800 156,400 336,900 9,957 1,366 627 1,519 6,024 — —
Darke 53,000 6,500 13,400 467 — 102 — 42 — —
Delaware 127,500 15,300 34,400 509 — 85 — 131 — —
Erie 78,900 9,000 18,800 1,896 — 936 — 134 — —
Fairfield 129,300 15,700 33,400 628 — 93 — 339 — —
Franklin 1,082,200 116,600 272,500 8,032 — 1,287 — 4,660 — —
Geauga 92,700 12,300 24,800 375 — 62 — 29 — —
Greene 149,800 16,600 34,300 938 — 131 — 121 — —
Hamilton 830,300 98,600 209,700 21,460 — 2,290 — 352 — —
Hancock 72,700 8,300 18,000 970 — 359 — 57 — —
Huron 60,000 7,600 16,500 576 — 170 — 143 — —
Jefferson 72,200 7,400 15,000 396 — 209 — 223 — —
Lake 230,300 25,800 53,900 1,584 — 520 — 236 — —
Lawrence 62,100 7,000 14,700 350 — 230 — 101 — —
Licking 148,700 17,500 37,600 1,103 — 227 — 551 — —
Lorain 288,100 33,800 73,700 2,466 — 184 — 225 — —
Lucas 454,000 54,200 117,200 6,578 — 706 — 520 — —
Mahoning 252,800 28,100 58,500 1,490 — 548 — 347 — —
Marion 66,300 7,800 15,900 1,918 — 114 — 300 — —
Medina 158,400 19,800 41,600 1,140 — 264 — 54 — —
Miami 99,600 12,100 24,900 1,913 — 482 — 84 — —
Montgomery 553,200 61,500 134,600 3,544 — 799 — 783 — —
Muskingum 85,200 10,100 21,400 794 — 247 — 149 — —
Portage 153,400 16,600 34,900 820 — 37 — 166 — —
Richland 128,400 14,700 31,000 1,889 — 383 — 211 — —
Ross 74,400 8,000 17,200 664 — 259 — 128 — —
Sandusky 61,900 7,500 15,700 637 — 83 — 128 — —
Scioto 78,100 8,800 18,500 442 — 41 — 75 — —
Seneca 58,000 7,100 14,500 1,059 — 275 — 82 — —
Stark 379,500 43,600 92,100 2,814 — 318 — 960 — —
Summit 546,100 61,800 134,000 4,479 — 1,421 — 1,006 — —
Trumbull 223,100 25,200 52,500 1,812 — 432 — 405 — —
Tuscarawas 91,600 10,500 22,300 841 — 111 — 56 — —
Warren 175,000 21,000 46,900 1,646 — 135 — 100 — —
Washington 62,500 6,800 14,100 434 — 96 — 14 — —
Wayne 112,900 14,200 29,800 617 — 129 — 272 — —
Wood 122,000 13,300 27,300 1,425 — 242 — 268 — —
43 Small Counties 1,501,200 183,100 382,300 14,692 — 4,336 — 2,064 — —
Number of Reported Cases 112,975 1,366 21,588 1,519 23,435 — —
Population Represented 11,410,400 1,319,600 2,830,800 1,319,600 156,400 1,319,600 156,400 2,830,800 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 85.61 8.73 16.36 9.71 8.28 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 88 1 88 1 88 — —
Oklahoma – 77 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Adair 21,400 3,000 6,300 27 47 0 27 — — —
Alfalfa 6,000 600 1,100 10 32 0 * — — —
Atoka 14,000 1,500 3,200 15 14 * * — — —
Beaver 5,600 700 1,400 * 14 * * — — —
Beckham 20,000 2,200 4,600 30 71 * 50 — — —
Blaine 11,700 1,400 2,700 37 51 9 36 — — —
Bryan 37,000 4,200 8,900 35 116 * * — — —
Caddo 30,000 4,100 8,200 99 123 17 98 — — —
Canadian 91,100 11,900 24,100 90 161 31 105 — — —
Carter 46,100 5,500 11,700 66 167 * 23 — — —
Cherokee 43,400 5,200 11,000 122 73 16 49 — — —
Choctaw 15,400 1,900 3,900 20 47 * * — — —
Cimarron 3,000 400 800 * * 0 * — — —
Cleveland 215,100 23,700 50,100 296 768 69 219 — — —
Coal 6,000 700 1,600 11 38 * 9 — — —
Comanche 111,800 13,500 31,500 233 444 * 885 — — —
Cotton 6,500 700 1,600 15 37 0 * — — —
Craig 14,800 1,600 3,500 22 27 * 7 — — —
Creek 68,700 8,700 18,000 56 96 0 7 — — —
Custer 25,100 2,700 5,800 43 95 * 17 — — —
Delaware 38,000 4,400 9,000 38 135 0 53 — — —
Dewey 4,600 500 1,000 * * 0 0 — — —
Ellis 4,000 400 800 12 * 0 * — — —
Garfield 57,200 6,400 14,100 116 67 * 6 — — —
Garvin 27,300 3,000 6,600 95 180 33 51 — — —
Grady 46,800 5,700 11,900 100 90 29 36 — — —
Grant 5,000 600 1,200 24 15 * * — — —
Greer 5,900 500 1,100 8 12 0 17 — — —
Harmon 3,100 400 800 8 13 0 7 — — —
Harper 3,500 400 700 6 * 0 0 — — —
Haskell 11,800 1,300 3,000 10 32 * * — — —
Hughes 14,000 1,500 3,100 15 40 0 6 — — —
Jackson 27,400 3,500 7,900 43 72 0 13 — — —
Jefferson 6,500 700 1,500 * 45 0 6 — — —
Johnston 10,400 1,200 2,500 * 20 0 * — — —
Kay 47,700 5,700 12,300 176 128 * * — — —
Kingfisher 13,900 1,700 3,600 9 14 0 6 — — —
Kiowa 10,000 1,200 2,300 34 29 * * — — —
Latimer 10,600 1,200 2,600 8 26 0 * — — —
Le Flore 48,600 5,700 12,500 29 141 * 34 — — —
Lincoln 32,300 4,200 8,400 25 74 0 * — — —
Logan 34,900 4,200 8,300 85 132 * 44 — — —
Love 8,900 1,100 2,200 12 15 0 * — — —
McClain 28,100 3,400 7,100 71 77 7 18 — — —
McCurtain 34,200 4,400 9,400 75 143 * 39 — — —
McIntosh 19,700 2,200 4,400 52 90 7 51 — — —
Major 7,500 900 1,700 10 12 0 * — — —
Marshall 13,600 1,400 3,100 12 25 0 * — — —
Mayes 38,800 4,700 10,000 51 96 6 78 — — —
Murray 12,600 1,300 2,900 23 58 0 6 — — —
Muskogee 69,900 8,000 17,700 84 158 9 73 — — —
Noble 11,300 1,300 2,800 20 15 0 * — — —
Nowata 10,700 1,300 2,700 9 66 * 39 — — —
Okfuskee 11,600 1,300 2,700 47 51 0 * — — —
Oklahoma 671,600 73,600 171,200 2,034 849 145 113 — — —
Okmulgee 39,700 5,000 10,400 49 77 12 55 — — —
Osage 45,200 5,600 11,200 26 103 * 51 — — —
Ottawa 32,900 4,000 8,300 75 127 * 96 — — —
Pawnee 16,800 2,200 4,300 20 49 0 29 — — —
Payne 69,000 5,600 12,800 124 284 14 94 — — —
Pittsburg 44,100 4,900 10,000 70 176 * * — — —
Pontotoc 34,900 3,900 8,400 44 160 * 19 — — —
Pottawatomie 66,800 7,800 16,800 153 263 12 75 — — —
Pushmataha 11,700 1,400 2,900 10 27 0 * — — —
Oregon – 36 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Benton 79,000 7,900 15,900 183 — — — 37 — —
Clackamas 352,400 43,200 88,700 552 — — — 271 — —
Coos 62,600 6,900 13,200 499 — — — 80 — —
Deschutes 125,600 14,600 29,900 458 — — — 144 — —
Douglas 101,200 11,700 23,200 541 — — — 115 — —
Jackson 186,900 21,600 44,200 968 — — — 268 — —
Josephine 77,800 8,900 17,400 500 — — — 129 — —
Klamath 64,300 7,800 16,200 441 — — — 204 — —
Lane 327,000 34,700 72,500 454 — — — 551 — —
Linn 105,100 12,500 26,600 374 — — — 165 — —
Marion 294,900 35,200 79,400 1,245 — — — 757 — —
Multnomah 675,100 65,500 151,800 1,089 — — — 996 — —
Polk 64,800 7,700 15,700 308 — — — 111 — —
Umatilla 72,000 8,800 19,400 258 — — — 86 — —
Washington 472,100 53,300 125,700 518 — — — 469 — —
Yamhill 87,900 10,700 22,800 652 — — — 81 — —
20 Small Counties 374,300 45,000 90,300 2,630 — — — 708 — —
Number of Reported Cases 11,670 — — — 5,172 — —
Population Represented 3,523,300 396,000 853,100 396,000 — — — 853,100 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 29.47 — — — 6.06 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 36 — — — 36 — —
Pennsylvania – 67 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Adams 94,500 11,200 22,600 305 31 — — — — —
Allegheny 1,266,200 129,700 272,600 3,065 1,180 — — — — —
Armstrong 71,800 7,800 15,700 66 59 — — — — —
Beaver 179,200 19,400 39,300 467 148 — — — — —
Bedford 49,900 5,500 11,300 68 9 — — — — —
Berks 381,900 43,800 92,000 982 183 — — — — —
Blair 127,700 13,500 28,000 245 85 — — — — —
Bradford 62,700 7,700 15,400 143 9 — — — — —
Bucks 609,300 73,000 150,400 1,191 9 — — — — —
Butler 178,200 20,000 42,400 295 17 — — — — —
Cambria 150,400 15,000 30,500 618 6 — — — — —
Carbon 59,800 6,500 12,700 153 63 — — — — —
Centre 138,600 11,200 23,500 164 0 — — — — —
Chester 450,000 53,900 114,200 2,074 942 — — — — —
Clearfield 83,400 8,900 18,000 156 13 — — — — —
Columbia 64,500 6,300 12,600 61 45 — — — — —
Crawford 90,100 10,500 21,400 254 24 — — — — —
Cumberland 217,600 22,500 46,300 298 142 — — — — —
Dauphin 252,700 28,500 60,700 1,061 168 — — — — —
Delaware 553,500 64,700 134,500 1,610 95 — — — — —
Erie 282,400 32,700 68,300 925 168 — — — — —
Tennessee – 95 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Anderson 71,700 7,800 16,100 434 0 91 0 7 0 —
Blount 109,700 11,600 24,400 478 274 239 108 8 46 —
Bradley 89,500 9,300 20,700 79 905 15 582 0 * —
Carter 56,900 5,700 11,700 408 7 154 * 28 0 —
Davidson 569,200 52,700 127,700 4,699 6,152 815 874 854 1,301 —
Greene 63,700 6,500 13,800 203 257 113 15 37 31 —
Hamblen 58,400 5,800 13,400 340 287 110 88 33 27 —
Hamilton 309,300 32,800 70,400 2,078 810 801 518 115 34 —
Knox 391,500 38,700 86,100 1,159 745 130 271 344 30 —
Madison 93,400 10,700 23,500 637 150 29 175 0 0 —
Maury 71,500 8,500 18,200 371 42 212 37 26 17 —
Montgomery 136,900 16,500 39,500 380 536 128 154 6 0 —
Putnam 64,100 6,300 13,900 427 211 77 105 20 22 —
Rutherford 195,700 22,000 50,500 596 75 295 * 0 0 —
Sevier 74,300 7,700 16,600 514 669 222 167 23 403 —
Shelby 901,700 112,500 249,700 9,751 1,708 4,306 0 1,709 0 —
Sullivan 152,800 15,400 32,600 443 576 134 236 173 16 —
Sumner 136,500 16,300 34,400 900 822 548 268 36 59 —
Washington 109,200 10,200 22,800 346 373 124 80 23 54 —
Williamson 136,700 18,500 37,900 1,076 513 363 45 93 21 —
Wilson 93,500 11,200 23,700 382 355 139 30 73 * —
74 Small Counties 1,906,100 209,300 446,500 9,738 3,409 4,483 1,959 860 515 —
Number of Reported Cases 35,439 18,876 13,528 5,719 4,468 2,582 —
Population Represented 5,792,300 636,000 1,394,300 636,000 636,000 636,000 636,000 1,394,300 1,394,300 —
Rates for Reporting Counties 55.72 29.68 21.27 8.99 3.20 1.85 —
Number of Reporting Counties 95 95 95 95 95 95 —
Utah – 29 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Cache 95,800 11,800 29,800 604 404 113 775 83 0 —
Davis 249,200 37,700 85,300 1,195 1,327 216 625 331 8 —
Salt Lake 917,400 117,100 277,900 7,590 4,028 1,840 1,315 1,063 * —
Utah 391,600 51,900 134,000 2,511 1,301 985 417 279 100 —
Washington 99,600 13,200 30,400 660 719 411 412 90 0 —
Weber 203,400 26,600 62,600 1,490 1,373 383 1,232 605 7 —
23 Small Counties 362,700 54,900 118,600 2,783 2,083 1,235 1,381 551 5 —
Number of Reported Cases 16,833 11,235 5,183 6,157 3,002 122 —
Population Represented 2,319,700 313,200 738,500 313,200 313,200 313,200 313,200 738,500 738,500 —
Rates for Reporting Counties 53.75 35.87 16.55 19.66 4.06 0.17 —
Number of Reporting Counties 29 29 29 29 29 29 —
Vermont – 14 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Chittenden 148,500 16,000 33,100 292 — 22 — 275 — —
Rutland 63,300 7,200 13,800 124 — 45 — 27 — —
Washington 58,900 6,600 13,000 136 — 23 — 13 — —
Windsor 57,900 6,700 12,600 106 — 17 — 72 — —
10 Small Counties 287,800 34,600 67,500 773 — 104 — 303 — —
Number of Reported Cases 1,431 — 211 — 690 — —
Population Represented 616,500 71,100 140,000 71,100 — 71,100 — 140,000 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 20.13 — 2.97 — 4.93 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 14 — 14 — 14 — —
Washington – 39 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Benton 150,400 20,300 42,400 773 1,553 59 507 76 — —
Chelan 67,200 8,600 17,900 432 459 55 271 29 — —
Clallam 66,100 7,100 13,700 239 395 71 640 41 — —
Clark 370,100 46,600 102,300 1,137 1,989 85 387 224 — —
Cowlitz 94,700 11,800 24,400 477 848 36 892 160 — —
Grant 77,600 11,000 24,000 724 747 147 213 40 — —
Grays Harbor 68,700 8,200 16,400 173 918 45 484 55 — —
Island 75,600 8,600 18,500 127 435 21 261 65 — —
King 1,758,500 174,900 386,000 3,160 2,235 225 350 706 — —
Kitsap 238,400 29,400 61,000 769 1,630 85 402 169 — —
Lewis 69,700 8,700 17,500 314 452 35 246 102 — —
Pierce 731,300 90,500 194,700 1,746 3,489 84 279 381 — —
Skagit 106,700 12,900 26,800 366 796 42 124 104 — —
Snohomish 632,100 78,100 167,300 1,220 2,925 30 2,394 392 — —
Spokane 427,200 50,400 106,000 230 3,172 0 624 615 — —
Thurston 217,100 25,400 52,300 1,098 886 102 601 84 — —
Walla Walla 56,000 6,300 13,200 192 319 28 71 69 — —
Whatcom 174,100 19,200 40,100 784 650 * 500 92 — —
Yakima 224,500 31,100 69,600 1,057 1,819 47 691 162 — —
20 Small Counties 461,200 54,900 111,800 1,390 2,067 271 1,189 372 — —
Number of Reported Cases 16,408 27,784 1,470 11,126 3,938 — —
Population Represented 6,067,100 703,900 1,505,900 695,600 695,600 695,600 695,600 1,505,900 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 23.59 39.94 2.11 15.99 2.62 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 36 36 36 36 39 — —
Wisconsin – 72 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 16
Brown 232,000 23,800 55,600 280 — 232 — 153 — —
Chippewa 56,300 6,100 13,100 222 — 155 — 33 — —
Dane 441,600 39,200 92,700 1,395 — 211 — 294 — —
Dodge 87,000 8,800 18,900 299 — 234 — 110 — —
Eau Claire 94,100 8,700 19,900 569 — 740 — 169 — —
Fond Du Lac 97,800 10,100 21,800 612 — 358 — 85 — —
Grant 49,400 4,900 10,300 186 — 147 — 30 — —
Jefferson 77,000 7,600 17,100 231 — 46 — 70 — —
Kenosha 154,000 16,900 38,700 736 — 205 — 157 — —
La Crosse 108,000 10,100 23,000 233 — 229 — 88 — —
Manitowoc 82,400 8,700 18,500 415 — 86 — 105 — —
Marathon 126,900 13,900 30,400 309 — 318 — 98 — —
Milwaukee 934,400 95,900 231,600 3,402 — 45 — 970 — —
Outagamie 166,100 18,500 41,400 908 — 380 — 87 — —
Ozaukee 84,000 9,400 19,800 265 — 135 — 43 — —
Portage 67,300 6,500 14,300 520 — 296 — 25 — —
Racine 191,000 20,500 47,000 1,095 — 351 — 133 — —
Rock 154,100 16,600 37,600 1,707 — 565 — 136 — —
St. Croix 68,500 7,600 17,000 128 — 81 — 39 — —
Sheboygan 113,300 11,700 25,900 762 — 776 — 60 — —
Walworth 95,200 9,600 21,100 0 — 0 — 0 — —
Washington 121,000 12,900 28,900 338 — 63 — 70 — —
Waukesha 370,300 40,100 87,300 511 — 370 — 252 — —
Winnebago 158,500 15,200 34,200 1,142 — 670 — 188 — —
Wood 75,400 7,900 17,100 181 — 156 — 52 — —
47 Small Counties 1,234,900 129,000 274,400 5,427 — 6,131 — 894 — —
Number of Reported Cases 21,873 — 12,980 — 4,341 — —
Population Represented 5,440,400 560,100 1,257,700 560,100 — 560,100 — 1,257,700 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 39.05 — 23.17 — 3.45 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 72 — 72 — 72 — —
Wyoming – 23 Counties
Upper age of jurisdiction: 17
Albany 31,600 2,400 5,600 32 — 11 — 15 — —
Campbell 36,200 5,200 10,400 74 — 11 — 15 — —
Carbon 15,400 1,700 3,500 17 — 7 — 8 — —
Fremont 36,000 4,600 9,400 73 — * — 18 — —
Laramie 83,200 9,700 20,900 117 — 46 — 57 — —
Natrona 67,500 8,100 16,900 73 — 18 — 41 — —
Park 26,000 3,100 5,900 73 — 13 — 23 — —
Sheridan 27,000 3,200 6,100 16 — 42 — 17 — —
Sweetwater 37,300 4,900 10,000 138 — 50 — 18 — —
Uinta 19,800 3,000 6,100 43 — 6 — 18 — —
13 Small Counties 119,300 14,700 28,400 198 — 46 — 93 — —
Number of Reported Cases 854 — 252 — 323 — —
Population Represented 499,200 60,600 123,200 60,600 — 60,600 — 123,200 — —
Rates for Reporting Counties 14.08 — 4.16 — 2.62 — —
Number of Reporting Counties 23 — 23 — 23 — —
Table Notes
Alabama
Source: State of Alabama, Administrative Office of 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: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ
Data: 1. Judicial Council of California supplied data on delinquency and status offense cases disposed with a peti-
tion in calendar years 2001 or 2002 for all counties that did not independently provide automated delin-
quency and status offense data to NCJJ, or were not included in the automated file supplied by the
California Department of Justice’s Criminal Justice Statistics Center.
2. Dependency figures are cases disposed with a petition in calendar year 2001 or 2002. 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.
3. No dependency data are available for Trinity County for 2001 or 2002. Data for Fresno County were only
available in 2002. Data for Modoc County were only available through February 2001. Data for Humboldt
County were only available through June 2002.
California
Source: California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center
Mode: Automated data file
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Colorado
Source: Colorado Judicial Department
Mode: FY 2001 and 2002 Annual Reports: Statistical Supplement
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitioned case filings for fiscal year 2001 or 2002. 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 2001 or 2002.
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: Family Court, State of Delaware
Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are filings in calendar year 2001 or 2002.
2. Delinquency figures do not include traffic cases.
3. There is no statute on status offenders in this state; therefore, the court handles no status offense cases.
4. Dependency figures are filings in calendar year 2001 or 2002.
District of Columbia
Source: Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Mode: Automated data file
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
Florida
Source: State of Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Mode: Automated data file
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed. They represent only those cases disposed by the Department of
Juvenile Justice. Cases disposed by the Florida Network, the Department of Juvenile Justice’s major con-
tracted provider of CINS/FINS centralized intake, are not included in these figures.
3. Dependency figures are the number of children disposed with a petition for calendar year 2001 or 2002.
4. Delinquency, status, and dependency figures may include a small percentage of children disposed without
a petition.
Georgia: the counties of Bartow, Camden, Chatham, Cherokee, Clarke (2002 only), Clayton, Coweta, Dawson,
Dougherty, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Murray, Muscogee, Newton, Spalding, Troup, Walker, Walton,
Ware, Whitfield
Source: Georgia Council of Juvenile 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.
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 2001 and 2002 Annual Report Appendices.
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: 2001 and 2002 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 tru-
ancy counts were summed to determine status figures. Petitions for Putnam County and Scott County are
reported with other counties.
3. Dependency figures are the number of petitions filed.
Indiana
Source: Supreme Court of Indiana, Division of State Court Administration
Mode: 2001 and 2002 Indiana Judicial Service Reports, Volume II (petitioned) and 2001 and 2002 Indiana Judicial
Service Report Probation Reports (nonpetitioned)
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed.
Iowa
Source: State Court Administrator
Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are the number of petitions.
2. Dependency, which consists of CINA and FINA figures, are the number of petitions.
3. Dependency includes status offense cases.
Kansas
Source: Supreme Court of Kansas, Office of Judicial Administration
Mode: Annual Report of the Courts of Kansas
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are juvenile offender filings disposed for fiscal year 2001 or 2002.
Louisiana
Source: Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of Louisiana
Mode: 2001and 2002 Annual Reports
Data: 1. Total figures are new cases filed in district court. They include petitioned and nonpetitioned delinquency,
dependency, status offense, special proceeding, and traffic cases.
2. Figures shown for Caddo, East Baton Rouge, Jefferson, and Orleans Parishes include juvenile felony, mis-
demeanor, and status offense cases referred through an administrative remedy process.
Maine
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Dependency figures are the number of petitions filed.
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: Massachusetts Court System Juvenile Court Department, Fiscal Year 2001 and 2002 Statistics
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. A charge is a single count alleged in a juvenile complaint.
5. Hampshire County figures are reported with Franklin County.
Michigan
Source: State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Supreme Court
Mode: Statistical pages sent to NCJJ
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitions disposed.
2. Status figures are petitions disposed.
3. Dependency figures are petitions disposed.
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.
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 petitioned cases disposed.
2. Status figures are petitioned cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed.
4. In Douglas County, only those cases processed through the county attorney’s office 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 Jersey
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts
Mode: Automated data file
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
New Mexico
Source: Children, Youth, and Families Department
Mode: Automated data file
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
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 necessari-
ly reflect the total number of cases processed through the court system.
5. Data for nonpetitioned cases for Onondaga County are only available for 11 months in 2001. Data for non-
petitioned cases for Orange County are only available for 4 months in 2001. Data for nonpetitioned cases
for Rockland County are only available for 5 months in 2001. Data for nonpetitioned cases for Warren
County are only available for 9 months in 2002.
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 calendar year 2001 or 2002.
2. Status figures are offenses alleged in juvenile petitions during calendar year 2001 or 2002.
3. Dependency figures are conditions alleged in juvenile petitions during fiscal year 2001. They include
dependent, neglected, and abused conditions. No dependency data were available for 2002.
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, 2001 and 2002
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petition terminations.
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: Automated data file
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
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 2001 and 2002 Pennsylvania Juvenile Court
Disposition Report, due to differing units of count.
Rhode Island
Source: Administrative Office of State Courts
Mode: Rhode Island Judiciary Annual Report 2003
Data: 1. Total figures are the number of adoption/guardianship, dependency/neglect/abuse, termination of parental
rights, violations, and wayward/delinquent 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.
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.
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: Vermont Supreme Court, Judiciary Data Warehouse
Mode: Statistical page sent to NCJJ
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitioned cases disposed.
2. Status figures are petitioned cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are petitioned cases disposed.
Virginia
Source: Department of Juvenile Justice and the Virginia Supreme Court
Mode: Automated data file
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Fairfax City reports with Fairfax County.
4. Data for 2001 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 2001 and 2002 and Annual
Caseload Reports (dependency)
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Wakiakum County reports with Pacific County; Garfield County reports with Asotin County; 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 petitioned 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.
Wisconsin
Source: Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Mode: Automated data file
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are cases disposed.
2. Status figures are cases disposed.
3. Dependency figures are cases disposed.
Wyoming
Source: Supreme Court of Wyoming Court Services
Mode: Wyoming District Courts 2001 and 2002 Caseload Statistics
Data: 1. Delinquency figures are petitions filed.
2. Status figures are petitions filed.
3. Dependency figures are petitions filed.
◆ 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-to-
read, 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.
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.
National Center for Juvenile Justice