2022 National Report

Youth and the Juvenile

Justice System

2022 NATIONAL REPORT

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Charles Puzzanchera, Sarah Hockenberry, and Melissa Sickmund

National Center for Juvenile Justice

December 2022

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System:

2022 National Report

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

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 cooperative agree-

ment #2019–JX–FX–K001, awarded and managed by the National Institute of Justice with funding

support provided by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.

National Center for Juvenile Justice

3700 S. Water Street, Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15203

Suggested citation: Puzzanchera, Charles, Hockenberry, Sarah, and Sickmund, Melissa. 2022.

Youth

and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile

Justice.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

iii

Preface

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System:

2022 National Report

is the fifth edi-

tion of a comprehensive report on

youth victimization, offending by

youth, and the juvenile justice system.

With this release, the report series has

adopted a new name (the series was

previously known as “Juvenile Offend-

ers and Victims”), but the focus of the

report remains unchanged: the report

consists of the most requested infor-

mation on youth and the juvenile jus-

tice system in the United States. De-

veloped by the National Center for

Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) for the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention and the National Institute

of Justice, the report draws on reliable

data and relevant research to provide a

comprehensive and insightful view of

youth victims and offending by youth,

and what happens to youth when they

enter the juvenile justice system in the

U.S.

The report offers—to Congress, state

legislators, other state and local policy-

makers, educators, juvenile justice pro-

fessionals, and concerned citizens—

empirically based answers to frequently

asked questions about the nature of

youth victimization and offending and

the justice system’s response. The ju-

venile justice system must react to the

law-violating behaviors of youth in a

manner that not only protects the

community and holds youth account-

able but also enhances youth’s ability

to live productively and responsibly in

the community. The system must also

intervene in the lives of abused and

neglected children who lack safe and

nurturing environments.

To respond to these complex issues,

juvenile justice practitioners, policy-

makers, and the public must have ac-

cess to useful and accurate information

about the system and the youth it

serves. At times, such information is

not available or, when it does exist, it

is often too scattered or inaccessible to

be useful.

This report bridges that gap by pulling

together the most requested informa-

tion on youth and the juvenile justice

system in the United States. The re-

port draws on numerous national data

collections to address the specific in-

formation needs of those involved

with the juvenile justice system. The

report presents important and, at

times, complex information using

clear, nontechnical writing and easy-

to-understand graphics and tables. It is

structured as a series of briefing papers

on specific topics, short sections that

can be read independently from other

parts of the report.

The material in this report represents

the most reliable information on

youth and their involvement with the

justice system through the 2019 data

year. Given the range of information

covered by the report, a data-year cut-

off had to be established. We elected

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

2019 as a common anchoring point

because all the major data sets required

for the report were current through

2019 at the time we began writing.

The onset of COVID-19 in 2020

caused some data collections to be sub-

stantially delayed and thus unavailable

during the writing of the report. Fur-

ther, the various coronavirus mitigation

efforts introduced across the country,

such as school closures and stay-at-

home orders, likely impacted the type

and volume of behaviors that came to

the attention of the justice system, and

simultaneously necessitated changes to

policies and practices within youth-

serving agencies. Therefore, 2019 re-

flects the experiences of youth and the

juvenile justice system unencumbered

by the impacts of the pandemic.

We expect that this report will be used

mainly as a reference document, with

readers turning to the pages on specific

topics when the need arises. However,

we encourage you to explore other sec-

tions when time permits. In each sec-

tion, you will probably discover some-

thing new, something that will expand

your understanding, confirm your

opinions, or make you question what

you believe to be true.

It has been more than 20 years since

the first edition of this report. Since

that seminal publication, this report

has become a primary source of infor-

mation on youth victimization, offend-

ing by youth, and the justice system’s

response, and it will provide a context

for debates over the direction to take

to respond to these important social

issues.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Acknowledgments

This report is the result of an ongo-

ing effort that has benefited from

the assistance of many individuals.

Authors at the National Center for

Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) for various

chapters and sections include:

Q Charles Puzzanchera (chapters on

youth population characteristics,

youth victims, offending by

youth, law enforcement and

youth crime, youth in juvenile

court, and youth in corrections).

Q Sarah Hockenberry (sections on

major depressive disorders, edu-

cation, victims of serious violence,

school crime, self-reported drug

use, chapters on youth in juvenile

court and youth in corrections).

Q Melissa Sickmund (chapter on

juvenile justice system structure

and process).

In addition to authors’ contribu-

tions, the following NCJJ staff pro-

vided assistance and review: Kristy

Bach (data collection activities on bul-

lying and self-reported drug use); Mo-

riah Taylor (foster care and adoption);

and Hunter Hurst IV (upper age of

juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer

statutes). Anthony Sladky, Jason

Smith, and Greg Chamberlin provided

computer programming and data anal-

ysis support. Nancy Tierney was re-

sponsible for report production (desk-

top publishing, graphics design,

layout, copy editing, and review).

Within the National Institute of Jus-

tice (NIJ), senior advisor Benjamin

Adams and social science research ana-

lyst Kaitlyn Sill, who serve as the proj-

ect monitors under NIJ Director

Nancy La Vigne, provided careful and

thoughtful review.

Finally, this work would not be possi-

ble without the efforts of the many in-

dividuals who collect and report the

data at the local, state, and national

levels—data that are the essence of this

report.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

vii

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Youth population characteristics 1

Youth population demographics ....................................................................... 2

Youth in poverty ............................................................................................... 7

Living arrangements of youth ......................................................................... 10

Major depressive episodes in adolescence ........................................................ 12

Births to teens ................................................................................................ 14

School dropout rates ...................................................................................... 16

Chapter 1 sources ........................................................................................... 18

Chapter 2: Youth victims 21

Child maltreatment reporting by child protective services agencies .................. 22

Child maltreatment demographics .................................................................. 25

Child maltreatment perpetrators ..................................................................... 26

Child maltreatment fatalities ........................................................................... 27

Children in foster care .................................................................................... 28

Family reunification and adoption ................................................................... 30

Victimization survey of youth ......................................................................... 31

Victims of school crime .................................................................................. 33

Victims of bullying ......................................................................................... 34

Youth victims of reported violent crimes ......................................................... 36

Youth victims of violence and those that harm them ....................................... 38

Time-of-day analyses of youth victimization .................................................... 39

Location of youth victimization ...................................................................... 41

Youth homicide victims .................................................................................. 42

Firearm-related homicides of youth ................................................................ 45

Youth suicide victims ...................................................................................... 47

Chapter 2 sources ........................................................................................... 51

Chapter 3: Offending by youth 53

Self-reports vs. official data ............................................................................. 54

School crime ................................................................................................... 55

Drug and alcohol use by school students ......................................................... 58

Drug and alcohol use trends ........................................................................... 62

Serious violent crime committed by youth ...................................................... 64

Homicides by youth ....................................................................................... 65

Time-of-day analyses of youth offending ......................................................... 70

Chapter 3 sources ........................................................................................... 75

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

viii

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process 77

History and overview of the juvenile justice system ......................................... 78

U.S. Supreme Court cases and the juvenile justice system ............................... 83

State definitions of juvenile court jurisdiction ................................................. 87

Juvenile justice system case processing ............................................................ 88

Public access to juvenile proceedings .............................................................. 93

State provisions for trying youth as adults ....................................................... 95

State criteria for transferring youth to adult court ............................................ 97

Changes to transfer laws between 2004 and 2019 ........................................ 100

Youth in the federal justice system ................................................................ 101

Chapter 4 sources ......................................................................................... 102

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth 105

Introduction to youth arrest data .................................................................. 106

Gender, age, and racial variations in youth arrests ......................................... 108

Youth proportion of total arrests .................................................................. 109

Youth arrest 10-year trends ........................................................................... 110

Female youth arrest trends ............................................................................ 111

Arrest trends of youth younger than age 13 .................................................. 113

Violent crime arrest trends ............................................................................ 115

Murder arrest trends ..................................................................................... 116

Robbery arrest trends ................................................................................... 117

Aggravated assault arrest trends .....................................................................118

Property Crime Index arrest trends ............................................................... 119

Burglary arrest trends ................................................................................... 120

Larceny-theft arrest trends ............................................................................ 121

Motor vehicle theft arrest trends ................................................................... 122

Arson arrest trends ....................................................................................... 123

Simple assault arrest trends ........................................................................... 124

Weapons law violation arrest trends .............................................................. 125

Drug abuse violation arrest trends ................................................................ 126

Disorderly conduct arrest trends ................................................................... 127

Age-specific arrest rate trends ....................................................................... 128

Clearance statistics ........................................................................................ 130

Violent crime arrest rates by state .................................................................. 132

Property crime arrest rates by state ............................................................... 133

Police disposition of youth arrests ................................................................. 134

Chapter 5 sources ......................................................................................... 135

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court 137

Introduction to

Juvenile Court Statistics

....................................................... 138

Delinquency caseload ................................................................................... 139

Delinquency case trends ............................................................................... 140

Gender variations in delinquency cases .......................................................... 142

Offense profiles by gender ............................................................................ 144

Racial/ethnic variations in delinquency cases ................................................ 145

Age variations in delinquency cases ............................................................... 148

Detention ..................................................................................................... 150

Detention variations by demographics .......................................................... 151

Formal vs. informal case processing .............................................................. 153

Adjudication ................................................................................................. 155

Disposition ................................................................................................... 156

Delinquency case processing ......................................................................... 158

Judicial waiver .............................................................................................. 161

Racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system ............................. 163

Status offense cases ....................................................................................... 168

Status offense case processing ....................................................................... 171

Youth and subsequent referrals to juvenile court ........................................... 172

Chapter 6 sources ......................................................................................... 175

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections 177

Introduction to residential placement data .................................................... 178

Youth and residential facility operation trends ............................................... 180

Facility size trends ........................................................................................ 182

Offense characteristics and youth demographics ............................................ 183

State residential placement rates .................................................................... 185

Detained and committed populations ........................................................... 186

Offense profiles of detained youth by state ................................................... 188

Offense profiles of committed youth by state ................................................ 189

Offense profiles for detained youth and committed youth ............................. 190

Gender and age variations in the residential placement population ................ 191

Racial/ethnic variations in the residential placement population ................... 192

Racial/ethnic variations in residential placement rates by state .......................193

Length of stay for youth in residential placement .......................................... 194

Residential placement facility classifications ................................................... 196

Security features in residential placement facilities ......................................... 197

Crowding in residential placement facilities ................................................... 198

Screening for educational, substance abuse, and mental health needs ............ 199

Education evaluation in residential placement facilities .................................. 200

Substance abuse evaluation in residential placement facilities ......................... 201

Mental health needs evaluation in residential placement facilities ................... 202

Suicide risk evaluation in residential placement facilities ................................ 203

Deaths reported in residential placement facilities ......................................... 204

Tribal residential placement facilities ............................................................. 206

Sexual victimization in residential placement facilities .................................... 207

Youth in adult jails ........................................................................................ 210

Youth in adult prisons ................................................................................... 211

Chapter 7 sources ......................................................................................... 212

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Chapter 1

Youth population

characteristics

Problems experienced by children

today are the products of multiple

and sometimes complex causes. Data

presented in this chapter show that

prevalence estimates for certain risk

factors associated with delinquency

have decreased while others have been

on the rise. For example, teenage

birth rates have declined to historical-

ly low levels; however, fewer children

are being raised in two-parent fami-

lies. The proportion of youth living in

poverty has decreased since 2010, and

was at its lowest level since 1975, but

the proportion of youth experiencing

major depressive episodes has in-

creased in recent years. Although high

school dropout rates have fallen for

most demographic groups, the rates

are still too high, especially in an em-

ployment market where unskilled

labor is needed less and less.

This chapter serves to document the

status of the U.S. youth population

on several indicators of child well-be-

ing and presents an overview of some

of the more commonly requested de-

mographic, economic, and sociological

statistics on youth. These statistics per-

tain to factors that may be directly or

indirectly associated with youth crime

and victimization. Although these fac-

tors may be correlated with youth

crime and/or victimization, they may

not be the immediate cause but may

be linked to the causal factor. The sec-

tions in this chapter summarize demo-

graphic, poverty, and living arrange-

ment data developed by the U.S.

Census Bureau, depression data from

the Federal Interagency Forum on

Child and Family Statistics, birth sta-

tistics from the National Center for

Health Statistics, and education data

from the National Center for Educa-

tion Statistics.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

The race/ethnicity profile of the youth population will change

considerably by 2050

In 2019, about 1 in 5 residents in the United States was

younger than 18

Q Between 2020 and 2050, the number of non-Hispanic Black youth is projected to

increase 7%, the number of non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander youth is projected

to increase 44%, the number of multi-racial youth is expected to grow 77%, and

the number of youth of Hispanic ethnicity is expected to increase 28%. Conversely,

the number of non-Hispanic White youth will decrease 16%.

Q As a result of these changes, the race/ethnicity profile of U.S. youth will shift: by

2050, nonwhite youth will account for 61% of the youth population under age 18.

Note: The proportion of American Indian youth is too small to label and was 1% in each year.

Source: Author's adaptation of U.S. Census Bureau's

Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by

Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019

and

Projected

Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: July 2016 to

July 1, 2060

[machine-readable data files].

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

54%

14%

23%

50%

14%

26%

47%

14%

26%

43%

14%

29%

39%

14%

31%

White Black Hispanic Amer. Indian

Asian

Multi-race

Proportion of youth population ages 0−17

After a period of decline, the

youth population is expected to

increase through 2050

For 2019, the U.S. Census Bureau es-

timated that 73,088,675 persons in the

United States—22% of the popula-

tion—were under the age of 18. The

youth population reached a low point

in 1984 at 62.5 million, increased 19%

through 2010, and then declined 1%

through 2019.

Population projections from the Cen-

sus Bureau suggest that the decline in

the population under age 18 will soon

reverse, and the youth population will

increase through the middle of the

21st century, albeit slowly. Compared

with 2020, the youth population is ex-

pected to increase 2% by 2030 and 6%

by 2050. However, as Vespa and his

colleagues note, the U.S. is a graying

country: the growth in the population

ages 65 and older will outpace all other

age groups through 2050. In fact, by

the mid-2030s, persons age 65 and older

will outnumber the population under

age 18 for the first time in history.

The race/ethnicity profile of the

youth population has changed

In response to the Office of Manage-

ment and Budget’s 1997 revisions to

the federal data collection standards on

race and ethnicity, the 2000 decennial

census adopted revised racial classifica-

tions. Prior to the 2000 census, re-

spondents were asked to classify them-

selves into a single racial group: (1)

White, (2) Black or African American,

(3) American Indian or Alaska Native,

or (4) Asian or Pacific Islander. Start-

ing with the 2000 Census, Native Ha-

waiians and Other Pacific Islanders

were separated from Asians. In addi-

tion, respondents could classify them-

selves into more than one racial group.

Information about Hispanic ethnicity is

collected separately from race.

Not all national data systems have

reached the Census Bureau’s level of

detail for racial coding—and historical

data cannot support this new coding

structure, especially the multi-race cat-

egories.* Therefore, this report gener-

ally uses the four-race coding structure.

For ease of presentation, the terms

White, Black, American Indian, and

Asian are used.

When viewed through the lens of race

and ethnicity, the youth population has

undergone a sizeable shift.

Race/ethnicity profile, youth ages 0–17:

Pct. change

Race/ethnicity 2000 2019 2000–2019

Non-Hispanic

White 62% 52% –15%

Black 15 15 –1

American Indian 11 –9

Asian 46 57

Hispanic 17 25 49

In 2019, just over half (52%) of the

youth population was classified as non-

Hispanic White, down from 62% in

2000, while the proportion classified as

*The National Center for Health Statistics

modifies the Census Bureau’s population data

to convert the detailed racial categories to the

traditional four-race categories. This bridging

is accomplished by estimating a single racial

group classification of multi-race persons

based on responses to the National Health In-

terview Survey, which asked respondents to

classify themselves using both the old and new

racial coding structures.

Chapter 1: Youth population characteristics

non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic

American Indian changed little since

2000. Conversely, the proportion of

the youth population classified as non-

Hispanic Asian and Hispanic increased

between 2000 and 2019.

In 2019, one-fourth (25%) of youth in

the U.S. were of Hispanic ethnicity, up

from 17% in 2000. Population projec-

tions from the Census Bureau suggest

that the number of Hispanic youth in

the U.S. will increase between 2020

and 2050, bringing the Hispanic pro-

portion of the youth population to

31%.

Juvenile justice systems serve

populations that vary greatly in

racial/ethnic composition

In 2019, at least 9 of every 10 youth

in Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia

were non-Hispanic and White. In con-

trast, more than half of California’s and

New Mexico’s youth populations were

Hispanic (52% and 62%, respectively).

Other states with large Hispanic youth

populations were Arizona (45%), Ne-

vada (41%), and Texas (49%).

In 2019, American Indian/Alaskan

Natives accounted for at least 10% of

the youth population in five states:

Alaska (22%), Montana (10%), New

Mexico (10%), Oklahoma (12%), and

South Dakota (14%).

The states with the greatest proportion

of Black youth in their populations in

2019 were Alabama (30%), Georgia

(35%), Louisiana (38%), Maryland

(33%), Mississippi (43%), and South

Carolina (31%). The Black proportion

of the youth population was highest in

the District of Columbia (55%).

In 2019, non-Hispanic White youth accounted for less than half of

the 0–17 population in 11 states

Percent

change

2010–

2019

Racial/ethnic profile, 2019

2019

population

ages 0–17

Non-Hispanic

State White Black

American

Indian Asian Hispanic

U.S. total 73,088,700 –1% 52% 15% 1% 6% 25%

Alabama 1,088,700 –4 59 30 0 2 8

Alaska 180,400 –4 54 6 22 9 10

Arizona 1,641,700 1 40 6 5 4 45

Arkansas 701,300 –1 65 19 1 3 13

California 8,881,100 –4 28 6 1 14 52

Colorado 1,256,700 2 58 6 1 4 32

Connecticut 727,300 –11 56 13 0 6 25

Delaware 204,300 –1 50 28 0 5 17

Dist. of Columbia 128,000 26 24 55 0 3 17

Florida 4,234,000 6 44 21 0 3 31

Georgia 2,505,400 1 45 35 0 5 15

Hawaii 299,400 –1 20 3 0 57 20

Idaho 448,100 4 77 2 1 2 19

Illinois 2,817,300 –10 53 17 0 6 25

Indiana 1,569,400 –2 72 13 0 3 12

Iowa 728,000 0 78 7 0 3 11

Kansas 701,500 –4 68 8 1 3 19

Kentucky 1,004,300 –2 80 11 0 2 7

Louisiana 1,089,900 –2 52 38 1 2 7

Maine 249,600 –9 90 4 1 2 3

Maryland 1,338,200 –1 44 33 0 7 16

Massachusetts 1,353,600 –5 63 10 0 8 19

Michigan 2,144,300 –8 68 18 1 4 9

Minnesota 1,303,200 2 70 12 2 7 9

Mississippi 700,000 –7 50 43 1 1 5

Missouri 1,374,700 –3 74 15 1 3 7

Montana 228,900 2 80 2 10 1 7

Nebraska 476,000 4 70 8 1 3 18

Nevada 694,700 5 37 13 1 8 41

New Hampshire 255,800 –11 86 3 0 4 7

New Jersey 1,943,600 –6 47 14 0 11 27

New Mexico 477,200 –8 24 3 10 1 62

New York 4,031,900 –7 50 16 0 9 25

North Carolina 2,304,600 1 54 24 1 4 17

North Dakota 180,600 20 77 5 8 2 7

Ohio 2,581,400 –5 73 18 0 3 7

Oklahoma 953,900 2 57 10 12 3 18

Oregon 864,800 0 67 4 1 6 23

Pennsylvania 2,635,800 –5 68 15 0 4 13

Rhode Island 203,900 –9 59 9 1 4 27

South Carolina 1,113,700 3 56 31 0 2 10

South Dakota 217,800 7 73 4 14 2 7

Tennessee 1,511,000 1 67 21 0 2 10

Texas 7,406,800 8 33 13 0 5 49

Utah 929,900 6 76 2 1 4 18

Vermont 114,300 –11 91 3 0 3 3

Virginia 1,868,700 1 56 22 0 8 14

Washington 1,661,000 5 59 7 2 11 22

West Virginia 360,400 –7 91 5 0 1 3

Wisconsin 1,267,900 –5 71 11 1 4 13

Wyoming 133,600 –1 79 2 3 1 16

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

Source: Authors’ analyses of Puzzanchera et al.’s.

Easy Access to Juvenile Populations

[online analysis].

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Proportion of non-Hispanic Black youth in the youth population (ages 0–17), 2019

Proportion of non-Hispanic White youth in the youth population (ages 0–17), 2019

0% to 50%

50% to 75%

75% to 90%

90% or more

Percent White,

non-Hispanic

0% to 2%

2% to 10%

10% to 30%

30% or more

Percent Black,

non-Hispanic

Source: Authors’ adaptation of National Center for Health Statistics’

Vintage 2020 Postcensal Estimates of the Resident Population of the United States (April

1, 2010, July 1, 2010–July 1, 2020), by Year, County, Single-year of Age (0, 1, 2, .., 85 Years and Over), Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex

Chapter 1: Youth population characteristics

Proportion of non-Hispanic Asian youth in the youth population (ages 0–17), 2019

Proportion of non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native youth in the youth population (ages 0–17), 2019

0% to 1%

1% to 2%

2% to 10%

10% or more

Percent American

Indian, non-Hispanic

0% to 1%

1% to 3%

3% to 10%

10% or more

Percent Asian,

non-Hispanic

Source: Authors’ adaptation of National Center for Health Statistics’

Vintage 2020 Postcensal Estimates of the Resident Population of the United States (April

1, 2010, July 1, 2010–July 1, 2020), by Year, County, Single-year of Age (0, 1, 2, .., 85 Years and Over), Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Proportion of Hispanic youth in the youth population (ages 0–17), 2019

Change in the juvenile population (ages 0–17), 2000–2019

0% to 5%

5% to 10%

10% to 35%

35% or more

Percent Hispanic

–10% and less

–10% to 0%

0% to 10%

10% and greater

Percent change,

2010–2019

Source: Authors’ adaptation of National Center for Health Statistics’

Vintage 2020 Postcensal Estimates of the Resident Population of the United States (April

1, 2010, July 1, 2010–July 1, 2020), by Year, County, Single-year of Age (0, 1, 2, .., 85 Years and Over), Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex

Chapter 1: Youth population characteristics

The proportion of children living in poverty in 2019 was at its

lowest level since 1975

Exposure to poverty at an early

age is linked to delinquency

Research has often supported a con-

nection between poverty and involve-

ment in crime. Youth who grow up in

families or communities with limited

resources are at a higher risk of offend-

ing than those who are raised under

more privileged circumstances. Those

who are very poor or chronically poor

seem to be at an increased risk of seri-

ous delinquency. The timing of expo-

sure to poverty is especially important.

A meta-analysis by Hawkins et al. of

several studies found that family socio-

economic status at ages 6–11 is a

stronger predictor of serious and vio-

lent delinquency at ages 15–25 than

family socioeconomic status at ages

12–14. Similarly, Jarjoura, Triplett, and

Brinker found that poverty experienced

within the first five years of life signifi-

cantly increased subsequent delinquen-

cy involvement.

The linkage between poverty and de-

linquency, however, may not be direct.

Some argue that the problems associat-

ed with low socioeconomic status (e.g.,

inability to meet basic needs, low ac-

cess to support resources) are stronger

predictors of delinquency than socio-

economic status alone. For example,

Agnew et al. found that self-reported

delinquency was highest among indi-

viduals who experienced several eco-

nomic problems.

The child poverty rate has been

on the decline

The U.S. Census Bureau assigns each

person and family a poverty threshold

according to the size of the family and

ages of its members.* The national

poverty thresholds are used through-

out the U.S. and are updated for infla-

tion annually. In 2010, the poverty

threshold for a family of four with two

children was $22,113. In 2019, this

75 79 83 87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

Year

Percent in poverty

Under age 18

Ages 18−64

Age 65 and over

With the exception of multi-racial youth, the proportion of children living

in poverty in 2019 was at its lowest level since 2002 for all race/ethnicity

groups

Q More than one-third (37%) of the nearly 10.5 million youth younger than 18 living in

poverty in 2019 were Hispanic, while White youth accounted for 29% of all youth in

poverty, and Black youth accounted for 25%.

Q In 2019, the proportion of Black, American Indian, and Hispanic youth in poverty

was more than twice the proportion of White and Asian youth.

Notes: Race groups exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity can be of any

race.

Source: Author’s analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s

Current Population Survey (CPS) Table Creator

(for 2002-2017) and

Microdata Access, CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement

201903/202003

(for 2018-2019).

03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Year

Percent under age 18 in poverty

Black

Hispanic

White

Asian

American Indian

Multi-race

Following a decade long decline, the proportion of children younger

than 18 living in poverty reached a new low in 2019

Q Between 2010 and 2019, the child poverty rate declined 8 percentage points while

the rate for persons ages 18–64 fell 4 percentage points. As a result, the proportion

of children living in poverty in 2019 was at its lowest level since 1975 and the pro-

portion of persons ages 18–64 in poverty reached its lowest level in two decades.

Source: Author’s adaptation of the U.S. Census Bureau’s

Current Population Survey. Historical Pov-

erty Tables. Table 3: Poverty Status of People, by Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959–2019.

* Family members are defined as being related

by birth, marriage, or adoption.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

threshold was $25,926. In comparison,

the poverty threshold for a family of six

with four children was $34,161 in

2019.

Although the thresholds in some sense

reflect families’ needs, they are not in-

tended to be a complete description of

what individuals and families need to

live.

In 2019, 10% of all persons in the U.S.

lived at or below their poverty thresh-

olds. This proportion was greater for

persons under age 18 (14%) than for

those ages 18–64 (9%) and those above

age 64 (9%). The youngest children

were more likely to live in poverty than

their older peers: while 14% of children

ages 5–17 lived in households with re-

sources below established poverty

thresholds, 16% of children under age

5 did so.

Many children live far below poverty

thresholds in what is labeled as extreme

poverty. One technique for gaining a

perspective on the frequency of ex-

treme poverty is to look at the propor-

tion of children who are living below

50% of the poverty level—e.g., in

2019, how many children lived in fam-

ilies of four with two children and in-

comes less than $12,963, half the pov-

erty threshold. In 2019, 6% of persons

under age 18 were living below 50% of

the poverty level, higher than the pro-

portion of persons ages 18–64 and

persons over age 64 (4% each). This

proportion was once again highest for

children under age 5 (7%). In all, more

than 45% of children living in poverty

in 2019 lived in what can be character-

ized as extreme poverty.

In 2019, the proportion of children living in poverty ranged from a low of 3.6% in New Hampshire to a high

of 27.4% in Mississippi

Percent of persons living

below the poverty threshold, 2019

Percent of persons living

below the poverty threshold, 2019

State

All

ages

Ages

0–17

Ages

18–64

Over

age 64 State

All

ages

Ages

0–17

Ages

18–64

Over

age 64

U.S. total 10.5% 14.4% 9.4% 8.9% Missouri 9.4% 12.7% 8.0% 9.7%

Alabama 12.9 18.1 11.0 12.6 Montana 9.7 11.9 9.7 7.3

Alaska 10.2 14.2 9.7 5.0 Nebraska 8.7 15.4 6.7 5.8

Arizona 9.9 14.5 8.4 9.1 Nevada 10.4 14.4 9.2 9.3

Arkansas 14.1 18.8 12.8 12.4 New Hampshire 3.7 3.6 3.5 4.0

California 10.1 13.9 9.1 8.6 New Jersey 6.3 6.8 5.0 10.2

Colorado 9.3 11.8 9.3 5.4 New Mexico 15.3 22.0 13.7 11.9

Connecticut 8.3 10.8 7.3 8.8 New York 12.5 17.4 11.4 10.6

Delaware 6.5 10.2 6.0 4.1 North Carolina 12.7 19.9 11.3 8.4

Dist. of Columbia 12.5 14.6 11.4 15.1 North Dakota 8.1 8.7 7.9 8.2

Florida 11.5 13.3 10.8 11.6 Ohio 12.4 19.5 11.3 6.9

Georgia 12.1 15.8 10.9 10.7 Oklahoma 10.8 12.8 10.6 8.5

Hawaii 8.4 11.0 7.9 7.0 Oregon 8.1 9.9 7.6 7.7

Idaho 7.1 8.5 7.5 3.3 Pennsylvania 8.7 12.1 8.0 7.0

Illinois 9.3 12.9 8.6 6.9 Rhode Island 9.2 13.8 7.3 10.4

Indiana 10.1 14.4 8.9 8.5 South Carolina 15.1 22.1 14.2 9.7

Iowa 9.5 13.7 9.2 4.9 South Dakota 10.6 17.2 8.7 7.0

Kansas 9.5 14.4 8.2 6.7 Tennessee 13.1 19.6 11.2 11.3

Kentucky 13.6 17.1 12.0 14.5 Texas 11.1 15.0 9.5 10.7

Louisiana 17.9 26.0 15.4 15.1 Utah 7.3 8.0 7.5 4.8

Maine 10.4 13.9 10.0 8.6 Vermont 8.6 13.1 8.7 4.5

Maryland 7.0 11.1 5.6 7.0 Virginia 8.8 11.7 8.0 8.3

Massachusetts 7.5 9.6 7.4 5.7 Washington 7.0 10.0 6.5 4.5

Michigan 10.2 14.3 9.8 6.7 West Virginia 13.9 18.6 13.3 10.9

Minnesota 5.7 7.4 5.4 4.2 Wisconsin 8.4 11.3 7.3 8.2

Mississippi 19.2 27.4 18.2 10.7 Wyoming 9.2 11.9 8.7 7.5

Q Nationally, 14.4% of youth under age 18—nearly 10.5 million—were living in poverty in 2019; the proportion of children living

in poverty exceeded the national average in 17 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: Author’s adaptation of the U.S. Census Bureau’s

Current Population Survey, 2019 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, POV46, Poverty

Status by State

Chapter 1: Youth population characteristics

In 2019, more than 1 in 4 Black children were living in poverty, and 1 in 8 were living in extreme poverty

(incomes less than half the poverty threshold)

Living below the poverty level Living below 50% of the poverty level

Age All White Black

Amer.

Indian Asian

Multiple

races Hispanic All White Black

Amer.

Indian Asian

Multiple

races Hispanic

All ages 10% 7% 19% 18% 7% 12% 16% 5% 3% 8% 9% 4% 6% 6%

Under age 18 14 8 27 21 8 14 21 6 4 12 11 4 8 8

Under age 5 16 9 31 25 6 20 21 7 4 14 11 3 10 9

Ages 5–17 14 8 26 20 8 12 20 6 4 11 11 4 7 7

Ages 18–64 9 7 16 16 7 11 13 4 4 7 9 4 5 5

Over age 64 9 2 19 21 10 6 16 4 3 7 9 5 2 7

Q There was little difference between the proportions of children in poverty compared with adults ages 18–64 in poverty for either White

or Asian populations in 2019. Children under age 18 in poverty and adults ages 18–64 in poverty differed by 8 percentage points in

the Hispanic population and 11 percentage points in the Black population.

Note: Racial categories (White, Black, American Indian, Asian, and multiple) do not include persons of Hispanic ethnicity. The Asian racial category in-

cludes Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders.

Source: Author’s adaptation of the U.S. Census Bureau’s

Microdata Access, CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement 201903/202003

Proportion of youth (ages 0–17) living in poverty, 2019

0% to 10%

10% to 20%

20% to 30%

30% or more

Percent living

in poverty

Source: Authors analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Program: 2019 Poverty and Median Household

Income Estimates - Counties, States, and National.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

The proportion of children living in single-parent homes more

than doubled between 1970 and 2019

Children living with two parents

generally report less delinquency

Research by Johnson, Hoffman, and

Gerstein as well as Hemovich and

Crano found that adolescents ages

12–17 living with two parents were

less likely to use alcohol, cigarettes,

and illicit drugs than their counterparts

not living in two-parent families. Like-

wise, a review by Kroese and colleagues

notes that existing research links grow-

ing up in a single-parent household

with an increased likelihood of crime

among adolescents. However, it is im-

portant to note that family structure

may not be the proximate cause of

problem behaviors. Rather, conditions

within the family, such as poor supervi-

sion and low levels of parental involve-

ment, are risk factors.

More than one-third of children

living with only their mothers were

in poverty

The economic well-being of children is

related to family structure. In 2019, 14%

of all children lived below the poverty

level. However, children living in mar-

ried couple families were less likely to

live in poverty (6%) than children liv-

ing with only their fathers (16%) or

only their mothers (36%). Family struc-

ture is also related to the proportion of

children in households receiving public

assistance or food stamps. Overall, 3%

of children in 2019 lived in households

receiving public assistance and 17%

lived in households receiving food

stamps, but the proportions were far

greater for children living in single-

mother families.

Percent of children receiving assistance,

2019:

Living

arrangement

Food

stamps

Public

assistance

All types 17% 3%

Two parents 10 1

Married 8 1

Unmarried 29 5

Single parent 35 6

Mother only 39 6

Father only 18 2

Neither parent 27 10

Q Between 1970 and 2019, the proportion of children living with their mothers in

single-parent homes increased from 8% to 17% for White children and from 30%

to 48% for Black children. For children of Hispanic ethnicity, the proportion in-

creased from 20% in 1980 to 24% in 2019.

Notes: Beginning with 2007, estimates for two-parent homes include married or unmarried parents

(biological, step, or adoptive). Persons of Hispanic ethnicity can be of any race; however, most are

White. Race proportions include persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

Source: Author’s analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s

Current Population Survey, Families and Living

Arrangements, Historical Tables

71 77 83 89 95 01 07 13 19

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percent of youth under age 18 living with mother only

White

Black

Hispanic

Year

The proportion of children living in single-parent homes more than

doubled between 1970 and 2019

Q In 2019, 70% of children were living in two-parent families—a level that has

changed little since 2007. Most other children live in single-parent households.

Q Most children in single-parent families lived with their mothers in 2019, but a grow-

ing proportion were living with their fathers. Since 1970, the proportion of children

in single-parent homes living with their fathers grew from 1% to 4% in 2019.

Despite a recent decline, Black children were more likely than White or

Hispanic children to live with only their mother in a single-parent home

71 77 83 89 95 01 07 13 19

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Year

Percent of children (under 18) in living arrangement

Two parent

One parent

71 77 83 89 95 01 07 13 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

Year

Percent of children (under 18) in living arrangement

Mother only

Father only

Chapter 1: Youth population characteristics

In 2019, 51% of children receiving

public assistance and 49% receiving

food stamps lived in single-mother

families. Two-parent families accounted

for 30% of children receiving public

assistance and 40% of those receiving

food stamps.

Seven in ten children lived in two-

parent families in 2019

Based on the Census Bureau’s Current

Population Survey, 85% of children

under age 18 were living in two-parent

families in 1970. The proportion de-

clined into the mid-2000s, where it fell

to 67% in 2005. By 2019, 70% of chil-

dren were living in two-parent (married

or unmarried) families. Most other

children lived in one-parent households.

The proportion of children living in

single-parent households increased

from 9% in 1960 to 25% in 2019.

Beginning with the 2007 Current Pop-

ulation Survey, more accurate data are

available to document the proportion

of children who live with married or

unmarried parents. In 2019, 4% of

children under age 18 were living with

two unmarried parents, up slightly from

3% in 2007. In 2019, 66% of children

under age 18 lived with married par-

ents. This proportion was highest for

Asian (86%) and White children (75%),

lower for Hispanic children (68%), and

lowest for Black children (42%).

Most children who live in single-parent

households live with their mothers. In

fact, this was the second most common

living arrangement of children in 2019.

The proportion of children living with

their mothers in single-parent house-

holds grew from 8% of the child popu-

lation in 1960 to 21% in 2019. In

1970, the mothers of 7% of the chil-

dren living in single-mother house-

holds had never been married; this

proportion grew to 49% in 2019.

The proportion of children living with

their fathers in one-parent households

grew from 1% in 1970 to 4% in 2019.

In 1970, the fathers of 4% of the chil-

dren living in single-father households

had never been married; this propor-

tion grew to 39% in 2019, a pattern

similar to the mother-only households.

The Census Bureau found a major dif-

ference between mother-only and fa-

ther-only households: cohabitation was

much more common in father-only

households. A living arrangement is

considered to be cohabitation when

there is an unrelated adult of the oppo-

site gender, who is not one’s spouse,

living in the household. In 2019, chil-

dren living in single-parent households

were more likely to have a cohabiting

father (28%) than a cohabiting mother

(9%).

Some children live in households head-

ed by other relatives or by nonrelatives.

In 2019, 3% of children lived in house-

holds headed by other relatives, and

about half of these children were living

in the home of a grandparent. (Across

all household types, 10% of children

lived in households that included a

grandparent.) In 2019, 1% of all chil-

dren lived with nonrelatives.

Most children live in a household

with at least one parent in the

labor force

Overall, 88% of children in 2019 lived

in families with one or both parents in

the labor force, i.e., employed or ac-

tively looking for work. Of all children

living with two parents, 97% had at

least one parent in the labor force, and

62% had both parents in the labor

force. When just one parent in two-

parent families was in the labor force,

87% of the time it was the father.

Among children living in single-parent

households, those living with fathers

only were more likely to have the par-

ent in the labor force than those living

with mothers only (87% vs. 78%).

In 2019, Asian youth were most likely to live with two parents while

Black youth were least likely

Notes: Persons of Hispanic ethnicity can be of any race; however, most are White. Race proportions

include persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

Source: Author’s analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s

Current Population Survey, 2019 Annual Social

and Economic Supplement

Hispanic

Asian

Black

White

non-Hispanic

White

All races

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

68% 24% 4% 4%

86% 10% 2% 2%

42% 46% 5% 7%

78% 14% 5% 3%

75% 17% 4% 3%

70% 21% 4% 4%

Percent of children (ages 0–17), 2019

Two parents, including unmarried parents

Mother only

Father only

Neither parent

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

In 2019, 3.8 million youth ages 12–17 reported experiencing

a major depressive episode

Major depressive episodes in

adolescence can have long lasting

effects

The Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration (SAM-

HSA) annually conducts the National

Survey on Drug Use and Health to

collect information from persons ages

12 and older in the U.S. In addition to

gathering information about substance

use behaviors, the survey also collects

information about depression; specifi-

cally, respondents are asked to report

whether they have had a major depres-

sive episode (MDE) in the 12 months

prior to the survey. According to the

American Psychiatric Association, an

MDE is defined as a period of at least

2 weeks when a person experiences a

depressed mood or loss of interest or

In 2019, 16% of youth ages 12–17 reported a major depressive

episode in the past 12 months, and 43% of these youth received

treatment

Percentage of youth (ages 12–17) reporting

occurrence in the last 12 months

Demographic

Major depressive

episode (MDE)

MDE with severe

impairment

MDE and received

treatment

Total 16% 11% 43%

Age

Ages 12–13 11 7 38

Ages 14–15 16 12 44

Ages 16–17 20 15 46

Gender

Male 9 6 37

Female 23 17 46

Race/ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 16 11 50

Black, non-Hispanic 11 8 36

Hispanic 17 12 37

American Indian 12 12 NA

Asian 15 11 NA

Two or more races 21 15 NA

Q In 2019, youth ages 16–17, females, and multi-racial youth were more likely to

report an MDE than their counterparts.

* Treatment refers to seeing or talking to a medical doctor or other professional or using prescrip-

tion medication for depression.

NA: Data not available.

Source: Author’s adaptation of the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics’

America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-being, 2021

pleasure in daily activities, plus at least

4 additional symptoms of depression

(e.g., problems with sleep, eating, en-

ergy, concentration, and feelings of

self-worth).

Depression is known to have effects

not only on mental health but also on

physical health and can affect adoles-

cent development. As noted in the

2021 America’s Children: Key Nation-

al Indicators of Well-Being

report, fa-

milial and peer relationships may be-

come strained, depressive episodes

may continue into adulthood, academ-

ic performance may suffer, and youth

who reported at least one major de-

pressive episode in the prior 12 months

are more likely to begin using alcohol

or other drugs and are at greater risk

for suicide.

The likelihood of experiencing a

major depressive episode varied

by demographics

In 2019, 1 in 6 (16%) youth ages

12–17 reported having at least one

MDE in the prior 12 months. Older

youth (youth ages 16–17) and females

were more likely to report an MDE

compared with their counterparts. The

proportion of youth who reported hav-

ing an MDE was similar for White and

Hispanic youth and was higher than

the proportion for Black youth.

Approximately 1 in 10 (11%) youth

ages 12–17 reported having at least

one MDE that involved severe impair-

ment in the prior 12 months. That is,

the MDE adversely impacted the re-

spondent’s life in relation to home

management, work, close relationships

with others, and social life. Fewer than

half (43%) of youth who had at least

one MDE in the prior 12 months re-

ceived treatment. Compared with their

counterparts, youth ages 14 and older,

females, and White youth were more

likely to have received treatment.

A small proportion of youth

experienced an MDE and a

substance use disorder

According to SAMHSA, 2.7% of youth

reported having a substance abuse dis-

order (SUD) in the prior 12 months.

SUDs are characterized by impairment

caused by routine use of alcohol and/

or other drugs, that results in health

problems and failure to meet responsi-

bilities at home, work, or school.

Fewer than 2 in 100 youth (1.7%) re-

ported having both an MDE and SUD

in the prior 12 months. A similar pro-

portion of youth (1.4%) reporting an

SUD also reported having an MDE

with severe impairment. Compared

with youth who did not experience an

MDE in the prior 12 months, MDE

youth were more likely to have used il-

licit drugs, marijuana, or opioids, to

binge drink alcohol, or to smoke ciga-

rettes in the prior month.

Chapter 1: Youth population characteristics

The proportion of youth ages 12–17 experiencing at least one major depressive episode has increased for all

demographic groups in recent years

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percent of youth (ages 12−17) reporting a major depressive

episode (MDE) in the last 12 months

Female

Male

Total

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Of youth reporting MDE, percent reporting receivng

treatment in the last 12 months

Female

Male

Total

Q The proportion of youth reporting an MDE in 2019 (16%) increased 7 percentage points since 2004. Females (+10%), youth ages

16–17 (+8%), and White youth (+7%) had the largest percentage point increases between 2004 and 2019.

Q Overall, the likelihood of receiving treatment following an MDE increased 3 percentage points between 2004 and 2019, but the

level of increase varied by youth demographics.

Source: Author’s adaptation of the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics’

America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-being,

2021

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percent of youth (ages 12−17) reporting a major depressive

episode (MDE) in the last 12 months

Ages 16−17

Ages 12−13

Ages 14−15

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Of youth reporting MDE, percent reporting receivng

treatment in the last 12 months

Ages 16−17

Ages 12−13

Ages 14−15

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

12%

16%

20%

Percent of youth (ages 12−17) reporting a major depressive

episode (MDE) in the last 12 months

Hispanic

White

Black

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Of youth reporting MDE, percent reporting receivng

treatment in the last 12 months

Black

Hispanic

White

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

The teenage birth rate declined considerably since the early

1990s

Teen birth rates reached a new

low point in 2019

Research suggests (see Martin et al.,

Ely and Driscoll, Hoffman and May-

nard, and Driscoll) that giving birth

during adolescence brings long-term

difficulties for the teen mother and her

child. Compared with babies born to

older mothers, babies born to adoles-

cent mothers, particularly younger ad-

olescent mothers, are at higher risk for

low birthweight and infant mortality.

In addition, giving birth during adoles-

cence is linked to limited educational

attainment for the teen mom, which

can adversely impact their employment

opportunities and future earnings, and

children born to teen moms are them-

selves less likely to complete high

school.

In 2019, the birth rate for older youth

(i.e., females ages 15–17) was 6.7 live

births for every 1,000 females in the

age group. In the same year, the birth

rate for young adults (i.e., women ages

18 and 19) was more than 4 times

greater (31.1). Conversely, the birth

rate for females ages 10–14 (0.2) was

well below the rates of older teens.

Teen birth rates have been on the de-

cline since 1991, but the decline for fe-

males ages 15–17 (83%) outpaced the

decline for young adults (67%)

through 2019. The rate for both age

groups in 2019 reached their lowest

levels since 1970. Birth rates for older

teens and young adults varied by race

and Hispanic ethnicity.

Births per 1,000 females, 2019:

Race/ethnicity

Ages

15–17

Ages

18–19

All races 6.7 31.1

White 3.8 22.3

Black 11.1 46.4

Hispanic 11.5 46.2

American Indian 13.5 51.8

Asian 0.9 5.2

Native Hawaiian/

Other Pacific Islander

7.7 53.8

Note: Race groups exclude persons of

Hispanic ethnicity. Hispanic youth can be

of any race.

The birth rate for White females ages

15–17 in 2019 was about one-third

the rates of Hispanic, Black, and Amer-

ican Indian females of the same age,

and about half the rate of Native Ha-

waiian/Other Pacific Islander females.

Across race/ethnicity groups, the birth

rate for females ages 15–17 declined

70% or more between 1991 and 2019,

and reached their lowest level since

1990.

Birth rates in 2019 for both females ages 15–17 and young adults ages

18–19 were at their lowest level since 1970

55 59 63 67 71 75 79 83 87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

100

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Year

Births per 1,000 females ages 15−19

Birth rate

Births to unmarried females

Percent of births to females ages 15−19

71 77 83 89 95 01 07 13 19

100

120

Year

Births per 1,000 females in age group

Ages 15−17

Ages 18−19

71 77 83 89 95 01 07 13 19

Year

Births per 1,000 females in age group

Ages 15−17

Q The birth rate for teens ages 15–17 fell 21% between 1970 and 1986 and then in-

creased over the next 5 years back to its 1970 level. The birth rate for young adult

females ages 18–19 dropped even more than the rate for teens ages 15–17 be-

tween 1970 and 1986, falling 31%. Although the rate for young adults also in-

creased through 1991, the rate did not return to its 1970 level.

Q Since 1991, teen birth rates declined considerably; by 2019, the rates for both age

groups reached their lowest level since at least 1970.

The annual birth rate for females ages 15–19 declined substantially

between 1955 and 2019, while the proportion of these births that were

to unmarried women increased

Q In 1955, about 14% of births to females ages 15–19 were to unmarried women. By

2019, that proportion grew to 91%.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Martin et al.’s Births: Final Data for 2019,

National Vital Statistics Re-

ports

, 70(2); National Center for Health Statistics’ annual series, Births: Final Data,

National Vital Statis-

tics Reports

, for the years 2000–2009; and Ventura et al.’s Births to Teenagers in the United States,

1940–2000,

National Vital Statistics Reports

, 49(10).

Chapter 1: Youth population characteristics

Birth rates for females ages 15–17 varied greatly across states in

2019, ranging from 1.7 in New Hampshire to 12.6 in Mississippi

Births per 1,000 females in age group, 2019

Ratio of ages

15–17 to 18–19State Age 15–19 Ages 15–17 Ages 18–19

United States 16.7 6.7 31.1 22%

Alabama 25.6 10.1 47.8 21

Alaska 18.3 6.2 39.9 16

Arizona 18.5 8.3 33.0 25

Arkansas 30.0 11.2 58.3 19

California 12.4 5.0 23.1 22

Colorado 13.9 6.1 25.7 24

Connecticut 7.7 3.3 13.5 24

Delaware 14.9 6.7 25.8 26

Dist. of Columbia 16.8 11.8 20.2 58

Florida 16.2 6.1 31.3 19

Georgia 19.7 8.0 36.8 22

Hawaii 15.7 5.4 32.0 17

Idaho 14.9 5.0 30.7 16

Illinois 14.6 5.8 28.0 21

Indiana 20.8 7.9 39.5 20

Iowa 14.1 5.1 26.5 19

Kansas 19.2 7.3 36.8 20

Kentucky 24.9 9.4 47.6 20

Louisiana 27.8 10.9 53.9 20

Maine 9.1 2.7 18.0 15

Maryland 13.9 6.0 25.5 24

Massachusetts 6.9 3.0 11.3 27

Michigan 15.1 5.5 28.9 19

Minnesota 10.1 3.7 19.9 19

Mississippi 29.1 12.6 53.1 24

Missouri 20.3 7.6 39.2 19

Montana 16.3 6.1 32.0 19

Nebraska 15.3 6.7 27.8 24

Nevada 18.9 7.0 39.5 18

New Hampshire 6.6 1.7 13.2 13

New Jersey 10.0 4.1 19.6 21

New Mexico 24.4 10.8 44.8 24

New York 11.4 4.7 20.6 23

North Carolina 18.2 7.7 32.6 24

North Dakota 15.6 5.3 29.5 18

Ohio 18.8 6.9 36.0 19

Oklahoma 27.4 11.0 52.1 21

Oregon 12.1 4.1 24.0 17

Pennsylvania 13.3 6.0 23.1 26

Rhode Island 10.0 4.7 15.6 30

South Carolina 21.6 8.5 39.8 21

South Dakota 19.2 8.6 34.9 25

Tennessee 23.7 8.9 46.6 19

Texas 24.0 10.7 44.6 24

Utah 12.0 3.8 24.9 15

Vermont 7.6 3.0 12.3 24

Virginia 13.6 5.3 25.1 21

Washington 12.7 4.5 25.4 18

West Virginia 25.2 9.1 49.3 18

Wisconsin 12.5 4.5 24.0 19

Wyoming 19.4 6.6 39.2 17

Comparing birth rates for females ages 15–17 with those of young adults (ages 18

and 19) shows that the 15–17-year-old rate ranged from 13% of the young adult rate

in New Hampshire to 30% of the young adult rate in Rhode Island and 58% in the

District of Columbia.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Martin et al.’s Births: Final Data for 2019,

National Vital Statistics

Reports

, 70(2).

The teenage birth rate in the

U.S. ranks among the highest

of industrialized nations

Birth rates for a large number of

countries are collected and dissemi-

nated by the World Health Organi-

zation. The most recent data avail-

able for industrialized countries

were not available for a common

year but ranged from 2016 to 2019.

Births per 1,000 females ages 15–19

Country

Birth

rate

Data

year

Russian Federation 21.5 2016

United States 16.7 2019

New Zealand 13.3 2019

United Kingdom 11.9 2018

Australia 9.4 2018

France 8.6 2018

Greece 8.6 2018

Israel 8.2 2018

Portugal 7.3 2018

Germany 7.2 2018

Canada 6.6 2018

Ireland 6.2 2018

Spain 6.2 2018

Austria 5.5 2018

Belgium 5.5 2018

Finland 4.3 2018

Sweden 4.2 2018

Italy 4.1 2018

Japan 3.1 2018

Netherlands 2.6 2018

Norway 2.6 2018

Switzerland 2.3 2018

Denmark 2.0 2019

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the

World Health Organization’s Global

Health Observatory, Adolescent Birth

Rate (per 1000 Women Aged 15-19

Years).

The birth rate for U.S. females ages

15–19 remained one of the highest

among industrialized nations. In

2010, however, the U.S. birth rate

for females ages 15–19 occupied

the top spot on this list. Following a

50% decline since 2010, the U.S.

rate now ranks second, more than

20% below the most recent rate for

the Russian Federation, but about

25% above the rate for New Zea-

land.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

The high school dropout rate declined in the last 5 years, yet

more than 470,000 youth left high school in 2019

The dropout rate varies across

demographic groups

The National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES) publishes annual sta-

tistics of (1) the number of persons in

grades 10–12 who dropped out of

school in the preceding 12 months,

and (2) the percent of persons ages

16–24 who were dropouts. The first

statistic (the event dropout rate) pro-

vides an estimate of flow into the

dropout pool. The second statistic (the

status dropout rate) provides an esti-

mate of the proportion of dropouts in

the young adult population. Event

dropout rates are based on data from

the annual October Current Popula-

tion Survey (CPS). The CPS and the

American Community Survey (ACS)

are the sources for the status dropout

estimates.

Approximately 4 of every 100 persons

(4%) enrolled in high school in Octo-

ber 2018 left school before October

2019 without successfully completing a

high school program—in other words,

in the school year 2018-2019, about

470,000 youth dropped out and the

event dropout rate was 4.3%. The

2019 event dropout rate for males

(4.1%) was slightly lower than for fe-

males (4.5%), and the rates for White

(4.0%) and Black (4.1%) youth, were

less than the rate for Hispanic (5.7%)

youth.

Dropout rates are greater for

institutionalized youth than

noninstitutionalized youth

Over the years, demographic disparities

in annual event dropout rates have ac-

cumulated to produce noticeable dif-

ferences in status dropouts rates—i.e.,

the proportion of young adults (person

ages 16–24) who are not enrolled in

school and have not completed high

school (or received an equivalency cer-

tificate). The status dropout rate mea-

sure typically includes civilian, nonin-

Notes: Race groups exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity can be of any

race.

Source: Author’s adaptation of National Center for Education Statistics,

Digest of Education Statistics:

2019

, Table 219.55.

In 2019, dropout rates were highest for females, Hispanic youth, and

students living in western states

Total Male Female White Black Hispanic North-

east

Mid-

west

South West

4.3%

4.1%

4.5%

4.0%

4.1%

5.7%

4.5%

3.2%

3.7%

6.0%

Percent of youth who dropped out of grades 10−12 in the preceeding 12 months

Notes: Race groups exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity can be of any

race.

Source: Author’s adaptation of National Center for Education Statistics,

Digest of Education Statistics:

2019

, Table 219.55.

Dropout rates for White youth have remained below the rates of Black

and Hispanic youth

91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

10%

12%

14%

Percent of youth who dropped out of grades 10−12 in the preceding 12 months

Hispanic

Black

White

Total

Year

Chapter 1: Youth population characteristics

stitutionalized 16–24-year-olds. Youth,

such as those who are incarcerated or

in the military, are not included. How-

ever, the ACS allows for comparisons

of status dropout rates for 16–24-year-

olds living in households and noninsti-

tutionalized group quarters (i.e., col-

lege housing or military housing

located within the U.S.) with those liv-

ing in institutionalized group quarters

(i.e., prisons, nursing facilities, or other

healthcare facilities). Regardless of

race/ethnicity, status dropout rates

were substantially higher for institu-

tionalized youth than for other youth.

In 2019, the status dropout rate was

30% for institutionalized youth and 5%

for those living in households and non-

institutional group quarters.

Educational failure is linked to

unemployment

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

estimates that 38% of the 2018-2019

school year dropouts ages 16–24 were

in the labor force (employed or actively

looking for work), though 15% of

those dropouts were unemployed. In

comparison, 72% of the 2019 high

school graduates who were not in col-

lege were in the labor force, and a

greater proportion of this workforce

(18%) was unemployed.

Failing to complete high school

results in lower earnings

According to the Career Outlook re-

port by BLS, persons ages 25 and

older with less than a high school di-

ploma had the lowest median weekly

earnings and the highest unemploy-

ment rate. In 2019, for example, the

median weekly earnings among persons

ages 25 and older was 20% less for

those without a high school diploma

than those who completed high

school, and more than 50% less than

persons with a bachelor’s degree.

Q Among 25–34-year-olds who worked full-time, year-round in 2019, the median

earnings of those whose highest level of education was a high school diploma was

about 20% higher than those who did not complete high school, and the median

earnings of those who completed a bachelor’s or higher degree was more than

twice that of persons who did not complete high school.

*Includes equivalency credentials, such as the GED.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Irwin et al’s

Report on the Condition of Education

In 2019, persons who completed high school earned about $5,700 more

than those who did not complete high school

All

education

levels

Less than

high school

completion

High

school

completion*

Some

college,

no degree

Associate’s

degree

Bachelor’s

degree

or higher

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$46,700

$29,300

$35,000

$39,700

$40,000

$59,700

Median annual earnings of full-time, year-round workers ages 25−34, 2019

The status dropout rate decreased for both noninstitutionalized and

institutionalized youth between 2010 and 2019

Status dropout rate

Noninstitutionalized Institutionalized

Race/ethnicity 2010 2019 2010 2019

Total 8% 5% 37% 30%

White, non-Hispanic 5 4 29 22

Black, non-Hispanic 9 5 42 35

Hispanic 16 7 44 35

American Indian/Alaskan Native 15 9 39 26

Asian 3 2 28 31

Two or more races, non-Hispanic 6 5 23 25

Q Among noninstitutionalized youth, American Indian/Alaskan Native and Hispan-

ic youth had higher status dropout rates than all other racial groups in 2010

and 2019. For institutionalized youth, Black and Hispanic youth had higher sta-

tus dropout rates in both years.

Q The status dropout rate among institutionalized youth decreased among most

racial groups between 2010 and 2019.

Notes: Status dropouts are 16–24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and who have not

completed a high school program (including equivalency credentials, such as the GED). Noninsti-

tutionalized persons include those living in households, college housing, or military housing located

within the U.S. and institutionalized persons include those living in prisons, nursing facilities, or

other healthcare facilities.

Source: Author’s adaptation of the National Center for Education Statistics’

Digest of Education

Statistics: 2019

, Table 219.80.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Sources

Agnew, R., Matthews, S., Bucher, J.,

Welcher, A., and Keyes, C. 2008. So-

cioeconomic status, economic prob-

lems, and delinquency.

Youth and Soci-

ety

, 40(2).

American Psychiatric Association.

2000.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manu-

al of Mental Disorders

(4th ed.).

Driscoll, A. 2014. Adult outcomes of

teen mothers across birth cohorts.

De-

mographic Research

, 30(44).

Ely, D. M., and Driscoll, A. K. 2020.

Infant mortality in the United States,

2018: Data from the period linked

birth/infant death file.

National Vital

Statistics Reports

, 69(7). Washington,

DC: National Center for Health Statis-

tics.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child

and Family Statistics.

America’s Chil-

dren: Key National Indicators of Well-

being, 2021

. Health tables 4.A, 4.B,

and 4.C. Available from www.

childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables.

asp.

Hawkins, J., Herrenkohl, T., Far-

rington, D., Brewer, D., Catalano, R.,

Harachi, T., and Cothern, L. 2000.

Predictors of Youth Violence

. Washing-

ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-

vention.

Hemovich, V., and Crano, W. 2009.

Family structure and adolescent drug

use: An exploration of single-parent

families.

Substance Use & Misuse

44(1).

Hoffman, S., and Maynard, R. (Eds.).

2008.

Kids Having Kids: Economic

Costs and Social Consequences of

Teen Pregnancy

. Washington, DC:

Urban Institute Press.

Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein,

S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C.,

Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., Dilig,

R., and Parker, S. 2021.

Report on the

Condition of Education 2021

. Wash-

ington, DC: National Center for Edu-

cation Statistics, U.S. Department of

Education.

Jarjoura, G., Triplett, R., and Brinker,

G. 2002. Growing up poor: Examining

the link between persistent childhood

poverty and delinquency.

Journal of

Quantitative Criminology

, 18(2).

Johnson, R., Hoffman, D., and Ger-

stein, D. 1996.

The Relationship Be-

tween Family Structure and Adolescent

Substance Use

. Washington, DC: Sub-

stance Abuse and Mental Health Ser-

vices Administration, U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.

Kroese, J., Bernasco, W., Liefbroer, C.,

and Rouwendal, J. 2021. Growing up

in single-parent families and the crimi-

nal involvement of adolescents: A sys-

tematic review.

Psychology, Crime &

Law

, 27(1).

Martin, J., Hamilton, B., Osterman,

M., and Driscoll, A. 2021. Births:

Final data for 2019.

National Vital Sta-

tistics Reports

, 70(2). Washington,

DC: National Center for Health Statis-

tics.

National Center for Education Statis-

tics. 2020.

Digest of Education Statis-

tics

. Table 219.80, Total number 16-

to 24-year-old high school dropouts

(status dropouts) and percentage of

dropouts among persons 16 to 24

years old (status dropout rate), by se-

lected characteristics: 2007 through

2019. Available from nces.ed.gov/pro-

grams/digest/d20/tables/

dt20_219.80.

National Center for Education Statis-

tics. 2021.

Digest of Education Statis-

tics

. Table 219.55, Among 15- to

14-year-olds enrolled in grades 10

through 12, percentage who dropped

out (event dropout rate), by sex and

race/ethnicity: 1972 through 2019.

Available from nces.ed.gov/programs/

digest/d20/tables/dt20_219.55.

National Center for Health Statistics

2012.

Intercensal Estimates of the Res-

ident Population of the United States

for July 1, 2000–July 1, 2009, by Year,

County, Single-year of Age (0, 1, 2, ..,

85 Years and Over), Bridged Race,

Hispanic Origin, and Sex

. Prepared

under a collaborative arrangement with

the U.S. Census Bureau. Available

from www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/

bridged_race.htmas of October 26,

2012, following release by the U.S.

Census Bureau of the unbridged inter-

censal estimates by 5-year age group

on October 9, 2012. [Retrieved Octo-

ber 26, 2012].

National Center for Health Statistics

2021.

Vintage 2020 Postcensal Esti-

mates of the Resident Population of

the United States (April 1, 2010, July

1, 2010–July 1, 2020), by Year, Coun-

ty, Single-year of Age (0, 1, 2, .., 85

Years and Over), Bridged Race, His-

panic Origin, and Sex

. Prepared under

a collaborative arrangement with the

U.S. Census Bureau. Available from

www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_

race.htm as of September 22, 2021,

following release by the U.S. Census

Bureau of the unbridged Vintage 2020

postcensal estimates by 5-year age

groups on June 17, 2021. [Retrieved

September 23, 2021].

Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A., and Kang,

W. 2021.

Easy Access to Juvenile Pop-

ulations: 1990-2020

. Available from

www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop.

Chapter 1: Youth population characteristics

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration. 2020.

Key

substance use and mental health indi-

cators in the United States: Results

from the 2019 National Survey on

Drug Use and Health

(HHS Publica-

tion No. PEP20-07-01-001, NSDUH

Series H-55). Rockville, MD: Center

for Behavioral Health Statistics and

Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration. Avail-

able from www.samhsa.gov/data.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2020.

Learn more, earn more: Education

leads to higher wages, lower unem-

ployment.

Career Outlook

. Available

from www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/

2020/data-on-display/education-pays.

htm.

U.S. Census Bureau.

Current Popula-

tion Survey, 2019 Annual Social and

Economic Supplement

. Table C8: Pov-

erty status, food stamp receipt, and

public assistance for children under 18

years. Available from www2.census.

gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/

families/2019/cps-2019. [Released

November 2019].

U.S. Census Bureau.

Current Popula-

tion Survey, 2019 Annual Social and

Economic Supplement

. Table POV46:

Poverty status by state. Available from

www.census.gov/data/tables/

time-series/demo/income-poverty/

cps-pov/pov-46.2019.html.

U.S. Census Bureau.

Current Popula-

tion Survey, Historical Poverty Tables

Table 3: Poverty status of people by

age, race, and Hispanic origin: 1959–

2019. Available from www.census.gov/

data/tables/time-series/demo/

income-poverty/historical-poverty-

people.html.

U.S. Census Bureau.

Current Popula-

tion Survey (CPS) Table Creator

Available from www.census.gov/cps/

data/cpstablecreator.html. [Retrieved

November 2018].

U.S. Census Bureau.

Microdata Access,

CPS Annual Social and Economic

(March) Supplement 201903/202003

Available from data.census.gov/

mdat/#. [Retrieved April 2021].

U.S. Census Bureau.

Poverty Thresh-

olds for 2019 by Size of Family and

Number of Related Children Under 18

Years

. Available from www.census.gov/

data/tables/time-series/demo/

income-poverty/historical-poverty-

thresholds.html.

U.S. Census Bureau.

Small Area In-

come and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)

Program: 2019 Poverty and Median

Household Income Estimates - Coun-

ties, States, and National

. Available

from www.census.gov/library/

publications/020/demo/p30-08.html.

[Released December 2020].

U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Pop u la tion

Es ti mates by Age, Sex, Race, and His-

pan ic Origin: 1980 to 1999

. Available

from www.census.gov/popest/

archives/1990s/nat-detail-layout.txt.

[Re leased April 11, 2000].

Vespa, J., Median, L., and Armstrong,

D. 2020. Demographic turning points

for the United State: Population pro-

jections for 2020 to 2060.

Current

Population Reports

, P25-114. Wash-

ington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Available from www.census.gov/

content/dam/Census/library/

publications/2020/demo/p25-1144.

pdf.

World Health Organization.

The Glob-

al Health Observatory, Adolescent

Birth Rate (per 1000 Women Aged

15-19 Years)

. Available from www.

who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/

indicator-details/GHO/adolescent-

birth-rate-(per-1000-women-aged-15-

19-years).

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Chapter 2

Youth victims

This chapter summarizes what is

known about the prevalence and inci-

dence of youth victimizations. It an-

swers important questions to assist

policy makers, practitioners, research-

ers, and concerned citizens in devel-

oping policies and programs to ensure

the safety and well-being of children.

How many children are abused and

neglected? What are the trends in

child maltreatment? How often are

youth the victims of crime? How

many children are victims of crime at

school and what are the characteristics

of school crime? When and where are

youth most likely to become victims

of crime? How many youth are mur-

dered each year? How often are fire-

arms involved in youth murders and

who are their offenders? How many

youth commit suicide?

Research has shown that child victim-

ization and abuse are linked to nega-

tive outcomes, such as antisocial and

criminal behavior. So an understanding

of childhood victimization and its

trends may lead to a better under-

standing of youth offending.

Data sources include child maltreat-

ment data reported by the National

Child Abuse and Neglect Data System,

and foster care and adoption informa-

tion from the Adoption and Foster

Care Analysis and Reporting System.

Self-reported victimization data are

presented from the Bureau of Justice

Statistics’ National Crime Victimiza-

tion Survey and it’s School Crime

Supplement, the National Center for

Education Statistics, and the Youth

Risk Behavior Survey. Official victim-

ization data is reported by the Federal

Bureau of Investigation’s National In-

cident-Based Reporting System and its

Supplementary Homicide Reporting

Program. Suicide information is pre-

sented from the National Center for

Health Statistics.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

In 2019, child protective services agencies received about

84,600 maltreatment referrals each week

The National Child Abuse and

Neglect Data System monitors

child protective services caseloads

In response to the 1988 amendments

to the Child Abuse Prevention and

Treatment Act, the Children’s Bureau

in the U.S. Department of Health and

The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System counts

several different aspects of child maltreatment

Referral: Notification to the CPS

agency of suspected child maltreat-

ment. This can include more than one

child. This is a measure of “flow” into

the CPS system.

Report: A referral of child maltreat-

ment that was accepted, or “screened

in,” for an investigative response or

an alternative response by a CPS

agency.

Investigation: The gathering and as-

sessment of objective information to

determine if a child has been or is at

risk of being maltreated and to deter-

mine if a CPS response is needed. An

investigation typically involves an in-

person meeting with the alleged child

victim and results in a disposition as

to whether or not the alleged mal-

treatment occurred.

Assessment: The process by which

the CPS agency determines if a child

or other person involved in a report of

alleged maltreatment needs services.

Alleged victim: Child about whom a

referral regarding maltreatment has

been made to a CPS agency.

Alleged perpetrator: Person who is

named in a referral to have caused or

knowingly allowed the maltreatment

of a child.

Victim: A child having a maltreatment

disposition of substantiated or indi-

cated. This includes a child who died

and the death was confirmed to be

the result of child abuse and neglect.

Perpetrator: Person who has been de-

termined to have caused or knowingly

allowed the maltreatment of a child.

Substantiated: An investigation dispo-

sition that concludes that the allega-

tion of maltreatment (or risk of mal-

treatment) was supported by or

founded on state law or state policy.

This is the highest level of finding by a

CPS agency.

Unsubstantiated: An investigation dis-

position that determines that there is

insufficient evidence under state law

to conclude or suspect that the child

has been maltreated or is at risk of

maltreatment.

Indicated: A disposition that con-

cludes that maltreatment could not be

substantiated under state law or poli-

cy, but there is reason to suspect that

the child may have been maltreated or

was at risk of maltreatment. Few

states distinguish between substanti-

ated and indicated dispositions.

Alternative response: The provision of

a response other than an investigation

that determines a child or family is in

need of services. A determination of

maltreatment is not made and a per-

petrator is not determined.

Court action: Legal action initiated by

the CPS agency on behalf of the child.

This includes authorization to place

the child in foster care, filing for tem-

porary custody or dependency, or ter-

mination of parental rights. As used

here, it does not include criminal pro-

ceedings against a perpetrator.

Human Services developed the Nation-

al Child Abuse and Neglect Data Sys-

tem (NCANDS) to collect child mal-

treatment data voluntarily submitted

by state child protective services (CPS)

agencies. The Children’s Bureau annu-

ally collects and analyzes both summa-

ry and case-level data reported to

NCANDS. For 2019, 50 states, the

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico

reported case-level data on all children

who received an investigation or assess-

ment by a CPS agency. The case-level

data provide descriptive information on

cases referred to CPS agencies during

the year, including:

Q Characteristics of the referral of

abuse or neglect made to CPS.

Q Characteristics of the victims.

Q Alleged maltreatments.

Q Disposition (or findings).

Q Risk factors of the child and the

caregivers.

Q Services provided.

Q- Characteristics of the perpetrators.

In 2019, referrals were made to

CPS agencies at a rate of 59 per

1,000 children

In 2019, CPS agencies in the U.S. re-

ceived an estimated 4.4 million refer-

rals alleging that children were abused

or neglected. An estimated 7.9 million

children were included in these refer-

rals. This translates to a rate of 59 re-

ferrals for every 1,000 children young-

er than 18 in the U.S. population. The

2019 rate was 14% above the referral

rate in 2015 (52.3).

Professionals were the most

common source of maltreatment

reports

Professionals who come into contact

with children as a part of their occupa-

tion (e.g., teachers, police officers,

doctors, childcare providers) are re-

quired by law in most states to notify

CPS agencies of suspected maltreat-

ment. Thus, professionals are the most

common source of maltreatment re-

ports (69%).

Chapter 2: Youth victims

Profile of maltreatment reports, 2019:

Source

Percent

of reports

Professional 68.5%

Educator 21.0

Law enforcement 19.1

Medical 11.0

Social services 10.3

Mental health 6.0

Child daycare provider 0.7

Foster care provider 0.4

Family and community 21.8

Parents 5.9

Other relatives 5.9

Friend or neighbor 3.5

Anonymous 6.5

Other* 9.6

*Includes alleged victims, alleged perpetrators,

and sources not otherwise identified.

Note: Detail may not sum to 100% because of

rounding.

The typical CPS response time

was 4 days in 2019

CPS agencies receive referrals of vary-

ing degrees of urgency; therefore, the

time from referral to investigation var-

ies widely. State response time stan-

dards also vary. Some states set a single

standard and others set different stan-

dards depending on the priority or ur-

gency of the case. Many specify a high-

priority response as within 24 hours;

some specify 1 hour. Lower priority re-

sponses range from 24 hours to several

days. In 2019, the average response

time for states that reported this infor-

mation was 4.3 days.

CPS investigated or provided an

alternative response to more than

half of all referrals

In 2019, CPS agencies screened in

54% of all referrals received. Thus, CPS

agencies conducted investigations or

alternative responses for more than 1.9

million reports in 2019. Once a report

is investigated or assessed and a deter-

mination is made as to the likelihood

that maltreatment occurred or that the

child is at risk of maltreatment, CPS

assigns a finding to the report—known

as a disposition. States’ dispositions

and terminology vary but generally fall

into the following categories: substan-

tiated, indicated, alternative response

(victim and nonvictim), and unsubstan-

tiated (see the box on the previous

page).

Most subjects of reports are found

to be nonvictims

Of children who were the subject of at

least one report of maltreatment, most

were found to be nonvictims: 56.5%

had dispositions of unsubstantiated,

10.6% had dispositions of no alleged

maltreatment, and 13.8% had disposi-

tions of alternative response. About

one in six (17%) children who were the

subject of at least one report were

found to be victims of maltreatment.

The most common disposition for vic-

tims of maltreatment was substantiated

(16%), and 1% of victims received a

disposition of indicated.

The average CPS investigator

handled about 71 reports in 2019

In most sizable jurisdictions, different

CPS personnel perform screening and

investigation functions. In smaller

agencies, one staff person may perform

both functions. In 2019, the average

yearly number of investigations or as-

sessments per investigation worker was

71. Among states with specialized

screening and investigation workers,

the investigation workers outnumbered

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Number per 1,000 children ages 0−17

Child maltreatment investigation/assessment recipients

Maltreatment victims

The child maltreatment response rate increased 17% in the last 10

years, while the maltreatment victimization rate changed little

Q In 2019, CPS agencies responded to reports involving nearly 3.5 million unique

child victims, or 47.2 per 1,000 children ages 0–17 in the United States. These re-

sponses included formal investigations, family assessments, and other alternative

responses.

Q An estimated 656,000 unique children were found to be victims—19% of all chil-

dren who received an investigation or assessment in 2019.

Q The national child victimization rate in 2019 was 8.9 victims per 1,000 children ages

0–17, 4% below the rate 10 years prior.

Note: a child was counted once regardless of the number of times they received a CPS response or

the number of times they were found to be a victim during the reporting year.

Sources: Authors’ adaptation of the Children’s Bureau’s (U.S. Department of Health and Human Servic-

es) annual

Child Maltreatment Reports

for 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2015–2019.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice: 2022 National Report

the screening workers nearly 6 to 1.

Even in locations with specialized per-

sonnel, CPS staff typically perform nu-

merous other activities, and some CPS

workers may be responsible for more

than one function.

Neglect was the most common

type of maltreatment for victims

in 2019

Many children were the victims of

more than one type of maltreatment,

but if categories of maltreatment are

considered independently, 61% of vic-

tims experienced neglect, 10% were

physically abused, 7% were sexually

abused, 2% psychologically or emotion-

ally maltreated, and 4% experienced

other forms of maltreatment, such as

threats of harm, abandonment, and

congenital drug addiction. Child vic-

tims of multiple forms of maltreatment

accounted for about 16% of victims in

2019. Thirty states and the District of

Columbia reported that more than

50% of victims experienced neglect in

2019.

1.8 to 5.4 (13 states)

5.5 to 8.9 (13 states)

9.0 to 15.6 (14 states)

15.7 and above (11 states)

Maltreatment victims per

1,000 children ages 0–17, 2019

Child victimization rates varied considerably by state in 2019

Q State-level child maltreatment victimization rates ranged from a low of 1.8 per 1,000

children ages 0–17 in Pennsylvania to a high of 20.1 in Kentucky.

Q 26 states had child maltreatment victimization rates below the national average (8.9).

Note: a child was counted once regardless of the number of times they received a CPS response or

the number of times they were found to be a victim during the reporting year.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the Children’s Bureau’s (U.S. Department of Health and Human Servic-

es) annual

Child Maltreatment Reports

for 2019.

There are several different types of child maltreatment

Child maltreatment occurs when a

caretaker (a parent or parental substi-

tute, such as a babysitter) is respon-

sible for, or permits, the abuse or ne-

glect of a child. The maltreatment can

result in actual physical or emotional

harm, or it can place the child in dan-

ger of physical or emotional harm. A

child may be a victim of multiple

types of maltreatment. The following

types of maltreatment are collected

as part of NCANDS.

Medical neglect: caused by failure of

the caregiver to provide for the ap-

propriate health care of the child al-

though financially able to do so, or

offered financial or other resources to

do so.

Neglect or deprivation of necessities:

failure by the caregiver to provide

needed, age-appropriate care al-

though financially able to do so or of-

fered financial or other means to do

so. This includes not meeting a child’s

educational needs.

Physical abuse: includes physical acts

that caused or could have caused

physical injury to the child, including

excessive corporal punishment.

Psychological or emotional maltreat-

ment: acts or omissions, other than

physical abuse or sexual abuse, that

caused or could have caused con-

duct, cognitive, affective, or other be-

havioral or mental disorders. Frequent-

ly occurs as verbal abuse or excessive

demands on a child’s performance.

Sexual abuse: the involvement of the

child in sexual activity to provide sexu-

al gratification or financial benefit to

the perpetrator, including contacts for

sexual purposes, molestation, statuto-

ry rape, prostitution, pornography, ex-

posure, incest, or other sexually ex-

ploitative activities.

Sex trafficking: refers to the recruit-

ment, harboring, transportation, provi-

sion, or obtaining of a person for the

purpose of a commercial sex act.

States have the option to report to

NCANDS any sex trafficking victim

who is younger than 24 years. Prior to

2018, sex trafficking was reported as a

form of sexual abuse.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the Children’s Bureau’s (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) annual

Child Maltreatment Reports

for 2019.

Chapter 2: Youth victims

Maltreatment victimization rates were highest for girls,

children under age 1, and American Indian children

Girls are more likely to experience

maltreatment than boys

More than half (51%) of victims of

child maltreatment in 2019 were fe-

male. The victimization rate for girls

was 9.4 per 1,000 girls younger than

age 18, and the rate for boys was 8.4

per 1,000 boys younger than age 18.

White children accounted for the

largest share of maltreatment

victims

In 2019, most victims of maltreatment

were White (44%) children, followed

by Hispanic (23%) and Black (21%).

Children of multiple races (5%), Asian/

Pacific Islander (1.2%) and American

Indian/Alaska Native (1%) children ac-

counted for a substantially smaller pro-

portion of victims.

American Indian/Alaskan Native chil-

dren had the highest child maltreat-

ment victimization rate in 2019, 14.8

per 1,000 children, followed closely by

Black children (13.8). The rate for

American Indian/Alaskan Native chil-

dren was nearly twice the rate for His-

panic (8.1) and White children (7.8).

<11234567891011121314151617

10%

12%

14%

16%

Victim age

Percent of maltreatment victims, 2019

More than one-third of child victims of maltreatment in 2019 were

younger than age 4

Q In 2019, infants younger than 1 accounted for 15% of victims of maltreatment,

1-year-olds accounted for 7%, and youth ages 2–6 each accounted for 6%—about

the proportion expected if victimizations were spread evenly over all ages. Youth

ages 16 and 17 accounted for relatively small proportions (3% and 2%, respectively).

Q Victimization rates for infants younger than age 1 (25.7 per 1,000 children) were

twice the rates for youth ages 1–6, triple the rates for youth ages 7–14, and 4 to 6

times the rates for youth ages 15–17.

Note: a child was counted once regardless of the number of times they received a CPS response or

the number of times they were found to be a victim during the reporting year.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the Children’s Bureau’s (U.S. Department of Health and Human Servic-

es) annual

Child Maltreatment Reports

for 2019.

What is known about child victims of sex trafficking?

The Justice for Victims of Trafficking

Act of 2015 amended the Child

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

(CAPTA) to require states update their

current definitions of child abuse and

neglect to include victims of sex traf-

ficking to continue receiving CAPTA

funding. Specifically, the Act requires

that states make a finding of “child

abuse and neglect” and “sexual

abuse” if the child is also found to be

a victim of sex trafficking. Sex traf-

ficking is a type of maltreatment that

refers to the recruitment, harboring,

transportation, provision, or obtaining

of a person for the purpose of a com-

mercial sex act.

States have the option to report to

NCANDS any sex trafficking victim

who is younger than age 24. At the

end of the 2019 federal fiscal year, 877

unique victims were reported to

NCANDS by 29 states. Based on

these reports:

Q Nearly 9 in 10 (88%) victims were

female, and 76% of victims were

ages 14–17.

Q Half of all victims of sex trafficking

were not victims of other forms of

maltreatment. Among those that

did experience other forms, the

two most common types were

sexual abuse and neglect.

Q For most victims (51%), the rela-

tionship to the perpetrator was un-

known, in 41% it was a nonparent,

and in 14% a parent.

Asian

White

Hispanic

Paciﬁc Islander

Multiple races

Black

American Indian

0 5 10 15 20

Unique child maltreatment victims

per 1,000 in race/ethnicity group

1.7

7.8

8.1

10.7

11.0

13.8

14.8

Victim race/ethnicity

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

The overwhelming majority of child maltreatment

perpetrators are parents of the victims

There were more than 525,300

known perpetrators in 2019

Child maltreatment is by definition an

act or omission by a parent or other

caregiver that results in harm or serious

risk of harm to a child. Incidents where

children are harmed by individuals who

are not their parents or caregivers gen-

erally do not come to the attention of

child protective services agencies, but

rather would be handled by law en-

forcement.

In 2019, the National Child Abuse and

Neglect Data System (NCANDS) iden-

tified 525,319 unique perpetrators of

child maltreatment. A perpetrator was

counted once, regardless of the num-

ber of children the perpetrator was as-

sociated with maltreating or the num-

ber of records associated with a

perpetrator.

Women are overrepresented

among maltreatment perpetrators

Compared with their share of the pop-

ulation (51%), women are overrepre-

sented among child caregivers. Within

families, mothers usually are the prima-

ry caregivers, and women far outnum-

ber men in caregiver occupations.

Women account for more than 95% of

childcare providers and 99% of pre-

school and kindergarten teachers. They

also make up 85% of healthcare sup-

port occupations. In 2019, females

made up more than half of maltreat-

ment perpetrators (53%).

More than two-thirds (69%) of perpe-

trators in 2019 were adults ages 25–

44, while 17% were under age 25.

Profile of maltreatment perpetrators, 2019:

Perpetrator age

Percent of

perpetrators

Total 100%

Younger than 18 2

Ages 18–24 15

Ages 25–34 42

Ages 35–44 27

Ages 45–54 9

Age 55 and older 4

Unknown age 2

Note: Detail may not sum to 100% because of

rounding.

Nearly half of perpetrators were White

(49%), about one-fifth were Black

(21%), and one-fifth were Hispanic.

This distribution is similar to the race

profile of victims of child maltreat-

ment.

Profile of maltreatment perpetrators, 2019:

Perpetrator

race/ethnicity

Percent of

perpetrators

Total 100%

White 49

Black 21

Hispanic 20

American Indian/

Alaskan Native 1

Asian/Pacific Islander 1

Multiple race 2

Unknown/missing 6

Note: Detail may not sum to 100% because of

rounding.

Parents are the most common

perpetrators of abuse and neglect

The overwhelming majority (78%) of

perpetrators in 2019 were a parent to

the victim; relatives (7%) accounted for

the most common nonparent perpetra-

tor relationship, followed by other

nonparental relationships (e.g., friends,

neighbors, and legal guardians).

Profile of maltreatment perpetrators, 2019:

Perpetrator relationship

to victim

Percent of

perpetrators

Total 100%

Parent 78

Other relative 6

Unmarried partner of parent 3

Other nonparent* 5

Professional** 1

Multiple relationships*** 4

Unknown/missing 2

*Other nonparent includes friends, neighbors,

legal guardians, and nonrelative foster parents.

**Professional incudes adults who care for

children as part of their employment duties,

such as child daycare providers, foster par-

ents, group home staff, and other profession-

als.

***Multiple relationships include perpetrators

with different relationships to child victims,

e.g., a perpetrator may be the parent of one

victim in a report but have a different relation-

ship to another child victim in the same report.

Note: Detail may not sum to 100% because of

rounding.

Chapter 2: Youth victims

Reported child maltreatment fatalities typically involve

infants and toddlers and result from neglect

Child fatalities have increased

since 2015

In 2019, an estimated 1,840 children

died as a result of some form of mal-

treatment, 11% more than the 1,660

child fatality victims reported in 2015.

The number of fatality victims in 2019

corresponds to a rate of 2.5 fatalities

for every 100,000 children under the

age of 18, compared with a rate of 2.2

in 2015.

Child fatalities, 2019:

Year

Estimated

number

Rate (per

100,000)

2019 1,840 2.5

2018 1,780 2.4

2017 1,710 2.3

2016 1,730 2.3

2015 1,660 2.2

Children younger than age 4

accounted for more than three-

quarters of maltreatment fatalities

Although children younger than 1 year

old were just 15% of all maltreatment

victims in 2019, they accounted for

46% of maltreatment fatalities. Similar-

ly, children ages 1–3 were 19% of all

victims but 31% of maltreatment fatali-

ties.

Profile of maltreatment victims, 2019:

Victim age

Percent of

total fatalities

Percent of

all victims

Total 100% 100%

Younger than 1 46 15

Age 1 14 7

Age 2 11 6

Age 3 6 6

Ages 4–7 11 23

Ages 8–11 6 20

Ages 12–15 5 17

Ages 16–17 2 6

Note: Detail may not sum to 100% because of

rounding.

Several factors make infants and tod-

dlers younger than age 4 particularly

vulnerable, including their dependency,

small size, and inability to defend

themselves.

Boys had the highest

maltreatment fatality rate in 2019

Boys had a maltreatment fatality rate of

2.98 deaths per 100,000 boys of the

same age in the population. For girls,

the rate was 2.20 per 100,000. Al-

though most victims of maltreatment

fatalities were White (44%), Black chil-

dren had the highest fatality rates, 5.08

per 100,000 black children. Asian chil-

dren had the lowest fatality rate in

2019 (0.70 per 100,000 children).

The fatality rate for Black children was

more than twice the rate for White

(2.18), American Indian/Alaskan Na-

tive (2.08), and Hispanic (1.89) chil-

dren.

Mothers were the most common

perpetrators in child maltreatment

fatalities

Among child fatalities in 2019, nearly

3 in 4 (73%) suffered from neglect and

more than 4 in 10 (44%) experienced

physical abuse, either exclusively or in

combination with another maltreat-

ment type.

The overwhelming majority (80%) of

child fatalities in 2019 involved parents

acting alone, together, or with others.

Mothers (acting alone or with others)

were involved in 39% of fatalities, while

fathers (acting alone or with others)

were involved in 16%.

Profile of fatality perpetrators, 2019:

Perpetrator relationship

to victim

Percent of

perpetrators

Total 100%

Mother only 29

Two parents of known sex 23

Father only 14

Mother and nonparent(s) 10

Father and nonparent(s) 2

2 parents of known sex

and nonparent 2

Nonparent 17

Unknown 4

Note: Detail may not sum to 100% because of

rounding.

Most maltreatment fatality victims

were previously unknown to the

CPS agency

Most child maltreatment fatalities in-

volved families without a recent history

with CPS. About one-third (34%) of

maltreatment fatalities had at least one

previous contact with CPS in the 5

years prior to their death; 7% of child

fatality victims were previously substan-

tiated as a victim of maltreatment,

21% had a prior contact that was not

substantiated, and 6% had prior con-

tacts that received both substantiated

and unsubstantiated dispositions.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

The number of children in foster care has increased 8%

since 2012

AFCARS data track trends in

foster care and adoption

Foster care is defined in federal regula-

tions as 24-hour substitute care for

children outside their own homes. Fos-

ter care settings include, but are not

limited to, family foster homes, relative

foster homes (whether payments are

being made or not), group homes,

emergency shelters, residential facilities,

childcare institutions, and preadoptive

homes.

Under federal regulation, states and

tribal Title IV-E agencies are required

to submit data semi-annually to the

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and

Reporting System (AFCARS), which

collects case-level information on all

children in foster care for whom state

child welfare agencies have responsibil-

ity. AFCARS also collects data on chil-

dren who are adopted under the aus-

pices of state public child welfare

agencies, as well as information on fos-

ter and adoptive parents. Data are re-

ported for the federal fiscal year, which

runs from October 1st through Sep-

tember 30th.

Nearly half of all children entering

foster care were younger than 6

Children younger than 1 were the sin-

gle age that accounted for the greatest

share of children entering foster care—

19% in 2019. Children between the

ages of 1 and 5 were 30% of foster care

entries in 2019, making them the larg-

est age group of children entering fos-

ter care (of 5-year age groupings for

children ages 1–20). Prior to 2005, the

11–15 age group made up the greatest

share of youth entering foster care.

The median age of children who en-

tered foster care in 2019 was 6.3 years

and the average age was 7.2 years.

Logically, the average age of the stand-

ing foster care population is greater

than the average age of children enter-

ing foster care. The median age of chil-

dren in foster care in 2019 was 7.7

years and the average age was 8.4

years.

99 11 13 15 17 19

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Year

Number of children during 12-month period

Entering foster care

Exiting foster care

01 03 05 07 09

The number of children in foster care has grown in recent years

Q An estimated 424,000 children remained in foster care on September 30, 2019,

25% fewer than the 1999 peak of 567,000 but 8% more than the 2012 low point

(392,000).

Sources: Authors’ adaptation of the Children’s Bureau’s (U.S. Department of Health and Human Servic-

es)

AFCARS Report Final Estimates for FY1998 through FY2002

;

Trends in Foster Care and Adoption:

FY2002–FY2012

;

and

Trends in Foster Care and Adoption: FY2010–FY2019

99 11 13 15 17 19

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Year

Number on September 30th

Children in foster care

01 03 05 07 09

Since 2015, foster care entries declined while exits increased

Q The number of children entering foster care fell 7% between 2015 and 2019, while

the number of children exiting foster care increased 3% during the same period.

Q In 2019, the number of children who exited foster care (249,000) was about the

same as the number of children who entered foster care (251,000).

Q The number of children entering foster care decreased 18% since its peak of

305,000 in 2005 and the number of children exiting declined 16% from its 2007

peak (295,000).

Sources: Authors’ adaptation of the Children’s Bureau’s (U.S. Department of Health and Human Servic-

es)

AFCARS Report Final Estimates for FY1998 through FY2002

;

Trends in Foster Care and Adoption:

FY2002–FY2012

;

and

Trends in Foster Care and Adoption: FY2010–FY2019

Chapter 2: Youth victims

Profile of children entering foster care:

Age 2000 2010 2019

Total 100% 100% 100%

Younger than 1 13 16 19

1 to 5 24 31 30

6 to 10 20 18 21

11 to 15 30 23 21

16 to 20 11 12 9

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Black, Hispanic and mixed race

children were overrepresented in

foster care

In 2019, Hispanic (25%), Black (14%),

and mixed race (4%) children com-

bined to account for 43% of the U.S.

population ages 0–20. In comparison,

52% of children in foster care in 2019

were Black (23%), Hispanic (21%), or

mixed race (8%). The proportion of

the foster care population involving

White and mixed race children has

grown since 2010, while the propor-

tion involving Black children has de-

clined.

Profile of children, 2019:

Race/ethnicity

In foster

care

U.S.

population

All races 100% 100%

White 44 51

Black 23 14

Hispanic 21 25

American Indian 2 1

Asian/Pacific Islander 1 5

Mixed race 8 4

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Half of children in foster care on

September 30, 2019, entered one

year prior

On September 30, 2019, half of chil-

dren in foster care had been in care for

at least 13 months. This is down from

the median time in both 2005 (15.5

months) and 2000 (19.8 months).

Profile of children in foster care:

Length of stay in

foster care 2000 2010 2019

Total 100% 100% 100%

Less than 1 month 4 5 5

1–5 months 16 21 21

6–11 months 15 19 20

12–17 months 12 13 16

18–23 months 9911

24–35 months 13 12 13

3–4 years 15 11 9

5 years or more 17 11 5

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Reunification was the permanency

goal for most foster care children

In 2019, more than half of children in

foster care (55%) had a permanency

goal of reunification with their parents

and more than one-fourth (28%) had a

The number of Black children in foster care was cut in half between

2000 and 2019

Q On September 30, 2019, 97,142 Black children were in foster care, 55% fewer than

the number in foster care in 2000.

Q While the total number of youth in foster care fell 25% from 2000 to 2019, Black

children accounted for more than 80% of this decrease.

Sources: Authors’ adaptation of the Children’s Bureau’s (U.S. Department of Health and Human Servic-

es)

The AFCARS Report: Final Estimates for FY1998 through FY2002

;

and

The AFCARS Report: Pre-

liminary Estimates,

for fiscal years 2003–2019.

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Year

Children in foster care

Black

Hispanic

White

01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

goal of adoption. The proportion of

children without a permanency goal

changed considerably from 2000 to

2019. In 2000, 17% of children in fos-

ter care did not yet have permanency

goals; by 2019, 4% of children in foster

care did not have permanency goals.

Profile of children in foster care:

Permanency goal 2000 2010 2019

Total 100% 100% 100%

Reunification with

parents 41 51 55

Adoption 21 25 28

Emancipation 664

Guardianship 344

Live with other

relative(s) 443

Long-term foster care 862

Goal not yet

established

1754

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

The most common outcome for children exiting foster care

was reunification with their parents

Although the most common

outcome, the proportion of foster

care exits resulting in reunification

has decreased since 1999

More than half of children who exit

foster care are reunified with their par-

ents or primary caretakers; however,

the frequency of this outcome has de-

creased in the past decade. In 2010, an

estimated 51% of children exiting fos-

ter care were reunified with their par-

ents or primary caretakers; by 2019,

this figure dropped to 47%. The sec-

ond most common outcome for youth

exiting foster care in 2019 was adop-

tion (26%). Other outcomes for chil-

dren include living with other relatives,

emancipation, guardianship, transfer to

another agency, and running away,

which, combined, accounted for less

than a third of exits.

Most children adopted from foster

care were adopted by their foster

parents

Most children adopted from foster care

(52%) in 2019 were adopted by foster

parents. About one-third (36%) were

adopted by relatives, and the remain-

ing 11% were adopted by nonrelatives.

The proportion of children adopted by

relatives in 2019 (36%) was greater

than in 2010 (32%) and 2000 (21%).

The family structure of adoptive fami-

lies has remained almost unchanged

since AFCARS data collection began in

1998. Married couples adopt the ma-

jority of children adopted from foster

care (68%), followed by single females

(26%). The remaining 6% of children

were adopted by unmarried couples

and single males.

Children younger than 6

accounted for more than half

of adopted children

The gender profile of adopted children

has changed little since 2000, but the

race/ethnicity profile of adopted chil-

dren has shifted. In 2000, White chil-

dren accounted for 38% of adopted

children; by 2019, White children ac-

counted for half adopted children. The

age profile of adopted children has also

changed. In 2000, children under age

6 accounted for 47% of adopted chil-

dren; by 2019, 56% of adopted chil-

dren were under age 6. The median

age of children adopted out of foster

care has decreased over the past de-

cades, from 6.4 in 2010 to 5.2 in

2019.

Profile of adopted children:

Demographic 2000 2010 2019

Gender 100% 100% 100%

Male 50 51 51

Female 50 49 49

Race 100% 100% 100%

White 38 43 50

Black 38 24 18

Hispanic 15 21 20

Age 100% 100% 100%

Less than 1 222

1 to 5 45 54 54

6 to 10 36 27 27

11 to 15 16 14 14

16 to 20 233

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding and because of racial categories that

are not displayed.

In 2019, 64,415 children were adopted from foster care—55% more than

were adopted from foster care in 1999

99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Year

Number of children

Adoptions

99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Year

Percent of total exits from foster care

Adoptions

Q The proportion of children exiting foster care to adoption has steadily increased,

from less than one in five (17%) in 1999 to more than one in four (26%) in 2019.

Q Adoption requires the termination of parental rights. Of the more than 122,200 chil-

dren waiting to be adopted as of September 30, 2019, 58% had their parental

rights terminated

Sources: Authors’ adaptation of the Children’s Bureau’s (U.S. Department of Health and Human Servic-

es)

AFCARS Report Final Estimates for FY1998 through FY2002

;

and

The AFCARS Report: Preliminary

Estimates,

for fiscal years 2003–2019.

Reunification was the most

common outcome for children

exiting foster care

Of the children exiting foster care in

2019, 117,010 were reunited with

their parents and 64,415 were adopt-

ed. Compared with prior years, a

smaller proportion of children were re-

united with their parents upon exit

from foster care and a greater share

were adopted.

Profile of children exiting foster care:

Outcome 2000 2010 2019

Total 100% 100% 100%

Reunification with

parents 57 51 47

Adoption 17 21 26

Guardianship 3611

Emancipation 711 8

Live with other

relative(s) 1086

Transfer to other

agency 321

Runaway 210

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Chapter 2: Youth victims

The serious violent victimization rate of youth ages 12–17 in

2019 was 83% less than the rate in 1994

NCVS tracks crime levels

Since 1973, the Bureau of Justice Sta-

tistics (BJS) has used the National

Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

to monitor the level of violent crime in

the U.S. NCVS gathers information on

crimes against persons ages 12 and

older from a nationally representative

sample of households. NCVS monitors

nonfatal serious violence (i.e., rape/

sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated

assault) and simple assault victimiza-

tion. These data serve a critical role for

understanding the volume and nature

of crimes against youth ages 12–17 as

well as trends in these crimes. A limita-

tion, however, is that crimes against

youth younger than age 12 are not

captured.

Analysis of these data show that youth

experienced relatively high levels of vi-

olent crimes during the mid-1990s but

their rate of victimization has since de-

clined: between 1994 and 2019, rates

of serious violence and simple assault

against youth declined more than 80%.

Male and female youth were

equally likely to be victims of

serious violence in 2019

In 1994, male youth were nearly twice

as likely to be victims of serious vio-

lence as were females (78.8 per 1,000

vs. 43.5 per 1,000, respectively). How-

ever, following the relatively larger de-

cline in the serious violence victimiza-

tion rate among male youth (down

86%, compared with 77% for females),

victimization rates for male and female

youth were about the same in 2019

(11.0 vs. 10.0, respectively). In con-

trast, 2019 victimization rates for sim-

ple assault showed greater gender dis-

parity, as male youth were 50% more

likely to be victimized than females

(29.0 vs. 18.7).

Victimization rates for serious violence and simple assault were lower in

2019 than in 1994 for all youth

Q Most of the decline in both serious violence and simple assault victimization took

place between 1994 and 2005. During this period, the rate of serious violence

against youth ages 12–17 fell 77% and simple assault fell 68%, compared with

25% and 39%, respectively, between 2005 and 2019.

Q The relative decline in simple assault victimization rates between 1994 and 2010

was about the same for male (80%) and female (81%) youth, while the decline in

the serious violence rate for males (86%) outpaced that of females (77%).

Q For most years, Black youth were at greater risk of serious violence than White or

Hispanic youth. However, in 2019, rates of serious violence were about the same

for each group. Conversely, White youth were at greater risk of simple assault vic-

timization than Black or Hispanic youth most years during the 1994-2019 period. In

2019, White youth were 60% more likely to experience simple assault than Black

youth, and more than twice as likely as Hispanic youth.

Notes: Serious violence includes rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. To improve sta-

bility and reliability, rates are based on two-year rolling averages. Due to methodological changes, vic-

timization estimates for 2006 and 2016 are not comparable to other years.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the Bureau of Justice Statistics’

National Crime Victimization Survey

Dashboard

for 1994 through 2019.

95 99 11 15 19

Year

Victimizations per 1,000 youth ages 12−17

Hispanic

White

Black

Serious violence

03 07

95 99 11 15 19

120

160

Year

Victimizations per 1,000 youth ages 12−17

White

Hispanic

Black

Simple assault

03 07

95 99 11 15 19

Year

Victimizations per 1,000 youth ages 12−17

Female

Male

Serious violence

03 07

95 99 11 15 19

120

160

Year

Victimizations per 1,000 youth ages 12−17

Female

Male

Simple assault

03 07

95 99 11 15 19

Year

Victimizations per 1,000 youth in age group

Ages 12−14

Ages 15−17

Serious violence

03 07

95 99 11 15 19

120

160

Year

Victimizations per 1,000 youth in age group

Ages 12−14

Ages 15−17

Simple assault

03 07

Youth and the Juvenile Justice: 2022 National Report

With few exceptions, annual rates of serious violent victimization were

greater for young adults than for youth ages 12–17

95 99 11 15 19

Year

Victimizations per 1,000 in age group

Ages 12−17

Ages 18−20

03 07

Ages 21–24

Serious violence

95 99 11 15 19

100

120

140

Year

Victimizations per 1,000 in age group

Ages 12−17

Ages 18−20

03 07

Simple assault

Ages

21–24

Rates of serious violence declined

for White, Black, and Hispanic

youth

The rate of serious violent victimiza-

tion declined for all race/ethnicity

groups between 1994 and 2019, but

the decline was greater for Black non-

Hispanic youth (87%) and Hispanic

youth (86%) than for White non-His-

panic youth (82%). The net result of

these declines was that, by 2019, rates

of serious violence against Black

(10.3), White (10.4) and Hispanic

(10.9) youth were about the same.

Simple assault victimization rates also

declined considerably for each group

between 1994 and 2019, but the de-

cline was greater for Hispanic youth

(85%) than for White youth (80%) and

Black youth (78%). Despite these de-

clines, however, White youth (29.5)

were more likely to experience simple

assault in 2019 than were Black youth

(18.1) or Hispanic youth (13.1).

Most youth were victimized by

someone they know

In 1994, youth ages 12–17 experi-

enced comparable rates of serious vio-

lence committed by nonstrangers (e.g.,

family member, relatives, acquaintanc-

es, and other persons known to the

victim) and strangers (32.0 vs. 28.1 per

1,000, respectively). Between 1994

and 2019, the rate of serious violent

crimes committed by strangers declined

91%, while the rate for nonstrangers

fell 77%. As a result, by 2019, the rate

of serious violence committed by non-

strangers was nearly 3 times the rate

committed by strangers (7.3 vs. 2.5).

The rate of simple assault committed

by nonstrangers was, on average, more

than twice the rate committed by

strangers between 1994 and 2019. The

rates of simple assault committed by

nonstrangers and strangers declined

similarly between 1994 and 2019, 84%

and 83%, respectively. In 2019, the rate

of simple assault committed by non-

strangers (13.8) was 2.4 times the rate

committed by strangers (5.8).

Weapon use in nonfatal serious

violence against youth has

declined

Between 1994 and 2019, rates of seri-

ous violence against youth that in-

volved a weapon (e.g., firearm, knife,

or club) decreased by 91% (from 40.5

per 1,000 to 3.6). By 2019, nearly

two-thirds (65%) of serious violence

victimizations reported by youth did

not involve a weapon, compared with

one-third in 1994, and less than 1 in

10 (9%) involved a firearm.

The rate of injury among youth victims

of serious violence declined 77% be-

tween 1994 and 2019. As a result, the

2019 injury rate for youth victims of

serious violence was one-fourth the

rate in 1994. Of those who were in-

jured as the result of serious violence,

most youth did not report receiving

treatment. On average between 1994

and 2019, 45% of injured youth re-

ported not receiving treatment, but

the proportion varied by year, ranging

from a low of 29% to a high of 68%.

Declines in serious violence were

similar for youth and young adults

From 1994 to 2019, rates of serious

violence against youth ages 12–17 de-

clined considerably, a pattern that was

replicated among young adults ages

18–20 and adults ages 21–24. Most of

the decline took place between 1994

and 2010; during which time the rate

of serious violence fell 78% for youth,

77% for young adults, and 64% for

adults. Similarly, rates of simple assault

victimization declined 83% for youth,

compared with 78% for young adults

and 79% for adults.

Q Each year since 1994, young adults ages 18–20 were at greater risk of serious vio-

lent victimization than youth ages 12–17, while adults ages 21–24 were at greater

risk than youth for most years since 2001. In 2019, young adults were 67% more

likely to experience serious violence than youth, and adults were 39% more likely

than youth.

Q In contrast to the pattern for serious violence, the risk of simple assault victimization

was greater for youth ages 12–17 than for young adults for most years between

1994 and 2019.

Notes: Serious violence includes rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. To improve sta-

bility and reliability, rates are based on two-year rolling averages. Due to methodological changes, vic-

timization estimates for 2006 and 2016 are not comparable to other years.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the Bureau of Justice Statistics’

National Crime Victimization Survey

Dashboard

for 1994 through 2019.

Chapter 2: Youth victims

Students were less likely to experience nonfatal victimization

in and on their way to and from school in 2019 than in 1992

Nonfatal victimizations of youth

ages 12–18 fell substantially

between 1992 and 2019 both in

and out of school

For more than 2 decades, the National

Center for Education Statistics and the

Bureau of Justice Statistics have jointly

produced the

Indicators of School

Crime and Safety

report which, among

other things, monitors the amount of

crime students ages 12–18 experience

when they are in (or on their way to/

from) school and when they are away

from school. Findings indicate that the

rates of violent crime and theft—in

school and away from school—each

declined substantially between 1992

and 2019.

In 2019, more nonfatal victimizations

(theft and violent crime) were commit-

ted against students ages 12–18 at

school than away from school. Stu-

dents at school experienced an estimat-

ed 764,600 nonfatal victimizations,

compared with 509,300 away from

school, representing overall victimiza-

tion rates of 30 per 1,000 students at

school and 20 per 1,000 students away

from school.

From 1992 to 2019, the rate of violent

crimes against students ages 12–18 oc-

curring away from school fell 86%

(from 94 victimizations per 1,000 to

14), while the rate at school fell 70%

(from 68 to 21). In 2019, youth expe-

rienced more thefts at school than

away from school, but the relative de-

cline in the rate of theft was the same

for students at school and away from

school (down 92% for both). Annually

since 1992, the rate of theft at school

was higher than the rate of theft away

from school.

In 2019, students residing in urban

and rural areas had higher rates of theft

and violent victimization at school and

away from school than students resid-

ing in suburban areas.

Since 2012, students ages 12–18 were more likely to experience violent

crime at school than theft crime at school

Notes: Violence includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Due to

a sample increase and redesign in 2016, victimization estimates for 2016 are not comparable to esti-

mates for other years.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the National Center for Education Statistics’

Digest of Education

, Table

228.20.

92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

120

Year

Victimizations per 1,000 students ages 12−18

Violence at school Theft at school

Violence away

from school

Theft away

from school

In 2019, female students and students ages 15–18 were more likely

to experience violence away from school than at school

Student demographic

Victimizations per 1,000 students ages 12–18, 2019

Violence Theft

At school

Away from

school At school

Away from

school

Total 20.6 13.7 9.4 6.3

Male 28.9 8.1 10.9 7.6

Female 11.7 19.5 7.8 5.0

Ages 12–14 26.4 6.9 9.4 4.9

Ages 15–18 14.9 20.2 9.3 7.6

White 21.1 19.2 10.0 5.9

Black 18.8 8.0 8.0 5.9

Hispanic 22.7 5.4 10.1 5.6

Q In 2019, students experienced an estimated 864,100 violent victimizations—60% of

these occurred at school.

Note: Violence includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the National Center for Education Statistics’

Digest of Educa-

tion

, Table 228.25.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

In 2019, nearly 1 in 5 students reported having been bullied

at school and about 1 in 6 reported having been cyberbullied

Nationwide, 19.5% of high school

students said they were bullied at

school in 2019

According to the 2019 Youth Risk Be-

havior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS),

nearly 1 in 5 (19.5%) high school stu-

dents reported having been bullied at

school at least once during the 12

months prior to the survey. The

YRBSS defines bullying as “when one

or more students tease, threaten,

spread rumors about, hit, shove, or

hurt another student over and over

again.” Regardless of grade level, fe-

males were more likely than males to

be victims of bullying, and White, His-

panic, and multiple race females were

more likely to report bullying than

their male peers. Likewise, heterosexual

females were more likely than males to

report bullying. No other differences

were significant between males and fe-

males.

Percent of high school students who

reported being bullied on school property

in the past year, 2019:

Demographic Total Male Female

Total 19.5% 15.4% 23.6%

9th grade 22.4 18.0 27.0

10th grade 21.3 17.4 25.3

11th grade 16.9 12.4 21.2

12 grade 16.7 12.8 20.5

White 23.1 18.0 28.3

Black 15.1 13.3 17.2

Hispanic or Latino 14.8 10.9 18.6

Asian 12.0 11.3 12.7

Multiple race 21.3 15.0 26.4

Heterosexual 17.1 14.0 20.8

Gay, lesbian,or

bisexual

32.0 31.7 32.0

Not sure 26.9 23.7 28.0

The proportion of students who were

bullied at school in 2019 was about

the same as the proportion in 2009

(19.9%).

Classrooms, hallways and

stairwells are the most common

locations of bullying at school

The School Crime Supplement (SCS)

to the National Crime Victimization

Survey (NCVS) collects data from

students 12–18 years old, i.e., grades

6th through 12th, and their reports of

being bullied at school. “At school”

includes the school building, on school

property, the school bus, or going to

and from school. “Bullying” includes

being made fun of; being the subject

of rumors; being threatened with

harm; being pressured into doing

things they did not want to do; exclud-

ed from activities on purpose; having

property destroyed on purpose; and

being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit

on along with injury as a result of the

incident.

According to the National Center for

Education Statistics’ analysis of the

In 2019, female high school students were more likely to report

being bullied at school or experience electronic bullying than their

male peers

Percent of students, 2019

Youth characteristic

Bullied on

school property

Electronically

bullied

All high school students 19.5% 15.7%

Gender

Male 15.4 10.9

Female 23.6 20.4

Race/ethnicity

White* 23.1 18.6

Black* 15.1 8.6

Hispanic or Latino 14.8 12.7

American Indian/Alaska Native* 32.1 21.3

Asian* 12.0 12.1

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander* NA NA

Multiple race* 21.3 19.2

Grade

9th 22.4 16.5

10th 21.3 16.0

11th 16.9 14.4

12th 16.7 15.4

Sexual identity

Heterosexual 17.1 14.1

Gay, lesbian, bisexual 32.0 26.6

Not sure 26.9 19.4

Q In 2019, White high school students were more likely than Black, Hispanic, and

Asian students to experience bullying at school and electronic bullying.

Q While electronic bullying was similar across grade levels, 9th and 10th graders

were more likely to experience bullying at school than 11th and 12th graders.

Q Students who identify as heterosexual were significantly less likely to experi-

ence either form of bullying than students who identify as gay, lesbian, or bi-

sexual, and those who are not sure of their sexual orientation.

NA: Too few cases to develop a reliable estimate.

*Excludes persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Hispanic youth can be any race.

Notes: The reference period was 12 months prior to the survey. Electronic bullying includes

being bullied through texting, Instagram, Facebook, or other social media.

Source: Author’s analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),

1991–2019

High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data

Chapter 2: Youth victims

SCS data, about 22% of students ages

12–18 reported being bullied at school

during the 2019 school year. Females

were more likely than males to be

made of or be the subject of rumors,

while males were more likely to report

being pushed, shoved, or spit on.

Percent of students ages 12–18 bullied at

school, 2019:

Bullying problem Total Male Female

Total 22.2% 19.1% 25.5%

Made fun of 13.8 11.8 15.9

Subject of rumors 15.3 11.9 18.9

Excluded from

activities 6.0 3.7 8.5

Threatened 4.5 4.7 4.3

Pressured to do

things 2.4 2.5 2.2

Property destroyed

1.7 1.8 1.6

Pushed/shoved/

spit on 5.2 6.2 4.1

Students who were bullied during the

2018-2019 school year also reported

the location in which they had been

victimized. Classrooms, hallways/stair-

wells, and the cafeteria were the three

most commonly reported locations.

Females were more likely than males to

reported being bullied in the hallway

or stairwell, while males were more

likely to experience bullying in a locker

room or bathroom than females.

Among students ages 12–18 who were

bullied, percent by location, 2019:

Location Total Male Female

Inside classroom 46.7 47.5 46.1

Hallway or

stairwell 38.9 33.6 43.1

Bathroom or

locker room 10.9 12.5 9.7

Cafeteria 25.7 25.9 25.6

Somewhere else

in school 3.0 2.4 3.4

Outside on

school grounds 20.2 21.3 19.2

On the way to or

from school 9.9 9.8 10.0

Online or by text 15.8 7.6 22.4

Students from suburban schools re-

ported higher rates of being bullied in

the hallway or stairwell (39%) than did

students from urban schools and rural

schools (37%, each). In contrast, a

higher percentage of students from

rural schools (30%) than students from

urban schools (22%) and suburban

schools (26%) reported being bullied

in the school cafeteria.

Nearly 1 in 5 students report being

bullied more than 10 days in the

school year

Data from SCS asks students to report

how often they experienced bullying

during the school year. Among stu-

dents who report being bullied, 52%

were bullied one or two days in the

school year, 29% were bullied 3–10

days in the school year, and 19% were

bullied more than 10 days. Females

(20%) were more likely than males

(17%) to report being bullied 10 or

more times a year, and White (20%)

and Hispanic (21%) students were

more likely to report being bullied 10

or more times than Black (13%) stu-

dents.

In 2019, 1 in 5 females were

cyberbully victims—1 in 9 males

were victims

In 2019, the YRBSS found that, na-

tionwide, 16% of students reported

being electronically bullied during the

past year through text messages and

social media platforms. Regardless of

grade level, females were significantly

more likely than males to be victims of

electronic bullying, and White, Black,

Hispanic, and multiple race females

were significantly more likely to report

electronic bullying than their male

peers.

Percent of high school students who

reported being electronically bullied in

the past year, 2019:

Demographic Total Male Female

Total 15.7% 10.9% 20.4%

9th grade 16.5 11.9 21.3

10th grade 16.0 11.0 21.1

11th grade 14.4 8.6 20.3

12th grade 15.4 11.9 18.6

White 18.6 12.0 25.3

Black 8.6 6.1 11.1

Hispanic or Latino 12.7 9.3 15.9

Asian 12.1 11.1 13.2

Multiple race 19.2 14.4 23.0

Heterosexual 14.1 9.9 19.1

Gay, lesbian,or

bisexual 26.6 25.5 27.1

Not sure 19.4 16.8 20.1

The proportion of students who expe-

rienced electronic bullying in 2019 was

about the same as the proportion in

2011 (16.2%).

Victims of cyberbullying are

likely to report:

Q Being bullied in person

Q Being afraid or embarrassed to

go to school

Q Skipping school

Q Academic failure

Q Low self-esteem

Q Health problems

Q Alcohol and drug use

Q Family problems

Q Delinquent behavior

Q Suicidal thoughts or actions

Source: Authors’ adaptation of U.S. De-

partment of Health and Human Services

online information, available at www.

Stopbullying.gov.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Youth younger than 18 accounted for more than 1 in 5

victims of serious violent crime known to law enforcement

Child victims are common in

violent crimes handled by law

enforcement

Not all crimes committed are reported

to law enforcement. Those that are re-

ported can be used to produce a por-

trait of crime as seen by the nation’s

justice system. Based on the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

, 8%

of all persons murdered in 2019 were

under age 18 and 27% of these child

victims were female. No other data

source with comparable population

coverage characterizes the victims of

other violent crimes reported to law

enforcement. However, data from the

National Incident-Based Reporting

System (NIBRS) covering incidents in

2018 and 2019 capture information

on more than 1 million victims of seri-

ous violent crime (i.e., murder, violent

sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated

assault) known to law enforcement

agencies in 45 states and the District

of Columbia, representing 45% of the

U.S. population. The number of re-

porting agencies and proportion of the

state reporting varies by state; howev-

er, from these data an arguably repre-

sentative description of violent crime

victims can be developed.

Sexual assault victims accounted

for more than half of all child

victims of serious violent crime

NIBRS data indicate that 22% of the

victims of serious violent crime report-

ed to law enforcement agencies in

2018 and 2019 were children under

age 18. More specifically, children

were the victims in 9% of murders,

58% of sexual assaults, 8% of robberies,

and 13% of aggravated assaults. Of all

child victims of serious violent crime,

less than one-half of 1% were murder

victims, 7% were robbery victims, 35%

were victims of aggravated assault, and

57% were victims of sexual assault.

Among youth victims of serious vio-

lence, nearly 3 in 4 females and more

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

Percent of total sexual assault victimizations

Male

All victims

Female

Sexual assault

Robbery victimization increased through the childhood years to reach a

peak at age 19 for male victims and age 21 for female victims

Q Children under age 18 accounted for 10% of all male robbery victims and 6% of all

female robbery victims.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018

and 2019.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

Percent of total robbery victimizations

Male

All victims

Female

Robbery

In sexual assaults known to law enforcement, 55% of female and 74%

of male victims were younger than 18

Q The modal age for sexual assault victims was age 15 for female victims and age 5

for male victims.

Q Overall, female child victims of sexual assault outnumbered male victims by nearly

5 to 1. However, among older child victims, those age 12–17, female victims out-

numbered male victims by 9 to 1.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018

and 2019.

Chapter 2: Youth victims

than 1 in 4 males were victims of sexu-

al assault

The majority (63%) of the youth vic-

tims of serious violent crimes known to

law enforcement in 2018 and 2019

were female. Victims under age 18 ac-

counted for 26% of all female victims

of serious violent crime but only 17%

of all male victims. The types of serious

violence committed against male and

female child victims differed. For fe-

male youth, 74% of the serious violent

crimes were sexual assaults, 23% were

aggravated assaults, 3% were robberies,

and less than 0.5% were murders. In

contrast, for male youth, 56% of seri-

ous violent crimes were aggravated as-

saults, 27% were sexual assaults, 16%

were robberies, and about 1% were

murders.

Among both male and female child

victims of sexual assault, forcible fon-

dling was the most common offense.

Offense profile of juvenile sexual assault

victims, 2018–2019:

Offense Male Female

Sex offense 100% 100%

Rape 6 35

Sodomy 30 7

Sexual assault with

an object

Fondling 61 54

More than 40% of child victims of

serious violence were younger

than age 12

NIBRS data for 2018 and 2019 show

that 17% of the child victims of serious

violent crime were younger than 6,

24% were ages 6–11, 25% were ages

12–14, and 35% were ages 15–17. Vic-

tims younger than 12 represented 51%

of all youth murder victims, 43% of

youth sexual assault victims, and 42%

of youth aggravated assault victims.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

Percent of total aggravated assault victimizations

Male

All victims

Female

Aggravated assault

Until age 14, more simple assault victims were male than female; by age

19, twice as many females as males were simple assault victims

Q Unlike the pattern for aggravated assault, more females than males were victims of

simple assault from age 15 through age 50.

Q Among male victims of simple assault, 18% were younger than 18, compared with

11% of female victims.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018

and 2019.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Victim age

Percent of total simple assault victimizations

Male

All victims

Female

Simple assault

Male victims of aggravated assault outnumbered female victims from

ages 9 through 18, after which the number of victims were about the

same through age 40

Q The number of male and female victims of aggravated assault were about the same

through age 8.

Q In aggravated assaults reported to law enforcement, 14% of male and 12% of fe-

male victims were under age 18.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018

and 2019.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

As youth age, those who violently victimize them are less

likely to be family members

Youth victims of violence are likely

to be harmed by adults

Analyses of the 2018 and 2019 NIBRS

data files provide an understanding of

the persons who victimize youth in vi-

olent crime incidents known to law en-

forcement. Although these data are not

nationally representative, the NIBRS

sample, which includes incidents on

more than 490,000 youth victims of

violent crime (murder, sexual assault,

robbery, aggravated assault, and simple

assault), is large enough to give cre-

dence to patterns derived from NIBRS

data.

Based on NIBRS data, more than half

(57%) of all youth violent crime victims

known to law enforcement were

harmed by an adult (i.e., a person over

age 17). The proportion of youth vic-

tims harmed by adults varied by of-

fense. Adults were more commonly in-

volved in murders (83%), aggravated

assaults (72%), and sexual assaults

(62%) against youth than in robberies

(52%) and simple assaults (52%) against

youth.

The proportion of youth victimized by

an adult varied with the youth’s age.

Overall, youth younger than age 6 and

those ages 6–11 were more likely to

experience violence by an adult than

were youth age 12 or older, a pattern

that held for murder, aggravated, and

simple assault. For violent sex offenses,

youth ages 15–17 were most likely to

be victimized by an adult, followed by

youth younger than age 6.

Among youth sexual assault victims, those younger than age 12

were more likely to be harmed by a family member than were victims

age 12 or older

Victim-offender

relationship

Relationship profile

Age of victim Victim ages 0–17

0–17 0–5 6–11 12–14 15–17 Male Female

Violent crime 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Family 40 69 54 32 29 39 41

Acquaintance 53 26 41 62 62 52 54

Stranger 7 5 5 6 9 9 5

Sexual assault 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Family 44 66 60 35 24 50 42

Acquaintance 53 32 38 61 71 47 54

Stranger 3 2 2 4 5 3 3

Robbery 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Family 1 * 2 1 1 1 2

Acquaintance 44 * 31 48 46 45 41

Stranger 54 * 67 51 53 54 56

Aggravated assault 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Family 42 64 52 37 27 40 45

Acquaintance 43 24 34 50 56 44 42

Stranger 15 13 14 13 17 16 13

Simple assault 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Family 39 73 51 30 32 39 40

Acquaintance 55 23 45 65 62 55 56

Stranger 5 3 4 5 6 6 4

Q In crimes known to law enforcement, the youngest victims (younger than age 6) are

far more likely than the oldest victims (ages 15–17) to be assaulted by a family mem-

ber: sexual assault (66% vs. 24%), aggravated assault (64% vs. 27%), and simple

assault (73% vs. 32%).

*Too few victims in sample to obtain reliable percentage.

Notes: Violent crime includes murder, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple

assault. In this data set, the term “offender” is used to describe the person identified by law

enforcement as having committed the crime. Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System: Master

Files

for 2018 and 2019.

Across violent crimes against youth, males were more likely to be

victimized by a juvenile than were females

Offense

Percent of youth victims victimized by youth ages 0–17

Age of victim Victim ages 0–17

0–17 0–5 6–11 12–14 15–17 Male Female

Violent crime 43% 15% 38% 58% 43% 46% 40%

Sexual assault 38 37 41 42 33 47 37

Robbery 48 11 47 66 44 52 34

Aggravated assault 28 5 24 45 34 31 24

Simple assault 48 6 39 65 48 49 46

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System: Master Files

for 2018 and 2019.

Chapter 2: Youth victims

Violence involving youth victims is most common at the end

of the school day

The risk of violence varies over a

24-hour period

To understand the nature of youth vic-

timization, it helps to study when dif-

ferent types of crimes occur. To this

end, the authors analyzed the FBI’s

NIBRS data for the years 2018 and

2019 to study the date and time of day

that crimes known to law enforcement

occurred. Consistent with prior analy-

ses, the daily timing of violent crimes

(i.e., murder, sexual assault, robbery,

aggravated assault, and simple assault)

differed for youth and adult victims. In

general, the number of violent crimes

with adult victims increased hourly

from morning through the evening

hours, peaking around 9 p.m. In con-

trast, violent crimes with youth victims

peaked at 3 p.m., fell to a lower level

in the early evening hours, and de-

clined substantially after 8 p.m.

The 3 p.m. peak reflected a unique sit-

uational characteristic of youth violence

and was similar for both male and fe-

male victims. This situational compo-

nent was clarified when the hourly pat-

terns of violent crimes on school and

nonschool days were compared. For

adult victims, the school and non-

school-day patterns were similar. On

nonschool days, the youth victimiza-

tion pattern mirrored the general adult

pattern, with a peak in the late evening

hours. But on school days, the number

of youth violent crime victimizations

spiked at 8 a.m. and at noon, and

reached a peak in the afterschool hours

between 3 and 4 p.m.

Based on violent crimes reported to

law enforcement, youth were more

than twice as likely to be victimized

between 3 and 4 p.m. on school days

as in the same time period on non-

school days (i.e., weekends and the

summer months). On school days,

youth were nearly twice as likely to be

the victims of violence in the 4 hours

between 3 and 7 p.m. as they were in

the 4 hours between 8 p.m. and mid-

night.

The timing of violence against youth varies on school and nonschool

days and varies with the youth’s relationship to who harmed them

Q Time-of-day patterns of robberies with youth victims increase steadily on non-

school days, reaching a peak between 8 and 10 p.m. On school days, however,

robberies involving youth victims peak between 3 to 5 p.m. and increase again be-

tween 8 and 10 p.m.

Q While the risk of sexual assault victimization peaked at noon on school and non-

school days, the risk of victimization was relatively high at 8 a.m. on both days, and

at 3 p.m. on school days.

Q Unlike robberies against youth victims, sexual assaults and aggravated assaults

against youth are less likely to involve strangers.

Q Sexual assaults by acquaintances or family members are most common at 8 a.m.

and noon, and in the hour after school (3 p.m.).

Q Aggravated assaults committed by family members or acquaintances follow a simi-

lar pattern through the middle of the day, but victimizations by an acquaintance

peak at 3 p.m. while the risk of victimization by a family member continues to in-

crease, reaching a peak at 7 p.m.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018

and 2019.

Percent of total juvenile sexual assault victimizations

School days

Sexual assault

Nonschool days

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of total juvenile sexual assault victimizations

Family

Sexual assault

Acquaintance

Stranger

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of total juvenile aggravated assault victimizations

School days

Aggravated assault

Nonschool days

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m

Percent of total juvenile aggravated assault victimizations

Acquaintance

Aggravated assault

Family

Stranger

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of total juvenile robbery victimizations

School days

Robbery

Nonschool

days

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of total juvenile robbery victimizations

Stranger

Robbery

Acquaintance

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice: 2022 National Report

Peak hours for youth victimization var-

ied with victim age. For victims ages

6–11 and 12–14, violent crime victim-

ization peaked at 3 p.m., the hour as-

sociated with the end of the school

day. Conversely, for older victims ages

15–17, noon and 3 p.m. were the peak

times for victimization. Among the

youngest victims, those under age 6,

the peak was at noon.

The timing of youth violence

victimization is linked to their

relationship with who harmed

them

The daily timing of youth violence vic-

timization varies with the relationship

(i.e., family members, acquaintances,

and strangers) between youth victims

and those who harm them. Most of

those who commit violence against

youth were acquaintances of their vic-

tims. The timing of violent crimes by

acquaintances reflected the afterschool

peak, indicating the importance this

time period (and probably unsuper-

vised interactions with other youth)

has for these types of crimes. Violent

crimes by family members were most

frequent at noon and in the hours be-

tween 3 and 7 p.m., although, unlike

crimes committed by an acquaintance,

there was no obvious 3 p.m. peak. Vio-

lent crimes committed by strangers

peaked at 3 p.m. and remained at a rel-

atively high level until 9 p.m.

The timing of violent crime with youth victims differs from that of crimes

with adult victims

Q The afterschool peak in victimizations for youth ages 6–17 is a result of crimes

committed by nonfamily members.

Note: Violent crime includes murder, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018

and 2019.

Percent of total violent victimizations in age group

Family

Victims ages 12−14

Nonfamily

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of total violent victimizations in age group

Family

Victims ages 15−17

Nonfamily

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent ot total violent victimizations in age group

Family

Victims younger than 6

Nonfamily

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m

Percent of total violent victimizations in age group

Nonfamily

Victims ages 6−11

Family

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

10%

Percent of total serious violent victimizations in age group

Younger than 18

Serious violent crime

Age 18 and older

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

10%

Percent of total simple assault victimizations in age group

Younger

than 18

Simple assault

Age 18 and older

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Q Serious violent crime against youth peaked at noon while simple assault with youth

victims peaked at 3 p.m. For adults, the risk of adult victimization increases

throughout the day, peaking at 9 p.m. for both offenses.

Note: Serious violent crime includes murder, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018

and 2019.

Throughout the day, youth under age 6 are most likely to be victimized

by family members

Chapter 2: Youth victims

Nearly 6 in 10 violent crimes with youth victims occur in a

residence

The location of youth violence

varies with crime and victim age

The portrait of violence against youth

requires an understanding of not only

when these crimes occur but also

where. Data from NIBRS includes the

locations of crimes reported to law en-

forcement agencies. Data from 2018

and 2019 show that the location of vi-

olent crime against youth varies with

the nature of the crime and the age of

the victim.

Overall, 58% of youth victims of vio-

lence were harmed in a residence, 19%

were victimized at school, 14% were

harmed outdoors, and 8% in a com-

mercial area. Most assaults occurred in

a residence —79% of sexual assaults,

60% of aggravated assaults, and 50% of

simple assaults—while nearly half (47%)

of robberies occurred outdoors.

Location profile of juvenile victimizations,

2018–2019:

Location

Sexual

assault Robbery

Aggravated

assault

Total 100% 100% 100%

Residence 79 21 60

Outdoors 6 47 23

Commercial 5 27 9

School 9 5 8

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

The location of youth violence also

varied with victim age. For example,

81% of victims under age 6 were

harmed in a residence, compared with

51% of victims ages 15–17. Youth ages

12–14 were more likely to be victim-

ized at school than youth of other

ages.

Location profile of juvenile victimizations,

2018–2019:

Location

Under

age 6

Ages

6–11

Ages

12–14

Ages

15–17

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Residence 81 69 48 51

Outdoors 8 11 15 17

Commercial 7 5 7 12

School 4 14 30 19

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Percent of total juvenile violent crime victimizations

Residence

Outdoors

School

Commercial

6 a.m. 6 p.m. 6 a.m.noon midnight

The hourly proportion of violent victimizations involving youth that

occurred in residences was 60% or more from 5 p.m. through 6 a.m.

Note: The detailed NIBRS coding structure of location can be simplified for analyses into four general

locations: a residence (the victim’s, the offender’s, or someone else’s); the outdoors (streets, highways,

roads, woods, fields, etc.); schools (including colleges); and commercial areas (parking lots, restau-

rants, government buildings, office buildings, motels, and stores).

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018

and 2019.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of violent crimes with juvenile victims within hour

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Residence Outdoors School Commercial

Violent crime with youth victims peaked in residences at noon and

again between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.

Q Violent victimization of youth outdoors exhibited a distinct peak at 3 p.m., while vic-

timizations in commercial areas were relatively high from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

On average, 1,334 youth under age 18 in the U.S. were

murdered each year between 2010 and 2019

Homicide is one of the leading

causes of death for youth younger

than 18

In 2019, the National Center for Inju-

ry Prevention and Control (within the

Centers for Disease Control and Pre-

vention) reports that homicide was the

fourth leading cause of death for chil-

dren ages 1–11. Only deaths caused by

unintentional injury, cancer, and con-

genital anomalies were more common

for these youth. That same year, homi-

cide was the third leading cause of

death for youth ages 12–17, behind

unintentional injury and suicide.

The FBI and NCHS maintain

detailed records of murders

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s

(FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reporting Pro-

gram asks local law enforcement agen-

cies to provide detailed information on

all homicides occurring within their ju-

risdictions. These Supplementary Ho-

micide Reports (SHR) contain infor-

mation on victim demographics and

the method of death. Also, when

known, SHR captures the circumstanc-

es surrounding the death, the demo-

graphics of the individual(s) who

committed the act, as well as their rela-

tionship to the victim. Although not all

agencies report every murder every

year, for the years 1980 through 2019,

the FBI received SHR records on 90%

of all homicides in the U.S.

For 2019, the FBI reported that law

enforcement identified who committed

the crime in 68% of murders nation-

wide, which means that for many of

these crimes, the person who commit-

ted the crime was not known to law

enforcement.

Based on SHR data from 1980

through 2019, the person who com-

mitted the act was unknown to law en-

forcement in 22% of the murders of

persons under age 18, in 32% of the

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Year

Juvenile involved

Adults only

Unknown

Youth homicide victims

Who committed homicide

Between 2010 and 2019, the likelihood of being a murder victim peaked

for persons in their early twenties, but for females, the first year of life

was the most dangerous

Q Girls and boys were equally likely to be homicide victims until their teenage years.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 2010 through 2019.

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72

Age

Homicide victims per 100,000 persons in age/sex group, 2010−2019

Male

All victims

Female

The number of youth homicide victims in 2019 was 52% below the peak

year of 1993 and 12% above the 2013 low point

Q Between 2010 and 2019, there were 13,340 youth homicide victims — an average

of 1,334 per year, compared with an annual average of 1,638 in the 2000s and

2,375 in the 1990s.

Q Among homicides committed by persons known to law enforcement, 17% of youth

victims were killed by juveniles (acting alone or with other juveniles or adults) be-

tween 2010 and 2019. In 28% of youth homicides committed by juveniles, adults

were also involved.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980 through 2019.

Chapter 2: Youth victims

murders of adults, and in 31% of mur-

ders overall.

Within the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC), the National

Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

maintains the National Vital Statistics

System. This system receives reports on

homicides from coroners and medical

examiners. Between 2010 and 2019,

NCHS annual estimates of youth ho-

micides tended to be about 18% higher

than those from the FBI. The reasons

for this difference are unclear but are

probably related to inconsistent report-

ing and/or to differences in defini-

tions, updating procedures, and/or

imputation techniques.

An important component of this re-

port is the delineation of the character-

istics of homicide victims and those

who commit homicide. Because the

NCHS data do not capture informa-

tion on those who commit homicide,

the discussion that follows is based on

the FBI’s SHR data.

The likelihood of being a homicide

victim has increased in recent

years

According to FBI estimates, 16,669

murders occurred in the U.S. in 2019

— 5.1 murders for every 100,000 U.S.

residents. During the 1980–2019 peri-

od, the number of murders reached a

peak in 1991 at 24,703 victims, fell

37% through 1999, increased through

2006, then fell to a historic low in

2014, 43% below the 1991 peak. The

period of decline was briefly interrupt-

ed as the number of homicides in-

creased through 2016, and then de-

clined. By 2019, the number of

homicide victims was 33% below the

1991 peak and 18% above the 2014

low point.

The 2019 homicide victimization rate

of 5.1 was 14% above the level in 2014

— the year with the lowest homicide

rate (4.4) and the fewest homicides of

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Year

Homicide victims

Ages 15−17

Ages 0−5

Ages 12−14

$JHVí

Homicides involving males accounted for 85% of the increase in youth

homicides between 1984 and 1993 and 71% of the decline between

1993 and 2019

Q Unlike the number of male victims, the annual number of female homicide victims

was relatively stable between 1980 and 2019.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980 through 2019.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Year

Youth homicide victims

Male

Female

The large increase and subsequent decline in youth homicides was

nearly all attributable to changes in homicides of older youth

Q Victims ages 15–17 accounted for 68% of the increase of youth murdered between

1984 and 1993 and 58% of the decline between 1993 and 2019.

Q Murder is most common among the oldest and youngest youth. Of the estimated

1,366 youth homicide victims in 2019, 34% were under age 6, 13% were ages

6–11, 7% were ages 12–14, and 45% were ages 15–17.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980 through 2019.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice: 2022 National Report

the 1980–2019 period — and nearly

half the rate of the 1991 peak (10.1).

An estimated 1,366 youth

homicide victims were reported in

2019 — about 4 per day

In 2019, there were an estimated

1,366 persons under age 18 murdered

in the U.S. — 8% of all persons mur-

dered that year. More than one-fourth

(27%) of these youth victims were fe-

male. More than one-third (34%) of

these victims were under age 6, 13%

were ages 6–11, less than 1 in 10 (7%)

were ages 12–14, and more than 4 in

10 (45%) were ages 15–17.

Black youth accounted for more than

half (54%) of youth homicide victims

in 2019, 42% were White, and 3% were

either American Indian or Asian. By

way of comparison, White youth con-

stituted 75% of the U.S. resident youth

population under age 18 in 2019 and

Black youth 17%. The homicide rate

for Black youth in 2019 was more than

5 times the White rate. This disparity

was seen across victim age groups and

increased with victim age.

Homicides per 100,000 youth, 2019:

Victim age White Black

Black

to White

rate ratio

0–17 1.0 5.9 5.6

0–5 1.4 4.8 3.5

6–11 0.5 1.8 3.5

12–14 0.5 2.2 4.6

15–17 2.1 20.1 9.8

Since 2013, the number of homicides of White youth fell 4% while

homicides of Black youth increased 28%

Q Black youth accounted for about 17% of the youth population between 2010 and

2019 but were the victims in half (50%) of youth homicides in the last 10 years.

Q The disparity between murder rates for Black youth and White youth peaked in

1993, when the Black rate was 6 times the White rate. The relatively greater decline

in homicides of Black youth between 1993 and 1999 (down 48%, compared with a

26% decline for White youth) dropped the disparity in Black-to-White homicide

rates to 4 to 1. However, since 2013, homicides of Black youth have been on the

rise, while the homicides of White youth declined. As a result, the 2019 homicide

rate for Black youth was nearly 6 times the White rate.

* Other race includes American Indian/Alaskan Native and Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980 through 2019.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Year

Youth homicide victims

Black

White

Other race*

Between 2010 and 2019, nearly half (49%) of all homicide victims

under age 6 were killed by a parent, while parents were rarely

involved in the killing of youth ages 15–17

Relationship between

victim and person

committing homicide

Age of victim Victim ages 0–17

0–17 0–5 6–11 12–14 15–17 Male Female

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Known 60 80 56 51 44 56 69

Parent/stepparent 24 49 30 12 1 20 33

Other family member 5 6 7 5 2 4 7

Acquaintance 24 23 12 21 28 24 23

Stranger 7 2 6 12 12 8 5

Unknown 40 20 44 49 56 44 31

Q During the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, female victims were far more likely

than male victims to have been killed by a parent/stepparent or other family member.

Strangers were involved in at least 7% of the murders of youth between 2010 and

2019. This figure is probably greater than 7% because strangers are likely to account

for a disproportionate share of crimes in which information about who committed the

crime is unknown.

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

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980 through

2019.

Chapter 2: Youth victims

In 2019, 9 of every 10 murder victims ages 15–17 were killed

with a firearm

Trends in the number of youth

homicides are tied to homicides

involving firearms

More than half (58%) of all youth ho-

micide victims in 2019 were killed with

a firearm, 14% were killed by the of-

fender’s hands or feet (e.g., beaten/

kicked to death or strangled), and 7%

were killed with a knife or blunt ob-

ject. The remaining 20% of victims

were killed with another type of weap-

on, or the type of weapon used was

unknown.

Firearms were used less often in the

killings of young children. In 2019,

firearms were used in 15% of murders

of youth under age 6 but in 76% of the

murders of youth ages 12–14, and 90%

involving youth ages 15–17. In 2019,

a greater percentage of Black than

White youth murder victims were

killed with a firearm (68% vs. 48%),

and homicides of male youth were

more likely to involve a firearm than

those involving female youth (67% and

35%, respectively).

Across the 40-year period between

1980 and 2019, the deadliest year for

youth was 1993, with an estimated

2,840 youth victims. A relatively large

proportion of youth were killed with a

firearm in the early 1990s: 60% of

youth homicide victims were killed

with a firearm each year from 1992 to

1995. In fact, over the 40-year period,

the annual number of youth killed by

means other than a firearm generally

declined — a remarkable pattern when

compared with the large increase and

subsequent decline in the number of

firearm-related murders of youth. Ex-

cept for homicides of children under

age 6 and of youth by family members,

homicide trends in all demographic

segments of the youth population be-

tween 1980 and 2019 were related to

killings with firearms.

Since 2013, youth homicides increased 12% but the number involving a

firearm increased 42%

Q While firearms were involved in a greater proportion of adult than youth homicides,

youth ages 15–17 were more likely than adults to be killed by a firearm.

Q Trends in the proportions of firearm-related murders of male and female youth

showed similar growth and decline patterns over the period.

Q Firearms were involved in a greater proportion of Black than White youth homicides

each year since 1980, and between 2010 and 2019, Black youth were about 50%

more likely than White youth to be killed by a firearm.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980 through 2019.

The proportion of homicides involving firearms varied by demographics

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

20%

40%

60%

80%

Year

Firearm percent of youth homicide victims

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

20%

40%

60%

80%

Year

Firearm percent of youth homicide victims

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

20%

40%

60%

80%

Year

Firearm percent of homicide victims

Adult

Youth

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Year

Firearm percent of homicide victims

Ages 15−17

Ages 12−14

Ages 0−5

Ages 6−11

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Year

Youth homicide victims

Firearm

No ﬁrearm

Youth and the Juvenile Justice: 2022 National Report

Children under 6 are killed by

family members—older youth are

killed by acquaintances

In the 2019 SHR data, information

about who committed the crime is

missing for 24% of youth homicide vic-

tims either because the information

about who committed the crime is un-

known or because the information was

not recorded on the data form. The

proportion of unknown offenders in

2019 generally increased with victim

age: ages 0–5 (9%), ages 6–11 (12%),

ages 12–14 (13%), and ages 15–17

(40%).

Considering only murders in 2019 for

which information about who commit-

ted the crime is known, a stranger

killed about 2% of murdered children

under age 12, while family members

killed 75% and acquaintances 23%.

Older youth were far more likely to be

killed by nonfamily members: 7% of

victims ages 15–17 were killed by fami-

ly members, 27% by strangers, and 66%

by acquaintances.

Differences in the characteristics of the

murders of male and female youth are

linked to the age profiles of the vic-

tims. Between 2010 and 2019, the an-

nual numbers of male and female vic-

tims were very similar for victims at

each age under 13. However, older

victims were disproportionately male.

For example, since 2010, 86% of

17-year-old homicide victims were

male. In general, therefore, a greater

proportion of female murder victims

were very young. While it is true that

female victims were more likely to be

killed by family members than were

male victims (59% vs. 42%), this differ-

ence goes away within specific age

groups. For example, between 2010

and 2019, for victims under age 6,

68% of males and 71% of females were

killed by a family member.

Between 2010 and 2019, 16- and 17-year-old murder victims were

among the most likely to be killed with firearms, regardless of gender

Q Boys and girls under age 6 were equally likely to be killed with a firearm. In the teen

years, however, boys were considerably more likely to be killed with a firearm: 88%

of boys ages 14–17 were killed with a firearm, compared with 66% of females in

the same age group.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980 through 2019.

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Age

Firearm percent of homicide victims, 2010−2019

Male

Female

All victims

More than half of the 13,340 youth homicide victims between 2010

and 2019 were killed with a firearm

Weapon

Age of victim Victim ages 0–17

0–17 0–5 6–11 12–14 15–17 Male Female

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Firearm 51 13 49 73 85 60 34

Knife/blunt object 11 12 16 11 8 9 13

Personal* 19 42 10 3 1 16 25

Other/unknown 19 34 26 13 5 15 28

Q More than 4 in 10 (42%) homicide victims under age 6 were killed by offenders using

only their hands, fists, or feet (personal).

More than 8 in 10 (85%) victims ages 15–17 were killed with a firearm.

Overall, males were more likely than females to be killed by a firearm (60% vs. 34%),

while personal weapons were more common in the killing of females (25%) than

males (16%).

*Personal includes hands, fists, or feet.

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

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980 through

2019.

Chapter 2: Youth victims

Since 2009, suicides have outnumbered homicides among

youth ages 10–17

Suicide was the second leading

cause of death among youth ages

10–17

The National Vital Statistics System

(NVSS) within the Centers for Disease

Control collects information from

death certificates filed in state vital sta-

tistics offices, including causes of death

of children. NVSS indicates that

35,805 youth ages 10–17 died by sui-

cide in the U.S. between 1990 and

2019. For all youth ages 10–17, sui-

cide was the second leading cause of

death between 2015 and 2019, trailing

only unintentional injury, while homi-

cide was the third leading cause of

death for youth ages 10–17 during the

same period. Since 2015, suicide was

the leading cause of death for Asian/

Pacific Islander youth, the second lead-

ing cause of death for male, female,

White, Hispanic, and American Indi-

an/Alaskan Native youth, and third for

Black youth (homicide was first).

Since 1990, males have outnumbered

females among youth suicide victims,

but the female proportion of suicide

victims has grown in recent years. For

example, through 2009, female youth

accounted for 22% of suicide victims;

since 2010, however, females account-

ed for 29% of youth suicide victims.

The method of suicide has changed

Between 1990 and 2000, most youth

suicides (62%) involved a firearm; each

year since, suicides by suffocation have

outnumbered those involving a fire-

arm. During the 10-year period from

2010 to 2019, for example, half of all

youth suicides involved suffocation,

while firearms were involved in 40%.

Firearm-related suicides in 2019 were

more common among male (49%) than

female youth (21%), and suicides

among White youth were more likely

to involve a firearm (46%) than were

those of Black (35%) or Hispanic (27%)

youth.

The method of suicide varies consider-

ably by gender, with suffocation being

Since 1990, suicide was more prevalent than homicide for non-Hispanic

White youth but the reverse was true for non-Hispanic Black youth

Q Youth homicide victims (ages 10–17) outnumbered youth suicide victims through

1999. More recently, however, the trend reversed as suicide victims outnumbered

homicide victims annually since 2009. In 2019, the number of suicide victims was

80% above the number of homicide victims.

Q Suicide and homicide victimizations have been on the rise in recent years for both

males and females, but the increase in suicides started earlier (2010) than the in-

crease in homicides (2013). Since 2010, the number of suicides increased 54% for

males and 89% for females. Comparatively, since 2013, the number of homicide

victims increased 38% for males and 17% for females.

Q The annual number of White suicide victims exceeded the annual number of homi-

cide victims each year since 1990, and the gap has grown in recent years. The ratio

of suicides to homicides was 2.5 to 1 in the 1990s, but grew to more than 6 to 1 in

the last 5 years. Conversely, the annual number of Black homicide victims exceed-

ed the annual number of suicide victims each year since 1990, but the gap has nar-

rowed in recent years. The ratio of homicides to suicides was 7 to 1 in the 1990s

but fell to 3 to 1 n the last 5 years.

Q Since 2015, suicides outnumbered homicides among Hispanic youth by a ratio of

1.5 to 1, while homicides outnumbered suicides by more than 3 to 1 in the 1990s.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the Centers for Disease Control’s WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics

Query and Reporting System).

91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

100

200

300

400

500

600

Year

Youth victims (ages 10−17), 1990−2019

Suicide

Homicide

Female victims

91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

100

200

300

400

500

Year

Youth victims (ages 10−17)

Suicide

Homicide

Hispanic victims

91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

Year

Youth victims (ages 10−17)

Suicide

Homicide

Male victims

91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Year

Youth victims (ages 10−17)

Suicide

Homicide

Black victims

91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Year

Youth victims (ages 10−17)

Suicide

Homicide

All victims

91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Year

Youth victims (ages 10−17)

Suicide

Homicide

White victims

Youth and the Juvenile Justice: 2022 National Report

more likely for females than for males.

While firearms were involved in the

majority of female suicides through

1999, suffocation has been more com-

mon each year since. For example,

since 2010, 61% of youth female sui-

cides involved suffocation, compared

with 45% for males. Conversely, during

the same period, 48% of male suicides

involved a firearm, compared with 21%

of female suicides.

Method of suicide, 2010–2019:

Method Male Female

Total 100% 100%

Firearm 48 21

Suffocation 45 61

Poisoning 311

Other 66

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

After reaching a low point in 2007,

the youth suicide rate has been

on the rise

Following a period of relative stability

through the mid-1990s, the youth sui-

cide rate fell 44% between 1994 and

2007. Since the 2007 low point, the

youth suicide rate grew substantially,

increasing 124% to reach a new peak in

2018, then declined 10% through

2019. This general pattern of decline

followed by considerable growth was

reflected in the trends of White, Black,

and Hispanic youth as well as males

and females. Between 2007 and 2018,

the male youth suicide rate more than

doubled, the female rate nearly tripled,

and the rate for White, Black, and His-

panic youth more than doubled; across

all groups, these increases were fol-

lowed by a one year decline through

2019.

American Indians have the highest

youth suicide rate

Beginning with the 1990 data, NVSS

distinguished fatalities by the victim’s

Hispanic ethnicity, enabling racial and

ethnic comparisons of youth suicides.

The risk of suicide was highest for

American Indian/Alaskan Native youth

Between 1999 and 2019, youth suicide victims outnumbered youth

homicide victims in 38 states

1999–2019 1999–2019

State

Suicide

rate

Suicide/

homicide

ratio State

Suicide

rate

Suicide/

homicide

ratio

U.S. total 3.5 1.3 Missouri 4.6 1.2

Alabama 3.3 0.9 Montana 8.5 6.6

Alaska 12.1 4.0 Nebraska 5.0 2.7

Arizona 4.8 1.6 Nevada 4.7 1.5

Arkansas 4.7 1.8 New Hampshire 3.6 NA

California 2.2 0.6 New Jersey 1.8 1.0

Colorado 6.9 3.8 New Mexico 8.3 2.3

Connecticut 2.3 1.6 New York 2.1 0.9

Delaware 3.4 1.4 North Carolina 3.2 1.2

Dist. of Columbia 2.0 0.1 North Dakota 7.8 8.3

Florida 2.7 0.9 Ohio 3.8 1.6

Georgia 3.2 1.0 Oklahoma 5.3 2.0

Hawaii 3.3 NA Oregon 4.5 4.4

Idaho 7.2 11.2 Pennsylvania 3.4 1.3

Illinois 2.9 0.6 Rhode Island 2.4 1.5

Indiana 3.8 1.3 South Carolina 3.7 1.2

Iowa 4.8 4.6 South Dakota 11.7 10.2

Kansas 4.9 2.7 Tennessee 3.6 1.1

Kentucky 3.7 2.0 Texas 3.7 1.5

Louisiana 3.7 0.6 Utah 6.5 8.2

Maine 4.0 6.0 Vermont 4.3 5.8

Maryland 2.7 0.6 Virginia 3.5 1.5

Massachusetts 2.2 1.6 Washington 4.2 2.5

Michigan 4.2 1.4 West Virginia 4.0 2.6

Minnesota 4.6 3.7 Wisconsin 4.5 2.3

Mississippi 3.4 0.9 Wyoming 9.5 5.0

NA: Too few homicides to calculate a reliable ratio.

Notes: The suicide rate is the average annual number of suicides of youth ages 10–17 divided by

the average annual population of youth ages 10–17 (per 100,000). The suicide/homicide ratio is

the total number of suicides of youth ages 10–17 divided by the total number of homicides of

youth ages 10–17. A ratio of more than 1.0 indicates that the number of suicides was greater than

the number of homicides.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the Centers for Disease Control’s WISQARS (Web-based Injury Sta-

tistics Query and Reporting System).

Annual suicides per 100,000

youth ages 10–17, 1999–2019

Less than 3.3 (12 states)

3.3 to 3.8 (14 states)

3.9 to 4.8 (13 states)

4.9 and above (12 states)

Chapter 2: Youth victims

each year since 1990, and the disparity

has grown in recent years. During the

1990s, the average annual suicide rate

(i.e., suicides per 100,000 persons ages

10–17) for American Indian/ Alaskan

Native youth (8.1) was nearly twice the

rate for White youth (4.3), and about

three times the rates for Black (2.7),

Hispanic (3.0), and Asian (2.5) youth.

By the 2010s, the average annual rate

for American Indian/Alaskan Native

youth increased to 13.1, more than

twice the rate for White youth (5.1),

and more than four times the rates for

Black (2.8), Hispanic (2.8), and Asian

(2.9) youth.

Nearly 10% of high school

students indicated they attempted

suicide in the past year

The national Youth Risk Behavior Sur-

veillance System (YRBSS) monitors

priority health risk behaviors that con-

tribute to the leading causes of death,

disability, and social problems among

youth and adults in the United States.

The YRBSS is administered by the

Centers for Disease Control in odd-

numbered years to a nationally repre-

sentative sample of high school stu-

dents in public and private high

schools throughout the United States.

Among the range of self-reported be-

haviors captured by YRBSS are four

questions related to suicide. In particu-

lar, respondents are asked if they con-

sidered suicide, made a plan about

committing suicide, attempted suicide,

and were injured by such an attempt.

Based on the 2019 YRBSS, about 1 in

5 (19%) high school students indicated

they had “seriously considered at-

tempting” suicide in the past year, and

about 1 in 10 (9%) indicated they at-

tempted suicide in the past year.

Since 2009, the proportion of high

school students who report

attempting suicide increased

The percent of high school students

who seriously considered attempting

suicide fell significantly between 1991

and 2009 (from 29.0% to 13.8%), then

increased to 18.8% in 2019. Despite

the recent increase, the percent of high

school students who considered at-

tempting suicide in 2019 was well

below the 1991 level. The percent of

high school students who attempted

suicide reached a low point in 2009

(6.3%), then increased through 2019

(8.9%) to its highest level since 1991,

while the percent of high school stu-

dents who attempted suicide that re-

sulted in injury stayed within a limited

range (1.7% to 2.9%) during this period.

After reaching a low in 2009, the percent of high school youth who

considered, planned, or attempted suicide increased significantly

through 2019

Q The percent of high school students who seriously considered attempting suicide

fell significantly between 1991 and 2009 (from 29% to 14%). Despite the recent in-

crease, the percent of high school students who considered suicide in 2019 was

well below the 1991 level.

Q The percent of high school students who attempted suicide fluctuated between 6%

and 9% between 1991 and 2019, and the percent of high school students who at-

tempted suicide that resulted in injury stayed within a limited range (1.7% to 2.9%)

during this period.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s

1991–2019 High School

Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data.

91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Year

Percent of high school students reporting behavior

Attempted suicide

Planned suicide

Seriously considered suicide

Youth and the Juvenile Justice: 2022 National Report

In 2019, female high school students were more likely to report suicide-related behaviors than their male

peers

In the last 12 months:

Youth characteristics

Considered

suicide

Planned

suicide

Attempted

suicide

Injured after

an attempt

All high school students 18.8% 15.7% 8.9% 2.5%

Gender

Male 13.3 11.3 6.6 1.7

Female 24.1 19.9 11.0 3.3

Race/ethnicity*

White 19.1 15.7 7.9 2.1

Black/African American 16.9 15.0 11.8 3.3

Hispanic or Latino 17.2 14.7 8.9 3.0

American Indian/Alaska Native 34.7 24.2 25.5 NA

Asian 19.7 16.1 7.7 1.7

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander NA NA NA NA

Multiple race 25.7 22.3 12.9 4.1

Grade

9th 17.7 14.8 9.4 2.3

10th 18.5 15.4 8.8 2.7

11th 19.3 16.4 8.6 2.3

12th 19.6 16.2 8.5 2.7

Sexual identity

Heterosexual 14.5 12.1 6.4 1.7

Gay, lesbian, bisexual 46.8 40.2 23.4 6.3

Not sure 30.4 23.9 16.1 5.2

Q In 2019, Black high school students were less likely to have considered suicide than White students, but more likely to have

attempted suicide than White students; White youth were less likely than American Indian/Alaskan Native and multi-racial

youth to have considered or attempted suicide.

Q The proportion of high school students reporting suicide-related behaviors did not vary by grade in 2019.

Q Students who identify as heterosexual were significantly less likely to report suicide-related behaviors than students who iden-

tify as gay, lesbian, and bisexual, and those who are not sure of their sexual orientation.

* Racial categories (White, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and multiple race) do not include

persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity can be any race.

NA = Too few respondents to develop a reliable estimate.

Notes: The reference period for each question was 12 months prior to the survey. Survey questions asked:

Did you ever seriously consider attempting suicide?

Did you make a plan about how you would attempt suicide?

How many times did you actually attempt suicide?

Did any attempt result in an injury, poisoning, or overdoes that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse?

Source: Authors’ analyses of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s

1991–2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data.

Chapter 2: Youth victims

Sources

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Various.

National Crime Victimization Survey

Dashboard (N-DASH)

, for the years

1994 through 2019. Available at

https://ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov/Home.

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

School

Crime Supplement (SCS) to the Na-

tional Crime Victimization Survey, se-

lected years, 2005 through 2019

Table 230.45. Percentage of students

ages 12–18 who reported being bullied

at school during the school year, by

type of bullying and selected student

and school characteristics: Selected

years, 2005 through 2019. Available at

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/

digest/d20/tables/dt20_230.45.asp.

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

School

Crime Supplement (SCS) to the Na-

tional Crime Victimization Survey,

2019

. Table 230.50. Percentage of stu-

dents ages 12–18 who reported being

bullied at school during the school year

and, among bullied students, percent-

age who reported being bullied in vari-

ous locations, by selected student and

school characteristics: 2019. Available

at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/

digest/d20/tables/dt20_230.50.asp.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2020.

School Crime Supplement (SCS) to

the National Crime Victimization Sur-

vey, 2019

. Table 230.60. Among stu-

dents ages 12–18 who reported being

bullied at school during the school

year, percentage reporting various fre-

quencies of bullying and the notifica-

tion of an adult at school, by selected

student and school characteristics:

2019. Available at https://nces.ed.

gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/

dt20_230.60.asp.

Centers for Disease Control and Pre-

vention. 2020.

1991–2019 High

School Youth Risk Behavior Survey

Data

. Available at http://nccd.cdc.

gov/youthonline.

Centers for Disease Control and Pre-

vention, National Center for Injury

Prevention and Control. WISQARS

(Web-based Injury Statistics Query and

Reporting System) [interactive data-

base system]. Available from www.cdc.

gov/injury/wisquars.

Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services. Vari-

ous.

Child Maltreatment Reports

for

the years 2009, 2010, 2012, and

2015–2019. Available online from

www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/

child-maltreatment.

Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services. 2006.

The AFCARS Report: Final Estimates

for FY 1998 through FY 2002

. Avail-

able online from www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/

research-data-technology/statistics-

research/afcars.

Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services. 2020.

Trends in Foster Care and Adoption:

FY 2010–FY 2019

. Available online

from www.acf.hhs.gov/cb./report-

trends-foster-care-adoption-

fy-2010-2019.

Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services. Vari-

ous (2004 through 2020).

The AF-

CARS Report: Preliminary Estimates

for fiscal years 2003 through 2019.

Available online from www.acf.hhs.

gov/cb/research-data-technology/

statistics-research/afcars.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2019

and 2020.

National Incident-Based Re-

porting System Master Files

for the

years 2018 and 2019. Retrieved from

the Crime Data Explorer at https://

crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/

downloads-and-docs.

Federal Bureau of Investigation [col-

lector]. Various years.

Supplementary

Homicide Reports

for the years 1980–

2016 [machine-readable data files].

Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Con-

sortium for Political and Social Re-

search, National Archive of Criminal

Justice Data [distributor].

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Uni-

form Crime Reporting Program Data:

Supplementary Homicide Reports,

Master Files

for the years 2017–2019.

Retrieved from the Crime Data Ex-

plorer at https://crime-data-explorer.

fr.cloud.gov/downloads-and-docs.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2021.

Crime in the United States, 2020

Table 1: Crime in the United States by

Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabit-

ants, 2001–2020. Downloaded from

the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer, avail-

able at crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.

gov/pages/home.

National Center for Education Statis-

tics.

Digest of Education

. Table

228.20: Number of nonfatal victimiza-

tions against students ages 12–18 and

rate of victimization per 1,000 stu-

dents, by type of victimization, loca-

tion, and year: 1992 through 2019.

Available from nces.ed.gov/programs/

digest/d20/tables/dt20_228.20.asp.

National Center for Education Statis-

tics.

Digest of Education

. Table

228.25. Number of nonfatal victimiza-

tions against students ages 12–18 and

rate of victimization per 1,000 stu-

dents, by type of victimization, loca-

tion, and selected student characteris-

tics: 2019. Available from nces.ed.gov/

programs/digest/d20/tables/

dt20_228.25.asp.

U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services. Stopbullying.gov

website. Available at www.

Stopbullying.gov.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Chapter 3

Offending by youth

Highly publicized—often violent—

events tend to shape public percep-

tions of offending by youth. It is im-

portant for the public, the media,

elected officials, and juvenile justice

professionals to have an accurate view

of (1) the crimes committed by

youth, (2) the proportion and charac-

teristics of youth involved in law-vio-

lating behaviors, and (3) trends in

these behaviors. This understanding

can come from studying self reports

of offending behavior, victim reports,

and official records.

As documented in the following

pages, many youth who commit

crimes (even serious crimes) never

enter the juvenile justice system. Con-

sequently, developing a portrait of

youth law-violating behavior from of-

ficial records gives only a partial pic-

ture. This chapter presents what is

known about the prevalence and inci-

dence of offending by youth prior to

the youth entering the juvenile justice

system. It relies on self-report and vic-

tim data developed by the Bureau of

Justice Statistics’ National Crime Vic-

timization Survey, the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention’s

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Sur-

vey, and the National Institute on

Drug Abuse’s Monitoring the Future

Study. Official data on offending by

youth are presented from the Federal

Bureau of Investigation’s Supplemen-

tary Homicide Reports and its Nation-

al Incident-Based Reporting System.

In this chapter, readers can learn the

answers to many commonly asked

questions: What proportion of youth

are involved in crime at school? Is it

common for youth to carry weapons

to school? Are students fearful of

crime at school? How prevalent is

drug and alcohol use? How many ho-

micides are committed by youth, and

whom do they murder? When are

crimes committed by youth most likely

to occur? Are there gender and racial/

ethnic differences in the law-violating

behaviors of youth?

Official statistics on offending by

youth as it relates to law enforcement,

juvenile and criminal courts, and cor-

rectional facilities are presented in sub-

sequent chapters in this report.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Self reports and official records are the primary sources of

information on offending by youth

Self-report studies ask

participants to report on their

experiences and behaviors

Much of what is known about the

prevalence and characteristics of of-

fending by and against youth is derived

from self-report studies and official sta-

tistics. Self-report studies can capture

information on behavior that never

comes to the attention of the justice

system. Compared with official data,

self-report studies tend to find a higher

proportion of the youth population in-

volved in law-violating behavior.

Self-report studies, however, have their

own limitations. A youth’s memory

limits the information that can be cap-

tured. This, along with other problems

associated with interviewing young

children, is the reason that the Nation-

al Crime Victimization Survey does not

attempt to interview children under

age 12. Some respondents are also un-

willing to disclose law violations com-

mitted by or against them. Finally, it is

often difficult for self-report studies to

collect data from large enough samples

to develop a sufficient understanding

of relatively rare events, such as serious

violent offending.

Official statistics document what

comes to the attention of the

justice system

Official records underrepresent offend-

ing by youth. Many crimes committed

by youth are never reported to authori-

ties. Many youth who commit offenses

are never arrested or are not arrested

for all of their law violations. As a re-

sult, official records systematically un-

derestimate the scope of offending by

youth. In addition, to the extent that

other factors may influence the types of

crimes or youth that enter the justice

system, official records may distort the

attributes of juvenile crime.

Official statistics can yield multiple

interpretations

Relying on official statistics alone can

lead to an incomplete understanding of

offending by youth. Consider the

trends in youth arrests for drug abuse

violations. Since reaching a peak in the

late 1990s, youth arrests for drug

abuse violations have declined consid-

erably. One interpretation of these offi-

cial statistics could be that youth today

are simply less likely to violate drug

laws than were youth in the 1990s.

National self-report studies, such as

Monitoring the Future, however, find

that illicit drug use changed little since

the mid-2000s. If drug use is relatively

stable, the declining youth arrest rate

for drug crimes may represent societal

tolerance of such behavior and/or an

unwillingness to bring these youth into

the justice system for treatment or

punishment.

Although official records may be inad-

equate measures of the level of offend-

ing by youth, they are good indicators

of justice system activity. Analysis of

variations in official statistics across

time and jurisdictions provides an un-

derstanding of justice system caseloads.

Used together, self-report and

official statistics provide insight

into offending and victimization

Delbert Elliott, founding director of

the Center for the Study and Preven-

tion of Violence and lead research in-

vestigator of the National Youth Sur-

vey, has argued that to abandon either

self-report or official statistics in favor

of the other is “rather shortsighted; to

systematically ignore the findings of ei-

ther is dangerous, particularly when

the two measures provide apparently

contradictory findings.” Elliott stated

that a full understanding of the etiolo-

gy and development of youth law-vio-

lating behavior is enhanced by using

and integrating both self-report and

official data.

Trends in self-report drug use and official records of drug arrest rates

have diverged in recent years

Q Self-report and official data sources send a mixed message regarding youth drug

use. According to self-report data, the proportion of high school seniors reporting

use of any illicit drug (including marijuana) in the past year changed little since

2008, ranging from 36% to 40% through 2019. Conversely, the arrest rate for drug

law violations involving 17-year-olds has declined 55% since 2008 (from 1,655 per

100,000 youth to 745 in 2019).

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Miech et al.’s

Monitoring the Future National Survey on Drug Use,1975–

2010. Volume I: Secondary School Students

and authors’ analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of

Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juvenile Justice.

91 93 95 97 99

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

1,800

2,100

Year

Self-report use

Arrests

Percent of seniors reporting illicit

drug use in the past year

Drug law violation arrest rate

for 17-year-olds (per 100,000)

Chapter 3: Offending by youth

In 2019, about 1 in 8 high school students carried a weapon

in the past month, and 1 in 36 carried a weapon to school

National survey monitors youth

health risk behaviors

The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior Sur-

veillance System (YRBSS) monitors

health risk behaviors that contribute to

the leading causes of death, injury, and

social problems among youth in the

U.S. Every 2 years, YRBSS collects

data from a representative sample of

9th–12th graders in public and private

schools nationwide. The 2019 survey

included responses from 13,677 stu-

dents from 44 states and 27 large cities.

In 2019, 3% of students carried a

weapon to school

The 2019 YRBSS found that 13% of

high school students said they had car-

ried a weapon (e.g., gun, knife, or

club) anywhere in the past 30 days and

3% said they carried a weapon on

school property. Additionally, 4% of

high school students said they carried a

gun (anywhere) at least once in the

past 12 months.

About 1 in 13 high school

students were threatened or

injured with a weapon at school

The proportion of students reporting

weapon-related threats or injuries at

school during the year was 7% in 2019.

Percent of students threatened or injured

with a weapon at school in the past year:

Demographic Total Male Female

Total 7.4% 8.0% 6.5%

9th grade 8.1 8.9 7.2

10th grade 8 8.3 7.3

11th grade 7.1 8.6 5.3

12th grade 5.9 5.9 5.7

White* 7.1 7.6 6.4

Black* 8.8 10.2 7.2

Hispanic 6.9 7.3 6.4

American Indian* 12.6 N/A N/A

Asian* 3.2 4.7 1.6

Multiple race* 11.4 12.2 10.6

* Excludes persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

In 2019, male high school students reported carrying a weapon at

least one day in the past month at higher rates than females, and

White students reported carrying a weapon at higher rates than

Black, Hispanic, and Asian youth

Percentage of students reporting activity:

Demographic

Carried

a weapon

Carried a weapon

on school property

Carried

a gun

Total 13.2% 2.8% 4.4%

Male 19.5 3.7 6.7

Female 6.7 1.7 2.0

9th grade 12.5 2.0 3.9

10th grade 12.2 2.2 4.4

11th grade 12.9 3.3 4.5

12th grade 14.9 3.3 4.7

White 15.0 2.1 3.3

Black/African American 9.4 4.2 7.1

Hispanic/Latino 11.7 3.1 5.6

American Indian/

Alaska Native NA 10.8 NA

Asian 5.2 1.3 0.9

Native Hawaiian/

Other Pacific Islander NA NA NA

Multiple race 17.5 3.3 5.7

Q Male high school students were more likely to report carrying a weapon than

females (19.5% vs. 6.7%) and were more likely to carry a weapon on school

property (3.7% vs. 1.7%) in 2019.

Q White (15.0%) students were more likely than their Hispanic (11.7%), Black

(9.4%), and Asian (5.2%) peers to carry a weapon in the last 30 days. However,

American Indian/Alaskan Native youth were more likely than white, Hispanic,

and Asian youth to report carrying a weapon on school property in the last 30

days.

Q High school juniors and seniors were more likely to report carrying a weapon in

the past 30 days than high school freshman.

Q Males (6.7%) were more likely than females (2.0%) to report carrying a gun in

the past 12 months, and Black (7.1%), Hispanic (5.6%) and white (3.3%) stu-

dents were more likely to report carrying a gun than Asian (0.9%) students.

NA = Too few respondents to develop a reliable estimate.

Notes: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity can

be of any race. Respondents were asked to consider the last 30 days when reporting whether

they had 1) carried a weapon or 2) carried a weapon on school property, and the last 12 months

when reporting about carrying a gun (which did not include days when the youth carried a gun

solely for hunting or for a sport). Weapon includes a gun, knife, or club.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s

1991–2019 High

School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Overall, males were more likely than

females to report being threatened or

injured at school while Asian youth

were less likely than White, Black, or

Hispanic students to report being

threatened or injured.

Fear of school-related crime kept

9 in 100 high schoolers home at

least once in the past month

Nationwide in 2019, 9% of high school

students missed at least 1 day of school

in the past 30 days because they felt

unsafe at school or when traveling to

or from school, up from 6% in 2011.

Females were more likely than males to

miss school because of safety concerns.

Regardless of gender, Hispanic stu-

dents were more likely than White stu-

dents to have missed school because

they felt unsafe. Black males were more

like than White males to stay home,

while there was no statistically signifi-

cant difference between Black and

White females.

1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percent of high school students reporting activity in past 30 days

Carried a weapon on school property

Carried a weapon

In 2019, about 1 in 8 (13%) high school students said they carried a

weapon in the past 30 days, down from more than 1 in 5 (22%) in 1993

Q Roughly 1 in 35 (3%) high school students reported carrying a weapon on school

property in 2019, down from about 1 in 8 (12%) in 1993.

Notes: For each behavior, respondents were asked if they had done so at least one day in the past 30

days. Weapon includes a gun, knife, or club.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s

1991–2019 High School

Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data

Percent of students who felt too unsafe

to go to school in the past month:

Demographic Total Male Female

Total 8.7% 7.5% 9.8%

9th grade 8.8 7.6 10.0

10th grade 8.1 7.1 9.2

11th grade 9.5 8.1 10.7

12th grade 8.1 7.0 8.8

White* 6.7 5.2 8.1

Black* 11.5 12.2 10.8

Hispanic 10.9 9.9 11.8

American Indian* 24.7 N/A N/A

Asian* 5.1 4.9 5.4

Multiple race* 11.1 8.1 13.7

* Excludes persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

More than 1 in 5 high school

students were in a physical fight—

2 in 25 were in a fight at school

In 2019, 22% of high school students

said they had been in one or more

physical fights during the past 12

months, and 8% reported being in a

fight at school. This is down 11 per-

centage points from the 2011 survey.

Regardless of grade level or race/eth-

nicity, males were more likely than fe-

males to engage in fighting.

Percent of students who were in a physi-

cal fight in the past year:

Demographic Total Male Female

Total 21.9% 28.3% 15.3%

9th grade 25.8 32.3 18.6

10th grade 23.3 29.2 17.3

11th grade 20.0 26.7 13.4

12th grade 17.6 24.2 10.9

White* 19.8 26.6 12.7

Black* 30.2 36.9 22.7

Hispanic 22.6 27.7 17.8

American Indian* 40.2 N/A N/A

Asian* 12.0 17.6 6.1

Multiple race* 28.7 40.6 18.3

* Excludes persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

Regardless of gender, fighting was

more common among Black students

than White students. Hispanic females

were more likely than their white peers

to be involved in a fight, however there

was no difference between Hispanic

males and their white counterparts.

Nationwide, 8% of high school stu-

dents had been in a physical fight on

school property one or more times in

the 12 months preceding the survey,

down from 12% in 2011. Male stu-

dents were substantially more likely to

fight at school than female students at

all grade levels and across racial/ethnic

groups. Regardless of gender, Black

students were more likely to fight at

school than White students. Hispanic

females were more likely to fight than

their White counterparts.

Percent of students who were in a physi-

cal fight on school property in the past

year:

Demographic Total Male Female

Total 8.0% 11.4% 4.4%

9th grade 11.0 15.8 5.6

10th grade 8.3 11.4 5.1

11th grade 6.4 9.2 3.5

12th grade 5.8 8.5 2.8

White* 6.4 10.2 2.2

Black* 15.5 18.8 11.7

Hispanic 7.8 10.2 5.6

American Indian* 18.9 N/A N/A

Asian* 4.9 6.8 3.0

Multiple race* 11.0 17.6 4.5

* Excludes persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

Chapter 3: Offending by youth

Across reporting states, the proportion of high school students who

carried a weapon on school property in 2019 ranged from 1%

(Pennsylvania) to about 9% (Alaska)

Percent reporting they carried a

weapon on school property

in the last 30 days

Percent reporting they were

threatened or injured with a

weapon on school property

in the last year

State Total Male Female Total Male Female

U.S. total

2.8% 1.7% 3.7% 7.4% 6.5% 8.0%

Alabama

3.8 5.4 1.8 8.2 9.4 6.0

Alaska

8.5 12.0 3.8 NA NA NA

Arizona

3.9 5.1 2.2 6.7 8.5 4.4

Arkansas

5.3 6.9 3.3 8.1 7.5 8.3

California

2.7 3.1 2.3 12.3 13.9 10.6

Colorado

NA NA NA NA NA NA

Connecticut

3.5 4.6 2.4 6.8 7.4 6.1

Delaware

NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dist. of Columbia

4.9 3.5 6.1 9.4 7.0 11.1

Florida

2.3 3.0 1.4 8.2 9.2 6.9

Georgia

5.2 6.8 3.0 6.0 7.2 3.8

Hawaii

NA NA NA NA NA NA

Idaho

7.1 10.9 3.1 7.9 9.6 6.0

Illinois

2.7 3.4 1.5 8.0 9.6 6.0

Indiana

NA NA NA NA NA NA

Iowa

3.8 5.4 2.1 7.3 8.1 6.0

Kansas

4.2 6.4 1.6 8.2 10.0 5.8

Kentucky

2.7 4.0 0.9 7.1 7.9 5.8

Louisiana

3.8 5.5 1.9 12.4 12.9 10.6

Maine

4.6 6.3 2.3 5.8 6.9 4.3

Maryland

5.7 7.3 3.4 7.8 8.9 5.7

Massachusetts

1.8 2.8 0.7 4.5 5.5 2.9

Michigan

2.5 3.6 1.1 7.4 8.3 6.1

Mississippi

3.4 4.5 2.1 9.8 9.6 9.3

Missouri

4.6 5.9 3.0 NA NA NA

Montana

7.0 10.4 3.3 7.9 10.1 5.2

Nebraska

4.1 5.3 2.2 8.0 7.7 7.9

Nevada

NA NA NA 7.8 8.4 7.0

New Hampshire

2.8 4.0 1.4 6.4 7.0 5.5

New Jersey

2.1 2.4 1.6 7.6 8.9 6.1

New Mexico

4.0 5.2 2.8 NA NA NA

New York

NA NA NA 8.1 10.1 5.3

North Carolina

2.7 2.9 1.9 7.2 8.8 5.1

North Dakota

4.9 6.5 3.0 NA NA NA

Ohio

NA NA NA NA NA NA

Oklahoma

5.2 7.5 2.7 6.1 7.5 4.4

Pennsylvania

1.3 1.5 1.1 7.6 8.6 6.4

Rhode Island

3.7 4.3 2.5 NA NA NA

South Carolina 3.2 4.7 1.6 10.2 12.5 6.7

South Dakota 5.3 7.3 2.6 8.1 8.6 6.8

Tennessee NA NA NA 8.6 10.6 6.5

Texas 3.3 4.5 2.1 6.7 7.3 5.7

Utah 6.9 9.8 3.9 6.5 9.2 3.8

Vermont 4.9 7.1 2.6 7.0 7.6 6.3

Virginia 2.1 2.8 1.4 7.9 9.0 6.7

West Virginia 2.8 4.2 1.2 7.5 7.6 6.6

Wisconsin NA NA NA 7.2 8.1 5.9

Median 3.8 5.2 2.2 7.7 8.6 6.0

NA = Data not available.

Notes: Weapon incudes a gun, knife, or club. Totals include responses from students for whom gender

was unknown. Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming did not participate in the data collection.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s

1991–2019 High School

Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data

Most teens report concern

about school shootings

According to the National Center for

Education Statistics, 453 school

shootings occurred at K-12 schools

in the U.S. between the 2009–10

and 2018–19 school years. More

than 4 in 10 (45%) incidents result-

ed in injuries but no deaths, 30%

resulted in fatalities, and 25% re-

sulted in no injury or deaths. The

453 school shooting incidents pro-

duced 649 casualties (persons in-

jured or killed in the course of the

shooting), one-third (33%) of which

were fatalities (including the death

of the shooter); the remaining casu-

alties involved injuries. The majority

(62%) of school shootings occurred

at high schools, 22% at elementary

schools, and 12% at middle

schools.

A 2018 survey of high school stu-

dents conducted by the PEW Re-

search Center found that more than

half (57%) of youth ages 13–17

stated they were either “very wor-

ried” (25%) or “somewhat worried”

(32%) that a shooting may occur at

their school. Nearly three-quarters

(73%) of Hispanic and 6 in 10 (60%)

of Black youth expressed such con-

cern, compared with half (51%) of

White youth; nearly two-thirds

(64%) of females were concerned a

shooting may occur at their school,

compared with half (51%) of boys.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

In 2019, nearly half of high school seniors reported they had

used an illicit drug at least once—more had used alcohol

The Monitoring the Future Study

tracks the drug use of secondary

school students

Each year, the Monitoring the Future

(MTF) Study asks a nationally repre-

sentative sample of more than 40,000

secondary school students in nearly

400 public and private schools to de-

scribe their drug use patterns through

self-administered questionnaires. Sur-

veying seniors since 1975, the study

expanded in 1991 to include 8th and

10th graders. By design, MTF excludes

dropouts and institutionalized, home-

less, and runaway youth.

Marijuana is the most commonly

used illicit drug among students

In 2019, nearly half (47%) of high

school seniors said they had at least

tried illicit drugs in their lifetime (in-

cluding marijuana), as did nearly four

in ten (37%) 10th graders and one in

five (20%) 8th graders. Marijuana is by

far the most commonly used illicit

drug, and influences the proportion of

students reporting illicit drug use. In

2019, 44% of high school seniors said

they had tried marijuana, as did 34% of

10th graders and 15% of 8th graders.

The prevalence of illicit drug use falls

considerably when marijuana is re-

moved: in 2019, 18% of seniors, 14%

of 10th graders, and 11% of 8th grad-

ers reported using an illicit drug other

than marijuana in their lifetime.

More than one-third (36%) of high

school seniors had used marijuana in

the past year, and 22% used it in the

previous month. MTF also asked stu-

dents if they had used marijuana on 20

or more occasions in the previous 30

days (daily use). In 2019, 6% of high

school seniors reported daily use of

marijuana.

In 2019, 8% of high school seniors re-

ported using amphetamines at least

once, making amphetamines the sec-

ond most prevalent illicit drug after

marijuana. Two percent of seniors re-

ported using amphetamines in the past

month. Hallucinogens and tranquiliz-

ers were the next most prevalent drugs

after amphetamines, with 7% and 6%,

respectively, of seniors reporting use at

least once in their lifetime. A small

proportion of seniors reported using

hallucinogens (2%) or tranquilizers

(1%) in the past month.

In 2019, 4% of seniors said they had

used cocaine at least once in their life.

Half of this group (2% of all seniors)

said they used it in the previous year,

and less than one-quarter of users (1%

of seniors) had used it in the preceding

30 days. About 2% of seniors reported

previous use of crack cocaine: 1% in

the previous year, and less than 1% in

the previous month. Heroin was the

least commonly used illicit drug, with

less than 1% of seniors reporting they

had used it at least once. More than

half of seniors who reported heroin use

said they used it only without a needle.

Alcohol use and vaping nicotine

are widespread at all grade levels

In 2019, nearly 6 in 10 (58%) high

school seniors said they had tried alco-

hol at least once, and nearly three in

ten (29%) said they used it in the pre-

vious month. Even among 10th grad-

ers, the use of alcohol was common:

48% had tried alcohol and almost one-

fifth used it in the month prior to the

survey.

More high school seniors report daily use of marijuana than alcohol

or cigarettes

Proportion of seniors in 2019 who used

Substance in lifetime in last year in last month daily*

Alcohol 58.5% 52.1% 29.3% 1.7%

Been drunk 40.8 32.8 17.5 1.1

Cigarettes 22.3 NA 5.7 2.4

Vaping nicotine 40.8 35.3 25.5 11.6

Any illicit drug** 47.4 38.0 23.7 NA

Marijuana/hashish 43.7 35.7 22.3 6.4

Vaping marijuana 23.7 20.8 14.0 3.5

Amphetamines 7.7 4.5 2.0 0.3

Hallucinogens 6.9 4.6 1.8 0.1

Tranquilizers 6.1 3.4 1.3 0.1

LSD 5.6 3.6 1.4 0.1

Narcotics, not heroin 5.3 2.7 1.0 0.1

Inhalants 5.3 1.9 0.9 0.1

Sedatives 4.2 2.5 1.2 0.1

Cocaine 3.8 2.2 1.0 0.1

MDMA (ecstasy, molly) 3.3 2.2 0.7 0.1

Crack cocaine 1.7 1.0 0.7 0.2

Steroids 1.6 1.0 0.7 0.2

Methamphetamine 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1

Crystal methamphetamine 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.1

Heroin 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1

Q More than 1 in 4 seniors report vaping nicotine at least once in the past month,

and more than 1 in 10 do so on a daily basis.

NA = Not included in the survey.

* Used on 20 or more occasions in the last 30 days or had 1 or more cigarettes per day in the last

30 days.

** Including marijuana

Source: Author’s adaptation of Miech et al’s

Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on

Drug Use, 1975–2019, Volume 1: Secondary Students

Chapter 3: Offending by youth

MTF also asks youth about heavy

drinking (defined as five or more

drinks in a row) in the preceding 2

weeks. Fourteen percent (14%) of se-

niors, 9% of 10th graders, and 4% of

8th graders reported recent heavy

drinking.

Information about vaping was added

to the MTF survey in 2017. In 2017,

one in four (25%) seniors said they had

tried vaping nicotine at least once.

That proportion grew and in 2019,

vaping nicotine was the most likely

substance to be used by students on a

daily basis. In 2019, 41% of 12th grad-

ers, 37% of 10th graders, and 20% of

8th graders had tried vaping nicotine,

and 26% of seniors, 20% of 10th grad-

ers, and 10% of 8th graders vaped nic-

otine in the preceding month. In addi-

tion, 12% of seniors, 7% of 10th

graders, and 2% of 8th graders report-

ed currently vaping nicotine daily.

While vaping nicotine has been on the

rise, the prevalence of cigarette use has

decreased since the 1990s. In 1997,

65% of seniors said they tried ciga-

rettes; that proportion fell to 22% by

2019. Similarly, 25% of seniors, 18% of

10th graders, and 9% of 8th graders re-

ported smoking cigarettes daily in

Vaping use rose quickly and

substantially

The two largest single year increas-

es in substance use recorded by

MTF involve vaping. The 9.9 per-

centage point increase in past

month vaping nicotine by seniors

between 2017 and 2018 was the

largest one-year increase in the his-

tory of MTF, and the 6.5 percentage

point increase in past month vaping

of marijuana between 2018 and

2019 was the second largest one-

year increase. Across grade levels,

past month vaping of nicotine and

marijuana increased annually since

2017.

Past month vaping use:

Grade/

substance 2017 2018 2019

8th grade

Nicotine 3.5% 6.1% 9.6%

Marijuana 1.6 2.6 3.9

10th grade

Nicotine 8.2 16.1 19.9

Marijuana 4.3 7.0 12.6

12th grade

Nicotine 11.0 20.9 25.5

Marijuana 4.9 7.5 14.0

1997; those proportions decreased to

2% for seniors, 1% each for 10th and

8th graders in 2019.

Prevalence rates for most drugs

were similar for males and

females

Among seniors, 30% of males and 28%

of females in 2019 reported alcohol

use in the past 30 days, and 16% of

males and 12% of females said they had

five or more drinks in a row in the pre-

vious 2 weeks. Males were twice as

likely as females to report daily alcohol

use (2% vs. 1%).

Males were equally as likely as females

to have used marijuana in the previous

year (35% each) but more likely in the

previous month (23% vs. 21%), and

For most drugs, a larger proportion of males reported use than

females, and a larger proportion of White youth reported use than

Black or Hispanic youth

Proportion of seniors reporting use

Reference period/

substance Male Female White Black

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Past month

Alcohol 29.8% 28.5% 34.9% 19.4% 24.4%

Been drunk 17.2 17.4 21.9 10.5 11.6

Marijuana/hashish 23.0 21.1 21.3 23.8 20.4

Vaping marijuana 14.7 13.0 13.9 8.0 14.0

Cigarettes 6.9 4.0 7.9 3.2 4.5

Vaping nicotine 28.1 22.9 32.4 10.1 13.9

Past year

Any illicit drug use* 37.5 37.7 38.1 38.3 35.9

Marijuana/hashish 35.2 35.5 35.6 35.7 33.4

Amphetamines 4.9 3.8 5.7 2.7 3.6

Hallucinogens 6.1 2.7 4.5 1.9 4.0

Tranquilizers 3.2 3.4 4.0 2.3 3.0

LSD 4.9 2.1 3.4 1.6 3.2

Narcotics, not heroin 3.4 1.8 3.3 1.7 2.5

Inhalants 2.2 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.3

Sedatives 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.0 2.4

Cocaine 2.6 1.7 2.2 0.9 2.7

MDMA (ecstasy, molly) 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.2 1.5

Steroids 1.4 0.6 0.8 1.8 1.4

Methamphetamine 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5

Crystal methamphetamine 0.7 0.4 0.3 1.5 0.6

Heroin 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.5

* Including marijuana

Notes: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Male and female proportions are for

2019. Race proportions are for the current year and the prior year (2019 and 2018) to increase the

subgroup sample size and provide more stable estimates.

Source: Author’s adaptation of Johston et al’s Demographic Subgroup Trends Among Adolescents

in the Use of Various Licit and Illicit drugs, 1975–2019

Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper No. 94

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

daily during the previous month (8%

vs. 5%).

The proportions of male and female

high school seniors reporting overall

use of illicit drugs other than marijuana

in the previous year were also similar

(12% and 10%), but there are variations

across drugs. The annual prevalence

rate for methamphetamines among

12th grade males was more than three

times the rate for 12th grade females,

while the male rates for hallucinogens,

LSD, heroin, OxyContin, Ritalin, ro-

hypnol, and steroids were more than

twice the rates for females.

Black high school seniors had

lower tobacco, alcohol, and drug

use rates than their White or

Hispanic peers

In 2019, 10% of Black seniors said they

had vaped nicotine in the past 30 days,

compared with 32% of White seniors

and 14% of Hispanic seniors. Similarly,

past month cigarette use was lower for

Black seniors (3%) than either Hispanic

(4%) or White (8%) seniors. About

one-fifth (19%) of Black seniors report-

ed alcohol use in the past 30 days,

compared with 35% of White seniors

and 24% of Hispanic seniors. White se-

niors were more than twice as likely as

Black seniors to have been drunk in

the past month (22% vs. 10%), and

nearly twice as likely as Hispanic se-

niors (12%).

For nearly all drugs, Black seniors re-

ported lifetime, annual, 30-day, and

daily prevalence rates that were lower

than those of their White and Hispanic

counterparts. For example, in 2019,

annual prevalence rates for hallucino-

gens, LSD, cocaine, and ecstasy among

White and Hispanic seniors were at

least two times the rates for Black se-

niors, and amphetamine use among

White seniors was twice that of their

Black peers. Conversely, past month

marijuana use was higher among Black

seniors (24%) than white (21%) or His-

panic (20%) seniors, as were annual

prevalence rates for steroids, metham-

phetamine, crystal methamphetamine,

and heroin.

More than 1 in 5 high school

students were offered, sold, or

given an illegal drug at school

According to the 2019 Youth Risk Be-

havior Surveillance Survey, 22% of high

school students said they were offered,

sold, or given an illegal drug on school

property at least once during the past

12 months. The proportion was signif-

icantly higher for freshman males than

their female counterparts, and the pro-

portions for Black, Hispanic, and

mixed race males were significantly

higher than the proportion for White

males. Overall, Asian students were

least likely to report being offered,

sold, or given illegal drugs on school

property than students of other races.

Percent of students who were offered,

sold, or given illegal drugs on school

property in the past 12 months, 2019:

Demographic Total Male Female

Total 21.8% 22.8% 20.8%

9th grade 21.6 23.8 19.2

10th grade 23.7 25.1 22.1

11th grade 22.0 21.2 22.6

12th grade 19.6 20.6 18.6

White* 19.8 20.6 19.0

Black* 21.5 26.0 16.7

Hispanic 26.7 26.0 27.2

American Indian* 24.2 NA NA

Asian* 14.5 15.6 13.2

Mixed race* 27.8 31.8 24.3

* Excludes persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

NA = Too few respondents to develop an

estimate.

About 1 in 7 high school students tried alcohol before age 13 and

about 1 in 17 tried marijuana

Percent who had used before age 13

Alcohol Marijuana

Demographic Total Male Female Total Male Female

Total

15.0% 16.9% 13.0% 5.6% 7.2% 4.0%

9th grade

18.7 20.1 17.4 6.0 7.2 4.8

10th grade

15.4 17.1 13.6 5.7 7.4 4.1

11th grade

13.3 14.9 11.6 6.0 8.2 3.8

12th grade

11.9 14.9 8.6 4.4 5.8 2.9

White*

13.0 15.3 10.6 4.6 5.9 3.2

Black*

17.4 20.7 13.9 8.3 11.0 5.4

Hispanic

18.4 20.3 16.4 6.3 7.9 4.8

American Indian*

18.7 NA NA 12.6 NA NA

Asian*

8.4 8.7 8.2 1.1 1.1 1.0

Mixed race*

16.2 13.7 18.5 9.7 12.9 6.7

Q Regardless of grade, males were significantly more likely than females to report

marijuana use before age 13.

Q Overall, Black and Hispanic high school students were significantly more likely

to report alcohol and marijuana use before age 13 than were White students.

NA = Too few respondents to develop an estimate.

* Excludes persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s

1991–2019 High School

Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data

Chapter 3: Offending by youth

1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019

10%

20%

30%

40%

Percent of high school students who tried for the

ﬁrst time before age 13

Male

Total

Alcohol

Female

Q A smaller proportion of students are trying alcohol or marijuana prior to entering high school. In 1991, 33% of high school stu-

dents indicated they tried alcohol for the first time before they were 13 years old. By 2019, this proportion was cut in half, as 15%

of high school students indicated they had tried alcohol before age 13.

Q Onset of marijuana use followed a similar pattern. The proportion of high school students who tried marijuana before age 13

reached a peak in 1999, when 11% of high school students reported they had tried marijuana for the first time before age 13. By

2019, 6% of high school students reported they had tried marijuana for the first time before age 13.

Notes: Racial groups exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Hispanic youth can be of any race. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders were included in

the Asian category prior to 1999. Due to a small number of sample respondents, estimates for Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander youth are not avail-

able after 1998. The mixed race category was not introduced until 1999. Due to a small number of sample respondents, estimates for American Indian/Alas-

kan Native youth were not available prior to 2001.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s

1991–2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data

The proportion of high school students who first tried alcohol or marijuana before age 13 has been on the

decline

1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Percent of high school students who tried

for the ﬁrst time before age 13

Alcohol

1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019

12%

16%

Percent of high school students who tried for the

ﬁrst time before age 13

Male

Total

Marijuana

Female

1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent of high school students who tried

for the ﬁrst time before age 13

Marijuana

White Black Hispanic Amer. Indian/ Asian Mixed race

Alaskan Native

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Use of illicit drugs other than marijuana has been on the

decline, as has use of alcohol and cigarettes

75 79 83 87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

10%

20%

30%

40%

Percent of students reporting past month use

12th graders

8th graders

10th graders

Marijuana

Year

Q Use of illicit drugs other than marijuana reported by 8th graders declined since the mid-1990s to reach a historic low in 2012; by

2019, the proportion of 8th graders reporting illicit drug use was about 1% above the 2012 low point. Similarly, illicit drug use re-

ported by 10th and 12th graders declined since the mid-1990s; by 2019, the proportion of 10th and 12th graders reporting illicit

drug use reached a historic low, 4% and 5%, respectively.

Q While use of illicit drugs other than marijuana has declined, past month use of marijuana, the most widely used illicit drug, has in-

creased in recent years particularly among older students. For example, the proportion of 10th and 12th graders reporting past

month marijuana use increased 4 percentage points between 2006 and 2019. Among 8th graders, it was about the same in 2019

as in 2006.

Q In 2019, the proportion of 12th graders who reported past month marijuana use was more than four times the proportion who re-

ported past month use of illicit drugs (22% vs. 5%) but below the proportion who reported past month alcohol use (29%).

Q For all three grades, past-month alcohol use fell steadily since the mid-1990s. The proportion of 10th and 12th graders reporting

past month alcohol use reached a new low in 2019, while the proportion of 8th graders reporting past month alcohol use reached

a low in 2017 and remained relatively steady through 2019.

Q Similar to the trend in alcohol, past month cigarette use has declined for each grade since the mid-1990s. By 2019, the propor-

tion of 10th and 12th graders reporting cigarette use reached an all-time low, while the proportion of 8th graders reporting ciga-

rette use was about one-half of 1% above the 2017 low point. One caveat, however, is that while traditional cigarette use has de-

clined, the proportion of students vaping nicotine has increased. For each grade, the proportion of students vaping nicotine in the

past month more than doubled between 2017 and 2019.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Miech et al.’s

Monitoring the Future National Survey on Drug Use, 1975–2019. Volume I: Secondary School Students

Unlike marijuana use, the proportion of 10th and 12th graders reporting alcohol, cigarette, and illicit drug use

reached historic lows in 2019

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percent of students reporting past month use

12th graders

8th graders

10th graders

Any illicit drug except marijuana

79 83 87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

Year

20%

40%

60%

80%

Percent of students reporting past month use

12 graders

8th graders

10th graders

Alcohol

75 79 83 87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

Year

10%

20%

30%

40%

Percent of students reporting past month use

12th graders

8th graders

10th graders

Cigarettes

75 79 83 87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

Year

Chapter 3: Offending by youth

Change in students’ use of

marijuana and alcohol is tied to

their perception of possible harm

from use

The annual Monitoring the Future

Study, in addition to collecting infor-

mation about students’ use of illicit

drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, also col-

lects data on students’ perceptions re-

garding the availability of these sub-

stances and the risk of harm from using

them.

Between 1975 and 2019, the propor-

tion of high school seniors reporting

use of marijuana in the 30 days prior

to the survey fluctuated, peaking in

1978 and then declining consistently

through 1992. After that, reported use

increased through 1997, declined

through 2006, and generally increased

through 2019. When the perceived risk

of harm (physical or other) from either

regular or occasional use increased,

marijuana use declined; when perceived

risk declined, use increased. The per-

ception that obtaining marijuana was

“fairly easy” or “very easy” declined

from 90% in 1998 to 78% in 2019.

Students’ reported use of alcohol and

perceptions of risk also shifted from

1975 to 2019. After 1978, alcohol use

declined through the early 1990s, rose

slightly through 1997, and then de-

clined steadily to reach a historic low

(29%) in 2019. As with marijuana,

when the perceived risk of harm from

weekend “binge” drinking increased,

past month alcohol use declined; when

perceived risk declined, use generally

increased. Over the past 20 years, the

proportion of seniors reporting that al-

cohol was “fairly easy” or “very easy”

to obtain declined.

75 79 83 87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of seniors

Perceived risk

Past month use

Perceived availability

Marijuana

Year

While perceived availability of marijuana and alcohol stayed within a

limited range, changes in use reflected changes in perceived harm

Perceived availability: Percent saying fairly easy or very easy to get.

Perceived risk: Percent saying great risk of harm in having five or more drinks in a row

once.

Past month use: Percent using once or more in the past 30 days. (The survey question

on alcohol use was revised in 1993 to indicate that a “drink” meant “more than a few

sips”).

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Miech et al.’s

Monitoring the Future National Survey on Drug Use,

1975–2019. Volume I: Secondary School Students

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of seniors

Past month use

Perceived risk

Perceived availability

Alcohol

75 79 83 87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

Year

Perceived availability: Percent saying fairly easy or very easy to get.

Perceived risk: Percent saying great risk or harm in regular use.

Past month use: Percent using once or more in the past 30 days.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Serious violent crimes committed by youth declined

substantially since the mid-1990s

National survey collects data on

victims of crime and the assailant

The National Crime Victimization Sur-

vey (NCVS) asks a nationally represen-

tative sample of persons ages 12 and

older about crimes in which they were

the victim. Administered by the Bu-

reau of Justice Statistics, NCVS is the

primary source of information on the

characteristics of nonfatal criminal vic-

timizations and on the number and

types of crimes not reported to law en-

forcement. Violent crimes captured by

NCVS include rape/sexual assault,

robbery, aggravated assault, and simple

assault.

While NCVS focuses on victims, it also

collects information about the alleged

perpetrator in crimes reported by vic-

tims. As a result, NCVS data can be

used to monitor trends in offending by

youth ages 12–17.

Serious violent crime committed

by youth peaked in 1993

NCVS self-report data for rape/sexual

assault, robbery, and aggravated assault

are often combined with data from the

FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Re-

ports, which reports murders commit-

ted, to monitor trends in serious vio-

lent crime—murder, rape/sexual

assault, robbery, and aggravated as-

sault. The number of serious violent

crimes committed by youth ages

12–17 peaked at 1.1 million in 1993;

in that year, more than one-fourth

(26%) of all serious violent crimes were

committed by youth ages 12–17. By

2019, youth ages 12–17 were involved

in 146,000 serious violent crimes—

about one-tenth (9%) of all serious vio-

lent crimes in that year—and the rate

in 2019 was 87% below the 1993 peak.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Victimizations by youth ages 12−17 (per 1,000 youth ages 12−17)

Serious violent crime rate

The rate at which youth ages 12–17 committed serious violent crimes

peaked in 1993 then generally declined through 2019

Q The proportion of serious violent crimes committed by youth ages 12–17 peaked in

1993 at 26%, then decreased to 11% in 2011. The proportion increased in 2013

before decreasing to the lowest level in 2019. In 2019, 9% of all serious violent vic-

timizations were committed by youth ages 12 to 17.

Q The proportion of serious violent victimizations involving multiple youth ages 12–17

ranged from a high of 65% in 1982 to a low of 30% in 2019.

Notes: Serious violent crime includes aggravated assault, rape, and robbery reported to the NCVS that

involved at least one offender perceived by the victim to be 12–17 years of age, plus the number of

homicides reported to the police that involved at least one perpetrator age 12–17. Homicide data were

not available for 2019 at the time of publication; therefore, the number of homicides for 2018 is includ-

ed in the overall total for 2019. Due to a sample increase and redesign in 2016, estimates in 2016 are

not comparable to estimates for other years. Due to methodological changes in the 2006 National

Crime Victimization Survey, use caution when comparing 2006 criminal perpetration estimates to those

for other years. Because of changes made in the victimization survey, data prior to 1992 are adjusted

to make them comparable with data collected under the redesigned methodology.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics’

America’s

Children:Key National Indicators of Well-Being

.Table BEH5.

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent of victimizations by youth ages 12−17

Serious violent crime

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

The rate at which youth ages 12–17 committed serious violent crimes increased

49% from 1980 to its 1993 peak, then decreased 78% from 1993 to 2002. The rate

increased slightly through 2006, then generally declined. The rate in 2019 was 66%

below the 2006 rate.

Chapter 3: Offending by youth

After reaching a historic low in 2013, the number of

homicides by youth increased 27% through 2019

More than 1 of every 3 murders

in the U.S. are not solved

In 2019, the FBI reported that 16,400

persons were murdered in the U.S. In

an estimated 10,100 (61%) of these

murders, the incident was cleared by

arrest or by exceptional means—that is,

either a person was arrested and turned

over to the court for prosecution or

was identified but law enforcement

could not place formal charges (e.g.,

death of the perpetrator). In the re-

maining 6,300 murders (36%) in 2019,

law enforcement did not identify who

committed the crime and their demo-

graphic characteristics are not known.

Estimating the demographic character-

istics of these unknown individuals is

difficult. Their attributes likely differ

from those known to have committed

murder. For example, it is likely that a

greater proportion of those known to

law enforcement have family ties to

their victims and that a larger propor-

tion of homicides committed by

strangers go unsolved. An alternative

to estimating characteristics of those

responsible for unattributed murders is

to trend only murders committed by

known individuals. Either approach

creates its own interpretation prob-

lems. In this section, all analyses of the

FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Re-

ports

(SHR) focus solely on individuals

known to have committed a murder

and, therefore, juveniles known to have

committed a murder.

Juveniles were involved in 1 in 14

homicides in 2019

Youth under the age of 18 were in-

volved in an estimated 780 murders in

the U.S. in 2019—7% of all murders.

In half of these murders (50%), the ju-

venile acted alone, in 11% they acted

with one or more other youth, and in

39% they acted with at least one adult.

In 2019, 86% of the homicide victims

of juveniles were male, 42% were

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Year

Homicide victims of juveniles, known to law enforcement

Juvenile with adult

Multiple juveniles

One juvenile

The number of homicides committed by juveniles reached a historic low

in 2013—74% below the 1994 peak—then increased 27% through 2019

Q In the 1980s, one-fourth (25%) of the murders committed by juveniles also involved

an adult. The proportion grew to 31% in the 1990s, 38% in the 2000s, and reached

41% for the years 2010–2019.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980–2019.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Year

Homicide victims of juveniles, known to law enforcement

One juvenile

Juvenile acting with others

The number of murders committed by a juvenile acting alone increased

between 2013 and 2019

Q Murders involving a juvenile acting alone peaked in 1993, then fell 79% through

2013. Since reaching this historic low, the number of murders involving a lone juve-

nile increased 36% through 2019.

Q The proportion of murders involving a juvenile acting alone has gradually declined,

from 66% in the 1980s to 59% in the 1990s, and to 50% in the 2010s.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980–2019.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

White, and 55% were Black. The over-

whelming majority (88%) of homicide

victims of juveniles were killed with a

firearm. More than half (57%) of the

victims of juveniles were acquaintances,

strangers (i.e., no personal relationship

to the juvenile) accounted for 27% of

victims, and 16% of victims were family

members.

The proportion of murders committed

by a juvenile that involved at least one

other individual gradually increased

since 1980. In the 1980s, about one-

third of all murders committed by ju-

veniles involved at least one other indi-

vidual; this proportion grew to 47% in

the 2000s, and reached 50% in 2019.

The overwhelming majority of murders

committed by juveniles acting with

other individuals involved an adult,

rather than a youth. Between 2010 and

2019, an adult was involved in 81% of

all murders committed by youth that

involved multiple individuals.

Fewer juveniles were involved in

murder in 2019 than in the 1990s

The increase in youth violence through

the mid-1990s resulted in a number of

changes in state legislation that ex-

posed more youth to prosecution in

the adult criminal justice system. Much

of the concern was fueled by the dra-

matic rise in murders committed by

youth between 1984 and 1994. How-

ever, the decade-long increase in homi-

cides committed by youth was fol-

lowed by a long period of decline: the

number of murders committed by

youth fell 72% between 1994 and

2013, reaching its lowest level since at

least 1980. Despite a 27% increase

since 2013, juveniles in 2019 were

considerably less likely to be implicated

in murder than youth in the 1990s: the

number of murders involving youth in

2019 was 66% below the 1994 peak.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Victim age

Homicide victims of juveniles, known to law enforcement, 2010−2019

Any juvenile involved

Only juveniles involved

Juveniles with adults

Between 2010 and 2019, most victims of homicide committed by youth

were under age 25

Q Nearly 6 in 10 (58%) victims of homicide committed by juveniles were under age

25: 24% were under age 18 and 34% were ages 18–24. Conversely, 4% of victims

of homicide committed by juveniles were over age 64.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 2010–2019.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Victim age

Percent of all homicide victims in age group, 2010−2019

(with persons responsible known to law enforcement)

Juvenile involved in committing homicde

Between 2010 and 2019, youth age 15 were most likely to be killed by a

youth

Q Among all murder victims between 2010 and 2019, the proportion killed by juve-

niles dropped from 27% for victims age 15 to 3% for victims age 24 and then re-

mained at or near 3% for all victims older than 25.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 2010–2019.

Chapter 3: Offending by youth

Trends in murders by juveniles are

driven by several factors

The dramatic rise in murders by juve-

niles between 1984 and 1994 was in-

fluenced by specific types of murders.

Overall, the number of juveniles identi-

fied by law enforcement to have com-

mitted homicide nearly tripled during

this period. However, the number of

male juveniles implicated in homicides

increased more than 200%, while the

number of females increased less than

40%. Firearms also contributed to the

increase: the number of juveniles who

committed murder with a firearm qua-

drupled during this period, while the

number committing murder without a

firearm increased less than 30%. Finally,

the number of juveniles who killed a

family member increased about 20%,

while the number of juveniles who

killed an acquaintance or a stranger

both increased about 220% during this

period.

In short, the historic rise in juvenile

murder offending between 1984 and

1994 was the result of a growth in

murders by male juveniles who com-

mitted their crime with a firearm and

whose victims were nonfamily members.

These factors combined to account for

74% of the increase in homicides by ju-

veniles between 1984 and 1994.

Nearly all of the growth in homicides

committed by juveniles was erased by

the early 2000s, and by 2013, the

number of juveniles known to have

committed homicide reached a historic

low. Two-thirds (66%) of the overall

decline was attributable to the drop in

murders of nonfamily members by ju-

venile males with a firearm.

Since reaching a historic low in 2013,

the number of juveniles known to have

committed homicide increased through

2019, but the increase was not as sub-

stantial as the increase 3 decades prior.

The number of juveniles known to

have committed homicide in 2019 was

40% above the 2013 low-point, and

65% below the 1994 peak.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Year

Juveniles known by law enforcement to have committed homicide

Male

Female

After reaching a historic low in 2013, the number of known male and

female juveniles who committed homicide increased through 2019

Q While the relative increase in female juveniles who committed homicide outpaced

that of males between 2013 and 2019 (116% vs. 35%), females account for a small

share of juveniles who commit homicide; since 2004, females accounted for 10%

or less of juveniles who committed homicide.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980–2019.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Year

Juveniles known by law enforcement to have committed homicide

Black

White

Other race

Despite recent increases, the number of juveniles who committed

homicide in 2019 was well below the mid-1990s peak for both White

and Black juveniles

Q The number of juveniles who committed homicide peaked in 1993 for Black youth

and 1994 for White youth. Since their respective peaks, the number of juveniles

who committed homicide declined for both race groups through the mid-2010s and

then increased. By 2019, the number of White juveniles who committed homicide

was 51% above their 2013 low point and 63% below the 1994 peak. Similarly, the

number of known Black juveniles who committed homicide in 2019 was 33% above

their 2012 low point and 55% below the 1993 peak.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980–2019.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Compared with the 1994 peak, the

2019 profile of youth known to have

committed homicide included larger

proportions of females and White

youth. Additionally, a larger proportion

of juveniles used a firearm in 2019

than in 1994, and a larger proportion

of victims were either family members

or acquaintances.

Profile of juveniles known by law enforce-

ment to have committed homicide:

Characteristic 2013 2019

Age 100% 100%

Younger than 15 11 12

Age 15 14 17

Age 16 26 28

Age 17 50 43

Gender 100% 100%

Male 94 91

Female 6 9

Race 100% 100%

White 35 39

Black 63 59

American Indian 1 1

Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1

Weapon 100% 100%

Firearm 71 85

No firearm 29 15

Relationship to victim 100% 100%

Family 12 12

Acquaintance 50 59

Stranger 38 29

Note: 2013 was the year with the fewest

number of juveniles known to have committed

homicide. Detail may not total 100% because

of rounding.

The number of juveniles who committed homicide with a firearm

reached a historic low in 2013 and has since increased

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Year

Juveniles known by law enforcement to have committed homicide

Acquaintance

Stranger

Family

Q Annually since 1980, juveniles killed more acquaintances than strangers. For exam-

ple, in the 10-year period from 2010 through 2019, 52% juveniles killed an acquain-

tance, 36% killed a stranger, and 12% killed a family member.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980–2019.

Victims of juveniles known to have committed homicide were more

likely to be acquaintances or strangers than family members

Q The number of juveniles who committed homicide with a firearm increased between

2001 and 2007, then declined 46% through 2013, reaching its lowest level since at

least 1980. Since the 2013 low point, the number of juveniles who committed homi-

cide with a firearm increased 68% through 2019.

Q While the number of juveniles who committed homicide with a firearm in 2019 was

well below the 1994 peak, the proportion who committed homicide with a firearm

was higher in 2019 (85%) than in 1994 (81%).

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980–2019.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Year

Juveniles known by law enforcement

to have committed homicide

Firearm involved

No ﬁrearm involved

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Year

Percent of juveniles known by law enforcement

to have committed homicide

Firearm involved

Chapter 3: Offending by youth

The characteristics of homicides committed by juveniles varied with the age, gender, and race of the

juvenile

Juveniles known to law enforcement to have committed homicide, 2010–2019

Characteristic All Male Female

Younger than

age 16 Age 16 Age 17 White Black

Victim age 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Younger than 13 3 3 10 7 2 2 4 3

13 to 17 20 21 14 23 23 17 21 20

18 to 24 34 34 32 25 33 39 33 35

Older than 24 43 43 44 45 43 42 42 43

Victim gender 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Male 87 88 73 82 88 88 84 88

Female 13 12 27 18 12 12 16 12

Victim race 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

White 45 45 52 49 46 43 83 23

Black 51 52 45 48 51 54 14 75

American Indian 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1

Asian/Pacific Islander 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1

Victim/offender relationship* 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Family 12 11 24 21 10 8 17 7

Acquaintance 52 52 53 46 53 55 53 51

Stranger 36 37 23 34 38 37 30 41

Firearm used 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Yes 76 78 55 71 74 79 64 83

No 24 22 45 29 26 21 36 17

Number of offenders* 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

One 38 38 30 42 38 36 42 35

More than one 62 62 70 58 62 64 58 65

Q Between 2010 and 2019, a greater proportion of homicides committed by female juveniles involved child victims under age

13 than those committed by male youth (10% vs. 3%).

Q A larger proportion of victims of juveniles under age 16 were younger than age 18 (30%) than were the victims of juveniles

age 16 (25%) or age 17 (19%).

Q Female juveniles who commit homicide were more likely to involve female victims than homicides by males (27% vs. 12%)

and to have victims who were family members (24% vs.11%).

Q While the overwhelming majority of homicides committed by juveniles are intraracial, homicides committed by Black youth

were more likely than those by White youth to involve victims of another race (25% vs. 17%).

Q Firearms were more likely to be involved in murders by male juveniles than females (78% vs. 55%) and in murders by Black

juveniles than White juveniles (83% vs. 64%).

Q The victims of White juveniles who committed homicide were more likely to be a family member than were the victims of

Black juveniles (17% vs. 7%).

Q Juveniles younger than age 16 who committed homicide were more likely to commit their crimes alone (42%), than juveniles

age 16 (38%) or age 17 (36%), as were White juveniles compared with Black juveniles (42% vs. 35%). Conversely, female ju-

veniles were more likely to commit their crimes with others than were males (70% vs. 62%).

* In this dataset, the term “offender” is used to describe the person identified by law enforcement as having committed the homicide. This could mean

either that the person was arrested and turned over to the court for prosecution, or was identified but not placed under formal charges (e.g., because

they were deceased).

Note: Data for American Indian and Asian are not shown due to the small number of these youth involved in homicide. Detail may not total 100% be-

cause of rounding.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the FBI’s

Supplementary Homicide Reports

for 1980–2019.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

The daily timing of violent crime committed by youth differs

on school and nonschool days

Youth and adults commit violent

crimes at different times

The FBI’s National Incident-Based Re-

porting System (NIBRS) collects infor-

mation on each crime reported to con-

tributing law enforcement agencies,

including the date and time of day the

crime occurred. For calendar years

2018 and 2019, agencies in 45 states

and the District of Columbia provided

information on the time of day of re-

ported crimes. Analyses of these data

show that for many offenses, youth

commit crimes at different times than

adults, and the youth patterns vary on

school and nonschool days.

Violent crimes (murder, sexual assault,

robbery, and aggravated and simple as-

sault) committed by adults increased

hourly throughout the day, peaking

around 9 p.m., then declining to a low

point by 5 a.m. In contrast, violent

crimes committed by youth peaked at

3 p.m. (the hour at the end of the

school day) and then generally de-

clined hour by hour until the low point

at 5 a.m. At 9 p.m. when the number

of adult violent crimes peaked, the

number of violent crimes committed

by youth was about half the number at

3 p.m.

The importance of the afterschool peri-

od in youth violence is confirmed

when the days of the year are divided

into two groups: school days (Mondays

through Fridays in the months of Sep-

tember through May, excluding holi-

days) and nonschool days (every day

from June through August, including

holidays). A comparison of the school-

and nonschool-day violent crime pat-

terns finds that the 3 p.m. peak occurs

only on school days and only for

youth. The timing of adult violent

crimes is similar on school and non-

school days, with one exception: the

peak occurs later on non-school days

(i.e., weekends and summer days).

Finally, the temporal time pattern of vi-

olent crimes committed by youth on

nonschool days is similar to that of

Violent crime committed by youth peaks in the afterschool hours on

school days

Q Nearly two-thirds (64%) of violent crime committed by youth occurred on school

days, while 53% of violent crime by adults took place on nonschool days.

Q While the number of juveniles who committed homicide with a firearm in 2019 was

well below the 1994 peak, the proportion who committed homicide with a firearm

was higher in 2019 (85%) than in 1994 (81%).

Notes: Violent crime includes murder, violent sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple

assault.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018

and 2019.

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

10%

Percent of all persons in age group who committed offense

18 and older

Younger than 18

Violent crime

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

Violent crime by youth

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all adults who committed offense

School days

Nonschool days

Violent crime by adults

Chapter 3: Offending by youth

adults (but peaks an hour earlier than

that of adults).

Crime reduction efforts should

focus on the after school and

early evening hours

The number of school days in a year is

essentially equal to the number of non-

school days in a year. Based on 2018–

2019 NIBRS data, 64% of all violent

crimes by youth occurred on school

days, and nearly 1 of every 5 (18%) of

these crimes occurred in the 4 hours

between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. A smaller

proportion of violent crime committed

by youth (14%) occurred during the

standard youth curfew hours of 10

p.m. to 6 a.m. However, the annual

number of hours in the curfew period

(i.e., 8 hours every day in the year) is 4

times greater than the number of hours

in the 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. period on

school days (i.e., 4 hours in half of the

days in the year). Therefore, the rate of

violence by youth in the afterschool

period was more than 5 times the rate

in the juvenile curfew period. Conse-

quently, efforts to reduce offending by

youth after school would appear to

have greater potential to decrease a

community’s violent crime rate than

curfews.

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all male youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

Male violent crime

The time-of-day patterns of violent crime committed by youth are similar for males and females and for White

youth and Black youth on school and nonschool days

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all female youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

Female violent crime

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all White youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

White violent crime

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all Black youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

Black violent crime

Notes: Violent crime includes murder, violent sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018 and 2019.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

10%

Percent of all persons in age group who committed offense

18 and older

Younger than 18

Aggravated assault

The daily timing of aggravated assault and sexual assault committed by youth vary for school days and

nonschool days

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

Aggravated assault by youth

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

10%

12%

Percent of all persons in age group who committed offense

18 and older

Younger than 18

Sexual assault

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

Sexual assault by youth

Q Aggravated assault committed by youth peaked at 3 p.m. on school days, coinciding with the end of the school day, while sexual

assaults committed by youth spiked at 8 a.m., noon, and 3 p.m. on school and nonschool days.

Q Unlike the pattern for aggravated assault and sexual assault, the daily timing of robbery by youth is similar to the adult pattern,

peaking in the evening hours on both school and nonshool days.

Q Aggravated assault committed by youth is more likely before 8 p.m. on school days than on nonschool days (i.e., weekends and

all summer days).

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018 and 2019.

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all persons in age group who committed offense

18 and older

Younger than 18

Robbery

6 a.m.

noon

6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

Robbery by youth

Chapter 3: Offending by youth

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

10%

Percent of all persons in age group who committed offense

18 and older

Younger than 18

Violent crime with injury

Youth injure more victims in the hours around the close of school than at any other time

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

Violent crime with

injury by youth

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all youth who committed offense

Stranger

Acquaintance

Violent crime by youth

Family

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all adults who committed offense

Stranger

Acquaintance

Violent crime by adults

Family

Notes: Violent crime includes murder, violent sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. However, violent crime with a firearm excludes

simple assault (a firearm is not applicable to simple assault because the offense would become aggravated assault).

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018 and 2019.

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all persons in age group who committed offense

18 and older

Younger than 18

Violent crime

with a ﬁrearm

Similar to adults, youth are most likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

Violent crime with

a ﬁrearm by youth

The after school peak in violent crime by youth largely involves victims who are acquaintances

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

National Incident-Based Reporting System Master Files

for 2018 and 2019.

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

10%

Percent of all persons in age group who committed offense

Younger than 18

18 and older

Larceny−theft

Unlike the daily pattern for violent crime, larceny-theft follows a similar pattern for youth and adults, and for

youth on school and nonschool days

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

Larceny−theft by youth

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

10%

Percent of all persons in age group who committed offense

18 and older

Younger than 18

Weapons law violation

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

Weapons law violation by youth

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all persons in age group who committed offense

18 and older

Younger than 18

Drug law violation

The daily timing of drug law violations known to law enforcement indicate how often schools are a setting for

such offenses and their detection

6 a.m. noon 6 p.m. midnight 6 a.m.

Percent of all youth who committed offense

Nonschool days

School days

Drug law violation by youth

Similar to the pattern for drug law violations, the time and day of weapons law violations by youth reflect the

role schools play in bringing these matters to the attention of law enforcement

Chapter 3: Offending by youth

Sources

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Arrest Data

Analysis Tool [available online: www.

bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=/

arrests/index.cfm. [Retrieved Decem-

ber 12, 2018.]

Centers for Disease Control, National

Center for Injury Prevention and Con-

trol, WISQARS (Web-Based Injury

Statistics Query and Reporting Sys-

tem).

Leading Causes of Death Re-

ports, 1981–2019

. Available online:

wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal-leading. [Ac-

cessed January 19, 2022.]

Centers for Disease Control and Pre-

vention.

1991–2019 High School Risk

Behavior Survey Data

. Available on-

line: nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline. [Ac-

cessed January 19, 2022.]

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Vari-

ous years.

Crime in the United States

for 2015 through 2019. Washington,

DC: FBI.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2019

and 2020.

National Incident-Based Re-

porting System

Master File

for 2018

and 2019 [data files].

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Vari-

ous years.

Supplementary Homicide

Reports

for 1980 through 2019 [data

files].

Federal Interagency Forum on Child

and Family Statistics.

America’s Chil-

dren: Key National Indicators of Well-

Being

. Table BEH5: Youth perpetra-

tors of serious violent crimes: Rate and

number of serious violent crimes by

youth ages 12–17. Available online:

www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/

tables/beh5.asp.

Graf, N. 2018. A majority of U.S.

teens fear a shooting could happen at

their school, and most parents share

their concern. Pew Research Center.

Available online: www.pewresearch.

org/fact-tank/2018/04/18/a-

majority-of-u-s-teens-fear-a-shooting-

could-happen-at-their-school-and-

most-parents-share-their-concern/.

Arrest rate source note

Arrest estimates developed by the

Bureau of Justice Statistics for 1990–

2014 were retrieved from their

Arrest

Data Analysis Tool

[available online at

www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&

surl=/arrests/index.cfm, retrieved De-

cember 12, 2018]; the National Cen-

ter for Juvenile Justice developed ar-

rest estimates for 2015–2019 based

on data published in the FBI’s

Crime

in the United States

reports for the

respective years; population data for

1990–1999 is from the National Cen-

ter for Health Statistics (prepared by

the U.S. Census Bureau with support

from the National Cancer Institute),

Bridged-Race Intercensal Estimates

of the July 1, 1990–July 1, 1999,

United States Resident Population by

County, Single-Year of Age, Sex,

Race, and Hispanic Origin

[machine-

readable data files available online at

www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_

race.htm, released July 26, 2004];

population data for 2000–2009 is

from the National Center for Health

Statistics (prepared under a collabor-

ative arrangement with the U.S. Cen-

sus Bureau),

Intercensal Estimates of

the Resident Population of the United

States for July 1, 2000–July 1, 2009,

by Year, County, Single-Year of Age (0,

1, 2, . . . , 85 Years and Over), Bridged

Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex

[ma-

chine-readable data files available on-

line at www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/

bridged_race.htm, as of October 26,

2012, following release by the U.S.

Census Bureau of the revised un-

bridged intercensal estimates by

5-year age group on October 9, 2012];

and population data for 2010–2019

are from the National Center for Health

Statistics (prepared under a collabora-

tive arrangement with the U.S. Census

Bureau),

Vintage 2019 Postcensal Es-

timates of the Resident Population of

the United States (April 1, 2010, July

1, 2010–July 1, 2019), by Year, County,

Single-Year of Age (0, 1, 2, . . . , 85

Years and Over), Bridged Race, His-

panic Origin, and Sex

[machine-read-

able data files available online at www.

cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm,

as of July 9, 2020, following release

by the U.S. Census Bureau of the un-

bridged vintage 2019 postcensal esti-

mates by 5-year age group, retrieved

on July 29, 2020].

Johnston, L., Miech, R., O’Malley, P.,

Bachman, J., Schulenberg, J., and Pat-

rick, M. 2020. Demographic subgroup

trends among adolescents in the use of

various licit and illicit drugs, 1975–

2019.

Monitoring the Future Occa-

sional Paper No. 94

. Ann Arbor, MI:

Institute for Social Research, the Uni-

versity of Michigan.

Miech, R., Johnston, L., O’Malley, P.,

Bachman, J., Schulenberg, J., and Pat-

rick, M. 2018.

Monitoring the Future

National Survey Results on Drug Use,

1975–2017: Volume I, Secondary

School Students

. Ann Arbor, MI: Insti-

tute for Social Research, the University

of Michigan.

Miech, R., Johnston, L., O’Malley, P.,

Bachman, J., Schulenberg, J., and Pat-

rick, M. 2019.

Monitoring the Future

National Survey Results on Drug Use,

1975–2018: Volume I, Secondary

School Students

. Ann Arbor, MI: Insti-

tute for Social Research, the University

of Michigan.

Miech, R., Johnston, L., O’Malley, P.,

Bachman, J., Schulenberg, J., and Pat-

rick, M. 2020.

Monitoring the Future

National Survey Results on Drug Use,

1975–2019: Volume I, Secondary

School Students

. Ann Arbor, MI: Insti-

tute for Social Research, the University

of Michigan. Available online:

monitoringthefuture.org/results/

publications/monographs.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

National Center for Education Statis-

tics.

Digest of Education

. Table

228.12. Number of casualties from

shootings at public and private elemen-

tary and secondary schools, number of

school shootings, and number of

schools with shootings, by type of ca-

sualty and level of school: 2000–01

through 2020–21 (updated September

2021). Available online: nces.ed.gov/

programs/digest/d21/tables/

dt21_228.12.asp.

National Center for Health Statistics

(prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau

with support from the National Cancer

Institute),

Bridged-Race Intercensal

Estimates of the July 1, 1990–July 1,

1999, United States Resident Popula-

tion by County, Single-Year of Age,

Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin

[data

files available online at www.cdc.gov/

nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm, released

July 26, 2004].

National Center for Health Statistics

(prepared under a collaborative ar-

rangement with the U.S. Census Bu-

reau),

Intercensal Estimates of the Res-

ident Population of the United States

for July 1, 2000–July 1, 2009, by Year,

County, Single-Year of Age (0, 1, 2, . .

. , 85 Years and Over), Bridged Race,

Hispanic Origin, and Sex

[data files

available online at www.cdc.gov/nchs/

nvss/bridged_race.htm, as of October

26, 2012, following release by the U.S.

Census Bureau of the revised un-

bridged intercensal estimates by 5-year

age group on October 9, 2012].

National Center for Health Statistics

(prepared under a collaborative ar-

rangement with the U.S. Census Bu-

reau),

Vintage 2019 Postcensal Esti-

mates of the Resident Population of

the United States (April 1, 2010, July

1, 2010–July 1, 2019), by Year, Coun-

ty, Single-Year of Age (0, 1, 2, . . . , 85

Years and Over), Bridged Race, His-

panic Origin, and Sex

[data files avail-

able online at www.cdc.gov/nchs/

nvss/bridged_race.htm, as of July 9,

2020, following release by the U.S.

Census Bureau of the unbridged vin-

tage 2019 postcensal estimates by

5-year age group, retrieved on July 29,

2020].

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Chapter 4

Juvenile justice system

structure and process

The first juvenile court in the United

States was established in Chicago in

1899, nearly 125 years ago. But in

the long history of law and justice, ju-

venile justice is a relatively new devel-

opment. The juvenile justice system

has experienced several distinct peri-

ods of change. After the establishment

juvenile courts around the country

there was a period where the emphasis

was on rehabilitation rather than pun-

ishment, on the child rather than the

crime. But over time the notion of re-

habilitation lost its allure. By the late

1960s, juvenile court had become

more punitive and critics argued that

its informality and secrecy should not

deny youth the due process protec-

tions afforded adults. This led to sev-

eral landmark Supreme Court deci-

sions, federal legislation, and changes

in state statutes that made juvenile

courts more like criminal courts.

In the early 1990s, perceptions of a

juvenile crime epidemic focused the

public’s attention on the juvenile jus-

tice system’s ability to effectively con-

trol youth who commit violent of-

fenses. As a reaction, states adopted

numerous legislative changes in an ef-

fort to crack down on juvenile crime.

In fact, through the mid-1990s, near-

ly every state made it easier to expose

more youth to criminal court prose-

cution. Although the juvenile and

criminal justice systems had grown

similar, the juvenile justice system has

remained unique, guided by its own

philosophy—with an emphasis on indi-

vidualized justice and serving the best

interests of the child—and legislation,

and is implemented by its own set of

agencies.

During the 2000s there has been a

distinct shift away from the harshness

of the 1990s. Several states have

changed their jurisdictional boundaries

to keep youth in the juvenile system.

There is less reliance on correctional

placements and an emphasis on system

responses being developmentally ap-

propriate and evidence-based.

This chapter describes the structure

and process of the juvenile justice sys-

tem, focusing on delinquency and sta-

tus offense matters. (Chapter 2 dis-

cusses the handling of child

maltreatment matters.) Parts of this

chapter provide an overview of the his-

tory of juvenile justice in the United

States, including significant Supreme

Court decisions that have shaped the

juvenile justice system, and generally

describe case processing in the juvenile

justice system. Also summarized in this

chapter are state variations in key as-

pects of the juvenile justice system.

Much of this information was drawn

from National Center for Juvenile Jus-

tice analyses of juvenile codes in each

state. (Note: the District of Columbia

is often referred to as a state.)

This chapter also includes information

on juveniles processed in the federal

justice system.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

The juvenile justice system was founded on the concept of

rehabilitation through individualized justice

Early in U.S. history, children who

broke the law were treated the

same as adults

Throughout the late 18th century, “in-

fants” below the age of reason (tradi-

tionally age 7) were presumed to be

incapable of criminal intent and were

exempt from prosecution and punish-

ment. Children as young as 7, though,

could stand trial in criminal court, and

if found guilty, could be sentenced to

prison or even given a death sentence.

The 19th century movement that led

to the establishment of the juvenile

court in the U.S. had its roots in 16th

century European educational reforms

that changed the perception of chil-

dren from one of miniature adults to

one of persons with less than fully de-

veloped moral and cognitive capacities.

As early as 1825, the Society for the

Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency es-

tablished a facility specifically for the

housing, education, and rehabilitation

of children who commit offenses.

Soon, facilities exclusively for children

were established in most major cities.

By mid-century, these privately operat-

ed child “prisons” were under criticism

for various abuses. Many states then

took on the responsibility of operating

such facilities.

The first juvenile court in the

United States was established in

Cook County, Illinois, in 1899

Illinois passed the Juvenile Court Act

in 1899, which established the nation’s

first separate juvenile court. The Brit-

ish doctrine of parens patriae (the state

as parent) was the rationale for the

right of the state to intervene in the

lives of children in a manner different

from the way it dealt with the lives of

adults. The doctrine was interpreted to

mean that because children were not

of full legal capacity, the state had the

inherent power and responsibility to

provide protection for children whose

natural parents were not providing ap-

propriate care or supervision. A key

element was the focus on the welfare

of the child. Thus, the child accused of

law violations was also seen as in need

of the court’s benevolent intervention.

Juvenile courts flourished for the

first half of the 20th century

By 1910, 32 states had established

juvenile courts and/or probation ser-

vices. By 1925, all but two states had

followed suit. Rather than merely pun-

ishing youth for their crimes, juvenile

courts sought to turn these wayward

youth into productive citizens—

through rehabilitation and treatment.

The mission to help children in trouble

was stated clearly in the laws that es-

tablished juvenile courts. This mission

led to procedural and substantive dif-

ferences between the juvenile and

criminal justice systems.

In the first 50 years of the juvenile

court’s existence, most juvenile courts

had exclusive original jurisdiction over

all youth younger than age 18 who

were charged with violating criminal

laws. However, in some states the

upper age of juvenile jurisdiction was

lower in certain cities or counties or

was different for boys than for girls.

Only if the juvenile court waived its ju-

risdiction in a case, could a child be

transferred to criminal court and tried

as an adult. Transfer decisions were

made on a case-by-case basis using a

“best interests of the child and public”

standard.

The focus on individuals and not

offense, on rehabilitation and not

punishment, changed procedures

Unlike the criminal justice system,

where prosecutors selected cases for

trial, the juvenile court controlled its

own intake. And unlike criminal prose-

cutors, juvenile court intake considered

extra-legal as well as legal factors in de-

ciding how to handle cases. Juvenile

court intake also had discretion to han-

dle cases informally, bypassing judicial

action altogether.

In the courtroom, juvenile court hear-

ings were much less formal than crimi-

nal court proceedings. In this benevo-

lent court—with the express purpose

of protecting children—due process

protections afforded to criminal defen-

dants were deemed unnecessary. In the

early juvenile courts, attorneys for the

state and the youth were not consid-

ered essential to the operation of the

system, especially in less serious cases.

A range of dispositional options was

available to a judge wanting to help re-

habilitate a child. Regardless of offense,

outcomes ranging from warnings to

probation supervision to training

school confinement could be part of

the treatment plan. Dispositions were

tailored to the “best interests of the

child.” Treatment lasted until the child

was “cured” or became an adult (age

21), whichever came first.

As public confidence in the

treatment model waned, due

process protections were

introduced

In the 1950s and 1960s, society came

to question the ability of the juvenile

court to succeed in rehabilitating

youth who violated the law. The treat-

ment techniques available to juvenile

justice professionals often failed to

demonstrate effectiveness. Although

the goal of rehabilitation through indi-

vidualized justice—the basic philoso-

phy of the juvenile justice system—was

not in question, professionals were

concerned about the growing number

of youth institutionalized indefinitely

in the name of treatment.

In a series of decisions beginning in

the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court

changed the juvenile court process.

Formal hearings were now required if

the juvenile court was going to waive

its jurisdiction, and youth facing possi-

ble confinement were given Fifth

Amendment protection against self-in-

crimination and rights to receive notice

of the charges against them, to present

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

The first case in juvenile court

After years of development and

months of compromise, the Illinois

legislature passed, on April 14, 1899,

a law permitting counties in the state

to designate one or more of their cir-

cuit court judges to hear all cases in-

volving children younger than age 16

for neglect, dependency, or delin-

quency. The legislation stated that

these cases were to be heard in a

special courtroom that would be des-

ignated as “the juvenile courtroom”

and referred to as the “Juvenile

Court.” Thus, the first juvenile court

opened in Cook County on July

3,1899, was not a new court, but a

division of the circuit court with origi-

nal jurisdiction over juvenile cases.

The judge assigned to this new divi-

sion was Richard Tuthill, a Civil War

veteran who had been a circuit court

judge for more than 10 years. The

first case heard by Judge Tuthill in ju-

venile court was that of Henry Camp-

bell, an 11-year-old who had been ar-

rested for larceny. The hearing was a

public event. While some tried to

make the juvenile proceeding secret,

the politics of the day would not per-

mit it. The local papers carried stories

about what had come to be known

as “child saving” by some and “child

slavery” by others.*

At the hearing, Henry Campbell’s par-

ents told Judge Tuthill that their son

was a good boy who had been led

into trouble by others, an argument

consistent with the underlying philos-

ophy of the court—that individuals

(especially juveniles) were not solely

responsible for the crimes they com-

mit. The parents did not want young

Henry sent to an institution, which was

one of the few options available to the

judge. Although the enacting legisla-

tion granted the new juvenile court the

right to appoint probation officers to

handle juvenile cases, the officers

were not to receive publicly funded

compensation. Thus, the judge had no

probation staff to provide services to

Henry. The parents suggested that

Henry be sent to live with his grand-

mother in Rome, New York. After

questioning the parents, the judge

agreed to send Henry to his grand-

mother’s in the hope that he would

“escape the surroundings which have

caused the mischief.” This first case

was handled informally, without a for-

mal adjudication of delinquency on

Henry’s record.

Judge Tuthill’s first formal case is not

known for certain, but the case of

Thomas Majcheski (handled about 2

weeks after the Campbell case) might

serve as an example. Majcheski, a

14-year-old, was arrested for stealing

grain from a freight car in a railroad

yard, a common offense at the time.

The arresting officer told the judge that

the boy’s father was dead and his

mother (a washerwoman with nine

children) could not leave work to come

to court. The officer also said that the

boy had committed similar offenses

previously but had never been arrest-

ed. The boy admitted the crime. The

judge then asked the nearly 300 peo-

ple in the courtroom if they had any-

thing to say. No one responded. Still

without a probation staff in place, the

judge’s options were limited: dismiss

the matter, order incarceration at the

state reformatory, or transfer the case

to adult court. The judge decided the

best alternative was incarceration in

the state reformatory, where the youth

would “have the benefit of schooling.”

A young man in the audience then

stood up and told the judge that the

sentence was inappropriate. Newspa-

per accounts indicate that the objector

made the case that the boy was just

trying to obtain food for his family.

Judge Tuthill then asked if the objector

would be willing to take charge of the

boy and help him become a better cit-

izen. The young man accepted. On the

way out of the courtroom, a reporter

asked the young man of his plans for

Thomas. The young man said “Clean

him up, and get him some clothes and

then take him to my mother. She’ll

know what to do with him.”

In disposing of the case in this man-

ner, Judge Tuthill ignored many possi-

ble concerns (e.g., the rights and de-

sires of Thomas’s mother and the

qualifications of the young man—or

more directly, the young man’s moth-

er). Nevertheless, the judge’s actions

demonstrated that the new court was

not a place of punishment. The judge

also made it clear that the community

had to assume much of the responsi-

bility if it wished to have a successful

juvenile justice system.

* Beginning in the 1850s, private societies in New York City rounded up so called “street children” from the urban ghettos and sent them to farms in the

Midwest. Child advocates were concerned that these home-finding agencies did not properly screen or monitor the foster homes, pointing out that the

societies were paid by the county to assume responsibility for the children and also by the families who received the children. Applying this concern to

the proposed juvenile court, the Illinois legislation stated that juvenile court hearings should be open to the public so the public could monitor the activi-

ties of the court to ensure that private organizations would not be able to gain custody of children and then “sell” them for a handsome profit and would

not be able to impose their standards of morality or religious beliefs on working-class children.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Tanenhaus’

Juvenile Justice in the Making

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

witnesses, to question witnesses, and to

have an attorney. The burden of proof

was raised from “a preponderance of

evidence” to a “beyond a reasonable

doubt” standard for an adjudication.

The Supreme Court, however, still

held that there were enough “differ-

ences of substance between the crimi-

nal and juvenile courts … to hold that

a jury is not required in the latter.”

(See Supreme Court decisions later in

this chapter.)

Meanwhile, Congress, in the Juvenile

Delinquency Prevention and Control

Act of 1968, recommended that youth

charged with noncriminal offenses (be-

havior that is a law violation only be-

cause of the youth’s status as a juve-

nile) be handled outside the court

system. A few years later, Congress

passed the Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention Act of 1974, which

as a condition for state participation in

the Formula Grants Program required

deinstitutionalization of status offend-

ers and nonoffenders and the separa-

tion of youth charged with delinquen-

cy offenses from adults charged with or

convicted of a crime. Much of the Act’s

compliance focus has been related to

youth in justice system confinement fa-

cilities (see box). Community-based

programs, diversion, and deinstitution-

alization became the banners of juve-

nile justice policy.

In the 1980s, the pendulum began

to swing toward law and order

During the 1980s, the public perceived

that serious juvenile crime was increas-

ing and that the system was too lenient

on youth charged with breaking the

law. Although there was a substantial

misperception regarding increases in

juvenile crime, many states responded

by passing more stringent laws. Some

laws removed certain age youth

charged with certain offenses from the

juvenile justice system in favor of the

criminal justice system. Others required

the juvenile justice system to be more

like the criminal justice system in the

handling of certain juvenile court cases.

As a result, youth charged with certain

offenses were excluded from juvenile

court jurisdiction or faced mandatory,

automatic waiver to criminal court. In

several states, concurrent jurisdiction

provisions gave prosecutors the discre-

tion to file certain juvenile cases direct-

ly in criminal court.

State legislatures continued to

crack down on juvenile crime in

the 1990s

Five areas of change emerged as states

passed laws designed to combat juve-

nile crime. These laws generally in-

volved expanded eligibility for criminal

court processing and adult correctional

sanctioning, and reduced confidentiali-

ty protections for a subset of juvenile

offenders. Between 1992 and 1997, all

but three states changed laws in one or

more of the following areas:

Q Transfer provisions: Laws made it

easier to transfer youth from the

juvenile justice system to the crimi-

nal justice system including lowering

the upper age of juvenile court juris-

diction (45 states).

Q Sentencing authority: Laws gave

criminal and juvenile courts expand-

ed sentencing options (31 states).

Q Confidentiality: Laws modified or

removed traditional juvenile court

confidentiality provisions by making

records and proceedings more open

(47 states).

In addition to these areas, there was

change relating to:

Q Victims’ rights: Laws increased the

role of victims of juvenile crime in

the juvenile justice process (22

states).

Q Correctional programming: As a

result of new transfer and sentencing

laws, adult and juvenile correctional

administrators developed new pro-

grams.

The pendulum swings again in the

2000s with a focus on brain

science and doing what works

The 1980s and 1990s saw significant

change in terms of processing more

youth younger than 18 through the

criminal justice system. However, the

juvenile violent crime arrest rate had

already peaked (in 1994) before much

of the punitive legislation was enacted,

and the rate continued to decline

through the 1990s. By 2001, the en-

tire spike in juvenile violent crime ar-

rest rates had been erased and experts

had begun to evaluate the consequences

of the new “tough on crime” policies.

Research in adolescent development

and brain science confirmed what ev-

eryone knew all along, that children

and adolescents are different from

adults. Adolescents are more impulsive

and take more risks than adults. They

are less able to think about conse-

quences and more influenced by peer

pressure. This is not to imply that ado-

lescent brains are somehow defective,

but that they are still developing. New

brain imaging showed that develop-

ment of the frontal lobe (the decision

center of the brain) continues into the

mid-20s. As Laurence Steinberg com-

mented, “There is a time lag between

the activation of brain systems that ex-

cite our emotions and impulses and the

maturation of brain systems that allow

us to check these feelings and urgings

—it’s like driving a car with a sensitive

gas pedal and bad brakes.” Adoles-

cence is also a time of what scientists

call neuroplasticity—when the brain

has tremendous potential to change

through experience. This means that

adolescents have capacity to change, to

be rehabilitated when matched to the

most appropriate, effective interven-

tions. In fact, most youth grow out of

their delinquent behavior.

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ref-

erenced the science of adolescent brain

development in its

Roper

Simmons

decision that barred the death penalty

for youth younger than 18 (see section

on U.S. Supreme Court decisions).

This information has had an impact on

many aspects of juvenile justice. Since

2000, 12 states have passed laws to

raise the upper age of juvenile court ju-

risdiction for delinquency offenses.

Several states have passed sweeping ju-

venile justice reforms or have had task

forces or commissions make recom-

mendations for reform legislative pack-

ages. Most resulting legislation has in-

cluded roll-backs of at least some

transfer provisions to keep more youth

out of criminal court. For example,

California eliminated its concurrent ju-

risdiction provision in 2016 that had

since the early 2000s allowed prosecu-

tors to file certain offenses directly in

criminal court. New Jersey raised the

minimum age for transfer to criminal

court across its provisions from age 14

to age 15.

The National Academies of Sciences’

National Research Council’s 2013

Re-

forming Juvenile Justice: A Develop-

mental Approach

outlined a framework

for juvenile justice reform that was

grounded in adolescent development

research and called for evidence-based

and developmentally informed policies,

programs, and practices. State juvenile

justice reforms in the 2000s have gen-

erally been founded on adolescent de-

velopment and doing what works to

reduce youth offending behavior based

on research evidence.

Some states’ juvenile justice reforms

emphasized the use of diversion and

community-based programs—staples of

juvenile justice for decades. A growing

body of research is showing these ap-

proaches to be more effective in reduc-

ing youths’ subsequent offending than

more punitive responses.

Several core requirements of the Federal Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act address custody issues

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Act (the Act) sets four

custody-related requirements.

The “deinstitutionalization of status

offenders and nonoffenders” require-

ment (1974) specifies that youth not

charged with acts that would be

crimes for adults “shall not be placed

in secure detention facilities or secure

correctional facilities.” This require-

ment does not apply to youth

charged with violating a valid court

order or possessing a handgun, or

those held under interstate compacts.

The “sight and sound separation” re-

quirement (1974) specifies that “juve-

niles … shall not be detained or con-

fined in any institution in which they

have contact with adult inmates.”

This requires that incarcerated juve-

niles and adults cannot see each

other and no conversation between

them is possible.

The “jail and lockup removal” require-

ment (1980) states that youth of juve-

nile age shall not be detained or con-

fined in adult jails or lockups. There

are, however, several exceptions.

There is a 6-hour grace period that

allows adult facilities to hold youth

temporarily while awaiting transfer to

a juvenile facility or making court ap-

pearances. Under certain conditions,

jails and lockups in rural areas may

hold youth awaiting initial court ap-

pearance up to 24 hours plus week-

ends and holidays. Some jurisdictions

have obtained approval for juvenile

detention centers that are collocated

with an adult facility; in addition, staff

who work with both youth and adults

must be trained and certified to work

with youth. Until recently, youth being

tried as adults in criminal court were

exempt from this requirement.

Revisions passed in 2018 require

that, as of December 21, 2021, even

youth charged as adults must be re-

moved from adult jails to juvenile fa-

cilities. The definition of “adult” in the

new statute is tied to each state’s age

of criminal responsibility and extended

age of jurisdiction. There is an excep-

tion if a court holds a hearing and

finds that holding the youth in an adult

facility is “in the interest of justice.”

The court must consider the youth’s

age; physical and mental maturity;

present mental state, including risk of

self-harm; and offending history as

well as the nature and circumstances

of the charges; the relative ability of

the available adult and juvenile facili-

ties to meet the needs of the youth

and protect other youth in their custo-

dy and the public; and “any other rele-

vant factor.” If the court allows the

youth held in jail, a review hearing

must be held every 30 days with a

180-day maximum.

The “racial and ethnic disparities”

(R/ED) requirement (2018) means that

states must assess and address racial

and ethnic disparities at key points in

the juvenile justice system—from ar-

rest to detention to confinement and

work to reduce them. This requirement

was previously known as the “dispro-

portionate minority confinement”

(DMC) (1988) and later (2002) as the

disproportionate minority contact

(DMC) requirement.

States must agree to comply with

each requirement to receive Formula

Grants funds under the Act’s provi-

sions. States must submit plans out-

lining their strategy for meeting these

and other statutory requirements.

Noncompliance with core require-

ments results in the loss of at least

20% of the state’s annual Formula

Grants Program allocation per require-

ment. For fiscal year 2020, 4 states/

territories were not participating in the

Formula Grants Program and an addi-

tional 3 were ineligible to receive an

award that year because they did not

meet the state plan requirements.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Some juvenile codes emphasize

prevention and treatment goals,

some stress punishment, but most

still seek a balanced approach

States vary in how they express the

purposes of their juvenile courts—not

just in the underlying assumptions and

philosophies but also in the approach-

es they take to the task. Some declare

their goals in great detail; others men-

tion only the broadest of aims. Many

juvenile court purpose clauses have

been amended over the years, reflect-

ing philosophical or rhetorical shifts

and changes in emphasis in the states’

overall approaches to juvenile delin-

quency. Some have been relatively un-

touched for decades. Given the chang-

es in juvenile justice in recent decades,

it is remarkable how many states still

declare their purposes in language first

developed in the 1950s and 1960s.

Developmental Approach. These

states retain elements of other catego-

ries, but have purpose clauses that

mention the use of adolescent develop-

ment or other research and/or require

evidence based practices or data to as-

sist the juvenile justice system.

Balanced and Restorative Justice.

Most common in state purpose clauses

are components of Balanced and Re-

storative Justice (BARJ). BARJ advo-

cates that juvenile justice systems give

balanced attention to three primary in-

terests: public safety, development of

skills to help youth live law-abiding

and productive lives, and individual ac-

countability to victims and the com-

munity for harm caused.

Due process era. Refers to the period

of reform of the 1960’s and 1970’s

where federal laws, model acts, and Su-

preme Court cases influenced the addi-

tion of due process protections.

Parens patriae. This Latin phrase

meaning “father of the nation” applies

to state clauses that reflect the juvenile

court judge’s earliest role as the state’s

designated protector of children.

States juvenile code purpose clauses vary in their emphasis

State

Developmental

approach

Balanced and

restorative

justice

Due

process

Parens

patriae None

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina Q

South Dakota Q

Tennessee Q

Texas Q

Utah Q

Vermont Q

Virginia Q

Washington Q

West Virginia Q

Wisconsin Q

Wyoming Q

Source: Authors’ adaptation of OJJDP’s

Statistical Briefing Book

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

U.S. Supreme Court cases have had an impact on the

character and procedures of the juvenile justice system

The Supreme Court has made its

mark on juvenile justice

Issues arising from delinquency pro-

ceedings rarely come before the U.S.

Supreme Court. Beginning in the late

1960s, however, the Court decided a

series of landmark cases that dramati-

cally changed the character and proce-

dures of the juvenile justice system.

Kent v. United States

383 U.S. 541, 86 S. Ct. 1045 (1966)

In 1961, while on probation from an

earlier case, Morris Kent, age 16, was

charged with rape and robbery. Kent

confessed to the charges as well as to

several similar incidents. Assuming that

the District of Columbia juvenile court

would consider waiving jurisdiction to

the adult system, Kent’s attorney filed

a motion requesting a hearing on the

issue of jurisdiction.

The juvenile court judge did not rule

on this motion filed by Kent’s attorney.

Instead, he entered a motion stating

that the court was waiving jurisdiction

after making a “full investigation.” The

judge did not describe the investiga-

tion or the grounds for the waiver.

Kent was subsequently found guilty in

criminal court on six counts of house-

breaking and robbery and sentenced to

30 to 90 years in prison.

Kent’s lawyer sought dismissal of the

criminal indictment, arguing that the

waiver had been invalid. He also ap-

pealed the waiver and filed a writ of

habeas corpus asking the state to justify

Kent’s detention. Appellate courts re-

jected both the appeal and the writ, re-

fused to scrutinize the judge’s “investi-

gation,” and accepted the waiver as

valid. In appealing to the U.S. Su-

preme Court, Kent’s attorney argued

that the judge had not made a com-

plete investigation and that Kent was

denied constitutional rights simply be-

cause he was a minor.

The Court ruled the waiver invalid,

stating that Kent was entitled to a

hearing that measured up to “the es-

sentials of due process and fair treat-

ment,” that Kent’s counsel should have

had access to all records involved in

the waiver, and that the judge should

have provided a written statement of

the reasons for waiver.

Technically, the Kent decision applied

only to D.C. courts, but its impact was

widespread. The Court raised a poten-

tial constitutional challenge to parens

patriae as the foundation of the juve-

nile court. Previously, the Court had

interpreted the equal protection clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment to

mean that certain classes of people

could receive less due process if a

“compensating benefit” came with this

lesser protection. In theory, the juve-

nile court provided less due process

but a greater concern for the interests

of the youth. The Court referred to

evidence that this compensating benefit

may not exist in reality and that youth

may receive the “worst of both

worlds”—“neither the protection ac-

corded to adults nor the solicitous care

and regenerative treatment postulated

for children.”

In re Gault

387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428 (1967)

Gerald Gault, age 15, was on proba-

tion in Arizona for a minor property

offense when, in 1964, he and a friend

made a prank telephone call to an

adult neighbor. Identified by the

neighbor, the youth were arrested and

detained.

The victim did not appear at the adju-

dication hearing and the court never

resolved the issue of whether Gault

made the “obscene” remarks. Gault

was committed to a training school for

the period of his minority. The maxi-

mum sentence for an adult would have

been a $50 fine or 2 months in jail.

An attorney obtained for Gault after

the trial filed a writ of habeas corpus

that was eventually heard by the U.S.

Supreme Court. The issue presented

was that Gault’s constitutional rights

(to notice of charges, counsel, ques-

tioning of witnesses, protection against

self-incrimination, a transcript of the

proceedings, and appellate review)

were denied.

The Court ruled that in hearings that

could result in commitment to an insti-

tution, juveniles have the right to no-

tice and counsel, to question witnesses,

and to protection against self-incrimi-

nation. The Court did not rule on a

juvenile’s right to appellate review or

transcripts but encouraged the states to

provide those rights.

The Court based its ruling on the fact

that Gault was being punished rather

than helped by the juvenile court. The

Court explicitly rejected the doctrine

of parens patriae as the core principle

of juvenile justice, describing the con-

cept as murky and of dubious historical

relevance. The Court concluded that

the handling of Gault’s case violated

the due process clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment: “Juvenile court

history has again demonstrated that

unbridled discretion, however benevo-

lently motivated, is frequently a poor

substitute for principle and procedure.”

In re Winship

397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068 (1970)

Samuel Winship, age 12, was charged

with stealing $112 from a woman’s

purse in a store. A store employee

claimed to have seen Winship running

from the scene just before the woman

noticed the money was missing; others

in the store stated that the employee

was not in a position to see the money

being taken. Winship was adjudicated

delinquent and committed to a train-

ing school. New York juvenile courts

operated under the civil court standard

of a “preponderance of evidence.” The

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

court agreed with Winship’s attorney

that there was “reasonable doubt” of

Winship’s guilt but based its ruling on

the “preponderance” of evidence.

Upon appeal to the Supreme Court,

the central issue in the case was wheth-

er “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”

should be considered among the “es-

sentials of due process and fair treat-

ment” required during the adjudicato-

ry stage of the juvenile court process.

The Court rejected lower court argu-

ments that juvenile courts were not re-

quired to operate on the same stan-

dards as adult courts because juvenile

courts were designed to “save” rather

than to “punish” children. The Court

ruled that the “reasonable doubt”

standard should be required in all de-

linquency adjudications.

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania

403 U.S. 528, 91 S. Ct. 1976 (1971)

Joseph McKeiver, age 16, was charged

with robbery, larceny, and receiving

stolen goods. He and 20 to 30 other

youth allegedly chased 3 youth and

took 25 cents from them. McKeiver

met with his attorney for only a few

minutes before his adjudicatory hear-

ing. At the hearing, his attorney’s re-

quest for a jury trial was denied by the

court. He was subsequently adjudicat-

ed and placed on probation.

The state supreme court cited recent

decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court

that had attempted to include more

due process in juvenile court proceed-

ings without eroding the essential ben-

efits of the juvenile court. The state su-

preme court affirmed the lower court,

arguing that, of all due process rights,

trial by jury is most likely to “destroy

the traditional character of juvenile

proceedings.”

The U.S. Supreme Court found that

the due process clause of the Four-

A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have shaped juvenile justice over the decades

Breed

Jones

(1975)

Waiver of a juvenile to criminal court

following adjudication in juvenile

court constitutes double jeopardy.

Roper

Simmons

(2005)

Minimum age for death

penalty set at 18.

Kent

United States

(1966)

Oklahoma Publishing Co.

District Court

(1977)

Courts must provide the “essen-

tials of due process” in transfer-

ring juveniles to the adult system.

Smith

Daily Mail Publishing Co.

(1979)

Graham

Florida

(2010)

The press may report juvenile court

proceedings under certain circumstances.

Juveniles cannot be sen-

tenced to life without parole

for non-homicide crimes.

In re Gault

(1967)

In hearings that could result in com-

mitment to an institution, juveniles

have four basic constitutional rights.

Eddings

Oklahoma

(1982)

Defendant’s youthful age should

considered a mitigating factor in

deciding whether to apply the

death penalty.

Miller

Alabama

(2012)

Mandatory sentences of

life without parole for

juveniles violate the

Eighth Amendment.

In re Winship

(1970)

In delinquency matters, the

state must prove its case

beyond a reasonable doubt.

Schall

Martin

(1984)

Preventive “pretrial” detention

of juveniles is allowable under

certain circumstances.

Montgomery

Louisiana

(2016)

Ban on mandatory life

without parole sentences

applies retroactively.

McKeiver

Pennsylvania

(1971)

Thompson

Oklahoma

(1988)

Jury trials are not constitution-

ally required in juvenile court

hearings.

Stanford

Kentucky

(1989)

Minimum age for death

penalty set at 16.

1965

1970

1975 1980 1985 1990 2005 2010 2015

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

teenth Amendment did not require

jury trials in juvenile court. The impact

of the Court’s Gault and Winship deci-

sions was to enhance the accuracy of

the juvenile court process in the fact-

finding stage. In McKeiver, the Court

argued that juries are not known to be

more accurate than judges in the adju-

dication stage and could be disruptive

to the informal atmosphere of the ju-

venile court, making it more adversarial.

Breed v. Jones

421 U.S. 519, 95 S. Ct. 1779 (1975)

In 1970, Gary Jones, age 17, was

charged with armed robbery. Jones

appeared in Los Angeles juvenile court

and was adjudicated delinquent on

the original and two other robberies.

At the dispositional hearing, the judge

waived the case to criminal court.

Counsel for Jones filed a writ of habeas

corpus, arguing that the waiver to

criminal court violated the double

jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amend-

ment. The court denied this petition,

saying that Jones had not been tried

twice because juvenile adjudication is

not a “trial” and does not place a

youth in jeopardy.

Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court

ruled that an adjudication in juvenile

court, in which a juvenile is found to

have violated a criminal statute, is

equivalent to a trial in criminal court.

Thus, Jones had been placed in double

jeopardy. The Court said that jeopardy

applies at the adjudication hearing

when evidence is first presented. Waiv-

er cannot occur after jeopardy attaches.

Oklahoma Publishing Company v.

District Court in and for Oklahoma

City

480 U.S. 308, 97 S. Ct. 1045 (1977)

The Oklahoma Publishing Company

case involved a court order prohibiting

the press from publishing the name

and photograph of a youth involved in

a juvenile court proceeding. The mate-

rial in question was obtained legally

from a source outside the court. The

U.S. Supreme Court found the court

order to be an unconstitutional in-

fringement on freedom of the press.

Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing

Company

443 U.S. 97, 99 S. Ct. 2667 (1979)

The Daily Mail case held that state law

cannot stop the press from publishing

a youth’s name that it obtained inde-

pendently of the court. Although the

decision did not hold that the press

should have access to juvenile court

files, it held that if information regard-

ing a juvenile case is lawfully obtained

by the media, the First Amendment in-

terest in a free press takes precedence

over the interests in preserving the an-

onymity of juvenile defendants.

Eddings v. Oklahoma

455 U.S. 104 (1982)

The Supreme Court reversed the death

sentence of a 16-year-old tried as an

adult in criminal court. The Court

held that a defendant’s young age, as

well as mental and emotional develop-

ment, should be considered a mitigat-

ing factor of great weight in deciding

whether to apply the death penalty.

The Court noted that adolescents are

less mature, responsible, and self-disci-

plined than adults and are less able to

consider the long-range implications of

their actions. The Court did not ad-

dress whether the Eighth and Four-

teenth Amendments prohibit the im-

position of the death sentence on an

offender because he was only 16 years

old at the time the offense was com-

mitted.

Schall v. Martin

467 U.S. 253, 104 S. Ct. 2403

(1984)

Gregory Martin, age 14, was arrested

in 1977 and charged with robbery, as-

sault, and possession of a weapon. He

and two other youth allegedly hit a

boy on the head with a loaded gun and

stole his jacket and sneakers.

Martin was held pending adjudication

because the court found there was a

“serious risk” that he would commit

another crime if released. Martin’s at-

torney filed a habeas corpus action

challenging the fundamental fairness of

preventive detention. The lower appel-

late court reversed the juvenile court’s

detention order, arguing in part that

pretrial detention is essentially punish-

ment because many juveniles detained

before trial are released before, or im-

mediately after, adjudication.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the

constitutionality of the preventive de-

tention statute. The Court stated that

preventive detention serves a legitimate

state objective in protecting both the

youth and society from pretrial crime

and is not intended to punish the

youth. The Court found that enough

procedures were in place to protect

youth from wrongful deprivation of

liberty. The protections were provided

by notice, a statement of the facts and

reasons for detention, and a probable

cause hearing within a short time. The

Court also reasserted the parens patriae

interests of the state in promoting the

welfare of children.

Thompson v. Oklahoma

487 U.S. 815 (1988)

The issue before the U.S. Supreme

Court was whether imposing the death

penalty on a youth who was 15 at the

time of the murder violated constitu-

tional protections against cruel and un-

usual punishment. The Court conclud-

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

ed that the Eighth Amendment

prohibited application of the death

penalty to a person who was younger

than 16 at the time of the crime.

Stanford v. Kentucky

492 U.S. 361 (1989)

Stanford

the U.S. Supreme Court

decided that the Eighth Amendment

does not prohibit the death penalty for

crimes committed at age 16 or 17.

Roper v. Simmons

543 U.S. 551, 125 S. Ct. 1183

(2005)

Roper

, the U.S. Supreme Court

noted that several states had abolished

their juvenile death penalty since

Stan-

ford

and none had established or rein-

stated it. The objective evidence of

“consensus in this case—the rejection

of the juvenile death penalty in the ma-

jority of states; the infrequency of its

use even where it remains on the

books; and the consistency in the trend

toward abolition of the practice—pro-

vide sufficient evidence that today our

society views juveniles, in the words

Atkins used respecting the mentally re-

tarded, as ‘categorically less culpable

than the average criminal’.” Thus, the

Court affirmed the Missouri Supreme

Court judgment that set aside the

death sentence imposed on Christo-

pher Simmons, concluding that the

“Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

forbid imposition of the death penalty

on offenders who were under the age

of 18 when their crimes were commit-

ted.”

Graham v. Florida

560 U.S. 48, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010)

Terrance Graham, age 16, was arrested

and charged with the crimes of bur-

glary and robbery. Graham accepted a

plea deal, requiring 12 months in

county jail followed by a 3-year proba-

tionary period. Graham was released

from jail after 6 months.

Not 6 months later, Graham was ar-

rested for armed robbery. The state of

Florida charged him with violations of

the terms and conditions of his proba-

tion. The trial court held a hearing on

these violations and passed down a

sentence of life imprisonment. Florida

had abolished their system of parole;

Graham could only be released by ex-

ecutive pardon.

Graham filed an appeal claiming that

his Eighth Amendment rights against

cruel and unusual punishment were

being violated by the length of the sen-

tence. The Supreme Court agreed, rul-

ing that the sentencing of a youth of

juvenile age to life without parole for a

nonhomicidal case was a violation of

the cruel and unusual punishment

clause of the Eighth Amendment. The

Court found that there was no national

consensus for life without parole sen-

tences, youth of juvenile age had limit-

ed culpability, and life sentences were

extremely punitive for youth in nonho-

micide cases.

Miller v. Alabama

567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455

(2012)

Evan Miller was 14 when he and a

friend beat his neighbor with a baseball

bat and set fire to his trailer, killing

him in the process. Miller was tried as

a juvenile at first, but was then trans-

ferred to criminal court, pursuant to

Alabama law. He was charged by the

district attorney with murder in the

course of arson, a crime with a manda-

tory minimum sentence of life without

parole. The jury found Miller guilty,

and he was sentenced to a life without

parole term.

Miller filed an appeal claiming that his

sentence was in violation of the Eighth

Amendment clause against cruel and

unusual punishment. The Supreme

Court held that the Eighth Amend-

ment forbids a mandatory sentence of

life in prison without parole for a juve-

nile convicted of homicide. The Court

based their reasoning on prior rulings

Roper

, which had prohibited capital

punishment for children, and

Graham

which prohibited life without parole

sentences for nonhomicide offenses.

Combining the rationales, the Court

ruled that juveniles could not be sen-

tenced to serve mandatory life without

parole.

Montgomery v. Louisiana

136 S. Ct. 718 (2016)

Henry Montgomery was a 17-year-old

11th-grade student in 1963, when he

was arrested for the murder of a sher-

iff’s deputy. Montgomery, a Black

youth, was tried and convicted for the

murder of the White law enforcement

officer. He originally received an auto-

matic death sentence. In 1966, his

original conviction was overturned by

the Louisiana Supreme Court but he

was re-tried and again convicted of

murder. The sentence in his second

trail was mandatory life without parole.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s

decision in

Miller

, Montgomery filed a

post-conviction motion to “correct”

his sentence but the Louisiana Su-

preme Court ruled that

Miller

did not

apply retroactively.

The Supreme Court held that

Miller

did indeed apply retroactively. The

Court based the decision on the princi-

ple that “children are different”—they

are less culpable than adults and more

likely to be reformed. Any individuals

whose sentences were made before

Miller

was decided were entitled to re-

sentencing or parole eligibility consid-

eration.

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

State statutes define who is under the jurisdiction of juvenile

court

Statutes set age limits for original

jurisdiction of the juvenile court

In most states, the juvenile court has

original jurisdiction over all youth

charged with a law violation who were

younger than age 18 at the time of the

offense, arrest, or referral to court. Be-

tween 1975 and 2000, four states

changed their upper age: Alabama

raised its upper age to 16 in 1976 and

to 17 in 1977; Wyoming lowered its

upper age to 17 in 1993; and New

Hampshire and Wisconsin lowered

their upper age to 16 in 1996.

Since 2000, 10 states have passed laws

raising their upper age of original juve-

nile court jurisdiction: Connecticut

raised its upper age from 15 to 17 by

July 2012; Massachusetts raised its age

to 17 in 2013; Illinois made the age

17 for all but the most violent felonies

by 2014; New Hampshire’s age be-

came 17 in 2015; South Carolina’s

change to 17 passed in 2016 but it did

not take effect until 2019; New York

raised its age from 15 to 16 in 2018

and to 17 in 2019; North Carolina

also raised its age from 15 to 17 at the

end of 2019; Louisiana raised its age to

17 for all but the most violent felonies

by 2019 (and for all crimes by 2020);

Michigan’s law passed in 2019 raising

the age to 17, but did not take effect

until 2020; and Missouri’s law passed

in 2018 raising the age to 17, but the

effective date was not until 2021.

Oldest age for original juvenile court juris-

diction in delinquency matters, 2019:

Age State

16 Georgia, Michigan, Missouri,

Texas, Wisconsin

17 All other states and the District of

Columbia

Vermont has gone further raising its

upper age to 18 in 2020, and through

age 19, effective in 2022. Though the

implementation is pending, the defini-

tion of a juvenile proceeding in Ver-

mont under another law will allow ju-

venile jurisdiction to be sought

through youthful offender provisions

(blended sentencing) for youth

through age 21.

Many states have higher upper ages of

juvenile court jurisdiction in status of-

fense, abuse, neglect, or dependency

matters—typically through age 20. The

juvenile court may have original juris-

diction over young adults who commit-

ted offenses before they became adults.

As of the end of the 2019 legislative

session, 30 states and the District of

Columbia set no minimum age for de-

linquency matters in statute and 20

states had statutes that set the lowest

age of juvenile court delinquency juris-

diction. Four of these are states that

previously had no lower age set and

one state, Massachusetts, raised its

lower age from 7 to 12. States without

a set minimum age rely on case law or

common law. Children younger than a

certain age are presumed to be incapa-

ble of criminal intent and are exempt

from prosecution and punishment.

Youngest age for original juvenile court

jurisdiction in delinquency matters, 2019:

Age State

6 North Carolina

7 Connecticut, Maryland, New York

8 Arizona

10 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas,

Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,

North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South

Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin

11 Nebraska

12 California, Massachusetts

States often have statutory exceptions

to basic age criteria, such as excluding

married or otherwise emancipated

youth from juvenile court jurisdiction.

Other exceptions, related to the

youth’s age, alleged offense, and/or

prior court history, place certain youth

under the original jurisdiction of the

criminal court. In some states, a com-

bination of the youth’s age, offense,

and prior record places the youth

under the original jurisdiction of both

the juvenile and criminal courts. In

these states, the prosecutor has the au-

thority to decide which court will ini-

tially handle the case.

Juvenile court authority over

youth may extend beyond the

upper age of original jurisdiction

Through extended jurisdiction provi-

sions, legislatures enable the court to

provide services and sanctions for a pe-

riod of time that is in the best interests

of the youth and the public, even for

youth who have reached the age at

which original juvenile court jurisdic-

tion ends. As of the end of the 2019

legislative session, statutes in 34 states

extend juvenile court jurisdiction in

delinquency cases to the 21st birthday.

Oldest age over which the juvenile court

may retain jurisdiction for disposition

purposes in delinquency matters, 2019:

Age State

18 Oklahoma, Texas

19 Alaska, Mississippi, North Dakota

20 Alabama, Arizona,* Arkansas,

Delaware, District of Columbia,

Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Nebraska, Nevada,** New

Hampshire, New Mexico, North

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode

Island, South Dakota, Tennessee,

Utah, Virginia, Washington, West

Virginia, Wyoming

21 South Carolina, Vermont

22 Kansas, New York

24 California, Montana, Oregon,

Wisconsin

*** Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, New

Jersey

Notes: Extended jurisdiction may be restrict-

ed to certain offenses or youth.

*Arizona statute extends jurisdiction through

age 20, but the state Supreme Court held in

1979 that juvenile court jurisdiction ends at

18.

**Until the full term of the disposition order

for sex offenders.

***Until the full term of the disposition order.

In some states, juvenile courts may im-

pose adult correctional sanctions on

certain youth adjudicated delinquent

that extend the term of confinement

well beyond the upper age of juvenile

jurisdiction—this is known as blended

sentencing.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Law enforcement agencies refer most of the youth entering

the juvenile justice system for law violations

Local processing of youth

charged with delinquency or

status offenses varies

From state to state, case processing of

youth who have violated the law varies.

Even within states, case processing may

vary from community to community,

reflecting local practice and tradition.

Any description of juvenile justice pro-

cessing in the U.S. must, therefore, be

general, outlining common decision

points.

Law enforcement agencies divert

many youth out of the juvenile

justice system

A youth’s entry into the juvenile justice

system often begins with a victim,

school, or citizen contacting law en-

forcement about an incident or trou-

blesome behavior. Once contacted, po-

lice decide either to send the matter

further into the justice system or to di-

vert the youth away from the system,

often into alternative programs. Law

enforcement generally makes this deci-

sion after talking with the victim, the

youth, and the parents, and after re-

viewing the youth’s prior contacts with

the juvenile justice system. Police may

decide on pre-arrest diversion (also

known as deflection) or may arrest the

youth, but decide not to refer the

youth to court intake. In 2019, just

over one-quarter of juvenile arrests

were handled within the police depart-

ment and resulted in release of the

youth. The remaining arrests were re-

ferred to juvenile court (6 in 10) or for

criminal prosecution (<1 in 10) or to

other agencies (<1 in 10).

Most delinquency cases are

referred to juvenile court by law

enforcement agencies

Law enforcement accounted for 82% of

all delinquency cases referred to juve-

nile court in 2019. The proportion re-

ferred by law enforcement was as high

as 88% in the early 1990s. The remain-

ing referrals were made by others, such

as parents, victims, school personnel,

and probation officers. In contrast, po-

lice referred just 18% of status offense

cases; schools referred 62%.

Intake departments screen cases

referred to juvenile court for

diversion or formal processing

The court intake function is generally

the responsibility of the juvenile proba-

tion department and/or the prosecu-

tor’s office. Intake decides whether to

dismiss the case, to handle the matter

informally, or to file a petition request-

ing formal intervention by the juvenile

court.

To make this decision, an intake officer

or prosecutor first reviews the facts of

the case to determine whether there is

sufficient evidence to prove the allega-

tion. If not, the case is dismissed. If

there is sufficient evidence, intake then

determines whether to divert the youth

or if formal intervention is necessary.

Historically, the goal has been to iden-

tify the “least restrictive” response, i.e.,

to intervene only as much as necessary.

Nearly half of all delinquency cases re-

ferred to juvenile court intake are han-

dled without a petition. Four in 10 de-

linquency cases that are not petitioned

are dismissed. Even in cases that are di-

verted from formal handling, intake

can issue a warning, refer the youth to

community-based programs or services,

or offer the youth an agreement—to

specific conditions for a specific time

period—in exchange for dismissal.

These conditions often are outlined in

a written agreement, generally called a

“consent decree.” Conditions may in-

clude such things as victim restitution,

school attendance, drug counseling, or

a curfew.

Diversion can be offered with or

without “strings attached”

In most jurisdictions, a youth may be

offered an informal disposition only if

he or she admits to committing the

act. The youth’s compliance with the

informal agreement often is monitored

by a probation officer. Thus, this pro-

cess is sometimes labeled “informal

probation.”

If the youth successfully complies with

the informal disposition, the case is dis-

missed. If, however, the youth fails to

meet the conditions, the case is re-

ferred for formal processing and pro-

ceeds as it would have if the initial de-

cision had been to petition the case for

an adjudicatory hearing.

In some communities the intake ap-

proach is to only use services and case

management for those youth that need

it and only refer them to services that

are necessary for positive behavior

change. The diversion is “without

strings” attached—noncompliance with

diversion does not result in court-im-

posed consequences except in serious

cases. Failure in diversion does not re-

sult in placement or detention.

The petition requests a court

hearing

If the case is to be handled formally in

juvenile court, intake files one of two

9-8-8 hotline intended to

divert mental health crises

away from 9-1-1 law

enforcement responders

The National Suicide Hotline Desig-

nation Act of 2020 jumpstarted im-

plementation of a nationwide non-

police mental health crisis response

system so people in crisis are di-

verted from involvement in the jus-

tice system and connected to ap-

propriate services and supports.

The Federal Communications Com-

mission formally designated 9-8-8

as a nationwide 3-digit number for

mental health crisis and suicide pre-

vention services with a two-year

timeline to make 9-8-8 operational

nationwide by mid-year 2022.

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

types of petitions: a delinquency peti-

tion requesting an adjudicatory hearing

or a petition requesting a waiver hear-

ing to transfer the case to criminal

court.

A delinquency petition states the alle-

gations and requests that the juvenile

court adjudicate (or judge) the youth a

delinquent, making the juvenile a ward

of the court. This language differs

from that used in the criminal court

system, where an individual is convict-

ed and sentenced.

In response to the delinquency peti-

tion, an adjudicatory hearing is sched-

uled. Even after a delinquency petition

has been filed, court officials can order

the case closed before it reaches adju-

dication and divert the youth out of

the system. If the case reaches an adju-

dicatory hearing (trial), witnesses are

called and the facts of the case are pre-

sented. In nearly all adjudicatory hear-

ings, a judge or judicial officer makes

the determination that the youth was

responsible for the offense(s); however,

in some states, the youth has the right

to a jury trial.

Youth may be held in a secure

detention facility during their case

Juvenile courts may hold youth in-

volved in delinquency cases in a secure

juvenile detention facility while await-

ing their hearing to protect the com-

munity, to protect the child, or both.

After arrest, law enforcement may re-

quest to bring the youth to the local

juvenile detention facility. A juvenile

probation officer or detention worker

reviews the case to decide whether the

youth poses a risk to the community

and should be detained pending a

hearing before a judge. In many juris-

dictions a detention risk assessment

tool is used to inform and give struc-

ture to the decision.

Because the experience of secure de-

tention may cause harm to the youth,

the detention decision should be a

thoughtful process that balances public

safety and the best interests of the

child. Ideally, secure detention is a last

resort that is part of a continuum of

care with several detention alternatives

available for youth facing delinquency

charges in the juvenile justice system.

What are the stages of delinquency case processing in the juvenile justice system?

Note: This chart gives a simplified view of caseflow through the juvenile justice system. Procedures may vary among jurisdictions.

Revocation

Release

Judicial waiver

Detention

Non-law

enforcement

sources

Prosecution

Juvenile

court intake

Diversion

Statutory

exclusion

Prosecutorial

discretion

Transfer to

juvenile court

Revocation

Law

enforcement

Formal

processing

Residential

placement

Probation or

other non-

residential

disposition

Reentry to

community

Diversion

Informal

processing/

diversion

Dismissal

Adjudication

Criminal justice system

Release

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

In all states, if a youth is held in deten-

tion, a detention hearing must be held

within a period defined by statute,

generally within 24 hours. At the de-

tention hearing, a judge reviews the

case and determines if continued de-

tention is warranted. In 2019, youth

were detained, at least at some point,

between referral to court and case dis-

position in 26% of juvenile court delin-

quency cases.

As part of efforts to reduce the use of

detention, jurisdictions may take steps

to reduce the length of stay in deten-

tion. The fact that a youth was de-

tained initially doesn’t mean they need

to remain confined until their case is

disposed. Efforts to find suitable alter-

natives to detention can enable the

court to safely release the youth. De-

tention may extend beyond the adjudi-

catory and dispositional hearings. If

residential placement is ordered but no

placement beds are available, the youth

may remain in detention until a bed

elsewhere becomes available.

The juvenile court may transfer

the case to criminal court

The prosecutor or intake officer files a

waiver petition if they believe that a

case under jurisdiction of the juvenile

court would be more appropriately

handled in criminal court. The juvenile

court decision in these matters follows

a review of the facts of the case and a

determination that there is probable

cause to believe that the youth com-

mitted the act. With this established,

the court decides whether juvenile

court jurisdiction over the matter

should be waived and the case trans-

ferred to criminal court.

The judge’s decision in such cases gen-

erally centers on the issue of the

youth’s amenability to treatment in the

juvenile justice system. The prosecu-

tion may argue that the youth has been

adjudicated several times previously

and that interventions ordered by the

juvenile court have not kept the youth

from committing subsequent criminal

acts. The prosecutor may also argue

that the crime is so serious that the ju-

venile court is unlikely to be able to in-

tervene for the time period necessary

to rehabilitate the youth.

If the judge decides that the case

should be transferred to criminal court,

juvenile court jurisdiction is waived

and the case is filed in criminal court.

In 2019, juvenile courts waived just

under 1% of all formally processed de-

linquency cases. If the judge does not

approve the waiver request, generally

an adjudicatory hearing is scheduled in

juvenile court.

Some states let prosecutors file

certain cases directly in criminal

court

In more than half of the states, legisla-

tures have decided that in certain cases

(generally those involving serious of-

fenses), youth should be tried in crimi-

nal court. The law excludes such cases

from juvenile court; prosecutors must

file them in criminal court. In a smaller

number of states, legislatures have

given both the juvenile and adult/

criminal courts concurrent jurisdiction

in certain cases. Thus, prosecutors have

discretion to file such cases in either

criminal or juvenile court.

After adjudication, probation staff

prepare a disposition plan

Once the youth is adjudicated delin-

quent in juvenile court, probation staff

develop a case disposition plan. To pre-

Most states have adopted a single risk/needs assessment tool statewide

to measure the youth’s risk of reoffending and their criminogenic needs

Q Statewide uniform assessment: States adopt a single risk assessment tool state-

wide that is required or encouraged by the state or in progress toward this goal with

a specific instrument.

Q Layered/regional assessment: States do not achieve statewide implementation with

a single tool due to layered probation (state and local) or due to regional differences.

Q Locally administered assessment: States lack requirement to implement risk as-

sessment tool allowing local policy to govern the use of risk assessment tools.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of NCJJ’s Juvenile Justice GPS, State Implementation of Risk/Needs As-

sessment Tools.

Statewide uniform (42 states)

Layed/regional (5 states)

Locally administered (4 states)

Assessment tool

implementation

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

pare this plan, probation staff assess the

youth, typically using a structured

risk/needs assessment tool. Such tools

are a key component of the Risk-

Needs-Responsivity (RNR) framework.

The tools predict the likelihood that

youth will reoffend and provide infor-

mation on the youth’s dynamic risk

factors that need to change to reduce

their law violating behavior (known as

criminogenic needs) and how to tailor

the intervention to the youth’s learn-

ing style, motivation, abilities, and

strengths.

In addition to assessing the youth, pro-

bation staff must identify available sup-

port systems, programs, and services in

the community for the youth. The

court may also order psychological

evaluations, and diagnostic tests that

may include a period of confinement in

a diagnostic facility.

At the disposition hearing, probation

staff present dispositional recommen-

dations to the judge. The prosecutor

and the youth or the youth’s defense

counsel may also present dispositional

recommendations. Some jurisdictions

use a structured decisionmaking grid,

known as a disposition matrix, which

identifies the most effective responses

to youth in various risk categories.

After considering the recommenda-

tions, the judge orders a disposition in

the case. Each disposition should be

narrowly tailored to meet the specific

interests and needs of each young per-

son.

The majority of youth adjudicated

delinquent are ordered to

probation

Most juvenile dispositions are multifac-

eted and involve some sort of super-

vised probation. In fact, probation is

the most frequent disposition ordered

in juvenile court, however, it is only

one of many options. In 2019, formal

probation was the most severe disposi-

tion ordered in 65% of the cases in

which the youth was adjudicated delin-

quent.

What does good community

supervision practice look

like?

Community supervision has evolved

and become less about short-term

rule compliance—with probation of-

ficers as referees to catch youth

doing something wrong (surveil-

lance) and more like coaching youth

to promote long-term success and

behavior change.

Best practices for juvenile probation

and reentry community supervision

include tailored, youth- and family-

centered supervision plans, achiev-

able goals that support youth’s abil-

ity to complete any conditions

included in the supervision order,

connection with prosocial activities

and adults in the community, and

referral to more intensive treatment

only as needed for substance use,

mental health, and other health

needs.

A probation order may include addi-

tional requirements such as drug coun-

seling, or restitution to the community

or victim. The term of probation may

be for a specified period of time or it

may be open-ended.

Research on adolescent development

has ushered in substantial changes in

how probation operates. There is a

growing understanding that probation

orders should not be uniform, and

must address if probation will be su-

pervised or unsupervised, for a limited

time or open-ended, and include a lim-

ited number of “conditions” (rules the

youth must follow while under proba-

tion supervision), if any, in the order.

Some jurisdictions are using probation

orders that do not include a long list of

conditions, but rather direct the youth

to work with probation on achieving

the goals outlined in their case disposi-

tion or supervision plan.

Although it is not recommended prac-

tice, many jurisdictions confine youth

in detention or longer term facilities

for technical violations of their proba-

tion order. In 2019, technical viola-

tions of probation, parole, or valid

court order accounted for 18% of

youth in detention centers on any

given day.

Review hearings may be held to moni-

tor the youth’s progress, either by the

court or the probation department.

After the judge is satisfied that the

terms of the probation order have been

met, the judge terminates the case.

The judge may order residential

placement

In 2019, juvenile courts ordered resi-

dential placement in 27% of the cases

in which the youth was adjudicated de-

linquent. Residential commitment may

be for a specific or indeterminate time

period. The facility may be publicly or

privately operated and may have a se-

cure, prison-like environment or a

more open (even home-like) setting.

In many states, when the judge com-

mits a youth to the state department of

juvenile corrections, the department

determines where the youth will be

placed and when the youth will be re-

leased. In other states, the judge con-

trols the type and length of stay; in

these situations, review hearings are

held to assess the youth’s progress.

Juvenile reentry or aftercare is

similar to adult parole

Upon release from residential place-

ment, the youth is often ordered to a

period of community supervision (re-

entry, aftercare, or parole). During this

period, the youth is under supervision

of the court, a probation or parole

agency, or the juvenile corrections

agency. Like probation supervision, re-

entry community supervision is chang-

ing. Youth will eventually return to

their communities and research has

shown that youth and their families

need support to successfully make the

transition. Many jurisdictions are pro-

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

A juvenile court by any other

name is still a juvenile court

Every state has at least one court

with juvenile jurisdiction, but in

most states it is not actually called

“juvenile court.” The names of the

courts with juvenile jurisdiction vary

by state—district, superior, circuit,

county, family, or probate court, to

name a few. Often, the court of ju-

venile jurisdiction has a separate di-

vision for juvenile matters. Courts

with juvenile jurisdiction generally

have jurisdiction over delinquency,

status offense, and abuse/neglect

matters and may also have jurisdic-

tion in other matters such as adop-

tion, termination of parental rights,

and emancipation. Whatever their

name, courts with juvenile jurisdic-

tion are generically referred to as ju-

venile courts.

viding help to strengthen families and

provide youth with educational and

vocational opportunities, employment

and housing assistance, mental and

physical healthcare, family program-

ming, and substance use treatment to

help youth overcome barriers to suc-

cessful reentry.

If the youth does not follow the condi-

tions of supervision, their release may

be revoked and they may be recommit-

ted to the same facility or committed

to another facility. In 2019, technical

violations of probation, parole, or valid

court order accounted for 11% of

youth in long-term secure facilities on

a typical day.

Status offense and delinquency

case processing differ

A delinquent offense is an act commit-

ted by a juvenile for which an adult

could be prosecuted in criminal court.

There are, however, behaviors that are

law violations only for youth because

of their juvenile status. These “status

offenses” may include behaviors such

as running away from home, truancy,

alcohol possession or use, incorrigibili-

ty, and curfew violations.

In many ways, the processing of status

offense cases parallels that of delin-

quency cases. Not all states, however,

consider all of these behaviors to be

law violations. Many states view such

behaviors as indicators that the child is

in need of supervision. These states

handle status offense matters more like

dependency cases than delinquency

cases, responding to the behaviors by

providing social services. This approach

is in line with the recommendations of

the 1968 federal Juvenile Delinquency

Prevention and Control Act.

Although many youth charged with

status offenses enter the juvenile justice

system through law enforcement, the

initial, official contact may be a school

or child welfare agency. Fewer than 1

in 5 petitioned status offense cases

were referred to juvenile court by law

enforcement in 2019.

The federal Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention Act states that juris-

dictions shall not hold status offenders

in secure juvenile facilities for deten-

tion or placement. This policy has been

labeled deinstitutionalization of status

offenders. There is an exception to the

general policy known as the valid court

order exception: a status offender may

be confined in a secure juvenile facility

if they have violated a valid court

order, such as a probation order re-

quiring the youth to attend school or

observe a curfew.

Most judges who hear juvenile justice cases do not specialize; most

carry a mixed caseload

Q All mixed case types: All, or nearly all, judges are not specialized and carry a mixed

caseload of juvenile and adult cases, including often both criminal and civil cases.

Q Mostly mixed: Most judges in the state are not specialized and carry a mixed case-

load.

Q Mostly specialized: Most judges in the state who handle delinquency and family

cases are specialized in this area of practice.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of NCJJ’s Juvenile Justice GPS, Judicial Specialization.

All mixed (3 states)

Mostly mixed (30 states)

Mostly specialized (18 states)

Judicial specialization

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

Once a mainstay of juvenile court, confidentiality has given

way to substantial openness in many states

The first juvenile court was open

to the public, but confidentiality

became the norm over time

The legislation that created the first ju-

venile court in Illinois stated that the

hearings should be open to the public.

Thus, the public could monitor the ac-

tivities of the court to ensure that the

court handled cases in line with com-

munity standards.

In 1920, all but 7 of the 45 states that

established separate juvenile courts per-

mitted publication of information

about juvenile court proceedings. The

Standard Juvenile Court Act, first pub-

lished in 1925, did not ban the publi-

cation of juveniles’ names. By 1952,

however, many states that adopted the

Act had statutes that excluded the gen-

eral public from juvenile court pro-

ceedings. The commentary to the

1959 version of the Act referred to the

hearings as “private, not secret.” It

added that reporters should be permit-

ted to attend hearings with the under-

standing that they not disclose the

identity of the juvenile. The rationale

for this confidentiality was “to prevent

the humiliation and demoralizing ef-

fect of publicity.” It was also thought

that publicity might propel youth into

further delinquent acts to gain more

recognition.

As juvenile courts became more for-

malized and concerns about rising ju-

venile crime increased, the pendulum

began to swing back toward more

openness. By 2010, statutes in 38

states permitted the public to attend

certain hearings in delinquency mat-

ters.

In 2019, there were 24 states with

statutes allowing delinquency adjudica-

tion hearings to be generally open to

the public. In the remaining 26 states

and the District of Columbia the pub-

lic is restricted from attending delin-

quency adjudication hearings, although

there may be limited exceptions.

Delinquency adjudication hearings are closed to the public in more than

half of states

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the Juvenile Law Center’s

Failed Policies, Forfeited Futures

Open to the public (24 states)

Closed to the public, with

limited exceptions (27 states)

Adjudication hearings, 2019

Most states specify exceptions to

confidentiality of juvenile court

records

Although legal and social records

maintained by juvenile courts have tra-

ditionally been confidential, legislatures

have made significant changes over the

past decades in how the justice system

treats information about youth in de-

linquency proceedings. Juvenile court

records are generally available to law

enforcement (including prosecutors)

and court personnel (including proba-

tion) for planning purposes to ensure

youth are provided treatment and re-

habilitative services. Records are also

available to the youth, their attorney,

and their parents/guardian. In almost

every state, the juvenile code specifies

other agencies or individuals allowed

access to such records.

Many states have school notification

laws. Under these statutes, schools are

notified when students are involved in

the justice system. Some states limit

notification to adjudication or serious

charges.

After the case is closed, juvenile

record access can lead to severe

collateral consequences

Juvenile records often follow youth

well into adulthood and create barriers

to employment and education. Public

knowledge of a youth’s justice system

involvement works against the juvenile

justice objective of rehabilitation by

limiting the youth’s ability to pursue

personal and professional goals. Public

access to juvenile record information

can have substantial collateral conse-

quences for youth, leading to the deni-

al of secondary education, housing,

employment, military service, and cer-

tain government benefits.

Juvenile record expungement or

sealing can reduce the collateral

consequences of a past case

Protecting youth’s confidentiality in-

cluding their records is at the heart of

the juvenile justice system’s rehabilita-

tive aim. All states allow at least some

juvenile records to be sealed—removed

from public view or removed from

view for some or all system actors—or

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

expunged—permanently deleted or de-

stroyed. The majority of those provi-

sions allow records to be unsealed to

inform future investigation or prosecu-

tion. Some statutes use the term ex-

pungement but describe sealing. Some

states rely on confidentiality laws and

have no sealing or expungement provi-

sions. Some states only expunge or seal

records of nonjudicial cases, others

only expunge or seal arrest records not

court records.

In some states, sealing happens auto-

matically after a specified amount of

time crimefree, but in most jurisdic-

tions the youth must petition the court

to request their records be sealed or

expunged even if the charges were

dropped or they were found not guilty.

The process is often complicated, ex-

pensive, and may require an attorney.

Research often relies on the use

of confidential juvenile records

In many states, records that are ex-

punged or sealed are not available for

research or descriptive caseload statis-

tics. In some states, the records are

available for caseload statistics, but are

deidentified and cannot be connected

to any future case activity by research-

ers conducting research requiring detail

on recidivism/subsequent offending.

As part of juvenile justice reform ef-

forts, several states have expanded pro-

visions for expungement or sealing of

juvenile court records. States are also

increasing the use of risk/needs assess-

ments and evidence-based programs

and practices. States must calculate

rates of reoffending to validate risk/

needs assessment instruments and eval-

uate programs and practices to deter-

mine what is effective. Deleting, de-

stroying, or de-identifying records can

confuse those calculations. If recidivism

is calculated without crimefree youth

included because their records are no

longer available, the resulting reoffend-

ing rates could be substantially higher

than if crimefree youth are included.

Most states allow juvenile court records to be made available to certain

other government agencies

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the Juvenile Law Center’s

Failed Policies, Forfeited Futures

Completely conﬁdential (other than to the youth or their

attorney or court or law enforcement personnel (1 state)

Delinquency juvenile court

records conﬁdentiality, 2019

Available to others only by court order (6 states)

Available to school or other government agencies

(corrections personnel, social services agencies) (35 states)

Available to any others (media, employers, etc.) (9 states)

Most states allow at least some juvenile records to be sealed (at least

from public view), but those records may later be unsealed

Source: Authors’ adaptation of the Juvenile Law Center’s

Failed Policies, Forfeited Futures

Expungement (records destroyed) (19 states)

Sealed from all but not destroyed (29 states)

Sealed from public and not destroyed (3 states)

Availability of sealing

or expungement, 2019

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

All states allow certain juveniles to be tried in criminal court

or otherwise face adult sanctions

Transferring juveniles to criminal

court is not a new phenomenon

Juvenile courts have always had mech-

anisms for removing youth charged

with the most serious offenses from

the juvenile justice system. Traditional

transfer laws establish provisions and

criteria for trying certain youth of ju-

venile age in criminal court. Blended

sentencing laws are also used to im-

pose a combination of juvenile and

adult criminal sanctions on some youth

of juvenile age.

Transfer laws address which court (ju-

venile or criminal) has jurisdiction over

certain cases involving youth charged

with law violations. State transfer pro-

visions are typically limited by age and

offense criteria. Transfer mechanisms

vary regarding where the case initiates

and where responsibility for transfer

decisionmaking lies. Transfer provi-

sions fall into the following three gen-

eral categories.

Judicial waiver: In 47 states in 2019,

the juvenile court judge had the au-

thority to waive juvenile court jurisdic-

tion and transfer the case to criminal

court for at least some cases. States

may use terms other than judicial waiv-

er. Some call the process certification,

remand, or bind over for criminal

prosecution. Others transfer or decline

rather than waive jurisdiction.

Statutory exclusion: In 2019, 27

states had statutes that exclude certain

youth from juvenile court jurisdiction.

Under statutory exclusion provisions,

cases originate in criminal rather than

juvenile court. Statutory exclusion is

also known as legislative exclusion.

Prosecutorial discretion: In 14 states

in 2019, original jurisdiction for cer-

tain cases was shared by both criminal

and juvenile courts, and the prosecutor

has the discretion to file such cases in

either court. When the prosecutor de-

cides to “transfer” a case it originates

in criminal court. Transfer under pros-

ecutorial discretion provisions is also

known as prosecutorial waiver, concur-

rent jurisdiction, or direct file.

Most states have “once an adult,

always an adult” provisions

In 35 states, 2019 statutes require that

juveniles who have been tried as adults

must be prosecuted in criminal court

for any subsequent offenses. Nearly all

of these “once an adult, always an

adult” provisions require that the

youth must have been convicted of the

offenses that triggered the initial crimi-

nal prosecution.

Reverse waiver and blended

sentencing serve as mitigating

provisions

Even juveniles subject to the more au-

tomatic transfer mechanisms may be

afforded a chance, at some point in the

process, to make an individualized

showing that they belong in the juve-

nile system. Reverse waiver and blend-

ed sentencing are two kinds of mitigat-

ing provisions that serve to inject

individualized consideration into what

would otherwise be automatic or in-

flexible transfer processes.

Reverse waiver. Laws permit criminal

courts to restore transferred youth to

juvenile court for trial or disposition.

In 2019, of the 42 states with manda-

tory judicial waiver, statutory exclu-

sion, or prosecutor discretion provi-

sions, 26 also had provisions that allow

certain transferred youth to petition for

a “reverse.” Two additional states had

reverse provisions that apply to “once

an adult, always an adult” provisions.

Reverse decision criteria often parallel a

state’s discretionary waiver criteria.

Blended sentencing laws address the

correctional system (juvenile or adult)

in which certain youth found guilty of

certain crimes will be sanctioned.

Blended sentencing statutes can be

placed into the following two general

categories.

Juvenile blended sentencing: In

2019, statutes in 15 states gave juve-

nile court the authority to impose

adult criminal sanctions on youth

charged with certain crimes. The ma-

jority of these blended sentencing laws

authorize the juvenile court to com-

bine a juvenile disposition with a crimi-

nal sentence that is suspended. If the

youth successfully completes the juve-

nile disposition and does not commit a

new offense, the criminal sanction is

not imposed. If, however, the youth

does not cooperate or fails in the juve-

nile sanctioning system, the adult crim-

inal sanction is imposed. Juvenile court

blended sentencing gives the juvenile

court the power to send uncooperative

youth to adult prison, broadening the

typical array of juvenile court disposi-

tional options.

Criminal blended sentencing. In

2019, statutes in 23 states allowed

criminal courts sentencing certain

transferred youth to impose sanctions

otherwise available only to youth han-

dled in juvenile court. The juvenile dis-

position may be conditional—the sus-

pended criminal sentence is intended

to ensure good behavior. Criminal

court blended sentencing gives youth

prosecuted in criminal court one last

chance at a juvenile disposition, thus

mitigating the effects of transfer laws

on an individual basis.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

Most states have multiple ways to impose adult sanctions on juveniles charged with a crime

Judicial waiver

Statutory

Prosecutorial

Once an

adult/

always an Reverse

Blended sentencing

State Discretionary Presumptive Mandatory exclusion discretion adult waiver Juvenile Criminal

Number of states 46 12 12 27 14 35 28 15 23

Alabama

QQQ

Alaska

QQ Q QQ

Arizona

Q QQQQ

Arkansas

QQQQQ

California

QQQQ

Colorado

Q Q Q QQQ Q

Connecticut

Q Q QQQ Q

Delaware

Q QQQQQ

Dist. of Columbia

QQ QQ

Florida

QQQQ

Georgia

QQQQQ

Hawaii

Idaho

QQQQ

Illinois

QQ Q QQ

Indiana

QQQQQQQ

Iowa

QQQQQ

Kansas

QQQ

Kentucky

QQ QQ

Louisiana

QQQQ

Maine

QQ Q

Maryland

QQQQ

Massachusetts

QQQ

Michigan

QQQQQ

Minnesota

QQ Q Q Q

Mississippi

QQQQ

Missouri

QQQ

Montana

QQ QQQ

Nebraska

QQQQ

Nevada

QQ Q QQ

New Hampshire

QQ Q

New Jersey

New Mexico

QQQ

New York

North Carolina

QQ QQ

North Dakota

QQQ Q

Ohio

Q Q QQQ

Oklahoma

Q QQQQ Q

Oregon

QQQQ

Pennsylvania

QQ Q QQ

Rhode Island

QQ Q Q

South Carolina QQQ

South Dakota QQQQ

Tennessee QQQ

Texas QQQ

Utah QQ Q Q

Vermont QQQQ

Virginia QQQQQQ

Washington QQQ

West Virginia QQ Q

Wisconsin QQQQQ

Wyoming QQQ

In states with a combination of provisions for transferring juveniles to criminal court, the exclusion, mandatory waiver, or pros-

ecutorial discretion provisions generally target the oldest youth and/or those charged with the most serious offenses, whereas

younger youth and/or those charged with relatively less serious offenses may be eligible for discretionary waiver.

Note: Table information is as of the end of the 2019 legislative session.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of OJJDP’s

Statistical Briefing Book

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

In most states, age and offense criteria limit transfer

provisions

Judicial waiver remains the most

common transfer provision

As of the end of the 2019 legislative

session, a total of 47 states have laws

designating some category of cases in

which waiver of jurisdiction by juvenile

court judges transfers certain cases to

criminal court. Such action is usually in

response to a request by the prosecu-

tor. In several states, however, juveniles

or their parents may request judicial

waiver. In most states, waiver is limited

by age and offense boundaries.

Waiver provisions vary in terms of the

degree of decisionmaking flexibility al-

lowed. The decision may be entirely

discretionary, there may be a rebutta-

ble presumption in favor of waiver, or

it may be a mandatory decision. Man-

datory decisions arise when a law or

provision requires a judge to waive the

child after certain statutory criteria

have been met. Most states set a mini-

mum threshold for eligibility, but these

are often quite low. In a few states,

prosecutors may ask the court to waive

virtually any juvenile delinquency case.

Nationally, the proportion of juvenile

cases in which waiver was granted was

less than 1% of petitioned delinquency

cases in 2019. The number of cases

waived in 2019 (3,300) was 75% less

than the number waived in 1994

(13,000), which was the peak year.

Some statutes establish waiver

criteria other than age and offense

In some states, waiver provisions target

youth charged with offenses involving

firearms or other weapons. Most state

statutes also limit judicial waiver to

youth who are no longer “amenable to

treatment.” The specific factors that

determine lack of amenability vary, but

they typically include the youth’s will-

ingness to participate in treatment and

previous dispositional outcomes. Such

amenability criteria are generally not

included in statutory exclusion or con-

current jurisdiction provisions.

In most states, juvenile court judges may waive jurisdiction over

certain cases and transfer them to criminal court

Judicial waiver offense and minimum age criteria, 2019

State

Any

criminal

offense

Certain

felonies

Capital

crimes Murder

Certain

person

offenses

Certain

property

offenses

Certain

drug

offenses

Certain

weapon

offenses

Alabama 14

Alaska NS NS

Arizona NS

Arkansas 14 14 14 14 14

California 16

Colorado 12 12 12 12

Connecticut 15 15 15 15

Delaware NS 14

Dist. of Columbia 15 15 15 15 15 NS

Florida 14

Georgia 15 13 13

Hawaii 14 NS

Idaho 14 NS NS NS NS

Illinois 13 15

Indiana NS 12 16

Iowa 12 10

Kansas 14

Kentucky 14 14

Louisiana 14 14

Maine NS NS NS NS

Maryland 15 NS

Michigan 14

Minnesota 14

Mississippi 13

Missouri 12

Nebraska 16 14

Nevada 16 14 13 16

New Hampshire 15 13 13 15

New Jersey 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

North Carolina 13 13

North Dakota 14 14 14 14 14

Ohio 14 14 16 16

Oklahoma NS

Oregon 15 15 NS NS 15

Pennsylvania 14 14 14 14

Rhode Island 16 NS

South Carolina 17 14 NS NS 14 14

South Dakota NS

Tennessee 14

Texas 14 14 14

Utah 14 16 16 16 16

Vermont 16 12 12 12

Virginia 14 14 14

Washington NS

West Virginia NS NS NS NS NS

Wisconsin 15 14 14 14 14 14

Wyoming NS

Notes: An entry in the column below an offense category means that there is at least one offense

in that category for which a juvenile may be waived from juvenile court to criminal court. The num-

ber indicates the youngest possible age at which a juvenile accused of an offense in that category

may be waived. “NS” means no age restriction is specified for an offense in that category. Table in-

formation is as of the end of the 2019 legislative session.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of OJJDP’s

Statistical Briefing Book

Many statutes instruct juvenile courts

to consider other factors when making

waiver decisions, such as the youth’s

offense history, the availability of dis-

positional treatment alternatives, the

time available for sanctions, public

safety, and the best interest of the

child. The waiver process must also

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

adhere to constitutional principles of

due process of

Kent v. United States

(1966).

The surge in violence that peaked

in 1994 helped shape current

transfer laws

State transfer laws in their current form

are largely the product of a period of

intense legislative activity that began in

the latter half of the 1980s and contin-

ued through the end of the 1990s.

Prompted in part by public concern

and media focus on the rise in violent

youth crime that began in 1987 and

peaked in 1994, legislatures in nearly

every state revised or rewrote their laws

to lower thresholds and expand eligi-

bility for transfer, shift transfer deci-

sionmaking authority from judges to

prosecutors, and replace individualized

attention with broad automatic and

categorical mechanisms.

Between 1986 and the end of the cen-

tury, the number of states with auto-

matic transfer laws jumped from 20 to

38, and the number with prosecutorial

discretion laws rose from 7 to 15.

Moreover, many states that had auto-

matic or prosecutor controlled transfer

statutes expanded their coverage drasti-

cally. In Pennsylvania, for example, an

automatic transfer law had been in

place since 1933 but had applied only

to murder charges. Amendments that

took place in 1996 added a long list of

violent offenses to this formerly narrow

statutory exclusion.

Transfer laws giving prosecutors

discretion to file in juvenile or

criminal court are least common

As of the end of the 2019 legislative

session, 14 states had prosecutorial dis-

cretion provisions, which gave both ju-

venile and criminal courts original ju-

risdiction in certain cases. Under such

provisions, prosecutors have discretion

to file eligible cases in either court.

Prosecutorial discretion is typically lim-

ited by age and offense criteria focus-

ing on cases involving violent or repeat

crimes or weapons offenses. These stat-

utes are usually silent regarding stan-

dards, protocols, or considerations for

decisionmaking, and no national data

exists on the number of youth tried in

In states with concurrent jurisdiction, the prosecutor has discretion

to file certain cases in either criminal or juvenile court

Prosecutorial discretion offense and minimum age criteria, 2019

State

Any

criminal

offense

Certain

felonies

Capital

crimes Murder

Certain

person

offenses

Certain

property

offenses

Certain

drug

offenses

Certain

weapon

offenses

Arizona 14

Arkansas 16 14 14 14

Colorado 16 16 16

Delaware 16

Dist. of Columbia 16 16 16 16 16

Florida 16 16 14 14 14 14

Georgia NS 13 13

Louisiana 15 15 15 15

Michigan 14 14 14 14 14

Montana 12 12 16 16 16

Nebraska 17 14

Oklahoma 16 15 15 15 16 15

Virginia 14 14 14

Wyoming 13 14 14 14 14

Notes: An entry in the column below an offense category means that there is at least one offense

in that category that is subject to criminal prosecution at the option of the prosecutor. The number

indicates the youngest possible age at which a juvenile accused of an offense in that category is

subject to criminal prosecution. “NS” means no age restriction is specified for an offense in that

category. Table information is as of the end of the 2019 legislative session.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of OJJDP’s

Statistical Briefing Book

criminal court under prosecutorial dis-

cretion provisions.

State appellate courts have taken the

view that prosecutorial discretion is

equivalent to the routine charging de-

cisions prosecutors make in criminal

cases. Prosecutorial discretion in charg-

ing is considered an executive function,

which is not subject to judicial review

and does not have to meet the due

process standards established by the

Supreme Court. Some states, however,

do have written guidelines for prosecu-

torial discretion.

Statutory exclusion accounts for

the largest number of transfers

Legislatures transfer large numbers of

youth to criminal court by enacting

statutes that exclude certain cases from

original juvenile court jurisdiction. As

of the end of the 2019 legislative ses-

sion, 27 states had statutory exclusion

provisions. State laws typically set age

and offense limits for excluded offens-

es. The offenses most often excluded

are murder, capital crimes, and other

serious person offenses. (Minor offens-

es such as wildlife, traffic, and water-

craft violations are often excluded from

juvenile court jurisdiction in states

where they are not covered by concur-

rent jurisdiction provisions.)

Exclusion laws and prosecutors

transfer more cases than do

juvenile court judges

Based on data from 11 states with

transfer laws other than judicial waiver

provisions, 4,900 youth were prosecut-

ed in criminal court under those laws.

Applying that case rate to the youth

population in the 24 other states with

such laws that do not make data pub-

lic, results in a rough estimate of 4,000

youth. Thus, approximately 8,900

youth younger than 18 were prosecut-

ed in criminal court under statutory

exclusion and prosecutor discretion

laws. In comparison, 3,300 cases were

transferred to criminal court by juve-

nile court judges.

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

Jurisdictional age laws may

transfer as many as 40,800

additional youth to criminal court

Although not typically thought of as

transfers, large numbers of youth

younger than age 18 are tried in crimi-

nal court. States have always been free

to define the respective jurisdictions of

their juvenile and criminal courts.

Nothing compels a state to draw the

line between juvenile and adult at age

18. In 8 states, the upper age of juve-

nile court jurisdiction during 2019 was

set at 15 or 16 and youth could be

held criminally responsible at age 16 or

17, respectively. The number of youth

younger than 18 prosecuted as adults

in these states can only be estimated.

To estimate the number of youth

younger than 18 prosecuted in crimi-

nal court in these states, a study by

Puzzanchera et al. used 2019 delin-

quency petition rates—that is, the rates

at which youth are formally processed

in juvenile court. Specifically, national

age/sex/race petition rates were devel-

oped for delinquency cases based on

estimates developed by the National

Juvenile Court Data Archive. These

rates were applied to corresponding

age/sex/race population estimates for

each of these 8 states. The resulting

counts for each state were summed to

produce an estimate of the number of

cases involving 16- and 17-year-olds

subject to criminal court processing in

these 8 states. Using population and

delinquency case estimates, an estimat-

In states with statutory exclusion provisions, certain serious offenses

are excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction

Statutory exclusion offense and minimum age criteria, 2011

State

Any

criminal

offense

Certain

felonies

Capital

crimes Murder

Certain

person

offenses

Certain

property

offenses

Certain

drug

offenses

Certain

weapon

offenses

Alabama 16 16 16 16

Alaska 16 16 16 16 16

Arizona 15 15 15 15 15

Delaware NS NS NS NS 16

Georgia 13 13

Idaho 14 14 14 14

Illinois 16 16

Indiana 16 16 16 16

Iowa 17 16 16 16

Louisiana 15 15

Maryland 14 16 16 16

Massachusetts 14

Minnesota 16

Mississippi 13 13

Montana NS 17 17 17 17 17

Nevada 16 NS NS NS 16

New Mexico 15

New York 16 16 13 13 14 14

Oklahoma 15 13 15 15 16

Oregon 15 15 15

Pennsylvania NS 15 15

South Carolina 16

South Dakota 16

Utah 16 16 16 16 16

Vermont 14 14 14

Wisconsin 10 10

Notes: An entry in the column below an offense category means that there is at least one offense

in that category that is excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction. The number indicates the youngest

possible age at which a juvenile accused of an offense in that category is subject to exclusion.

“NS” means no age restriction is specified for an offense in that category. Table information is as of

the end of the 2019 legislative session.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of OJJDP’s

Statistical Briefing Book

ed 40,800 cases involving youth

younger than 18 were subject to crimi-

nal court processing in 2019 in states

with an upper age threshold younger

than the 18th birthday.

This estimate is based on an assump-

tion that juvenile and criminal courts

would respond in the same way to sim-

ilar offending behavior. It is possible

that some conduct that would be con-

sidered serious enough to merit formal

processing in juvenile court—such as

vandalism, minor thefts, and low-level

public order offenses—would not re-

ceive similar handling in criminal court.

Many states allow transfer of

certain very young youth

In 21 states, no minimum age is speci-

fied in at least one judicial waiver, con-

current jurisdiction, or statutory exclu-

sion provision for transferring juveniles

to criminal court. For example, Penn-

sylvania’s murder exclusion has no

specified minimum age. Other transfer

provisions in Pennsylvania have age

minimums set at 14 and 15. Among

states where statutes specify age limits

for all transfer provisions, age 14 is the

most common minimum age specified

across provisions.

Minimum transfer age specified in statute,

2019:

Age State

None Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, District of

Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,

Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Montana,

Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Washington,

West Virginia, Wyoming

10 Iowa, Wisconsin

12 Colorado, Missouri, Vermont

13 Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire,

New York, North Carolina

14 Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North

Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas,

Utah, Virginia

15 Connecticut, New Jersey, New

Mexico

16 California

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

100

From 2004 to 2019, most states made changes to their

transfer laws—many narrowing the path to criminal court

30 states changed their transfer

laws between 2004 and 2019

Despite the steady decline in youth

crime and violence rates since the mid-

1990s, in 21 states transfer provisions

remained essentially unchanged be-

tween 2004 and 2019. Among the 30

states making changes to the laws con-

trolling youth transfer to criminal

court, most made changes that nar-

rowed the pool of youth eligible for

transfer. There were 16 states that only

enacted changes that narrowed the eli-

gibility criteria for transfer to criminal

court. These included changes like

“raise the age” reforms which impact

all youth in a given age group, increas-

es in upper or lower age limits, reduc-

tions in the offenses in transfer laws,

removing transfer provisions, or adding

reverse transfer provisions.

Among states that made changes, seven

only made changes that expanded

transfer criteria, such as adding provi-

sions, lowering age limits, or adding

offense categories. There were seven

additional states that made changes in

both directions. For example, New

York raised the upper age of original

juvenile court jurisdiction and expand-

ed their exclusion provisions by adding

offenses and lowering the minimum

age for some.

The net effect is that more states rolled

back provisions—narrowing the criteria

enabling youth to end up in criminal

court. In 2019, there were an estimat-

ed 53,000 youth younger than 18 tried

in criminal court. That figure was

down 64% from the 2005 estimate.

Since 2004, more states have narrowed their transfer provisions than expanded them, contributing to a

reduction in the number of youth eligible to be tried as adults in criminal court

Source: Authors analysis of state statutes and OJJDP’s

Statistical Briefing Book

Essentially unchanged (21 states)

Narrowed only (16 states)

Both narrowed and expanded (7 states)

Expanded only (7 states)

Transfer law changes, 2004–2019

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

101

Few juveniles enter the federal justice system

There is no separate federal

juvenile justice system

Youth younger than 18 who are arrest-

ed by federal law enforcement agencies

may be prosecuted and sentenced in

U.S. District Courts and even commit-

ted to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act,

Title 18 U.S.C. 5031, lays out the def-

initions of a juvenile and juvenile delin-

quency as well as the procedures for

the handling of juveniles accused of

crimes against the U.S. Although it

generally requires that youth be turned

over to state or local authorities, there

are limited exceptions.

Juveniles initially come into federal law

enforcement custody in a variety of

ways. The federal agencies that arrest

the most young people are the Border

Patrol, Drug Enforcement Agency,

U.S. Marshals Service, and FBI. In

2019, there were a total of 218 youth

younger than 18 arrested by federal

agencies. That figure was slightly fewer

than the average for the 2010–2019

period (219.5). The peak during that

period was 384 in 2011, which was

driven by a spike in drug arrests.

Federal prosecutors may retain

certain serious cases

Following a federal arrest of a person

younger than 21, federal law requires

an investigation to determine whether

the offense was a delinquency offense

under state law. If so, and if the state is

willing and able to deal with the youth,

the federal prosecutor may forego

prosecution and surrender the youth to

state authorities. However, a case may

instead be “certified” by the Attorney

General for federal delinquency prose-

cution, if one of the following condi-

tions exists: (1) the state does not have

or refuses to take jurisdiction over the

case; (2) the state does not have ade-

quate programs or services for the

needs of the youth; or (3) the youth is

charged with a violent felony, drug

trafficking, or firearms offense and the

case involves a “substantial federal in-

terest.”

A case certified for federal delinquency

prosecution is heard in U.S. District

Court by a judge sitting in closed ses-

sion without a jury. Following a find-

ing of delinquency, the court has dis-

position powers similar to those of

state juvenile courts. For instance, it

may order the youth to pay restitution,

serve a period of probation, or under-

go “official detention” in a correction-

al facility. Generally, neither probation

nor official detention may extend be-

yond the youth’s 21st birthday or the

maximum term that could be imposed

on an adult convicted of an equivalent

offense, whichever is shorter. But for

juveniles who are between ages 18 and

21 at the time of sentencing, official

detention for certain serious felonies

may last up to 5 years.

A juvenile in the federal system

may also be “transferred” for

criminal prosecution

When proceedings in a federal case in-

volving a juvenile are transferred for

criminal prosecution, they actually re-

main in district court but are governed

by federal criminal laws rather than

state laws or the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act. Federal

law authorizes transfer at the written

request of a youth of at least age 15

who is alleged to have committed an

offense after attaining the age of 15 or

upon the motion of the Attorney Gen-

eral in a qualifying case where the

court finds that “the interest of jus-

tice” requires it. Qualifying cases in-

clude those in which a youth is

charged with (1) a violent felony or

drug trafficking or importation offense

committed after reaching age 15; (2)

murder or aggravated assault commit-

ted after reaching age 13; or (3) pos-

session of a firearm during the com-

mission of any offense after reaching

age 13. However, transfer is mandatory

in any case involving a youth age 16 or

older who was previously found guilty

of a violent felony or drug trafficking

offense and who is now accused of

committing a drug trafficking or im-

portation offense or any felony involv-

ing the use, attempted use, threat, or

substantial risk of force.

In 2019, immigration arrests remained a large share of federal arrests of

youth younger than 18

Source: Authors’ analysis of BJS’

Federal Criminal Case Processing Statistics

data tool for 2015

through 2019.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Youth younger than 18 arrested and booked by federal agencies

Immigration

Violent

Public order

Supervision

violation

Drugs

operty

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

102

Sources

Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2018.

Transforming Probation: A Vision for

Getting it Right

. Baltimore, MD:

AECF. Available at www.aecf.org/

resources/transforming-juvenile-

probation.

Bonnie, R., Johnson, R., Chemers, B.

and Schuck, J. (eds). 2013.

Reforming

Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Ap-

proach

. Washington, DC: National Re-

search Council, National Academies of

Sciences. Available at www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=14685

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2022. Fed-

eral Criminal Case Processing Statistics

Data Tool. Available at www.bjs.gov/

fjsrc/index.cfm.

Coleman, A. 2020.

Expunging Juve-

nile Records: Misconceptions, Collater-

al Consequences, and Emerging Prac-

tices

. Washington, DC: OJJDP.

Available at ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/

expunging-juvenile-records.pdf

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2021.

Crime in the United States 2019

Table 68. Available at ucr.fbi.gov/

crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-

u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-

68.

Fowler, J., and Anderson, R. 2013.

The Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Re-

cidivism Report: Juveniles with Cases

Closed in 2007, 2008, or 2009

. Penn-

sylvania’s Juvenile Court Judges’ Com-

mission. Available at www.jcjc.state.

pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/

jcjc_home/5030.

General Assembly of North Carolina.

Session Law 2017-57, Senate Bill 257.

Godfrey, K. 2019.

Initiative to Devel-

op Juvenile Reentry Measurement

Standards, Final Technical Report

Braintree, MA: PbS Learning Institute,

Inc.

Griffin, P., Addie, S., Adams, B., and

Firestine, K. 2011. Trying Juveniles as

Adults: An Analysis of State Transfer

Laws and Reporting.

Juvenile Offend-

ers and Victims: National Report Series

Bulletin

. Washington, DC: U.S. De-

partment of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Griffin, P., and Torbet, P. (eds.). 2002.

Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Pro-

bation Practice

. Pittsburgh, PA: Na-

tional Center for Juvenile Justice.

Harris, P., Lockwood, B., and

Mengers, L. 2009.

A CJCA White

Paper: Defining and Measuring Recidi-

vism

. Available at www.cjca.net.

Howard Jimmy Davis

State of Mary-

land

. 2021 COA-REG-0051-2020.

Case No. 03-K-17-001763.

Davis

State

, No. 2014, (Md. Ct. Spec. App.

Oct. 9, 2020).

Hutzler, J. 1983. Canon to the Left,

Canon to the Right: Can the Juvenile

Court Survive?

Today’s Delinquent

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for

Juvenile Justice.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-

vention Act of 1974, Public Law 93–

415, 18 U.S.C. § 5032, as amended.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-

vention Act of 1974, Public Law 93–

415, 42 U.S.C. § 5601, as amended.

Juvenile Justice Reform Act. HR 6964.

2018, Public Law 115-385. Available

at www.congress.gov/bill/115th-

congress/house-bill/6964/text.

Juvenile Law Center. 2014.

Failed Pol-

icies, Forfeited Futures: Revisiting a

Nationwide Scorecard on Juvenile Re-

cords

. Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law

Center.

Juvenile Law Center. 2020.

Failed Pol-

icies, Forfeited Futures: Revisiting a

Nationwide Scorecard on Juvenile Re-

cords

. Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law

Center. Available at juvenilerecords.jlc.

org/juvenilerecords/#!/map.

Kuhn, J. 1989.

A Digest of Cases of

the United States Supreme Court as to

Juvenile and Family Law, 1962–July

1988

. Reno, NV: National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Kuhn, J. 1990.

Supplement to a Digest

of Cases of the United States Supreme

Court as to Juvenile and Family Law,

Addressing the 1988–1990 Terms

Reno, NV: National Council of Juve-

nile and Family Court Judges.

Louisiana Act No. 501, Sentate Bill

No. 324.

Maloney, D., Romig, D., and Arm-

strong, T. 1988. Juvenile Probation:

The Balanced Approach.

Juvenile &

Family Court Journal

, 39(3).

McNamee, G. (ed.). 1999.

A Noble

Experiment? The First 100 Years of the

Cook County Juvenile Court: 1899–

1999

. Chicago, IL: The Chicago Bar

Association with the Children’s Court

Centennial Committee.

Miller

Alabama

, 132 S. Ct. 2455

(2012).

Motivans, M. 2021.

Federal Justice

Statistics, 2019

. Washington, DC: Bu-

reau of Justice Statistics.

National Alliance on Mental Illness.

2020. FCC Designates 988 As A Na-

tionwide Mental Health Crisis And

Suicide Prevention Number. Available

at www.nami.org/About-NAMI/NA-

MI-News/2020/FCC-Designates-

988-as-a-Nationwide-Mental-Health-

Crisis-and-Suicide-Prevention-Number.

Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process

103

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

2021. Juvenile Justice GPS (Geogra-

phy, Policy, Practice & Statistics).

Available at www.jjgps.org/juvenile-

justice-services#risk-assessment?year=

2020.

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

2021. Juvenile Justice GPS (Geogra-

phy, Policy, Practice & Statistics).

Available at www.jjgps.org/status-

offense-issues#labeling.

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

2021.

National Juvenile Court Data

Archive: Juvenile Court Case Records

2019

[machine-readable data file].

Pittsburgh, PA: NCJJ [producer].

National Council on Crime and Delin-

quency. 1959.

Standard Juvenile Court

Act: Sixth Edition

. New York, NY:

NCCD.

National Suicide Hotline Designation

Act of 2020. Public Law No: 116-172.

New York State Senate. Assembly Bill

A3009C.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention. Juvenile Justice

System Structure & Process. Statistical

Briefing Book. Available at www.ojjdp.

gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/faqs.

asp [released April 18, 2022.]

Puzzanchera, C., and Hockenberry, S.

2021.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for

Juvenile Justice.

Puzzanchera, C., Sickmund, M., and

Hurst, H. 2021.

Youth Younger Than

18 Prosecuted in Criminal Court: Na-

tional Estimate, 2019 Cases

. Pitts-

burgh, PA: National Center for Juve-

nile Justice. Available at www.ncjj.org/

pdf/NCJJ_Transfer_estimate_2019.pdf

Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A., and Kang,

W. 2021.

Easy Access to Juvenile Pop-

ulations: 1990–2020

. Available at

www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop.

Sheridan, W. 1969.

Legislative Guide

for Drafting Family and Juvenile

Court Acts

. Washington, DC: U.S.

Children’s Bureau.

Sickmund, M. and Puzzanchera, C.

2014.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims:

2014 National Report

. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Of-

fice of Justice Programs, Office of Ju-

venile Justice and Delinquency Preven-

tion.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., and Kang,

W. 2021.

Easy Access to Juvenile

Court Statistics: 1985–2019

. Available

at www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs.

Smoot, N. 2019. The Juvenile Justice

Reform Act of 2018: Updating the

Federal Approach to Youth Involved,

and At Risk of Becoming Involved, in

the juvenile Justice System.

Juvenile

and Family Court Journal

, 70(3).

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1995.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A Na-

tional Report

. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Jus-

tice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jus-

tice and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1999.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999

National Report

. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 2006.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006

National Report

. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H., Sickmund, M., and Poe

Yamagata, E. 2000.

Juvenile Transfers

to Criminal Court in the 1990’s: Les-

sons Learned from Four Studies

Washington, DC: Department of Jus-

tice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

South Carolina Legislature Act 268

Senate Bill No. 916.

Steinberg, L. 2014.

Age of Opportuni-

ty: Lessons from the New Science of

Adolescence

. New York, NY: Eamon

Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Szymanski, L. 2010. Are There Some

Juvenile Court Records That Cannot

Be Sealed?

NCJJ Snapshot

. Pittsburgh,

PA: National Center for Juvenile Jus-

tice.

Szymanski, L. 2010. What States Allow

for Open Juvenile Delinquency Hear-

ings?

NCJJ Snapshot

. Pittsburgh, PA:

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Tanenhaus, D. 2000. The Evolution of

Transfer Out of the Juvenile Court. In

The Changing Borders of Juvenile Jus-

tice

. Chicago, IL: University of Chica-

go Press.

Tanenhaus, D. 2004.

Juvenile Justice

in the Making

. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Taylor, M., Livengood, Z., and Sick-

mund, M. 2020.

Desktop Guide to

Good Juvenile Probation Practice

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for

Juvenile Justice. Available at www.

goodjuvenileprobationpractice.org.

Vermont, Act 201 of 2018. VT ST §§

5102 and 5103.

Weiss, G. 2013.

The Fourth Wave: Ju-

venile Justice Reforms for the Twenty-

first Century

. Washington, DC: Na-

tional Campaign to Reform State

Juvenile Justice Systems.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

105

Chapter 5

Law enforcement

and youth

Law enforcement is the doorway for

most youth who enter the juvenile

justice system. Once a juvenile is ap-

prehended for a law violation, it is the

police officer who first determines if

the juvenile will move deeper into the

justice system or will be diverted.

Law enforcement agencies track the

volume and characteristics of crimes

reported to them and use this infor-

mation to monitor the changing levels

of crime in their communities. Not all

crimes are reported to law enforce-

ment, and many of those that are re-

ported remain unsolved. Law enforce-

ment’s incident-based reporting

systems include characteristics of the

person(s) who committed the crime

as reported by the victim. For these

crimes, even when there is no arrest,

law enforcement records can be used

to develop an understanding of juve-

nile offending. For all other types of

crimes, an understanding of juvenile

involvement comes through the study

of arrest statistics. Arrest statistics can

monitor the flow of juveniles and

adults into the justice system and are

the most frequently cited source of

information on juvenile crime trends.

This chapter describes the volume and

characteristics of juvenile crime from

law enforcement’s perspective. It pres-

ents information on the number and

offense characteristics of juvenile ar-

rests in 2019 and historical trends in

juvenile arrests. This chapter also ex-

amines arrests and arrest trends for fe-

males and youth under age 13 and

compares arrest trends for males and

females and different racial groups. It

includes arrest rate trends for many

specific offenses, including murder and

other violent crimes, property crimes,

and drug and weapons offenses. The

majority of data presented in this

chapter were originally compiled by

the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) as part of its Uniform Crime

Reporting Program, which includes

the Supplementary Homicide Reports

and the National Incident-Based Re-

porting System. Arrest estimates for

1980–2014 were developed by the

Bureau of Justice Statistics and arrest

estimates for 2015–2019 were devel-

oped by the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice based on data published in

the FBI’s

Crime in the United States

reports for the respective years.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

106

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program monitors law

enforcement’s response to juvenile crime

Police agencies have reported to

the UCR Program since the 1930s

Annually, thousands of police agencies

voluntarily report the following data to

the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s

(FBI’s) Uniform Crime Reporting

(UCR) Program:

Q Number of Index crimes (i.e., mur-

der, rape, robbery, aggravated

assault, burglary, larceny-theft,

motor vehicle theft, and arson)

reported to law enforcement.

Q Number of arrests and the most seri-

ous charge involved in each arrest.

Q Age, sex, and race of persons arrested.

Q Proportion of reported Index crimes

cleared by arrest, and the proportion

of these Index crimes cleared by the

arrest of persons younger than 18.

Q Police dispositions of juvenile arrests.

Q Detailed victim, offender, and cir-

cumstance information in murder

incidents.

What arrest data tell us about kids

and crime

The UCR arrest data provide a sample-

based portrait of the volume and char-

acteristics of arrests in the United

States. Detailed national estimates de-

veloped by the Bureau of Justice Statis-

tics (BJS) for 1980–2014 and the Na-

tional Center for Juvenile Justice

(NCJJ) for 2015–2019 are based on

these sample data. The estimates in-

clude detailed juvenile age groups as

well as details by sex, race, and specific

offenses. The data can be used to ana-

lyze the number and rates of juvenile

arrests within offense categories and

demographic subgroups and to track

changes over various periods. They can

also be used to compare the relative

number of juvenile and adult arrests by

offense categories and demographics

and to monitor the proportion of

crimes cleared by arrests of juveniles.

What do arrest statistics count?

To interpret the material in this chap-

ter properly, the reader needs a clear

understanding of what these statistics

count. Arrest statistics report the num-

ber of arrests that law enforcement

agencies made in a given year—not the

number of individuals arrested nor the

number of crimes committed. The

number of arrests is not the same as

the number of people arrested because

an unknown number of individuals are

arrested more than once during the

year. Nor do arrest statistics represent

the number of crimes that arrested in-

dividuals commit, because a series of

crimes that one person commits may

culminate in a single arrest, and a sin-

gle crime may result in the arrest of

more than one person. This latter situ-

ation, where many arrests result from

one crime, is relatively common in ju-

venile law-violating behavior because

juveniles are more likely than adults to

commit crimes in groups. For this rea-

son, one should not use arrest statistics

to indicate the relative proportions of

crime that juveniles and adults commit.

Arrest statistics are most appropriately

a measure of entry into the justice sys-

tem.

Arrest statistics also have limitations in

measuring the volume of arrests for a

particular offense. Under the UCR

Program, the FBI requires law enforce-

ment agencies to classify an arrest by

the most serious offense charged in

that arrest. For example, the arrest of a

youth charged with aggravated assault

and possession of a weapon would be

reported to the FBI as an arrest for ag-

gravated assault. Therefore, when ar-

The official definition of rape has changed and impacts the

Violent Crime Index

Since 1927, the FBI had defined forc-

ible rape as “the carnal knowledge of

a female, forcibly and against her

will.” Beginning in 2013, the FBI ad-

opted a broader definition of rape:

“Penetration, no matter how slight, of

the vagina or anus with any body part

or object, or oral penetration by a sex

organ of another person, without the

consent of the victim.” Unlike the

definition in place for more than 80

years, the new definition does not re-

quire force and is gender neutral.

Under current reporting practices, law

enforcement agencies may submit

data on rape arrests based on either

the new or legacy definition. Due to

differences in agency reporting prac-

tices, national estimates for the of-

fenses of “rape” and “sex offenses”

are not available after 2012. Addition-

ally, estimates for the Violent Crime

Index (which included “forcible rape”)

are not shown, as this category is no

longer compatible with prior years.

Changes to the definition of rape im-

pact the Violent Crime Index. For

many years, the primary means of as-

sessing trends in violent crime was to

monitor four offenses that law en-

forcement agencies nationwide con-

sistently report. These four crimes—

murder and nonnegligent

manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery,

and aggravated assault—formed the

Violent Crime Index. Due to changes

in the official definition of rape, track-

ing violence through the Violent Crime

Index is no longer tenable, as the

meaning of the included offenses is no

longer consistent before and after

2013. In this chapter, we use a modi-

fied measure of violence that includes

the offenses of murder, robbery, and

aggravated assault. In any given year

prior to the rape definition change,

these three offenses accounted for

more than 95% of arrests for Violent

Crime Index offenses. Note that these

changes do not impact the Property

Crime Index, which includes the of-

fenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor

vehicle theft, and arson.

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

107

The juvenile proportion of arrests exceeded the juvenile proportion of

crimes cleared by arrest in each offense category

rest statistics show that law enforce-

ment agencies made an estimated

16,080 arrests of young people for

weapons law violations in 2019, it

means that a weapons law violation was

the most serious charge in these

16,080 arrests. An unknown number

of additional arrests in 2019 included a

weapons charge as a lesser offense.

What do clearance statistics count?

Clearance statistics measure the pro-

portion of reported crimes that were

cleared (or “closed”) by either arrest or

other, exceptional means (such as the

death of the offender or unwillingness

of the victim to cooperate). A single

arrest may result in many clearances.

For example, 1 arrest could clear 10

burglaries if the person was charged

with committing all 10 crimes. Or

multiple arrests may result in a single

clearance if a group of people commit-

ted the crime.

For those interested in juvenile justice

issues, the FBI also reports the propor-

tion of clearances that involved arrests

of only persons younger than age 18.

This statistic is a better indicator of the

proportion of crime that this age

group commits than is the proportion

of arrests, although there are some

concerns that even the clearance statis-

tic overestimates the proportion of

crimes that juveniles commit. Research

has shown that juvenile offenders are

more easily apprehended than adult of-

fenders; thus, the juvenile proportion

of clearances probably overestimates

juveniles’ responsibility for crime.

To add to the difficulty in interpreting

clearance statistics, the FBI’s current

reporting guidelines require that clear-

ances involving both juveniles and

adults be classified as clearances for

crimes that adults commit. Because the

juvenile clearance proportions include

only those clearances in which no

adults were involved, they underesti-

mate juvenile involvement in crime. Al-

though these data do not present a de-

finitive picture of juvenile involvement

in crime, they are the closest measure

generally available of the proportion of

crime known to law enforcement that

is attributed to persons younger than

age 18.

Source: Author's analysis of the FBI’s Crime in the United States, 2019.

Arson

Motor vehicle theft

Larceny−theft

Burglary

Aggravated assault

Robbery

Murder

Property Crime Index

Violent crime

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

11%

14%

22%

12%

10%

13%

17%

20%

Clearance

Arrest

Percent involving youth

Incident-based data collection

replaces summary reporting

Since the 1930s, law enforcement

agencies across the U.S. have vol-

untarily reported aggregate level

crime and arrest data to the FBI’s

Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s

Summary Reporting System (SRS).

Out of necessity, details about

crime and arrests captured through

the UCR program were confined to

aggregate counts, thereby limiting a

complete understanding of crime

incidents. The National Incident-

Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

was developed to overcome these

and other limitations.

Created in the 1980s, the purpose

of NIBRS is to provide statistics

about crime that would lead to bet-

ter decisionmaking. By capturing

detailed information about crime in-

cidents, such as information about

multiple offenses within the same

incident, information about victims

and persons known to have com-

mitted the offense(s) and the rela-

tionships between them, as well as

the time of day and location(s) of

crime incidents, NIBRS is a much

more effective tool for policymak-

ers, analysts, and the general pub-

lic to truly understand crime and

make informed decisions about

how to address the problem. Put

simply, NIBRS captures the com-

plexity of crime incidents that can-

not be achieved by a system based

on aggregate counts.

In 2016, the FBI approved the tran-

sition of all federal, state, county,

local, and tribal law enforcement

agencies from SRS to NIBRS. The

target date for the transition was

January 2021. The FBI expects

75% of all U.S. law enforcement

agencies to report their crime data

through NIBRS by the effective date,

representing 80% of the U.S. popu-

lation. Based on the FBI’s normal

release schedule, data for calendar

year 2021—the first year of NIBRS-

based estimates—would be avail-

able sometime in the fall of 2022.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

108

Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. made 696,620 arrests

of persons under age 18 in 2019

Females accounted for 31% of all juvenile arrests in 2019, youth ages 16–17 accounted for 48%, and

White youth accounted for 63%

2019

estimated number

of juvenile arrests

Percent of total juvenile arrests, 2019

Most serious offense Female

Ages

16–17 White Black

American

Indian Asian

Total 696,620 31% 48% 63% 34% 2% 1%

Violent crime 44,010 21 50 49 48 2 2

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 860 11 70 47 50 3 0

Rape NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Robbery 16,080 12 56 36 62 1 2

Aggravated assault 27,070 26 46 56 40 2 1

Property Crime Index 119,790 33 49 55 42 2 2

Burglary 20,700 14 46 57 40 2 2

Larceny-theft 83,690 40 50 55 41 2 2

Motor vehicle theft 13,610 20 48 47 50 2 1

Arson 1,800 15 27 69 27 2 1

Nonindex

Other (simple) assault 126,130 38 37 59 38 2 1

Forgery and counterfeiting 850 23 69 62 36 1 2

Fraud 3,690 33 58 50 46 2 1

Embezzlement 540 46 87 47 50 0 3

Stolen property (buying, receiving,

possessing) 8,940 18 58 35 62 1 2

Vandalism 31,950 20 38 70 27 2 1

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 16,080 10 53 56 41 1 2

Prostitution and commercialized vice 290 71 74 47 51 0 2

Sex offense (except rape and prostitution) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Drug abuse violation 81,320 26 63 75 21 2 2

Gambling 190 29 63 58 38 0 3

Offenses against the family and children 3,060 41 43 67 23 10 0

Driving under the influence 5,570 26 93 89 6 3 2

Liquor laws 26,650 42 68 86 7 6 1

Drunkenness 3,470 33 70 77 12 10 1

Disorderly conduct 53,990 37 36 55 42 3 1

Vagrancy 350 25 45 72 25 2 1

All other offenses (except traffic) 144,160 30 50 67 29 2 1

Curfew and loitering 14,650 34 44 66 30 3 2

U.S. population ages 10–17: 33,266,572 49% 25% 75% 17% 2% 6%

Q Larceny-theft, simple assault, drug abuse violations, and disorderly conduct offenses accounted for half of all juvenile arrests

in 2019.

Q In 2019, females accounted for 40% of all juvenile arrests for larceny-theft, 38% of all juvenile arrests for simple assault, and

37% of juvenile arrests for disorderly conduct.

Q Youth ages 16-17 accounted for half (50%) of all juvenile arrests for violent crime in 2019, and an even larger proportion of ju-

venile arrests for murder (70%).

Q Black youth, who accounted for 17% of the juvenile population in 2019, were involved in 62% of juvenile arrests for robbery

and stolen property offenses, and 50% of arrests for murder and motor vehicle theft.

NA: Data for rape and sex offenses are not available because of the change in the definition for reporting rape (see sidebar on page 3).

Notes: UCR data do not distinguish the ethnic group Hispanic; Hispanics may be of any race. In 2019, 88% of Hispanics ages 10–17 were classified ra-

cially as White. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors’ analysis of arrest data from the National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

109

In 2019, 6% of male arrests and 8% of female arrests

involved a person younger than age 18

In 2019, juveniles were involved in about 1 in 5 arrests for robbery and arson, and 1 in 10 arrests for

larceny-theft, stolen property offenses, and weapons law violations

Juvenile arrests as a percentage of total arrests, 2019

Most serious offense

All

persons Male Female White Black

American

Indian Asian

Total 7% 6% 8% 6% 9% 6% 6%

Violent crime 9 9 9812 76

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 8 8 7 8 8 13 1

Rape

Robbery 22 23 16 17 25 11 24

Aggravated assault 7 7 8 6 8 6 4

Property Crime Index 11 12 10 9 16 11 13

Burglary 12 13 8 10 17 18 13

Larceny-theft 10 11 10 9 14 9 13

Motor vehicle theft 17 18 15 12 29 19 10

Arson 20 21 14 19 22 20 9

Nonindex

Other (simple) assault 12 11 16 11 15 10 9

Forgery and counterfeiting 2 2 1 2 2 1 2

Fraud 3 3 3 2 5 4 2

Embezzlement 4 4 4 3 5 1 6

Stolen property (buying, receiving,

possessing) 10 11 8 6 18 8 9

Vandalism 18 19 15 18 18 16 11

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) 10 10 11 11 10 13 12

Prostitution and commercialized vice 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

Sex offense (except rape and prostitution)

Drug abuse violation 5 5 5 5 4 9 6

Gambling 8 8 8 8 10 0 2

Offenses against the family and children 4 3 5 4 3 7 2

Driving under the influence 1 1 1 1 0 1 0

Liquor laws 15 13 21 17 7 18 13

Drunkenness 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

Disorderly conduct 17 15 22 15 24 10 14

Vagrancy 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

All other offenses (except traffic) 4 4 5 4 5 4 4

Q Juvenile females accounted for about 1 in 6 simple assault arrests involving females in 2019, while male juveniles accounted

for about 1 in 10 simple assault arrests involving males.

Q In 2019, juveniles accounted for 9% of violent crime arrests and 11% of Property Crime Index arrests. On average, juveniles

accounted for 11% of all violent crime arrests during the 2010s, compared with 16% during the 2000s, and they accounted

for 16% of all Property Crime Index arrests in the 2010s, compared with 28% in the 2000s.

Q Overall, in 2019, 6% of arrests of Whites and 9% of arrests of Blacks involved a person younger than age 18. This pattern of

juveniles being involved in a greater proportion of arrests of Blacks than of Whites was found across nearly all offenses. How-

ever, for liquor law violations, the reverse was true.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors’ analysis of arrest data from the National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

110

Across most offenses, juvenile arrests fell proportionately

more than adult arrests between 2010 and 2019

The number of arrests of juveniles in 2019 was 58% fewer than the number of arrests in 2010, while adult

arrests fell 18% during the same period

Percent change in arrests, 2010–2019

All persons Juveniles Adults

Most serious offense All Male Female All Male Female All Male Female

Total –23% –25% –17% –58% –58% –56% –18% –21% –10%

Violent crime –10 –12 –3 –36 –37 –33 –6 –8 2

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter –1 –2 8 –15 –15 –11 0 –1 10

Rape

Robbery –34 –36 –14 –41 –42 –29 –31 –34 –11

Aggravated assault –6 –7 –2 –40 –41 –36 –1 –3 3

Property Crime Index –35 –35 –34 –67 –65 –71 –25 –26 –23

Burglary –41 –45 –19 –68 –69 –61 –33 –37 –11

Larceny-theft –36 –35 –37 –70 –67 –74 –26 –26 –27

Motor vehicle theft 13 5 49 –14 –18 8 20 12 60

Arson –20 –24 1 –61 –61 –55 8 4 25

Nonindex

Other (simple) assault –21 –23 –13 –40 –42 –36 –17 –20 –7

Forgery and counterfeiting –42 –38 –49 –50 –47 –57 –42 –38 –49

Fraud –40 –34 –48 –36 –35 –37 –40 –34 –48

Embezzlement –19 –18 –19 22 13 36 –20 –19 –20

Stolen property (buying, receiving,

possessing) –7 –10 6 –39 –40 –34 –1 –4 12

Vandalism –29 –32 –13 –59 –61 –45 –15 –19 –3

Weapons (carrying, possessing, etc.) –4 –5 9 –49 –48 –52 7 5 29

Prostitution and commercialized vice –57 –49 –61 –73 –55 –76 –57 –49 –61

Sex offense (except rape and prostitution)

Drug abuse violation –5 –12 26 –52 –58 –24 1 –7 31

Gambling –75 –81 –24 –86 –89 29 –74 –79 –27

Offenses against the family and children –23 –28 –6 –19 –27 –4 –23 –28 –7

Driving under the influence –27 –30 –21 –54 –54 –53 –27 –29 –20

Liquor laws –66 –67 –64 –72 –74 –69 –64 –65 –62

Drunkenness –44 –46 –31 –73 –75 –66 –43 –46 –30

Disorderly conduct –50 –51 –46 –65 –67 –62 –44 –46 –39

Vagrancy –32 –34 –21 –84 –84 –82 –28 –31 –16

All other offenses (except traffic) –11 –14 0 –51 –54 –45 –7 –11 4

Curfew and loitering –85 –85 –82 –85 –85 –82 NA NA NA

Q The overall decline in juvenile arrests was comparable for males (58%) and females (56%) between 2010 and 2019. Across

most offenses, however, the relative decline was greater for juvenile males than juvenile females (e.g., robbery, burglary, sim-

ple assault, and vandalism).

Q Arrests declined for juveniles and adults between 2010 and 2019, and for most offenses, the relative decline in juvenile arrests

outpaced that of adults, regardless of gender. For example, arrests for robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, and disor-

derly conduct declined more for juvenile than adult males, a pattern that was replicated in arrests of females. Somewhat less

common, however, was a decline in juvenile arrests coupled with an increase for adults. For example, juvenile arrests for

weapons law violations for males and females decreased between 2010 and 2019 but increased for their adult counterparts.

NA = Curfew and loitering offenses are status offenses that only apply to juveniles.

Source: Authors’ analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

111

The proportion of juvenile arrests involving females has

grown

Females accounted for 31% of

juvenile arrests in 2019

In 2019, law enforcement agencies

made an estimated 696,620 arrests of

persons younger than age 18. Females

accounted for 212,650 of those arrests,

or less than one-third (31%) of all ar-

rests in that year. Although males ac-

counted for the majority (69%) of juve-

nile arrests in 2019, the female share

was relatively high for certain offenses,

including liquor law violations (42%),

larceny-theft (40%), simple assault

(38%), and disorderly conduct (37%).

In comparison, females accounted for a

smaller share of murder (11%), robbery

(12%), and burglary (14%) arrests.

The female share of juvenile

arrests has grown

Overall, juvenile arrests have declined

considerably in the last two decades.

For example, between 2000 and 2019,

juvenile arrests fell 68%. During the

same period, the number of juvenile

arrests involving males fell 70% while

the number of female juvenile arrests

fell 61%. In fact, from 2000 through

2019, arrests of juvenile females de-

creased less than male arrests in most

offense categories (e.g., robbery, ag-

gravated and simple assault, burglary,

and drug abuse violations).

Percent change, 2000-2019:

Most serious offense Male Female

All offenses –70% –61%

Violent crime –55 –49

Robbery –43 –25

Aggravated assault –61 –53

Property Crime Index –78 –74

Burglary –79 –73

Larceny-theft –78 –75

Motor vehicle theft –74 –68

Simple assault –51 –35

Vandalism –74 –56

Drug abuse violation –64 –26

Driving under the influence –76 –61

Liquor laws –83 –72

Drunkenness –87 –73

Disorderly conduct –71 –56

Curfew –91 –90

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Female percent of youth arrests

Aggravated assault

Robbery

Violent crime

Murder

Year

Violent crime

Q Juvenile arrests for both aggravated assault and larceny-theft have been on the de-

cline since 2000, but the declines have been greater for males than females—61%

and 78%, respectively, for males, compared with 53% and 75% for females. Fol-

lowing this disproportionate decrease in arrests, the female share of aggravated as-

sault and larceny-theft arrests has grown, from 23% in 2000 to 26% in 2019 for ag-

gravated assault, and from 37% to 40% for larceny-theft.

Source: Authors’ analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center

for Juvenile Justice.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Female percent of youth arrests

Larceny−theft

Motor vehicle theft

Burglary

Arson

Property Crime Index

Year

Property crime

The increases in the female proportion of violent crime and property

crime arrests since 1980 were tied to changes in arrests for aggravated

assault and larceny-theft

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

112

As a result of the relatively larger de-

cline in juvenile male arrests, females

accounted for a larger proportion of

juvenile arrests in 2019 than they did

20 years prior. In 2019, females ac-

counted for 31% of all juvenile arrests,

up from 25% in 2000. Between 2000

and 2019, the number of simple as-

sault arrests declined more for juvenile

males (51%) than females (35%). As a

result, the female share of simple as-

sault arrests increased from 31% to

38%. Likewise, female juvenile arrests

for larceny-theft fell 75% in the last 20

years, while arrests of males fell 78%.

The net result was that females ac-

counted for 40% of such arrests in

2019, compared with 37% in 2000.

Gender differences also occurred in ar-

rest trends for adults. For example, be-

tween 2000 and 2019, adult male ar-

rests for simple assault fell 24% while

adult female arrests increased 11%. As a

result, adult females accounted for a

larger share of simple assault arrests in

2019 (28%) than in 2000 (21%). Simi-

larly, adult male arrests for larceny-theft

fell 20% while adult female arrests in-

creased 10%. Therefore, the female

proportion of arrests grew for each of-

fense for adults, as it did for juveniles.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Year

Female percent of youth arrests

Drug abuse

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Year

Female percent of youth arrests

Driving under

the inﬂuence

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Year

Female percent of youth arrests

Liquor law violations

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Year

Female percent of youth arrests

Drunkenness

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

20%

30%

40%

Year

Female percent of youth arrests

Other (simple) assault

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

12%

16%

20%

Year

Female percent of youth arrests

Vandalism

Between 1980 and 2019, the female proportion of juvenile arrests

increased substantially for simple assault, vandalism, liquor law

violations, drunkenness, and disorderly conduct

Q The growth in the female proportion of arrests for the offenses shown above over

the last 10 years is largely attributable to disproportionate changes in arrests of

male and female youth. Specifically, across these offenses, arrests of males and fe-

males have been on the decline since 2010, but the relative decline in male arrests

outpaced the decline for females. For example, drug arrests involving males fell

58% between 2010 and 2019, compared with a 24% decline for females. The result

of such disproportionate declines is that the female share of youth arrests for each

offense has grown.

Source: Authors’ analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center

for Juvenile Justice.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

20%

30%

40%

Year

Female percent of youth arrests

Disorderly conduct

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Year

Female percent of youth arrests

Curfew and loitering

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

113

Youth under age 13 account for a small proportion of juvenile

arrests

Arrest rates for very young juve-

niles declined in the last two

decades

In 1980, there were an estimated

1,259 arrests of persons ages 10–12 for

every 100,000 persons in this age

group in the U.S. population. Follow-

ing a 39% increase through 1994, the

rate declined steadily. By 2019, the ar-

rest rate had fallen to 421, a decline of

74% from the 1994 peak, and 4%

above the 2018 low point.

The proportion of juvenile arrests in-

volving the very young alternated be-

tween periods of growth and decline.

In 1980, 9% of all juvenile arrests were

arrests of persons under age 13. The

proportion reached a peak in 1989 at

11%, declined to a low of 6% in 2009,

and then reached 8% in 2019. Part of

the increase since 2009 can be attribut-

ed to the fact that, while arrests for all

juveniles have been on the decline, the

relative decline for older juveniles out-

paced that of younger juveniles. Since

2009, arrests of juveniles under age 13

fell 50% while arrests of juveniles ages

13–17 fell 62%.

Across most offenses, arrest rates for

young juveniles in 2019 were at or

near historically low levels. However,

for some offenses, arrests of young ju-

veniles have been on the rise in recent

years, and the types of youth entering

the juvenile justice system has changed.

For example, since the late 1980s, ar-

rest rates for larceny-theft and burglary

for younger juveniles fell more than

90% by 2019. Similarly, following an

86% decline since 1994, the robbery

arrest rate for young juveniles reached

a new low in 2019. The same cannot

be said, however, for arrests of young

juveniles for aggravated and simple as-

sault, both of which have been on the

rise in recent years. Since 2015, the ag-

gravated assault arrest rate for young

juveniles increased 8% and the rate for

simple assault increased 20%. As a re-

sult, even though the overall arrest rate

declined, the number of young juve-

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

12%

14%

Young (under age 13) percent of youth arrests

Violent crime

Murder

Robbery

Aggravated assault

Year

The proportion of juvenile Property Crime Index arrests involving youth

younger than age 13 declined from 16% in the late 1980s to 6% in 2019

Q Compared to other Property Crime Index offenses, the proportion of arson arrests

involving youth younger than age 13 is high; since 2005, one-fourth of all juvenile

arson arrests involved a youth younger than age 13.

Source: Authors’ analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center

for Juvenile Justice.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Young (under age 13) percent of youth arrests

Arson

Burglary

Motor vehicle theft

Property Crime Index

Larceny−theft

Year

In 2019, 7% of juvenile violent crime arrests involved youth younger

than age 13, down from a high of 10% in the early 2000s

Q Aggravated assault is by far the most common violent crime involving youth young-

er than age 13. Since 1998, arrests for aggravated assault accounted for 80% or

more of violent crime arrests involving youth younger than age 13.

Source: Authors’ analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center

for Juvenile Justice.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

114

niles entering the juvenile justice sys-

tem charged with assaults has grown in

recent years. This implies there were:

(1) different factors influencing the

volume and/or nature of law-violating

behavior by young juveniles over this

time period, and/or (2) differential re-

sponses by law enforcement to these

behaviors.

Arrest rates of young males

declined more than those of

young females in recent years

Since 2010, the overall arrest rate for

youth ages 10–12 fell 29%, but the rel-

ative decline in the male rate (48%) was

greater than that of the female rate

(41%). In fact, across most offenses,

the arrest rate for young females de-

clined less than that of their young

male peers. For drug offenses, the fe-

male rate actually increased 24% while

the male rate declined 47%. As a result,

a greater number and proportion of

the young juvenile arrestees in 2019

were female than in 2010.

Percent change in young juvenile (ages

10–12) arrest rate, 2010–2019:

Most serious offense Male Female

All offenses –48% –41%

Violent crime –36 –14

Aggravated assault –35 –13

Property Crime Index –65 –73

Burglary –63 –56

Larceny-theft –68 –76

Simple assault –30 –13

Stolen property –71 –58

Vandalism –51 –45

Weapons law violation –60 –42

Drug abuse violation –47 24

Liquor law violations –33 –24

Disorderly conduct –57 –50

Curfew –80 –77

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the

Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National

Center for Juvenile Justice.

Analysis of race-specific arrest

rate trends for very young juve-

niles is not possible

The FBI’s UCR Program captures in-

formation on the gender of arrestees

subdivided into a large set of detailed

age groups (e.g., under 10, 10–12,

13–14, 15, 16, and 17). It also cap-

tures information on the race of arrest-

ees, but the only age breakdown asso-

ciated with these counts is “under 18”

and “18 and above.” Therefore, age-

specific arrest trends for racial groups,

including trends for young juveniles,

cannot be analyzed with UCR data.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

12%

Year

Young (under age 13) percent of youth arrests

Weapons

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Young (under age 13) percent of youth arrests

Drug abuse

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

12%

14%

Year

Young (under age 13) percent of youth arrests

Disorderly conduct

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

Year

Young (under age 13) percent of juvenile arrests

Curfew and loitering

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

12%

16%

Year

Young (under age 13) percent of youth arrests

Other (simple) assault

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

Year

Young (under age 13) percent of youth arrests

Vandalism

Between 1980 and 2019, the proportion of juvenile arrests involving

youth younger than 13 declined for vandalism but increased for disor-

derly conduct

Q In 1980, 22% of juvenile vandalism arrests involved youth younger than 13; by

2019, 14% of such arrests involved youth younger than 13.

Q The proportion of juvenile arrests for disorderly conduct involving youth younger

than 13 increased from 8% in 1980 to 12% in 2019.

Q Despite an increase since 2007, a small proportion (3% in 2019) of juvenile drug ar-

rests involve youth younger than 13.

Source: Authors’ analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center

for Juvenile Justice.

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

115

The juvenile arrest rate for violent crimes reached a new low

in 2019

Violent crime arrest rates declined

substantially after 1994

The juvenile arrest rate (i.e., the num-

ber of arrests per 100,000 juveniles in

the population) for violent crimes was

relatively stable between 1980 and

1987. This period of stability was fol-

lowed by substantial growth, as the vi-

olent crime arrest rate increased 73%

through 1994. This rapid growth led

to speculation about changes in the

nature of juvenile offenders—concerns

that spurred state legislators to pass

laws that facilitated an increase in the

flow of youth into the adult justice sys-

tem. Since the 1994 peak, the juvenile

arrest rate for violent crime declined

annually through 2004, increased each

of the next two years, then declined

again through 2013. After a few years

of stability, the rate fell 4% in the last

year, reaching its lowest level (131.7)

since at least 1980, and 72% below the

1994 peak.

Violent crime arrest rates declined

more for males than females

In 1980, the juvenile male violent

crime arrest rate was 8 times greater

than the female rate. By 2019, the

male rate was 3.7 times greater. This

convergence of male and female arrest

rates is due to the large relative in-

crease in the female rate through the

mid-1990s and the larger relative de-

crease in the male rate through 2019.

Between 1980 and 1994, the male rate

increased 62%, while the female rate

increased 133%. Since 1994, the male

rate fell 74%, while the female rate fell

61% through 2019.

Arrest rates declined for all racial

groups since the mid-1990s

Violent crime arrest rates declined for

all race groups since their mid-1990s

peak. For White and Asian youth, the

rate fell through 2013, then remained

relatively stable through 2019, while

the rate for American Indian youth fell

through 2014, then increased through

2019. The rate for Black youth de-

clined from 1996 through 2002, in-

creased through 2006, and then de-

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Violent crime

The juvenile arrest rate for violent crime was cut in half between 2006

and 2019

Q The violent crime arrest rate in 2019 for Black juveniles was more than 4 times the

rate for White juveniles, 3 times the rate for American Indian juveniles, and 12 times

the rate for Asian juveniles.

Source: Authors’ analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center

for Juvenile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data

source note at the end of this chapter for details.)

clined through 2019 to reach its lowest

level since at least 1980.

Violent crime arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

400

800

1,200

1,600

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

150

200

250

300

350

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Amer. Indian

White

Asian

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10–17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

120

160

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

116

After 6 years of increase, the juvenile arrest rate for murder

declined in the last year

The 2019 murder arrest rate was

19% above the 2012 lowpoint

Between the mid-1980s and the peak

in 1993, the juvenile arrest rate for

murder more than doubled. Since the

1993 peak, however, the rate fell sub-

stantially through 2000, remained rela-

tively stable through 2007, and then

declined to its lowest level in 2012.

This trend reversed, however, as the

rate increased through 2018, then de-

clined in the last year. Compared with

the period from 1984 through 2000,

the juvenile murder arrest rate between

2010 and 2019 has been historically

low and relatively stable. In fact, the

number of juvenile arrests for murder

in the 4-year period from 1992

through 1995 exceeded the total num-

ber of such arrests since 2010.

Male arrests drove murder arrest

rate trends

During the 1980s and 1990s, the juve-

nile male arrest rate for murder was,

on average, about 13 times greater

than the female rate. Both displayed

generally similar trends.

The female murder arrest rate peaked

in 1994 at 63% above its 1980 level,

whereas the male rate peaked in 1993

at 123% above the 1980 rate. Since

reaching their peaks, the rates for both

fell substantially. The male rate reached

a lowpoint in 2012, 84% below the

1993 peak, while the female rate

reached its lowpoint in 2015, 80%

below the 1994 peak. Despite recent

increases, rates for both in 2019 were

near their historical lowpoints.

The juvenile murder arrest rate

pattern was linked to the arrests

of Black juveniles

The Black-to-White ratio of juvenile

arrest rates for murder grew from

about 4-to-1 in 1980 to nearly 9-to-1

in 1993, reflecting the greater increase

in the Black rate over this period—the

White rate increased 47% while the

Black rate tripled. Since 1993, both

rates fell through 2004, with the Black

rate falling considerably more (81% vs.

67%). More recently, the White rate

has increased since 2013, while the rate

for Black youth has declined since

2017. As a result, the Black-to-White

ratio of juvenile arrest rates for murder

in 2019 was less than 5-to-1.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Murder

Despite the increase between 2012 and 2018, the juvenile murder rate in

2019 was 80% less than its 1993 peak

Note: Murder arrest rates for American Indian youth and Asian youth are not presented because the

small number of arrests and small population sizes produce unstable rate trends.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note

at the end of this chapter for details.)

Murder arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

117

The juvenile arrest rate for robbery reached a historic low

point in 2019

The juvenile arrest rate for robbery

was cut in half between 2008 and

2019

The juvenile arrest rate trend for rob-

bery is marked by alternating periods

of growth and decline. The rate de-

clined for most of the 1980s, increased

steadily to reach a peak in 1994, and

then declined 60% by 2002. Following

an increase through 2008, the rate fell

once again through 2013, held rela-

tively stable through 2017, and then

declined 16% in the last two years. By

2019, the rate reached a new lowpoint,

and was 53% below the 2008 level.

Arrest rate trends by gender and

race parallel the overall robbery

arrest rate pattern

Across gender and race subgroups,

robbery arrest rates decreased through

the late 1980s and climbed to a peak

in the mid-1990s. By 2002, the rates

for males and females had fallen 60%

and 62%, respectively, from their 1995

peak. Following these declines, the

rates for both increased through 2008.

More recently, the male rate declined

18% since 2017, while the female rate

declined 7% since 2016. By 2019, the

male rate was at its lowest level since at

least 1980 and the female rate was 2%

above the 2013 lowpoint.

The trends in arrest rates within racial

groups were similar over the past three

decades. For each racial group, the ju-

venile robbery arrest rate fell by 60% or

more between the mid-1990s and the

early 2000s, then alternated between

periods of growth and decline. Juvenile

robbery arrest rates reached a historic

low in 2013 for White, American Indi-

an, and Asian youth. From their low

points to 2019, rates increased 13% for

White youth, 19% for American Indian

youth, and 49% for Asian youth. Un-

like the pattern for other race groups,

the robbery arrest rate for Black youth

declined steadily between 2008 and

2019—falling 57% to reach its lowest

level since at least 1980.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

120

160

200

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Robbery

The juvenile arrest rate for robbery reached a historically low level in

2019, 74% below the 1994 peak

Q Despite the large relative decline in the robbery arrest rate for Black youth, racial

differences in juvenile arrest rates for robbery remained high in 2019. Specifically,

the rate for Black youth was about 8 times the rate for White youth, 12 times the

rate for American Indian youth, and 14 times the rate for Asian youth.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note

at the end of this chapter for details.)

Robbery arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Amer. Indian

White

Asian

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

150

200

250

300

350

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

118

Similar to robbery, the juvenile arrest rate for aggravated

assault reached a new low in 2019

The juvenile aggravated assault

arrest rate declined steadily since

the 1994 peak

The juvenile arrest rate for aggravated

assault more than doubled between

1980 and 1994 and then fell substan-

tially and consistently. In fact, with the

exception of 2005, the rate declined

each year between 1994 and 2019. By

2019, the rate had fallen 71% from the

1994 peak, and, like robbery, reached

its lowest level since at least 1980.

The rate for females increased

more and declined less than the

male rate

The juvenile arrest rate for aggravated

assault for males doubled between

1980 and its 1994 peak, while the fe-

male rate increased by more than 170%

to reach a peak in 1995. Since their re-

spective peaks, the rates for both

groups declined through 2019, but the

relative decline was greater for males

(74%) than for females (61%). As a re-

sult, in 2019, the male arrest rate

reached its lowest level since at least

1980 while the female rate was 3%

above its 1983 low point. The dispro-

portionate increase in the female arrest

rate for aggravated assault compared

with that of males indicates that factors

that impinged differently on females

and males affected the rates. One pos-

sible explanation may be found in poli-

cy changes over this period that en-

couraged arrests in domestic violence

incidents, which have higher rates of

arrests of females than other types of

aggravated assault incidents.

The period from 1980 through 1994

saw substantial increases in aggravated

assault arrest rates for juveniles in each

racial group—Black (149% increase),

Asian (126%), White (97%), and Amer-

ican Indian (73%)—followed by a peri-

od of decline. The rate reached a his-

toric low in 2014 for American Indian

youth, 2016 for White youth, and

2017 for Asian youth. From their low

points to 2019, rates increased 96% for

American Indian youth, 12% for Asian

youth, and 1% for White youth. Unlike

the pattern for other race groups, the

aggravated assault arrest rate for Black

youth declined through 2019, reaching

its lowest level since at least 1980 and

75% below the 1994 peak.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

150

200

250

300

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Aggravated assault

The juvenile arrest rate for aggravated assault was cut in half between

2008 and 2019

Q The Black-White disparity in aggravated assault arrest rates peaked in 1988, when

the Black rate was more than 4 times the White rate; by 2019, the Black-White ratio

was a little more than 3-to-1.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note

at the end of this chapter for details.)

Aggravated assault arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

150

200

250

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Amer. Indian

White

Asian

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

120

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

119

The juvenile arrest rate for property crimes in 2019 was at its

lowest level since at least 1980

After 1994, the juvenile property

crime arrest rate fell continuously

for more than a decade

Between 1980 and 1994, the juvenile

arrest rate for Property Crime Index

offenses varied little, always remaining

within 10% of the average for the peri-

od. After years of relative stability, the

juvenile Property Crime Index arrest

rate began a decline in the mid-1990s

that continued annually until reaching

a then-historic low in 2006, down 54%

from its 1988 peak. This decline was

followed by a 10% increase over the

next 2 years, and then a 72% decline

between 2008 and 2019. As a result,

juveniles were far less likely to be ar-

rested for property crimes in 2019

than in any previous year.

Property crime arrest rates

reached a historic low in 2019 for

all but American Indian youth

Male and female juvenile Property

Crime Index arrest rates followed simi-

lar patterns after the mid-1990s. Both

rates declined between 1994 and 2006

(57% for males and 40% for females),

increased for about two years, and then

declined again. Between 2010 and

2019, the relative decline in the female

rate outpaced the decline in the male

rate (71% and 64%, respectively). How-

ever, the net result was that both rates

reached a historic low in 2019.

Juvenile Property Crime Index arrest

rates fell 80% or more for each racial

group between 1990 and 2019. As a

result, arrest rates in 2019 were at their

lowest level for White, Black, and Asian

youth, while the rate for American In-

dian youth in 2019 was just 1% above

its 2018 low point. On average, the

Black juvenile arrest rate for property

crimes was 3 times the White arrest

rate over the last 10 years, much small-

er than the disparity in arrest rates for

violent crimes over the same period,

which averaged more than 5 times the

White rate.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Property Crime Index

The juvenile Property Crime Index arrest rate fell 72% between 2008

and 2019

Q The Property Crime Index is dominated by larceny-theft, which, in 2019, accounted

for 70% of all juvenile Property Crime Index arrests. Therefore, the trends in Proper-

ty Crime Index arrests largely reflect the trends in arrests for larceny-theft.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note

at the end of this chapter for details.)

Property Crime Index arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Amer. Indian

White

Asian

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

120

The juvenile arrest rate for burglary reached a new low in

2019, 92% below the 1980 peak

Juvenile arrests for burglary fell

more than adult arrests

In 2019, the juvenile arrest rate for bur-

glary reached its lowest point in the past

40 years, nearly one-tenth of its 1980

level. While adult arrests for burglary also

declined over the period, the decline for

juveniles outpaced that of adults. For ex-

ample, between 2010 and 2019, the

number of juvenile burglary arrests fell

68% while adult burglary arrests fell 33%.

In 2010, 23% of all burglary arrests were

arrests of a juvenile; in 2019, reflecting

the greater decline in juvenile arrests, 12%

of burglary arrests were juvenile arrests.

Juvenile male arrest rates for bur-

glary declined more than female

rates

The substantial decline in the juvenile

burglary arrest rate was primarily the re-

sult of a decline in juvenile male arrests.

Between 1980 and 2019, the male rate

fell 92% while the female rate dropped

81%. By 2019, the male rate reached its

lowest level since at least 1980, and the

female rate was 3% above the 2018 low-

point. Following the larger relative decline

for males, females accounted for a larger

share of juvenile burglary arrests in 2019

(14%) than in 1980 (6%).

Juvenile burglary arrest rates for

White and Black youth reached a

new low in 2019

Between 1980 and 2019, the juvenile

burglary arrest rate declined for all racial

groups: 95% for Asians, 93% for Whites,

90% for American Indians, and 88% for

Blacks. As a result, rates for White and

Black youth in 2019 were at their lowest

level since 1980, while the rates for Amer-

ican Indian and Asian youth were 19%

and 18%, respectively, above their 2018

low point.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Burglary

The juvenile burglary arrest rate fell 75% between 2008 and 2019

Q Following the larger relative decline in the juvenile burglary rate for males, the gen-

der disparity in arrest rates has diminished. In 1980, the juvenile male arrest rate for

burglary was more than 14 times the female rate; in 2019, the male rate was 6

times the female rate.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note

at the end of this chapter for details.)

Burglary arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Amer. Indian

White

Asian

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

121

Following a 73% decline since 2008, the juvenile arrest rate

for larceny-theft reach a new low in 2019

Juvenile larceny-theft rates

declined annually since 2008

The juvenile arrest rate for larceny-

theft generally increased between 1980

and the mid-1990s and then fell 52%

between 1994 and 2006, reaching a

then-historic low. Following an in-

crease between 2006 and 2008, the

rate then declined for the next 11

years. By 2019, the rate was 69%

below the prior low-point in 2006, and

85% below the 1991 peak. The overall

decline in arrests for such a high-vol-

ume offense translated into significant-

ly fewer juveniles charged with proper-

ty crimes entering the justice system.

The female larceny-theft arrest

rate decreased more than the

male rate since 2010

Male and female juvenile larceny-theft

arrest rates followed similar patterns

after the mid-1990s. Both rates de-

clined between 1994 and 2006 (58%

for males and 39% for females), in-

creased briefly, and then declined

again. Between 2010 and 2019, the

relative decline in the female rate out-

paced the decline in the male rate (73%

and 67%, respectively). The net result

was that both rates reached a historic

low in 2019.

Race-specific trends in the larceny-theft

arrest rate mirrored the overall trend.

The rates declined between 1994 and

2006 for all race group: 66% each for

Asians and American Indians, 53% for

Whites, and 52% for Blacks. Following

a brief interruption, rates for all race

groups declined considerably since

2010 (77% for Asians, 74% for Whites,

62% for American Indians, and 61% for

Blacks) and, by 2019, were at their

lowest level since 1980.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Larceny-theft

The juvenile arrest rate for larceny-theft in 2019 was 85% below the

1991 peak

Q Between 1980 and the mid-2000s, the proportion of larceny-theft arrests involving

Black youth stayed within a limited range (24% to 29%). However, following the

larger decline in arrests involving White youth since 2006 (75% vs. 57% for Black

youth), the proportion of larceny-theft arrests involving Black youth has grown, from

29% in 2006 to 41% in 2019.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note

at the end of this chapter for details.)

Larceny-theft arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Amer. Indian

White

Asian

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

122

The motor vehicle theft arrest rate for juveniles declined in

the last 2 years

The juvenile arrest rate for motor

vehicle theft peaked in 1989

The juvenile arrest rate for motor vehi-

cle theft more than doubled between

1983 and 1989, up 141%. After the

1989 peak, the juvenile arrest rate for

motor vehicle theft declined steadily to

reach a historic low in 2013 (90%

below the 1989 peak), then increased

again. Despite a decline in the past 2

years, the 2019 rate was 17% above the

2013 low point. Trends for juveniles

and adults followed similar patterns

until recently; in the 10-year period

between 2010 and 2019, the number

of juvenile motor vehicle theft arrests

fell 14%, while adult motor vehicle

theft arrests increased 20%.

Male and female juvenile arrest rates

for motor vehicle theft displayed gen-

erally similar trends in the 1980s and

1990s. However, the male rate peaked

in 1989, but the female rate did not

peak until 1994. Both rates fell sub-

stantially from their peak (91% for

males, 86% for females), to reach a his-

toric low in 2013. Despite recent de-

clines, the rates for both in 2019 were

above the 2013 low point.

From 1983 to their peak years, arrest

rates for motor vehicle theft nearly

doubled for White juveniles (peak year

1990), more than doubled for Asian

juveniles (peak year 1988), increased

nearly 150% for American Indian juve-

niles (peak year 1989), and more than

tripled for Black juveniles (peak year

1989). Rates for White, Black, and

Asian youth reached a historic low in

2013, while the low point for Ameri-

can Indians came one year later. By

2019, motor vehicle theft arrest rates

for all racial groups were well below

their late 1980s or early 1990s peaks.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

150

200

250

300

350

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Motor vehicle theft

Since the 2013 low point, the juvenile arrest rate for motor vehicle theft

increased through 2017, then declined 16% by 2019

Q Juvenile motor vehicle theft arrest rates decreased for most demographic sub-

groups since 2017: 18% for males, 9% for females, 38% for Asians, 20% for

Blacks, and 13% for Whites. The rate for American Indians increased 3% during

the same period.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note

at the end of this chapter for details.)

Motor vehicle theft arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

150

200

250

300

350

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Amer. Indian

White

Asian

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Year

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10−17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

123

Following a 63% decline since 2011, the juvenile arrest rate

for arson in 2019 reached a historic low

Most juvenile arrests for arson

involve youth under age 15

Unlike other Property Crime Index of-

fenses, the majority of juvenile arson

arrests involve youth under the age of

15. In 2019, youth under age 15 ac-

counted for more than half (57%) of all

juvenile arson arrests. In comparison,

33% of all juvenile burglary arrests and

30% of all juvenile larceny-theft arrests

in 2019 involved youth under age 15.

Overall, juveniles accounted for 7% of

all arrests in 2019, but their share of

arson arrests (20%) was considerably

higher.

The arson arrest rate declined

considerably since the 1994 peak

After a period of relative stability in the

1980s, the juvenile arrest rate for arson

increased more than 50% between

1987 and 1994. Since the 1994 peak,

the rate generally declined through

2019, falling 85% to reach a new low

point. This general pattern was repli-

cated in the trends for males and fe-

males. Between 1987 and 1994, the

male rate increased 52% and the female

rate increased 80%. Since the 1994

peak, both rates fell more than 80%;

the net result was that, by 2019, both

rates were at their lowest level since

1980.

Race-specific trends in arrest rates for

arson followed a similar pattern be-

tween 1980 and 2019. Rates for

White, Black, and American Indian ju-

veniles reached a peak in 1994, while

the rate for Asians peaked 3 years earli-

er. Since their respective peaks and

2019, rates for all race groups declined

substantially: 92% for Asians, 87% for

Whites, 83% for American Indians, and

79% for Blacks. As a result, rates for

White, Black, and Asian youth in 2019

were at their lowest level, while the

rate for American Indian youth re-

mained above the 2017 low point.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Arson

The juvenile arrest rate for arson in 2019 was 85% below the 1994 peak

Q Compared with other property crimes, the disparity between arson arrest rates for

Black juveniles and White juveniles was relatively low. In 2019, the arson arrest rate

for Black juveniles was about twice the rate for White juveniles, but for burglary and

larceny-theft, the Black rate was more than three times the White rate.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note

at the end of this chapter for details.)

Arson arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Amer. Indian

White

Asian

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

124

The juvenile arrest rate for simple assault in 2019 remained

well above the 1981 low point

Simple assault accounted for the

majority of assault arrests

The juvenile arrest rate for simple as-

sault increased 176% between 1980

and 1997, then held relatively stable

through the mid-2000s. The rate then

fell 50% by 2017. Despite an increase

in the last two years, the rate in 2019

remained well below the levels of the

late 1990s and mid-2000s. Compara-

tively, the rate for juvenile aggravated

assault arrests declined 71% between its

1994 peak and 2019. As a result of the

greater decrease in aggravated assault

rates, a larger proportion of assaults

that law enforcement handled in recent

years has been for the less serious

form. In 2019, 82% of assault arrests

were for simple assault, compared with

68% in 1980.

Growth in the female arrest rate

for simple assault outpaced the

male rate

The male juvenile arrest rate for simple

assault reached a peak in 1997, while

the female rate peaked in 2004. Be-

tween 1980 and their respective peaks,

the increase in the female arrest rate far

outpaced the increase in the male rate

(321% vs. 146%). By 2019, both rates

were well below their peaks, by 56%

for males and by 42% for females. As a

result, the female proportion of juve-

nile arrests for simple assault grew

from 21% in 1980 to 38% in 2019.

Simple assault arrest rates peaked in

1996 for Asian youth, 1997 for White

and American Indian youth, and 2005

for Black youth. Since their respective

peaks and 2019, rates for all race

groups declined: 73% for Asians, 52%

for Whites, 49% for Blacks, and 48%

for American Indian youth.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Other (simple) assault

The juvenile arrest rate for simple assault declined 48% between 2004

and 2019

Q The relative decline in juvenile arrest rates over the past 10 years was the same for

simple assault and aggravated assault (39% each). However, while the aggravated

assault rate reached a historic low in 2019, the simple assault rate remained well

above the 1981 low point.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note

at the end of this chapter for details.)

Simple assault arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Amer. Indian

White

Asian

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 1

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

125

The juvenile arrest rate for weapons law violations in 2019

was 77% below the 1994 peak

The juvenile weapons arrest fell

65% since 2006

Between 1980 and 1994, the juvenile

arrest rate for weapons law violations

increased 146%. Then the rate fell sub-

stantially, so that by 2002 the rate was

just 21% more than the 1980 level.

This decline was interrupted between

2002 and 2006, when the juvenile

weapons law violation arrest rate in-

creased 32%. The rate has since fallen

65%, bringing the 2019 rate to its low-

est level since at least 1980, and 77%

below the 1994 peak. It must be re-

membered that these statistics do not

reflect all arrests for weapons offenses.

An unknown number of other arrests

for more serious crimes also involved a

weapons offense as a secondary charge,

but the FBI’s arrest statistics classify

such arrests by their most serious

charge and not the weapons offense.

The weapons arrest rate for White

and Black youth reached a new

low in 2019

Between 1980 and 1994, the arrest

rate for weapons law violations in-

creased proportionally more for fe-

males (256%) than for males (139%).

Since the peak, both rates experienced

brief periods of decline and growth

through the mid-2000s, then declined

steadily through 2019. While the rela-

tive decline in both rates was the same

between 2006 and 2019 (64%), the

male rate reached a historic low in

2019 but the female rate was 3% above

the 1980 low point.

Arrest rates for weapons law violations

peaked in 1993 for Black juveniles, in

1994 for White and Asian juveniles,

and in 1995 for American Indian juve-

niles. The increase between 1980 and

the peak year was the greatest for Black

juveniles (215%), followed by Whites

(126%), Asians (104%), and American

Indians (83%). Similar to trends for

males and females, the rates for all ra-

cial groups dropped quickly after their

peaks, grew between 2002 and 2006,

and fell again. Since 2006, the rate for

White youth and Black youth declined

(67% and 59%, respectively) to a new

low in 2019, while the rate for Asian

youth fell 62% to reach a low in 2017,

then stayed within a limited range

through 2019. Conversely, the rate for

American Indian youth fell 65% to

reach a low in 2014 and then increased

through 2019.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

120

160

200

240

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Weapons

The juvenile arrest rate for weapons law violations reached a new low in

2019, 77% below the 1994 peak

Q Juvenile arrests for weapons law violations typically involve older juveniles (ages

15–17). Since 2005, older juveniles accounted for at least two-thirds of juvenile

weapons law violation arrests.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note

at the end of this chapter for details.)

Weapons law violation arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

120

160

200

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Amer. Indian

White

Asian

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

126

The juvenile drug abuse violation arrest rate was cut in half

in the last 10 years and reached its lowest level since 1980

Racial disparity in drug arrests

increased in the 1980s and early

1990s

The annual juvenile arrest rates for

drug abuse violations (a category that

includes both drug possession and

drug sales) varied within a limited

range in the 1980s. A closer look at ju-

venile drug arrest rates finds sharp ra-

cial differences. The drug abuse viola-

tion arrest rate for White juveniles

generally declined between 1980 and

1991 while the Black rate increased

dramatically. The White rate fell 54%,

compared with a 190% increase for

Black youth. In 1980, the White and

Black arrest rates were essentially

equal, with Black youth involved in

14% of all juvenile drug arrests. By

1991, the Black rate was nearly 6 times

the White rate, and Black youth were

involved in 52% of all juvenile drug ar-

rests.

Drug arrests soared for all youth

between 1991 and 1997

Between 1991 and 1997, the juvenile

arrest rate for drug abuse violations in-

creased 138% and then declined. Most

of the decline took place in the last 10

years, when the rate fell 52%. By 2019,

the arrest rate reached its lowest level

since at least 1980, and was 64% below

the 1997 peak.

After a period of substantial growth in

the early and mid-1990s, the male ju-

venile arrest rate for drug abuse viola-

tions generally declined after 1996

while the female rate remained relative-

ly stable through the mid-2000s. Both

rates declined in the last 10 years (57%

for males, 24% for females). By 2019,

the male rate reached a new historic

low, while the female rate was more

than twice the 1991 low point.

The drug abuse violation arrest rate for

Black youth declined considerably after

the 1996 peak, and most of the decline

took place since 2006 (69%). Con-

versely, after reaching a peak in 1997,

the White rate stayed within a limited

range through 2010, then declined

51%. By 2019, the rate for Black youth

was at its lowest level since at least

1980, but the rate for White youth was

44% above the 1991 low point.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Drug abuse

The juvenile drug abuse arrest rate declined annually since 2010

Q The juvenile drug abuse arrest rate declined for all racial groups in the past 10

years, falling 56% for Black youth, 51% for White youth, 46% for Asian youth, and

3% for American Indian youth.

Q Drug abuse arrest rates for American Indian youth in 2019 were 3 times their 1991

low point, and the rate for Asian youth was 22% above their 1989 low point.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note

at the end of this chapter for details.)

Drug abuse violation arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

400

800

1,200

1,600

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

600

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Amer. Indian

White

Asian

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

150

200

250

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

127

The juvenile arrest rate for disorderly conduct in 2019 was

77% below the 1996 peak

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Disorderly conduct

The juvenile arrest rate for disorderly conduct declined annually since

2006

Q Since 2006, the juvenile arrest rate for disorderly conduct declined 70% or more for

White, Black, and Asian youth, and was cut in half for American Indian youth. By

2019, the rates for White youth and Black youth were at their lowest levels since at

least 1980, while the rates for American Indian youth and Asian youth were above

their historic low years (2016 and 2018, respectively).

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source note

at the end of this chapter for details.)

Disorderly conduct arrest rate trends by gender and race

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

400

800

1,200

1,600

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

600

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Amer. Indian

White

Asian

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Male

Female

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

100

200

300

400

500

Year

Arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10−17

Female

In 2019, the juvenile disorderly

conduct arrest rate reached its

lowest level since 1980

The juvenile arrest rate for disorderly

conduct more than doubled between

1984 and 1996, declined through

2000, then increased again through

2006. This period of increase was fol-

lowed by 13 years of decline through

2019, during which time the juvenile

disorderly conduct arrest rate fell more

than 70%, and reached its lowest level

since 1980.

Female and male juvenile arrest

rates for disorderly conduct fol-

lowed a similar pattern

For both females and males, the juve-

nile arrest rate for disorderly conduct

increased between 1984 and 1996, but

the increase in the female rate out-

paced that of males (192% vs. 97%).

After reaching its peak in 1996, the

male rate experienced brief periods of

decline and growth through 2006.

The female rate also declined after

1996, but this decline was followed by

a period of growth that saw the rate

reach a new peak in 2006. Since 2006,

the rate for both males and females de-

clined continuously through 2019, but

the decline in the male rate exceeded

the decline in the female rate (75% vs.

70%). By 2019, the juvenile male ar-

rest rate for disorderly conduct was at

its lowest point since at least 1980,

while the female rate was 4% above its

1984 lowpoint. As a result of these

changes, the female share of juvenile

arrests for disorderly conduct has

steadily grown, from 16% in 1984 to

37% in 2019

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

128

Age-specific arrest rates for violent crime in 2019 were well

below their mid-1990s peak for all juvenile age groups

What is the age-crime curve?

Most displays of juvenile and adult ar-

rest rates show data that combines all

ages younger than 18 into the juvenile

group and all ages 18 and older into

the adult group. However, UCR data

allow the calculation of age-specific ar-

rest rates. When graphed, these rates

show a mountain-shaped curve—which

increases from adolescence through

young adulthood and then declines—

often referred to as the “age-crime

curve.” This age-crime curve is seen

across offense categories, although the

exact shape of the curve may change

along with various factors, such as of-

fense or gender. Variations are also

seen over time.

Although the overall juvenile arrest

rate for violent crime offenses was

131.7 per 100,000 youth ages 10–17

in 2019, the age-specific rates ranged

from 24.4 for children ages 10–12 to

281 for 17-year-olds. The age with the

highest rate were adults ages 25 to 29

with a rate of 345.8. In 2019, all ages

between 18 and 34 had violent crime

arrest rates greater than 300. After

youth ages 10–12, the age group with

the next lowest rate were adults age 60

(44.7 per 100,000 persons ages 60–

64).

The shape of the age-crime curve

has changed for some offenses

For both murder and aggravated as-

sault, age-specific arrest rates in 2019

were substantially below the levels of

the mid-1990s. The biggest declines

were in the age groups that had the

highest rates. For example, between

the mid-1990s peak and 2019, age-

specific murder arrest rates fell 60% or

more for all persons under age 25, and

the rates for aggravated assault fell

more than 50% for persons under age

23.

Simple assault arrest rates in 2019 were

higher than the rates in 1980 for all ju-

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Age

1980

1993

2019

Murder

Arrests per 100,000 population in age group

100

200

300

400

500

600

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Age

1980

1994

2019

Weapons

Arrests per 100,000 population in age group

100

200

300

400

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Age

1980

1994

2019

Robbery

Arrests per 100,000 population in age group

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Age

1980

1997

2019

Drug abuse

Arrests per 100,000 population in age group

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Age

1980

1994

2019

Violent crime

Arrests per 100,000 population in age group

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Age

1980

1988

2019

Property Crime Index

Arrests per 100,000 population in age group

The shape of the age-crime curve varies across offense categories and

over time within offenses

Q Violent crime arrest rates were higher in 2019 than in 1980 for adults age 30 and

over; for juveniles, 2019 rates were well below the rates in 1980.

Q Property Crime Index arrest rates in 2019 were below 1980 rates for ages younger

than 30; for youth younger than 18, the rates in 2019 were at least 80% below the

rates in 1980.

Q For murder and robbery, 2019 arrests rates declined for all age groups from their

peak year, and the relative decline was greater for juveniles than young adults. For

example, murder arrest rates dropped an average of 81% for youth ages

15–17, 71% for young adults ages 18–20, and 64% for young adults ages 21–24.

Q The 2019 arrest rates for weapons offenses were less than the 1980 rates for all

ages, and the largest relative declines were for those ages 15 through 18.

Q Unlike other offense categories, the 2019 arrest rates for drug abuse violations

were higher than the 1980 arrest rates for all adults age 18 or older.

Note: Rates are shown for 2019, 1980, and the year with the highest juvenile arrest rate peak for each

offense.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source

note at the end of this chapter for details.)

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

129

venile age groups, and for adults ages

21 and older, but the 2019 rates were

below the 1997 level for all age groups

through age 45. In fact, between 1997

and 2019, age-specific arrests rates for

simple assault fell 45% or more for each

juvenile age group as well as adults

ages 18–24. However, unlike the pat-

tern in 1997, when the simple assault

arrest rate peaked at age 21, the rate in

2019 peaked at age 27.

Age-crime curves vary by gender

within offense categories

A closer look at the age-specific arrest

rates for assault by gender shows some

very different patterns for males and

females. The age-specific arrest rates

for both aggravated and simple assault

declined for males and females from

their respective peak years through

2019, but the relative declines were

greater for males than females for all

offense-age combinations.

For aggravated assault, 2019 arrest

rates for males were below the levels of

1980 for all age groups under 30, but

for females, age-specific rates in 2019

were higher than the corresponding

rates in 1980 for all but 16-year-olds.

For simple assault, the 2019 age-specif-

ic arrest rates for males were below the

1980 rates for persons ages 16–23,

while the rates for females in 2019

were above the 1980 rates for all age

groups.

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Age

1980

1994

2019

Aggravated assault:

male

Arrests per 100,000 population in age group

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Age

1980

1997

2019

Simple assault:

male

Arrests per 100,000 population in age group

120

160

200

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Age

1980

1994

2019

Aggravated assault:

female

Arrests per 100,000 population in age group

200

400

600

800

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Age

1980

1997

2019

Simple assault:

female

Arrests per 100,000 population in age group

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Age

1980

1994

2019

Aggravated assault

Arrests per 100,000 population in age group

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Age

1980

1997

2019

Simple assault

Arrests per 100,000 population in age group

Age-specific arrest rates for aggravated assault and simple assault vary

by gender

Q Overall, the 2019 aggravated assault arrest rates for youth younger than 15 were

about the same as in 1980.

Q The 2019 age-specific simple assault arrests rates for juveniles were higher than

the corresponding rates in 1980 for all but persons ages 18–20, but the patterns

varied by gender. Across all ages, 2019 simple assault arrest rates for females were

higher than in 1980; for males, the rates in 2019 were lower than in 1980 for per-

sons ages 16–23.

Q Assault arrest rates for females were well below the rates for males, but the magni-

tude of the difference varied by offense. For example, for simple assault, female

rates for persons under age 23 were about half the rate of males of the same age;

for aggravated assault, female rates were about one-third the corresponding rates

for males.

Note: Rates are shown for 2019, 1980, and the year with the highest juvenile arrest rate peak for each

offense.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Juve-

nile Justice, and population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (See arrest rate data source

note at the end of this chapter for details.)

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

130

Clearance figures implicate juveniles in about 1 in 20 murders,

1 in 15 aggravated assaults, and 1 in 7 robberies in 2019

Clearances give insight into the

relative involvement of juveniles

and adults in crime

Clearance statistics measure the pro-

portion of reported crimes that are re-

solved by an arrest or other, exception-

al means (e.g., death of the person

who committed the crime, unwilling-

ness of the victim to cooperate). A sin-

gle arrest may result in many clearances

if the person arrested committed sever-

al crimes. Or multiple arrests may re-

sult in a single clearance if the crime

was committed by a group of people.

The FBI reports information on the

proportion of clearances that involved

persons under age 18. This statistic is a

better indicator of the proportion of

crime committed by this age group

than is the arrest proportion, although

there are some concerns that even the

clearance statistic overestimates the ju-

venile proportion of crimes. Neverthe-

less, trends in clearance proportions are

reasonable indicators of changes in the

relative involvement of juveniles in var-

ious crimes.

The juvenile share of violent crime

returned to levels of the late

1980s

The FBI’s

Crime in the United States

series shows that the proportion of vio-

lent crimes attributed to juveniles has

declined nearly every year since 2006.

The juvenile proportion of violent

crimes cleared by arrest (or exceptional

means) grew from an average of 9% in

the 1980s to 14% in 1994, then fell to

12% in 1998, where it remained

through most of the 2000s. By 2011,

the proportion fell below 10%, and has

remained at or below 8% since 2015.

In 2019, juveniles committed 1 in 13

violent crimes known to law enforce-

ment.

Each of the violent crime offenses

showed an increase in juvenile clear-

ances between 1980 and the mid-

1990s. The juvenile proportion of

murder clearances peaked in 1994 at

10% and then fell. Between 2010 and

2019, the proportion has stayed within

a limited range, averaging 4% over the

past 10 years. The juvenile proportion

of robbery clearances peaked in 1995

(20%), and then declined through the

mid-2000s. In the last 10 years, the

proportion varied between 12% and

14%; in 2019, about 1 in 7 (14%) rob-

beries were attributed to juveniles.

After reaching a peak in 1994 (13%),

the juvenile proportion of aggravated

assault clearances was relatively con-

stant through the mid-2000s, and then

declined through 2019. The propor-

tion stayed within a limited range over

the last 5 years, and well below the

1987 low point.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

12%

14%

16%

Year

Percent of clearances involving youth

Violent crime

The juvenile share of property crime has fallen substantially since 1980

Note: Prior to 2013, rape is included in the calculation for violent crimes, but is excluded in the calcula-

tion for 2013 through 2019.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Crime in the United States

reports for 1980 through 2019.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Year

Percent of clearances involving youth

Property Crime Index

The juvenile proportion of violent crimes cleared by arrest or

exceptional means has remained relatively stable in the last 5 years

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

131

A juvenile committed roughly 1 in

12 property crimes known to law

enforcement in 2019

In the 1980s, the juvenile proportion

of cleared Property Crime Index of-

fenses decreased from 28% to 20%.

This proportion then increased in the

early 1990s, peaking in 1995 at 25%.

After 1995, the juvenile proportion of

clearances for Property Crime Index

offenses generally declined, so that by

2019 it was at its lowest level (8%)

since at least 1980.

By 2019, juvenile clearance propor-

tions for the crimes of burglary, larce-

ny-theft, and arson were at their lowest

levels since 1980 (8%, 8%, and 17%, re-

spectively). For motor vehicle theft, the

juvenile proportion of clearances

reached a low-point in 2014 (9%) and

then increased to 13% in 2019.

The juvenile proportion of crimes

cleared varied with community

size

In general, larger cities had a lower

proportion of clearances attributed to

juvenile arrests for violent crimes and

Property Crime Index offenses in

2019.

Percent of clearances involving juveniles,

2019:

Population served by

reporting agencies

Violent

crime

Property

Crime

Index

All agencies 7.8% 8.4%

1 million or more 7.3 5.9

500,000 to 999,999 7.1 7.7

250,000 to 499,999 8.0 10.1

100,000 to 249,000 8.1 9.4

50,000 to 99,999 8.0 9.0

25,000 to 49,999 8.1 8.4

10,000 to 24,999 8.1 7.3

under 10,000 10.5 8.0

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Crime

in the United States 2019

Note: Arson clearance data were first reported in 1981.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the FBI’s

Crime in the United States

reports for 1980 through 2019.

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Year

Percent of clearances involving youth

Burglary

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Year

Percent of clearances involving youth

Larceny−theft

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

Year

Percent of clearances involving youth

Motor vehicle theft

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Year

Percent of clearances involving youth

Arson

In 2019, the juvenile shares of clearances for burglary, larceny-theft, and

arson were at their lowest points since 1980

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

12%

Year

Percent of clearances involving youth

Murder

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

Year

Percent of clearances involving youth

Robbery

80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10%

12%

14%

Year

Percent of clearances involving youth

Aggravated assault

Clearance statistics imply that juvenile involvement in aggravated

assault has declined since 2006

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

132

In 2019, about one-third of the states had a juvenile

violent crime arrest rate above the national average

0 to 89 (14 states)

89 to 139 (15 states)

139 to 185 (9 states)

185 or above (6 states)

Data not available (7 states)

2019 violent crime

arrests per 100,000

youth ages 10–17

Among states with at least minimally adequate reporting, those with high juvenile violent crime arrest rates

in 2019 were Delaware, Maryland, and Nevada

Arrests of youth under age 18

per 100,000 youth ages 10–17, 2019

Arrests of youth under age 18

per 100,000 youth ages 10–17, 2019

State

Reporting

population

coverage

Violent

Crime

Robbery

Aggrav.

assault

Other

assault Weapon State

Reporting

population

coverage

Violent

Crime

Robbery

Aggrav.

assault

Other

assault Weapon

U.S. total 77% 139 53 83 378 49 Missouri 63% 165 52 107 460 36

Alabama 2 35 23 12 46 35 Montana 88 183 4 178 638 18

Alaska 94 198 33 158 514 25 Nebraska 91 100 67 32 828 59

Arizona 77 181 51 127 618 50 Nevada 96 298 84 212 679 93

Arkansas 88 144 28 113 603 39 New Hampshire 94 44 10 31 534 3

California 97 168 72 94 187 67 New Jersey 100 111 52 57 131 68

Colorado 85 145 51 92 398 68 New Mexico 65 129 17 108 498 49

Connecticut 100 76 41 34 485 43 New York 51 106 49 54 203 26

Delaware 100 327 116 210 906 64 North Carolina 69 104 54 44 308 51

Dist. of Columbia 0 NA NA NA NA NA North Dakota 100 80 9 68 699 29

Florida 100 157 65 89 412 45 Ohio 79 102 40 60 505 35

Georgia 22 99 33 62 392 56 Oklahoma 99 89 25 62 205 40

Hawaii 81 90 59 31 344 15 Oregon 88 116 35 80 316 21

Idaho 98 77 7 65 378 49 Pennsylvania 25 197 49 144 404 50

Illinois 1 327 180 140 889 160 Rhode Island 100 85 26 57 428 95

Indiana 40 94 20 73 323 42 South Carolina 84 115 37 73 516 90

Iowa 82 168 26 143 632 45 South Dakota 92 118 15 100 750 122

Kansas 55 104 19 84 427 30 Tennessee 95 194 70 119 618 66

Kentucky 97 67 30 34 213 23 Texas 90 136 48 85 336 25

Louisiana 75 243 47 188 689 106 Utah 89 65 16 48 389 46

Maine 100 26 7 20 441 6 Vermont 100 60 11 48 443 32

Maryland 100 323 198 122 872 103 Virginia 96 80 39 39 348 34

Massachusetts 86 86 16 70 226 18 Washington 93 124 60 62 418 33

Michigan 96 92 23 67 289 31 West Virginia 53 21 3 18 104 2

Minnesota 96 145 70 72 418 55 Wisconsin 94 136 42 91 451 77

Mississippi 42 76 29 42 373 60 Wyoming 88 66 0 66 849 22

NA = Arrest counts were not available for the District of

Columbia in the FBI’s

Crime in the United States 2019

Notes: Arrest rates for jurisdictions with less than com-

plete reporting may not be representative of the entire

state. In the map, rates were classified as “Data not

available” when agencies with jurisdiction over more than

50% of their state’s population did not report. Readers

should consult the related technical note at the end of

this chapter. Detail may not add to totals because of

rounding.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from

Crime in the United

States 2019

(Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investi-

gation, 2019) tables 3 and 22, and population data from

the National Center for Health Statistics’

Vintage 2019

Postcensal Estimates of the Resident Population of the

United States (April 1, 2010, July 1, 2010–July 1, 2019),

by Year, County, Single-Year of Age (0, 1, 2, . . . , 85

Years and Over), Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, and

Sex

[machine-readable data files available online at

www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm, as of July 9,

2020].

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

133

High juvenile property crime arrest rates in 2019 did not

necessarily mean high violent crime arrest rates

0 to 250 (10 states)

250 to 389 (9 states)

389 to 650 (17 states)

650 or above (8 states)

Data not available (7 states)

2019 Property Crime

Index arrests per 100,000

youth ages 10–17

Among states with at least minimally adequate reporting, those with high juvenile Property Crime Index

arrest rates in 2019 were Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota

Arrests of youth under age 18

per 100,000 youth ages 10–17, 2019

Arrests of youth under age 18

per 100,000 youth ages 10–17, 2019

State

Reporting

population

coverage

Property

Crime

Index

Burglary

Larceny-

theft

Motor

vehicle

theft

Vandalism

State

Reporting

population

coverage

Property

Crime

Index

Burglary

Larceny-

theft

Motor

vehicle

theft

Vandalism

U.S. total 77% 389 67 270 46 93 Missouri 63% 461 60 342 55 109

Alabama 2 808 0 785 23 69 Montana 88 724 68 588 60 269

Alaska 94 444 152 205 72 149 Nebraska 91 952 48 807 85 323

Arizona 77 489 84 343 57 254 Nevada 96 414 74 295 39 110

Arkansas 88 506 82 387 34 94

New Hampshire

94 208 22 170 15 167

California 97 168 61 74 30 54 New Jersey 100 247 49 176 19 56

Colorado 85 619 64 466 77 170 New Mexico 65 183 30 142 10 65

Connecticut 100 400 61 270 65 85 New York 51 359 62 254 39 147

Delaware 100 597 157 352 80 152 North Carolina 69 383 91 253 34 65

Dist. of Columbia

0 NA NA NA NA NA North Dakota 100 747 92 565 79 245

Florida 100 597 140 347 107 44 Ohio 79 354 50 275 25 94

Georgia 22 397 67 302 24 54 Oklahoma 99 357 69 239 42 47

Hawaii 81 288 35 240 9 19 Oregon 88 465 60 355 36 144

Idaho 98 439 56 342 24 129 Pennsylvania 25 377 60 278 32 125

Illinois 1 441 33 334 40 167 Rhode Island 100 358 76 239 25 199

Indiana 40 312 34 241 35 48 South Carolina 84 444 85 323 31 77

Iowa 82 694 108 500 74 231 South Dakota 92 623 55 471 90 178

Kansas 55 313 41 240 23 119 Tennessee 95 566 81 362 117 128

Kentucky 97 272 60 158 44 50 Texas 90 312 47 227 35 45

Louisiana 75 701 173 453 65 105 Utah 89 616 48 533 26 209

Maine 100 462 69 352 28 181 Vermont 100 251 78 143 26 147

Maryland 100 656 108 443 93 142 Virginia 96 345 32 287 21 54

Massachusetts 86 122 29 73 17 45 Washington 93 276 56 192 24 110

Michigan 96 278 38 208 29 45 West Virginia 53 33 8 21 3 20

Minnesota 96 700 54 560 80 123 Wisconsin 94 699 62 545 84 276

Mississippi 42 439 102 292 42 45 Wyoming 88 595 88 446 57 241

NA = Arrest counts were not available for the District of

Columbia in the FBI’s

Crime in the United States 2019

Notes: Arrest rates for jurisdictions with less than com-

plete reporting may not be representative of the entire

state. In the map, rates were classified as “Data not

available” when agencies with jurisdiction over more than

50% of their state’s population did not report. Readers

should consult the related technical note at the end of

this chapter. Detail may not add to totals because of

rounding.

Source: Analysis of arrest data from

Crime in the United

States 2019

(Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investi-

gation, 2019) tables 3 and 22, and population data from

the National Center for Health Statistics’

Vintage 2019

Postcensal Estimates of the Resident Population of the

United States (April 1, 2010, July 1, 2010–July 1, 2019),

by Year, County, Single-Year of Age (0, 1, 2, . . . , 85

Years and Over), Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, and

Sex

[machine-readable data files available online at

www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm, as of July 9,

2020].

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

134

What do police do with juveniles they arrest?

Many large local police depart-

ments have personnel designated

to address problems related to

juveniles

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Local

Police Departments, 2016 report, part

of the Law Enforcement Management

and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS)

data collection series, provides detailed

characteristics of an estimated 12,261

local police departments throughout

the U.S. In 2016, these local depart-

ments employed nearly 600,000 full-

time persons, and more than 468,000

of these employees were sworn person-

nel with full arrest powers.

Many local police departments had

personnel designated to address specif-

ic crime-related problems or serve in

various functions. In some instances,

these issues were addressed by a spe-

cialized unit that had full-time person-

nel. Departments serving 100,000 or

more residents were more likely than

those serving less than 100,000 resi-

dents to have the personnel necessary

to operate such units.

In 2016, the majority of local police

departments serving 100,000 or more

residents assigned personnel full-time

to specialized units for child abuse

(72%), drug enforcement (89%), gangs

(71%), domestic violence (69%), school

safety (59%), and juvenile crimes

(50%). However, the proportions were

much lower among departments serv-

ing less than 100,000 residents: child

abuse (6%), drug enforcement (14%),

gangs (3%), domestic violence (6%),

school safety (11%), and juvenile

crimes (7%).

Most arrested juveniles were

referred to court

In nine states, statutes define some

persons younger than age 18 as adults

for prosecution purposes. These per-

sons are not under the original jurisdic-

tion of the juvenile justice system; they

are under the jurisdiction of the crimi-

nal justice system. For arrested youth

who are younger than 18 and under

the original jurisdiction of their state’s

juvenile justice system, the FBI’s UCR

Program monitors what happens as a

result of the arrest. This is the only as-

pect of the UCR data collection that is

sensitive to state variations in the legal

definition of a juvenile.

In 2019, 42% of arrests involving

youth eligible in their state for process-

ing in the juvenile justice system were

handled within law enforcement agen-

cies, 49% were referred to juvenile

court, and 4% were referred directly to

criminal court. The others were re-

ferred to a welfare agency or to anoth-

er police agency. The proportion of ju-

venile arrests referred to juvenile court

in 2019 was less than the proportion

in 1980 (58%).

In 2019, juvenile arrests were less like-

ly to result in referral to juvenile court

in large cities (population over

250,000) than in moderate-size cities

(population 100,000–250,000) or

small cities (population less than

100,000). In large cities, 43% of juve-

nile arrests resulted in referral to juve-

nile court, compared with 56% in

moderate-size cities and 49% in small

cities. Conversely, a larger proportion

of juvenile arrests in larger cities (50%)

were handled in the department and

released than in moderate-size (43%)

or small cities (42%).

Chapter 5: Law enforcement and youth

135

Sources

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Arrest Data

Analysis Tool [available online at www.

bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=/

arrests/index.cfm, retrieved December

12, 2018].

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Vari-

ous years.

Crime in the United States

for 1980 through 2019. Washington,

DC: FBI.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Na-

tional Incident-Based Reporting Sys-

tem. Available: www.fbi.gov/services/

cjis/ucr/nibrs [retrieved December 14,

2020].

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2018.

30 Questions and Answers about

NIBRS Transition

. Available: www.fbi.

gov/file-repository/ucr/30-faqs-

about-

nibrs-transition-oct-2018.pdf/view.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2020.

Five Things to Know About NIBRS:

Transitioning to the National Incident-

Based Reporting System Will Offer

More Robust Crime Statistics Data to

Police, Public

. Available: www.fbi.gov/

news/stories/five-things-to-know-

about-

nibrs-112520.

Hyland, S., and Davis, E. 2019.

Local

Police Departments, 2016: Personnel

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

National Center for Health Statistics.

2004.

Bridged-Race Intercensal Esti-

mates of the July 1, 1990–July 1,

1999, United States Resident Popula-

tion by County, Single-Year of Age,

Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin

[data

files]. Prepared by the U.S. Census Bu-

reau with support from the National

Cancer Institute. Available online at

www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_

race.htm [released July 26, 2004].

National Center for Health Statistics.

2012.

Intercensal Estimates of the Res-

ident Population of the United States

for July 1, 2000–July 1, 2009, by Year,

Arrest rate source note

Arrest estimates developed by the

Bureau of Justice Statistics for 1980–

2014 were retrieved from their

Arrest

Data Analysis Tool

[available online at

www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&

surl=/arrests/index.cfm, retrieved De-

cember 12, 2018]; the National Cen-

ter for Juvenile Justice developed ar-

rest estimates for 2015–2019 based

on data published in the FBI’s

Crime

in the United States

reports for the

respective years; population data for

1980–1989 is from the U.S. Census

Bureau,

U.S. Pop u la tion Es ti mates by

Age, Sex, Race, and His pan ic Origin:

1980 to 1999

[machine-readable data

files available online, re leased April

11, 2000]; population data for 1990–

1999 is from the National Center for

Health Statistics (prepared by the

U.S. Census Bureau with support

from the National Cancer Institute),

Bridged-Race Intercensal Estimates

of the July 1, 1990–July 1, 1999,

United States Resident Population by

County, Single-Year of Age, Sex,

Race, and Hispanic Origin

[machine-

readable data files available online at

www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_

race.htm, released July 26, 2004];

population data for 2000–2009 is

from the National Center for Health

Statistics (prepared under a collabor-

ative arrangement with the U.S. Cen-

sus Bureau),

Intercensal Estimates of

the Resident Population of the United

States for July 1, 2000–July 1, 2009,

by Year, County, Single-Year of Age (0,

1, 2, . . . , 85 Years and Over), Bridged

Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex

[ma-

chine-readable data files available on-

line at www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/

bridged_race.htm, as of October 26,

2012, following release by the U.S.

Census Bureau of the revised un-

bridged intercensal estimates by

5-year age group on October 9, 2012];

and population data for 2010–2019

are from the National Center for Health

Statistics (prepared under a collabora-

tive arrangement with the U.S. Census

Bureau),

Vintage 2019 Postcensal Es-

timates of the Resident Population of

the United States (April 1, 2010, July

1, 2010–July 1, 2019), by Year, County,

Single-Year of Age (0, 1, 2, . . . , 85

Years and Over), Bridged Race, His-

panic Origin, and Sex

[machine-read-

able data files available online at www.

cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm,

as of July 9, 2020, following release

by the U.S. Census Bureau of the un-

bridged vintage 2019 postcensal esti-

mates by 5-year age group, retrieved

on July 29, 2020].

Technical note

Arrest rates for jurisdictions with less

than complete reporting may not be

representative of the entire state. Al-

though juvenile arrest rates may

largely reflect juvenile behavior, many

other factors can affect the magni-

tude of these rates. Arrest rates are

calculated by dividing the number of

youth arrests made in the year by the

number of youth living in the jurisdic-

tion. Therefore, jurisdictions that ar-

rest a relatively large number of non-

resident juveniles would have a

higher arrest rate than jurisdictions

where resident youth behave similar-

ly. Jurisdictions (especially small

ones) that are vacation destinations

or that are centers for economic ac-

tivity in a region may have arrest rates

that reflect the behavior of nonresident

youth more than that of resident

youth. Other factors that influence ar-

rest rates in a given area include the

attitudes of citizens toward crime, the

policies of local law enforcement

agencies, and the policies of other

components of the justice system. In

many areas, not all law enforcement

agencies report their arrest data to the

FBI. Rates for such areas are neces-

sarily based on partial information and

may not be accurate. Comparisons of

juvenile arrest rates across jurisdic-

tions can be informative. Because of

factors noted, however, comparisons

should be made with caution.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

136

County, Single-Year of Age (0, 1, 2,

. . . , 85 Years and Over), Bridged

Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex

[data

files]. Prepared under a collaborative

arrangement with the U.S. Census Bu-

reau. Available online at www.cdc.gov/

nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm [released

October 26, 2012, following release by

the U.S. Census Bureau of the revised

unbridged intercensal estimates by

5-year age group on October 9, 2012].

National Center for Health Statistics.

2020.

Postcensal Estimates of the Resi-

dent Population of the United States

(April 1, 2010, July 1, 2010–July 1,

2019) by Year, County, Single-year of

Age (0, 1, 2, . . . , 85 Years and Over),

Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, and

Sex (Vintage 2019)

[data files]. Pre-

pared under a collaborative arrange-

ment with the U.S. Census Bureau.

Available online: cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/

bridged_race.htm [released July 9,

2020, following release by the U.S.

Census Bureau of the unbridged vin-

tage 2019 postcensal estimates by

5-year age groups].

U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Pop u la tion

Es ti mates by Age, Sex, Race, and His-

pan ic Origin: 1980 to 1999

[data

files]. Available online [re leased April

11, 2000].

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

137

Chapter 6

Youth in

juvenile court

Law enforcement agencies refer

approximately two-thirds of all arrest-

ed youth to a court with juvenile

jurisdiction for further processing.

As with law enforcement, the court

may decide to divert some youth away

from the formal justice system to

other agencies for service. Prosecutors

may file some juvenile cases directly to

criminal (adult) court. Those cases

that progress through the juvenile

court system may result in adjudica-

tion and court-ordered probation or

out-of-home placement or may be

transferred from juvenile court to

criminal court. While their cases are

being processed, youth may be held

in secure detention.

This chapter quantifies the flow of

cases through the juvenile court

system. It documents the nature of,

and trends in, cases received and the

court’s response, and examines gender

and race differences. (Chapter 4, on

juvenile justice system structure and

process, describes the juvenile court

process in general, the history of juve-

nile courts in the U.S., and state varia-

tions in current laws. Chapter 2, on

victims, discusses the handling of child

maltreatment matters.) The chapter

also discusses racial disproportionality

in the juvenile justice system and pres-

ents an analysis of juvenile court refer-

ral histories from a sample birth co-

hort of youth born in 2000.

The information presented in this

chapter is drawn from the National

Juvenile Court Data Archive, which

is funded by NIJ with support from

OJJDP, and the Archive’s primary

publication,

Juvenile Court Statistics

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

138

The

Juvenile Court Statistics

report series details the

activities of U.S. juvenile courts

Juvenile Court Statistics

reports

have provided data on court

activity since the late 1920s

The

Juvenile Court Statistics

series is

the primary source of information on

the activities of the nation’s juvenile

courts. The first

Juvenile Court Statis-

tics

report, published in 1929 by the

Children’s Bureau of the U.S. Depart-

ment of Labor, described cases handled

in 1927 by 42 courts. In 1974, the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention (OJJDP) took on

the project. Since 1975, the National

Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) has

been responsible for this OJJDP data

collection effort through the National

Juvenile Court Data Archive project.

The project not only produces the

Ju-

venile Court Statistics

reports but also

conducts research and archives data for

use by other researchers.

Throughout its history, the

Juvenile

Court Statistics

series has depended on

the voluntary support of courts with

juvenile jurisdiction. Courts contribute

data originally compiled to meet their

own information needs. The data

NCJJ receives are not uniform but re-

flect the natural variation that exists

across court information systems. To

develop national estimates, NCJJ re-

structures compatible data into a com-

mon format. In 2019, juvenile courts

with jurisdiction over virtually 100% of

the U.S. juvenile population contribut-

ed at least some data to the national

reporting program. Because not all

contributed data can support the na-

tional reporting requirements, the na-

tional estimates for 2019 were based

on data from more than 2,500 jurisdic-

tions containing nearly 87% of the na-

tion’s juvenile population (i.e., youth

age 10 through the upper age of origi-

nal juvenile court jurisdiction in each

state).

Juvenile Court Statistics

documents the number of cases

courts handled

Just as the FBI’s Uniform Crime Re-

porting Program counts arrests made

by law enforcement (i.e., a workload

measure, not a crime measure), the

Juvenile Court Statistics

series counts

delinquency and status offense cases

handled by courts with juvenile juris-

diction during the year. Each case rep-

resents the initial disposition of a new

referral to juvenile court for one or

more offenses. A youth may be in-

volved in more than one case in a year.

Therefore, the

Juvenile Court Statistics

series does not provide a count of indi-

vidual youth brought before juvenile

courts.

Cases involving multiple charges

are categorized by their most

serious offense

In a single case where a youth is

charged with robbery, simple assault,

and a weapons law violation, the case is

counted as a robbery case (similar to

the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting

Program’s hierarchy rule). Thus, the

Juvenile Court Statistics

series does not

provide a count of the number of

crimes committed by youth. In addi-

tion, given that only the most serious

offense is used to classify the case,

counts of—and trends for—less serious

offenses must be interpreted cautiously.

Similarly, cases are categorized by their

most severe or restrictive disposition.

For example, a case in which the judge

orders the youth to a training school

and to pay restitution to the victim

would be characterized as a case in

which the youth was placed in a resi-

dential facility.

Juvenile Court Statistics

describes

delinquency and status offense

caseloads

The

Juvenile Court Statistics

series de-

scribes delinquency and status offense

cases handled by juvenile courts. The

reports provide demographic profiles

of the youth referred and the reasons

for the referrals (offenses). The series

documents the juvenile courts’ differ-

ential use of petition, detention, adju-

dication, and disposition alternatives by

case type. The series also can identify

trends in the volume and characteristics

of court activity. However, care should

be exercised when interpreting gender,

age, or racial differences in the analysis

of juvenile delinquency or status of-

fense cases because reported statistics

do not control for the seriousness of

the behavior leading to each charge or

the extent of a youth’s court history.

The

Juvenile Court Statistics

series

does not provide national estimates of

the number of youth referred to court,

their prior court histories, or their fu-

ture recidivism. Nor does it provide

data on criminal court processing of

juvenile cases. Criminal court cases in-

volving youth younger than age 18

who are defined as adults in their state

are not included. The series was de-

signed to produce national estimates of

juvenile court activity, not to describe

the law-violating activities of youth.

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

139

Juvenile courts handled 722,600 delinquency cases in

2019—down from 1.2 million in 1985

Juvenile court caseloads have

decreased and changed

In 2019, U.S. courts with juvenile ju-

risdiction handled an estimated

722,600 cases in which the youth was

charged with a delinquency offense—

an offense for which an adult could be

prosecuted in criminal court. Thus,

U.S. juvenile courts handled 1,980 de-

linquency cases per day in 2019. In

comparison, approximately 1,100 de-

linquency cases were processed daily in

1960. After a substantial increase

(60%) between 1985 and the peak in

1997, the volume of delinquency cases

handled by juvenile courts decreased

61% through 2019. This is in line with

the decrease in the number of juvenile

arrests made between 1997 and 2019.

Most delinquency cases are

referred by law enforcement

Delinquency and status offense cases

are referred to juvenile courts by a

number of different sources, including

law enforcement agencies, social servic-

es agencies, victims, probation officers,

schools, or parents.

Percent of cases referred by law

enforcement agencies:

Offense 2019

Delinquency 82%

Person 87

Property 91

Drugs 90

Public order 62

Status offense (formal cases) 18

Runaway 33

Truancy 1

Curfew 93

Ungovernability 31

Liquor 86

In 2019, 82% of delinquency cases

were referred by law enforcement

agencies. This proportion has changed

little over the past two decades. Law

enforcement agencies are generally

much less likely to be the source of re-

ferral for formally handled status of-

fense cases (involving offenses that are

not crimes for adults) than delinquency

Youth were charged with a person offense in one-third of the

delinquency cases handled by juvenile courts in 2019

Number

of cases

Percent change

Most serious offense

Percent of

total cases

1985–

2019

2010–

2019

Total delinquency 722,600 100% –38% –45%

Person offense 237,000 33 29 –29

Violent Crime Index 53,600 7 –13 –22

Criminal homicide 1,100 0 –4 34

Forcible rape 8,300 1 59 –3

Robbery 18,600 3 –26 –26

Aggravated assault 25,700 4 –14 –25

Simple assault 153,100 21 45 –30

Other violent sex offense 7,500 1 12 –26

Other person offense 22,700 3 118 –38

Property offense 214,500 30 –70 –56

Property Crime Index 145,600 20 –72 –58

Burglary 38,600 5 –73 –55

Larceny-theft 89,600 12 –73 –63

Motor vehicle theft 15,300 2 –57 –2

Arson 2,100 0 –69 –54

Vandalism 35,900 5 –58 –54

Trespassing 19,500 3 –63 –54

Stolen property offense 7,000 1 –77 –51

Other property offense 6,600 1 –64 –35

Drug law violation 96,400 13 25 –40

Public order offense 174,700 24 –11 –48

Obstruction of justice 81,000 11 20 –49

Disorderly conduct 48,300 7 7 –51

Weapons offense 16,000 2 –20 –46

Liquor law violation 4,100 1 –77 –69

Nonviolent sex offense 11,500 2 –12 5

Other public order offense 13,900 2 –57 –44

Q Property crimes accounted for 30% of delinquency cases in 2019.

Q The number of juvenile court referrals decreased 38% between 1985 and 2019;

however, during the 10-year period between 2010 and 2019, juvenile court re-

ferrals decreased by nearly half (45%).

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Calculations are based on unrounded

numbers.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

cases. The exceptions are curfew cases

and status liquor law violation cases

(underage drinking and possession of

alcohol).

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

140

The juvenile court caseload increased steadily between 1985

and 1997 and then declined to its lowest level in 2019

Juvenile court cases have

decreased steadily since the

late 1990s

The number of delinquency cases in-

creased 60% between 1985 and the

1997 peak, before decreasing 61%

through 2019. Cases involving proper-

ty or drug offenses followed a similar

pattern; property offenses increased

29% through 1995 and drug offense

cases more than doubled (147%)

through 1997. Both offense types de-

creased steadily through 2019—down

76% and 49%, respectively. Public order

and person offense cases more than

doubled to their respective peaks in

2004 and 2005. Public order offense

cases decreased 59% through 2019 and

person offense cases decreased 45%.

In more recent years, juvenile court

cases involving violent crime offenses

decreased 22% in the 10-year period

between 2010 and 2019. More specifi-

cally, robbery was down 26%, aggravat-

ed assault 25%, and forcible rape 3%.

In contrast, criminal homicide cases in-

creased 34% during the period.

There were also large declines in cases

involving property offenses. Larceny-

theft cases decreased the most during

the 10-year period, down 63%, fol-

lowed by burglary (55%), arson, van-

dalism, and trespassing (down 54%

each), and stolen property offenses

(51%). Motor vehicle theft cases de-

creased 2% between 2010 and 2019.

Trends in juvenile court cases largely

parallel trends in arrests of persons

younger than 18. FBI data show that

arrest rates for persons younger than

18 charged with violent offenses and

Property Crime Index offenses have

dropped substantially since their peaks

in the mid-1990s.

The juvenile court caseload decreased 38% between 1985 and 2019

Q In the 10-year period between 2010 and 2019, caseloads decreased for the four

general offense categories. Property offense cases fell 56%, followed by public

order offense cases (48%), drug offense cases (40%), and person offense cases

(29%). The overall delinquency caseload decreased 45% during the same time

period.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

400,000

800,000

1,200,000

1,600,000

2,000,000

Year

Number of cases

Total delinquency

Delinquency cases by offense category

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

Year

Number of cases

Drugs

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Year

Number of cases

Public order

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Year

Number of cases

Person

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

Year

Number of cases

Property

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

141

An offense classification may

encompass situations with a

wide range of seriousness

The four general offense catego-

ries—person, property, drugs, and

public order—are each very broad

in terms of the seriousness of the

offenses they comprise. Within

these general categories, individual

offenses (e.g., aggravated assault,

robbery) may also encompass

a wide range of seriousness. For

example:

Aggravated assault is the unlawful

intentional infliction of serious bodi-

ly injury or unlawful threat or at-

tempt to inflict bodily injury or death

by means of a deadly or dangerous

weapon with or without actual in-

fliction of injury. The following situa-

tions are examples of aggravated

assault:

Q A gang attempts to kill a rival

gang member in a drive-by

shooting, but he survives the

attack.

Q A son fights with his father,

causing injuries that require

treatment at a hospital.

Q A student raises a chair and

threatens to throw it at a teacher

but does not.

Robbery is the unlawful taking or

attempted taking of property in the

immediate possession of another

person by force or threat of force.

The following situations are exam-

ples of robbery:

Q Masked gunmen with automatic

weapons demand cash from a

bank.

Q A gang of young men beat up a

tourist and steal his wallet and

valuables.

Q A school bully says to another

student, “Give me your lunch

money, or I’ll punch you.”

Trend patterns for juvenile court caseloads from 1985 through 2019

varied substantially across offenses

Q Robbery cases peaked in 1996, fell through 2004, and increased again through

2008, before declining through 2019. As a result, the number of robbery cases in

2019 was 26% less than the number in 1985.

Q Aggravated assault cases peaked in 1995, at 62,700 and then fell off sharply. In

comparison, simple assault cases climbed steadily through 2005, then decreased

through 2019. Unlike other offenses, the number of simple assault cases in 2019

outnumbered the number reported in 1985.

Q Burglary and larceny-theft caseloads peaked in the 1990s and steadily decreased

through 2019 to their lowest levels since at least 1985.

Q After a steady decline following the peak in 1994, weapons offense cases increased

through the mid 2000s before decreasing again through 2019.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics

2019.

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Year

Number of cases

Simple assault

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Year

Number of cases

Weapons

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

Year

Number of cases

Aggravated assault

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Year

Number of cases

Larceny−theft

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Year

Number of cases

Robbery

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

Year

Number of cases

Burglary

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

142

Cases increased for males and females through the mid-

1990s; since then, cases have declined for both

Females account for a relatively

small share of delinquency cases

In 2019, juvenile courts handled more

than 200,300 delinquency cases involv-

ing females—just over one-quarter of

all delinquency cases handled in 2019.

Females made up a fairly large share of

cases in some offense categories—

simple assault (37%), disorderly con-

duct (36%), larceny-theft (35%), and li-

quor law cases (33%). For other of-

fense categories, the female share of

the case-load was relatively small—vio-

lent sex offenses other than rape (6%),

robbery and weapons offenses (11%

each), burglary offenses (12%), and

criminal homicide (14%).

Most serious offense

Female

proportion

Total delinquency 28%

Person offense 31

Violent Crime Index 16

Criminal homicide 14

Forcible rape 4

Robbery 11

Aggravated assault 24

Simple assault 37

Other violent sex offense 6

Other person offense 30

Property offense 25

Property Crime Index 28

Burglary 12

Larceny-theft 35

Motor vehicle theft 22

Arson 15

Vandalism 19

Trespassing 23

Stolen property offense 14

Other property offense 26

Drug law violation 26

Public order offense 28

Obstruction of justice 27

Disorderly conduct 36

Weapons offense 11

Liquor law violation 33

Nonviolent sex offense 22

Other public order offense 23

For most offenses, female caseloads have grown more or decreased

less than male caseloads between 1985 and 2019

Percent change

1985–2019 2010–2019

Most serious offense Male Female Male Female

Total delinquency –44% –11% –45% –46%

Person offense 11 101 –30 –29

Violent Crime Index –17 21 –21 –25

Criminal homicide –6 5 31 55

Forcible rape 56 161 –3 –3

Robbery –30 25 –27 –18

Aggravated assault –20 17 –24 –29

Simple assault 23 110 –32 –27

Other violent sex offense 12 14 –24 –43

Other person offense 81 321 –36 –42

Property offense –72 –59 –53 –63

Property Crime Index –74 –62 –53 –67

Burglary –74 –57 –55 –47

Larceny-theft –76 –65 –56 –70

Motor vehicle theft –61 –35 –3 2

Arson –70 –55 –55 –44

Vandalism –62 –21 –55 –43

Trespassing –67 –47 –57 –45

Stolen property offense –78 –71 –51 –52

Other property offense –65 –63 –35 –37

Drug law violation 12 84 –45 –13

Public order offense –17 13 –48 –48

Obstruction of justice 17 28 –50 –48

Disorderly conduct –11 68 –52 –50

Weapons offense –23 15 –45 –50

Liquor law violation –80 –63 –69 –68

Nonviolent sex offense –17 10 4 9

Other public order offense –57 –58 –45 –41

Q Between 1985 and 2019, the overall delinquency caseload for females de-

creased 11%, compared with a 44% decrease for males.

Q Among females, the number of aggravated assault cases increased 17% be-

tween 1985 and 2019. In comparison, among males, aggravated assault cases

were down 20%.

Q Between 2010 and 2019, the number of aggravated assault cases dropped for

both males and females, but the decline for females (29%) was slightly greater

than the decline for males (24%).

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Calculations are based on unrounded

numbers.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

143

The female share of delinquency

cases increased steadily through

2002 and then leveled off

The proportion of delinquency cases

that involved females was 19% in 1985;

by 2005, it had increased 9 percentage

points to 28% and remained close to

this level through 2019. The female

share of person offense cases rose 11

percentage points between 1985 and

2019 to 31%. The female proportion

of property cases went from 19% in

1985 to 30% in 2009, then decreased

to 25% in 2019. The female propor-

tion of drug offense cases increased 8

percentage points from 1985 to 2019,

up to 26%. The female proportion of

public order cases increased 6 percent-

age points from 1985 to 2019, up to

28%.

Juvenile court caseload trends were different for males and females,

and the differences varied by offense category

Q Male delinquency caseloads have been on the decline since the mid-1990s. The fe-

male caseload peaked in 2005 and decreased through 2019.

Q The decline in male caseloads has been driven by a sharp reduction in the volume

of property cases—down 77% from the 1995 peak to 2019.

Q For females, the largest 1985–2019 increase was in person offense cases (101%).

Drug law violation cases also rose substantially (84%).

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Year

Number of cases

Male

Female

Delinquency

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

Year

Number of cases

Property

Drugs

Male

Person

Public order

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Year

Number of cases

Property

Drugs

Female

Person

Public order

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Year

Female percent of cases

Property

Person

Drugs

Public

order

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Year

Female percent of cases

Delinquency

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

144

In 2019, male and female offense profiles were similar

The delinquency caseload

changed for both males and

females between 2010 and 2019

Compared with offense profiles in

2010, both male and female delin-

quency caseloads had greater propor-

tions of person offense cases in 2019.

Offense profile by gender:

Offense Male Female

2019

Delinquency 100% 100%

Person 31 36

Property 31 27

Drugs 14 12

Public order 24 24

2010

Delinquency 100% 100%

Person 24 28

Property 36 39

Drugs 14 8

Public order 26 25

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Person and property cases accounted

for equal proportions of the male case-

load in 2019 (31% each). In 2019,

person offenses accounted for the larg-

est share of the female caseload; in

2010 property offenses accounted for

largest share.

In 2019, the male caseload contained

greater proportions of property and

drug offenses than the female caseload.

In contrast, person offenses accounted

for a larger share of the female caseload

than the male caseload. The propor-

tion of delinquency cases involving

public order offenses was the same for

both males and females in 2019.

Although males accounted for more than twice as many delinquency

cases as females in 2019, their offense profiles were similar

Male Female

Most serious offense

Number

of cases

Percent

of cases

Number

of cases

Percent

of cases

Total delinquency 522,293 100% 200,332 100%

Person offense 163,973 31 73,043 36

Violent Crime Index 44,915 9 8,712 4

Criminal homicide 978 0 157 0

Forcible rape 7,932 2 336 0

Robbery 16,432 3 2,132 1

Aggravated assault 19,573 4 6,086 3

Simple assault 95,999 18 57,129 29

Other violent sex offense 7,127 1 415 0

Other person offense 15,933 3 6,788 3

Property offense 160,494 31 53,992 27

Property Crime Index 105,479 20 40,075 20

Burglary 33,995 7 4,649 2

Larceny-theft 57,867 11 31,734 16

Motor vehicle theft 11,880 2 3,374 2

Arson 1,737 0 317 0

Vandalism 29,114 6 6,754 3

Trespassing 15,044 3 4,463 2

Stolen property offense 5,996 1 990 0

Other property offense 4,861 1 1,710 1

Drug law violation 71,657 14 24,755 12

Public order offense 126,169 24 48,542 24

Obstruction of justice 59,006 11 22,012 11

Disorderly conduct 30,670 6 17,585 9

Weapons offense 14,164 3 1,841 1

Liquor law violation 2,736 1 1,346 1

Nonviolent sex offense 8,953 2 2,523 1

Other public order offense 10,640 2 3,235 2

Q Compared with males, the female juvenile court caseload had a greater propor-

tion of simple assault, larceny-theft, and disorderly conduct cases and a small-

er proportion of robbery, burglary, vandalism, and drug cases.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Calculations are based on unrounded

numbers.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

145

A disproportionate number of delinquency cases involved

Black youth

In 2019, Black youth constituted

15% of the juvenile population but

35% of the delinquency caseload

Although the largest proportion of de-

linquency cases handled in 2019 in-

volved White youth (310,100 or 43%),

a disproportionate number of cases in-

volved Black youth (254,800 or 35%),

given their proportion of the juvenile

population. In 2019, White youth

made up 53% of the juvenile popula-

tion (youth ages 10 through the upper

age of juvenile court jurisdiction in

each state), Black youth 15%, Hispan-

youth 24%, American Indian

youth

2%, and Asian

youth 6%.*

The racial profile of delinquency cases

overall had a slightly greater propor-

tion of cases involving Black youth in

2019 (35%) than in 2010 (33%) and,

conversely, a slightly smaller propor-

tion of cases involving White youth.

The proportion of cases involving His-

panic youth was the same in both years

(19%).

Racial profile:

Race/ethnicity

Delinquency

2019 2010

White 43% 45%

Black 35 33

Hispanic 19 19

American Indian 2 1

Asian 1 1

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity are treated as a

distinct race group and are excluded from the

other four race groups, with one important

exception. Data provided to the Archive from

many jurisdictions do not include any means

to determine the ethnicity of American Indian

youth. Rather than assume ethnicity for these

youth, they are classified solely on their racial

classification. As such, the American Indian

group includes an unknown proportion of

Hispanic youth.

The racial classification American Indian

(usually abbreviated as Amer. Indian) includes

American Indian and Alaskan Native.

The racial classification Asian includes Asian,

Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islander.

The National Juvenile Court Data Archive began including data on

Hispanic youth with the 2005 data year

Beginning with the 2005 data year,

detailed race estimates developed by

the National Juvenile Court Data Ar-

chive (Archive) project were expand-

ed to include estimates for cases in-

volving Hispanic youth. As a result of

this change, race data are not com-

parable across all data years present-

ed in this chapter (1985–2019). For

the 1985–2004 data period, the Ar-

chive project developed race esti-

mates for four race groups (White,

Black, American Indian/Alaskan Na-

tive, and Asian/Pacific Islander) with-

out consideration of ethnicity, and

persons of Hispanic ethnicity could

be of any race and were included

within each of the four racial groups.

Beginning with the 2005 data year,

persons of Hispanic ethnicity are

treated as a distinct race group and

are excluded from the other race

groups. For this reason, race esti-

mates for the 1985–2004 data period

are not comparable to the race esti-

mates for the 2005–2019 data period.

Therefore, in this chapter, racial data

are presented only for the 2005–2019

period. An important exception to ra-

cial classification must be noted. Data

provided to the project did not always

allow for identification of Hispanic eth-

nicity for cases involving American In-

dian youth. Specifically, data from

many jurisdictions did not include any

means to determine the ethnicity of

American Indian youth. Rather than

assume ethnicity for these youth, they

are classified solely on their racial

classification; as such, the American

Indian group includes an unknown

proportion of Hispanic youth.

Between 2005 and 2019, delinquency case rates declined for youth of

all racial groups

Q The delinquency case rate was at its highest level in 2005 for all racial groups ex-

cept for Black youth. The delinquency case rate for Black youth peaked in 2008

(109.7) and then fell 51% by 2019. Between 2005 and 2019, the delinquency case

rate decreased the most for Asian youth (71%), followed by Hispanic youth (61%),

White youth (55%), American Indian youth (52%), and Black youth (50%).

Q In 2019, the total delinquency case rate for Black youth (53.9) was more than dou-

ble the rate for American Indian youth (21.5), 3 times the rate for White youth (18.3)

and Hispanic youth (17.6), and nearly 12 times the rate for Asian youth (4.6).

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

100

120

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth ages 10−17

Black

White

Asian

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

Delinquency

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

146

Racial profile, 2019:

Race/

ethnicity Person Property Drugs

Public

order

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

White 41 42 53 41

Black 40 32 20 36

Hispanic 16 18 21 22

American

Indian

1221

Asian 1 2 1 1

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Offense profiles for White youth

and Black youth differed

Delinquency caseloads for Black youth

contained a greater proportion of per-

son offenses than did caseloads for all

other races. For White, Black, and His-

panic youth, person offenses accounted

for the largest proportion of cases, and

drug offenses accounted for the small-

est proportion of cases for all racial

groups. Person offenses made up a

larger share of delinquency cases in

2019 than in 2010 for all racial groups.

Offense profile:

Race/

ethnicity Person Property Drugs

Public

order

2019

White 32% 29% 17% 23%

Black 35 32 7 25

Hispanic 31 26 17 25

American

Indian

31 33 17 19

Asian 30 32 15 23

2010

White 24% 39% 15% 23%

Black 30 35 7 27

Hispanic 21 36 14 30

American

Indian

23 39 13 25

Asian 20 46 11 24

Note: Rows total 100%; however, detail may

not total 100% because of rounding.

In 2019, the disparity between

rates for Black youth and White

youth was lowest for drug cases

In 2019, case rates for Black youth

were substantially higher than rates for

other youth in all offense categories,

but the degree of disparity varied. The

person offense case rate for Black

youth (19.1 per 1,000) was more than

3 times the rate for White youth (5.8),

as was the property offense case rate

(17.4 for Black youth and 5.3 for

White youth), and the public order

case rate (13.6 for Black youth and 4.2

for White youth).

In comparison, in 2019, the drug of-

fense case rate for Black youth (3.9)

was 1.3 times the rate for White youth

(3.0). The disparity in the drug offense

case rate between Black and White

youth decreased since 2006, when the

case rate for Black youth was nearly

double the case rate for White youth.

The racial profile for delinquency

cases was similar for males and

females in 2019

Among females referred to juvenile

court in 2019 for person offenses,

Black youth accounted for 41% of

cases—the greatest overrepresentation

among Black youth. The Black propor-

tion among males referred for person

offenses was slightly smaller at 37%.

Racial profile of delinquency cases by

gender and offense, 2019:

Race/ethnicity

Delinquency

Male Female

Total 100% 100%

White 43 44

Black 35 35

Hispanic 19 17

American Indian 2 2

Asian 1 1

Race/

ethnicity Person Property Drugs

Public

order

Male 100% 100% 100% 100%

White 42 41 51 41

Black 37 39 21 36

Hispanic 18 17 25 21

American

Indian

2221

Asian 1 1 1 1

Female 100% 100% 100% 100%

White 39 44 61 41

Black 41 35 13 39

Hispanic 17 16 22 17

American

Indian

2232

Asian 1 2 2 1

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Among females referred for drug of-

fenses, Black youth were underrepre-

sented. Although they account for 15%

of the population of juvenile females,

Black youth made up 13% of drug

cases involving females in 2019.

In 2019, American Indian and Asian

youth combined made up 8% of the ju-

venile population; however, they ac-

counted for less than 6% of cases across

all gender and offense groups.

Offense profiles for both males

and females varied somewhat

across racial groups

Among males in 2019, Black youth

had a greater proportion of person of-

fense cases than all other race groups.

Conversely, Black males had a smaller

proportion of drug cases than all other

race groups.

Offense profile of delinquency cases by

gender and race, 2019:

Race/

ethnicity Person Property Drugs

Public

order

Male

White 31% 29% 16% 23%

Black 33 34 8 25

Hispanic 29 27 18 26

American

Indian

30 34 16 20

Asian 31 31 15 23

Female

White 32% 27% 17% 23%

Black 42 27 5 27

Hispanic 36 25 15 23

American

Indian

33 31 18 18

Asian 28 34 15 22

Note: Rows total 100%; however, detail may

not total 100% because of rounding.

Among females, person offenses ac-

counted for 42% of the cases involving

Black youth, compared with 36% of

the cases involving Hispanics, 33% in-

volving American Indian youth, 32%

involving White youth, and 28% in-

volving Asian youth. As with males,

Black females had a smaller proportion

of drug cases than all other race

groups.

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

147

Case rates varied across race and offense but, in all offense categories and nearly all years from 2005

through 2019, the rates for Black youth were substantially higher than the rates for other youth

Q Compared with 2005, 2019 person offense case rates were lower for all racial groups. In fact, person offense case rates were at

their highest level for all race groups in 2005 and decreased substantially through 2019—down 59% for Asian youth, 45% for

Hispanic youth, 44% for Black youth, 41% for White youth, and 35% for American Indian youth.

Q Property case rates were at their highest levels in 2005 for White, American Indian, and Asian youth, and in 2008 for Black and

Hispanic youth. From their respective peaks, property offense case rates decreased the most for Asian youth (down 80%), fol-

lowed by Hispanic youth (71%), White youth (68%), American Indian youth (61%), and Black youth (54%).

Q The drug offense case rate for Black youth increased slightly (3%) between 2005 and the peak in 2007, then decreased 57%

through 2019. Drug offense case rates for all other racial groups were at their highest in 2005 and decreased to their lowest levels

in 2019 for White, American Indian, and Hispanic youth. The drug offense case rate for Asian youth was slightly higher in 2019

than in 2018.

Q In 2019, the decrease in the public order offense case rate was similar for all racial groups: 69% for Hispanic youth, 62% for

American Indian youth, 55% each for White and Black youth, and 51% for Asian youth.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth ages 10−upper age

Black

Asian

Person

White

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth ages 10−upper age

Black

Asian

Property

White

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth ages 10−upper age

Black

Asian

Drugs

White

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth ages 10−upper age

Black

Asian

Public order

White

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

148

Although older teens dominated delinquency caseloads,

trends were similar for all age groups

For all ages, 2019 delinquency

case rates were lower than rates

in the mid- to late 1990s

In 2019, juvenile courts handled 22.7

delinquency cases for every 1,000 juve-

niles (youth subject to original juvenile

court jurisdiction) in the U.S. popula-

tion. The overall delinquency case rate

peaked in 1996, 43% above the 1985

rate, and then declined 64% to the

2019 level. For all ages, delinquency

case rates showed similar trend pat-

terns, although the peak years varied

slightly between age groups. Case rates

for youth between ages 11 and 14

peaked in 1995, while case rates for

older youth peaked in 1996 or 1997.

The case rate for youth age 10 peaked

in 1991. Between 1985 and 2019, case

rate declines were greater for youth

younger than 15 than for older teens;

however, in the 10-year period be-

tween 2010 and 2019, case rate de-

clines were greater for youth ages 16

and 17 than for all other ages.

Most delinquency cases involved

older teens

High-school-age youth (ages 14 and

older) made up 82% of the delinquen-

cy caseload in 2019; older teens (ages

16 and older) accounted for 45%. In

comparison, middle-school-age youth

(ages 12 and 13) were involved in 15%

of delinquency cases, while youth

younger than 12 accounted for 4%.

The 2019 age profile of delinquency

cases was similar to the 2010 profile.

Age profile of delinquency cases:

Age 2019 2010

Total 100% 100%

Under 12 4 3

12 5 4

13 10 9

14 15 15

15 21 21

24 26

19 19

Over 17 3 3

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Age profiles varied somewhat across

offenses but have not changed substan-

tially since 2010

Age profile of delinquency cases, 2019:

Age Person Property Drugs

Public

order

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Under 12 5 3 1 3

12 7 5 2 5

13 12 9 6 9

14 17 16 12 15

20 22 20 21

22 25 29 24

17 16 19 28 18

Over 17 2 2 3 5

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Why do juvenile courts handle

more 16- than 17-year-olds?

Although comparable numbers of

17-year-olds and 16-year-olds were ar-

rested in 2019, the number of juvenile

court cases involving 17-year-olds

(135,800), was lower than the number

involving 16-year-olds (173,000). The

explanation lies primarily in the fact

that 8 states exclude 17-year-olds from

the original jurisdiction of the juvenile

court (see Chapter 4). In these states,

all 17-year-olds are legally adults and

are referred to criminal court rather

than to juvenile court. Thus, far fewer

17-year-olds than 16-year-olds are sub-

ject to original juvenile court jurisdic-

tion. Of the more than 31 million

youth under juvenile court jurisdiction

in 2019, youth ages 10 through 15 ac-

counted for 78%, 13% were age 16,

and 9% were age 17.

In 2019, offense profiles of

younger and older youth differed

Compared with the delinquency case-

load involving older youth, the casel-

oad of youth age 15 or younger in

2019 included a larger proportion of

person offense cases and a smaller pro-

portion of drug offense cases.

Compared with 2010, the caseloads for

The delinquency case rate increased with the referral age of the youth

in 2019

Q In 2019, the delinquency case rate for 16-year-olds was 1.6 times the rate for

14-year-olds, and the rate for 14-year-olds was 3 times the rate for 12-year olds.

Q Age-specific case rates increased steadily through age 17 for all offense types. The

case rate for 17-year-olds was nearly double the case rate for 13-year-olds for per-

son offenses and nearly triple the rate for property and public order offenses.

Q The increase in rates between age 13 and age 17 was sharpest for drug offenses;

the rate for drug offenses for 17-year-olds was 6.7 times the rate for 13-year-olds.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics

2019.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age at referral

1.5

3.5

8.8

16.7

26.7

35.8

43.0

47.1

Cases per 1,000 youth in age group, 2019

Delinquency

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age at referral

Cases per 1,000 youth in age group, 2019

Public

order

Drugs

Person

Property

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

149

both age groups in 2019 involved

greater proportions of person offense

cases and smaller proportions of prop-

erty offense cases.

Offense profile of delinquency cases by

age:

Offense

Age 15

or younger

Age 16

or older

2019

Delinquency 100% 100%

Person 37 28

Property 30 30

Drugs 10 17

Public order 24 25

2010

Delinquency 100% 100%

Person 29 22

Property 38 36

Drugs 9 15

Public order 24 27

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

The age profile of delinquency

cases did not differ substantially

by gender or race in 2019

At each age, the proportion of cases

was not more than 2 percentage points

different for males compared to fe-

males. For both males and females, the

largest proportion of delinquency cases

involved 16-year-olds. Age profiles

across racial groups were also similar.

Age profile of delinquency cases by

gender, 2019:

Age Male Female

Total 100% 100%

Under 12 4 3

12 5 6

13 9 11

14 15 16

15 21 21

24 23

19 18

Over 17 3 2

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Between 1985 and 2019, trends in case rates were generally similar

across age groups

Q With the exception of 10- to 12-year-olds, person offense case rates increased from

1985 through the mid-1990s and then declined through 2019.

Q Property offense case rates peaked in 1991 for all age groups, then declined 75%

or more through 2019 for each age group.

Q For all age groups, drug offense case rates were at their lowest levels in 1991. Be-

tween 1991 and their respective peaks in the mid to late 1990s, case rates more

than doubled for ages 13–15, 16, and 17 and nearly tripled for youth ages 10–12.

Rates then decreased for all ages through 2019.

Q Public order offense case rates nearly doubled for each age group between 1985

and the early 2000s. In the 10-year period between 2010 and 2019, the case rate

decreased 54% for youth age 16 and 55% for youth age 17.

Note: Because of the relatively low volume of cases involving youth ages 10–12 for drug offenses, their

case rates are inflated by a factor of 5 to display the trend over time.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics

2019.

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth in age group

Age 16

Ages 10−12 (x5)

Drugs

Age 17

Ages 13−15

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth in age group

Age 16

Ages 10−12

Public order

Ages 13−15

Age 17

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth in age group

Age 16

Ages 10−12

Person

Age 17

Ages 13–15

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth in age group

Age 16

Ages 10−12

Property

Ages 13−15

Age 17

Age profile of delinquency cases by race, 2019:

Age White Black Hispanic American Indian Asian

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Under 12 4 4 2 4 2

12 5 5 4 6 5

13 10 10 9 12 10

14 15 16 15 16 15

20 21 21 20 20

24 24 25 21 23

17 19 18 19 19 21

Over 17 3 3 4 2 5

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

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

150

In 1 in 4 delinquency cases, the youth is detained between

referral to court and case disposition

When is secure detention used?

A youth may be placed in a secure ju-

venile detention facility at various

points during the processing of a case.

Although detention practices vary from

jurisdiction to jurisdiction, a general

model of detention practices is useful.

When a case is referred to juvenile

court, intake staff may decide to hold

the youth in a detention facility while

the case is being processed. In general,

detention is used if there is reason to

believe the youth is a threat to the

community, will be at risk if returned

to the community, or may fail to ap-

pear at an upcoming hearing. The

youth may also be detained for diag-

nostic evaluation purposes. In most de-

linquency cases, the youth is not de-

tained.

In all states, law requires that a deten-

tion hearing be held within a few days

(generally within 24 hours). At that

time, a judge reviews the decision to

detain the youth and either orders the

youth released or continues the deten-

tion. National juvenile court statistics

count the number of cases that involve

detention during a calendar year. As a

case is processed, the youth may be de-

tained and released more than once

between referral and disposition. Juve-

nile court data do not count individual

The number of cases involving detention was lower in 2019 than in 2005

for all offense types

Q The number of delinquency cases involving detention decreased 54% between

2005 and 2019, from 404,900 to 186,600. The largest relative decrease was for drug

offense cases (63%), followed by property and public order offense cases (57%

each) and person offense cases (46%).

Q Despite the decrease in the volume of delinquency cases involving detention, the

proportion of cases detained was about the same in 2019 (26%) as in 2005 (25%).

The percent of cases detained was lowest in 2009 (23%).

Q Between 2005 and 2019, the proportion of cases detained decreased for all but

property offense cases. The proportion of property cases involving detention in-

creased from 19% in 2005 to 23% in 2019.

Q Drug offense cases were the least likely to involve detention—youth were detained

in 16% of drug offense cases in 2019. In comparison, youth were detained in 23%

of property cases, 27% of public order cases, and 31% of person cases.

Q In 2013, youth were detained in 33% of person offense cases—the highest propor-

tion of cases detained for any offense during the 2005–2019 period. In fact, no

other offense category ever had more than 28% of cases detained.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics

2019.

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

Year

Cases detained

Public order

Person

Drugs

Property

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

10%

20%

30%

40%

Year

Percent of cases detained

Public order

Person

Drugs

Property

Detention data prior to 2005

is not compatible with data

for 2005 and later

In 2018, the Archive project im-

proved the coverage of detention

data used to generate national esti-

mates. As a result of this change,

detention data prior to 2005 is no

longer compatible with data for

2005 and later. Therefore, data pre-

sentations within this chapter only

display detention data information

for the 2005–2019 data period.

Person offense cases represented 39%

of all detained delinquency cases in

2019, while property offense cases ac-

counted for 27% and public order of-

fense cases accounted for 26%. Drug

offense cases made up the smallest

share of detained cases (8%).

Offense profile of delinquency cases:

All

cases

Detained

cases

Offense 2010 2019 2010 2019

Delinquency 100% 100% 100% 100%

Person 19 24 34 39

Property 59 42 29 27

Drugs 5 11 9 8

Public order 17 23 27 26

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

detentions, nor do they count the

number of youth detained. In addition,

although in a few states youth may be

committed to a detention facility as

part of a disposition order, the court

data do not include such placements in

the count of cases involving detention.

The proportion of detained cases

involving person offenses has

increased

Compared with 2010, the offense

characteristics of the 2019 detention

caseload changed, involving a greater

proportion of person cases and slightly

smaller proportions of all other offense

groups.

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

151

Use of detention varied not only by offense but also by

gender, race, and age

Males accounted for most delinquency cases involving detention and

were consistently more likely than females to be detained

Q The number of cases detained decreased at a similar pace for both males and fe-

males between 2005 and 2019; down 53% for males and 55% for females.

Q The likelihood of detention was higher for males than for females, but the 2005-

2019 trend lines for the percent of cases detained ran in tandem.

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

Year

Delinquency cases detained

Female

Male

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Year

Percent of delinquency cases detained

Female

Male

Q The number of delinquency cases involving detention was its highest level in 2005

for both White and Black youth and decreased through 2019; down 62% for White

youth and 50% for Black youth. For Hispanic youth, the number of detained delin-

quency cases peaked in 2007, then decreased 47% through 2019.

Q Although the likelihood of detention for Black and Hispanic youth increased slightly

between 2005 and 2019, the likelihood of detention was fairly stable for all racial

groups during the reporting period. The proportion of cases involving detention re-

mained lower for White youth than all other races for all years during the period.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics

2019.

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

Year

Delinquency cases detained

Hispanic

Black

White

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

10%

20%

30%

40%

Year

Percent of delinquency cases detained

Hispanic

White

Black

Black youth accounted for the largest number of delinquency cases

involving detention, but Hispanic youth were most likely to be detained

In 2019, the gender disparity in

the likelihood of detention was

greatest for property cases

In 2019, the likelihood of detention in

delinquency cases for males was 1.4

times the likelihood for females (28%

vs. 20%). Males were more likely than

females to be detained in each of the

four general offense categories: 1.6

times more likely for property offenses,

1.5 for drug offenses, and 1.3 each for

person offenses and public order of-

fenses.

Percent of cases detained, 2019:

Offense Male Female

Delinquency 28% 20%

Person 33 26

Property 26 16

Drugs 17 12

Public order 29 22

Delinquency cases involving youth age

16 or older were more likely to be de-

tained than were cases involving youth

age 15 or younger. Person offense

cases for both age groups were more

likely to involve detention than were

other offenses.

Percent of cases detained, 2019:

Offense

Age 15

or younger

Age 16

or older

Delinquency 25% 27%

Person 29 34

Property 23 24

Drugs 15 17

Public order 24 31

The degree of racial disparity in

the likelihood of detention varied

across offenses

In 2019, the likelihood of detention

was greatest for Hispanic youth for

person and public order offenses. In

2019, Black and Hispanic youth were

equally as likely to be detained for a

property offense (27%), while Black

youth were more likely than any other

race group to be detained for a drug

offense (23%). For all years between

2005 and 2019, White youth were less

likely to be detained than Black or His-

panic youth. The overall percent of

cases detained for Black youth was 1.4

times that for White youth, and His-

panic youth were 1.7 times more likely

to be detained than White youth. The

greatest disparity between Black and

White youth was in the likelihood of

detention in drug cases—the propor-

tion for Black youth was 2 times that

for White youth.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

152

Percent of cases detained:

Race/ethnicity

Delinquency

2010 2019

White 20% 20%

Black 26 29

Hispanic 28 32

American Indian 26 25

Asian 21 26

Percent of cases detained, 2019:

Race/

ethnicity Person Property Drugs

Public

order

White 26% 18% 12% 22%

Black 33 27 23 29

Hispanic 37 27 20 36

American

Indian

29 23 16 30

Asian 31 20 14 34

The racial profile for detained

delinquency cases was similar for

males and females in 2019

In 2019, the Black proportion of de-

tained delinquency cases (40%) was

substantially greater than the Black

proportion of the juvenile population

(15%) and also greater than the Black

proportion of delinquency cases han-

dled during the year (35%). The over-

representation of Black youth in the

detention caseload was greatest among

property offenses (45%) and males

(41%). Across offenses, for males and

females, the Black proportion of de-

tained cases was in the 30%–40% range.

The one exception was among de-

tained females referred for drug offens-

es. Black youth accounted for just 16%

of cases involving females—close to

their representation in the population

(14%).

Racial profile of detained cases by

gender, 2019:

Race/ethnicity

Delinquency

Male Female

Total 100% 100%

White 33 36

Black 41 38

Hispanic 23 23

American Indian 2 2

Asian 1 1

Race/

ethnicity Person Property Drugs

Public

order

Male 100% 100% 100% 100%

White 35 32 37 31

Black 41 46 30 39

Hispanic 22 20 31 27

American

Indian

2222

Asian 1 1 1 1

Female 100% 100% 100% 100%

White 34 35 48 36

Black 41 40 16 37

Hispanic 22 21 30 23

American

Indian

2342

Asian 1 1 2 2

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

The offense profile of detained

cases varied by race and by

gender in 2019

For males, the person offense share of

delinquency cases involving detention

was similar for White and Black youth

(39% and 38%, respectively) and slight-

ly greater than Asian youth (36%) and

Hispanic and American Indian youth

(35% each). For Black male youth,

drug offense cases accounted for 6% of

detained cases, compared with 11% for

Hispanic males, 10% for White males,

9% for American Indian males, and 8%

for Asian males.

Among females, Black youth had a

higher proportion of person offenses in

the detention caseload (49%) than did

White and Hispanic youth (44% each),

American Indian youth (41%), or Asian

youth (37%). For American Indian fe-

males, drug offense cases accounted for

14% of detained cases, compared with

10% each for White and Hispanic fe-

males, 8% for Asian females, and 3% for

Black females.

Offense profile of detained cases by gen-

der, 2019:

Race/

ethnicity Person Property Drugs

Public

order

Total

White 40% 26% 10% 25%

Black 40 30 6 25

Hispanic 37 23 11 29

American

Indian

36 30 11 23

Asian 36 25 8 31

Male

White 39% 27% 10% 24%

Black 38 32 6 24

Hispanic 35 24 11 30

American

Indian

35 32 9 25

Asian 36 26 8 30

Female

White 44% 20% 10% 26%

Black 49 22 3 26

Hispanic 44 19 10 27

American

Indian

41 26 14 20

Asian 37 21 8 34

Note: Rows total 100%; however, detail may

not total 100% because of rounding.

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

153

The petitioned caseload decreased 26% from 1985 to 2019

as formal case handling became less likely

In a formally processed case,

petitioners ask the court to order

sanctions

Formal case handling involves the fil-

ing of a petition requesting that the

court hold an adjudicatory or waiver

hearing. Decisionmakers (police, pro-

bation, intake, prosecutor, or other

screening officer) may consider infor-

mal case handling if they believe that

accountability and rehabilitation can be

achieved without formal court inter-

vention. Compared with informally

handled (nonpetitioned) cases, formal-

ly processed (petitioned) delinquency

cases tend to involve more serious of-

fenses, older youth, and youth with

longer court histories.

If the court decides to handle the mat-

ter informally, the youth agrees to

comply with one or more sanctions,

such as community service, victim res-

titution, or voluntary probation super-

vision. Informal cases are generally

held open pending successful comple-

tion of the disposition. If the court’s

conditions are met, the charges are dis-

missed. If, however, the youth does

not fulfill the conditions, the case is

likely to be petitioned for formal pro-

cessing.

The use of formal handling has

been stable for several years

The use of formal handling changed

little between 2010 and 2019, increas-

ing one percentage point from 2010

(53%) to 2019 (54%). Property, and

public order offense cases were more

likely to be handled formally in 2019

than in 2010. Drug offense cases were

less likely to be handled formally, and

person offense cases were equally as

likely in both years.

In 2010, property and drug offense

cases were less likely than person and

public order offense cases to be peti-

tioned for formal handling. In 2019,

drug offense cases were least likely.

The number of petitioned delinquency cases increased 91% between

1985 and the peak in 1997 and then declined 61% by 2019

Q Between 2005 and 2019, petitioned person offense cases decreased 44%, property

offense cases decreased 61%, drug offense cases decreased 60%, and public

order cases decreased 58%.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Year

Delinquency cases

Petitioned

Nonpetitioned

The number of delinquency cases petitioned in 2019 (386,600) was 26% less than

the number petitioned in 1985 (522,900). In comparison, the overall number of delin-

quency cases referred decreased 38% in that time.

Q The trend for nonpetitioned cases was similar to that of petitioned cases. The num-

ber of nonpetitioned delinquency cases increased 35% between 1985 and the peak

in 1995 and then declined 61% by 2019 for an overall decrease of 47%.

The petitioned caseload decreased for all offense categories in the 15

years between 2005 and 2019

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Year

Petitioned cases

Property

Person

Public order

Drugs

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

154

Percent of delinquency cases petitioned:

Offense 2010 2019

Delinquency 53% 54%

Person 55 55

Property 50 55

Drugs 50 42

Public order 55 56

The proportion of petitioned cases

changed little for all demographic

groups between 2010 and 2019

The likelihood of formal case process-

ing increased slightly from 2010 to

2019 for both males and females as

well as for Black and Hispanic youth

and for all ages.

Percent of adjudicated delinquency cases,

2019:

Demographic 2010 2019

Gender

Male 56% 57%

Female 43 45

Race/ethnicity

White 49 48

Black 59 60

Hispanic 50 52

American Indian 58 56

Asian 52 52

Age

15 or younger 49 51

16 or older 56 57

In 2019, as in 2010, courts petitioned

a larger share of delinquency cases in-

volving males than females. This was

true for each of the general offense

categories. In both 2010 and 2019,

courts petitioned a larger share of de-

linquency cases involving Black youth

than youth of any other race.

In 2019, juvenile courts petitioned more than 5 in 10 delinquency

cases for formal handling, and adjudicated youth delinquent in more

than half of those petitioned cases

Most serious offense

Number of

petitioned

cases

Percent of

delinquency

cases

petitioned

Number of

adjudicated

cases

Percent of

petitioned

cases

adjudicated

Total delinquency 386,600 54% 203,600 53%

Person offense 129,800 55 65,600 51

Violent Crime Index 41,300 77 23,800 58

Criminal homicide 900 82 500 50

Forcible rape 6,000 73 3,200 54

Robbery 15,900 85 9,900 62

Aggravated assault 18,400 72 10,200 55

Simple assault 72,200 47 33,000 46

Other violent sex offense 5,500 72 2,900 53

Other person offense 10,800 48 5,900 54

Property offense 118,200 55 62,600 53

Property Crime Index 82,600 57 44,700 54

Burglary 27,300 71 16,000 59

Larceny-theft 42,700 48 21,500 50

Motor vehicle theft 11,200 73 6,400 58

Arson 1,300 65 700 50

Vandalism 17,900 50 8,800 49

Trespassing 8,500 44 3,700 44

Stolen property offense 5,800 83 3,600 62

Other property offense 3,400 52 1,800 52

Drug law violation 40,400 42 20,400 51

Public order offense 98,300 56 55,000 56

Obstruction of justice 56,200 69 34,100 61

Disorderly conduct 19,700 41 9,200 47

Weapons offense 10,100 63 5,600 55

Liquor law violation 1,100 27 500 45

Nonviolent sex offense 5,300 46 2,700 52

Other public order offense 5,900 43 2,900 49

Q Generally, more serious offenses were more likely to be petitioned for formal

processing than were less serious offenses.

Q For criminal homicide and robbery, at least 82% of cases were petitioned. The

proportion of cases petitioned was lower than 50% for simple assault, larceny-

theft, trespassing, disorderly conduct, liquor law violations, and nonviolent sex

offenses.

Q For most offenses, the youth was adjudicated delinquent in about half of peti-

tioned cases.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Calculations are based on unrounded

numbers.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

155

From 1985 to 2019, the number of cases in which the youth

was adjudicated delinquent fell 40%

Adjudication was more likely for

some types of cases than others

Youth were adjudicated delinquent in a

smaller proportion of person offense

cases than in cases involving other cat-

egories of offenses. This lower rate of

adjudication in person offenses cases

may reflect, in part, reluctance to di-

vert these cases from the formal juve-

nile justice system without a judge’s

review.

Adjudication rates also varied by gen-

der, race, and age of the youth. The

likelihood of adjudication in 2019 was

less for females than for males. This

was true across all offense categories.

Black youth were less likely to be adju-

dicated than were youth of other races.

Cases involving youth ages 15 or

younger were equally as likely as cases

involving older youth to result in adju-

dication, although older youth had a

greater share of cases waived to crimi-

nal court.

Percent of petitioned delinquency cases

adjudicated:

Demographic 2010 2019

Gender

Male 63% 54%

Female 57 47

Race

White 62 53

Black 59 50

Hispanic 66 58

American Indian 69 57

Asian 58 52

Age

15 or younger 62 53

16 or older 61 53

Offense profiles for petitioned and

adjudicated cases shows a shift

away from property cases

Compared with 2010, both petitioned

and adjudicated cases had increased

proportions of person offenses in 2019

and smaller proportions of property,

drug, and public order offenses.

Offense profile of delinquency cases:

Offense 2010 2019

Petitioned cases 100% 100%

Person 27 34

Property 35 31

Drugs 11 10

Public order 27 25

Adjudicated cases 100% 100%

Person 26 32

Property 35 31

Drugs 11 10

Public order 28 27

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Since 1997, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent decreased for all general offense categories

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Year

Cases adjudicated delinquent

Delinquency

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Year

Cases adjudicated delinquent

Person

Drugs

Property

Public order

Q Although the number of cases in which the youth was adjudicated delinquent decreased 53% since the 2005 peak for person of-

fense cases, the number in 2019 was 19% above the level reported in 1985. For all other offense categories, the number of cases

that resulted in a delinquency adjudication was at the lowest level in 2019.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

156

Most adjudicated delinquency cases result in residential

placement or formal probation

Residential placement and formal

probation caseloads saw a shift

away from property cases

Compared with 2010, both residential

placement and formal probation cases

had increased proportions of person

offenses in 2019. In 2019, cases or-

dered to residential placement had a

greater share of public order cases and

a smaller share of property and drug

cases than cases ordered to formal pro-

bation.

Offense profile of delinquency cases:

Offense 2010 2019

Residential placement 100% 100%

Person 27 33

Property 32 30

Drugs 8 6

Public order 33 31

Formal probation 100% 100%

Person 26 33

Property 36 31

Drugs 13 11

Public order 26 25

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Residential placement and

probation caseloads decreased

between 2010 and 2019

The number of delinquency cases in

which adjudicated youth were ordered

out of the home to some form of resi-

dential placement declined 51% be-

tween 2010 and 2019, from 113,000

to 55,100. Similarly, the number of

delinquency cases receiving formal

probation as the most severe initial

disposition following adjudication de-

creased 53% from 2010 to 2019, from

278,700 to 132,200. The decrease in

cases ordered to out-of-home place-

ment or formal probation was consis-

tent with the decrease in delinquency

cases at referral (45%) and adjudication

(52%).

In 2019, residential placement or formal probation was ordered in

92% of cases in which the youth was adjudicated delinquent

Adjudicated cases

Most serious offense

Number

ordered to

placement

Percent

ordered to

placement

Number

ordered to

probation

Percent

ordered to

probation

Total delinquency 55,100 27% 132,200 65%

Person offense 18,400 28 43,600 66

Violent Crime Index 8,800 37 14,100 59

Criminal homicide 300 61 200 37

Forcible rape 1,000 30 2,200 67

Robbery 4,300 43 5,300 54

Aggravated assault 3,300 32 6,500 64

Simple assault 7,800 24 22,900 69

Other violent sex offense 600 20 2,200 76

Other person offense 1,100 19 4,400 74

Property offense 16,700 27 40,600 65

Property Crime Index 13,000 29 28,400 64

Burglary 5,500 35 9,900 62

Larceny-theft 4,700 22 14,400 67

Motor vehicle theft 2,600 40 3,700 57

Arson 100 23 500 72

Vandalism 1,800 21 6,000 69

Trespassing 600 17 2,500 68

Stolen property offense 900 24 2,400 67

Other property offense 400 23 1,200 69

Drug law violation 3,200 16 14,900 73

Public order offense 16,800 31 33,100 60

Obstruction of justice 12,900 38 19,200 56

Disorderly conduct 1,100 12 5,800 63

Weapons offense 1,600 29 3,800 67

Liquor law violation 100 19 400 74

Nonviolent sex offense 600 22 2,000 74

Other public order offense 500 17 1,900 64

Q Cases involving youth adjudicated for serious person offenses, such as homi-

cide or robbery, were the most likely cases to result in residential placement.

Q Probation was the most restrictive disposition used in 132,200 cases adjudicat-

ed delinquent in 2019—65% of all such cases handled by juvenile courts.

Q Obstruction of justice had a relatively high residential placement rate, stemming

from the inclusion in the category of certain offenses (e.g., escapes from con-

finement, violations of probation or parole) that have a high likelihood of place-

ment.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Calculations are based on unrounded

numbers.

Source: Authors’ analyses of the National Center for Juvenile Justice’s

National Juvenile Court

Data Archive: Juvenile court case records 1985–2019

[machine-readable data file].

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

157

The number of adjudicated cases re-

ceiving other sanctions (e.g., commu-

nity service, restitution) as their most

severe disposition decreased 55% from

2010 to 2019, from 36,500 to 16,300.

However, the majority of cases result-

ing in other sanctions were handled in-

formally.

Probation was more likely than

residential placement

In 27% of adjudicated delinquency

cases, the court ordered the youth to

residential placement, such as a train-

ing school, treatment center, drug

treatment or private placement facility,

or group home. In 65% of adjudicated

delinquency cases, probation was the

most severe sanction ordered.

Percent of adjudicated delinquency cases,

2019:

Demographic

Residential

placement

Formal

probation

Total 27% 65%

Gender

Male 29 64

Female 21 68

Race/ethnicity

White 22 68

Black 31 61

Hispanic 31 65

American Indian 25 65

Asian 21 75

Age

15 or younger 25 67

16 or older 29 63

Once adjudicated, females were less

likely than males, and White youth

were less likely than Black, Hispanic, or

American Indian youth to be ordered

to residential placement. These demo-

graphic patterns in the use of residen-

tial placement or probation, however,

do not control for criminal histories

and other risk factors related to dispo-

sitional decisions and increased severity

of sanctions.

In 2019, across offenses, the number of adjudicated cases resulting in

residential placement or probation reached their lowest level since 1985

Q The number of property offense cases ordered to residential placement peaked in

1997, while person and drug offense cases peaked 2 years later, and public order

offense cases peaked in 2000. Since their respective peaks and 2019, the number

of cases ordered to residential placement declined considerably: property (77%),

drugs (83%), person (57%), and public order (69%).

Q The pattern for cases ordered to formal probation was similar to that of residential

placement. The number of property offense cases ordered to probation peaked in

1997, drug offense cases peaked in 2001, and person and public order offense

cases peaked in 2004. For each offense, the decline in the number of cases ordered

to probation between their peak and 2019 was similar to the decline for cases or-

dered to placement: property (76%), drugs (70%), person (52%), and public order

(65%).

Q As a result, property offenses accounted for a smaller share of cases ordered to

placement or probation in 2019 than in 1985, while person and public order offens-

es accounted for a larger share.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Year

Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in out-of-home placement

Public order

Drugs

Person

Property

Placement

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Year

Cases adjudicated delinquent, resulting in probation

Public order

Drugs

Person

Property

Probation

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

158

How were delinquency cases processed in juvenile courts

in 2019?

Juvenile courts can impose a

range of sanctions

Although juvenile courts handled 46%

of delinquency cases without the filing

of a petition, more than half of these

nonpetitioned cases received some sort

of sanction. Youth may have agreed to

informal probation, restitution, or

community service, or the court may

have referred them to another agency

for services. Although probation staff

monitor the youth’s compliance with

the informal agreement, such disposi-

tions generally involve little or no con-

tinuing supervision by probation staff.

In 46% of all petitioned delinquency

cases, the youth was not adjudicated

delinquent. The court dismissed 57%

of these cases. The cases dismissed by

the court, together with the cases that

were dismissed at intake, accounted for

239,200 cases (or 331 of 1,000 cases

handled).

In 54% of all petitioned cases, the

courts imposed a formal sanction or

waived the case to criminal court.

Thus, of every 1,000 delinquency cases

handled in 2019, 286 resulted in a

court-ordered sanction or waiver.

In 2019, 53% (203,600) of the cases

that were handled formally (with the

filing of a petition) resulted in a delin-

quency adjudication. In 65% (132,200)

of cases adjudicated delinquent in

2019, formal probation was the most

severe sanction ordered by the court.

In contrast, 27% (55,100) of cases ad-

judicated delinquent resulted in place-

ment outside the home in a residential

facility.

722,600 estimated Waived

delinquency cases 3,300 1%

Placed

55,100 27%

Adjudicated

delinquent Probation

203,600 53% 132,200 65%

Other sanction

16,400 8%

Petitioned

386,600 54%

Probation

61,800 34%

Not adjudicated

delinquent Other sanction

179,700 46% 15,600 9%

Dismissed

102,400 57%

Probation

52,000 15%

Not petitioned Other sanction

336,000 46% 147,200 44%

Dismissed

136,800 41%

Notes: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals

because of rounding. Annual case processing flow diagrams for 1985 through 2010 are available online

at ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/faqs.asp.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

The most severe sanction ordered in 16,400 adjudicated delinquency

cases (8%) in 2019 was something other than residential placement or

probation, such as restitution or community service

A typical 1,000 5 Waived

delinquency cases

76 Placed

Adjudicated

282 delinquent 183 Pro ba tion

535 Petitioned 23 Other sanction

85 Probation

Not adjudicated

249 delinquent 22 Other sanction

142 Dismissed

72 Probation

465 Nonpetitioned 204 Other sanction

189 Dismissed

Adjudicated cases receiving sanctions other than residential placement

or probation accounted for 23 out of 1,000 delinquency cases

processed during the year

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

159

Variations in delinquency case processing were more evident between males and females than between

younger and older youth in 2019

Intake

decision

profile

(percent of

all cases)

Judicial

decision

profile

(percent of

petitioned cases)

Judicial

disposition

profile

(percent of

adjudicated

cases)

Judicial

disposition

profile

(percent of non-

adjudicated

cases)

Informal

disposition

profile

(percent of non-

petitioned cases)

Offense/

demographic

Number

of cases

Petitioned

Not

petitioned

Waived

Adjudicated

delinquent

Not

adjudicated

delinquent

Placed

Probation

Other

Probation

Other

Dismissed

Probation

Other

Dismissed

Delinquency 722,600 54% 46% 0.9% 53% 46% 27% 65% 8% 34% 9% 57% 15% 44% 41%

Male 522,300 57 43 1.0 54 45 29 64 7 35 8 57 16 42 42

Female 200,300 45 55 0.3 47 52 21 68 11 33 9 58 15 47 38

15 and younger 393,400 51 49 0.2 53 47 25 67 8 35 9 56 17 45 38

16 and older 566,400 52 48 0.5 53 46 26 66 8 35 9 56 17 44 39

Person 237,000 55 45 1.6 51 48 28 66 6 34 9 56 15 39 46

Male 164,000 58 42 2.0 53 45 30 65 5 35 9 56 15 37 48

Female 73,000 47 53 0.3 45 55 22 71 7 34 10 56 15 43 42

15 and younger 144,400 52 48 0.4 50 49 25 69 6 36 9 55 16 42 42

16 and older 92,600 60 40 3.1 51 46 31 63 6 33 9 58 13 35 52

Property 214,500 55 45 0.7 53 46 27 65 8 34 9 57 16 45 39

Male 160,500 59 41 0.8 55 45 28 64 7 35 9 56 16 43 41

Female 54,000 44 56 0.3 46 54 18 68 13 32 10 58 15 50 36

15 and younger 117,100 54 46 0.1 54 46 25 67 8 35 9 55 17 46 37

16 and older 97,400 57 43 1.3 52 47 29 63 9 33 9 58 14 43 43

Drugs 96,400 42 58 0.6 51 49 16 73 11 38 10 51 20 52 29

Male 71,700 44 56 0.6 51 48 17 73 10 38 10 52 19 51 30

Female 24,800 36 64 0.5 48 51 12 73 15 40 11 49 21 52 27

15 and younger 39,400 37 63 0.1 52 48 16 74 10 38 10 51 22 52 26

16 and older 57,000 46 54 0.8 50 49 16 72 12 39 10 51 17 51 31

Public order 174,700 56 44 0.3 56 44 31 60 9 32 7 61 14 43 44

Male 126,200 59 41 0.3 57 42 32 59 8 34 7 60 13 41 45

Female 48,500 50 50 0.1 52 48 25 63 12 29 7 64 14 46 40

15 and younger 92,500 51 49 0.0 55 45 28 62 10 32 7 60 14 45 40

16 and older 82,200 62 38 0.5 57 43 33 58 9 32 6 62 12 39 48

Q Without exception, cases involving males were more likely to receive formal sanctions than cases involving females. For ex-

ample, in 2019, 55% of all petitioned delinquency cases involving males were adjudicated delinquent or waived to criminal

court, compared with 48% of cases involving females.

Q Regardless of offense, cases involving youth age 16 and older were more likely to be petitioned and, once petitioned, more

likely to be judicially waived to criminal court than cases involving youth age 15 and younger. Although cases involving older

youth were equally as likely to result in a delinquency adjudication as those involving their younger peers, older youth were

more likely to receive a disposition of out-of-home placement following adjudication.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Calculations are based on unrounded numbers.

Source: Authors’ analysis of Puzzanchera et al.’s

Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

160

Delinquency case processing outcomes varied considerably by race in 2019

Intake

decision

profile

(percent of

all cases)

Judicial

decision

profile

(percent of

petitioned cases)

Judicial

disposition

profile

(percent of

adjudicated

cases)

Judicial

disposition

profile

(percent of non-

adjudicated

cases)

Informal

disposition

profile

(percent of non-

petitioned cases)

Offense/

demographic

Number

of cases

Petitioned

Not

petitioned

Waived

Adjudicated

delinquent

Not

adjudicated

delinquent

Placed

Probation

Other

Probation

Other

Dismissed

Probation

Other

Dismissed

Delinquency 722,600 54% 46% 0.9% 53% 46% 27% 65% 8% 34% 9% 57% 15% 44% 41%

White 310,200 48 52 0.7 53 46 22 68 10 36 9 54 18 47 35

Black 254,800 60 40 1.1 50 49 31 61 8 32 8 60 12 39 49

Hispanic 136,100 52 48 0.6 58 41 31 65 4 38 8 54 15 44 42

American Indian 12,900 56 44 0.6 57 42 25 65 11 22 6 71 14 43 43

Asian 8,700 52 48 0.6 52 47 21 75 5 26 10 64 16 49 36

Person 237,000 55 45 1.6 51 48 28 66 6 34 9 56 15 39 46

White 97,800 50 50 1.2 50 49 22 71 6 37 10 54 18 40 42

Black 90,200 60 40 2.0 48 50 31 62 6 31 9 60 11 37 52

Hispanic 42,300 54 46 1.3 57 42 32 65 3 40 8 52 14 41 45

American Indian 4,000 57 43 1.2 55 44 32 63 5 26 7 67 14 41 45

Asian 2,600 56 44 1.4 53 46 21 76 3 25 14 61 20 39 42

Property 214,500 55 45 0.7 53 46 27 65 8 34 9 57 16 45 39

White 89,400 49 51 0.6 54 46 22 68 10 36 10 54 19 49 32

Black 82,100 62 38 0.9 50 49 31 61 9 32 9 59 12 39 49

Hispanic 36,100 54 46 0.4 57 42 29 66 4 40 9 52 14 44 42

American Indian 4,200 57 43 0.2 59 41 21 67 12 19 7 74 17 44 40

Asian 2,800 45 55 0.4 53 47 20 73 7 25 10 65 15 48 37

Drugs 96,400 42 58 0.6 51 49 16 73 11 38 10 51 20 52 29

White 51,500 40 60 0.6 51 49 13 74 13 40 12 48 21 54 25

Black 18,200 52 48 0.7 47 52 19 70 11 33 9 58 16 44 40

Hispanic 23,200 38 62 0.4 53 47 18 75 7 43 9 48 19 50 30

American Indian 2,200 46 54 0.3 58 42 18 65 17 21 7 72 12 50 37

Asian 1,300 43 57 0.2 43 56 14 74 11 31 9 61 19 57 25

Public order 174,700 56 44 0.3 56 44 31 60 9 32 7 61 14 43 44

White 71,500 51 49 0.3 57 43 25 61 14 33 7 59 16 45 38

Black 64,200 61 39 0.2 51 48 34 58 8 32 6 62 11 40 49

Hispanic 34,600 57 43 0.2 64 36 35 61 3 32 6 62 11 41 47

American Indian

2,500 60

0.2 59 40 23 64 13 21 5 74 11 36 53

Asian 2,000 61 39 0.2 55 45 22 75 3 25 6 69 9 59 33

Q Overall, cases involving Black youth (60%) or American Indian youth (56%) were more likely to be formally processed (i.e., pe-

titioned) than cases involving Asian or Hispanic youth (52% each) or White youth (48%). Once petitioned, cases involving His-

panic or American Indian youth were more likely to receive formal sanctions than cases involving youth of other races. In

2019, 59% of all petitioned cases involving Hispanic youth and 58% of cases involving American Indian youth were adjudicat-

ed delinquent or waived to criminal court, compared with 54% of cases involving White youth, 53% involving Asian youth,

and 51% involving Black youth.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. Calculations are based on unrounded numbers.

Source: Authors’ analysis of Puzzanchera et al.’s

Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

161

By 2019, the number of cases waived from juvenile court to

criminal court had decreased to a level below that of 1985

The profile of waived cases has

changed

In the late 1980s, property cases ac-

counted for at least half of all delin-

quency cases judicially waived from ju-

venile court to criminal court. In the

early 1990s, the property offense share

of waived cases diminished as the per-

son offense share grew. By 1993, the

waiver caseload had a greater propor-

tion of person offense cases than prop-

erty cases and in 2019, person offenses

accounted for 61% of all waived cases.

Drug and public order cases made up

smaller proportions of waived cases

across all years. For example, in 2019,

7% of waived cases were drug offenses

and 8% were public order cases.

86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Year

Proportion of judicially waived delinquency cases

Person

Property

Drugs

Public order

The demographic characteristics of ju-

dicially waived cases have changed

since the 1990s

Demographic profiles of judicially waived

delinquency cases:

Demographic 1994 2010 2019

Gender

Male 95% 93% 94%

Female 5 7 6

Race

White NA 40 33

Black NA 45 52

Hispanic NA 12 12

American Indian NA 2 2

Asian NA 1 2

Age

15 or younger 13 12 12

16 or older 87 88 88

Note: Data for 1994 are displayed because

that was the year with the greatest number of

total waived cases. Race data for 1994 are

not compatible with 2010 and 2019.

Juvenile courts waived 75% fewer delinquency cases to criminal court

in 2019 than in 1994 (the peak year)

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Year

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

Total delinquency

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Year

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

Person

Property

Drugs

Public order

87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19

Year

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived

to criminal court

Drugs

Person

Property

Public order

Q The number of delinquency cases waived to criminal court climbed 120% from

1985 to 1994, from 5,900 cases to 13,000. By 2019, the number of waived cases

was 75% below the 1994 peak, an overall decrease of 44% since 1985.

Q Between 1993 and 2019, person offenses outnumbered property offenses among

waived cases. Prior to 1993, property cases outnumbered person offense cases

among waivers—sometimes by a ratio of 2 to 1.

Q The number of waived person offense cases nearly tripled (182%) from 1985 to

1994 and then declined 63% to 2019, an overall increase of 6% between 1985 and

2019. Over the 1985–2019 period, waived property offense cases were down 75%,

and waived public order offense cases were down 55%.

Q The overall proportion of petitioned delinquency cases that were waived was 1.1%

in 1985, reached 1.5% in 1994, and then dropped to 0.9% by 2019.

Q For most years between 1985 and 2019, person offense cases were the most likely

type of case to be waived to criminal court. The exception was 1989–1992, when

drug offense cases were the most likely to be waived.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

162

The proportions of judicially waived

cases changed little for males and fe-

males and youth of all ages between

2010 and 2019. In both 2010 and

2019, Black youth accounted for the

largest proportion of waived cases.

The likelihood of waiver varied

across case characteristics

In 2019, the proportion of cases

waived was greater for males than for

females. This was true in each of the

four general offense categories. For ex-

ample, males charged with person of-

fenses were 6 times as likely as females

charged with person offenses to have

their cases waived to criminal court.

However, this comparison does not

control for differences in the serious-

ness of offenses or a youth’s offense

history.

Percent of petitioned cases judicially

waived to criminal court, 2019:

Offense Male Female

Delinquency 1.0% 0.3%

Person 2.0 0.3

Property 0.8 0.3

Drugs 0.6 0.5

Public order 0.3 0.1

In 2019, with the exception of public

order offenses, Black youth were more

likely than other youth to be waived

for all offense types. Regardless of race,

person offenses were more likely to be

waived than cases involving other of-

fenses.

Percent of petitioned cases judicially

waived to criminal court:

Race/ethnicity

Delinquency

2010 2019

White 0.8% 0.7%

Black 1.0 1.1

Hispanic 0.6 0.6

American Indian 0.9 0.6

Asian 0.4 0.6

Percent of petitioned cases judicially

waived to criminal court, 2019:

Race/

ethnicity Person Property Drugs

Public

order

White 1.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3%

Black 2.0 0.9 0.7 0.2

Hispanic 1.3 0.4 0.4 0.2

American

Indian 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.2

Asian 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.2

Cases involving younger youth were

less likely to be waived than were cases

involving older youth. This was true

for each of the four general offense

categories. For example, among person

offense cases, youth age 16 or older

were 8 times more likely to be waived

than youth age 15 or younger.

Percent of petitioned cases judicially

waived to criminal court, 2019:

Offense

Age 15

or younger

Age 16

or older

Delinquency 0.2% 1.6%

Person 0.4 3.1

Property 0.1 1.3

Drugs 0.1 0.8

Public order 0.0 0.5

Racial differences in case waivers stemmed primarily from differences

in person and drug offense cases

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

Year

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived

to criminal court

White

Black

Hispanic

Person

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

Year

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived

to criminal court

White

Black

Hispanic

Property

Q For most of the period from 2005 to 2019, the likelihood of waiver was greater for

Black youth than for White or Hispanic youth, regardless of offense category. These

data, however, do not control for racial differences in offense seriousness within the

general offense categories or differences in the seriousness of youth’s offense histo-

ries.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics

2019.

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

0.0%

0.4%

0.8%

1.2%

1.6%

Year

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived

to criminal court

White

Black

Hispanic

Drugs

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

Year

Percent of petitioned cases judicially waived

to criminal court

White

Black

Hispanic

Public order

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

163

Identifying disparity in justice system processing helps target

efforts to address racial and ethnic fairness

Racial and ethnic disparities have

been a long-standing challenge in

the juvenile justice system

Youth from racial and ethnic minority

groups experience the juvenile justice

system differently than their White

peers. For example, youth from racial

and ethnic minority groups are (and

have been) more likely to be arrested,

detained, and ordered to residential

placement than White youth, and are

more likely to be tried as adults in

criminal court. Such racial and ethnic

disparities often leads to the overrepre-

sentation of racial and ethnic minority

youth—particularly Black youth—at

various stages of the juvenile justice

system. Despite decades of research to

understand and address these dispari-

ties, national data suggests that consid-

erably more work is needed to ensure

that youth served by the juvenile jus-

tice system are treated fairly, and that

case processing decisions ensure public

safety and equal justice, regardless of

youths’ race/ethnicity.

Overrepresentation, disparity, and

discrimination have different

meanings

Overrepresentation refers to a situation

in which a larger proportion of a par-

ticular group is present at various stag-

es of the juvenile justice system (such

as intake, detention, and residential

placement) than would be expected

based on their proportion in the gen-

eral population.

Disparity means that the probability of

receiving a particular outcome (for ex-

ample, being detained in a short-term

facility vs. not being detained) differs

for different groups. Disparity may in

turn lead to overrepresentation

Discrimination occurs if and when ju-

venile justice system decisionmakers

treat one group of youth differently

from another group of youth based

wholly, or in part, on their gender, ra-

cial, and/or ethnic status.

Neither overrepresentation nor

disparity necessarily implies

discrimination

Discrimination is one possible explana-

tion for disparity and overrepresenta-

tion. This line of reasoning suggests

that because of discrimination on the

part of justice system decisionmakers,

youth in racial and ethnic minority

groups face higher probabilities of

being arrested by the police, referred

to court intake, held in short-term de-

tention, petitioned for formal process-

ing, adjudicated delinquent, and con-

fined in a secure juvenile facility. Thus,

differential actions throughout the jus-

tice system may account for overrepre-

sentation.

Disparity and overrepresentation, how-

ever, can result from factors other than

discrimination. Factors relating to the

nature and volume of crime committed

by youth in racial and ethnic minority

groups may explain disproportionality.

This line of reasoning suggests that if

youth from certain demographic sub-

groups (e.g., gender or race/ethnicity)

commit proportionately more crime

than other youth, are involved in more

serious incidents, and have more exten-

sive criminal histories, they will be

overrepresented, even if no discrimina-

tion by system decisionmakers oc-

curred. Thus, some demographic sub-

groups may be overrepresented within

the juvenile justice system because of

behavioral, legal, or structural factors.

In any given jurisdiction, either or

both of these causes may be operating.

Overrepresentation and disparity

exist at many stages of the

juvenile justice system

Common methods of assessing racial

and ethnic fairness include comparing

Compared with their proportion in the population, Black youth are

overrepresented at various juvenile justice decision points

Waived

delinquency cases

Placed

delinquency cases

Adjudicated

delinquency cases

Petitioned

delinquency cases

Detained

delinquency cases

Referred

delinquency cases

Population (ages

10−upper age)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

33% 51% 14% 2%

31% 43% 23% 3%

39% 37% 20% 3%

39% 40% 18% 3%

34% 40% 23% 3%

43% 35% 19% 3%

53% 15% 24% 8%

Percent of youth, 2019

White Black Other*Hispanic

Q Disproportionality or overrepresentation refers to a situation in which a larger pro-

portion of a particular group is present at various stages within the juvenile justice

system than would be expected based on its proportion in the general population.

Q The proportion of Black youth at various stages of juvenile court processing was at

least twice their proportion of the youth population in 2019.

*Because American Indian and Asian proportions are too small to display individually, they are com-

bined in the category “other races.”

Source: Authors’ analysis of Puzzanchera, Sladky, and Kang’s

Easy Access to Juvenile Populations

1990-2020

and Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang’s

Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics 1985-

2019.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

164

In 2019, disparities existed in delinquency case processing between

White youth and youth from racial and ethnic minority groups

Case processing stage Total White Black Hispanic

American

Indian Asian

Case rates

Cases referred per 1,000

population (10–upper age) 22.7 18.3 53.9 17.6 21.5 4.5

Cases diverted per 100

cases referred 27.6 33.5 20.1 27.9 25.3 31.0

Cases detained per 100

cases referred 25.8 20.3 29.5 31.5 25.2 25.6

Cases petitioned per 100

cases referred 53.5 48.4 60.3 52.3 55.7 51.9

Cases adjudicated per 100

cases petitioned 52.7 52.9 49.6 58.3 57.4 52.3

Probation cases per 100

adjudicated cases 64.9 68.0 61.1 65.4 64.5 74.5

Placement cases per 100

adjudicated cases 27.1 21.7 31.0 30.6 24.6 20.6

Waived cases per 100

petitioned cases 0.9 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.6* 0.6*

Ratio of rates

†

Referral rate 2.9 1.0 1.2 0.2

Diversion rate 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9

Detention rate 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.3

Petitioned rate 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1

Adjudication rate 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.0

Probation rate 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1

Placement rate 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.0

Waiver rate 1.5 0.9 0.8 0.9

Q In 2019, cases involving Black youth were nearly 3 times more likely to be re-

ferred to juvenile court for a delinquency offense than cases involving White

youth.

Q The diversion rate for cases involving Black, Hispanic, and American Indian

youth was less than the diversion rate for cases involving White youth.

Q Delinquency cases involving racial and ethnic minority youth were more likely to

involve detention than cases involving White youth.

Q Cases involving Black youth were more likely to be petitioned than cases in-

volving White youth, but were less likely to result in a delinquency adjudication.

Q Cases involving Hispanic youth were 60% more likely to involve detention than

cases involving White youth, and 40% more likely to receive a placement dis-

position.

*Rate based on fewer than 50 cases

†

The ratio of rates is created by dividing the rates for each racial or ethnic minority group by the

White rate. A ratio of 1.0 indicates parity, i.e., the rates for the comparison group are equal. For

example, if White youth and Black youth were referred at the same rate, the ratio would be 1.0, in-

dicating the rates for these groups are equal. A ratio greater than 1.0 means that the rate for the

racial or ethnic minority group is greater than the rate for White youth. A ratio less than 1.0 means

that the rate for the racial and ethnic minority group is less than the rate for White youth.

Note: Calculations are based on unrounded numbers.

Source: Authors’ analysis of Puzzanchera et al’s

Easy Access to Juvenile Populations 1990-2020

and Sickmund et al’s

Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics 1985-

2019.

proportions or using a combination of

case processing rates and ratios. When

using proportions, the racial/ethnic

profile of youth in the general popula-

tion is compared to the profile at stag-

es of the juvenile justice system. For

example, the 2019 youth population

was 53% White, 15% Black, 24% His-

panic, 2% American Indian, and 6%

Asian, whereas the profile of juvenile

court referrals was 43% White, 35%

Black, 19% Hispanic, 2% American In-

dian and 1% Asian. At the point of

court referral, Black youth were over-

represented, while White, Hispanic, and

Asian youth were underrepresented.

Disparity and overrepresen-

tation are present at arrest

Unlike the national estimates of ju-

venile court data, national arrest es-

timates do not account for ethnicity.

Nonetheless, there is considerable

evidence of racial inequities at the

point of arrest. Black youth ac-

counted for 17% of the youth pop-

ulation in 2019 (ages 10–17), but

accounted for 34% of juvenile ar-

rests. For specific offenses, the

level of overrepresentation for Black

youth was more substantial: in

2019, Black youth accounted for

48% of juvenile arrests for violent

crimes, nearly 3 times their propor-

tion of the youth population.

Profile, 2019:

Race

Population

(ages 10–17)

Juvenile

arrests

Total 100% 100%

White 75 63

Black 17 34

American Indian 2 2

Asian 6 1

Comparing arrest rates (per 100,000

youth ages 10–17) reveals similar

disparities. In 2019, the overall juve-

nile arrest rate for Black youth was

60% above the rate for American

Indian youth, more than double the

rate for White youth, and nine times

the rate for Asian youth.

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

165

Alternatively, calculating case process-

ing rates by race/ethnicity at multiple

stages of the juvenile justice system can

help identify disparities between racial

and ethnic subgroups at different deci-

sion points. Comparing the ratio of

these rates between racial and ethnic

minority youth and White youth indi-

cate how much more (or less) likely ra-

cial and ethnic minority youth experi-

ence certain case processing outcomes

compared with their White peers. For

example, the 2019 juvenile court refer-

ral rate for Black youth was 53.9 (per

1,000 youth ages 10 to the upper age

of juvenile court jurisdiction) com-

pared with a rate of 18.3 for White

youth. In other words, Black youth

were nearly 3 times (53.9 / 18.3 =

2.9) more likely to be referred to juve-

nile court than their White peers.

Regardless of offense, detention and placement rates in 2019 were higher for cases involving Black or

Hispanic youth than for cases involving White youth

Person Property Drugs Public order

Case referred per 1,000 youth (ages 10–upper age), 2019

Referral

Person Property Drugs Public order

Cases diverted per 100 cases referred, 2019

Diversion

Q Across offenses, the referral rate for cases involving Black youth exceeded the referral rates for cases involving youth of other ra-

cial/ethnic groups in 2019. For example, the referral rate for cases involving Black youth was more than 3 times the referral rate

for cases involving White or Hispanic youth for all but drug offense cases.

Q Once referred, cases involving youth in racial and ethnic minority groups were less likely than cases involving White youth to be

diverted from formal court processing, regardless of offense. With the exception of public order cases, cases involving Black

youth were least likely to be diverted.

Q Detention rates were higher for cases involving youth in racial and ethnic minority groups than for cases involving White youth for

all offenses in 2019.

Q Residential placement rates for adjudicated delinquency cases were higher for cases involving Black and Hispanic youth than for

cases involving White youth. On average, placement rates for Black and Hispanic youth were at least 30% higher than the rate

for White youth for each offense in 2019.

Source: Authors’ analysis of Puzzanchera et al’s

Easy Access to Juvenile Populations 1990-2020

and Sickmund et al’s

Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statis-

tics 1985-

2019.

Person Property Drugs Public order

Cases detained per 100 cases referred, 2019

Detention

Person Property Drugs Public order

Cases placed per 100 cases adjudicated, 2019

Placement

White Black Amer. IndianHispanic

Asian

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

166

Since 2005, the disparity in referral, detention, and placement rates for delinquency offenses between Black

youth and White youth has remained high

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

100

120

Cases referred per 1,000 youth (ages 10−upper age)

Black

Asian

Delinquency referral rates

White

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ratio of racial/ethnic group rate to White rate

Black

Asian

Delinquency referral rate ratios

Parity

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

Q Each year since 2005, Black youth were considerably more likely to be referred to juvenile court for a delinquency offense than

youth of other racial/ethnic groups. On average, the annual referral rate for cases involving Black youth was 3 times the rate for

cases involving White youth, more than twice the rate for cases involving American Indian and Hispanic youth, and 10 times the

rate for cases involving Asian youth.

Q Since 2005, the ratio of Black-to-White detention rates ranged from 1.3 to 1.5, meaning that delinquency cases involving Black

youth were 30%–50% more likely to involve detention than cases involving White youth. During the same period, cases involving

Hispanic youth were 40%–60% more likely to be detained than cases involving White youth. Similarly, placement rates for delin-

quency cases involving Black and Hispanic youth were 30%–50% higher than the placement rate for cases involving White youth.

Note: The “parity” line displays a ratio of 1.0, which indicates the ratio of rates if the racial/ethnic minority group and White youth rates were equal.

Source: Authors’ analysis of Puzzanchera et al’s

Easy Access to Juvenile Populations 1990-2020

and Sickmund et al’s

Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statis-

tics 1985-

2019.

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Cases detained per 100 cases referred

Black

Asian

Delinquency detention rates

White

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Ratio of racial/ethnic group rate to White rate

Black

Asian

Delinquency detention rate ratios

Parity

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Cases placed per 100 cases adjudicated

Black

Asian

Delinquency placement rates

White

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Ratio of racial/ethnic group rate to White rate

Black

Asian

Delinquency placement rate ratios

Parity

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

167

Regardless of gender, delinquency cases involving Black youth were most likely to be referred to juvenile

court, while cases involving White youth were least likely to involve detention in 2019

Asian

Hispanic

White

American

Indian

Black

0 1020304050607080

Cases referred per 1,000 youth (ages 10−upper age), 2019

76.6

28.6

25.7

25.6

6.4

Referral

Asian

Hispanic

White

American

Indian

Black

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Cases referred per 1,000 youth (ages 10−upper age), 2019

30.5

14.2

10.6

9.2

2.6

Referral

Q Referral rates in 2019 were highest for cases involving Black youth, regardless of gender. For both males and females, the referral

rate for cases involving Black youth was more than twice the rate for cases involving American Indian youth, about 3 times the

rate for cases involving White and Hispanic youth, and more than 11 times the rate for cases involving Asian youth.

Q For both males and females, detention rates in 2019 were highest for cases involving Hispanic youth. For females, cases involv-

ing Hispanic youth were 60% more likely to result in detention than cases involving White youth. Similarly, for males, cases in-

volving Hispanic youth were 50% more likely to result in detention than cases involving White youth.

Q Among males, placement rates were highest for cases involving Black and Hispanic youth, each of which were 40–50% higher

than the rates for American Indian, White, and Asian youth. Among females, placement rates were highest for American Indian

and Hispanic youth, which were 20–30% higher than the rate for Black youth, 30–40% higher than the rate for White youth, and

70–80% higher than the rate for Asian youth.

Source: Authors’ analysis of Puzzanchera et al’s

Easy Access to Juvenile Populations 1990-2020

and Sickmund et al’s

Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statis-

tics 1985-

2019.

White

American

Indian

Asian

Black

Hispanic

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cases detained per 100 cases referred, 2019

33.3

32.4

27.3

26.7

21.7

Detention

White

Asian

Black

American

Indian

Hispanic

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Cases detained per 100 cases referred, 2019

26.4

21.4

16.8

Detention

Asian

White

American

Indian

Hispanic

Black

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cases placed per 100 cases adjudicated, 2019

33.5

31.9

23.8

22.5

22.4

Placement

Asian

White

Black

Hispanic

American

Indian

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Cases placed per 100 cases adjudicated, 2019

26.4

25.2

19.1

15.0

Placement

Male Female

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

168

Between 1995 and 2019, the juvenile court’s formal status

offense caseload decreased 19%

What are status offenses?

Traditionally, status offenses were

those behaviors that were law viola-

tions only if committed by a person of

juvenile status. Such behaviors includ-

ed running away from home, ungov-

ernability (being beyond the control of

parents or guardians), truancy, curfew

violations, and underage drinking

(which also applies to young adults up

to age 20).

Some states have decriminalized some

of these behaviors. In these states, the

behaviors are no longer law violations.

Youth who engage in the behaviors

may be classified as dependent chil-

dren, which gives child protective ser-

vices agencies rather than juvenile

courts the primary responsibility for re-

sponding to this population.

States vary in how they respond

to status-offending behavior

The official processing of status offend-

ers varies from state to state. In some

states, for example, a runaway’s entry

into the official system may be through

juvenile court intake, while in other

states, the matter may enter through

the child welfare agency. This mixture

of approaches to case processing has

made it difficult to monitor the volume

and characteristics of status offense

cases nationally. In all states, however,

when informal efforts to resolve the

status-offending behavior fail or when

formal intervention is needed, the mat-

ter is referred to a juvenile court.

Compared with delinquency

caseloads, status offense

caseloads are small

Juvenile courts formally processed an

estimated 90,500 status offense cases

in 2019. These cases accounted for

about 11% of the court’s formal delin-

quency and status offense caseload in

2019. In 2019, juvenile courts formal-

ly processed approximately:

Q 8,200 runaway cases,

Q 55,300 truancy cases,

Q 3,800 curfew cases,

Q 7,400 ungovernability cases,

Q 7,900 status liquor law violation

cases,

Q 8,000 other status offense cases

(e.g., smoking tobacco and viola-

tions of a valid court order).

Compared with delinquency

cases, status offense cases are

less often referred by police

Law enforcement agencies referred

18% of the petitioned status offense

cases processed in juvenile courts in

2019, compared with 83% of delin-

quency cases. Law enforcement agen-

cies were more likely to be the referral

source for curfew violation cases than

for other status offense cases.

Percent of cases referred by law

enforcement:

Offense 2010 2019

Status offense 34% 18%

Running away 47 33

Truancy 4 1

Curfew 93 93

Ungovernability 36 31

Liquor 92 86

Between 1995 and 2002, the formally handled status offense caseload

increased considerably (43%) and then declined 57% through 2019

95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16 19

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Number of petitioned cases

Truancy

Curfew

Runaway

Ungovernability

Liquor

Year

Q The degree of change in formally processed status offense cases from 1995

through 2019 varied across the major offense categories. Truancy cases increased

during the period (27%), while all other offense categories decreased; down 75%

for liquor law violations, 74% for curfew violations, and 69% each for runaway and

ungovernability cases.

Q In 2019, juvenile courts formally processed 5.3 status offense cases for every 1,000

youth age 10 through the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

169

Females were involved in 4 in 10

status offense cases formally

processed in 2019

Another major difference between de-

linquency and status offense cases is

the proportion of cases that involve fe-

males. Although females were involved

in only 28% of the delinquency cases

formally processed in 2019, they were

involved in 44% of status offense cases.

Profile of formally processed cases by

gender, 2019:

Offense Male Female

Status offense 56% 44%

Runaway 45 55

Truancy 55 45

Curfew 66 34

Ungovernability 57 43

Liquor 58 42

The proportion of cases involving fe-

males varied substantially by offense. In

fact, the majority of cases processed in

court for running away from home in

2019 involved females (55%).

In 2019, youth were placed out of

the home in 6% of all status

offense cases adjudicated

Youth were adjudicated as status of-

fenders in 36% of formally processed

status offense cases in 2019. Of these

cases, 6% resulted in out-of-home

placement and 58% in formal proba-

tion. The remaining 36%, largely cur-

few violation cases, resulted in other

sanctions, such as fines, community

service, restitution, or referrals to other

agencies for services.

Among status offense cases not adjudi-

cated, 80% were dismissed, 7% resulted

in informal sanctions other than proba-

tion or out-of-home placement, 13%

resulted in informal probation, and

none resulted in out-of-home place-

ment.

For most years between 2005 and 2019, the total petitioned status

offense case rate for American Indian youth was higher than that for

youth of all other racial categories

Q In 2019, 16 was the peak age for truancy, runaway, and ungovernability case rates.

For liquor law and curfew violation cases, case rates peaked at age 17. The age-

specific case rate patterns were not substantially different for males and females.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth ages 10−upper age

Total status

American Indian

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Q Between 2005 and 2019, petitioned status offense case rates decreased for all ra-

cial groups: 51% each for Black and Asian youth, 50% for White youth, 46% for

American Indian youth, and 43% for Asian youth.

Q In 2019, the overall case rate for petitioned status offense cases was 5.1 for Ameri-

can Indian youth, 4.1 for Black youth, 3.3 for White youth, 1.3 for Hispanic youth

and 1.2 for Asian youth

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Age at referral

Cases per 1,000 youth in age group

Truancy

Curfew

Liquor

Ungovernability

Runaway

Case rates for most status offenses declined in the older age groups;

liquor law violation case rates, however, increased substantially through

the juvenile years

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

170

Between 2005 to 2019, petitioned case rates decreased for all racial/ethnic groups across all status offense

categories

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth ages 10−upper age

Black

Asian

Runaway

White

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth ages 10−upper age

Black

Asian

Truancy

White

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth ages 10−upper age

Black

Asian

Curfew

White

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth ages 10−upper age

Black

Asian

Ungovernability

White

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Year

Cases per 1,000 youth ages 10−upper age

Black

Asian

Liquor

White

Hispanic

Amer. Indian

Runaway case rates decreased for all youth between 2005

and 2019. In 2019, the runaway case rate for Black youth

was nearly 4 times the rate for White youth.

Q Truancy case rates decreased the most for Black youth be-

tween 2005 and 2019, down 23% compared with 19% for

White youth, 12% each for American Indian and Asian

youth, and 2% for Hispanic youth.

Q Curfew violation case rates in 2019 were at least 67%

lower than case rates in 2005 for all racial groups.

Q American Indian youth had the highest case rate for liquor

law violations in each year between 2005 and 2019.

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

171

How were petitioned status offense cases processed in

juvenile court in 2019?

Of every 1,000 petitioned status offense cases handled in 2019, 209 resulted in formal probation and 23

resulted in residential placement following adjudication

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

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

59 Placed

Adjudicated a

315 status offender 221 Pro ba tion

34 Other sanction

Not adjudicated 64 Informal sanction

685 a status offender

622 Dismissed

10 Placed

Adjudicated a

278 status offender 191 Pro ba tion

77 Other sanction

Not adjudicated 141 Informal sanction

722 a status offender

581 Dismissed

8 Placed

Adjudicated a

457 status offender 116 Pro ba tion

333 Other sanction

Not adjudicated 74 Informal sanction

543 a status offender

469 Dismissed

74 Placed

Adjudicated a

462 status offender 325 Pro ba tion

63 Other sanction

Not adjudicated 105 Informal sanction

538 a status offender

433 Dismissed

18 Placed

Adjudicated a

522 status offender 246 Pro ba tion

258 Other sanction

Not adjudicated 199 Informal sanction

478 a status offender

279 Dismissed

Of every 1,000 status offense cases referred

to juvenile court:

Of every 1,000 runaway cases referred

to juvenile court:

23 Placed

Adjudicated a

364 status offender 209 Pro ba tion

131 Other sanction

Not adjudicated 126 Informal sanction

636 a status offender

510 Dismissed

Of every 1,000 truancy cases referred

to juvenile court:

Of every 1,000 curfew violation cases referred

to juvenile court:

Of every 1,000 ungovernability cases referred

to juvenile court:

Of every 1,000 liquor law violation cases referred

to juvenile court:

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

172

Most youth referred to juvenile court are not subsequently

referred

Official juvenile court records

can be used to understand

subsequent offending by youth

Subsequent offending can be examined

in a variety of ways, for example select-

ing youth who were disposed in a spe-

cific year or years and determining

whether they return to the system for

subsequent charges or have subsequent

guilty findings. A birth cohort sample,

i.e., examining all juvenile court refer-

rals of youth born in a given year, en-

ables an understanding of onset and

desistance that is not possible with an-

nual measures of reoffending and can

be used to clarify the onset in serious,

violent, and chronic offending by

youth.

Drawing on data from more than 900

counties from 17 states provided to

the National Juvenile Court Data Ar-

chive, Puzzanchera and Hockenberry

documented the official juvenile court

referral history of 161,057 youth born

in calendar year 2000 who had at least

one referral to juvenile court before

they aged out of juvenile court juris-

diction in their state. The prevalence

rate of juvenile court referral among

this sample was 12%, that is, of all

youth born in 2000 from the sample

counties, about 1 of every 8 youth

were referred to juvenile court at least

once before reaching the age of major-

ity in their state.

Few youth were initially referred to

juvenile court for a violent crime

About 1 in 14 (7%) youth in the co-

hort were charged with a violent of-

fense (i.e., murder, violent sexual as-

sault, robbery, and aggravated assault)

at their first referral to juvenile court;

violent sexual assault and aggravated

assault were the most common violent

crimes. Although not considered a vio-

lent crime, simple assault was by far the

most common charge among youth re-

ferred for a person offense. Youth re-

ferred for simple assault outnumbered

those referred for a violent crime by

more than 2-to-1.

Compared with youth referred for a vi-

olent crime, a larger proportion (29%)

of youth were referred for a property

offense, and larceny-theft was by far

the most common property offense.

About in 1 in 6 (17%) youth were first

referred to juvenile court for a status

offense, and truancy was most com-

mon.

Fewer than 4 in 10 youth were

referred to juvenile court more

than once

The majority of youth born in 2000

who had been referred to juvenile

court for an offense at least once be-

fore reaching the upper age of jurisdic-

tion in their state did not return on a

subsequent referral. In fact, more than

6 in 10 (63%) of the youth in this co-

hort were “one and done”—these

youth had no evidence of subsequent

contact with the juvenile court. Con-

versely, 37% were subsequently referred

to juvenile court.

Overall, males were more likely to re-

turn to court than their female peers

(40% vs. 31%, respectively), and youth

under the age of 15 at their first refer-

ral were more likely to return on a sub-

sequent referral than their older peers.

Compared with youth of all other

races, Black and American Indian

youth (43% each) were most likely to

be referred more than once, followed

by Hispanic youth (37%), Asian (35%),

and White youth (33%).

The majority of youth with two or

more referrals were male (71%). White

youth accounted for the largest pro-

portion (39%) of youth referred more

than once, followed by Black youth

(35%) and Hispanic youth (22%).

Nearly 1 in 4 (23%) youth referred

more than once were younger than age

13 at the time of their first referral,

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Patterns of Juvenile Court Referrals of

Youth Born in 2000

Younger than 15

Asian

American Indian

Hispanic

Black

White

Female

Male

Total

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Percent of youth rereferred

37%

40%

31%

33%

43%

37%

43%

35%

49%

36%

26%

14%

Compared with their counterparts, males, Black and American Indian

youth, and youth younger than 15 at first referral were most likely to be

rereferred to juvenile court

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

173

and nearly 4 in 10 (39%) were age 13

or 14.

Characteristic

Profile of youth

rereferred

Gender 100%

Male 71

Female 29

Race/ethnicity 100%

White 39

Black 35

Hispanic 22

American Indian 2

Asian 2

Age at first referral 100%

Younger than 10 3

11 to 12 20

13 to 14 39

15 19

16 14

17 5

Older than 17 0

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Rereferral rates were higher for

youth referred for specific

offenses in their first case

Overall, youth with a first referral for

motor vehicle theft or burglary had the

highest likelihood of returning to juve-

nile court (50% and 49%, respectively).

Among youth first referred for a delin-

quent offense, these two offenses had

the highest rereferral rate among males

and for all race/ethnicity groups, while

robbery and motor vehicle theft had

the highest rereferral rates among fe-

males. Among youth first referred for a

status offense, running away had the

highest rereferral rate across gender

and age groups, and for White and

American Indian youth.

Youth who were initially referred for

murder were least likely to return to

court (18%). However, this may be in

part due to sanctioning of those re-

ferred for murder; these youth may

have had less opportunity to reoffend

if they were serving time in a residen-

tial facility or were waived to criminal

court and perhaps incarcerated in an

adult prison.

Most serious offense

at first referral

Percent of

youth rereferred

Motor vehicle theft 50%

Burglary 49

Robbery 47

Running away 46

Ungovernability 46

Vandalism 42

Disorderly conduct 41

Simple assault 40

Aggravated assault 40

Arson 40

Rereferral rates varied by initial

case outcome

Returning to juvenile court on a new

referral was related to the case disposi-

tion of a youth’s first referral. Approxi-

mately half (49%) of youth who re-

ceived a formal sanction (i.e., judicially

waived to criminal court, or a sanction

resulting from being adjudicated for a

delinquency or status offense) for their

first referral were referred for a subse-

quent offense.

Of the formal sanctions available in ju-

venile court, a disposition of residential

placement following adjudication is the

most restrictive. Nearly 6 in 10 (59%)

youth who received a placement dispo-

sition returned to court again, com-

pared with 36% of youth whose first

referral was dismissed, and 34% of

youth who received an informal sanc-

tion on their first referral.

The referral histories of youth

who were rereferred were long

A juvenile court referral history is de-

fined as the number of times a youth is

referred to juvenile court before reach-

ing the upper age of juvenile jurisdic-

tion in their state. Overall, the average

history length for youth in the cohort

was 2.1 referrals, but this value is

strongly influenced by the large num-

ber of youth whose official juvenile

court referral histories ended after the

first referral. Removing those who

were “one and done” allows a better

understanding of chronicity among

youth with multiple juvenile court re-

ferrals.

Of the 59,318 youth with more than

one juvenile court referral, nearly two-

thirds (63%) recorded two or three re-

ferrals over the course of their court ,

more than one-third (37%) had histo-

ries that included four or more juvenile

court referrals, and more than one-

fourth (26%) had histories involving

five or more referrals. The impact that

chronically referred youth had on the

juvenile justice workload cannot be ig-

nored: chronically referred youth—

those with 4 or more court referrals—

accounted for 14% of the sample, but

accounted for 45% of all the cases gen-

erated by the cohort.

Most court referral histories

involved nonviolent offenses

and fewer than 4 referrals

In broad terms, the continuum of of-

fense seriousness ranges from violent

crimes (the most serious) to status of-

fenses (the least serious). For the pur-

pose of discussing the composition of

juvenile court referral histories, serious

offenses include violent crimes, as well

as the following nonviolent crimes:

burglary, larceny-theft (excluding shop-

lifting), motor vehicle theft, arson,

drug trafficking, and weapon offenses.

Nonserious offenses include a broad

range of delinquent acts, such as simple

assault, shoplifting, other drug offenses

(not trafficking), disorderly conduct,

stolen property offenses, and vandal-

ism, as well as status offenses (running

away, curfew violations, ungovernabili-

ty, liquor law violations, and truancy).

An individual’s referral history may

have many attributes: a youth may have

one or more violent referrals in the

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

174

course of their history while also hav-

ing one or more referrals for a serious

nonviolent offense as well as four or

more total referrals in their history

(chronic). A youth may have a chronic

referral history, however, without ever

being referred for a violent or serious

nonviolent offense. Or they may be re-

ferred for one or more serious nonvio-

lent offenses but never for a violent of-

fense.

More than 6 in 10 (61%) youth in the

cohort had no serious offenses in their

referral history. In fact, the most com-

mon referral history for the cohort was

not chronic and involved no serious

offenses (58%). These histories did not

involve any referrals for violence, nor

did they include any referrals for seri-

ous nonviolent offenses, and the refer-

ral history contained fewer than four

referrals.

About 1 in 5 youth (21%) had non-

chronic histories that included at least

one referral for a serious nonviolent of-

fense and no referrals for violence. Ad-

ditionally, 6% of youth in the cohort

had four or more referrals and at least

one referral that included a serious

nonviolent offense and no referrals for

violence. This was the most common

referral history pattern for youth with

four or more referrals. Taken together,

youth with serious but no violent of-

fenses accounted for 27% of youth in

the cohort.

About 1 in 8 (12%) youth in the co-

hort had referral histories that included

at least one referral for a violent of-

fense, but only 4% of youth in the co-

hort had chronic histories—four or

more referrals—with at least one refer-

ral for a violent offense. The propor-

tion of youth who were chronically vi-

olent—youth with four or more

referrals for violent offenses—was very

small, accounting for 0.1% of youth in

the cohort.

A small proportion of youth had court referral histories that were both

chronic and violent

Violent includes those referred for the offenses of murder, robbery, violent sexual as-

sault, and aggravated assault.

Serious includes those referred for violent offenses as well as the following nonviolent

offenses: burglary, larceny-theft (excluding shoplifting), motor vehicle theft, arson, drug

trafficking, and weapons offenses.

Chronic includes those with four or more referrals to juvenile court.

The outer circle represents all officially recognized juvenile court referral histories. The

portion of the large circle not covered by the chronic, serious, and violent circles repre-

sents referral histories with fewer than four referrals and no referrals for a serious of-

fense. Overlaps represent histories with multiple attributes. The circles and their over-

laps are drawn proportional to the number of referral histories with those attributes.

Of a typical 1,000 youth in the cohort:

Q 579 had nonchronic and nonserious referral histories; these youth had fewer than

four referrals in their history, and none of their referrals involved a serious offense;

Q 137 had chronic referral histories;

Q 386 were referred at least once for a serious offense;

Q 269 were referred at least once for a serious, nonviolent offense;

Q 117 had at least one referral that included a violent offense;

Q 40 were chronic and violent;

Q 1 was chronically violent (four or more referrals for violent offenses).

Data source: Authors’ adaptation of Hockenberry and Puzzanchera’s

Patterns of Juvenile Court Refer-

rals of Youth Born in 2000

Cohort youth

(at least 1 referral

to juvenile court)

Serious

Violent

Chronic

Chapter 6: Youth in juvenile court

175

Sources

Hockenberry, S., and Puzzanchera, C.

2021.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2019

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for

Juvenile Justice.

Hockenberry, S., and Puzzanchera, C.

Forthcoming. Patterns of Juvenile

Court Referrals of Youth Born in

2000.

National Report Series Bulletin

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-

vention Act of 1974, Public Law 93–

415, 42 U.S.C. § 5633, as amended.

National Center for Health Statistics.

2004.

Bridged-Race Intercensal Esti-

mates of the July 1, 1990–July 1,

1999, United States Resident Popula-

tion by County, Single-Year of Age,

Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin

[data

files]. Prepared by the U.S. Census Bu-

reau with support from the National

Cancer Institute. Available from www.

cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm

[released July 26, 2004].

National Center for Health Statistics.

2012

Intercensal Estimates of the Resi-

dent Population of the United States

for July 1, 2000–July 1, 2009, by Year,

County, Single-Year of Age, (0, 1, 2,

. . . , 85 Years and Over), Bridged

Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex

[data

files]. Prepared under a collaborative

arrangement with the U.S. Census Bu-

reau. Available from www.cdc.gov/

nchs/nvss/bridged_race.htm as of Oc-

tober 26, 2012, following release by

the U.S. Census Bureau of the revised

unbridged intercensal estimates by

5-year age group on October 9, 2012.

National Center for Health Statistics.

2020.

Postcensal Estimates of the Resi-

dent Population of the United States

(April 1, 2010, July 1, 2010–July 1,

2019) by Year, County, Single-year of

Age (0, 1, 2, . . . , 85 Years and Over),

Bridged Race, Hispanic Origin, and

Sex (Vintage 2019)

[data files]. Pre-

pared under a collaborative arrange-

ment with the U.S. Census Bureau.

Available from cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/

bridged_race.htm as of July 9, 2020,

following release by the U.S. Census

Bureau of the unbridged vintage 2019

postcensal estimates by 5-year age

groups.

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

2020. 2019 arrest estimates, based on

data published in the Federal Bureau

of Investigation’s

Crime in the United

States 2019

. Pittsburgh, PA: NCJJ.

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

2021.

Juvenile Court Statistics 2000

Birth Cohort

[data file]. Pittsburgh,

PA: NCJJ.

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

2021.

National Juvenile Court Data

Archive: Juvenile Court Case Records

1985–2019

[data file]. Pittsburgh, PA:

NCJJ.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention. Juveniles in Court.

OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book

. Avail-

able from ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court.

Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A., and Kang,

W. 2021.

Easy Access to Juvenile Pop-

ulations: 1990–2020

[online analysis].

Available from www.ojjdp.gov/

ojstatbb/ezapop.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., and Kang,

W. 2021.

Easy Access to Juvenile

Court Statistics: 1985–2019

[online

analysis]. Available from www.ojjdp.

gov/

ojstatbb/ezajcs.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1994.

1980–

1989 Preliminary Estimates of the

Pop u la tion of Counties by Age, Sex,

and Race

[data files]. Washington, DC:

U.S. Census Bureau.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

177

Chapter 7

Youth in corrections

Juvenile correctional systems have

many different components. Some ju-

venile correctional facilities look very

much like adult prisons. Others are

designed to be more home-like. Pri-

vate facilities played an important role

in the long-term residential treatment

of youth; in fact, through 2008, there

were more privately operated juvenile

facilities than publicly operated facili-

ties, although private facilities held

less than half as many youth as were

held in public facilities. That trend has

reversed, as public facilities have out-

numbered private facilities since 2010,

and nearly three-fourths of youth in

placement on a given day are held in

public facilities.

This chapter describes the population

of youth detained in and committed

to public and private facilities in terms

of demographics, offenses, average

time in the facility, and facility type.

The chapter also includes descriptions

of youth held in adult jails and prisons.

The information is based on data col-

lected by the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention: the Cen-

sus of Juveniles in Residential Place-

ment and the Juvenile Residential Fa-

cility Census. Information on youth

held in adult correctional facilities is

drawn from the Bureau of Justice Sta-

tistics’ Census of Jails, Annual Survey

of Jails, and National Prisoner Statis-

tics. Information about sexual victim-

ization experiences of youth in facili-

ties draws on the National Survey of

Youth in Custody, also conducted by

the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

178

OJJDP’s data collections are the primary source of

information on youth in residential placement

Detailed data are available on

youth in residential placement

Since its inception, the Office of Juve-

nile Justice and Delinquency Preven-

tion (OJJDP) has collected informa-

tion on the youth held in juvenile

detention and correctional facilities.

Until 1995, these data were gathered

through the biennial Census of Public

and Private Juvenile Detention, Cor-

rectional, and Shelter Facilities, better

known as the Children in Custody

(CIC) Census. In the late 1990s,

OJJDP initiated two new data collec-

tion programs to gather comprehensive

and detailed information about youth

in residential placement who were

charged with or adjudicated for an of-

fense and the facilities that house them:

Q Census of Juveniles in Residential

Placement (CJRP);

Q Juvenile Residential Facility Census

(JRFC).

CJRP and JRFC are generally adminis-

tered in alternating years and collect

information from all secure and nonse-

cure residential placement facilities that

house ”juvenile offenders,” defined as

persons younger than 21 who are held

in a residential setting as a result of

some contact with the justice system

(they are charged with or adjudicated

for a delinquency or status offense).

These censuses do not include federal

facilities or those exclusively for drug

or mental health treatment or for

abused/neglected youth. They also do

not capture data from adult prisons or

jails. Therefore, CJRP and JRFC do

not include all youth sentenced to in-

carceration by criminal courts.

As used in this chapter, “youth” refers

to persons under 21 in residential

placement who were charged with or

adjudicated for a law violation.

The term resident refers to all persons

(i.e., those held for an offense, those

held for nonoffense reasons, and some

adults) in a facility on the reference

date. The resident count is used when

discussing facility size and crowding, as

these are characteristics related to all

persons in the facility.

CJRP typically takes place on the

fourth Wednesday in October of the

census year. However, the census col-

lections that would have occurred Oc-

tober 26, 2005 and October 28, 2009,

were both postponed until the fourth

Wednesday in February of the follow-

ing year. CJRP asks all juvenile residen-

tial facilities in the U.S. to describe

each youth under age 21 assigned a

bed in the facility on the census date.

Facilities report individual-level infor-

mation on gender, date of birth, race,

placement authority, most serious of-

fense charged, court adjudication sta-

tus, admission date, and security status.

JRFC also uses the fourth Wednesday

in October as its census date and, in

addition to information gathered on

the census date, it includes some infor-

mation about the past month and past

year. JRFC collects information on

how facilities operate and the services

they provide. It includes detailed ques-

tions on facility security, capacity and

crowding, injuries and deaths in place-

ment, and facility ownership and oper-

ation. Supplementary information is

also collected in various years on spe-

cific services, such as mental and physi-

cal health, substance abuse, and educa-

tion.

One-day count and admission

data give different views of

residential populations

CJRP provides a one-day population

count of juveniles in residential place-

ment facilities. Such counts give a pic-

ture of the standing population in facil-

ities. One-day counts are substantially

different from annual admission or re-

lease data, which provide a measure of

facility population flow.

Youth may be committed to a facility

as part of a court-ordered disposition,

or they may be detained prior to adju-

dication or after adjudication while

awaiting disposition or placement else-

where. In addition, a small proportion

of youth are admitted voluntarily in

lieu of adjudication as part of a diver-

sion agreement. Because detention

stays tend to be short compared with

commitment placements, detained

youth represent a much larger share of

population flow data than of one-day

count data.

State variations in upper age of

juvenile court jurisdiction influence

placement rates

Although state placement rate statistics

control for upper age of original juve-

nile court jurisdiction, comparisons

among states with different upper ages

are problematic. Youth ages 16 and 17

constitute 25% of the youth population

ages 10–17, but they account for more

than 49% of arrests of youth under age

18, more than 40% of delinquency

court cases, and more than 50% of

youth in residential placement. If all

other factors were equal, one would

expect higher residential placement

rates in states where older youth are

under juvenile court jurisdiction.

Differing age limits of extended juris-

diction also influence placement rates.

Some states may keep a youth in place-

ment for several years beyond the

upper age of original jurisdiction; oth-

ers cannot. Laws that control the trans-

fer of juveniles to criminal court also

have an impact on juvenile placement

rates. If all other factors were equal,

states with broad transfer provisions

would be expected to have lower juve-

nile placement rates than other states.

Demographic variations among juris-

dictions should also be considered.

The urbanicity and economy of an area

are thought to be related to crime and

placement rates. Available bedspace

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

179

also influences placement rates, partic-

ularly in rural areas. Both CJRP and

JRFC asks respondents to indicate the

operation status of the facility as well as

to classify what type of facility they are.

Operation status options include:

Q Public: operated by State or local

(county or municipality) govern-

ment agencies in which the employ-

ees working daily in the facilities and

directly with the residents are state

or local government employees.

Q Private: operated by private non-

profit or for-profit corporations or

organizations in which the employ-

ees working daily in the facilities and

directly with the residents are

employees of that private corpora-

tion or organization.

Facility classification is a self-identified

question in both collections and re-

spondents are able to select more than

one classification type. The classifica-

tion types include:

Q Detention center: a short-term

facility that provides temporary care

in a physically restricting environ-

ment for juveniles in custody pend-

ing court disposition and, often, for

youth who are adjudicated delin-

quent and awaiting disposition or

placement elsewhere, or are awaiting

transfer to another jurisdiction. In

some jurisdictions, detention centers

may also hold youth committed for

short periods of time as part of their

disposition (e.g., weekend deten-

tion).

Q Training school/long-term secure

facility: a specialized type of facility

that provides strict confinement and

long-term treatment generally for

post-adjudication committed juve-

nile offenders. Includes training

schools, juvenile correctional facili-

ties, and youth development centers.

Q Reception or diagnostic center: a

short-term facility that screens juve-

nile offenders committed by the

courts and assigns them to appropri-

ate correctional facilities.

Q Group home/halfway house: a

long-term facility that is generally

non-secure and intended for post-

adjudication commitments in which

young persons are allowed extensive

contact with the community, such as

attending school or holding a job.

Q Residential treatment center: a

facility that focuses on providing

some type of individually planned

treatment program for youth (sub-

stance abuse, sex offenders, mental

health, etc.) in conjunction with res-

idential care. Such facilities generally

require specific licensing by the state

that may require that treatment pro-

vided is Medicaid-reimbursable.

Q Ranch, forestry camp, wilderness

or marine program or farm: long-

term generally nonsecure residential

facilities often located in a relatively

remote area. The juveniles partici-

pate in a structured program that

emphasizes outdoor work, including

conservation and related activities.

Q Runaway and homeless shelter: a

short-term facility that provides

temporary care in a physically unre-

stricted environment. It can also

provide longer-term care under a

juvenile court disposition order.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

180

The number of youth in residential placement declined

considerably between 1997 and 2019

The number of youth in placement

peaked in 2000 and has since

declined

The number of youth in placement in-

creased 4% from 1997 (105,055) to

the 2000 peak (108,802) and then de-

creased 66% to the lowest level

(36,479) in 2019. The relative decline

in the number of youth in state and

privately operated facilities was about

the same (73% and 71%, respectively)

between 2000 and 2019, while the

number of youth in locally operated fa-

cilities fell 52%. As a result, a larger

proportion of youth in 2019 were in

locally operated facilities (39%) than

were in state operated facilities (35%)

or privately operated facilities (26%).

The number of facilities also

reached a new low in 2019

After a period of increase through

2000, the number of facilities fell con-

siderably. By 2019, the number of fa-

cilities was half the number of the

Several factors may affect the

placement population

Residential placement data cannot

explain the continuing decline in the

number of youth held in placement

for an offense, however they may

reflect a combination of contributing

factors. For example, the number of

arrests involving youth decreased

58% between 2010 and 2019,

which in turn means that fewer

youth were processed through the

juvenile justice system. Additionally

residential placement reform efforts

have resulted in the movement of

many youth from large, secure pub-

lic facilities to less secure, small pri-

vate facilities. Finally, budgetary

factors have resulted in a shift from

committing youth to high-cost resi-

dential facilities to providing lower

cost options, such as probation,

day treatment, or community-based

sanctions.

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Youth in residential placement

97 99 00 01 02 03 04 06 07 08 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Census year

Compared with 1997, youth in 2019 were more likely to be held in

locally operated facilities than in state or privately operated facilities

Q The proportion of youth held in locally operated facilities increased from 28% in

1997 to 39% in 2019. During the same period, the proportion of youth in state

operated facilities declined from 44% to 35%.

Q Nearly three-quarters of youth were held in public facilities (i.e., state or locally

operated) in 2019, and more than half (53%) of these youth were in local facilities.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

and

Juvenile Resi-

dential Facility Census

for 1997 through 2019.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of youth in placement

State Local PrivateFacility operation:

97 99 00 01 02 03 04 06 07 08 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Census year

The number of youth in placement in 2019 was one-third that of the

2000 peak

Q The number of youth in placement was cut in half between 2000 and 2013, then

fell 33% through 2019.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

and

Juvenile Resi-

dential Facility Census

for 1997 through 2019.

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

181

Local facilities held more youth

than state or private facilities

Private facilities have outnumbered

local facilities since 1997, and through

the mid-2000s, private facilities held

more youth than local facilities. How-

ever, given the disproportionate de-

cline in the number of private facilities

and the youth they hold, by 2019,

more youth were held in local facilities,

and the number of local facilities was

about the same as private facilities.

Operation profile:

Facility

operation

Facilities Youth

1997 2019 1997 2019

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Public 39 60 72 74

State 18 22 44 35

Local 21 38 28 39

Private 61 40 28 26

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

The decrease in facilities varied by

facility type

Since 2003, all facility types experi-

enced declines in the number of facili-

ties and the number of youth held, but

the declines varied by type of facility.

Detention centers outnumbered and

held more youth than other facility

types, but the relative decline in the

number of such facilities (17%) and

youth held (51%) was less than other

facility types. For example, the number

of residential treatment centers (RTC),

introduced to the collections in 2003,

fell 37% by 2019, and the number of

youth in RTCs fell 56%, while the

number of training schools and youth

held in such facilities declined 37% and

71%, respectively.

Percent change, 2003–2019:

Facility type Facilities Youth

Detention center –17% –51%

Residential treatment center

–37 –56

Group home –72 –62

Training school –37 –71

Shelter –52 –56

Ranch/forestry camp –78 –84

Reception/diagnostic center

–79 –84

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Number of facilities

97 99 00 01 02 03 04 06 07 08 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Census year

The proportion of locally operated facilities increased steadily since

2000, while the proportion of privately operated facilities decreased

Q Since 2000, the proportion of facilities that were locally operated increased from 22%

to 38%, while the proportion that were privately operated fell from 61% to 40%.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

and

Juvenile Resi-

dential Facility Census

for 1997 through 2019.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of facilities

State Local PrivateFacility operation:

97 99 00 01 02 03 04 06 07 08 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Census year

The number of residential placement facilities declined 50% between

2000 and 2019

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

and

Juvenile Resi-

dential Facility Census

for 1997 through 2019.

2000 peak. Most of the decline was as-

sociated with private facilities, which

declined 67% since 2000, compared

with a 24% decline for public facilities.

Among public facilities, the decline was

greater for state-operated (38%) than

for locally operated (14%) facilities. As

a result, public facilities have outnum-

bered private facilities each year since

2011.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

182

The number of youth held in large facilities—those with more

than 100 residents—has declined

Fewer youth were held in large

facilities in 2019 than in 1997

Facility size is based on the number of

residents assigned a bed on the census

reference date. Small facilities hold be-

tween 1 and 20 residents, medium fa-

cilities hold between 21 and 100 resi-

dents, and large facilities hold more

than 100 residents.

The number of large facilities fell 74%

since 1997, and the number of youth

in large facilities fell 85%. During the

same period, the number of small facil-

ities declined 46%, the number of me-

dium facilities fell 39%, and the num-

ber of youth in small and medium

facilities experienced the same relative

decline (42% each).

Percent change, 1997–2019:

Facility size Facilities Youth

Small –46% –42%

Medium –39 –42

Large –74 –85

The net result of these changes was

that, by 2019, large facilities accounted

for a smaller share of facilities than in

1997 (4% vs. 9%), while medium facili-

ties accounted for a larger share (37%

vs. 33%). Similarly, a larger proportion

of youth were held in medium size fa-

cilities (55%) than in large facilities

(24%) in 2019, reversing the pattern

that prevailed through 2007. Small fa-

cilities accounted for about the same

proportion of facilities in 2019 as in

1997 (59%), but the proportion of

youth in small facilities increased from

12% in 1997 to 21% in 2019.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of youth in residential placement

Small Medium LargeFacility size:

97 99 00 01 02 03 04 06 07 08 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Census year

Small facilities outnumber medium and large facilities

Q The proportion of large facilities decreased steadily since 2007, falling to 4% in

2019. Medium facilities accounted for 33% of facilities in 1997, increased to 40% in

2016, then fell to 37% in 2019. While the proportion of small facilities changed little

during this period, small facilities accounted for more than half of all facilities each

year since 1997.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

and

Juvenile Resi-

dential Facility Census

for 1997 through 2019.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of facilities

Small Medium LargeFacility size:

97 99 00 01 02 03 04 06 07 08 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Census year

More youth were held in large facilities than medium facilities through

2007, but that pattern has since reversed

Q The proportion of youth in large facilities has declined steadily. In 1997, more than

half (54%) of all youth were in large facilities; by 2019, about one-fourth (24%) of all

youth were in large facilities. Conversely, the proportion of youth in medium facili-

ties has increased steadily. By 2008, more youth were held in medium facilities than

in large facilities, a pattern that persisted through 2019.

Q The proportion of youth held in small facilities was relatively stable through the mid-

2000s but has since increased. By 2019, one-fifth (21%) of youth were held in small

facilities.

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

183

The characteristics of the placement population varied by

placement setting, offense, and youth demographics

Offense profiles varied based on

where a youth was held

State or local government agencies op-

erate public facilities. Private facilities

include nonprofit and for-profit corpo-

rations and organizations. In general,

private facilities are smaller than public

facilities and tend to hold youth with

less serious offenses. Therefore, private

facilities house slightly different popu-

lations than public facilities. In 2019,

youth held for a person offense ac-

counted for the largest share of youth

held in state, locally and privately oper-

ated facilities; youth held for a status

offense accounted for a relatively larger

proportion of youth in private facilities

than state or local facilities. Local facili-

ties had a larger share of youth held for

technical violations than either state or

private facilities.

Females accounted for 15% of the residential placement population in 2019, youth ages 15–17 accounted

for 71%, and Black youth accounted for 41%

Number of

youth in

placement,

2019

Percent of youth in residential placement, 2019

Most serious

offense Female

Younger

than 15

Ages

15–17 White Black Hispanic

American

Indian Asian

Two or

Total 36,479 15% 15% 71% 33% 41% 20% 2% 1% 2%

Person 15,823 13 15 68 30 44 21 2 1 2

Criminal homicide 941 9 6 69 20 46 29 2 1 2

Sexual assault 2,362 1 18 59 55 25 16 2 1 2

Robbery 4,131 6 8 71 11 62 23 1 2 2

Aggravated assault 3,427 14 14 69 24 46 25 2 1 2

Simple assault 3,067 27 24 68 40 34 19 3 1 3

Other person 1,895 16 18 70 40 38 17 2 1 3

Property 7,503 13 16 73 32 45 17 2 1 2

Burglary 2,540 7 17 70 29 50 15 2 1 2

Theft 1,576 17 16 74 34 49 11 2 1 2

Auto theft 1,782 16 15 76 29 43 22 2 1 3

Arson 204 10 25 63 50 31 12 3 1 3

Other property 1,401 17 17 74 39 37 19 2 1 3

Drug 1,589 19 10 75 46 25 23 2 1 3

Drug trafficking 269 9 8 72 32 37 27 2 0 2

Other drug 1,320 21 10 76 49 23 22 2 1 3

Public order 5,077 10 15 71 34 40 21 2 1 2

Weapons offense 2,087 4 9 77 17 54 25 1 1 2

Other public order 2,990 14 19 66 46 31 18 2 1 2

Technical violation 5,063 22 15 74 33 36 25 2 1 3

Status offense 1,424 34 24 71 59 23 9 2 1 4

Q Females accounted for a relatively larger share of youth held for a status offense (34%) or for simple assault (27%) than for

other offenses.

Q Across offenses, youth ages 15-17 accounted for the majority of youth in placement. However, youth younger than age 15

accounted for a relatively large share of youth held for simple assault (24%), arson (25%), or a status offense (24%).

Q White youth accounted for half or more of youth held for sexual assault, arson, or a status offense, while Black youth ac-

counted for at least half of all youth held for robbery, burglary, or a weapons offense.

Notes: Racial categories (i.e., White, Black, American Indian, and Asian) do not include youth of Hispanic ethnicity. The American Indian racial category

includes Alaska Natives; the Asian racial category includes Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders. Totals include persons of unspecified race. De-

tail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019

[data file].

Offense profile, 2019:

Facility operation

Offense State Local Private

Total 100% 100% 100%

Person 51 41 36

Property 22 18 21

Drugs 3 4 6

Public order 13 14 15

Technical violation 9 21 11

Status offense 1 2 11

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice: 2022 National Report

184

The majority of youth were in

medium-sized facilities

More than half (55%) of all youth in

placement in 2019 were in a medium-

sized facility (21–100 residents), about

one-fifth (21%) were in a small facility

(20 or fewer residents), and one-fourth

(24%) were in a large facility (more

than 100 residents). However, the

placement setting varied by offense.

For example, youth held for a status

offense were more likely to be in a

small facility (35%) than those held for

a delinquency offense (20%), and

youth held for a delinquency offense

were more likely to be in a medium-

sized facility (56%) than those held for

a status offense (44%).

Facility size profile, 2019:

Facility

size

Offense

Total Delinquency Status

Total 100% 100% 100%

Small 21 20 35

Medium 55 56 44

Large 24 24 21

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Most youth held for a status

offense were in private facilities

Youth held for a status offense account

for a small proportion of the overall

placement population—4% in 2019.

The overwhelming majority (72%) of

these youth were in privately-operated

facilities. Comparatively, 76% of youth

held for a delinquency offense were in

a publicly operated facility.

Facility operation profile, 2019:

Facility operation

Offense Total Public Private

Total 100% 74% 26%

Delinquency 100 76 24

Person 100 78 22

Property 100 73 27

Drugs 100 64 36

Public order 100 72 28

Tech. violation 100 80 20

Status offense 100 28 72

More than half (55%) of youth held for

a status offense in 2019 were in resi-

dential treatment centers, and more

than one-third (36%) were in group

homes.

Detention centers held 40% of youth in placement on October 23, 2019

Percent of youth in residential placement, 2019

Most serious offense Total

Detention

center Shelter

Group

home

Residential

treatment

center

Training

school Other*

Total 100% 40% 2% 7% 23% 26% 3%

Person 100 40 1 7 19 31 2

Property 100 38 1 7 24 26 4

Drugs 100 34 2 7 34 18 5

Public order 100 39 1 7 27 23 3

Technical violation 100 53 2 4 17 21 3

Status offense 100 12 8 30 45 2 3

Q More than half of youth in placement for a technical violation were in a detention center.

Q Residential treatment centers and group homes were the most common placement setting for youth held for a status offense.

*Includes reception/diagnostic centers and ranch/wilderness camps.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019

[data file].

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

185

In 2019, there were 36,749 youth in residential placement—

114 for every 100,000 youth in the U.S. population

The national residential placement rate fell 49% between 2010 and 2019; across states, placement rates in

2019 were lower than in 2010 for all but one state

Youth in

placement,

2019

Placement rate

per 100,000

Percent

change

Youth in

placement,

2019

Placement rate

per 100,000

Percent

changeState 2010 2019 State 2010 2019

U.S. total 36,479 225 114

–49%

Missouri 588 214 108

–50%

Alabama 798 212 161

–24

Montana 138 192 133

–31

Alaska 255 342 330

–4

Nebraska 309 378 145

–62

Arizona 606 152 80

–47

Nevada 546 244 174

–29

Arkansas 465 230 146

–37

New Hampshire 24 97 20

–79

California 4,131 272 102

–63

New Jersey 513 123 58

–53

Colorado 753 286 130

–55

New Mexico 270 250 122

–51

Connecticut 96 93 27

–71

New York 837 180 54

–70

Delaware 129 270 139

–49

North Carolina 744 112 93

–17

Dist. of Columbia 117 430 262

–39

North Dakota 78 258 104

–60

Florida 2,001 261 104

–60

Ohio 1,746 227 148

–35

Georgia 1,119 220 110

–50

Oklahoma 345 157 80

–49

Hawaii 63 90 49

–46

Oregon 651 320 164

–49

Idaho 342 257 164

–36

Pennsylvania 1,566 317 129

–59

Illinois 834 178 64

–64

Rhode Island 108 236 114

–52

Indiana 1,155 276 161

–42

South Carolina 633 235 141

–40

Iowa 441 227 133

–41

South Dakota 171 575 180

–69

Kansas 360 264 113

–57

Tennessee 345 117 50

–57

Kentucky 588 186 130

–30

Texas 3,699 203 126

–38

Louisiana 693 239 143

–40

Utah 246 190 58

–69

Maine 60 143 51

–64

Vermont 18 53 33

–38

Maryland 495 143 82

–43

Virginia 918 224 109

–51

Massachusetts 288 115 46

–60

Washington 693 183 94

–49

Michigan 1,353 208 157

–25

West Virginia 483 317 291

–8

Minnesota 948 159 161

Wisconsin 477 209 93

–56

Mississippi 198 106 61

–42

Wyoming 147 440 239

–46

Notes: Placement rate is the number of youth in placement per 100,000 youth ages 10 through the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in each state.

U.S. totals include 2,567 youth in placement in 2010 and 1,895 youth in placement in 2019 for whom state of offense was not reported.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

for 2010 and 2019 [data files].

20 to 64

65 to 114

115 to 150

151 to 330

Placement rate, 2019

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

186

Between 1997 and 2019, the decline in the committed

population outpaced that of the detained population

CJRP documents the placement

status of youth

Some youth are held in residential

placement for detention purposes (e.g.,

youth awaiting an adjudicatory or dis-

position hearing in juvenile or criminal

court) and those held after disposition

while awaiting placement elsewhere.

Other youth are committed to a facility

as part of a court-ordered sanction. In

2019, detained youth accounted for

39% of the placement population and

committed youth accounted for 58%.

Offense profiles were similar for

detained and committed youth

Youth held for a delinquency offense

accounted for 98% of the detained

population and 95% of the committed

population. Youth held for a status of-

fense accounted for 5% of the commit-

ted population and 2% of the detained

population.

Offense profile of youth in placement,

2019:

Most serious

offense

Detained

(14,344)

Committed

(21,141)

Total 100% 100%

Delinquency 98 95

Person 45 43

Criminal homicide 4 2

Sexual assault 4 8

Robbery 12 11

Aggravated assault 11 8

Simple assault 8 8

Other person 5 5

Property 20 21

Burglary 6 7

Theft 4 4

Auto theft 5 5

Arson 1 1

Other property 4 4

Drug 3 5

Drug trafficking 1 1

Other drug 3 4

Public order 13 14

Weapons 7 5

Other public order 6 9

Technical violation 16 12

Status offense 2 5

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of

rounding.

99 11 15 19

10,000

20,000

30,000

Census year

Number of youth

Detained

03 07

99 11 15 19

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

Census year

Number of youth

Committed

03 07

Between 1997 and 2019, the detained population decreased 47% and

the committed population fell 72%

Q Most of the decline in the number of youth detained took place between 2007 and

2019, during which time the population of youth in residential placement declined

42%, while the committed population declined consistently since 2001.

Q Committed youth account for a larger share of the overall placement population

than detained youth, but their share declined from 72% in 1997 to 58% in 2019,

while detained youth accounted for a larger share in 2019 (39%) than in 1997 (27%).

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

for 1997 through

2019 [data files].

Detained and committed youth

were held in different types of

facilities

In 2019, 81% of detained youth were

held in detention centers, 9% were in

long-term secure facilities, and 6% were

in residential treatment centers.

Among committed youth, 38% were

held in long-term secure facilities, and

33% were in residential treatment cen-

ters. Group homes and detention cen-

ters each held 11% of committed

youth.

99 11 15 19

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Census year

State Local Private

Percent of detained youth

03 07

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of committed youth

11 15 19

Census year

State Local Private

03 07

Most detained youth were held in locally operated facilities while most

committed youth were in state operated facilities

Q The overwhelming majority of detained youth were held in locally operated facilities.

In a typical year between 1997 and 2019, 70% of youth in detention were held in a

locally operated facility.

Q The number of committed youth held in state facilities fell 78% between 1997 and

2019, compared with 69% for those in private facilities and 56% for those in local

facilities. As a result, a smaller proportion of committed youth were in state operat-

ed facilities in 2019 (43%) than in 1997 (54%).

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

for 1997 through

2019 [data files].

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

187

Commitment rates declined between 2010 and 2019 for all but four states, while detention rates declined

for all but eight states

Rate per 100,000 Rate per 100,000

Detained

Committed

Detained

Committed

State

2010

2019 2010

2019

State

2010

2019 2010

2019

U.S. total 65 45 154 66 Missouri 41 27 170 81

Alabama 52 62

†

159 90 Montana 51 43 138 58

Alaska 124 85 211 241 Nebraska 106 58 269 85

†

Arizona 51 42 96 36 Nevada 80 56 163 108

Arkansas 47 45 182 101

†

New Hampshire

7* 5* 70 10

California 116 50

†

155 51

†

New Jersey 57 24 65 33

†

Colorado 74 44 200 85 New Mexico 72 68 176 53

Connecticut 38 17 54 9 New York 35

†

20 143 33

Delaware 106 71 164 68 North Carolina 22 17 68 74

Dist. of Columbia

222 195 208 67 North Dakota 28 16 230 84

Florida 48 28 211 66 Ohio 75 63 152 83

Georgia 48 60 102 50 Oklahoma 64 59 91 20

Hawaii 20 23 63 23 Oregon 38 14

†

281 147

Idaho 77 37 179 109 Pennsylvania 43 29 254 99

Illinois 52 39 123

†

Rhode Island 3* 22 201 76

Indiana 76 46

†

199 109 South Carolina 78 67 157 71

Iowa 41 48 182 75 South Dakota 123

†

101 432 76

Kansas 93 58 169 55 Tennessee 28 38

†

88 12

Kentucky 63 52 120 73 Texas 72 59 129 67

Louisiana 77 54 159 88 Utah 55 17 135 39

Maine 12 0* 127 28 Vermont 19

†

6* 10*

†

11*

Maryland 71 48 66 33 Virginia 76 56 144 52

Massachusetts 34 20 79 22 Washington 56 28 126 63

Michigan 57 43 151 110 West Virginia 164 115 152 170

Minnesota 37 82

†

119 67 Wisconsin 39 25 168 61

Mississippi 51 26 54 30 Wyoming 31 34 409 205

†

Interpret data with caution. In these states, 30% or more of the information for placement status (i.e., detained or committed) was imputed.

*Rate is based on fewer than 10 youth.

Notes: Rate is the number of detained or committed youth in placement per 100,000 youth ages 10 through the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in

each state. U.S. totals include 493 detained youth and 1,359 committed youth for whom state of offense was not reported.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

for 2010 and 2019 [data files].

0 to 24

25 to 45

46 to 59

60 to 195

9 to 33

34 to 66

67 to 85

86 to 241

Detained rate, 2019 Committed rate, 2019

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

188

In four states, the proportion of youth detained for a technical

violation exceeded the proportion detained for a person offense

The percent of youth detained for a person offense ranged from a low of 19% in Arizona to a high of 64% in

Georgia

Offense profile of detained youth, 2019 Offense profile of detained youth, 2019

State

Person Property

Drugs

Public

order

Technical

violation

Status

State

Person Property

Drugs

Public

order

Technical

violation

Status

U.S. total 45% 20% 3% 13% 16% 2% Missouri 47% 29% 2% 10% 10% 2%

Alabama 36

†

1 Montana* 40 20 7 0 33 0

Alaska* 36 23 5

†

923 5

†

Nebraska 37 17 7 17 22 0

Arizona 19 19 10 10 39 0 Nevada 27 17 12 17 25 2

Arkansas 40

†

New Hampshire

––––––

California 53

†

11120

†

0 New Jersey 51 8 3 14 24 0

Colorado 52 23

†

1 New Mexico 30 8 4 12 44 2

Connecticut* 40 40 0 5 10 0 New York 60 19 5 8 7 1

Delaware* 45 18 0 27 5 0 North Carolina 41 37 2 11 4 7

Dist. of Columbia*

62 21 0 17 0 0 North Dakota – – – – – –

Florida 40 30 3 16 10 1

†

Ohio 50 16 2 15 15 2

Georgia 64 27 1 7 0 0 Oklahoma 49 22 4 11 13 0

Hawaii* 40 20 0 0 40 0 Oregon* 21 16

†

011

†

Idaho* 38 23 15 12 4 4 Pennsylvania 36 18 7 11 27 1

Illinois 36 19 3 31 12 0 Rhode Island* 29 29 0 43 0 0

Indiana 38

†

7 South Carolina 33 22 1

†

16 23 5

Iowa 49 28 9 9 4

†

0 South Dakota* 44 25 3 9

†

19 3

†

Kansas 56 18 3 †8 10 6 Tennessee 57

†

211 11

†

Kentucky 54 13

†

1 19 5 8 Texas 42 16 6

†

14 22

†

Louisiana 38 30 2

†

8 17 6 Utah* 29 25 0 13 33 0

Maine – – – – – – Vermont – – – – – –

Maryland 44 22 7 9 15 1 Virginia 42 20

†

14 19 3

†

Massachusetts 57 17 5 19 2 0 Washington 59 16 1 12 10 1

Michigan 42 20 2 12 21 4 West Virginia 47 27 2 9 2

†

Minnesota 41

†

Wisconsin 40 28 2 23 2 2

†

Mississippi* 39 25 4 18 11 4 Wyoming* 29 14 14 14 14 14

The proportion of youth detained for a technical viola-

tion of probation or parole or a violation of a valid

court order was less than 40% in each state except

Hawaii (40%), New Mexico (44%), and Oregon (53%).

Q Youth held for a status offense accounted for less

than 10% of the detained population in all states but

West Virginia and Wyoming.

– Too few youth (fewer than 20) to calculate a reliable percentage.

*Percents in this state are based on a small denominator (fewer

than 100, but at least 20 youth).

†

Interpret data with caution. In these states, 30% or more of the in-

formation for offense and/or placement status (i.e., detained or

committed) was imputed.

Notes: U.S. totals include 493 detained youth for whom state of of-

fense was not reported.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019

[data file].

21% to 36%

37% to 45%

46% to 49%

50% to 64%

Not calculated

Percent of detained youth held for person offenses, 2019

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

189

Youth held for a person offense accounted for 50% or more

of the committed population in 13 states and DC

The percent of youth committed for a person offense ranged from a low of 18% in Mississippi to a high of

79% in Kansas

Offense profile of committed youth, 2019 Offense profile of committed youth, 2019

State

Person Property

Drugs

Public

order

Technical

violation

Status

State

Person Property

Drugs

Public

order

Technical

violation

Status

U.S. total 43% 21% 5% 14% 12% 5% Missouri 32% 31% 4% 16% 8% 7%

Alabama 33 26 6 11 16 7 Montana* 45 25 10 15

†

Alaska 42 27 3

†

13 15 3

†

Nebraska 38

†

Arizona 27 29 10 23 12 0 Nevada 29 16 12 23 19 1

†

Arkansas 31

†

715

†

New Hampshire

––––––

California 37

†

New Jersey 60

†

Colorado 54 24 4 16 1

†

0 New Mexico 38 10 0 5 44 3

†

Connecticut* 36 45 0 9 9 0 New York 35 27 1 10 11 18

Delaware* 38 24 0 29 10 0 North Carolina 39 30 3

†

11 15 1

†

Dist. of Columbia*

60 10

†

020

†

0 0 North Dakota* 38 19 19 24 0 0

Florida 34 39 4 11 12

†

0 Ohio 53 18 3 13 10 3

Georgia 65 21 1 7 0 6 Oklahoma* 52 31 7

†

730

Hawaii* 50 20 10 10 10 0 Oregon 58 22 4 14 2 1

Idaho 30 30 11 26 4 0 Pennsylvania 38 14 10 17 12 11

Illinois 47

†

Rhode Island* 42 21 0 17 13 13

Indiana 39 18 12 19 8 4 South Carolina 30 21 3 10 34 2

Iowa 46 31 6 14 2

†

South Dakota* 50 17 8 17

†

Kansas 79 10 3 5 3 0 Tennessee* 18 11 7

†

54 4 7

Kentucky 29 11 5

†

15 3 37

†

Texas 57 17 3 10 11

†

Louisiana 46 32 2 11 3 6 Utah 44 29 2 22 0 5

†

Maine* 55 45 0 0 0 0 Vermont – – – – – –

Maryland 33 19 4

†

Virginia 59 19 2 7 10 3

Massachusetts 49 13 4 31 0 2 Washington 65 18 2 4 12 0

Michigan 40 18 5

†

14 14 9 West Virginia 34 17 6 10 6 28

Minnesota 44 19 2

†

24 8

†

3 Wisconsin 50 29 2

†

16 0 3

†

Mississippi* 18 61 12 3 9 3 Wyoming 19 24 19 12 17 7

In 13 states, the proportion of youth committed for a

technical violation of probation or parole, or a violation

of a valid court order exceeded the national level

(12%).

Q Youth held for a status offense accounted for less than

of the committed population in 34 states and the Dis-

trict of Columbia.

– Too few youth (fewer than 20) to calculate a reliable percentage.

*Percents in this state are based on a small denominator (fewer than

100, but at least 20 youth).

†

Interpret data with caution. In these states, 30% or more of the in-

formation for offense or placement status (i.e., detained or commit-

ted) was imputed.

Notes: U.S. totals include 1,359 committed youth for whom state of

offense was not reported.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019

[data file].

18% to 33%

34% to 43%

44% to 50%

51% to 79%

Not calculated

Percent of committed youth held for person offenses, 2019

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

190

The proportion of youth in placement for a person offense

has increased

More than 40% of youth were in

residential placement for a person

offense

In any given year, youth held for a per-

son offense accounted for the largest

share of the placement population. For

example, in 1999, the year in which

the CJRP population reached its peak,

35% of youth in placement were there

as a result of a person offense and 29%

were held for a property offense. How-

ever, declines in the placement popula-

tion between 1999 and 2019 were not

evenly spread across offenses. In fact,

with the exception of youth held for a

public order offense, the relative de-

cline in the number of youth held for

Q The detained and committed populations have declined considerably between 1999—the year the CJRP population peaked—and

2019, but the declines varied based on offense. For example, among the detained population, the number of youth held for a

drug offense declined more than 80%, and the number held for a status offense, technical violation, or a property offense fell

more than 60%; the decline in youth detained for a public order (36%) or a person (21%) offense was considerably less.

Q Among the committed population, the decline in the number of youth held for a drug offense (85%) or a property offense (81%)

outpaced the declined in the number of youth held for other offenses: person (68%), public order (62%), technical violations

(66%), and status offenses (67%).

Q The net result of these declines was that the offense profile of the detained and committed populations included a larger propor-

tion of youth held for a person offense, and a smaller proportion of youth held for a property or a drug offense. For example, in

2019, 45% of detained youth were in placement for a person offense, compared with 30% in 1997; among committed youth, the

proportion held for a person offense increased from 35% to 43%. Conversely, the proportion of detained youth held for a property

offense declined from 26% in 1997 to 20% in 2019; among committed youth, 22% were held for a property offense in 2019,

down from 32% in 1997.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

for 1997–2019 [data files].

The offense profile of the detained and committed populations has changed

Detained youth

97 99 10 11 13 15 17 19

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Census year

Percent of detained youth

01 03

06 07

97 99 10 11 13 15 17 19

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Census year

01 03 06 07

Percent of committed youth

a person offense was less than the de-

cline for youth held for other offenses.

As a result, the proportion of youth in

placement for a person offense in-

creased to 43% in 2019.

Offense profile of youth in placement:

Percent

change

1999–2019Offense 1999 2019

Total 100% 100% –66%

Delinquency 96 96 –66

Person 35 43 –58

Property 29 21 –76

Drugs 9 4 –84

Public order 10 14 –53

Tech. violation 13 14 –64

Status offense 4 4 –67

The trend in the number and propor-

tion of youth in placement for a violent

crime (criminal homicide, sexual as-

sault, robbery, and aggravated assault)

mirrored the trend of youth held for

person offenses: the number of youth

in placement for a violent crime de-

clined 59% between 1999 and 2019,

but, given the larger declines in other

offenses over the same period, the pro-

portion of youth held for a violent

crime increased from 25% in 1999 to

30% in 2019. Conversely, the number

of youth held for a status offense de-

clined considerably between 1999 and

2019, but the proportion of youth in

placement for a status offense remained

the same.

Committed youth

Person Property Public orderDrugs

Technical viol.

Status

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

191

Females accounted for a relatively small proportion of the

residential placement population

Females accounted for 15% of

youth in residential placement

The juvenile justice system predomi-

nantly consists of male youth. This is

especially true of the residential place-

ment population. Males represent half

of the youth population and are in-

volved in approximately 70% of youth

arrests and delinquency cases that juve-

nile courts handle each year, but they

represented 85% of youth held in resi-

dential placement in 2019. Females ac-

counted for a larger proportion of

youth in private facilities (16%) than in

public facilities (14%), a larger propor-

tion of the detained population (16%)

than the committed population (14%) .

Although the number of females in

placement has declined since 1997,

their proportion of the placement pop-

ulation has remained stable.

Female percent of youth in placement:

Offense 1997 2019

Total 14% 15%

Facility operation:

Public 12 14

Private 18 16

Placement status:

Detained 17 16

Committed 12 14

Females in placement tended to

be younger than their male

counterparts

In 2019, 43% of females in placement

were younger than age 16, compared

with 32% of males. For females in

placement, the peak age was 16, ac-

counting for 27% of all females in

placement facilities. For males, the

peak age was 17 (27%).

Age profile of youth in placement, 2019:

Age Total Male Female

Total 100% 100% 100%

12 or younger 2 2 2

13 4 4 6

14 10 9 13

15 18 18 22

16 26 26 27

17 27 27 23

18–20 14 15 7

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Females were committed to

placement for different offenses

than males

In 2019, nearly 3,000 females were

committed to placement, that is, they

were in placement as part of a court-

ordered sanction. About 1 in 3 (34%)

females were committed to placement

for a person offense, compared with

44% of males. Conversely, larger pro-

portions of females than males were

committed to placement for a status

offense (12% vs. 4%) or technical viola-

tions (17% vs. 11%).

Offense profile of committed youth, 2019:

Offense Male Female

Total 100% 100%

Delinquency 96 88

Person 44 34

Property 22 19

Drugs 5 7

Public order 15 10

Tech. violation 11 17

Status offense 4 12

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of

rounding.

Females were more likely than males to be held for technical

violations or status offenses

Offense profile of youth in

residential placement, 2019

All facilities Public facilities Private facilities

Most serious offense Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Delinquency 97 91 99 96 91 78

Person 44 37 47 39 37 31

Violent Crime Index* 32 16 35 19 23 8

Other person 12 21 12 21 14 23

Property 21 19 21 18 21 21

Property Crime Index

†

17 14 17 13 18 16

Other property 4 4 4 4 3 4

Drug 4 5 4 4 6 8

Drug trafficking 1 0 1 1 1 0

Other drug 3 5 3 4 5 8

Public order 15 9 14 10 17 7

Technical violation

‡

13 21 13 24 11 11

Status offense 3 9 1 4 9 22

Q Compared with males, a larger proportion of females were in placement for a

status offense (9% vs. 3%) or a technical violation (21% vs. 13%) in 2019.

Q More than 1 in 5 (22%) females in private facilities were there for a status of-

fense, compared with less than 1 in 10 (9%) males.

* Violent Crime Index = criminal homicide, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

†

Property Crime Index = burglary, theft, auto theft, and arson.

‡

Technical violations = violations of probation, parole, and valid court order.

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019

[data

file].

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

192

Placement rates for Black youth and American Indian youth

exceed the rate for White youth

Black youth accounted for the

largest share of youth in

placement

In 2019, the population of youth in

residential placement was 41% Black,

33% White, and 20% Hispanic. Relative

to their proportion in the general pop-

ulation, Black youth were overrepre-

sented in the placement population. In

2019, Black youth accounted for 14%

of the population ages 10–20 and 41%

of the placement population. American

Indian youth were also overrepresented

in the placement population but not to

the same extent as Black youth.

Race profile of youth ages 10–20, 2019:

Offense Population

Residential

placement

Total 100% 100%

White 52 33

Black 14 41

Hispanic 25 20

American Indian 1 2

Asian 5 1

Two or more 4 2

Note: Racial categories (i.e., White, Black,

American Indian, and Asian) do not include youth

of Hispanic ethnicity. The American Indian racial

category includes Alaska Natives; the Asian racial

category includes Native Hawaiians and Other

Pacific Islanders. Totals include persons of

unspecified race.

Detail may not total 100%

because of rounding.

Black youth also accounted for a larger

share of the detained population (46%)

than White youth (26%) or Hispanic

youth (23%). Among those committed

to placement following a court-ordered

sanction, White youth and Black youth

accounted for the same proportion in

2019 (28%), while Hispanic youth ac-

counted for 19%. American Indian,

Asian\Pacific Islander, and youth of

two or more races combined to ac-

count for 6% or less of the detained

and committed populations.

1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2007 2010 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Census year

Youth in residential placement per 100,000 youth ages 10−upper age

Black

White

American Indian

Hispanic

Asian

Residential placement rates declined for all race groups since 1997, but

the rates for Black, American Indian, and Hispanic youth remain higher

than the rate for White youth

Q Between 1997 and 2019, the residential placement rate declined the most for Asian

youth (90%), followed by Hispanic (80%), Black (67%), White (64%), and American

Indian (52%) youth. Despite these declines, placement rates were higher for Black,

Hispanic, and American Indian youth than White youth each year since 1997.

Notes: Racial categories (i.e., White, Black, American Indian, and Asian) do not include youth of His-

panic ethnicity. The American Indian racial category includes Alaska Natives; the Asian racial category

includes Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders. Rates are based on the number of youth in

placement per 100,000 youth ages 10 through the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

for 1997 through

2019 [data files].

Detention and commitment rates for Black youth and American

Indian youth were well above the rates for White youth

Rate per 100,000 youth

ages 10–upper age

Ratio of rates (relative to

rate for White youth)

Race/ethnicity Total Detained Committed Total Detained Committed

White 72 22 47

Black 315 139 168 4.4 6.3 3.6

Hispanic 92 41 50 1.3 1.9 1.1

American Indian 236 91 140 3.3 4.1 3.0

Asian 19 8 11 0.3 0.4 0.2

Q The ratio is determined by dividing the rate of each racial/ethnic minority group

by the rate for White youth. A ratio of 1.0 indicates statistical parity, i.e., the

rates for the comparison groups are equal. For example, if White youth and

Black youth were placed at the same rate, the ratio would be 1.0. When the

ratio exceeds 1.0, the rate for a particular racial/ethnic minority group exceeds

the rate for White youth; when it is below 1.0, the rate for a racial/ethnic minori-

ty group is less than the rate for White youth.

Note: Racial categories (i.e., White, Black, American Indian, and Asian) do not include youth of His-

panic ethnicity. The American Indian racial category includes Alaska Natives; the Asian racial cate-

gory includes Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders. Rates are based on the number of

youth in placement per 100,000 youth ages 10 through the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019

[data

file].

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

193

Nationally, residential placement rates were highest for

Black youth

For every 100,000 Black youth living in the U.S., 315 were in a residential placement facility on October 23,

2019; for American Indian youth the rate was 236 and for Hispanic youth the rate was 92

Placement rate (per 100,000), 2019 Placement rate (per 100,000), 2019

State

White Black

Hispanic

American

Indian

Asian

State

White Black

Hispanic

American

Indian

Asian

U.S. total 72 315 92 236 19 Missouri 80 288 24* 102* 21*

Alabama 106 294 65 0* 35*

†

Montana 100 602* 101* 332 0*

Alaska 219 720 45*

†

693 200 Nebraska 69 641 197 1,145 47*

Arizona 62 240 67 101 22* Nevada 140 488 117 102* 47

Arkansas 96

†

307 129

†

113*

†

119*

†

New Hampshire

14 183* 38* 0* 0*

California 48 433 113

†

212 14 New Jersey 14 245 58 0* 3*

Colorado 76 557 160 145* 52 New Mexico 277 467 58 62 0*

Connecticut 7

†

1,163

†

16* New York 30 168 37 44* 5*

Delaware 44 390 61* 0* 0* North Carolina 37 250 34 296 0*

Dist. of Columbia

35*

†

388 84* 0* 0* North Dakota 70 356 71* 319 247*

Florida 90 295 7 0* 9* Ohio 84 433 86 220* 9*

Georgia 40 233 47 0* 13* Oklahoma 53 281 37 105 26*

Hawaii 25* 0* 61 0* 30 Oregon 146 547 169 362 52

Idaho 137 980 176 580 167* Pennsylvania 73 413 108 0* 24

Illinois 32

†

218 39

†

231*

†

Rhode Island 72 434 77 479* 0*

Indiana 138 298 72 0* 15*

†

South Carolina 63 315 49 0* 0*

Iowa 83 721 116 474* 0* South Dakota 109 512 219 486 0*

Kansas 81 405 110 185* 56* Tennessee* 27 124 42 0* 19*

Kentucky 89 393 75 0* 32* Texas 74 345 116 34* 13

Louisiana 49 294 41 81* 0* Utah 38 336 110 143* 41*

Maine 42 288 0* 0* 0* Vermont 30 206* 0* 0* 0*

Maryland 29 182 55 0* 0* Virginia 57 273 103 0* 14*

†

Massachusetts 19 133 108 0* 6* Washington 60 310 112 257 39

Michigan 85 458 88 174 27* West Virginia 249 803 344 0* 0*

Minnesota 73

†

621

†

198

†

852 46

†

Wisconsin 43 485 53 328 30*

Mississippi 27 105 40* 0* 0* Wyoming 202 556* 242 760 0*

In all but seven states, the residential placement rate for Black youth exceeded the rate for other race/ethnicity groups. In six

states, the placement rate for American Indian youth exceeded the rate for other race/ethnicity groups.

*Rate is based on fewer than 10 youth.

†Interpret data with caution. In these states, 30% or more of the information for offense or placement status (i.e., detained or committed) was imputed.

Notes: Racial categories (i.e., White, Black, American Indian, and Asian) do not include youth of Hispanic ethnicity. The American Indian racial category in-

cludes Alaska Natives; the Asian racial category includes Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders. U.S. totals include 1,895 youth for whom state of

offense was not reported.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

for 2019 [data file].

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

194

Youth held for person offenses had been committed or

detained longer than youth held for other offenses

CJRP provides individual-level

data on time spent in placement

Information on length of stay is key to

understanding the justice system’s han-

dling of youth in residential placement.

Ideally, length of stay would be calcu-

lated for individual youth by totaling

the days of their stay in placement,

from their initial admission to their

final release relating to a particular

case. These individual lengths of place-

ment would then be averaged for dif-

ferent release cohorts of youth (co-

horts would be identified by year of

release, offense, adjudication status, or

demographic characteristics).

CJRP captures information on the

number of days since admission for

each youth in residential placement.

These data represent the number of

days the youth had been in the facility

up to the census date. Because CJRP

data reflect only a youth’s placement at

one facility, the complete length of

stay—from initial admission to the jus-

tice system to final release—cannot be

determined. Nevertheless, CJRP pro-

vides an overall profile of the time

youth had been in the facility at the

time of the census—a 1-day snapshot

of time in the facility.

Because CJRP data are reported for in-

dividuals, averages can be calculated

for different subgroups of the popula-

tion. In addition, analysts can use the

data to get a picture of the proportion

of residents remaining after a certain

number of days (e.g., what percentage

of youth have been held longer than a

year). This sort of analysis provides ju-

venile justice policymakers with a use-

ful means of comparing the time spent

in placement for different categories of

youth.

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Days since admission

Percent of youth remaining in placement

Detained

Committed

In 2019, 33% of committed youth but just 8% of detained youth

remained in placement 6 months after admission

Q Among detained youth (those awaiting adjudication, disposition, or placement else-

where), 80% had been in the facility for at least a week, 64% for at least 15 days,

and 46% for at least 30 days.

Q Among committed youth (those held as part of a court-ordered disposition), 81%

had been in the facility for at least 30 days, 69% for at least 60 days, and 58% for

at least 90 days. After a full year, 12% of committed youth remained in placement

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

, 2019 [data file].

Youth’s average time in the facility varied by placement status,

offense, and facility type

Median days in placement, 2019

Detained Committed

Most serious offense (all facilities) Public Private

Total 26 112 115

Person 36 147 129

Property 20 97 104

Drugs 18 78 97

Public order 24 104 134

Technical violation 16 63 84

Status offense 16 83 126

Q Half of all youth detained for a person offense were in a facility 36 days, twice

as long as youth in detention for a drug offense (18 days).

Q With the exception of those adjudicated for person offenses, youth committed

to private facilities had been in the facilities longer than those committed to

public facilities.

Q Time in placement is influenced by both punishment and treatment goals and,

therefore, does not always coincide with offense seriousness. For example,

among youth committed to private facilities, the average time in placement for

youth held for a status offense was longer than the average for those held for a

person offense.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019

[data

file].

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

195

Q Half of detained White youth remained in placement about 3 weeks, while half of Black, Hispanic, American Indian, and Asian

youth had been in detention about 1 month.

Q On average, half of all detained males had been in placement about 1 month, compared with about two weeks for detained fe-

males.

Q Among committed youth, half all females had been in placement about 3 months, while committed males had been in placement

about 4 months.

Q Half of all American Indian youth committed to placement had been in the facility more than 4 months, about a month longer than

Hispanic youth.

Note: Racial categories (i.e., White, Black, American Indian, and Asian) do not include youth of Hispanic ethnicity. The American Indian racial category in-

cludes Alaska Natives; the Asian racial category includes Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019

[data file].

Among detained youth, racial and ethnic minority youth had been in placement longer than White youth

Detained youth

Asian

American Indian

Hispanic

Black

White

Female

Male

Total

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Median days since admission, 2019

Asian

American Indian

Hispanic

Black

White

Female

Male

Total

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Median days since admission, 2019

113

118

108

122

131

104

Committed youth

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

196

Nearly half of youth in residential placement on the 2018

census date were held in detention centers

JRFC provides data on residential

facility operations

In 2018, the Juvenile Residential Facil-

ity Census (JRFC) collected data from

2,208 juvenile residential facilities.

Analyses were based on data from

1,510 facilities, which held a total of

37,529 youth younger than age 21

who were held for an offense on the

census date (October 24, 2018). Data

were excluded from 1 facility in the

Virgin Islands, 16 tribal facilities, and

681 facilities that held no youth who

were charged with an offense on the

reference date.

Residential treatment centers and

detention centers outnumbered

other types of facilities

JRFC asks respondents to identify the

type of facility (e.g., detention center,

shelter, reception/diagnostic center,

group home/halfway house, ranch/

forestry/wilderness camp/marine pro-

gram, training school/long-term se-

cure facility, or residential treatment

center). Respondents were allowed to

select more than one facility type cate-

gory, although the vast majority (84%)

selected only one. More than 600 facil-

ities identified themselves as detention

centers in 2018; they accounted for

41% of all facilities and held 46% of

youth.

There were 553 facilities that identified

themselves as residential treatment cen-

ters. They made up 37% of all facilities

and held 37% of youth in 2018.

Facilities identified as detention centers

most commonly also identified them-

selves as residential treatment centers

(45 facilities) and training schools (44).

There were 59 facilities that identified

themselves as both residential treat-

ment centers and training schools, the

most common type of facility combina-

tion.

Training schools tend to be state facilities, detention centers tend to be local facilities, and group homes

tend to be private facilities

Facility type

Facility operation Total

Detention

center Shelter

Reception/

diagnostic

center

Group

home

Ranch/

wilderness

camp

Training

school

Residential

treatment

center

Number of facilities 1,510 625 116 37 240 27 164 553

Operation profile

All facilities 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Public 60 93 34 81 28 59 77 35

State 22 21 3 68 14 26 59 19

Local 38 72 30 14 14 33 19 16

Private 40 7 66 19 72 41 23 65

Facility profile

All facilities 100% 41% 8% 2% 16% 2% 11% 37%

Public 100 64 4 3 7 2 14 21

State 100 40 1 8 10 2 29 32

Local 100 78 6 1 6 2 5 16

Private 100 7 13 1 29 2 6 59

Q Detention centers, reception/diagnostic centers, ranch/wilderness camps, and training schools were more likely to be public

facilities than private facilities.

Q Most shelters, group homes, and residential treatment centers were private facilities.

Q Detention centers made up more than three quarters of all local facilities and nearly two-thirds of all public facilities.

Q Detention centers and residential treatment centers accounted for the largest proportions of all state facilities (40% and 32%,

respectively); training schools accounted for 29%.

Q Residential treatment centers accounted for 59% of all private facilities, and group homes accounted for 29%.

Notes: Counts (and row percentages) may sum to more than the total number of facilities because facilities could select more than one facility type. De-

tail may not sum to total because of rounding.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2019

[data file].

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

197

Security features varied across types and size of facilities

Facilities varied in their degree of

security

In 2018, 49% of facilities said that, at

least some of the time, youth were

locked in their sleeping rooms. Among

public facilities, 81% of local facilities

and 69% of state facilities reported

locking youth in sleeping rooms. Few

private facilities locked youth in sleep-

ing rooms (8%).

Among facilities that locked youth in

sleeping rooms, most did this at night

(87%) or when a youth was out of con-

trol (80%). Locking doors whenever

youth were in sleeping rooms (61%)

and locking youth in their rooms dur-

ing shift changes (55%) were also fairly

common. Fewer facilities reported

locking youth in sleeping rooms for a

part of each day (21%) or when they

were suicidal (22%).

Very few facilities reported that they

locked youth in sleeping rooms most

of each day (1%) or all of each day (less

than 1%). Seven percent (7%) had no

set schedule for locking youth in sleep-

ing rooms.

Facilities indicated whether they had

various types of locked doors or gates

to confine youth within the facility. Of

all facilities that reported confinement

information, 64% said they had one or

more confinement features (other than

locked sleeping rooms), with a greater

proportion of public facilities using

these features than private facilities

(87% vs. 30%).

Confinement profile of facilities, 2019:

Facility

operation

confinement

features

One or more

confinement

features

Total 36% 64%

Public 13 87

State 13 87

Local 13 87

Private 70 30

Note: Percentages are based on facilities that

reported security information (12 of 1,510

facilities [1%] did not report).

Among detention centers, training

schools, and reception/diagnostic cen-

ters that reported confinement infor-

mation, more than 9 in 10 said they

had one or more features (other than

locked sleeping rooms).

Facilities reporting one or more

confinement features (other than

locked sleeping rooms), 2019:

Facility type Number Percentage

Total 960 64%

Detention center 605 97

Shelter 33 28

Reception/

diagnostic center

35 95

Group home 42 18

Ranch/wilderness

camp

10 37

Training school 158 96

Residential

treatment center

268 50

Note: Detail sums to more than the total

because facilities could select more than one

facility type.

Among group homes, nearly 1 in 5 fa-

cilities said they had locked doors or

gates to confine youth. The presence

of facility staff also serves to confine

youth. For some facilities, their remote

location is a feature that also helps to

keep youth from leaving.

Security features increased as

facility size increased

Although the majority of facilities re-

ported using more than one confine-

ment feature in 2018, the proportion

varied by facility size. For example,

about half (53%) of small facilities

(those holding between 1 and 20 resi-

dents) reported using multiple confine-

ment features, compared with 78% of

medium facilities (those holding be-

tween 21 and 50 residents), and 79%

of large facilities (those holding be-

tween 101 and 200 residents).

Although the use of razor wire is a far

less common confinement feature—

overall, less than one-third (29%) of fa-

cilities reported using razor wire—46%

of large facilities said they had locked

gates in fences or walls with razor wire.

Percent of facilities reporting confinement

feature, 2019:

Facility

size

Youth

locked in

sleeping

rooms

One

or more

confinement

features

Razor

wire

Total 49% 64% 29%

Small 40 53 20

Medium 61 78 41

Large 66 79 46

Note: Percentages are based on facilities that

reported security information (12 of 1,510

facilities [1%] did not report).

The Juvenile Residential

Facility Census asks facilities

about their confinement

features

Are any young persons in this facili-

ty locked in their sleeping rooms by

staff at any time to confine them?

Does the facility have any of the fol-

lowing features intended to confine

young persons within specific areas?

Q Doors for secure day rooms that

are locked by staff to confine

young persons within specific

areas?

Q Wing, floor, corridor, or other in-

ternal security doors that are

locked by staff to confine young

persons within specific areas?

Q Outside doors that are locked

by staff to confine young per-

sons within specific buildings?

Q External gates in fences or walls

without razor wire that are

locked by staff to confine young

persons?

Q External gates in fences or walls

with razor wire that are locked

by staff to contain young per-

sons?

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

198

Facility crowding affected a relatively small proportion of

youth in residential placement

Few youth were in facilities with

more residents than standard

beds

Facilities reported both the number of

standard beds and the number of

makeshift beds they had on the census

date. Occupancy rates provide the

broadest assessment of the adequacy of

living space. Although occupancy rate

standards have not been established, as

a facility’s occupancy passes 100%, op-

erational functioning may be com-

prised.

Crowding occurs when the number of

residents occupying all or part of a fa-

cility exceeds some predetermined limit

based on square footage, utility use, or

even fire codes. Although it is an im-

perfect measure of crowding, compar-

ing the number of residents to the

number of standard beds gives a sense

of the crowding problem in a facility.

Even without relying on makeshift

beds, a facility may be crowded. For

example, using standard beds in an in-

firmary for youth who are not sick or

beds in seclusion for youth who have

not committed infractions may indicate

crowding problems.

In 2018, 1% of facilities reported being

over capacity (having fewer standard

beds than they had residents or relying

on makeshift beds). These facilities

held 1% of youth. In comparison, 8%

of facilities in 2000 reported being

over capacity and they held 20% of

youth.

In 2018, only public facilities

reported operating above capacity

No privately operated facilities exceed-

ed standard bed capacity or had resi-

dents occupying makeshift beds on the

2018 census date. For publicly operat-

ed facilities, the proportion was 1%. In

contrast, a larger proportion of private

facilities (25%) compared with public

facilities (12%) said they were operat-

ing at 100% capacity.

Percent of facilities under, at, or over their

standard bed capacity, 2019:

Facility

operation <100% 100% >100%

Total 82% 17% 1%

Public 87 12 1

State 81 17 2

Local 90 9 1

Private 75 25 0

In 2000, 257 facilities from 41 states were over capacity; by 2018, just 11 facilities in 9 states were over

Number of

facilities

Percent of

facilities over

capacity

Percent of youth

in over capacity

facilities

Number of

facilities

Percent of

facilities over

capacity

Percent of youth

in over capacity

facilities

State

2000 2018

2000

2018

2000

2018

State

2000 2018

2000

2018

2000

2018

U.S. total 3,047 1,510 8% 1% 20% 1% Missouri 65 50 9% 2% 16% 2%

Alabama 46 38 7 0 11 0 Montana 18 13 6 0 8 0

Alaska 19 18 5 6 6 5 Nebraska 22 11 14 0 40 0

Arizona 51 17 12 0 16 0 Nevada 15 11 27 9 39 3

Arkansas 45 24 0 0 0 0

New Hampshire

83 0* 0*

California 285 104 9 0 21 0 New Jersey 57 24 14 0 24 0

Colorado 72 21 8 5 30 18 New Mexico 27 16 15 0 44 0

Connecticut 25 3 4 * 6 * New York 210 75 5 0 22 0

Delaware 7 8 29 0 59 0 North Carolina 67 27 12 0 22 0

Dist. of Columbia

17 5 0 0 0 0 North Dakota 13 7 0 0 0 0

Florida 166 62 10 2 23 1 Ohio 106 67 15 1 15 5

Georgia 50 30 28 0 25 0 Oklahoma 52 25 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 7 3 14 * 66 * Oregon 48 33 13 0 23 0

Idaho 22 17 14 0 25 0 Pennsylvania 163 94 5 0 5 0

Illinois 46 28 7 4 4 6 Rhode Island 11 9 9 0 58 0

Indiana 97 62 11 0 34 0 South Carolina 42 17 10 0 15 0

Iowa 76 33 0 0 0 0 South Dakota 22 14 0 7 0 28

Kansas 51 20 4 0 25 0 Tennessee 63 20 3 0 3 0

Kentucky 58 29 2 0 4 0 Texas 138 86 16 0 38 0

Louisiana 64 30 5 0 3 0 Utah 51 25 14 0 15 0

Maine 17 1 0 * 0 * Vermont 5 2 0 * 0 *

Maryland 43 24 7 0 13 0 Virginia 74 38 22 0 32 0

Massachusetts 71 36 8 0 14 0 Washington 42 31 7 0 24 0

Michigan 107 46 7 0 5 0 West Virginia 27 46 22 7 31 11

Minnesota 121 39 4 0 17 0 Wisconsin 94 40 1 0 22 0

Mississippi 20 16 5 0 4 0 Wyoming 24 12 0 0 0 0

*To protect the identity of specific facilities, no detail is displayed if the total number of facilities is greater than 0 and less than 5.

Notes: A single bed is counted as one standard bed, and a bunk bed is counted as two standard beds. Makeshift beds (e.g., cots, roll-out beds, mat-

tresses, and sofas) are not counted as standard beds. Facilities are counted as over capacity if they reported more residents than standard beds or if they

reported any occupied makeshift beds. “State” is the state where the facility is located. Youth sent to out-of-state facilities are counted in the state where

the facility is located, not the state where they committed their offense.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Juvenile Residential Facility Census

for 2000 and 2018 [data files].

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

199

Most facilities evaluate youth for educational, substance

abuse, and mental health service needs

The JRFC asked facilities about

procedures regarding educational,

substance abuse, and mental

health screening

As part of the information collection

on educational, substance abuse, and

mental health services, the JRFC ques-

tionnaire asked facilities which youth

are screened for services and when this

screening takes place. Additionally, fa-

cilities are also asked to provide infor-

mation about services they provide

youth.

Most reporting facilities indicated they

screened at least some youth for service

needs. However, the proportion of fa-

cilities that screen all youth for educa-

tion, substance abuse, and mental

health service needs increased between

2000 and 2018.

Compared with other services, screen-

ing for substance abuse needs was least

likely to occur among facilities in both

2000 and 2018. Despite this, 87% of

reporting facilities indicated they

screened all or some youth for sub-

stance abuse needs in 2018.

Most reporting facilities screened

youth for service needs within one

week of admission. In 2018, 99% of fa-

cilities screened youth within one week

for suicide risk, 96% for education

needs, 92% for substance abuse needs,

and 77% for mental health needs. The

proportion of facilities that screened

youth for suicide risk within the first

24 hours increased from 69% in 2000

to 92% in 2018.

2000 2018 2000 2018 2000 2018 2000 2018

All youth

Some youth No youth

Education

Substance abuse

Mental health

Suicide risk

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of facilities (of those that reported evaluating)

The proportion of facilities that screened all youth for service needs

increased between 2000 and 2018

Q Screening all youth for service needs varied by service need in 2018; 88% of re-

porting facilities screened all youth for educational needs, 75% screened all youth

for substance abuse needs, 63% screened all youth for mental health needs, and

95% screened all youth for suicide risk.

Q The practice of screening all youth increased the most for suicide risk screening

between 2000 and 2018—up 33 percentage points from 61% in 2000.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the OJJDP’s

Juvenile Residential Facility Census

for 2000 and 2018 [data

files].

2000 2018 2000 2018 2000 2018 2000 2018

Education

Substance abuse

Mental health

Suicide risk

84%

96%

78%

92%

63%

77%

81%

99%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of facilities that reported within 1 week (of those that reported evaluating)

The majority of facilities reported screening youth within one week of

admission

Q With the exception of mental health screening, more than 9 in 10 facilities screened

youth for services within the first week of admission in 2018.

Q Screening within the first week of admission increased across all service needs be-

tween 2000 and 2018.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the OJJDP’s

Juvenile Residential Facility Census

for 2000 and 2018 [data

files].

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

200

Most youth were evaluated for educational needs and

attended school while held in facilities

Facilities that screened all youth

for educational needs held 89% of

youth in placement

Since 2000, there has been an increase

in the proportion of facilities that re-

ported evaluating all youth for grade

level and educational needs. For exam-

ple, in 2018, 88% of reporting facilities

said they screened all youth for educa-

tional needs, up from 78% in 2000. An

additional 4% of facilities in 2018 eval-

uated some youth and only 8% did not

evaluate any youth for educational

needs.

Of the 73 facilities in 2018 that

screened some but not all youth, 71%

evaluated youth whom staff identified

as needing an assessment, 34% evaluat-

ed youth with known educational

problems, 50% evaluated youth for

whom no educational record was avail-

able, and 11% evaluated youth who

came directly from home rather than

another facility. In addition, 28% re-

ported evaluating youth based on some

“other” reason.

In 2018, those facilities that screened

all youth held 89% of youth charged

with or adjudicated for an offense. An

additional 3% of such youth in 2018

were in facilities that screened some

youth.

Procedures for evaluating youth

changed little between 2000 and 2018.

In 2018, the vast majority of facilities

(93%) that screened some or all youth

for grade level and educational needs

used previous academic records. Some

facilities also administered written tests

(60%), or conducted an education-re-

lated interview with an education spe-

cialist (60%), intake counselor (37%),

or guidance counselor (27%).

Most facilities reported that youth

in their facility attended school

Ninety-five percent (95%) of facilities

reported that at least some youth in

their facility attended school either in-

side or outside the facility. Facilities re-

porting that all youth attended school

(76% of facilities) accounted for 76% of

the youth population in residential

placement. Reception/diagnostic cen-

ters were the least likely to report that

all youth attended school (59%), while

ranch/wilderness camps were the most

likely to report that no youth attended

school (11%).

Facilities offered a variety of

educational services

Ninety-four percent (94%) of all facili-

ties provided high school-level educa-

tion, and 89% provided middle school-

level education. Most facilities also

reported offering special education ser-

vices (83%) and GED preparation

(71%). A much smaller percentage of

facilities provided vocational or techni-

cal education (41%) and post-high

school education (38%).

Local facilities were more likely than state or privately operated

facilities to report that all youth attended school

Percent of facilities

Facility characteristic Total All youth Some youth No youth

Facility operation

State 100% 76% 21% 3%

Local 100 80 17 3

Private 100 73 18 9

Facility type

Detention center 100 82 15 3

Shelter 100 77 22 2

Reception/diagnostic center 100 59 32 8

Group home 100 63 29 8

Ranch/wilderness camp 100 67 22 11

Training school 100 77 23 1

Residential treatment center 100 76 16 8

Facility size

Small (20 or fewer residents) 100 75 19 6

Medium (21–100 residents) 100 79 16 4

Large (>100 residents) 100 66 28 6

Q Reception/diagnostic centers were the least likely to report that all youth at-

tended school (59%), while ranch/wilderness camps were the most likely to re-

port that no youth attended school.

Q Medium facilities with 21 to 100 residents were more likely to report that all

youth attended school (79%), while large facilities with more than 100 residents

were least likely (66%) to have all youth attend school.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2018

[data file].

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

201

Substance abuse screening and drug testing were common

procedures at juvenile residential facilities

Facilities that screened all youth

held 76% of youth in placement

In 2018, 75% of facilities that reported

information about substance abuse

evaluation said that they evaluated all

youth (up from 59% in 2000), 12%

said that they evaluated some youth,

and 13% did not evaluate any youth.

Of the 174 facilities that evaluated

some but not all youth in 2018, 86%

evaluated youth that the court or a

probation officer identified as poten-

tially having substance abuse problems,

66% evaluated youth that facility staff

identified as potentially have a sub-

stance abuse problem, and 60% evalu-

ated youth charged with or adjudicated

for a drug- or alcohol-related offense.

Those facilities that screened all youth

held 76% of youth in placement, up

from 64% in 2000. An additional 12%

of youth were in facilities that screened

some youth.

The most common form of

substance abuse evaluation was

staff-administered questions

Methods for evaluating youth for sub-

stance abuse needs changed very little

since 2000. In 2018, the majority of

facilities (78%) that evaluated some or

all youth for substance abuse problems

had staff administer a series of ques-

tions about substance use and abuse,

66% visually observed youth to evalu-

ate them, 55% used a self-report check-

list inventory that asks about substance

use and abuse to evaluate youth, and

41% used a standardized self-report in-

strument, such as the Substance Abuse

Subtle Screening Inventory.

Drug testing practices have

changed somewhat since 2000

While drug testing was a routine prac-

tice in both 2000 and 2018, the pro-

portion of facilities that reported that

they required youth to provide a urine

sample to test for drug use was slightly

lower in 2018 than in 2000 (72% and

69%, respectively), However it was

more common for facilities to require a

urine sample when youth entered and

re-entered the facility in 2018 than in

2000. The practice of randomly screen-

ing youth for drug use decreased be-

tween the two years.

In 2018, substance abuse

education was the most common

service provided at facilities

Of the facilities holding more than 100

residents that reported providing sub-

stance abuse services, all of them pro-

vided substance abuse education and

were more likely than smaller facilities

to have special living units in which all

young persons have substance abuse

offenses and/or problems.

The majority of facilities that provided

counseling or therapy were more likely

to provide those services on an individ-

ual basis. In 2018, detention centers,

shelters and group homes were most

likely to provide individual counseling

and all training schools provided indi-

vidual therapy.

Ranch/wilderness camps were the

most likely to provide group counsel-

ing and 95% of training schools report-

ed providing group therapy. Across fa-

cility types, family counseling or

therapy was the least likely substance

abuse service provided; half of all facili-

ties provided family therapy and less

than half provided family counseling.

Drug testing was a routine procedure in most facilities

Percent of facilities

Circumstances of testing 2000 2018

All youth

After initial arrival 18% 31%

At each reentry 15 26

Randomly 31 29

When drug use is suspected 51 51

At the request of the court or probation officer 51 68

Youth suspected of recent drug/alcohol use

After initial arrival 28 37

At each reentry 21 24

Randomly 40 31

When drug use is suspected or drug is present 65 55

At the request of the court or probation officer 70 69

Youth with substance abuse problems

After initial arrival 22 27

At each reentry 19 23

Randomly 42 31

When drug use is suspected or drug is present 59 50

At the request of the court or probation officer 67 66

Q In both 2000 and 2018, of facilities that reported testing all or some youth, the

most common reason for testing was a request from the court or the probation

officer.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Juvenile Residential Facility Census

for 2000 and 2018 [data

files].

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

202

Most facilities evaluated all youth for mental health needs

and provided therapy

Facilities that screened all youth

for mental health needs held 64%

of youth

Among facilities that responded to

mental health evaluation questions in

2018, 70% reported they evaluated all

youth for mental health needs using an

in-house mental health professional; up

from 58% in 2000. These facilities held

64% of youth charged with or adjudi-

cated for an offense on the census

date, up from 43% in 2000. Facilities

that reported using an in-house mental

professional to evaluate some youth

(30%) held 25% of youth.

In 2018, a greater proportion of pri-

vately operated than publicly operated

facilities said that in-house mental

health professionals evaluated all youth

(88% vs. 59% of facilities reporting

mental health evaluation information).

However, in a greater proportion of

public facilities than private facilities

(41% vs. 12%), in-house mental health

professionals evaluated some youth.

Profile of in-house mental health evalua-

tion by health professional, 2019:

Youth evaluated Public Private

Total reporting facilities 774 428

All reporting facilities 100% 100%

All youth screened 59 88

Some youth screened 41 12

Facilities also indicated whether treat-

ment was provided onsite. Facilities

that said they provided mental health

treatment inside the facility were likely

to have had all youth evaluated by an

in-house mental health professional.

Facilities that did not provide onsite

mental health treatment were more

likely to have had some youth evaluat-

ed by an in-house health professional.

Profile of onsite mental health treatment

availability, 2019:

Youth evaluated Yes No

Total reporting facilities 1,077 125

All reporting facilities 100% 100%

All youth screened 74 30

Some youth screened 26 70

Individual therapy was the most common therapy provided at all

reporting facilities

Total

facilities

Facilities

reporting

therapy

Percent of facilities

Facility type Individual Group Family

Total 1,510 1,120 98% 75% 66%

Detention center 625 468 97 57 43

Shelter 116 72 100 79 72

Reception/diagnostic center 37 30 100 90 90

Group home 240 114 97 81 75

Ranch/wilderness camp 27 18 100 72 67

Training school 164 159 96 89 72

Residential treatment center 553 466 100 89 89

Q Facilities were more likely to provide individual therapy than group or family

therapy in 2018.

Q Of all reporting facilities, 100% of shelters, reception/diagnostic centers, ranch/

wilderness camps, and residential treatment centers provided individual therapy.

Q Reception diagnostic centers and residential treatment centers were more likely

than other facilities to provide group and family therapy.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2018

[data file].

Individual therapy was a common practice regardless of facility size

Total

facilities

Facilities

reporting

therapy

Percent of facilities

Facility size Individual Group Family

Total 1,510 1,122 98% 75% 66%

Small (20 or fewer residents) 857 561 98 70 64

Medium (21–100 residents) 585 500 98 78 67

Large (>100 residents) 68 61 98 92 79

Q Large facilities (those holding more than 100 residents) were more likely than

smaller facilities to provide group and family therapy in 2018.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2018

[data file].

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

203

Most youth were held in facilities that evaluate all youth for

suicide risk on their first day

Facilities that screened all youth

for suicide risk held 94% of the

youth in custody

In 2018, 95% of facilities that reported

information on suicide screening said

that they evaluated all youth for suicide

risk, up from 61% in 2000. An addi-

tional 1% said that they evaluated some

youth. Some facilities (4%) said that

they did not evaluate any youth for

suicide risk. In 2018, the overwhelm-

ing majority of youth (94%) were in fa-

cilities that screened all youth for sui-

cide risk.

Some facilities used trained

counselors or professional mental

health staff to conduct suicide

screening

More than half (55%) of facilities that

screened some or all youth for suicide

risk reported that mental health profes-

sionals with at least a master’s degree

in psychology or social work conduct-

ed the screenings. More than one-third

(37%) used neither mental health pro-

fessionals nor counselors whom a men-

tal health professional had trained to

conduct suicide screenings.

Facilities reported on the screening

methods used to determine suicide

risk. Facilities could choose more than

one method. Of facilities that conduct-

ed suicide risk screening, a majority

(77%) reported that they incorporated

one or more questions about suicide in

the medical history or intake process to

screen youth, 39% used a form their fa-

cility designed, and 25% used a form or

questions that a county or state juve-

nile justice system designed to assess

suicide risk. Half of facilities (51%) re-

ported using the Massachusetts Youth

Screening Instrument (MAYSI)—41%

reported using the MAYSI full form,

and 9% used the MAYSI suicide/de-

pression module. Very few facilities

(less than 1%) used the Voice Diagnos-

tic Interview Schedule for Children.

Of facilities that reported screening

youth for suicide risk, 90% reassessed

youth at some point during their stay.

Most facilities (88%) reported rescreen-

ing on a case-by-case basis or as neces-

sary. An additional 40% of facilities also

reported that rescreening occurred sys-

tematically and was based on a variety

of factors (e.g., length of stay, facility

events, or negative life events). Less

than 1% of facilities did not reassess

youth to determine suicide risk.

All facilities used some type of

preventive measure once they

determined a youth was at risk for

suicide

Facilities that reported suicide screen-

ing information were asked a series of

questions related to preventive mea-

sures taken for youth determined to be

at risk for suicide. Of these facilities

63% reported placing at-risk youth in

sleeping or observation rooms that are

locked or under staff security. Aside

from using sleeping or observation

rooms, 85% of facilities reported using

line-of-sight supervision, 88% reported

removing personal items that could be

used to attempt suicide, and 75% re-

ported using one-on-one or arm’s

length supervision. Half of facilities

(50%) reported using special clothing

to prevent suicide attempts, and 29%

reported removing the youth from the

general population. Twenty percent

(20%) of facilities used special clothing

to identify youth at risk for suicide,

and 19% of facilities used restraints to

prevent suicide attempts.

All youth All youth within 24 hours

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

72%

99%

60%

92%

2000

2018

Percent of facilities (of those that reported evaluating suicide risk)

Compared with 2000, facilities in 2018 were more likely to report

screening all youth for suicide risk on the youth’s first day at the facility

Q Nearly all facilities (99%) that reported screening for suicide risk in 2018 said they

screened all youth, up from 72% in 2000.

Q In 2018, a large portion (92%) said they screened al youth on their first day at the

facility, up from 60% in 2000. These facilities accounted for 93% of youth charged

with or adjudicated for an offense held in facilities that conducted suicide screen-

ings in 2018, up from 74% in 2000.

Q An additional 6% of facilities in 2018 said they screened all youth by the end of the

first week of the youth’s stay at the facility.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the OJJDP’s

Juvenile Residential Facility Census

for 2000 and 2018 [data

files].

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

204

Facility reported eight deaths of youth in placement over 12

months—six were suicides

Youth in residential placement

rarely died in custody

Juvenile residential facilities reported

that eight youth died while in the legal

custody of the facility between October

1, 2017 and September 30, 2018.

Routine collection of national data on

deaths of youth in residential place-

ment began with the 1988-1989 Chil-

dren in Custody (CIC) Census of Pub-

lic and Private Juvenile Detention,

Correctional and Shelter Facilities. Ac-

cidents or suicides have usually been

the leading cause of death. Over the

years 1988–1994 (CIC data reporting

years), an average of 46 deaths were

reported nationally per year, including

an annual average of 18 suicides. Over

the years 2000–2018 (JRFC data re-

porting years), those averages dropped

to 16 deaths overall and 6 suicides.

Residential treatment centers reported

three of the eight deaths in 2018—one

accidental death, one suicide, and one

resulting from an illness/natural cause.

Detention centers and training schools

accounted for two deaths each as the

result of suicides. Shelters accounted

for one of the eight deaths—a suicide.

There is no pattern in the timing of

deaths in 2018

In 2018, the timing of death varied

between 6 and 204 days after admis-

sion. Two suicides occurred about 1

week (6 days and 8 days) after admis-

sion; another occurred within 23 days.

The remaining suicides occurred 4, 6,

and 7 months after admission. One

death as a result of an illness occurred

1 month after admission. The remain-

ing death, an accident, occurred ap-

proximately 4 months (122 days) after

admission.

During the 12 months prior to the 2018 census, suicides were the

most commonly reported cause of death in residential placement

Cause

of death

Total

deaths

Deaths inside the facility Deaths outside the facility

All Public Private All Public Private

Total 8 5 2 3 3 2 1

Suicide 6 4 2 2 2 2 0

Illness/natural 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

Accident 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

Q In 2018, an equal number of deaths occurred at private facilities and public fa-

cilities—four each.

Notes: Deaths are reported deaths of youth in custody from October 1, 2017, through September

30, 2018. None of the deaths from illness were AIDS related.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2018

[data file].

In 2018, the death rate was higher for private facilities than for

public facilities

Characteristic

Deaths per 100,000 youth held on

the census date, October 24, 2018

Total Public facility Private facility

Cause of death

Total 2.1 1.5 4.0

Suicide 1.6 1.5 2.0

Illness/natural 0.3 0.0 1.0

Accident 0.3 0.0 1.0

Type of facility

Detention center 1.1 1.2 0.0

Shelter 9.7 0.0 15.8

Training school 2.0 2.4 0.0

Residential training center 2.1 0.0 3.9

Q The death rate in 2018 (2.1) was lower than that in 2000 (2.8). Of the 30 report-

ed deaths of youth in residential placement in 2000, accidents were the most

commonly reported cause. In 2018, suicides were most common.

Notes: Deaths are reported deaths of youth in custody from October 1, 2017, through September

30, 2018. None of the deaths from illness were AIDS related. One death was reported in a private-

ly operated shelter, but the relatively small size of the population of youth held in such facilities in

2018 (approximately 630 youth) results in a high death rate.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2018

[data file].

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

205

Youth in residential placement are

at less risk of death than youth in

general

There is concern about the risk of

death to youth in residential placement

and whether that risk is greater than

the risk faced by youth in the general

population. Death rates for the general

population (detailed by age, sex, race,

ethnicity, and cause of death) can be

applied to the population of youth in

residential placement facilities to calcu-

late the number of deaths that would

be expected if the residential placement

population had the same rate of death

as the general youth population.

The number of deaths reported at ju-

venile residential facilities has decreased

from 30 in 2000 to 8 in 2018. Histori-

cally, the actual number of deaths re-

ported to JRFC were lower than the

expected number of deaths, however

this varied by cause of death.

For all years between 2000 and 2018,

the number of homicides and uninten-

tional deaths reported at facilities was

lower than the number of expected

deaths. For suicides however, the num-

ber of actual deaths reported at facili-

ties outnumbered the number of ex-

pected deaths in several years, most

notably in 2004 where the actual num-

ber of suicides was nearly three times

the expected number of suicides. As

the occurrence of suicide in facilities

has decreased since the early 2000s,

the gap between the number of actual

and expected deaths has narrowed.

For each year between 2000 and 2018,

youth at residential facilities were less

likely to die as a result of a homicide

than from an unintended/accidental

death or suicide. For most years during

the same period, unintended/acciden-

tal deaths were the leading cause of

death among youth in facilities.

Overall, the number of expected deaths exceeded the actual number of deaths reported by juvenile

residential placement facilities each year since 2000

All deaths Suicide Homicide Accident

Year Expected Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual

2000 56 30 8 7 19 4 29 19

2002 50 26 6 10 16 2 28 14

2004 45 27 6 16 14 2 24 9

2006 46 15 5 4 18 0 22 11

2008 37 14 5 6 14 1 16 7

2010 29 11 4 5 11 0 12 6

2012 22 14 4 5 9 2 9 7

2014 19 8 3 5 7 1 8 2

2016 20 6 3 1 8 0 8 5

2018 15 8 3 6 6 0 6 2

Q Deaths by suicide were a notable exception to the overall pattern. The actual number of suicide deaths report-

ed by facilities exceeded the expected number in all but 3 years (2000, 2006, and 2016).

Notes: Deaths are reported deaths of youth in custody from October 1 of the year before the census through September 30 of the year

of the JRFC reference date.

Source: Authors’ analysis of OJJDP’s

Juvenile Residential Facility Census

for 2000 through 2018 [data files].

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

206

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census includes data

submitted by tribal facilities

Tribal facilities responding to the

JRFC tend to be small detention

centers owned and operated by

tribes

OJJDP works with the Bureau of Indi-

an Affairs to ensure a greater represen-

tation of tribal facilities in the CJRP

and JRFC data collections. As a result,

the 2018 JRFC collected data from 16

tribal facilities. The tribal facilities were

in Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Min-

nesota, Mississippi, Montana, North

Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota

and held 116 youth charged with or

adjudicated for an offense (up from

113 in 2016, when 14 facilities report-

ed).

Tribal facilities were asked what agency

owned and/or operated their facilities.

The tribes owned and operated 11 of

the 16 facilities. The remaining five fa-

cilities were either owned by the tribe

and operated by the federal govern-

ment or owned by the federal govern-

ment and operated by the tribe.

Compared with the nation’s reporting

about juvenile residential facilities, trib-

al facilities are small, most holding 20

or fewer residents. The majority (79%)

of youth charged with or adjudicated

for an offense were held at facilities

that held between 1 and 20 residents.

Each tribal facility identified itself as a

detention center, and one also identi-

fied itself as a training school.

Most tribal facilities were

operating under capacity

On the census day, almost all facilities

(14) were operating at less than their

standard bed capacity, and the remain-

ing 2 facilities were operating at capaci-

ty. Standard bed capacities ranged from

6 to 196; only 2 facilities had more

than 100 standard beds. This pattern

was similar for all census years prior to

2018.

The use of mechanical restraints

or locking youth in isolation rooms

is uncommon in tribal facilities

In all census years, most, if not all, re-

porting tribal facilities said they lock

youth in their rooms. Fifteen of the 16

tribal facilities reported locking youth

in their sleeping rooms in 2018.

Among tribal facilities that locked

youth in their rooms, 14 did so when

the youth were out of control. Thir-

teen facilities locked youth in their

rooms at night, 10 facilities locked

youth in rooms during shift changes,

and 8 locked youth in their rooms

whenever the youth were in their

rooms. Eight facilities locked youth in

their rooms when youth were suicidal,

and three facilities locked youth in

their rooms for part of each day. One

facility stated there was no set schedule

for locking youth in rooms.

In each JRFC collection, only a few

tribal facilities reported using either

mechanical restraints or isolation. In

2018, mechanical restraints was report-

ed by 5 of 16 tribal facilities, and 4 fa-

cilities reported locking youth alone

for more than 4 hours to regain con-

trol of unruly behavior.

Tribal facilities provide a range of

services

Fifteen of the 16 tribal facilities said

that mental health evaluations (other

than suicide risk assessments) were

provided to youth in their facilities.

Two tribal facilities reported evaluating

all youth and 13 facilities evaluated

some youth. Five facilities said that

evaluations were conducted only at an

outside location. Thirteen facilities re-

ported providing ongoing therapy ei-

ther onsite or at another location.

Of the 16 tribal facilities, all reported

assessing youth for suicide risk. Each

facility reported screening all youth

within the first 24 hours of their arrival

to the facility. Most (14) facilities said

they reassessed youth for suicide risk at

some point during the youth’s stay at

the facility; 9 reassessed youth as neces-

sary on a case-by-case basis, and 8 reas-

sessed systematically based on the

youth’s length of stay or after certain

facility events or negative life events

(such as after each court appearance,

every time the young person re-enters

the facility, or after a death in the fami-

ly).

Most (13) of the 16 facilities screening

for suicide risk used untrained staff for

those screenings, but trained screeners

were also used; 9 facilities said mental

health professionals conducted suicide

screenings, and 3 said screenings were

done by staff that were trained by a

mental health professional. All 16 facil-

ities said they took preventative mea-

sures to reduce suicide risk.

Most (10) tribal facilities said they

evaluated youth for substance abuse; 5

of those 10 said they evaluated all

youth. Five facilities said they require

youth to provide urine samples for

drug analysis. Eight of the facilities

that evaluated for substance abuse pro-

vided substance abuse services either

inside or outside the facility.

Of 13 facilities reporting education in-

formation, 11 said that all youth were

evaluated for educational needs and 2

facilities reported that some youth

were evaluated. Twelve facilities con-

ducted evaluations within one week of

the youth’s arrival at the facility. All 13

reporting tribal facilities reported that

youth attended school either inside or

outside the facility; in 11 facilities, all

youth attended school.

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

207

In 2018, 1 in 14 adjudicated youth in state-owned or state-

operated facilities reported sexual victimization

BJS surveys provide estimates of

sexual victimization in state

juvenile facilities and in private or

local facilities under state contract

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of

2003 (PREA) requires the Bureau of

Justice Statistics (BJS) to report the in-

cidence and prevalence of sexual vio-

lence in adult and juvenile correctional

facilities. In response, BJS developed

the National Survey of Youth in Cus-

tody (NSYC). To date, three waves of

the NSYC have been administered:

2008–2009 (NSYC-1), 2012 (NSYC-

2), and 2018 (NSYC-3).

The NSYC is based on interviews of

adjudicated youth in state-owned or

state-operated juvenile facilities and lo-

cally or privately operated facilities that

hold adjudicated youth under state

contract. The surveys included only fa-

cilities that hold adjudicated youth for

at least 90 days, with more than 25%

of residents adjudicated, and with at

least 10 adjudicated youth. Youth in-

terviews are conducted via audio com-

puter-assisted self-interview methodol-

ogy. The reference period for the

NSYC is the past 12 months, or since

the date of admission for youth who

had been in the facility less than 12

months.

The 2018 NSYC administered the sex-

ual victimization survey to a national

sample of 6,049 youth in 327 eligible

facilities, representing 12,750 adjudi-

cated youth held nationwide. Compar-

atively, the 2012 NSYC sexual victim-

ization survey was administered to

8,707 youth in 326 eligible facilities,

representing 18,140 adjudicated youth

nationwide.*

Sexual victimization declined

significantly between 2012 and

2018

The overall rate of sexual victimization

reported by adjudicated youth in juve-

nile facilities decreased from 9.5% in

2012 to 7.1% in 2018, as did the rate

of youth-on-youth victimization (from

2.5% to 1.9%) and staff sexual miscon-

duct (from 7.7% to 5.8%). Between the

2012 and 2018 NSYC collections, the

estimated number of youth reporting

sexual victimization fell 48%, from

1,720 to 900 victims.

In both 2012 and 2018, more than

80% of sexually victimized youth re-

ported events that NSYC defines as

staff sexual misconduct (5.8% of 7.1%

in 2018 and 7.7% of 9.5% in 2012).

More than 60% of these youth victims

of staff sexual misconduct described

events that did not involve any report-

ed force or coercion. It is worth noting

that, among youth victims of staff sex-

ual misconduct, the proportion of vic-

tims reporting force or coercion fell

from 45% in 2012 to 36% in 2018.

The majority of sexually victimized

youth described explicit sexual acts in-

volving the genitalia or anus in both

2012 and 2018.

Among youth reporting youth-on-

youth victimization, 33% of youth vic-

tims indicated they were threatened

with physical harm, 22% reported

being held down or restrained, and

22% indicated they were threatened

with a weapon. Comparatively, among

youth reporting staff sexual miscon-

duct involving pressure or coercion,

13% reported being threatened with

physical harm, 10% reported being

held down or restrained, and 13% re-

ported being threatened with a weap-

on. Nearly one-fourth (24%) of youth-

on-youth victims indicated the event

took place in their rooms, while 36%

reported that the incident took place in

other common areas on facility

grounds, such as the yard/recreation

area, classroom, library, or workshop.

* The 30% drop in the NSYC estimated adju-

dicated youth population in state facilities be-

tween 2012 and 2018 is consistent with the

36% drop in the committed population seen

between 2011 and 2017 in OJJDP’s Census

of Juveniles in Residential Placement data col-

lection.

How BJS measures sexual

victimization in NSYC

As defined in the NSYC, sexual vic-

timization involves any forced or co-

erced sexual activity with another

youth and any sexual activity with

facility staff, regardless of whether

the act was completed. NSYC fur-

ther classifies sexual victimization

into two categories of youth-on-

youth sexual acts and four catego-

ries involving sexual acts between

staff and youth, distinguishing these

categories by use of force and by

the nature of the sexual acts in-

volved.

Force. NSYC defines force broadly,

including physical force, threat of

force, other force or pressure, and

other forms of coercion, such as re-

ceiving money, favors, protection,

or special treatment.

Explicit sexual acts involving geni-

talia or anus. Includes all contact

involving the penis, vagina, or anus,

regardless of penetration.

Other sexual contacts only. In-

cludes kissing, touching (excluding

any touching involving the penis,

vagina, or anus), looking at private

parts, displaying sexual material,

such as pictures or a movie, and

engaging in some other sexual con-

tact that did not include touching.

Youth-on-youth sexual victimiza-

tion. All youth-on-youth sexual vic-

timization must involve some form

of force. NSYC defines two catego-

ries: explicit sexual acts and other

sexual contacts only.

Staff sexual misconduct. Staff-and-

youth sexual activity is divided into

acts that involved force and acts

without force. Each of these cate-

gories is further divided into the na-

ture of the sexual activity involved:

explicit sexual acts and other sexual

contacts only.

Youth and the Juvenile Justice: 2022 National Report

208

For youth victims of staff sexual mis-

conduct, nearly one-third (32%) re-

ported the incident took place in their

room, and 21.5% reported the incident

took place in other common areas on

facility grounds.

Sexual victimization rates differed

by youth characteristics and

experiences

While the overall sexual victimization

rates in 2018 were similar for males

and females (7.1% and 6.6%, respec-

tively), males were much less likely to

report youth-on-youth victimization

than males (1.6% vs. 4.7%). In con-

trast, males were more likely to report

staff sexual misconduct than their fe-

male counterparts (6.1% vs. 2.9%). For

Changes to the sample

between NSYC-2 and NSYC-3

The total number of state-owned

and -operated juvenile residential

facilities and the number of youth

being held in them declined be-

tween administration of the 2012

NSYC-2 and the 2018 NSYC-3,

while the number of locally or pri-

vately owned contract facilities in-

creased. As a result of this change,

the 2018 NSYC-3 sample included

a larger number of locally or pri-

vately operated contract facilities

than the 2012 NSYC-2.

To assess the impact of the differ-

ences between the 2012 and 2018

samples, BJS analyzed data from

states with contract facilities that

were sampled in both data collec-

tions. Their analysis showed that

the overall rate of sexual victimiza-

tion reported by youth had declined

from an estimated 9.5% in 2012 to

7.2% in 2018. Comparatively, the

estimated rate of sexual victimiza-

tion using the full 2018 sample (i.e.,

not limited to the same contract fa-

cilities included in 2012) was 7.1%,

suggesting that the sample design

had little impact on the overall esti-

mate of sexual victimization of

youth in juvenile confinement facili-

ties. Similarly small differences were

found between 2012 and 2018 esti-

mates for youth-on-youth and staff

sexual misconduct. As such, 2018

estimates are based on state-

owned and -operated juvenile resi-

dential facilities, and the full com-

plement of contract facilities

included in the 2018 sample.

both male and female victims, the ma-

jority of staff sexual misconduct report-

ed by youth involved sexual acts, that

is, sexual activity that involved touch-

ing or penetrating of sexual body parts.

Although the overall sexual victimiza-

tion rate was greatest for 16-year-olds,

differences between age groups were

not significant. This pattern was repli-

cated among victims of staff sexual

misconduct and youth-on-youth vic-

timization—the lone exception being

that 17-year-olds were more likely than

youth age 18 or older to report youth-

on-youth victimization.

Overall, White youth were more likely

to report youth-on-youth and staff sex-

ual misconduct than Hispanic youth,

Between 2012 and 2018, the proportion of youth reporting sexual

victimization declined

Percent of youth reporting

sexual victimization*

Type of incident 2018 2012

Total sexual victimization 7.1%** 9.5%

Youth-on-youth sexual victimization 1.9** 2.5

Forced or coerced sexual acts 1.2 1.7

Other forced or coerced sexual activity 0.5 0.6

Unknown type of forced or coerced

sexual activity 0.2 0.3

Staff sexual misconduct 5.8** 7.7

Forced or coerced reported 2.1** 3.5

Sexual acts 1.8** 3.1

Other sexual activity 0.2 0.2

Unknown type of sexual activity 0.1 0.2

No report of force or coercion 3.9 4.7

Sexual acts 3.6 4.3

Other sexual activity 0.3 0.4

Estimated number of adjudicated youth 12,750 18,140

Estimated number reporting sexual victimization 900 1,720

* Reporting period is in the past 12 months, or since admission to the facility if the youth had been

in the facility less than 12 months.

** Difference with the 2012 group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

Note: Details do not sum to the total because of rounding and because a small proportion of youth

in both years reported more than one type of victimization.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Smith and Stroop’s

Sexual Victimization Reported by Youth in Juve-

nile Facilities, 2018

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

209

and more likely than Black youth to re-

port youth-on-youth victimization. In

fact, rates for White youth were about

twice the rates of Hispanic and Black

youth for both types of sexual victim-

ization.

Youth-on-youth victimization

varied according to sexual

orientation and gender identity

Overall, youth who described their sex-

ual orientation as non-heterosexual

were nearly twice as likely to report

sexual victimization as youth who de-

scribed themselves as heterosexual

(12.0% vs. 6.5%); for youth-on-youth

victimization, rate differences were

more substantial (8.4% vs. 1.1%). Simi-

larly, youth who described their gender

identity as different from their gender

recorded at birth were nearly 3 times

more likely (19.1% vs. 6.8%) to report

any sexual victimization and nearly 9

times more likely (14.3% vs. 1.6%) to

report youth-on-youth victimization

than their peers who identify as the

same gender as recorded at birth.

The NSYC also found that youth who

reported sexual victimization in the

past were more likely to be victims in

their current facility. For example

among youth who had experienced

prior sexual victimization in another fa-

cility, more than half (51.0%) reported

sexual victimization in 2018, and

among youth who had experienced no

prior victimization, 5.9% reported sex-

ual victimization in 2018. Sexual vic-

timization was also related to a youth’s

time in the facility, with longer expo-

sure times associated with higher vic-

timization rates. This pattern was true

both for youth-on-youth victimizations

(3.1% for youth in the facility a year or

more vs. 1.2% for youth in the facility

less than 6 months) and for incidents

of staff sexual misconduct (9.3% for

youth in the facility a year or more vs.

4.1% for youth in the facility less than

6 months).

Sexual victimization rates were related to youth characteristics,

particularly gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity

Percent of youth reporting

Victim demographic

Any sexual

victimization

Youth-on-

youth

victimization

Staff sexual

misconduct

Gender

Male* 7.1% 1.6% 6.1%

Female 6.6 4.7** 2.9**

Age

14 or younger 4.4 2.3 3.2

15 5.9 1.6 4.8

16 8.2 2.4 6.8

17 7.3 2.4** 5.7

18 or older* 7.1 1.3 6.1

Race/ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic* 8.5 3.1 6.3

Black, non-Hispanic 7.3 1.2** 6.7

Hispanic 4.1** 1.0** 3.2**

Other, non-Hispanic 4.7 1.9 3.8

Two or more, non-Hispanic 6.8 2.4 4.0

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual* 6.5 1.1 5.9

Lesbian/gay/bisexual/something

else 12.0** 8.4** 5.5

Not sure 6.2 5.0** 4.7

Gender identity

Same as gender recorded at birth* 6.8 1.6 5.7

Different from gender recorded at birth 19.1** 14.3** 8.1

Not sure 26.8** 19.3** 10.8

Time in current facility

Less than 6 months 4.9** 1.2** 4.1**

6–11 months 8.3 2.4 6.6

12 months or more* 11.3 3.1 9.3

Sexual victimization in lifetime prior to

entering current facility

Prior sexual victimization in another

facility 51.0** 33.2** 30.3**

Prior sexual victimization but not in

another facility 8.7** 3.6** 5.5

No prior sexual victimization* 5.9 1.0 5.3

* Comparison groups.

** Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

Notes: Youth-on-youth victimization and staff sexual misconduct may not sum to any sexual vic-

timization because some youth reported both types of victimization.

Source: Authors’ adaptation of Field and Davis’

Sexual Victimization Reported by Youth in Juvenile

Facilities, 2018 Statistical Tables

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

210

In 2019, the number of youth younger than 18 held in adult

jails reached its lowest level since the early 1990s

Youth younger than 18 accounted

for about 1% of all jail inmates

According to the Bureau of Justice Sta-

tistics, an estimated 2,300 youth

younger than 18 were held in adult

jails on June 30, 1990. The 1-day

count of jail inmates younger than 18

rose to a peak of 9,500 in 1999, de-

clined through 2006, then rose again

through 2010. Since 2010, the count

fell 62%, reaching a level in 2019

(2,900) that was 69% below the 1999

peak. These youth accounted for about

0.5% of the total jail population in

2019, down from 1% in 2010. Since

1990, inmates younger than 18 have

not exceeded 2% of the jail inmate

population.

The vast majority of jail inmates

younger than 18 continues to be those

held as adults. Youth younger than 18

may be held as adults if they are con-

victed or awaiting trial in criminal

court, either because they were trans-

ferred to criminal court or because

they are in a state that considers all

17-year-olds (or all 16- and 17-year-

olds) as adults for purposes of criminal

prosecution.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act limits the placement of juveniles in adult

facilities

The Act states that “ … juveniles al-

leged to be or found to be delin-

quent,” as well as youth charged with

status offenses and those not ac-

cused of any offense “will not be de-

tained or confined in any institution in

which they have contact with adult

inmates ….” This provision of the Act

is commonly referred to as the “sight

and sound separation requirement.”

Subsequent regulations implementing

the Act clarify this requirement and

provide that brief and inadvertent

contact in nonresidential areas is not

a violation. The Act also states that

“ … no juvenile shall be detained or

confined in any jail or lockup for

adults ….” This provision is known as

the “jail and lockup removal require-

ment.” Regulations exempt youth

who have been convicted in criminal

court from the jail and lockup removal

requirement. Revisions passed in

2018 require that, as of December

21, 2021, unless a court holds a hear-

ing and finds that it is “in the interest

of justice,” youth awaiting trial having

been charged as adults for the pur-

pose of prosecution in criminal court

shall not have sight or sound contact

with adult inmates and may not be

held in an adult jail or lockup. The def-

inition of “adult” in the new statute is

tied to each state’s age of criminal re-

sponsibility and extended age of juris-

diction. There is an exception if a

court holds a hearing and finds that

holding the youth in an adult facility is

“in the interest of justice.” If the court

allows the youth held in jail, a review

hearing must be held every 30 days

with a 180-day maximum.

In institutions other than adult jails or

lockups or in jails and lockups under

temporary hold exceptions, confine-

ment of youth charged with delinquen-

cy offenses is permitted if youth and

adult inmates cannot see each other

and no conversation between them is

possible. This reflects the sight and

sound separation requirement.

Some temporary hold exceptions to

jail and lockup removal include: a

6-hour grace period that allows adult

jails and lockups to hold youth

charged with delinquency offenses in

secure custody until other arrange-

ments can be made (including 6 hours

before and after court appearances)

and a 48-hour exception, exclusive of

weekends and holidays, for rural facili-

ties that meet statutory conditions.

Some jurisdictions have established

juvenile detention centers that are col-

located with adult jails or lockups. A

collocated juvenile facility must meet

specific criteria to establish that it is a

separate and distinct facility. The regu-

lations allow time-phased use of pro-

gram areas in collocated facilities.

1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Inmates in adult jails

Younger than 18

1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of jail inmates younger than 18

Held as adults

On a typical day in 2019, about 2,900 persons younger than 18 were

inmates in jails in the U.S.

Q Following a 62% decline since 2010, the number of jail inmates younger than 18 in

2019 was at its lowest level since the early 1990s.

Q Between 1993 and 2019, the proportion of jail inmates younger than 18 who were

held as adults ranged between 70% and 91%; in 2019, 76% of inmates younger

than 18 were held as adults.

Source: Authors’ analyses of Gillard’s

Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1998

; Beck’s

Prison and Jail

Inmates at Midyear 1999

; Beck, Karberg, and Harrison’s

Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2001

; Har-

rison and Karberg’s

Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2003

; Harrison and Beck’s

Prison and Jail In-

mates at Midyear 2004

; Minton’s

Jail Inmates at Midyear 2010 —Statistical Tables

; Minton and Zeng’s

Jail Inmates in 2015

; and Zeng and Minton’s

Jail Inmates in 2019

Chapter 7: Youth in corrections

211

Between 2000 and 2019, the number of youth younger than

18 in state prison decreased more than 80%

The number of youth under age

18 in state prisons reached a new

low in 2019

Based on data from the Bureau of Jus-

tice Statistics’ National Prisoner Statis-

tics (NPS) program, 626 youth young-

er than age 18 were held in state

prisons on December 31, 2019. The

number of youth in state prisons in

2019 was well below (84%) the level in

2000, when nearly 4,000 youth were

in state prison on the last day of the

year. The number of youth in state

prisons in 2019 accounted for 0.05%

of the state prison population in that

year—or 1 of every 2,000 persons in a

state prison.

While the number of youth younger

than 18 in adult prisons decreased by

an average of 11% each year from 2000

to 2005, the total prison population

remained relatively constant, increasing

an average of 1% each year. After a pe-

riod of increase through 2009, the

number of youth in adult prisons de-

creased an average of 13% per year

from 2009 to 2019.

Prisons differ from jails

Jails are generally local correctional

facilities used to incarcerate both

persons detained pending adjudica-

tion and adjudicated/convicted of-

fenders. Convicted inmates are

usually misdemeanants sentenced

to a year or less. Under certain cir-

cumstances, jails may hold juveniles

awaiting juvenile court hearings.

Prisons are state or federal facilities

used to incarcerate offenders con-

victed in criminal court; these con-

victed inmates are usually felons

sentenced to more than a year.

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

One-day count of persons held in state prisons

Younger than 18

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

The 1-day count of youth younger than 18 in state prisons at yearend

2019 was 84% below the level in 2000, while the count for adults ages

18 or older in 2019 was about the same as in 2000

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

One-day count of persons held in state prisons

Ages 18 and older

Q The number of youth in state prisons decreased 43% between 2000 and 2005, then

increased 24% through 2009. Since 2009, however, the number of youth in state

prison decreased considerably, falling 77% through 2019

Q The number of adults ages 18 and older in state prisons increased 13% between

2000 and 2009, the fell 11% through 2019. The net result was that number of

adults in state prisons at the end of 2019 was 1% above the number in 2000.

Source: Authors’ analysis of the Bureau of Justice Statistics’

Corrections Statistical Analysis Tool

[on-

line data analysis tool].

Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report

212

Sources

Beck, A. 2000.

Prison and Jail Inmates

at Midyear 1999

. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Beck, A., Cantor, D., Hartge, J., and

Smith, T. 2013.

Sexual Victimization

in Juvenile Facilities Reported by

Youth, 2012

. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Jus-

tice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statis-

tics. Available online at www.bjs.gov/

content/pub/pdf/svjfry12.pdf.

Beck, A., Karberg, J., and Harrison, P.

2002.

Prison and Jail Inmates at Mid-

year 2001

. Washington, DC: U.S. De-

partment of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Reported

number of inmates age 17 or younger

held in custody in federal or state pris-

ons, December 31, 2000–2019. Gen-

erated using the Corrections Statistical

Analysis Tool at www.bjs.gov.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Prisoners

under the jurisdiction of state or feder-

al correctional authorities, December

31, 1978–2019. Generated using the

Corrections Statistical Analysis Tool

www.bjs.gov.

Field, M., and Davis, E. 2020. Victim,

Perpetrator, and Incident Characteris-

tics of Sexual Victimization of Youth in

Juvenile Facilities, 2018 – Statistical

Tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-

ment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-

grams, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Available online at www.bjs.gov/

content/pub/pdf/vpicsvyjf18st.pdf.

Gillard, D. 1999.

Prison and Jail In-

mates at Midyear 1998

. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Of-

fice of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics.

Harrison, P., and Beck, A. 2005.

Pris-

on and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2004

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bu-

reau of Justice Statistics.

Harrison, P., and Karberg, J. 2004.

Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear

2003.

Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-

ment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-

grams, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Minton, T. 2011.

Jail Inmates at Mid-

year 2010—Statistical Tables

. Washing-

ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics.

Minton, T. and Zeng, Z. 2016.

Jail In-

mates in 2015

. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Jus-

tice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statis-

tics.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention. Various.

Census of

Juveniles in Residential Placement

for

1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007,

2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, and

2019 [data files]. Washington, DC:

U.S. Census Bureau [producer].

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention. Various.

Juvenile

Residential Placement Census

for

1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008,

2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018

[data files]. Washington, DC: U.S.

Census Bureau [producer].

Smith, E., and Stroop, J. 2019.

Sexual

Victimization Reported by Youth in

Juvenile Facilities, 2018

. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Of-

fice of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics. Available online at

www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/

svryjf18.pdf.

Zeng, Z., and Minton, T. 2021.

Jail

Inmates in 2019

. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

National Council of Juvenile

and Family Court Judges

ncjfcj.org

The NCJFCJ is one of the largest and oldest

judicial membership organizations in the

nation, serving an estimated 30,000 juvenile

and family justice system professionals,

including judges, referees, commissioners,

court masters and administrators, social and

mental health workers, police, and probation

officers.

For those involved with juvenile, family, and

domestic violence cases, the NCJFCJ provides

the resources, knowledge, and training to

improve the lives of families and children

seeking justice. NCJFCJ resources include:

Q Cutting-edge training

Q Wide-ranging technical assistance

Q Research to assist family courts

Q Advanced degree programs for judges and

other court professionals, offered in con-

junction with the University of Nevada,

Reno, and the National Judicial College

Online resources

OJJDP’s Online Statistical Briefing Book

ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb

The fastest path to the latest statistical information on:

Offending by youth

Victimization of youth

Youth in the juvenile justice system

The Statistical Briefing Book makes it easy for policymakers, juvenile justice

practitioners, the media, and the general public to access infor

mation on

topics that mir

ror the major sections of

Youth and the Justice System: 2022

National Report

Q Find timely, reliable answers to frequently asked questions.

Q With “Easy Access” tools and downloadable spreadsheets, create your

own national, state, and county tables on juvenile populations, arr

ests,

court cases, and custody populations.

Q Link to more than 25 web-based resources.

Q Search OJJDP’s online library of hundreds of statistical publications.

Make the Statistical Briefing Book your first stop for statical infor

mation on

juvenile justice.

National Center for Juvenile Justice

ncjj.org

NCJJ’s website describes its research activities, servic-

es, and publications, featuring links to project-sup-

ported sites and data resources, including OJJDP’s

Statistical Briefing Book, the National Juvenile Court

Data Archive, and the Juvenile Justice Geography,

Policy, Practice & Statistics website.

National Juvenile Court Data Archive

ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/njcda

The National Juvenile Court Data Archive (Archive)

houses the automated records of cases handled by

courts with juvenile jurisdiction and provides juvenile

justice professionals, policymakers, researchers, and the

public with the most detailed information available on

the activities of the nation’s juvenile courts.

Q The Archive website informs researchers about the

available data sets and the procedures for use and

access, and provides variable lists and user guides for

the data sets.

Q Easy Access tools give users

access to national estimates on

more than 48 million delin-

quency cases processed by the

nation’s juvenile courts since

1985 and to state and county

juvenile court case counts.

Q Links to publications using

Archive data, including

the annual

Juvenile

Court Statistics

reports.

jjgps

Juvenile Justice

Geography, Policy, Practice & Statistics

JJGPS.org

Juvenile Justice GPS (Geography, Policy, Practice, & Statistics) is an online repository

providing state policymakers and system stakeholders with a clear understanding of the

juvenile justice landscape in the states.

The site layers the most relevant national and state level statistics with information on

state laws and practice and charts juvenile justice system change. In a landscape that is

highly decentralized and ever-shifting, JJGPS provides an invaluable resource for those

wanting to improve the juvenile justice system. The content of the website is assembled

from one of four sources:

Q Legal research based upon state policies as they are contained in statutes, court rules,

and case laws

Q Practice scans based on interviews and surveys of juvenile justice stakeholders

Q National scans based on web searches for descriptive data published by state agencies

that help illuminate JJGPS r

efor

m topics

Q Strategic overlays of data that are standardized at the national level in ongoing data

collections.