The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
-
■■ ‘
J ¡
‘
>
r \\
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
JAMES J. DAVIS, Secretary
CHILDREN’S BUREAU
G RACE ABBOTT, Chief
JUVEN ILE-COURT STATISTICS
1927
BASED ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED
BY 42 COURTS
UNITED STATES
GOVERNM ENT PRINTIN G OFFICE
U 4^*8 c
WASHINGTON : 1929
r
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D . C.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Price 10 cents
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CONTENTS
hi
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page
V
« O M O iC T iO r C O O S C O t O K -1
Letter of transmittal. _ __________________
A cooperative plan for obtaining national statistics"«)? delinquency and of
dependency and neglect____________________________
_ _
J
Courts furnishing statistical material for 1927 ” ”
”
Analysis of cases dealt with_____________________ ”
~~ “
The cases reported_______________________
~~~
Number and types of cases__________________ I l I I I
Methods by which cases were handled __
Children involved in the cases_____________
Race and nativity____________________
Age distribution____________________ 111 _ 111
7
Whereabouts_________________ ________ ~ I I ”
Delinquency cases______________________I I I I I I
__I
Sources of complaint_____________________
Place of care pending hearing or disposition.
Charges_____________________________________
““
Dispositions___________________________
Cases discharged from probation_______I I . ”
" .
I
Dependency and neglect cases_____________________ I ’
Sources of complaint__________________________7
Place of care pending hearing or disposition.
I. I "
I
Charges. _________________________________
Dispositions_________________ ._____________ ” 11 I I I
Cases discharged from supervision___________________ _ ” I ” I
Appendix.— Trend in juvenile delinquency___________ ” ~I~I__
Delinquency rates in 12 cities______________________
Juveniles committed to institutions for juvenile delinquents and to
penal institutions as reported by the United States Bureau of the
Census___________________
10
10
11
13
18
28
28
28
29
30
31
34
35
35
36
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
0
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r ,
C h il d r e n ’ s B u r e a u ,
Washington, October 18, 1929.
There is transmitted herewith the summary for 1927 of reports
of cases of delinquency and dependency supplied to the Children’s
Bureau by juvenile courts. During the calendar year 1927, the first
full year during which the bureau’s plan for obtaining comparable
statistics in this field was in operation, 43 courts supplied reports
regularly. Alice Scott Nutt, of the social-service division, has been
in immediate charge of the development of the plan for assem
bling uniform statistics of juvenile delinquency, in cooperation with
m Dr. Elizabeth C. Tandy, director of the statistical division, and
Agnes K. Hanna, director of the social-service division.
Respectfully submitted.
G r a c e A b b o t t , Chief.
Sir :
H
on,
J a m e s J. D
a v is ,
Secretary of Labor.
v
/
♦
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
A COOPERATIVE PLAN FOR OBTAINING NATIONAL STA
TISTICS OF DELINQUENCY AND OF DEPENDENCY AND
NEGLECT
For some years the Children's Bureau has been at work on a plan
for making available current information on a national scale con
cerning trends in juvenile delinquency. The United States Bureau
of the Census at approximately 10-year intervals publishes statistics
of juvenile delinquents in institutions, but no attempt is made by
that bureau to procure statistics concerning delinquents dealt with
by courts in other ways than by institutional commitment.1 Rela
tively few juvenile courts print annual reports which include statistical
material. Lack of uniformity in methods of compiling statistics
used in the different courts and marked variations in inclusions and
methods of presentation make the statistics practically valueless for
purposes of comparing delinquency rates in various localities, though
they are of value in determining trends in individual communities
from year to year. Comparable statistics with reference to cases of
dependency and neglect dealt with by the courts are even more
difficult to obtain, because of wider variation in the type of cases
within the jurisdiction of the courts.
The importance, therefore, of agreement on a uniform plan for
recording and compiling statistics of juvenile delinquency is apparent.
With the assistance of the committee on records and statistics of the
National Probation Association the Children’s Bureau has devised
such a method.2 The response to the plan has been gratifying.
Cooperation by juvenile courts and State departments of public
welfare has increased steadily since its presentation. In several
States the department of public welfare or some other State agency
has taken the plan into consideration in making revisions of annual
and monthly reports required of courts, and in Other States these
agencies have been active in calling the plan to the attention of
juvenile-court judges and probation officers. By July 1, 1928,
about 100 juvenile courts in various parts of the country, and several
State departments concerned with juvenile-court work, were cooper
ating. Forty-two courts sent in statistical data for the entire calendar
year 1927, and these data form the basis of this report.3
i Children under Institutional Care, 1923, p. 260. U. S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, 1927.
* The basis of the plan is the filling out of statistical cards—a yellow card for each case of delinquency
disposed of during a calendar year, a blue card for each case of dependency or neglect disposed of, and a
white card for each case of a child discharged from probation (in delinquency eases) or from supervision (in
dependency or neglect cases). The yellow and blue cards differ only in the lists of charges and dispositions.
The cards have been so arranged that little clerical work is involved; most of the information is entered by
cheeking. Cards and a bulletin of instructions are furnished by the Children’s Bureau without charge to
cooperating courts, as are franks or addressed envelopes requiring no postage for use in mailing cards back
to the bureau. Cards are returned to the bureau for tabulation at least once a year, and preferably sev
eral times each year.
The Children’s Bureau prepares from the cards a set of 22 tables on printed forms for each court. These
are sent ta the courts for use in annual reports, if desired. The facts presented in these tables include
charges, places children were cared for pending hearings, manner of dealing with cases, and dispositions.
The number of different children dealt with, the number of repeaters, and certain social facts are also
shown. For cases discharged from probation or supervision the length of the probation period and the
reason for discharge are given. In a few instances the court preferred to compile its own tables in accordance
with the Children’s Bureau plan, instead of sending in cards.
s Cards were also supplied for 1927 by the District of Columbia juvenile court, but these were not received
in time to be included in the tabulations.
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
COURTS FURNISHING STATISTICAL MATERIAL FOR 1927
C a r d s w ere re c e iv e d fr o m 4 1 c o u r ts in 15 S t a te s fo r th e en tire
c a len d a r y e a r 1 9 2 7 , a n d ta b le s w ere p rep a red b y 1 c o u r t .1 T h e
n a m e s o f th ese c o u rts w ith th e la r g e st c ity or to w n in th e area serv ed
b y e a c h c o u r t are g iv e n b e lo w .
F o r c o n v e n ie n c e ea c h c o u r t w ill b e
d e s ig n a te d h e r e a fte r o n ly b y th e n a m e o f th e te r rito r y o v e r w h ic h it
h a s ju r is d ic tio n .
Largest city or town in
area served
California: Juvenile court of the city and county of San
Francisco___________ ____________________________________________ San Francisco.
Connecticut:
Juvenile court of the city of Bridgeport___________________ Bridgeport.
Juvenile court of Hartford__________________________________ Hartford.
Indiana:
Juvenile court of Clay County______________________________Brazil.
Juvenile court of Delaware County________________________ Muncie.
Juvenile court of Jennings County_________________________ North Vernon.
Juvenile court of Lake County_____________________________ Gary.
Juvenile court of Marion County__ . ___________ ___________ Indianapolis.
Juvenile court of Monroe County__________________________ Bloomington.
Juvenile court of Vermillion County________________________ Clinton.
Juvenile court of W ayne County___________________________ Richmond.
Juvenile court of Wells C o u n ty .___________________________ Bluffton.
Juvenile court of White C o u n t y ..._________________________ Monticello.
Massachusetts: Middlesex County superior court_____________ Lowell.
Michigan: Kent County probate court, juvenile division______ Grand Rapids.
Minnesota :
Juvenile court of Hennepin County________________________ Minneapolis.
Juvenile court of Ramsey County__________________________ St. Paul.
New Jersey:
Juvenile court of the county of H udson___________________ Jersey City.
Juvenile court of the county of Mercer____________________ Trenton.
New York:
Children’s court of Buffalo__________________ ____________ _ Buffalo.
Clinton County children’s court____________________________ Plattsburg.
Columbia County children’s court______________________. . . Hudson.
Delaware County children’ s court________ _________________ Walton.
Dutchess County children’ s court__________________________ Poughkeepsie.
Erie County children’s court________________________________ Lackawanna.
Franklin County children’s court__________________________ Malone.
Children’s court of the city of New Y ork __________________New York.
Orleans County children’s court__ _________________________ Medina.
Westchester County children’ s court______________ ________ Yonkers.
North Carolina:
Juvenile court of Buncombe County_______________________Asheville.
Winston-Salem juvenile court_______________________ ..._____ Winston-Salem.
Ohio:
Franklin County juvenile court____________________________ Columbus.
Common-pleas court of Hamilton County, division of
domestic relations, juvenile court and marital relations. Cincinnati.
Common-pleas court of Mahoning County, division of
domestic rela tio n s..________________________________________ Youngstown.
Pennsylvania:
Juvenile court of Berks County____________________________ Reading.
Juvenile court of Lycoming County________________________ Williamsport.
Juvenile court of Montgomery County_____________________ Norristown.
Municipal court of Philadelphia, juvenile division________ Philadelphia.
Tennessee: Juvenile court of Memphis_______________________ __ Memphis.
Virginia: Juvenile and domestic-relations court of Norfolk___ Norfolk.
Washington: Pierce County juvenile court_____________________ Tacoma.
Wisconsin: Dane County juvenile court________________________ Madison.
1Tables prepared by two other courts were not entirely comparable with tables prepared by the Chil
dren’s Bureau and were not used in this report.
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
f
-
ANALYSIS OF CASES DEALT WITH
THE CASES REPORTED
Number and types of cases.
y
£
In order to obtain complete information on all cases, those disposed
of by the courts or discharged from probation or supervision during
the year were reported, rather than those referred to the courts or
placed on probation or under supervision. Cards or tables for such
cases, with a few exceptions, were received from each of the 42 courts
during 1927.1 The total number of cases reported by these courts was
46,750. (Table 1.) The number of cases reported by individual
courts ranged from 14 to 11,281. This variation in number of cases
was largely due to the area of jurisdiction; some of the courts had
jurisdiction over densely populated areas in large cities, other courts
served smaller cities, and others rural districts.
Delinquency cases were reported by each of the 42 courts, but 8
did not report cases of dependency or neglect. The total number of
dependency and neglect cases (12,150) is less than half the number of
delinquency cases (26,241) reported by the 34 courts sending cards
or tables for both types of cases. The proportions of dependency
and neglect and delinquency cases cared for by the different courts
showed much variation. Eight of these 34 courts reported more
dependency and neglect than delinquency cases; in the other 26
courts dependency and neglect cases constituted the smaller part of
the court’s work. The wide variation in the proportion of dependency
and neglect cases appears to be due in part to the extent to which local
agencies other than the court were caring for dependent and neglected
children. The practice in some courts of filing the complaint against
the adult responsible for dependency or neglect instead of instituting
proceedings in the name of the children is also a factor. In some
localities only those cases of dependency and neglect requiring court
action were brought as a rule to the attention of the court, and these
usually by social agencies, whereas in other communities a large pro
portion of the dependent and neglected children were referred to the
court directly by parents and relatives, and the court became a general
agency for dealing with such children. The proportion of cases of
dependency and neglect for which source of complaint was reported,
referred to the courts by parents and relatives in different localities,
varied from zero to 67 per cent.
1The court in New York City sent in only those cases disposed of by the court that had been referred to
the court during the year, and only those cases of children discharged from probation or supervision who had
been placed on probation or under supervision during the year. No cards for girls were received from a few
« probable that girls’ cases had been disposed of. A few courts faded to send in a separate
card for each case when a child had been brought before the court more than once during the year Eleven
courts did not report cases of children discharged from probation or supervision.
6 1 5 1 4 °— 29-
♦https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4
T
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
1 . — Number of delinquency cases and of dependency and neglect cases of boys-,
and girls and number of cases of boys and girls discharged from probation or super-*,
vision dealt with by 4% specified courts in 1927
able
Cases dealt with
1
Cases of ch.ldren
discharged from
probation or supervision
Dependency and
neglect cases
jjennquency cases
Court
Total1
Total
Boys
Total_______ ____ ______ 46,750 28,387 24,244
California: San Francisco City
and County................. .......
Connecticut:
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
Boys Girls
4,143 12,150
4,332
4,132
6,213
3,777
2993
Girls
2,058
950
873
77
687
344
343
421
234
187
750
973
516
618
440
539
76
79
83
154
36
83
47
71
151
201
140
172
11
29
25
39
130
4
16
527
Lake County __________ 1,011
892
Marion County---------------- 1,332
15
36
84
164
24
44
41,
41
3
14
Massachusetts: M id d le s e x
27
27
374
602
Michigan: Kent County.......
Minnesota:
966
Hennepin County------------ 1,489
342
624
Ramsey County--------------New Jersey:
1,920 1,685
215
317
New York:
836
Buffalo.. _________ ____ _ 1,076
23
103
Clinton County--------------98
260
Columbia County. ------14
14
518
223
Dutchess County......... ......
177
317
Erie County_____________
34
New York City__________ 19,650 6,102
9
28
Orleans County__________
Westchester County--------- 1,706 1,104
North Carolina:
14
47
4
343
589
10
54
15
23
3
11
18
10
65
6
4
136
149
21
80
97
95
7
54
39
54
14
26
Hartford_________________
Clay County.......................
184
303
5
30
9
18
4
1
3
12
348
291
7
175
146
5
173
145
20
14
6
11
5
6
208
100
108
20
20
342
111
170
52
172
59
181
171
145
153
36
18
235
102
204
98
31
4
24
374
3
776
270
190
72
1,482
' 197
203
18
785
18
84
14
183
159
25
5,262
8
950
51
5
14
95
79
121
49
40
56
46
39
65
145
1
41
132
1
26
15
40
18
9
840
1
154
271
54
24
3,243
15
302
123
28
16
1,743
7
151
148
26
8
1,500
8
151
24
86
21
83
3
3
1,305
4
300
974
3
268
331
1
32
38
13
319
295
122
239
22
56
160
24
72
9
88
15
Franklin County_________ 1,492
1,861
Mahoning County............ . 2,017
. Pennsylvania:
68
Berks County................ —
29
Lycoming County___ ____
883
1, 332
1,684
674
1, 332
1, 391
209
(3)
293
262
254
223
146
120
105
116
134
118
347
275
110
309
275
89
3
1
1
6,152
852
728
126
87
9
10
13
w
325
96
40
39
7
2
Philadelphia...................... 11, 281
Tennessee: Memphis________ _ 1, 562
Virginia: Norfolk------------------- 1,003
219
Washington: Pierce County—
194
Wisconsin: Dane County-------
13
17
31
3,686
653
186
93
73
4
7
18
«
328
90
53
34
1,443
57
89
«
31
80
(4)
26
9
48
10
39
6
40
5,396
672
615
98
55
9
4
13
756
180
113
28
32
34
M
21
13
1 This column shows the total number of cards received from each court. Smne duplication occurs be
tween the columns showing delinquency and dependency and neglect cases disposed of and the column
showing eases discharged from probation or supervision, since a child may have been placed on probation
or under supervision in a delinquency, dependency, or neglect case and discharged from this probation
or supervision during 1927.
2Not including Philadelphia.
a Tables for about 700 girls’ cases not included.
4Sex not reported.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS,
1927
5
'
Cases of children discharged from probation or supervision during
the year were reported by 31 courts. Eleven courts did not report cases
of children discharged from probation or supervision during the year,
and a number reported only a few. Some of these courts had failed to
keep adequate probation records, and others took no cognizance of
the termination of the probation period either by formal discharge or
by removal of the case from the list or index of active probation cases.
The proportions of boys and girls were about equal in dependency
cases. In delinquency cases the number of boys reported (24,244)
was nearly six times the number of girls (4,143). There was, however,
much variation in the proportion of delinquent girls in different
localities.
Methods by which cases were handled.
Information was collected for what are usually described as official
and unofficial cases, the same cards being used for both, but separate
lists of dispositions were used. Unofficial cases may be defined as
cases adjusted informally by the judge, referee, or probation officer
without being placed on the court calendar by the filing of a petition
or other legal paper for adjudication by the judge or referee. As is
shown by the accompanying table (Table 2) the practice of the court
in regard to unofficial handling of cases varied in different localities.
Twenty-three courts reported delinquency cases disposed of unoffi
cially, and 19 courts did not report any so disposed of. Only 16 of the
34 courts sending information concerning dependency and neglect
cases reported such cases disposed of unofficially.
Slightly more than one-fourth of the delinquency cases reported
were dealt with unofficially. In four courts handling 50 or more
cases (1 in Indiana, 1 in North Carolina, and 2 in Ohio) from 76 to
97 per cent of the delinquency cases were handled unofficially. The
total number of cases dealt with by two of these courts was large.
In several courts there were differences in the practice of handling of
boys’ and girls’ cases. This was especially marked in two courts.
In Marion County, Ind., a much larger proportion of the girls’ cases
than of the boys’ cases were handled unofficially, whereas in San
Francisco, Calif., the situation was reversed.
One-fifth of the dependency and neglect cases reported were dealt
with unofficially. In three courts (one in North Carolina, one in
Ohio, and one in Tennessee) more than half of the dependency and
neglect cases were so dealt with.
CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THE CASES 2
Race and nativity.
As a number of children came before the courts more than once
the 28,387 delinquency cases represented 25,456 children and the 12,150
dependency and neglect cases, 11,785 children. Of the 25,305
delinquent children for whom race was reported, 84 per cent were
white and 16 per cent colored. As would be expected, the propor
tion of colored children was larger in the southern courts. In
Winston-Salem, N. C., 73 per cent and in Norfolk, Va., 52 per cent
of the delinquent children were colored. In the northern and mid2 Information used in this section for each delinquent child is based on his first case of delinquency dis
posed of during the year, and for each dependent or neglected child on his first case of dependency or neglect
disposed of during the year.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6
T
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
able
2 .—
Number of official and unofficial delinquency cases and dependency
and neglect cases dealt with by
specified courts during 1927
Dependency and neglect
cases
Delinquency cases
Total
Offi
cial
Num Per
ber cent1
Total
Offi
cial
7,560
27 12,150
9,777
950
738
212
687
684
516
618
331
378
185
240
83
154
70
142
25
65
4
527
892
15
84
24
41
3
27
374
13
38
4
341
670
10
9
13
186
348
291
213
291
Total........... ........................................... 28,387 20,827
California: San Francisco City and County.
Connecticut:
Bridgeport__________________________
Hartford_________________-----------------Indiana:
Clay County.........................- - - - - ...........
Delaware County.——....... ....................
Jennings County__________ __________
Lake County____________ _______ ____
Marion County................—. ...... .............
Monroe County. - .......... ——.............—Vermillion County........... 4«......... - ........
Wayne County........................................
Wells County__________________ 5------White County.........................................
Massachusetts: Middlesex County..... .........
Michigan: Kent County_______;__________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_____ ___ _____ _____
Ramsey County......... .............................
New Jersey:
Hudson County____________ ________
Mercer County....................................
New York:
B uffalo..____ _______ ___ _____ _____ —
Clinton County............................. .........
Columbia County...................................
Delaware County___________ ____ ____
Dutchess County.............. ......................
Erie C ou n ty........................... ................
Franklin C ounty............ .......................
New York City.................. ....................
Orleans County______________________
Westchester County.......................... ...
North Carolina:
Buncombe County________ ____ ______
Winston-Salem___________________—
Ohio:
Franklin County........... ................... ......
Hamilton County_______ ________ , ___
Mahoning County.................... .........
Pennsylvania:
Berks County..........................................
Lycoming County...................... - ..........
Montgomery C ounty.............................
Philadelphia............................................
Tennessee: M em phis..____ ______________
Virginia: Norfolk............ ............ ........... —„
Washington: Pierce County______________
Wisconsin: Dane County............ .................
Unofficial
Unofficial
Court
12
222
5
75
11
29
20
20
'2Ö8
"2Ö8
342
111
342
342
966
342
1,685
215
1,685
215
836
23
98
14
223
177
34
836
19
97
14
219
177
34
6,102
6,102
95
79
121
1
2,373
39
111
95
48
121
259
271
54
54
24
24
3,243 3,243
14
15
297
302
1
8
657
447
144
295
5
295
139
160
24
57
24
103
883
1,332
1,684
883
38
403
1,294
1,281
262
254
223
262
114
190
140
33
48
48
2,904
251
13
17
31
3,686
653
186
93
73
13
17
31
2,312
190
186
79
43
1,374
463
9
1,104
10
53
6,152
852
728
126
87
10
53
3,248
601
728
123
60
20
12
3
27
374
12
Num Per
ber cent1
5
1Not shown where base is less than 50.
western courts the percentages of colored children varied from zero
to 29. Of the 11,737 dependent or neglected children for whom r£tce
was reported, dealt with by the 34 courts (both northern and
southern) reporting dependency or neglect cases, only 13 per cent
were colored, as compared with 16 per cent of the delinquent children.
.As might be expected from the differences in the racial groups
living in the localities served by the courts, the proportions of
children of native parentage and of foreign or mixed parentage com-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
7
ing before the courts showed great variation. Forty-one courts
f reported nativity and parentage for 18,722 delinquent white children;
fcOne court is omitted because it reported an error in its method of
checking nativity and parentage. Of the 15,905 boys in this group
39 per cent were native born of native parentage, 51 per cent were
native born of foreign or mixed parentage, 4 per cent were native
born of parentage not reported, and 6 per cent were foreign born.
Of the 2,817 girls 50 per cent were native born of native parentage,
40 per cent were native born of foreign or mixed parentage, 3 per
cent were native born of parentage not reported, and 7 per cent
were foreign born. Among the 9,796 dependent and neglected white
children for whom nativity and parentage were reported by these 41
courts, the proportion of native born of native parentage was much
greater (55 per cent) than of native born of foreign or mixed parent
age (37 per cent). The proportions of native-born children whose
parentage was not reported (3 per cent) and of foreign-born children
(6 per cent) were about the same as in delinquency cases.
The proportion of the children dealt with who were foreign born
was small for all courts reporting except New York City, where 15
per cent of the delinquent white boys, 19 per cent of the delinquent
white girls, and 18 per cent of the dependent and neglected white
children, both boys and girls, were reported as foreign born.
Age distribution.
Of the 42 courts reporting to the Children’s Bureau 20 had juris
diction over children up to 16 years of age 3; 2 (Kent County, Mich.,
and Memphis, Tenn.) had jurisdiction up to 17 years; 7 had juris
diction up to 18 years4; and the jurisdiction of 1 (San Francisco
City and County, Calif.) extended to 21 years. Of the remaining 12
courts 10 had jurisdiction over delinquent, dependent, and neglected
boys up to 16, delinquent girls up to 18, and dependent and neglected
girls up to 17 6; 1 (Dane County, Wis.) had jurisdiction over delin
quent boys up to 17, delinquent girls up to 18, and dependent and
neglected children up to 16; and 1 (Middlesex County, Mass.) had
jurisdiction over delinquent children between 7 and 17 years and
neglected children under 16 years of age.
The age distribution of children dealt with on charges of delin
quency by courts having original jurisdiction over children of specified
ages is shown in Table 3. The largest percentages of both boys and
girls were between 14 and 16 years of age, and the next largest per
centages were between 12 and 14 years of age. That the number of
girls and boys over 16, however, would probably have been larger had
it not been for the limitation of the jurisdiction of many courts to
children under that age is evident from the age distribution in courts
having jurisdiction beyond 16 years. The inclusion in each group of a
few children beyond the age of original jurisdiction specified is ex
plained by the fact that some courts have jurisdiction beyond the age
8 Bridgeport and Hartford, Conn.; Hudson County and Mercer County, N. J. (girls up to 17 may be
committed by the juvenile court to the State home for girls); Buffalo, Clinton County, Columbia Countv
Delaware County, Dutchess County, Erie County, Franklin County, New York City, Orleans County,
and Westchester County, N. Y .; Buncombe County and Winston-Salem, N. C.; and Berks County. Lycom
ing County, Montgomery County, and Philadelphia, Pa.
*
* Hennepin County and Ramsey County, Minn.; Franklin County, Hamilton County, and Mahoning
County, Ohio; Norfolk, Va.; and Pierce County, Wash.
8
xt‘
County, Delaware County, Jennings County, Lake County, Marion County, Monroe County.
Vermillion County, Wayne County, Wells County, and White County, Ind.
■*’
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS,
1927.
of original jurisdiction in certain situations; for example, a case in
which the offense was committed before the age limit was reached^
even though the case did not come to the attention of the court until
afterwards, and a case in which a child made a ward of the court
before reaching the age limit was before the court on a new charge.
Eight per cent of the delinquent boys and 4 per cent of the de
linquent girls reported were under 10 years of age. Children of this
age group were reported by 35 of the 42 courts. Nearly two-thirds of
these boys (971 of the 1,552) were dealt with officially. The situa
tion with regard to girls was similar; 78 of the 152 girls under 10 years
were dealt with officially.
T
able
3 .—
Ages of boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases by
courts during
1927, by age limitation o f original court jurisdiction
Children dealt with by courts
Having specified age limitations of
original jurisdiction
Total
Under 16
years 1
Age and sex of child
Under 18
years8
18 years and
over8
Per
Per
Per
Per
cent Num cent Num cent Num cent
Num distri
distri ber distri
distri
ber
ber
ber
bu
bu
bu
bu
tion
tion
tion
tion
25,456
17,462
7,129
21, 539
15,243
5,505
20,373
100
Under 10 years____________________ _____ 1,552
10 years, under 12. . . ....... ............................. 3,117
12 years, under 14------------- ---------------------- 5,575
14 years, under 16.------- ------ ------------------- 7,929
16 years and over ............................... ...... 4 2,200
8
15
27
39
11
Age reported_____________ ______ - ------ ---------
Age reported....................... ................................
Under 10 years..._____________________ _
10 years, under 12...................................... .
12 years, under 14................. ........................
14 years, under 16.... .............. ................... .
16 years and over____ ___________________
14,263
1,204
2,456
4,391
5,992
229/
865
791
100
5,327
100
783
100
8
17
31
42
2
309
600
1,069
1, 657
1,692
6
11
20
31
32
39
61
115
280
288
5
8
15
36
37
1,166
980
178
8
3,917
2,219
1,624
74
3,713
152
261
773
1,848
4679
204
100
4
7
21
50
18
2,071
102
188
527
1,186
68
148
100
5
9
25
57
3
1,573
48
71
238
641
575
51
100
69
100
3
5
15
41
37
2
2
8
21
36
3
3
12
30
52
5
1
Includes Westchester County, N. Y., where jurisdiction extends to 18 in truancy cases; also Hudson
County and Mercer County, N. J., where girls up to 17 may be committed to the State school for girls by
the juvenile court.
8 Includes Middlesex County, Mass., Kent County, Mich,, and Memphis, Tenn., where jurisdiction is
under 17 years, and Dane County, Wis., where jurisdiction is under 17 years for hoys.
8Includes San Francisco City and County, Calif., only.
* 41 courts (exclusive of Philadelphia) reported 59 boys and 28 girls as “ 18 years of age and over.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
9
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
As the following table shows, the number of children before the
courts on dependency and neglect charges was about the same for
each 2-year age period up to 14 when there was a distinct falling off.
Per cent
distribu
tion
Number of
children
Age
11,785
Total____ ______________________________ . ___________________________
10, 796
100
1,357
1,413
1,455
1,584
1,418
1,410
1,204
'858
97
13
13
13
15
13
13
11
8
1
989
Whereabouts.6
Two-thirds of the delinquent boys and almost one-half of the
delinquent girls for whom whereabouts was reported were living
with both own parents when referred to the court. The whereabouts
of the delinquent children was as follows:
Boys
Whereabouts
Girls
Per cent
Per cent
Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
16,584
3,098
Whereabouts reported.............................................. .....................
16,258
100
3,040
100
With both own parents. .......................................................
With parent and step-parent.................................................
10,947
1,410
2,088
'810
72
714
149
68
67
9
13
5
1,454
387
527
198
34
324
68
48
48
13
17
7
1
11
2
2
In adoptive home._____ ________________________ _______
In other family home-------- ------ ----------------- ------------------In institution..........................................................................
In other place.......................................... ............... ...............
326
0
0
4
1
58
1Less than 1 per cent.
Among the delinquent boys and girls reported as living with only
one parent the absence of the other parent, in the majority of
instances, was due to death. Almost three-fourths of the boys and
the same proportion of the girls living with one parent only were
with their mothers. Of the children living with a parent and a step
parent about two-thirds were with a mother and a stepfather, the
proportion being slightly higher for boys than for girls.
• Figures are omitted in this section for 1 court in which the proportion of children living with both
own parents was so large as to indicate inaccuracy in the reporting of this item.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
The following table shows with whom dependent and neglected
children were living when referred to the court:
Whereabouts
Number of Per cent
children distribution
Total................................................................................................................
8,618
Whereabouts reported______________ _____ ______________ ______________ ■___
8,521
100
With both own parents____________________________________
With parent and step-parent.................................. ...................... .................
With mother only............. ........................................ ; ..........................
With father only.....................................................................................
In adoptive home__________________________ ______
In other family home________ _____ ________________ ___________
In institution___________________________
In other place________ __________________________
1,804
344
2,756
1,560
90
1,491
440
36
21
4
32
18
1
17
5
Whereabouts not reported____________________________________
(*)
97
1Less than 1 per cent.
Among dependent and neglected children living with only one
parent, the absence of the other parent was due to death in slightly
more than one-fourth of the cases. Desertion was a much greater
factor in dependency and neglect than in delinquency, as was also a
group of miscellaneous conditions classed as “ other” which included
separation without divorce and confinement of one parent in a hospital
or a correctional institution. Among dependent and neglected
children living with their mothers only, the number of instances in
which the absence of the father was due to desertion and to “ other”
conditions was greater than the number due to death. As among
delinquent children, the majority of dependent and neglected children
living with one parent only were with their mothers.
DELINQUENCY CASES
Sources of complaint.
The source from which cases are received is some indication of the
court's relation to the community. It is to be expected that a large
proportion of complaints in delinquency cases would be received from
the police. The number received from school departments is an
indication of the extent to which the school handles its truancy and
behavior problems or refers them to the juvenile court. It is neces
sary to make a distinction between the person or agency that brings
the case to the attention of the court or probation office by making the
initial complaint and the person who signs the petition or legal paper
necessary to institute court action. Since the signing of the petition
may be dependent on court policy the former is more significant and
was used as the basis of tabulation so far as courts were able to give
this information. Some courts, for instance, prefer that the probation
officer should not sign such a paper lest his later contact with the
family be rendered more difficult thereby.
The police made the complaint in 62 per cent of the delinquency
cases for which source of complaint was reported. In one court
practically all the complaints (99.6 per cent) were received from the
police. In another court only 15 per cent of the complaints were
received from this source, the smallest percentage reported by the
police in any court. The highest percentages for sources of complaint
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11
JUVENILE-COURT ¡STATISTICS, 1927
other than police in any court reporting. 50 or more cases were:
Individual other than parent or relative, 57; probation officer, 47;
school department, 30; social agency^ 8.
The sources of complaint in delinquency cases were as follows:
Source of complaint
Number
Per cent
distribution
28,387
Source of complaint reported __
_
___ _________________________________
Police________________________________________________________________
Parents nr relatives...
Other individual (not probation officer)
_ _____
___
School department____________________________________________________
Probation officer
....
•___ ....... ...........
Social agency___ ______________________________________________________
Other source of complaint______________________________________________
27,967
100
17,319
2,775
2,749
2,602
864
693
965
62
10
10
9
3
2
3
420
Place of care pending hearing or disposition.
In more than half the delinquency cases, as is shown by Tables 4
and 5, the children were not detained but were allowed to remain in
their own homes pending hearing, or their cases were disposed of on
the day the complaint was made. Detention was not used to any
extent in most of the smaller courts; in the larger courts the prac
tices varied considerably. The cases in which children remained in
their own homes or which were disposed of within one day varied in
courts handling 50 or more cases from 97 per cent of all the cases in
Winston-Salem, N. C., to 27 per cent in Hamilton County, Ohio.
Twenty-four of the forty-two courts used boarding homes for children
who were not left in their own homes pending hearing, but the number
of children thus cared for was very small. Detention homes and
other institutions (including receiving homes or shelters of private
agencies and hospitals) were used in more than one-third of the delin
quency cases in which place of care was reported. The cornts re
porting the greatest use of detention homes were those in Hamilton
County, Ohio, Montgomery County, Pa., and Memphis, Tenn. New
York City, which does not maintain a municipal detention home,
using instead the shelter of a private agency, reported the majority
of the cases in which children were cared for in other institutions.
Almost a thousand children (4 per cent of the number for whom
place of care was reported) were held in jails or police stations pend
ing hearing or disposition of their cases. Cases of jail or policestation detention were reported by 26 courts; 69 per cent of the cases
so detained were reported by 3 courts. If all these cases were of
actual detention overnight or longer these figures would represent a
serious situation. But from a comparison of the dates on which the
cases had been referred to and disposed of by the courts, it was evi
dent that a few courts reported detention care when the child was
held in the jail or police station for a few hours pending arrival of
parents or attention from the court. Included in thesei figures also
were 158 cases in which the child was held for only part of the deten
tion period in the jail or police station and the remainder of the time
elsewhere. Although the largest numbers.of children detained m jail
were reported by courts having jurisdiction over children up to 18
61514°— 29----- 3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
years of age, many young children had been detained. Seventy de
tained children were under 14 years of age, 305 were between 14 and
16 years, and 590 were 16 years of age or over.
T
able
4 .—
Place o f care pending hearing or disposition o f case in delinquency cases
dealt with by J^2 specified courts during 1927
Delinquency cases
Place of care
Court
Own
home
Total or case Board
Deten Other Jail or
dis
ing
tion insti police
posed home
sta
home1tution2 tion
of
3
same
day
Total_______ . ______ _________ 28, 387 14,751
California: San Francisco City and
County......................... .......... .........
Connecticut:
B ridgeport...................................
Hartford...____________________
Indiana:
Clay County__________________
Delaware County. ____________
Jennings C o u n ty .......... ............ .
Lake County......... .................... 1
Marion County _______ ______
Monroe County________________
Vermillion County.......................
Wayne County_________________
Wells County_________ ____ ___
White County_________________
Massachusetts: Middlesex C ou n ty ...
Minnesota:
Hennepin County.........................
Ramsey County.............................
New Jersey:
Mercer County.......... ...................
New York:
Clinton County.............. ..............
Dutchess County.......................
Franklin County._________ ____
North Carolina:
69
5,585
950
527
6
516
618
472
551
3
3
25
65
4
527
892
15
84
24
41
3
27
374
7
29
4
438
705
6
75
18
36
3
25
190
2
966
342
1,685
' 215
979
334
15
21
19
58
20
5
53
152
6
1
5
5
2
2
i
14
20
1
1
1
810
167
1
2
53
52
7
13
69
100
1, 171
197
5
500
3
1
17
4
2
4
1
98
1
8
5
1
3
1
335
945
241
1
221
25
358
131
286
1
4
883
1,332
Mahoning C ounty.......... ............ 1,684
Pennsylvania:
48
10
53
6, 152
852
728
126
87
Wisconsin: Dane County___________
302
353
1,028
3
35
7
17
1,844
' 268
377
58
62
1
2
1
1
11
11
36
1, 371
* 543
274
53
6
22
25
1
2
1
4
7
8
i
6
i
2
3
21
4
2,957
5
3
2
1
3,416
...........
181
310
7
10
112
9
1
1
836
526
23
16
81
98
14
14
223
208
144
177
34
25
6,102 2, 751
9
9
1,104
778
274
8
8
27
10
4
144
295
Ohio:
Franklin C ounty................... ......
3,201
More Other
than
Not
1 place place
re
of
of
ported
care4 care
13
6
6
1
7
3
1
5
1
18
6
3
i
2
1
50
3
2
2
3
1
340
191
30
5
18
1
1
2
2
10
3
6
32
6
2
1
1
6
7
64
9
3
3 32,915
5
' 22
3
2
1
4
5
2
1
1
1Including cases of children cared for part of the time in detention home and the remainder of the time
elsewhere, but not including cases of children also held at jail or police station.
2Including cases of children cared for in receiving home or shelter of private agency and other institution.
3Including cases of children cared for part of the time in police station or jail and the remainder of the
time elsewhere.
4 Not including detention home, police station, or jail.
3Place of care not reported for unofficial cases. According to information received from the court chil
dren in these cases are cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
13
JTJYENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
A larger percentage of the boys than of the girls were permitted
to remain in their own homes, or their cases were disposed of on the
same day. (Table 5.) Detention homes or other institutions were
used more frequently in girls’ cases than in boys’ cases, but in only
2 per cent of the girls’ cases as compared with 4 per cent of the boys’
cases were the offenders detained in jail or police station.
T a b l e 5.— Places o f care -pending hearing or disposition o f delinquency cases of
boys and girls dealt with by 4® courts during 1927
Delinquency cases 1
Girls
Boys
Total
Place of care
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
Number distribu Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
tion
Total____________________________
28,387
Places of care reported__________________
24,971
Own home or case disposed of same
day.........................................- ..........
Boarding home________ _____ _______
Detention home or other institution...
Detention home.......... ...................
Other institution________________
Jail or police station________________
Only place of care__________ ____
One of the places of care_________
More than one place of care_________
Other place of care..............................
14, 751
69
28 786
2 5,585
3,201
979
821
158
3274
112
21,232
59
12,850
40
2 7,183
24,611
2,572
898
747
151
3214
47
«
35
22
13
4
3
1
1
(>)
100
3,739
100
61
1,901
29
21,603
2 974
629
81
74
7
360
65
51
1
43
26
17
2
2
«
P)
34
22
12
4
4
1
1
.
,
m
2
2
404
3,012
<3,416
* jL iC S S L i m n i y e i u t m t .
4,143
24,244
100
, ,,
.
,
. . .
A
2Including cases of children cared for part of the time m detention home and the remainder of the time
elsewhere, but not including cases of children also held at jail or police station.
3 Not including detention home, police station, or jail.
i including Philadelphia’s unofficial cases for which place of care was not reported.
Charges.
Though an attempt is being made to secure uniformity in the use
of terms, the charges on which children were dealt with as delinquents
by the courts give a very incomplete picture of their behavior prob
lems. A child may have committed several offenses at or about
the same time but be referred to court on only one of them. The
specific offense with which he is charged may be much less serious
than offenses discovered in the course of the social investigation.
When the case is investigated before the filing of a petition instead
of afterward the formal charge is usually more accurate, but even
in such cases the offense stated in the complaint may reflect the
desire of the court to protect the child. For instance, in some courts
a girl is charged with incorrigibility instead of a sex offense, and a
boy with trespassing and taking the property of another instead of
with “ breaking and entering” or “ burglary.”
’ As is shown by the recorded offenses the boys and girls present
quite different delinquency problems. _ More than two-thirds of the
boys were charged with stealing or with acts of carelessness or mis
chief., With the girls “ running away,” “ ungovernable or beyond
parental control,” and “ sex offense” were the most frequent charges,
two-thirds of them having been charged with these offenses.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T
able
6 .—
h- i
Charges in boys’ delinquency cases dealt with by 42 specified courts during 1927
Boys’ delinquency cases
Charge on which referred to court
Court
Total
Stealing or
attempted
stealing
Truancy
Running
away
Ungovern
able or be
yond paren Sex offense
tal control
Injury or
of care
attempted Act
lessness or
injury to
mischief
person
Other
Notreported
ported
Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per
ber cent1 ber cent1 ber cent1 ber cent1 ber cent1 ber cent1 ber cent1 ber
Total....... ........................
California: San Francisco City and County..
Connecticut:
Bridgeport...........................
Hartford_______
Indiana:
Clay County.............................
Delaware County...........
Lake County______________
Marion County____ _
Monroe C o u n ty .__ _
Wayne County_______________
Wells County____________
White County___________
Massachusetts: Middlesex Countv___
Michigan: Kent County__
Minnesota:
Hennepin County__ _
Ramsey County___________
New Jersey:
Hudson C oun ty...................
Mercer County_________
New York:
Buffalo____________ ..
Clinton County....... ...........
Columbia County_________
Delaware County________
Dutchess County___ ,______
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24,244 24,054 10,03$
42 1,839
ß
873
872
405
46
76
9
46
440
438
539
111
175
25
32
49
22
11
4
38
32
14
47
4
343
589
10
54
15
23
3
24
374
12
47
4
336
589
7
54
15
23
3
24
373
9
39
159
47
303
51
7
27
12
11
2 .........
19
195
52
776
270
775
270
365
164
47
61
66
9
1,482
107
1,482
520
162
35
82
352
24
785
18
84
14
183
785
18
84
14
182
540
10
39
5
40
46
22
1
3
4
42
63
1
1
1
1,733
6
14
30
6
13
19
12
11
19
6
1
40
61
12
10
37
12
2
4
1
7
1
1
2
1
.........
4
814
3 6,616
28
743
3
29
138
16
21
2
195
240
45
45
15
1
3
1
4
...... ......
29
5
1
33
541
119
1
......
------
r
75
36
..
18
10
13
21
10
5
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
18
8
4
1
1
2
13 1
7
4
1
6
1
1
h
2
2
30
112
9
19
4
14
1
2
2
4
14
26
4
7
___
7
25
1
3
1
______
1
195
36
■^
13
28
12
4
4
1
400
5
27
3
2
160
4
23
2
1 1 83
—
3
..
2
93
___
—
1
1
51
5
3
3
2
20
12
2
5
13
1
8
ìò
27
2
2
4
2
1
2
1
3
25
«
190
5
17
4
___
------
1
6
cent
1
46
7
(s)
::::::
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
Total
159
25
5,262
8
950
158
25
5,106
8
950
2,105
6
295
122
239
122
235
674
1, 332
1,391
39
6
40
5,396
672
615
98
55
75
21
12
1
459
1
83
8
1
1
9
61
1
9
1
246
9
17
2
1
4
9
3
4
1
2
8
6
48
51
112
7
4
8
67
38
34
5
5
6
4
1
2"
95
13
15
3
2
1
4
1
590
12
31
48
1
189
20
16
2
71
95
58
40
20
66
16
28
1
1
673
1,330
1,391
372
587
442
55
44
32
89
49
241
13
4
17
16
109
90
39
6
40
5,396
666
613
98
55
24
3
28
2,038
262
194
60
36
38
39
32
61
65
1
4
272
65
22
9
3
5
10
4
9
5
2
540
112
24
4
2
1Not shown where base is less than 50.
47
41
3
0
1
10
17
4
4
4
1
267
34
39
4
57
6
1
5 1,493
29
104
2
23
2
303
32
'24
3
1
11
13
9
6
12
44
10
19
2
7
2
3
4
10
3
2
16
19
38
2
1
3
48
349
374
7
26
27
17
128
60
3
10
4
1
2
4
4
7
9
6
2
2
2
2
3
4
5
1
2
144
59
34
2 Less than 1 per cent.
7
1
3 1, 827
9
97
6
243
9
12
H i
36
156
2
34
15
40
9
22
213
24
42
9
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
Erie County..... .........
Franklin County______
New York C ity .______
Orleans County_______
Westchester County___
North Carolina:
Buncombe County____
Winston-Salem.............
Ohio:
Franklin County______
Hamilton County_____
Mahoning County_____
Pennsylvania:
Berks County_________
Lycoming County.:___
Montgomery County__
Philadelphia__________
Tennessee: Memphis______
Virginia: Norfolk__________
Washington: Pierce County.
Wisconsin: Dane County....
J—i
C*
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T
able
7 .—
Charges in girls’ delinquency cases dealt with by 87 specified courts during 19 2 7 1
Oi
Girls’ delinquency cases
Charge on which referred to court
Court
Total
Truancy
Running
away
Ungovern
able or be Sex offense
yond par
ental control
Injury or
attempted
injury to
person
Act of care
lessness or
mischief
Other
Not re
ported
Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per
ber cent2 ber cent2 ber cent2 ber cent2 ber cent2 ber cent2 ber cent2 ber cent2
Total..................................
California: San Francisco City and County_______
Connecticut:
Bridgeport____________________
Hartford____________________ ____
Indiana:
Clay County......................................
Delaware C ounty-.________
Lake Comity________________. . .
Marion County__________
Monroe County_______ _
Vermillion County______________
Wayne County___________________
Wells County.................................
Massachusetts: Middlesex County____
Minnesota:
Hennepin County............................... ......
Ramsey County.___________ ___________
New Jersey:
Hudson County___________ _____ __________
Mercer County..................................................
New York:
Buffalo........ .............................. .........................
Clinton County................... ........................ ........
Columbia County___________ _______________
Dutchess County___________________________
Erie County_____________________ _____ ___
Franklin County____________________________
New York City_______________ _____________
Orleans County_____________________________
Westchester County.............................................i
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4,143
4,105
526
13
430
10
760
19
1,130
28
773
19
77
77
4
5
4
5
25
32
17
22
21
27
76
79
76
79
31
22
41
28
8
5
11
6
6
2
8
3
13
15
17
19
8
29
11
37
3
11
18
184
303
6
30
9
18
3
11
18
183
303
2
30
9
18
3
2
2
16
4!
7
8
3
5
25
20
55
11
5
190
72
190
71
21
11
11
15
17
203
18
203
18
7
3
3
101
51
5
14
4)
51
5
14
40
17
9
812
1
154
16
51
j
8
9
843
1
154
9
14
4
13
4
Ì
3
3
2
1
1
14
7
1
2
2
22
i53
1
3
12
50
1
6
4
101
33
1
15
6
8
114
3
283
7
89
2
1
1
5
6
10
13
38
1
1
2
16
10
1
1
3
2
1
3
1
2
9
50
1
2
37
52
£4
19
28
27
3
2
6
3
18
3
£6
4
28
25
4
12
4
3
2
3
1
1
1
27
20
34
10
2
1
9
9
5
273
5
ÎÔ
6
6
3
34
3
2
3
18
2
71
37
4
1
135
17
6
1
10
6
52
34
275
1
8
9
i
34
2
7
4
1
4
41
n
35
4
40
6
47
31
8
5
Ì7
(3)
1
2
5
7
1
Ü
2
Ï
1
2
2
i
28
-T -r> -,-r
JUVENILE-COXJRT STATISTICS, 1927
Total
re
ported
Stealing or
attempted
stealing
22
56
22
55
2
14
24
5
2
4
5
9
16
2
1
2
209
293
209
292
17
26
7
25
11
19
5
7
31
67
15
23
130
64
62
22
9
4
13
756
180
113
28
32
9
4
13
756
179
113
28
31
6
6
10
5
2
1
1
253
46
4
2
4
27
21
43
2
3
8
49
28
17
20
9
6
16
15
4
77
21
7
1
5
1 Only 37 of the 42 courts reported girls’ delinquency cases.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
33
26
4
202
38
49
3
12
2
4
11
20
1
4
7
1
5
2
1
35
(3)
12
4
4
2
1
1
10
10
19
1
6
17
100
13
10
1
13
7
9
19
5
1
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
* Not shown where base is less than 50.
•Less than 1 per cent.
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
North Carolina:
Buncombe County____
Winston-Salem________
Ohio:
Franklin County._____
Mahoning County_____
Pennsylvania:
Berks C ounty.._______
Lycoming County_____
Montgomery__________
Philadelphia.._________
Tennessee: Memphis___ ___
Virginia: Norfolk________ _
Washington: Pierce County.
Wisconsin: Dane County__
18
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
The great variation in the types of offenses with which children ^
were charged in the different courts, as is shown by Tables 6 and 7,
indicates differences in the attitude and practices of the court as ^
well as in social conditions. For example, in boys’ cases (Table 6)
stealing constituted 42 per cent of all cases and was the most fre
quent charge in all except five courts reporting 50 or more cases.
In Mercer County, N. J., stealing was the charge in 82 per cent of
the boys’ cases and acts of carelessness or mischief in 3 per cent;
in Dutchess County, N. Y., stealing was the charge in 22 per cent
of the cases and acts of carelessness or mischief in 46 per cent. Acts
of carelessness or mischief were reported more often than stealing
in Bridgeport and Hartford, Conn.; Dutchess County and West
chester County, N. Y .; and Norfolk, Ya. Apparently in some
courts the charge for petty stealing is “ mischief” rather than
“ stealing.” Although charges of truancy represented only 8 per cent
of all charges they formed 20 per cent or more of the cases reported
by Hudson County, N. J .; Westchester County, N. Y .; and WinstonSalem, N. C. Other charges constituting rather large proportions
of the cases in certain courts were “ running away,” 17 per cent in
Memphis, Tenn., as compared with 7 per cent in all the courts;
“ sex offense,” 11 per cent in Lake County, Ind., and 10 per cent in
Franklin County, Ohio, as compared with 2 per cent in all the courts.
Variations similar to those in boys’ cases were evident in the types
of offenses with which girls (Table 7) were charged. Five of the courts
reporting 50 or more girls’ cases showed an unusually large propor
tion of cases in which girls were referred to the court as runaways.'
These courts were San Francisco City and County (32 per cent),
Buffalo (27 per cent), New York City (34 per cent), Philadelphia (33
per cent), and Memphis (26 per cent). Stealing was the charge in
only 13 per cent of all the girls’ cases but was the most frequent charge flk
in three courts, occurring in 41 per cent of the girls’ cases in Bridgeport, Conn., in 51 per cent in Buffalo, N. Y., and in 25 per cent in
Winston-Salem, N. C. Similarly, although charges of truancy
formed only 10 per cent of all charges in girls’ cases, they constituted
50 per cent of the cases in Hudson County, N. J., and 34 per cent of
the cases in Westchester County, N. Y., 29 per cent of the cases in
Winston-Salem, N. C., and 25 per cent of the cases in Mahoning
County, Ohio. Other charges which were reported in large propor
tions by certain courts were “ injury to person” in Norfolk, V a .;
“ carelessness or mischief” in Winston-Salem, N. C.; “ ungovernable”
in Marion County, Ind., Ramsey County, Minn., and Norfolk, V a.;
and “ sex offense” in Lake County, Ind., and Franklin County, Ohio.
The contrast between Lake County, Ind., and Marion County, Ind.,
so far as the charges “ ungovernable” and “ sex offense” are con
cerned, is especially striking. In Lake County the charge was “ un
governable” in 12 per cent of the girls’ cases and “ sex offense” in 55
per cent; in Marion County it was “ ungovernable” in 50 per cent and
“ sex offense” in 11 per cent. This contrast no doubt reflects in some
measure a difference in stating the charge rather than in the types of
offenses reported to the courts.
Dispositions.
Official cases.— An analysis of the dispositions,.which were reported
for 20,679 of the 20,827 delinquency cases dealt with officially by
the 42 courts, shows that nearly nine-tenths were (1) dismissed or
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
19
JUYENILE-COTJKT STATISTICS, 1927
j
^
continued indefinitely (35 per cent), (2) placed on probation (39
per cent), or (3) committed to institutions for delinquent children
(15 per cent). A number of different but related methods of treat
ment of delinquent children are included under each of these terms.
For example, the entry ‘ ‘ case dismissed” was made for cases closed
without any further action, cases referred to other courts for com
mitment to institutions for the feeble-minded, and cases dismissed
because of lack of jurisdiction in the juvenile court. Cases were
considered as “ continued indefinitely” when no further action was
taken or supervision given the children but when jurisdiction was
maintained so that if a like situation arose later the case might be
brought into court again without the filing of a new petition. Cases
of children placed on probation to parents or committed to institu
tions with commitment suspended when no further action was
contemplated were also classed as “ continued indefinitely.”
The dispositions of 20,827 official delinquency cases were as follows
(the numbers and per cent distribution for boys and girls are shown
in Tables 8 and 9 respectively):
Disposition
Total________________ j
Disposition reported___________
Dismissed or continued indefinitely____
Child placed on probation................
Child committed to institution for delinquent children
Restitution, fine, or costs
Fine imposed or payment of costs ordered _
Restitution or reparation ordered..
Other disposition____________
Child placed under supervision of individual other than probation officer
Child committed to other institution
Child committed to board, department, or aeencv
Child returned home *____
Child referred for criminal prosecution
Case otherwise disposed of______
Disposition not reported______________
Number
Per cent
distribution
20,827
20,679
100
7,179
8,161
"5,046
1,202
.884
318
1,091
285
136
408
174
35
53
35
39
15
6
4
2
5
1
1
2
1
(s)
(?)
148
1 Applies only to runaways or children living away from own home at the time referred to court
2 Less than 1 per cent.
The courts showed wide variation in the extent to which different
types of dispositions were used. Such variations are due in many
instances to differences in court procedure and practice. For instance,
the number of official cases dismissed or continued indefinitely is
small if cases are investigated before the filing of a petition and
trivial cases are dealt with unofficially or dropped. The proportion
of cases in which the child is placed on probation is influenced by
several factors, among them the number of cases dismissed or con
tinued indefinitely upon first hearing, the extent to which unofficial
probation is used, the local institutions available for short-time
commitments, and the care with which children are selected for pro
bation both as to those likely to profit by it and as to the court’s
facilities for giving such supervision.
Analysis of the percentages of cases disposed of in various ways by
courts handling 50 or more official cases shows more clearly the
variations from court to court. Each of the courts reported some
cases dismissed or continued indefinitely. The percentage so disposed
of ranged from 5 in Mercer County, N. J., to 54 in Memphis, Tenn.,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e 8 .— Dispositions in boys* official delinquency cases dealt with by
specified courts during 1927
Boys’ official delinquency cases
Disposition
Court
Total
Child committed
to institution for
delinquent children
Child placed on
probation
Restitution, fine,
or costs
o ttier
Not
reported
Number Per cent1
Number Per cent1 Number Per cent1 Number Per cent1 Number Per cent1
Total_________________________
California: San Francisco City and County.
Connecticut:
Bridgeport.............................................
Hartford....................... .........................
Indiana:
Clay County_______________________
Delaware County............................... .
Jennings County.................................. .
Lake County....... .......................
Marion County______________ _____
Monroe County....... - ..........—- ...........
Vermillion County...................... .........
Wayne County..... ............., ................
Wells County...... ...............................
White County......................................
Massachusetts: Middlesex County...........
Michigan: Kent County............................
Minnesota:
Hennepin County— ...........................
Ramsey County------- — - ---------------New Jersey:
Hudson County—......... —................ —
Mercer County_____________ ____ —
New York:
Buffalo____ ________________________
Clinton County___________________
Columbia County................................
Delaware County__________________
Dutchess County__________________
Erie County...........................- ............
Franklin County_____________ _____
New York City___________________
Orleans County......*...........................
Westchester County.......... —..............
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
17,738
663
277
320
17,610
632
275
320
6,344
324
87
129
39
2,420
14
51
25
127
20
32
40
55
55
26
12
9
-------
3
3T
51
60
105
7
36
6,892
150
175
—
7 ------ ------ —
27 —------- - --. . . . . . . .
26
61
232
14
74
523
7 --- --------- . . . . -----—
......
_________
8
4
3 ............ §"
24
33
123
373
776
270
1,482
197
776
269
355
25
46
269
.... .........
20
44
72
75
37
10
14
19
73
218
43
785
15
83
14
179
159
25
5,190
8
562
412
3
39
1
61
23
8
2,499
3
202 1
52
149
g
10
10
48
111
19
1,773
3
225
34
136
4
6
2
13
19
5
590
1
81
36
12
27
70
40
0
15
0
10
5
128
22
3
31
2
3
1
1
2
1
.........
39
22
____
17
4
1
361
87
................ ................
5
5
12
1
4
1
24
9
1
1
1
1
h
1
7
22
• 27
7
12
42
23
11
299
6
26
5
14
803
1 . . . . ___- ________
1 ................ ................
- ....... ......
13
281
143
48
53
...........
41
3
34
14
26
20
50
612
5
4
---------
3 ................
1,481
197
47
10
1
4 ................
-- - - - - 24
45
166
341
195
7
1,151
6
1
15
6
10
29
1
28
0
7
8
4
1
5
72
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
Total
reported
Dismissed or con
tinued indefinitely
4
239
4
239
674
38
335
39
6
40
2,808
499
615
97
50
65
27
121
51
674
36
335
48
7
67
90
27
452
6
138
39
6
40
2,808
483
614
97
50
4
1
2
597
279
175
23
7
41
143
21
54
52
10
36
36
80
18
5
15
334
119
18
19
1
17
21
58
29
24
14
19
1,454
48
21o
35
40
4
37
1 Per cent not shown where base is less than 50.
T
able
9 .—
15
5
2
11
5
21
7
1
4.
16
35
10
24
9
18
2
5
,
3
32
1
135
5
12
25
3
20
2
1
(2)
22
5
1
391
36
68
15
2
14
7
11
15
4
15
1
2 Less than 1 per cent.
Dispositions in girls’ officiât delinquency cases dealt with by 36 specified courts during 1927 1
Girls’ official delinquency cases
Disposition
Court
Dismissed or con
tinued indefinitely
Total
Child placed on
probation
Total
reported
Child committed
to institution for
delinquent children
Restitution, fine,
or costs
Other
Not
reported
Number Per cent2 Number Per cent2 Number Per cent 2 Number Per cent2 Number Per cent2
TotaL........................ ........................
California: San Francisco City and
County____ ____ ________ ____________
Connecticut:
Bridgeport__________________ __ ____
Hartford...... ...................................... .
Indiana:
Clay County_______________________
Delaware County____ ____ __________
Lake County_______________________
Marion County_____________________
Monroe County____________________
Vermillion County__________________
Wayne County________ ____________
Wells County................ ................ ........
3,089
3,069
835
27
75
75
27
36
54
58
54
' 58
26
12
48
21
6
11
109
146
3
6
5
8
6
11
109
146
3
6
5
8
36
6
9
23
114
1
5
21
78
1,269
41
626
20
17
23
10
19
25
35
43
5
19
1
39
9
1
1
5
2
19
17
2
1
5
4
1 Only 37 of the 42 courts reported girls’ delinquency cases and 1 court did not report girls’ cases disposed of officially.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
51
2
288
9
13
21
9
33
4
28
7
3
17
12
20
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
N orth Carolina:
Buncombe C ounty.........
W inston-S alem................
Ohio:
Franklin County_______
Hamilton County______
Mahoning C ou n ty .:___
Pennsylvania:
Berks C ounty_________ _
Lycoming C ounty____ _.
M ontgomery C ou n ty....
Philadelphia___________
Tennessee: M em phis.........
Virginia: N orfolk .._________
Washington: Pierce County.
Wisconsin: Dane County__
6
2
2 Per cent not shown where base is less than 50.
|— i
T
able
9 .—
Dispositions in girls’ official delinquency cases dealt with hy 36 specified courts during 1927
Continued
Girls ’ official delinquency cases
Disposition
Court
Total
Dismissed or con
tinued indefinitely
Number Per cent
Massachusetts: Middlesex County.
Minnesota:
Hennepin County__________ ..
Ramsey County________ _____
New Jersey:
Hudson County.........................
Mercer County..........................
New York:
Buffalo______________________
Clinton County--------------------Columbia County____________
Dutchess County------------------Erie County............... — ...........
Franklin C o u n ty ....------- -----New York City...................—
Westchester County— ............
North Carolina:
Buncombe County----------------W inston-Salem--------------------Ohio:
Franklin County_____________
Mahoning County.....................
Pennsylvania:
Berks County............................
Lycoming County----------------Montgomery County...............
Philadelphia..................... ........
Tennessee: Memphis-----------------Virginia: Norfolk----------- -----------Washington: Pierce County--------Wisconsin: Dane County-------------
* Less than 1 per cent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
190
72
190
72
203
18
203
18
827
95
209
68
Child placed on
probation
Child committed
to institution for
delinquent children
Number Per cent Number Per cent
Restitution, fine,
oncosts
Number
Other
Not
reported
Per cent Number Per cent
56
369
28
209
67
0
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
Total
reported
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
23
and was more than 40 per cent in six other courts. Similarly the child
liras placed on probation in 39 per cent of all cases, but for individual
^courts this percentage ranged from 12 per cent in Memphis, Tenn., to
77 per cent in Dane County, Wis. In 10 courts the children dealt
with were placed on probation in more than half the cases.
Although commitments to institutions for delinquent children
were made in only 15 per cent of all cases the proportion of such
commitments was more than 20 per cent in seven courts. Orders for
restitution, fines, and payment of costs when not accompanied by
more significant dispositions, such as probation, were resorted to in a
small proportion (6 per cent) of the cases. In four courts, however,
such orders were made in about one-fifth of the cases.
Tables 8 and 9 show the extent to which different types of dis
positions were used in boys’ and in girls’ cases. In general, the
dispositions of boys’ and girls’ cases showed no striking differences
except in a few courts. Although 36 per cent of the boys’ cases and
only 27 per cent of the girls’ cases were dismissed or continued indefi
nitely, in Bridgeport, Conn., 32 per cent of the boys’ cases and 48 per
cent of the girls’ cases, and in Lake County, Ind., 26 per cent of the
boys’ cases and 36 per cent of the girls’ cases were so disposed of.
Probation was used in a slightly larger proportion of the girls’ cases
than of the boys’ cases, but in 10 of the 17 courts which reported a
total of 50 or more girls’ cases probation was used more frequently in
boys’ cases. This was especially noticeable in Bridgeport, Conn.,
and Ramsey County, Minn. In 14 per cent of the boys’ cases as com
pared with 20 per cent of the girls’ cases the child was committed
to an institution for delinquent children. This difference between
the sexes in the use of such institutions was even greater in Hartford,
Conn., and in Ramsey County, Minn. In the former 4 per cent of the
boys’ cases and 33 per cent of the girls’ cases and in the latter 14 per
^J|cent of the boys’ cases and 49 per cent of the girls’ cases were disposed
of by commitment to such institutions. Commitments to other insti
tutions or to agencies and use of individuals other than parents or
court officers for supervision, which formed part of the group “ other
disposition” were most commonly used in Lake County, Ind., and
Philadelphia, Pa., for boys; and in San Francisco City and County,
Calif.; Lake County, Ind.; Westchester County, N. Y .; and Phila
delphia, Pa., for girls. Each of these courts reported one and in some
instances all of these types of dispositions.
A study of the relation of charges to dispositions in official cases
as shown in Table 10 (boys’ cases) and Table 11 (girls’ cases) reveals
some interesting facts as to methods of treatment of different types of
offenses.7 Table 10 shows that in boys’ cases dismissal or indefinite
continuance was the type of disposition most often used where the
charge was injury or attempted injury to person (63 per cent), acts of
carelessness or mischief (59 per cent), running away (37 per cent),
and a group of miscellaneous charges classified as “ other” (59 per
cent). Probation was used more often than any other type of disposi
tion in the cases of boys charged with stealing (47 per cent), truancy
(36 per cent), sex offense (51 per cent), violating a liquor or drug law
(47 per cent), and being ungovernable or beyond parental control
(42 per cent). Commitment to an institution for delinquent children
7 These tables are based on the cases reported by the 41 courts that sent cards to the bureau and do not
include figures for Philadelphia, which reported on standard table forms in place of cards.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T
able
1 0 .—
Charge, by type o f disposition, in boys’ official delinquency cases dealt with by 41 courts during 1927 1
to
Boys’ official delinquency cases
Charge on which referred to court
Disposition
Per
Num cent Num
dis
ber tribu
ber
tion
Total......................................... 14,930 6,740
Disposition reported
14,802 6,677
Dismissed____ _______________
4,872 1,562
Continued indefinitely................
875
336
Restitution or reparation ordered.
286
117
Fine or payment of costs...........
833
138
Child referred for criminal
prosecution__________________
32
27
Child placed on probation........... 5,438 3,141
Child placed under supervision
of individual other than probation officer____ ________
192
95
Child committed to board, department, or agency......... ......
51
16
Child committed to institution
for delinquent children. ......... 2,086 1,203
State institution................
770
509
County or city institution...
468
251
Private institution............... .
571
285
Type not reported_________
277
158
Child committed to other institu tion ..____ ____ _____ ____
54
24
Child returned home 3_________
50
6
Other disposition
. . . .....
12
33
Disposition not reported___________
128
63
1 Philadelphia not included.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
100
23
5
2
2
100
23
12
93
8
432
1
18
8
4
4
2
(2)
(2)
(2)
Per
cent Num
dis
tribu ber
tion
1,210
1,207
280
139
(3)
47
(s)
Running
away
Truancy
861
852
284
32
284
28
2
8
1
218
57
111
38
12
18
5
9
3
1
3 Less than 1 per cent.
(2)
(2)
(2)
100
33
4
1,201
1,192
247
87
100
21
7
(2)
Injury or
attempted
injury
to person
Sex
offense
Per
Per
cent Num cent Num
dis
dis
tribu ber tribu ber
tion
tion
2
36
3
2
4
3
Ungovern
able or
beyond
parental
control
Per
cent Num
dis
tribu ber
tion
355
350
73
24
1
5
100
21
7
(2)
3
180
1
51
138
3
33
496
11
1
22
2
8
2
5
1
14
1
4
1
190
54
26
60
50
22
6
3
7
6
305
88
40
143
34
26
7
3
12
3
48
27
4
13
4
14
8
1
4
1
7
39
1
5
16
1
2
9
1
1
(2)
3
1
9
42
(2)
(2)
551
546
305
40
19
13
26
9
10
4
3
1
1
5
Act of care
lessness or
mischief
Violating
liquor or
drug law
or intoxi
cation
Per
Per
Per
cent Num cent Num cent
dis
dis
dis Num
tribu ber tribu ber tribu ber
tion
tion
tion
3.533
3,516
1,905
' 190
149
546
100
54
5
4
16
25
1
641
(2)
18
1
15
(2)
3
(2)
56
15
19
14
8
2
(2)
1
(2)
(2)
100
56
7
3
5
2
2
1
1
(2)
«
3
(2)
7
17
(2}
99
98
22
13
100
22
13
Per
Per
cent Num cent
dis ber dis
tribu
tribu
tion
tion
203
201
111
9
100
27
13
15
46
47
31
7
2
2
7
2
2
13
5
2
3
3
M
4
6
2_|
177
163
83
4Q
20
4
0\
1
1
Not
reported
Other
2
(2)
1
14
* Applies only to runaways or children living away from own homes at the time referred to court.
9
m
^
100
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
Total
Stealing
or
attempted
stealing
%
T
able
11.
m
Charge, by type o f disposition, in girls’ official delinquency cases dealt with by 35 courts during 1927 1
Girls’ official delinquency cases
Charge on which referred to court
Stealing or
attempted
stealing
Disposition
Truancy
Total
T otal................................................................ _..............
Disposition reported_____________________ ______ ______
Dismissed___ ______ ________ ___ ._______________ _
Continued indefinitely__________________ IIIIIIIIIII
Restitution or reparation ordered___________________
Fine imposed or payment of costs ordered...................
Child referred for criminal prosecution__ ____ ______
Child placed on prob a tion ...................................1.1.II!
Child placed under supervision of individual other
than probation officer____ . _______________________
Child com m itted to board, department, or agency__
Child com m itted to institution for delinquent chil
dren_______________________________
t
State institution._________ _____________________
C ounty or city institution....... .....................IIIIII!
Private institution.
T yp e not reported.
Child committed to other institution.
Child returned home * .
Other disposition.
Disposition not reported.
2,649
381
2,629
588
149
6
44
2
1,066
379
107
23
4
1
100
28
6
1
(3)
266
102
33
24
9
1
181
48
85
32
178
43
327
79
34
11
4
3
1
7
1
3
10
5
2
1
578
229
77
214
58
33
32
18
46
19
4
16
7
1
12
5
1
4
2
13
5
21
3
2
14
4
(3)
1
(3)
89
11
7
56
15
2
22
2
20
1
2
267
417
100
38
12
(*)
5
2
7
1
(3)
1
(3)
1
3
414
84
21
723
100
20
5
(3)
(3)
(3)
3
1
:
Oi ui
uoui us reported gins' delinquency cases; one court did not report girls’ cases di
1 Per cent distribution not shown where base is less than 50.
* Less than 1 per cent.
* Applies only to runaways or children living away from own home at the time referred to court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5
718
105
42
Sex offense
599
78
100
15
6
596
75
13
100
13
2.
(3)
46
1
2
212
25
7
3
1
194
56
29
86
23
12
4
1
27
8
4
12
3
2
1
(3)
1
5
(3)
78
40
4
2
8
100
51
5
3
10
(3)
36
22
28
22
15
4
3
1
1
220
136
26
46
12
18
5
13
37
23
4
8
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
96
26
29
33
92 , 100
57
62
' 7
6
26
4
28
8
5
32
6
2
14
10
7
8
20
22
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
17
1
3
7
1
3
4
JTJVENILE-COTJRT STATISTICS, 1927
Per
Per
cent
Num cent
dis Num
dis
ber tribu
ber tribu
tion
tion
Ungovern
able or
beyond
parental
control
Injury or
of care Violat
attempted Act
lessness or
ing
injury to
mischief
liquor
person
or drug Other Not re
law or (num ported
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per intoxi ber) 2 (num
ber) 2
cent
cent
cent
cent
cent cation
Num dis Num
dis Num dis Num dis Num dis (num
ber tribu ber
tribu ber tribu ber tribu ber tribu ber) 2
tion
tion
tion
tion
tion
Running
away
26
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS,
1927
was reported in 26 per cent of the cases of boys described as ungovern
able or beyond parental control and in 22 per cent of the cases in which7
the boy was charged with running away. Fines or costs were ordered
chiefly in the cases of boys charged with acts of carelessness or mis
chief (16 per cent).
.As is shown in Table 11, the treatment of girls for certain offenses
was similar to that of boys. Dismissal or indefinite continuance was
the disposition most frequently used in cases where the offense was
injury to person (56 per cent) or act of carelessness or mischief (69 per
cent); probation was used more often than any other type of disposi
tion in the cases of girls charged with stealing (48 per cent), and with
being ungovernable (46 per cent) ; and the proportions of cases in
which girls were committed to institutions for delinquent children as
ungovernable (27 per cent), or as runaways (21 per cent), were about
the same as those for boys. In girls’ cases, however, dismissal or
indefinite continuance was the disposition most frequently used when
the charge was truancy (50 per cent) and probation when the charge
was running away (43 per cent). Commitment to an institution
was used proportionately more frequently for sex offenses of girls than
for any other offense among either boys or girls; the contrast in treat
ment of boys and of girls for this offense is striking. In 14 per cent
of the cases of boys charged with sex offenses the boy was committed
to an institution for delinquent children and in 51 per cent he was
placed on probation, whereas in 37 per cent of the cases of girls who
were sex delinquents the girl was committed to an institution for
delinquent children and in 36 per cent she was placed on probation.
On the other hand, when truancy was the charge, children were sent to
such institutions in only 5 per cent of the girls’ cases as compared
with 18 per cent of the boys’ cases, and girls less frequently than boys
were committed to institutions on charges of stealing. The per
centages of institution commitments for the two sexes were about
the same in cases of runaways and ungovernable children.
Unofficial cases.— Of the 7,525 unofficial delinquency cases for which
the disposition was reported more than one-half (58 per cent) were
closed because the difficulty was adjusted; in approximately oneseventh (14 per cent) the children were placed unofficially under the
supervision of probation officers; and a large proportion of the remain
ing cases were apparently dropped without action of any sort (“ dis
missed” or “ no action taken” was frequently reported under “ other
disposition” ).
.
The following table shows the dispositions of unofficial delinquency
cases dealt with by the 23 courts reporting such cases:
Disposition
Total.
Disposition reported-------------------------------------- Placement of child in institution recommended.
Placement of child elsewhere recommended----Child placed on unofficial probation..................
Referred to agency or other court— .................
Child returned home 1— --....... - -------- -----------Difficulty adjusted,------ ......................................
Other disposition........ ................ .......................Disposition not reported..._____________________
Number
Per cent
distribu
tion
7,560
7,525
203
72
1,073
176
266
4,356
1,379
35
1Applies only to runaways or children living away from own home at the tune referred to court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
100
3
1
14
2
4
58
18
27
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
■%As is shown by Table 12, with the exception of cases in which
children were charged with running away and simply returned home,
and the four cases of girls charged with violating liquor or drug laws,
“ difficulty adjusted” was the disposition most frequently reported
for all types of offenses both in boys’ cases and in girls’ cases. More
than half the cases in which boys were charged with injury to person,
mischief, and miscellaneous offenses classified as “ other,” and more
than half the cases in which girls were charged with stealing, truancy,
injury to person, mischief, being ungovernable, and miscellaneous
offenses were so disposed of. Unofficial probation was used more
frequently for boys than for girls.
T a b l e 12.— Charge, by disposition and sex of child, in unofficial delinquency cases
dealt with by 22 courts during 1927 1
Unofficial delinquency cases
Charge on which referred to court
Disposition
UngovAct
ërnInjury
Vio
of
able Sex
or at care lating
Charge
Total Stealing
Run
or at Tru ning or be of tempted less liquor Other not
or charge re
tempted ancy away yond fense injury ness
to per
stealing
pa
or drug
ported
son
mis law
rental
con
chief
trol
Total____________ 4,656
1,323
474
424
470
216
145 1,343
67
186
18
265
91
119 1,256
53
175
13
119 1,250
53
175
13
3
4
Boys____________
3,918
1,255
357
334
Total reported_________
3,890
1,245
353
330
262
90
144
83
4
20
11
4
Placement of child
in institution recPlacement of child
elsewhere recom-
54
34
4
7
4
1
753
393
68
17
63
22
101
45
9
18
8
4
C h ild r e tu r n e d
197
Difficulty adjusted.. 1,698
943
Other disposition___
15
421
254
2
142
124
178
69
21
95
81
39
20
Child placed on unofficial probation. .
Referred to agency
3
12
3
1
"20
117
17
30
6
11
2
1
3
70
26
749
358
1
18
11
1
91
48
4
Disposition not reported.
28
10
4
4
3
1
Girls_____________
738
68
117
90
205
125
26
87
4
11
5
Total reported_________
731
68
116
89
203
124
26
85
4
11
5
16
1
4
5
4
1
1
18
3
1
1
8
5
111
12
18
14
25
19
3
1
2
11
7
ni
36
9
4
59
24
1
7
2
1
1
2
1
Placement of child
in institution recPlacement of child
elsewhere recomChild placed on unofficial probation. .
Referred to agency
Difficulty adjusted..
Other disposition___
37
43
367
139
Disposition not reported.
7
3
8
36
13
61
28
3
32
26
9
1
1
6
5
12
3
21
44
26
2
i Nineteen of the 42 courts did not report delinquency cases disposed of unofficially; figures for Philadel
phia, which reported on standard table forms instead of cards, are not included in this table.
1 Applies only to runaways or children living away from own home at the time referred to court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS,
1927
• 4*fl .
i*
The 31 courts sending in cards or tables for cases of delinquent
children discharged from probation reported 5,029 such cases. The
majority (4,493) of these were discharged from official probation.
The number of such cases discharged from probation was considerably
less than the number officially placed on probation (7,905). Unofficial
probation cases were reported by only 15 courts, and almost one-half
(273) of these cases were reported by one Ohio court (Hamilton
County). The probation period was in most instances of brief
duration, usually only a few months. The preponderance of cases
in which the length of the probation period was less than one year is
partly due to the fact that several courts, among them one large
court, made cards only for those cases in which the children were both
placed on probation" and discharged therefrom during 1927. The
figures for children discharged from probation who had been placed
on probation before the courts began to use the statistical plan which
forms the basis for this report doubtless were less complete in some
courts than the figures for children placed on and discharged from
probation the same year.
The reasons for discharge from probation were as follows:
Cases discharged from probation.
Reason for discharge
Number
Per cent
distribu
tion
5,029
Further supervision not recommended 1or discharged with improvement------
5,007
100
258
3,289
783
196
481
5
66
16
4
10
22
i The first edition of card No. 3 read “ Further probationary supervision not ^commended ” TWs item
was found to be generally used to note the termination of the period with improvement and a later print of
the card was changed to read “ Discharged with improvement before age limit.
The extent to which children who had been on probation were
committed to institutions for delinquent children varied greatly m
the different courts, the proportion of such commitments ranging in
courts reporting 50 or more cases from 3 per cent to 28 per cent. In
most of the courts for which the number of commitments was high
the courts used county or private institutions for short-term com
mitments, the purpose of which was chiefly disciplinary; upon release
from the institution the child was likely to be placed again on proba
tion.
DEPENDENCY AND NEGLECT CASES
Sources of complaint.
In some localities where many social agencies exist the court may
prefer to have dependency and neglect cases investigated first by a
social agency so that only cases needing court action are brought to
court. In other localities, especially where there are few agencies,
the court may make its own investigation of cases and receive com
plaints from any interested person, including parents and relatives.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
29
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
p Of the 12,063 dependency and neglect cases for which the source
of complaint was reported 48 per cent were referred to court by
'social agencies and 36 per cent were referred by parents or relatives.
The differences in practice among the 34 courts dealing with depend
ency and neglect cases are indicated by the variations in the per
centages of cases received from social agencies and from parents and
relatives in the various localities. In general, when the proportion
referred by a social agency was large the proportion referred by
parents or relatives was small, and vice versa.
The sources of complaint in dependency and neglect cases were as
follows:
Source of complaint
Total........................................ ................ ..............
Number
............
12,150
Source of complaint reported________________________
Social agency............................................. ......................................
Parents or relatives__ ___________________________
Other individual (not probation officer).................... .............
Police____________ ____ ___ ___________________
Probation officer_____________________________________
School department__________________ _______________
Other source of complaint__________________________ __________
Source of complaint not reported_______________________ ____________
0
Per cent
distribution
.
12,063
100
5,737
4,290
387
665
488
280
216
48
36
3
6
4
2
2
87
The percentage of dependency and neglect cases referred to court
by social agencies (48 per cent for the 34 courts) ranged in individual
courts reporting 50 or more cases from 10 to 100 and was more than
80 per cent in eight courts.8 The proportion referred by parents
or relatives (36 per cent of all cases) also showed great variation,
ranging from no cases to 67 per cent. The number of cases received
from other sources was generally small and showed no unusual varia
tions except in three courts, where large proportions were referred
by probation officers— Lake County, Ind. (51 per cent); Norfolk, Va.
(21 per cent); and Pierce County, Wash. (28 per cent).
Places of care pending hearing or disposition.
The situation with regard to detention of children in dependency
and neglect cases was similar to that in delinquency cases, except that
practically no children (7 in 10,611 cases for which place of care was
reported) were detained in jail. More than half the children were
not detained; they were allowed to remain in their homes pending
hearing or their cases were disposed of on the day the complaint was
made. Boarding homes were used by most of the courts, but the
number of cases so cared for was small. Detention homes, receiving
homes or shelters of private agencies, and other institutions were
used in slightly more than one-third of the cases. Most of the cases
reported as cared for in receiving homes or other institutions were
reported by New York City.
8 San Francisco City and County, Calif.; Bridgeport, Conn.; Hennepin County and Ramsey County,
Minn.; Buffalo, Dutchess County, and Westchester County, N. Y .; and Mahoning County, Ohio.
*
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30
JTJVENILE-COTJKT STATISTICS, 1927
The places where children were cared for pending hearing or dispo
sition in dependency and neglect cases were as follows:
Place of care pending hearing
Number
Total.............. j_................... ................
Per cent
distribution
12,150
Place of care reported________________ .
Own home or case disposed of same day
Boarding home........ .............
Detention home or other institution______
Detention home___________ ______
Other institution_______________
Jail or police station______________
Only place of care________________
One of the places of care_________
More than one place of care 2_________
Other place of care_____________
10,611
100
5,890
540
3,793
559
3,234
7
6
56
5
36
6
30
1
92
289
Place of care not reported 3________
0
m
«
i
3
1,539
1 Less than 1 per cent.
1 Not including detention home, police station, or jail.
3 Including Philadelphia unofficial cases, for which place of care was not reported.
Charges.
More than one-third (38 per cent) of the dependency and neglect
cases were referred to court because of improper conditions in the
home, including conditions such as immorality or intoxication. More
than one-fourth (30 per cent) were referred for insufficient parental
care, including lack of care because of illness or death of parents. In
only a small proportion of cases (13 per cent) was financial need the
chief reason for bringing the child to court. Great variation occurred
in charges reported by different courts. For example, in courts re
porting 50 or more cases, the percentages referred because of improper
conditions ranged from 11 to 77 and those referred because of insuffi
cient parental care ranged from 5 to 68. Four courts reported that
more than half their cases were referred because of insufficient parental
care. Explanation of these variations may be differences in local
procedure. For example, the neglect cases may be referred to the
court while dependency cases are handled by other social agencies,
and there may be differences of interpretation as between insufficient
parental care and financial need.
The charges on which dependency and neglect cases were referred
to court were as follows:
Charge
Total...................................
Charge reported________ _________
Abandonment or desertion______
Abuse or cruel treatment ..
Improper conditions in home
Insufficient parental care____
Financial need___________
Question of custody____ ____
Other charge___ ___________
Charge not reported..........................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Number
Per cent
distribu
tion
12,150
12,074
100
808
307
4,552
3,620
1,572
639
576
7
3
38
30
13
5
5
76
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
31
Dependency and neglect cases were tabulated not only on the
v^basis of the individual children concerned but also on the basis of
^different families represented. That is, in the latter tabulations each
family was counted only once for each time it was dealt with by the
court on a new charge involving one or more of the children. The
distribution according to charge is somewhat different when based
upon families than when based upon children’s cases. If the figures
are omitted for the New York City court— for which no attempt was
made to group cards by families and which handles only cases of
neglect, dependency cases being cared for by other agencies— the num
ber of cases of dependent and neglected children reported was 8,907
representing 4,566 families. Of the 4,540 of these families for which
charge was reported 20 per cent were referred to court because of
alleged improper conditions in the home, 34 per cent because of
insufficient parental care, 15 per cent because of financial need, 10
per cent because of questions of custody, 10 per cent because of
abandonment or desertion, and 10 per cent because of other reasons.
#
Dispositions.
The three types of disposition used in 99 per cent of the official
dependency and neglect cases were commitment to institutions or
agencies, placement under supervision of the court or of an indivi
dual, and dismissal or indefinite continuance of the case. As is
shown by Table 13, almost half (49 per cent) of these dependency and
neglect cases dealt with by the 34 courts reporting cases of dependency
and neglect were disposed of by the commitment of the child to the
care of an agency or an institution, most of which were maintained
f?r 5-J care of dePendent children. Such commitments varied in
the different courts reporting 50 or more cases from 18 per cent of the
cases m Norfolk, Va., to 97 per cent in Hamilton County, Ohio.
|) { h e relative proportions of commitments to agencies and to institu
tions by the individual courts indicate differences in local facilities
for caring for dependent children as well as differences in court policy
with regard to use of institutions or other methods of care for these
children. Some courts probably committed the children to agencies
which then may have placed them in institutions. Commitment to an
agency represented 50 per cent or more of the dispositions in Henne
pin County, M inn., and Buffalo, Erie County, and Westchester
-County, N. Y .; commitment to an institution represented 50 per
cent or more of the dispositions in Marion County, Ind., and Franklin
County, Hamilton County, and Mahoning County, Ohio.
Children were placed under the supervision of court officers or of
individuals in one-fourth of the cases, court supervision being used
more frequently. The most striking variations from the average
were Ramsey County, Minn., which reported 62 per cent of its cases
disposed of by placing the child under the supervision of a court
officer, and Buncombe County, N. C., which reported 65 per cent
of its cases disposed of by placing the child under the supervision of
an individual other than a court officer. A few courts did not use
either of these two types of supervision to any considerable extent.
One-lourth of the official cases were dismissed or continued indefimtely. The percentage of cases so disposed of in the different courts
ranged from none in Pierce County, Wash., and Buncombe County,
N. C., to 46 per cent in Bridgeport, Conn., and Columbia County,
JN. I., and was more than 30 per cent in 7 courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T
able
1 3 .—
Dispositions of official dependency and neglect cases dealt with by 84 specified courts during 1927
Official dependency and neglect cases
Disposition
Court
Total_____________________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Child commit
Child placed
under supervi ted to board,
sion of indivi department, or
agency
dual
Child placed
under court
supervision
Number
Per
cent1
Number
Per
cent1
Number
Per
cent1
Number
Child commit
ted to insti
tution
NumPer
ber
cent1
Other
Not re
ported
NumPer
ber
cent1
Per
cent1
9,777
,744
2,395
25
1,898
19
593
6
2,100
22
2,639
27
119
1
684
684
228
33
65
10
5
1
264
39
105
15
17
2
69
142
28
46
20
4
6
3
4
3
3
31
4
22
29
66
42
46
1
9
1
6
64
16
30
5
48
73
18
23
25
4
1
46
145
2
22
50
7
6
3
2
342
111
342
111
30
3
14
1
18
48
8
16
93
45
29
14
32
15
2
1
50
24
1
7
36
6
62
6
3
2
3
170
27
50
24
42
4
12
4
1
1
62
65
29
2
57
39
3
32
6
169
2
22
72
28
28
19
3
6
9
5
3
69
x
56
76
46
29
28
34
80
28
31
1,007
31
913
28
86
29
1
5
7
4
34
6
8
1
25
37
11
3
13
(2)
8
65
1
57
16
1
6
1,257
2
12
39
6
4
5
20
4
35
3
33
1
1
(2)
1927
California: San Francisco City and County
Connecticut:
Bridgeport__________________________
Hartford— __________________________
Indiana:
Clay County------- ----------------------------Jennings County__________ ____ _____
Lake County___________ . . . __________
Marion County...________________ . . . .
Wayne County_____________________ _
White County...__________ ___________
Michigan: Kent C ou n ty ..______________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County...................................
Ramsey County_____________________
New York:
Buffalo___________________________
Clinton County....... .................... .........
Columbia County___________________
Dutchess County-------- --------- -----------Erie County.................. ..........................
Franklin County............ ........................
New York City________________ _____
Orleans County______________ _______
Westchester County_________ ________
North Carolina:
Buncombe County------- -------------------Winston-Salem______________________
Tota.
report
ed
Dismissed or
continued
indefinitely
20
(2)
2
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS,
Total
262
114
190
261
109
190
13
17
31
2,312
190
186
79
43
13
17
31
2,312
185
186
79
43
24
23
9
25
2
1
404
52
1
11
499
36
22
6
12
1
68
2
1Not shown where base is less than 50.
22
19
12
8
47
2
25
17
145
20
41
24
9
18
2
13
6
11
22
30
26
45
19
8
7
3
912
35
17
7
15
10
41
10
135
61
115
52
56
61
6
f
4
2
15
20
9
49
9
5
21
3
T
■5
5
9
39
19
9
9
* Less than 1 per cent.
343
37
17
39
5
(2)
3
11
. 4
5
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS,
Ohio:
Franklin County______
Hamilton County_____
Mahoning County_____
Pennsylvania:
Berks County_________
Lycoming County..........
Montgomery County__
Philadelphia...................
Tennessee: Memphis______
Virginia: Norfolk__________
Washington: Pierce County.
Wisconsin: Dane County__
1927
CO
CO
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
34
JUYENILE-COXJRT STATISTICS,
1927
Of the 2,192 unofficial dependency and neglect cases for which dis
positions were reported more than half (58 per cent) were reported
closed because some social adjustment was made to relieve the situa^
tion. The dispositions in the remainder of the cases were as follows:
Referred to an agency or another court, 16 per cent; placement of
child in an institution or elsewhere recommended, 6 per cent; child
placed under supervision of a probation officer, 3 per cent; and other
disposition, 17 per cent.
>Cases discharged from supervision.
Sixteen courts reported 1,184 cases of dependent and neglected
children discharged from court supervision (which corresponds to
probation in delinquency cases), but most of these cases were reported
by three courts (San Francisco City and County, 192; New York City,
405; and Philadelphia, 461). In all but 21 of the cases discharged
from supervision the child had been placed under supervision by
official court order. The contrast between the number of cases of
children placed under court supervision and the number of cases in
which children were discharged therefrom was not so great in de
pendency and neglect cases as in delinquency cases. The number
officially placed under court supervision by the courts which reported
cases discharged from official supervision was 1,677. As in probation
cases, the period of supervision was brief, usually only a few months.
In 60 per cent of the cases the child was reported as discharged
because the situation improved or further supervision was deemed
unnecessary and in 23 per cent because he was committed to an insti
tution or agency.
The reasons for discharge from supervision were as follows:
Reason for discharge
Total.......................................................................... - .............—.....................
Further supervision not recommended1or child discharged with improvement —
Number
Per cent
distribution
1,184
100
8
710
268
30
168
1
60
23
3
14
The fir X edition ( f card No. 3 read “ Further probationary supervision not recommended.” This item
was found to be used generally to note the termination of the period with improvement, and a later print
of the card was changed to read “ Discharged with improvement before age limit.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APPENDIX.—TREND IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
The statistics for the year 1927 published in the body of this report
are the first to be compiled by the Children’s Bureau in accordance
with the uniform plan outlined, and there are no figures for previous
years with which they can be compared. For several years, however,
the Children’s Bureau has compiled such information as could be
obtained concerning j uvenile delinquency 1 from the annual reports
of the juvenile courts throughout the country. Lack of uniformity
in methods of compiling statistics used in the different courts and
marked variations in inclusions and methods of presentation make
the statistics practically valueless for purposes of comparing delin
quency rates in one city with those of other cities. Such figures are,
however, of value in determining the trend in juvenile delinquency
in a given city oyer a period of years. This fragmentary evidence
concerning trend indicates that assertions regarding increase of delin
quency have little or no basis in fact, though much unnecessary
delinquency exists, and a scientific approach to the problem becomes
increasingly important.
The material now available which is of significance in connection
with a consideration of trends in juvenile delinquency is summarized
under the following headings: Delinquency rates in 13 cities, in
different parts of the country, based on annual reports of courts; and
statistics of juvenile delinquents committed to institutions during the
first six months of 1923 as reported by the United States Bureau of the
Census (Children under Institutional Care, 1923).
DELINQUENCY RATES IN 13 CITIES
The table on page 36 shows the number of delinquency cases per
1,000 children of juvenile-court age in 13 cities for which statistics
are available for the years 1915 to 1925 or 1926. (For some of these
cities statistics can be obtained for part of the period only.) The
notes to the table explain the sources from which the statistics were
compiled. As has been pointed out, these figures are of value in
determining the trend in juvenile delinquency in a given city, but
they can not be used for the purpose of comparing delinquency rates
in different cities. Great confusion exists with reference to types
of cases included, some cities reporting only cases officially heard by
the court and others reporting, in addition, cases adjusted unoffi
cially by the probation department. There is also much difference
in the extent to which the police of the different cities turn over to
their courts the children whom they have apprehended.
The data in this table indicate for most of the cities lower delin
quency rates at the end of the period than at the beginning. Blight
* Several editions of a mimeographed statement entitled “ Trend in Juvenile-Delinquency Statistics,”
the last dated October 31, 1927, have been issued. Because of the more comprehensive plan in which the
Children’s Bureau is now engaged this statement will no longer be kept in circulation.
35
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
36
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1927
fluctuations from year to year are to be expected and are not esp^g
cially significant. The decrease in New York has been quite marked!
the rate at the beginning of the period being 11.1 as compared w il#
6.3 in 1926. Providence and Boston, like several other cities, had
higher rates during 1918 and 1919, but the Providence rate has
declined markedly since 1919. The Boston figures show a marked
decrease since 1918 and 1919 except for a slight rise in the period 1923
to 1925, declining again in 1926. The Boston rates for the years
since 1920 are considerably lower than the rates for any previous
year. The Philadelphia rate has shown little change from 1921 to
1926, though slightly higher rates were reported in 1923 and 1924
than in earlier or later years. The Seattle rate increased rather
consistently.
Number of delinquency cases 1 per 1,000 children of juvenile-court age (over 6 years
o f age and within the juvenile-court ag e 2) ; IS cities, 1915—1926
Year
1926........................
1925..................... 1924........................
1923........................
1922........................
1921........................
1920........................
1919......................._
1918........................
1917........ .............. .
1916........................
1915........................
MinBos Buf Chi De ne- New
New Phila
Provi Rich St. Seat Wash
Or York
del dence
ing
ton 3 falo cago 3 troit 3 apo- leans
mond Louis tle
phia4
ton 3
lis4
15.8
17.3
16.5
15.8
14.5
16.9
18.7
26.5
24.8
23.9
20.4
23.6
10.8
10.4
10.5
12.1
9.8
14.7
13.9
23.6
14.2
12.5
4.8
5.7
6.1
4.4
4.2
5.6
5.9
7.5
5.8
5.8
5.5
5.9
14.8
13.6
11.0
11.6
9.6
9.5
11.2
12.0
12.5
10.1
8.7
8.6
13.0
15.6
14.1
15.9
17.8
13.4
13.7
12.1
16.4
20.7
20.5
22.3
18.7
20.2
22.9
22.8
6.3
7.2
6.4
6.5
6.8
7.4
8.6
10.1
10.6
10.9
8.8
11.1
20.1
19.3
22.1
23.9
20.0
20.9
10.4
10.8
13.3
14.1
12.0
15.9
16.1
20.4
20.9
15.6
15.3
13.3
46.3
43.5
40.1
41.3
39.0
46.4
44.0
49.3
54.6
53.7
43.2
13.3
15.9
12.4
13.5
13.7
18.1
19.1
17.3
14.2
20.5
18.7
15.9
17.9
17.6
15.9
16.2
10.5
7.7
10.0
11.5
13.5
43.4
45.6
42.8
41.0
44.9
44.5
52.1
54.4
50.4
1The numbers of cases were compiled from the annual reports of the courts, either printed or in manui
script, with the exception of the Boston figures, which were compiled from the annual reports of the
State department of correction (formerly bureau of prisons); the Detroit figures, which were compiled
from the annual reports of the Michigan State Welfare Commission; and the Minneapolis figures for
1926, which were compiled from the statistical cards sent to the Children’s Bureau in connection with
the bureau’s plan for obtaining uniform juvenile-court statistics. The delinquency figures relate to cases,
not children, with the exception of the Richmond figures, which relate to children; that is, if the same
child was in court twice during the year he was counted twice. Cases dealt with unofficially as well as
official cases are included.
2 Population estimates were based on the 1910 and 1920 censuses. If the court exercised jurisdiction
over a county the population of the county was used.
8 Chicago, fiscal year Dec. 1 to Nov. 30; Detroit and Washington, fiscal year ending June 30, of the
year indicated; Boston, some years calendar, other years fiscal.
4 Figures shown here differ from those in earlier editions of this table owing to changes in the courts’
methods of counting cases.
JUVENILES COMMITTED TO INSTITUTIONS FOR JUVENILE DELIN
QUENTS AND TO PENAL INSTITUTIONS AS REPORTED BY THE
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Published census reports of juvenile delinquents in institutions or
committed to institutions are available for the years 1880, 1890, 1904,
1910, and 1923. Differences in methods of taking the census make
the figures for the earlier years only roughly comparable, but the
statistics for 1910 and 1923 are not seriously affected by such differ
ences. The figures include persons in or committed to institutions
for juvenile delinquents and persons under 18 years of age in or
committed to prisons and reformatories, jails, and workhouses.
The number of persons 10 to 17 years of age enumerated on a given
date in institutions of the kind specified per 100,000 population of
the same age was 143.4 in 1880, 149.2 in 1890, and 154.5 in 1923.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STAT.STICS, 1927
37
iTlie relatively slight increase reflects the more adequate provision of
^institutional care especially adapted to juvenile delinquents in 1923
compared with the earlier period. It is not possible to present
similar ratios for 1904 and 1910, but considering only persons in
I institutions for juvenile delinquents and not persons in penal insti
tutions the ratio per 100,000 population has been practically station
ary since 1904. The growth of the probation system has come mainly
within the period since that date.
A more significant figure is the number of commitments during a
given period. The total number of delinquent persons 10 to 17 years
of age admitted to institutions of all types during the entire year 1910
was 24,854, or 171.7 delinquents per 100,000 of the same age. The
I corresponding figure for 1923 (estimate based on exact figures for
first six months) was 25,565, a ratio of 156.5 per 100,000 population
of the same age. (The ratio in 1923 would have been 161 if the
small number of dependent children admitted to institutions for
juvenile delinquents had been included as it was in 1910.) There
has thus been a decline in delinquent children committed to institu
tions if growth in population is taken into consideration.
i
o
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
►
fe
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER