This chapter quantifies the flow of delinquency cases through each of the following stages of the juvenile court system.

Detention: Juvenile courts sometimes hold youth in secure detention facilities during court processing to protect the community, to ensure a juvenile's appearance at subsequent court hearings, to secure the juvenile's own safety, or for the purpose of evaluating the juvenile. This Report describes the use of detention between court referral and case disposition only, although juveniles can be detained by police prior to referral and also by the courts after disposition while awaiting placement elsewhere.

Intake: Formal processing of a case involves the filing of a petition that requests an adjudicatory or waiver hearing. Informally processed cases, on the other hand, are handled without a petition and without an adjudicatory or waiver hearing.

Waiver: One of the first decisions made at intake is whether a case should be processed in the criminal (adult) justice system rather than in the juvenile court. Most states have more than one mechanism for transferring cases to criminal court: prosecutors may have the authority to file certain juvenile cases directly in criminal court; state statute may order cases meeting certain age and offense criteria be excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction and filed directly in criminal court; and a juvenile court judge may waive juvenile court jurisdiction in certain juvenile cases, thus authorizing a transfer to criminal court. This Report describes those cases that were transferred to criminal court by judicial waiver only.

Adjudication: At an adjudicatory hearing, a youth may be adjudicated (judged) a delinquent if the juvenile court determines that the youth did commit the offense(s) charged in the petition. If the youth is adjudicated, the case proceeds to a disposition hearing. Alternatively, a case can be dismissed or continued in contemplation of dismissal. In these cases where the youth is not adjudicated delinquent, the court can recommend that the youth take some actions prior to the final adjudication decision, such as paying restitution or voluntarily attending drug counseling.

Disposition: Disposition options include commitment to an institution or other residential facility, probation supervision, or a variety of other sanctions, such as community service, restitution or fines, or referral to an outside agency or treatment program. This Report characterizes case disposition by the most severe or restrictive sanction. For example, although most youth in out-of-home placements are also technically on probation, in this Report cases resulting in placement are not included in the probation group.

This chapter describes case processing by offense and by demographics (age, gender, and race) of the juveniles involved, focusing on cases disposed in 2004 and examining trends from 1985 through 2004.

• The number of delinquency cases involving detention increased 42% between 1985 and 2004, from 232,400 to 341,300. The largest relative increase was for person offense cases (131%), followed by drug offense cases (117%) and public order cases (103%). In contrast, the number of detained property offense cases declined 18% during this period.

• Despite the growth in the volume of delinquency cases involving detention, the proportion of cases detained was nearly the same in 2004 (21%) as in 1985 (20%).

• Beginning in 2003, public order cases accounted for the largest volume of cases involving detention.

• Between 1985 and 2004, the proportions of person and property offense cases involving detention changed very little.

• Between 1985 and 2004, the use of detention decreased for public order offense cases (from 28% to 24%) and for cases involving drug law violations (from 22% to 18%).

Offense profile of detained delinquency cases:

• Compared with 1985, the offense characteristics of the 2004 detention caseload changed, involving greater proportions of person, drug, and public order offense cases and a smaller proportion of property offense cases.

The number of cases involving detention increased substantially between 1985 and 2004 for person, drug, and public order offenses but decreased for property offense cases.

The proportion of drug offense cases involving detention reached a peak of 34% in 1989 and declined to 18% in 2004

While black youth represented 31% of the overall delinquency caseload in 2004, they made up 37% of the detention caseload

• Between 1985 and 2004, the proportion of all delinquency cases that involved black youth averaged 29%, while that average was 37% of all detained cases.

• Overrepresentation of black youth was greatest for drug offense cases. On average, between 1985 and 2004, black youth accounted for 31% of all cases involving drug offense violations but represented 47% of such cases detained.

• Between 1985 and 1991, the proportion of detained drug offense cases involving black youth increased substantially (from 28% to 66%). Since that time, the proportion of detained drug offense cases involving black youth steadily decreased through 2002 and has remained at that level (34%) through 2004.

• Between 1987 and 1996, the proportion of detained drug offense cases involving black youth was more than 50%.

• Black youth accounted for 22% of all drug offense cases processed in 2004 but were involved in 34% of the drug offenses that involved detention.

• Black youth accounted for 39% of the person offense cases processed in 2004 and 42% of those detained.

• In 2004, the proportion of property offense cases involving black youth was 28%, while the proportion of detained property offense cases involving black youth was 35%.

• Black juveniles made up 32% of public order offense cases processed in 2004 and 35% of those detained.

• In each year from 1985 through 2004, delinquency cases involving youth age 16 or older were more likely to be detained than were cases involving youth age 15 or younger.

• For both age groups, drug offense cases were more likely to involve detention than were other offense cases between 1987 and the mid 1990s. After that time, however, person offense and public order offense cases were as likely or more likely to involve detention than were drug offense cases.

• In 2004, 16-year-olds accounted for 25% of the cases that involved detention, a larger proportion of cases than any other single age group.

Gender

• In 2004, male juveniles charged with delinquency offenses were more likely than females to be held in secure facilities while awaiting court disposition. Overall in 2004, 22% of male delinquency cases involved detention, compared with 17% of female cases.

Offense profile of detained delinquency cases by gender:

For all years between 1985 and 2004, detention was more likely for cases involving older youth than younger youth and for cases involving males than females

Percentage of delinquency cases detained by age group:

Percentage of delinquency cases detained by gender:

Percentage of delinquency cases detained by race:

Race

• Cases involving black youth were more likely to be detained than cases involving white youth in each year between 1985 and 2004 across offense categories.

• In 2004, person offense cases involving black youth and Asian/NHPI youth were more likely to involve detention (27% and 28%, respectively) than those involving white youth or American Indian youth (23% and 22%, respectively).

• The likelihood of detention for property offenses in 2004 was greatest for black youth.

• In 2004, black youth were about twice as likely as white youth and American Indian youth to be detained for cases involving drug offenses (28%, 15%, and 14%, respectively).

• Between 1985 and 2004, the likelihood of detention for cases involving public order offenses decreased for youth of all races.

• Among white youth in 2004, person offense cases were most likely to be detained (23%) followed by public order offenses (22%). For Asian/NHPI youth, both person offense and public order offense cases had the highest probability of detention (28% each).

• Among American Indian youth in 2004, public order offense cases were most likely to be detained (32%). For black youth, the likelihood of detention was greatest for drug offense cases (28%).

Intake Decision

• Between 1985 and 2004, the likelihood that a delinquency case would be handled informally (without filing a petition for adjudication) decreased. While the overall delinquency caseload increased 44% between 1985 and 2004, the number of nonpetitioned cases increased 15% and the number of petitioned cases increased 80%.

• The number of petitioned cases increased 100% between 1985 and the peak in 1997 then declined 10% by 2004.

• The largest relative increase in the number of petitioned cases between 1985 and 2004 was seen in drug offense cases (251%), followed by public order offense cases (205%) and person offense cases (142%).

• The number of petitioned property offense cases increased 55% between 1985 and the peak in 1996 and then declined 30% by 2004.

Offense profile of delinquency cases, 2004:

• In 2004, the offense profiles of nonpetitioned and petitioned delinquency cases were very similar.

Since 1991, delinquency cases were more likely to be handled formally, with the filing of a petition for adjudication, than informally

In contrast to the other general offense categories, the number of property offense cases decreased 30% between 1996 and 2002

In 2004, juvenile courts petitioned nearly 6 of 10 delinquency cases

Between 1985 and 2004, the use of formal processing increased in all general offense categories

• The overall likelihood of formal handling was greater for more serious offenses within the same general offense category. In 2004, for example, 76% of aggravated assault cases were handled formally, compared with 53% of simple assault cases. Similarly, 78% of burglary cases and 79% of motor vehicle theft cases were handled formally by juvenile courts, compared with 43% of larceny-theft and 47% of trespassing cases.

• Between 1985 and 2004, the likelihood of formal processing increased: from 43% to 58% for drug offense cases, from 54% to 59% for person offense cases, from 45% to 57% for public order cases, and from 43% to 54% for property offense cases.

• Between 1988 and 1994, drug offense cases were more likely than other cases to be handled with a petition for adjudication.

• In 2004, 58% of drug offense cases were petitioned—a substantially lower percentage than in the peak year 1991 when 66% were petitioned.

• Since 1995, person offense cases have been as likely or more likely as cases involving drug offenses to be handled formally.

• Since 1987, property offense cases were less likely than cases in each of the other general offense categories to be handled with a petition for adjudication.

Age

• In each year between 1985 and 2004, delinquency cases involving juveniles age 16 or older were more likely to be petitioned than were cases involving younger juveniles.

• In 2004, 54% of delinquency cases involving youth age 15 or younger were petitioned, compared with 60% of cases involving older youth.

• Since 1991, the proportion of drug offense cases petitioned has declined for both age groups, while the proportion of cases petitioned for each of the other general offense categories has grown.

• Among youth age 15 or younger, drug offense cases were more likely to be handled formally than any other offense category between 1988 and 1994.

• For each year between 1999 and 2004, for both age groups, person offense cases were more likely than cases in any other offense category to be petitioned for adjudication.

Gender

• Between 1985 and 2004, the likelihood of formal case processing increased for males from 48% to 60% and for females from 35% to 48%.

• Regardless of offense, for each year between 1985 and 2004, juvenile courts were more likely to petition cases involving males than females.

• In 2004, for both males and females, person offense cases were more likely than cases in any other offense category to be handled formally.

Between 1985 and 2004, the likelihood of formal handling increased more for younger than older youth and for females than males

Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned by age group:

Percentage of delinquency cases petitioned by gender: