Juvenile Court Statistics 2005. - Office of Juvenile Justice and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix A: MethodsCountof ies NumberTable A–1: 2005 Stratum Profiles for Delinquency DataCounties reporting compatible dataNumber of countiesCounty population Counties Case- Court- Percentage ofStratum ages 10–17 in stratum level level Total* juvenile population1 Fewer than 13,000 2,618 1,645 135 1,780 71%2 13,000–54,900 335 235 14 249 743 54,901–145,000 101 74 2 76 774 More than 145,000 31 29 2 30 98Total 3,085 1,983 153 2,135 80* Some counties reported both case-level and court-level data; therefore, the total number of counties reporting delinquency data is not equalto the number of counties reporting case-level data plus the number of counties reporting court-level data.Countof ies NumberTable A–2: 2005 Stratum Profiles for Status Offense DataCounties reporting compatible dataNumber of countiesCounty population Counties Case- Court- Percentage ofStratum ages 10–17 in stratum level level Total juvenile population1 Fewer than 13,000 2,618 1,701 172 1,873 74%2 13,000–54,900 335 215 28 243 723 54,901–145,000 101 59 7 66 684 More than 145,000 31 24 5 29 95Total 3,085 1,999 212 2,211 77The aggregation of the JCS-compatiblestandardized case-level data filesconstitutes the Archive’s nationalcase-level database. The compileddata from jurisdictions that contributeonly court-level JCS-compatiblestatistics constitute the nationalcourt-level database. Together, thesetwo multijurisdictional databases(case-level and court-level) are usedto generate the Archive’s nationalestimates of delinquency and statusoffense cases.In 2005, case-level data describing1,174,857 delinquency cases handledby 1,983 jurisdictions in 38 States metthe Archive’s criteria for inclusion inthe development of national delinquencyestimates. Compatible datawere available from Alabama, Alaska,Arizona, Arkansas, California,Connecticut, District of Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, NewMexico, New York, North Carolina,Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,Utah, Virginia, Washington, WestVirginia, and Wisconsin. These courtshad jurisdiction over 76% of thenation’s juvenile population in 2005.Compatible court-level aggregate statisticson an additional 51,570 delinquencycases from 153 jurisdictionswere used from California, Idaho,Illinois, Indiana, and Vermont. In all,the Archive collected compatiblecase-level data and court-level statisticson delinquency cases from 2,135jurisdictions containing 80% of theNation’s juvenile population in 2005(table A–1).Case-level data describing 95,660 formallyhandled status offense casesfrom 1,999 jurisdictions in 36 statesmet the criteria for inclusion in thesample for 2005. The States includedAlabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,California, Connecticut, District ofColumbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, NewMexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Carolina, SouthDakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,and Wisconsin. These courts hadjurisdiction over 69% of the juvenilepopulation. An additional 212 jurisdictionsin 4 states (Idaho, Indiana,New York, and Vermont) had compatiblecourt-level aggregate statistics on13,673 petitioned status offensecases. Altogether, compatible caseleveland court-level data on petitionedstatus offense cases wereavailable from 2,211 jurisdictions containing77% of the U.S. juvenile populationin 2005 (table A–2).A list of States contributing case-leveldata (either delinquency or petitionedstatus offense data), the variableseach reports, and the percentage ofcases containing each variable arepresented in table A–3.94Juvenile Court Statistics 2005
Appendix A: MethodsTable A–3: Content of Case-Level Data Sources, 2005Age at Referral Referral Secure Manner ofData source referral Gender Race source reason detention handling Adjudication DispositionAlabama AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL ALAlaska AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AKArizona AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZArkansas AR AR AR – AR – AR AR ARCalifornia CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CAConnecticut CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CTDistrict of Columbia DC DC DC – DC – DC DC DCFlorida FL FL FL – FL – FL FL FLGeorgia GA GA GA GA GA – GA GA GAHawaii HI HI HI HI HI – HI HI HIIllinois 1 IL IL – IL IL – IL IL ILKentucky KY KY KY – KY – KY KY –Maine ME ME ME ME ME – ME ME MEMaryland MD MD MD MD MD – MD MD MDMichigan 2 MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MIMinnesota MN MN MN MN MN – MN MN MNMissouri MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MOMontana MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MTNebraska NE NE NE NE NE – NE NE NENevada NV NV NV – NV NV NV NV NVNew Jersey NJ NJ NJ – NJ – NJ NJ NJNew Mexico NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NMNew York NY NY NY – NY – NY NY NYNorth Carolilna NC NC NC – NC – NC NC NCOhio 3 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OHOklahoma OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OKOregon OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR ORPennsylvania PA PA PA PA PA – PA PA PARhode Island RI RI – RI RI RI RI RI RISouth Carolina SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SCSouth Dakota SD SD SD – SD – SD SD SDTennessee TN TN TN TN TN – TN TN TNTexas TX TX TX TX TX – TX TX TXUtah UT UT UT UT UT – UT UT UTVirginia VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VAWashington WA WA WA WA WA – WA WA WAWest Virginia WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WVWisconsin WI WI WI – WI – WI WI WIPercentage ofestimation sample 99% 99% 94% 71% 96% 41% 100% 93% 97%Note: The symbol “–” indicates that compatible data for this variable are not reported by this State.1 Data from Cook County only.2 Data from Wayne County only.3 Data from Cuyahoga, Hamilton, and Lucas counties only.Juvenile Court Statistics 2005 95
Page 3 and 4:
Juvenile CourtStatistics 2005Report
Page 10 and 11:
Appendix A: Methods ...............
Page 12 and 13:
PrefaceThe Office of Juvenile Justi
Page 14 and 15:
Chapter 1: IntroductionIn other com
Page 16 and 17:
Chapter 1: Introductionconsult appe
Page 18 and 19:
Chapter 2: National Estimates of De
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 41 and 42:
Chapter 3National Estimates ofDelin
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57: Chapter 3: National Estimates of De
Page 83 and 84: Chapter 4National Estimates ofPetit
Page 85 and 86: Chapter 4: National Estimates of Pe
Page 103: Chapter 4: National Estimates of Pe
Page 108 and 109: Appendix A: MethodsJuvenile Populat
Page 110 and 111: Appendix A: Methodspotential donor
Page 113 and 114: Appendix BGlossary of TermsAdjudica
Page 115 and 116: Appendix B: Glossary of Terms◆◆
Page 117: Appendix B: Glossary of Termsfrom d
Page 120 and 121: Appendix C: Reported Juvenile Court
Page 150 and 151: IndexProbation, 89Trends, 76-78Offe
show all

Juvenile Court Statistics 2005. - Office of Juvenile Justice and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?