In dispositional hearings, juvenile court judges must determine the most appropriate sanction for delinquent youth, generally after reviewing reports from the probation department. The range of disposition options may include commitment to an institution or another residential facility; probation; or a variety of other dispositions, such as referral to an outside agency or treatment program, community service, restitution, or fines.

In more than half (55%) of all adjudicated delinquency cases in 1997, formal probation was the most severe sanction ordered by the court (figure 2). More than one-quarter (28%) of adjudicated cases resulted in placement outside the home in a residential facility.⁴ In 13% of adjudicated delinquency cases, the court ordered the juvenile to pay restitution or a fine, to participate in some form of community service, or to enter a treatment or counseling program—dispositions with minimal continuing supervision by probation staff. In a relatively small number of cases (4%), the juvenile was adjudicated but was released with no further sanction or consequence.

In 41% of all petitioned delinquency cases in 1997, the youth was not subsequently adjudicated delinquent. The court dismissed most of these cases (59%), but 21% resulted in some form of informal probation, 18% in other voluntary dispositions, and 2% in voluntary out-of-home placements.

Out-of-Home Placement. The court ordered out-of-home placement in 163,200 (28%) of all adjudicated delinquency cases in 1997 (table 15). Juveniles charged with drug offenses were less likely to be placed outside the home than were those charged with person or public order offenses. Following adjudication, placement was ordered in 26% of property cases and 24% of drug cases, compared with 30% of person offense cases and 33% of public order offense cases. The relatively high rate of placement in public order offense cases may be related to the fact that this offense category includes escapes from institutions, weapons offenses, and probation and parole violations.

Although the likelihood of a delinquency case resulting in out-of-home placement declined between 1988 and 1997 for all four of the major offense categories, the number of adjudicated delinquency cases resulting in out-of-home placement increased 56% (table 16). During the 10-year period, placements increased more for person offense cases (103%) and drug and public order offense cases (77%) than for property offense cases (27%).

In 1997, 42% of all adjudicated cases that resulted in out-of-home placement involved property offenses, 25% involved public order offenses, 23% involved person offenses, and 10% involved drug law violations (table 17). Between 1988 and 1997, the offense profile of cases resulting in out-of-home placement cases changed somewhat. The proportion of out-of-home placement cases that involved person, drug, and public order offenses increased, while the proportion involving property offenses declined.

Formal Probation. Formal probation was the most restrictive disposition used in 318,700 adjudicated delinquency cases in 1997—55% of all such cases handled by juvenile courts (table 18). Juvenile courts ordered formal probation in 57% of adjudicated cases involving property offenses, 56% involving person offenses and drug law violations, and 49% involving public order offenses.

The likelihood of formal probation for adjudicated delinquency cases remained essentially the same between 1988 and 1997, with at most a 1 percentage point difference across the four offense categories.

Although the proportion of adjudicated cases resulting in a disposition of formal probation remained constant between 1988 and 1997, the number of such cases increased 67% (table 19). The increase was 125% for person offenses, 32% for property offenses, 141% for drug law violations, and 98% for public order offenses.

Nearly half (47%) of the delinquency cases that resulted in formal probation in 1997 involved property offenses, 22% involved person offenses, 19% involved public order offenses, and 12% involved drug law violations (table 20). The offense characteristics of cases resulting in formal probation changed somewhat between 1988 and 1997, with an increase in the proportion of cases involving person, drug, and public order offenses and a decrease in the proportion involving property offenses.