Characteristics of juvenile offenders.

This longitudinal study of juvenile offenders traces the criminal histories of a sample of juveniles, including those who were "dropouts" (juvenile offenders who did not go on to become adult criminal offenders) and those who continued to be arrested, ranging from those with only one subsequent arrest to "persisters" (juveniles who did become career criminal offenders). The data are intended to address the following questions: (1) Are serious juvenile offenders more likely than nonserious juvenile offenders to become adult offenders? (2) Are offenders who begin at a younger age more likely to have more serious criminal careers than those who begin when they are older? (3) As a criminal career progresses, will the offender become more skilled at one type of offense and commit that type of crime more frequently, while decreasing the frequency of other types of crimes? (4) As a criminal career continues, will the offender commit progressively more serious offenses? (5) How well can it be predicted who will become a high-rate offender? Part 1 of this study, Juvenile Case File, contains data on a subsample of 14- and 15-year-olds who were brought to Probation Intake in the New York City Family Court for delinquency offenses. Included are variables for the date and type of arrest, disposition and sentence of the offender, and sex and race of the offender, as well as questions concerning the offender's home environment and highest school grade completed. Part 2, Arrest and Incarceration Event File, includes information on prior delinquency arrests, including the date of arrest, the charge and severity, and the disposition and sentence, as well as similar information on subsequent offenses that occurred up to six years after the original delinquency offense. Included for each incarceration is the status of the offender (juvenile or adult), the date of admission to a facility, and the length of time incarcerated.

Investigator(s): National Center for Juvenile Justice These data collections describe in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. It is the most detailed information available on youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and on the activities of the nation's juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases, number of status offense cases, number of dependency cases, and total number of cases. The data distinguish cases with and without the filing of a petition.Years Produced: Annually.

This study involved a survey of juvenile court judges, chief probation officers, prosecutors, and public defenders to measure their impressions of recent policy changes and the critical needs facing today's juvenile justice system. In addition the study garnered recommendations for improving the administration and effectiveness of this system. The study's primary objective was to provide policymakers, administrators, and practitioners with actionable information about how to improve the operations and effectiveness of the juvenile justice system, and to examine the role practitioners could play in constructing sound juvenile justice policy. A total of 534 juvenile court judges, chief probation officers, court administrators, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in 44 states and the District of Columbia participated in the Assessing the Policy Options (APO) national practitioner survey. The survey consisted of four major sections: demographics, critical needs, policies and practices, and practitioner recommendations. Critical needs facing the juvenile justice system were measured by asking respondents about the policy priority of 13 issues in their respective jurisdictions; topics ranged from staff training and development to effective juvenile defense counsel to information technology. Respondents were also asked to assess the effectiveness of 17 different policies and practices -- ranging from parental accountability laws to transfer and treatment -- in achieving 6 vital juvenile justice outcomes.

This study was conducted to address the dropping rates in residential placements of adjudicated youth after the 1990s. Policymakers, advocates, and reseraches began to attirbute the decline to reform measures and proposed that this was the cause of the drop seen in historic national crime. In response, researchers set out to use state-level data on economic factors, crime rates, political ideology scores, and youth justice policies and practices to test the association between the youth justice policy environment and recent reductions in out-of-home placements for adjudicated youth. This data collection contains two files, a multivariate and bivariate analyses. In the multivariate file the aim was to assess the impact of the progressive policy characteristics on the dependent variable which is known as youth confinement. In the bivariate analyses file Wave 1-Wave 10 the aim was to assess the states as they are divided into 2 groups across all 16 dichotomized variables that comprised the progressive policy scale: those with more progressive youth justice environments and those with less progressive or punitive environments. Some examples of these dichotomized variables include purpose clause, courtroom shackling, and competency standard.