Status offenses are acts that are illegal only because the persons committing them are of juvenile status. The five major status offense categories used in this Report are running away, truancy, curfew law violations, ungovernability (also known as incorrigibility or being beyond the control of one's parents), and underage liquor law violations (e.g., a minor in possession of alcohol, underage drinking). A number of other behaviors, such as those involving tobacco offenses, may be considered status offenses. However, because of the heterogeneity of these miscellaneous offenses, they are not discussed independently in this Report but are included in discussions and displays of petitioned status offense totals.

Agencies other than juvenile courts are responsible for processing status offense cases in many jurisdictions. In some communities, for example, family crisis units, county attorneys, and social service agencies have assumed this responsibility. When a juvenile charged with a status offense is referred to juvenile court, the court may divert the juvenile away from the formal justice system to other agencies for service or may decide to process the juvenile formally with the filing of a petition. The analyses in this Report are limited to petitioned cases.

Juvenile courts may adjudicate petitioned status offense cases and may order sanctions such as probation or out-of-home placement. While their cases are being processed, juveniles charged with status offenses are sometimes held in secure detention. (Note that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act discourages secure detention of status offenders. States holding large numbers of status offenders in secure detention risk losing a significant portion of their juvenile justice block grant awards.)

This chapter presents national estimates of petitioned status offense cases disposed in 2004 and examines trends since 1995, including demographic characteristics of the juveniles involved, types of offenses charged, and the flow of cases as they move through juvenile court processing. (See chapter 3 for a description of the stages of court processing.)

Counts and Trends

• In 2004, U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction petitioned and formally disposed an estimated 159,400 status offense cases.

• The number of petitioned status offense cases processed by juvenile courts increased 39% between 1995 and 2004.

• The number of petitioned runaway cases processed by juvenile courts remained relatively stable between 1995 and 2004.

• Between 1995 and 2004, the number of petitioned truancy cases processed by juvenile courts increased 69% (from 33,000 to 55,700).

• Between 1995 and 2000, the number of petitioned curfew cases increased 66% (from 11,400 to 18,900) and then declined 17% by 2004.

• The number of petitioned ungovernability cases in 2004 (22,800) was 38% higher than in 1995 (16,600).

• The number of petitioned liquor law violation cases increased 17% between 1995 and 2004.

Offense profile of petitioned status offense cases:

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

• Compared with 1995, a larger proportion of the court's petitioned status offense caseload in 2004 involved truancy cases and smaller proportions involved runaway and liquor law violations.

Between 1995 and 2004, the formally handled status offense caseload increased 39%

Between 1995 and 2004, the largest increase in the petitioned status offense caseload was for truancy cases (69%) and the smallest increase was for runaway cases (2%)

Petitioned status offense case rates rose from 4.0 to 5.1 per 1,000 juveniles between 1995 and 2004

Between 1995 and 2004, case rates for truancy increased 53% while rates for running away decreased 7%

Case Rates

• In 2004, juvenile courts formally processed 5.1 status offense cases for every 1,000 juveniles in the population— those age 10 or older who were under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court.

• The total petitioned status offense case rate increased 26% between 1995 and 2004.¹

• Between 1996 and 2004, the petitioned runaway case rate decreased 19%.

• Between 1995 and 2004, the petitioned truancy case rate increased steadily (53%).

• Between 1995 and 2000, the petitioned curfew violation case rate increased 55% and then decreased 19% by 2004.

• Between 1995 and 2004, the formally processed ungovernability case rate increased 25%.

• The petitioned liquor law violation case rate increased 6% between 1995 and 2004.

Age at referral

• In 2004, the petitioned status offense case rate for 16-year-olds was one and one-half times the rate for 14- year-olds, and the rate for 14-yearolds was nearly 4 times the rate for 12-year-olds.

• The largest increase in case rates between age 13 and age 17 was for liquor law violations. The case rate for 17-year-old juveniles (4.0) was more than 20 times the rate for 13- year-olds (0.2).

• In contrast to curfew and liquor law violations, for petitioned cases involving runaway, truancy, and ungovernability, the case rates for 15-year old juveniles were higher than the rates for 17-year-olds: specifically, 1.4 times greater for runaway, 1.6 for truancy, and 1.7 for ungovernability.

In 2004, delinquency case rates increased with the referral age of the juvenile

Unlike the other status offense categories, case rates increased continuously with age for curfew and liquor law violations

Trends in case rates differed across age groups for each general status offense category

>

*Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving youth ages 10–12 for runaway, curfew, and liquor law violations, their case rates are inflated by a factor specified in the graph to display the trend over time.

• With the exception of 10–12-year-olds, case rates for petitioned runaway cases peaked for all age groups in 1996.

• Case rates for petitioned truancy cases increased between 1995 and 2004 for all age groups.

• Case rates for petitioned curfew cases peaked for all age groups between 1998 and 2000, and then decreased through 2004.

• For all age groups, case rates for petitioned ungovernability cases were higher in 2004 than in 1995.

• Case rates for petitioned liquor law violation cases peaked in 1998 for youth age 17 and declined 29% by 2004.

Gender

• Overall, the female petitioned status offense caseload increased 42% between 1995 and 2004, compared with 37% for the male caseload.

• Between 1995 and 2004, the relative increase in the female petitioned status offense caseload outpaced that of the male caseload for curfew (64% vs. 27%) and liquor law violations (40% vs. 6%).

• The relative increase in the male petitioned status offense caseload outpaced that of the female caseload between 1995 and 2004 for truancy (73% vs. 64%) and ungovernability offenses (40% vs. 36%).

• Between 1995 and 2004, the petitioned runaway caseload decreased 1% for males while the petitioned female runaway caseload increased 4%.

• In contrast to previous years, between 2000 and 2004, the number of petitioned truancy cases outnumbered liquor law violations among males; among females, the petitioned truancy cases outnumber those of all other status offense categories from 1995 through 2004.

Trends in petitioned status offense case rates revealed similar patterns for males and females

Between 1995 and 2004, the petitioned status offense caseload involving liquor law violations increased 40% for females and 6% for males

Compared with the delinquency caseload, females accounted for a substantially larger proportion of petitioned status offenses

• Males were involved in 56% of the total petitioned status offense caseload in 2004.

• In 2004, males accounted for the majority of both curfew (65%) and status liquor law violation cases (63%) and slightly more than half of petitioned truancy (54%) and ungovernability (55%) cases.

• Females accounted for 62% of petitioned runaway cases in 2004, the only status offense category in which females represented a larger proportion of the caseload than males.

Offense profiles of delinquency cases for males and females:

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

• For both males and females, the petitioned status case rate increased between 1995 and 2004.

• Runaway case rates declined between 1995 and 2004 for both males (10%) and females (5%).

• In contrast to previous years, between 2000 and 2004 the truancy case rate for males was higher than the liquor law violation case rate.

• Among females, the truancy case rate was higher than the rates of all other status offense categories for each year between 1995 and 2004.

• For both males and females, the case rates for curfew violations increased between 1995 and 2000 and then declined.

• Between 1995 and 2004, case rates for ungovernability increased 27% for males and 23% for females.

The petitioned status offense case rates followed similar patterns for males and females between 1995 and 2004

Between 1995 and 2004, case rates for curfew violations increased 49% for females and 16% for males

In 2004, the delinquency case rate for females peaked at age 15 while the male case rate increased through age 17

• For males, petitioned status offense case rates increased continuously with age in 2004. Petitioned status offense case rates for females increased through age 15 and then decreased through age 17.

• After age 11, case rates for running away were higher for females than for males in 2004.

• Rates for runaway cases peaked at age 15 for females in 2004; for males, the peak age was 16.

• For both males and females, petitioned status offense case rates increased continuously with age for curfew and liquor law violations in 2004.

• In 2004, petitioned case rates for truancy and ungovernability peaked at age 15 for both males and females.

Race

Percent change in number of cases by race, 1995–2004:

• Between 1995 and 2004, the number of truancy and curfew violation cases increased substantially for all racial groups.

Offense profile of status offense cases by race:

• In both 1995 and 2004, truancy cases made up the greatest proportion of the caseloads for white, black, and Asian/NHPI juveniles, while liquor law violation cases were the greatest proportion of the caseload for American Indian juveniles.

Between 1995 and 2004, petitioned status offense case rates increased for youth of all racial groups: 84% for Asians/NHPI, 45% for blacks, 23% for American Indians, and 20% for whites

Note: Case counts for American Indian and Asian/NHPI youth are not shown in the offense graphs above because their numbers are too small for display.

Between 1995 and 2004, petitioned status offense case rates increased for youth of all racial groups: 84% for Asians/NHPI, 45% for blacks, 23% for American Indians, and 20% for whites

• For all years between 1995 and 2004, the total petitioned status offense case rate for American Indian youth was higher than that for juveniles of all other racial categories.

• Between 1995 and 2004, the increase in runaway and ungovernability case rates for black youth outpaced that for juveniles in any other racial category.

Source of Referral

• Status offense cases can be referred to court intake by a number of sources, including law enforcement agencies, schools, relatives, social service agencies, probation officers, and victims.

• Schools referred 72% of the petitioned truancy cases in 2004.

• Relatives referred 42% of the petitioned ungovernability cases in 2004.

Percentage of petitioned status offense cases referred by law enforcement:

• In 2004, law enforcement agencies referred 50% of the petitioned status offense cases disposed by juvenile courts.

• Compared with 1995, law enforcement referred larger proportions of runaway, truancy, and ungovernability cases in 2004.

Law enforcement agencies are the primary source of delinquency referrals to juvenile court for curfew and liquor law violation cases

The source of referral for petitioned status offense cases varied with the nature of the offense

The number of petitioned runaway cases involving detention decreased substantially (48%) between 2000 and 2004

Between 1995 and 2004, the proportion of status offense cases involving detention has remained relatively stable

For most demographic groups, petitioned liquor law violation cases were more likely than other status offenses to be detained

Detention

• The number of petitioned status offense cases involving detention increased 58% between 1995 and 2004 (from 7,100 to 11,300). The largest relative increase was for liquor law violation cases (125%).

• Despite the growth in the volume of petitioned status offense cases involving detention, the proportion of cases detained was nearly the same in 2004 (7%) as in 1995 (6%).

• Prior to 1997, runaway cases comprised the largest volume of detained petitioned status offense cases; after that time, cases involving liquor law violations accounted for the largest share of the detained status offense caseload.

• Between 1995 and 2002, runaway cases were more likely than any other status offense to involve detention.

• Between 1995 and 2004, truancy cases were the least likely status offense to involve detention.

Offense profile of detained status offense cases:

Most serious offense	1995	2004
Runaway	26%	15%
Truancy	17	15
Curfew	13	9
Ungovernability	15	15
Liquor Law	19	28
Miscellaneous	10	18
Total	100%	100%
Number of cases	7,100	11,300
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

• Compared with 1995, the offense characteristics of the 2004 status offense detention caseload involved a greater proportion of liquor law violation cases and smaller proportions of runaway, truancy, and curfew violation cases.

Adjudication

• Between 1995 and 2004, the annual number of status offense cases in which the youth was adjudicated a status offender increased from 57,700 to 100,200.

• Between 1995 and 2004, the annual number of cases in which the youth was adjudicated a status offender increased 132% for curfew violations, 84% for truancy, 78% for liquor law violations, 48% for ungovernability, and 5% for running away.

Offense profile of cases adjudicated a status offender:

Most serious offense	1995	2004
Runaway	14%	9%
Truancy	31	32
Curfew	9	12
Ungovernability	15	13
Liquor Law	23	24
Miscellaneous	8	10
Total	100%	100%
Cases adjudicated a status offender	57,700	100,200
Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

• Compared with 1995, the 2004 adjudicated status offense caseload contained a smaller proportion of runaway cases and a larger proportion of cases involving curfew violations. For both years, cases involving truancy and liquor law violations made up the largest proportions of the adjudicated caseload.

Between 1995 and 2000, the number of cases in which the youth was adjudicated a status offender increased considerably; since then, the number has stabilized

Between 1995 and 2004, the number of cases in which the youth was adjudicated a status offender increased for all status offense categories

Between 2000 and 2004, the likelihood of petitioned status offense cases resulting in an adjudication remained fairly stable

• The likelihood of adjudication for petitioned status offense cases increased from 50% in 1995 to 63% in 2004.

• Among the status offense categories in 2004, adjudication was least likely in petitioned runaway cases (43%) and most likely in cases involving liquor law violations (78%).

• Between 1995 and 2004, the likelihood of adjudication among petitioned curfew violation cases increased from 44% to 73%.

• The likelihood of adjudication among petitioned liquor law violation cases increased from 51% in 1995 to 78% in 2004.

Percentage of petitioned status offense cases adjudicated, 2004:

Most serious offense	15 or younger	16 or older	Male	Female
Total status	61%	65%	64%	61%
Runaway	46	39	43	43
Truancy	58	57	58	59
Curfew	73	74	72	75
Ungov.	59	52	57	57
Liquor	79	78	77	80

Most serious offense	White	Black	Amer. Indian	Asian/NHPI
Total status	65%	54%	73%	64%
Runaway	45	41	45	34
Truancy	58	56	65	70
Curfew	79	57	68	75
Ungov.	79	74	81	76
Liquor	79	74	81	76

Dispositions: Out-of-Home Placement

• The number of cases adjudicated a status offender that resulted in out-ofhome placement increased 67% between 1995 and the peak in 2000, then declined 21% by 2004.

Offense profile of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in out-of-home placement:

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

• In 2004, truancy cases were the largest share of adjudicated status offense cases that resulted in out-ofhome placement; in 1995, runaway and ungovernability cases comprised slightly larger shares than truancy.

The number of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in out-of-home placement increased 32% between 1995 and 2004

The number of adjudicated status offense cases that resulted in out-of-home placement varied considerably by the nature of the offense

The court ordered out-of-home placement in 12% of all adjudicated status offense cases in 2004

• With the exception of cases involving liquor law violations, the likelihood that an adjudicated status offense case would result in out-of-home placement decreased between 1995 and 2004 for each of the major status offense categories.

• Between 1995 and 2004, the largest decline in the proportion of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in out-of-home placement was seen in cases involving ungovernability (from 27% to 17%) followed by curfew cases (from 12% to 4%) and runaway cases (from 27% to 20%).

• The proportion of adjudicated liquor law violation cases resulting in out-of-home placement increased from 7% in 1995 to 10% in 2004.

Percentage of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in out-of-home placement, 2004:

Dispositions: Probation

• Between 1995 and 2004, the number of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in an order of probation increased 42%, compared with a 32% increase in the number of cases resulting in out-of home placement.

• Since 1995, the largest percent increase in the number of adjudicated status offense cases receiving probation was seen in ungovernability cases (62%), followed by curfew violations (54%) and truancy and liquor law violation cases (41% each).

• The number of runaway cases increased 4% between 1995 and 2004.

• Between 2000 and 2004, the number of adjudicated cases receiving probation decreased for all status offense categories: 31% for cases involving curfew violations, 26% for runaway cases, 22% for cases involving liquor law violations, 8% for truancy cases, and 3% for ungovernabililty cases.

Offense profile of adjudicated status offense cases that resulted in probation:

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

• In 2004, 38% of adjudicated status offense cases that resulted in probation involved truancy offenses; liquor law violations accounted for about one quarter (23%).

• The offense characteristics of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in probation changed very little between 1995 and 2004.

Between 1995 and the peak year 2000, the number of adjudicated status offense cases that resulted in probation increased 64% then declined 13% by 2004

Between 1995 and 2004, the number of adjudicated status offense cases that resulted in probation increased in all five major status offense categories

The use of probation as the most restrictive disposition in adjudicated status offense cases varied with the nature of the offense

• Probation was the most restrictive disposition used in 52% of the adjudicated status offense cases in 2004, compared with 63% of the adjudicated caseload in 1995.

• In 2004, probation was ordered in 64% of adjudicated runaway cases, 61% of cases involving truancy, 20% of curfew violations, 70% of ungovernability cases, and 48% of cases involving status liquor law violations.

Percentage of adjudicated status offense cases resulting in probation, 2004:

Case Processing Overview, 2004

• In 52% of adjudicated status offense cases, formal probation was the most restrictive sanction ordered by the court.

• In 2004, 12% of adjudicated status offense cases resulted in out-ofhome placement.

• Dispositions with minimal continuing supervision by probation staff were ordered in 36% of status offense cases adjuducated delinquent in 2004—the juvenile was ordered to enter a treatment or counseling program, to pay restitution or a fine, or to participate in some form of community service.

• In 37% of formally handled status offense cases in 2004, the juvenile was not adjudicated a status offender. The court dismissed 87% of these cases, while 3% resulted in some form of informal probation and 10% in other voluntary dispositions.

• For every 1,000 status offense cases formally processed by juvenile courts in 2004, 325 resulted in formal probation and 77 were placed out of the home.

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Case Processing by Offense Category, 2004

Runaway Cases

• Among the five major status offense categories, juvenile courts were most likely to order youth to out-of-home placement followiong adjudication in runaway cases (87 of 432 cases), but formal probation was a more likely outcome (274 of 432).

• Among petitioned runaway cases in 2004, youth were not adjudicated a status offender in 568 of a typical 1,000 cases. Of these 568 cases, most were dismissed (90%).

Truancy Cases

• In 2004, of a typical 1,000 formal truancy cases, 354 resulted in formal probation and 63 were placed out of the home.

Curfew Violation Cases

• In 2004, for every 1,000 petitioned curfew violation cases, 149 resulted in formal probation following adjudication and 28 were placed out of the home.

• Among petitioned cases involving curfew violations in 2004, in 267 of a typical 1,000 cases, youth were not adjudicated a status offender. Of these 267 cases, 97% were dismissed (260).

Ungovernability Cases

• For every 1,000 petitioned ungovernability cases in 2004, 70% (402) resulted in formal probation following adjudication and 99 were placed out of the home.

Liquor Law Violation Cases

• Among petitioned liquor law violation cases in 2004, the most likely outcome was formal probation (380 of 1,000); out-of-home placement was ordered in 76 of a typical 1,000 cases.

• In 2004, among petitioned liquor law violation cases, youth were not adjudicated as status offenders in 216 of a typical 1,000 cases

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.