Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1983 - Bureau of Justice ...

--~- ~-..---Estimating procedureSourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1983The primary task was to describe the number and nature of thejuvenile court cases handled notionally in each of the survey years.Data were available from the reporting counties; for those counties notreporting, e$timates hod to be generated. The adopted estimatingprocedure assumed that the best method for predicting the number andtypes of cases for non-reporting jurisdictions was to use the data forsimilar reporting jurisdictions as a guide."Similar" was operationalized, or given a working definition, byusing population at risk as a criterion. Jurisdictions of similar size(based on population at risk) were conceptualized as belonging to thesome cluster. Clusters were formed based on the following concerns.First, the range of population at risk within a cluster hod to be smallenough to assure a reasonable similarity in rhe relative sizes of thecounties. Second, it was necessary to define on adequate number ofreporting jurisdictions within a cluster to assure the stability of thatcluster's estimates. Accordingly, the 3,137 counties were divided into10 clusters.Estimates were mode for non-reporting jurisdictions by using theinformation from reporting jurisdictions within the some cluster. It wasassumed that the dynamics that produce the juvenile cases within acluster are shored by all the counties in the cluster and are unique tothat cluster. Thus, if a model could be developed to reproduce tbedata from reporting counties within a cluster, then this model could beapplied to non-reporting jurisdictions of that cluster to generatepredictions of their caseloods. .Descriptive variables found in the City/County Data Book (U.S.Bureau of the Census) were utilized to identify characteristics of thecounties, which could be incorporated into the madel to produce theseestimates., This volume contains approximately 200 descriptivevariables on individual counties detailing such information aspopulation, income level, educational characteristics, labor force,housiriJ, and type of government. These data were used as predictorsin the madel. To reduce the potential predictors to a workable numberend to minimize covariation and duplication of information, eachvariable was correlated with the total number of cases in each of thereporting jurisdictions. Only variables that were significant Iycorrelated with the number of cases were retained. This processreduced the number of variables of inten~st to approximately 99(depending on the particular survey year in question). Next, thereduction procedure created summary variables, grouping theseindividual variables under broader headings. A principal componentsfactor analysis of the variables yielded summary factors thatincorporated the distinctions found in the original variables, accountingfor approximately 68 percent of the variance of the original variables.After determining that these summary factors were reliabledescri;Jtors of the counties, they were utilized to develop regressionequations that produced estimates of the number of cases handled byeach jurisdiction reporting within each cluster. Applying the someequations to the non-n~porting jurisdictions, estimotes of individualcaseloads were produced. By summing over the case loads (eitherreported or predicted), it was possible to estimate the total number ofcases from all the counties in a cluster and, subsequently, the totalnumber of cases handled notionally. (The 1975 estimating proceduresdiffer slightly from those described above; for a discussion of 1975estimating procedures, see Delinquency 1975, pp. II -4-11-10.It was also necessary to estimate the nature of all the caseshandled by the juvenile court system--for example, type of offense, sexof offender, reClSon for referral, time in system, and disposition. Byusing the assumption that the reporting courts in a clusterapprOXimately represent the non-reporting courts' data, a weightingprocedure was developed to estimate the nature of the cases in thecluster as a whole, including the non-reporting courts. If, for example,the reported cases within a cluster represented 25 percent of the totalestimated number of cases for that cluster, by weighting each case bya factor of 4 (total estimated number of cases in the cluster divided bythe total number of cases from the reporting jurisdictions in thecluster), it was possible !o represent not only the number of cases butalso the nature of the cases. By employing this process of developingweights to permit the sample data to represent the popUlation, detailedestimates of the Notion's juvenile court cases were produced.Data collectionIdentification of States that collect information on the processingof youths through the juvenile justice system is made through contactwith individuals and agencies with responsibi lity to collect or to reportjuvenile court statistics. States that compile information on a regularbasis and have data on a computer-readable medium are sent writtenrequests for the data; the information is then transmitted to theNotional Center for Juvenile Justice.Variations in information compilation and interpretation arechecked with the respective State personnel and edited by the NotionalCenter for Juvenile Justice stoff. Tne data are then transformed into astandard format for the natio/lal file. JUrisdictio>lal differences injuvenile court statutes and procedures used to collect the data cousesome problems with uniformity that cannot be corrected. The Sourcenotes, among other limitations of the data, the following:--The accl'racy (reliability and validity) of the originalcoding proces. is unknown.--There are wide ranges of definitions regarding courtdispositions.--The reasons for referral to court and their definitionsvary dramatically.--Some State statutes exclude major crimes (j.e., homicide,forcible rope, and aggravated assault) from the jurisdiction of thejuvenile court, while other State statutes exclude types of minorcrimes (i.e., fish and game violations).--Some States differentiated between specific types ofcrime, while others used brooder categories for their offenses(i.e., larceny was alternately defined a! grand larceny, petitlarceny, shoplifting, and larceny except s,10plifting).--Some States changed their reporting system, whichaltered some of the variables and values reported during thereporting period.--The offense labels are not always an accurate indicator ofactual behavior (j.e., larceny may vary from stealing bubble gumto the theft of a handgun).--The data represent cases disposed of by courts; they donot represent individuals, nor do they represent incidents.Definitions of tennsOffense categories--The Notional Center for Juvenile Justiceutilizes the offense categories defined by the U.S. Department ofJustice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime ReportingProgram. For detailed definitions of these offense categories, seeAppendix 2.'Unit of count--The unit of count refel ~ to a case disposed of bya court with juvenile jurisdiction during the reporting year. The term"disposed of" means that some definite action was token or sometreatmenf plan was decided upon or begun. Each "case" represents ayouth referred to court, with or without a petition during the year, ora new referral for one of the reasons described it'l "reason for referral";it does not include traffic, dependency an.J neglect cases, or specialproceedings brought before the court.Race--The reporthlg of race varied greetly. Some Statesreported white, block, and other, whfle a few States reported tencategories of race. For the purpose of consistency omang States, threecategories of race were selected. The "other" category refers to allraces that were reported as anything other than white or block.Source of referralLaw enforcement agency--The term "law enforcement"should be interpreted as including metropolitan police, Statepolice, pork police, sheriffs, constables, police assigned to thejuvenile court for special duty, and all others performing a policefunction with the exception of probation officers and officers ofthe court.Parents or relatives--This category includes the youth'sown parents, foster parents, adoptive parents, step parents,grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other legal guardians.School department-- This term includes counselors,attendance officers, teachers, principals, superintendents ofschools, and member of the board of education.Probation officer--A probation officer was considered tobe an officer of the court or any person designated to perform (Jprobation function.Social agency--This category includes both public ondpriVate agencies, such os a department of public welfare, theboard of health, a children's aid society, a child-welfare boord,and institutions coring for children (such as homes for dependentchildren, hospitals, group homes, runaway homes, and agenciesthat perform functions of after-care, parole, and correction).Other court--1975-77: this catl,lgory includes any courtthat is physically locoted in another district, has no lega Ijurisdiction over th .. ",.,se, or has concurrent jurisdiction with thejuvenile court that hod original jurisdiction over the case; 1978and 1979: includes any court other than The court disposing of thecase.Reason for referral--1975-77: this includes attempting tocommit or committing offenses (behavior that is defined as constitutingjuvenile delinquency or in need of supervision by State or local low),but does not include traffic, dependency and neglect cases, or specialproceedings brought before the court; 1978 and 1979: attempts tocommit on offense were included under the offense behavior, except forattempted murder, which was included in the assault category.Definitions of termsAPPENDIX 16Probation in the United States-­Definitions of terms and survey methodologyNJTE: This information was provided by the Notional Council on Crime and Delinquency, ResearchCenter West. , I P b t' R t gramThe 1981 probation data were provided to the Natlona ;0 ,a Ion epor ,s provoluntarily by central reporting agencies in 0/1 50 States, the District of Columbia, and theFederal Probation System.Entries--Persons entering probation directly fro,:! a sente,nclngcourt, or from a correctional facility as a result of spirt sentencing orsentence modification. , 'Exits--Persons removed from probation including discharges(termination, completion of terms, and early discharges)" revoc;:ationand commitment to incarcerotion, and people who die while onprobation.Probation population--AII adults who have been placed underthe supervisory auth!l~ity of a probation agency as port of a courtorder. Probationers--Persons who have heen placed under thesupervisory authority of a probation agency as port of a court orderregardless of whether they have been convicted.F.r cases. ,Mississippi--The 1980 yearend probation population ~asbeen revised to exclude double counted cases. Yearend probationpopulation includes unwarranted absconders but not those f?rwhom warrants have been issued. "Other exits" includes 105· rnjail awaiting disposition and 87 warranted ,absconders. ,Missouri--Yearend probation population does not rncludeabsconders. "Other exits" includes those off-records, thoserelieved of supervision, and suspensions., :'Exit totals" in Tables6.3 and 6.5 are not the same due to missing data: ,Montana--Yearend probation popul at I on I nc I udesunwarranted absconders but not those for whom warrants havebeen issued. , , I dNebraska--Yearend probation population inC u esabsconders. "Exit totals" in Tables 6.3 and 6.5 are not the somedue to missing data.Nevada--Yearend probation population includ~s absconde!'s.New Hampshire--The 1980 yearend probatron populationhas been revised. Yearend probation population includes thosewho have been on absconder status for less than 6 months. Aft~r6 months absconders are removed from the caseload, but Ifapprehended and returned to court they are returned to thecaseload.New Jersey--Yearend probation population includesabsconders. ,New Mexico--Yearend probation population does notinclude absconders. ,New York--The 1980 yearend probation population hasbeen revised. Yearend probation population includes, absconders.North Carolina--The 1980 probation populc.llon has beenrevised. Yearend probation population includes ~bsconders.Persons under dual supervision, parole and probation, are notcounted as probation cases. "Other exits" includes thosecancelled by court. , 'North Dakota--Yearend probation population Includesabsconders. "Other exits" includes terminations a;)d mergers ofsentenl'.e. ,Ohio--Yearend probation population rncludes absconders.Oklahoma--The 1980 yearend probation population has, b~enrevised to exclude out-of-State cases under Oklahoma supervIsion.Yearend probation population includes absconders.665664