The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
AL & MECHANiÖAlf
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ’
TQJBABY
:a b ü r
JAMES J. DAVIS, Secretary
CHILDREN’S BUREAU
GRACE AB BO TT, Chief
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS
1928
BASED ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED
BY 65 COURTS
SECOND ANNUAL REPORT
Bureau Publication No. 200
U N ITE D STATES
3
(d
7
GOVERN M EN T PR IN T IN G OFFICE
li f 8 c
W ASHINGTON : 1930
jkZLo o
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
Page
T h e courts cooperatin g_______________ ______ i
„ 1 _ _ _ _____________________ _
D elin qu en cy cases________________________________________________________ _ _ _____
Delinquen cy ra tio s____ '_______________________ ______________________ ________;_
Children in v olved in th e ca ses_______________________________ ,j.___ _________
A ge an d s e x ____________________________. ______ _____ 2 :i__________________
Color an d n a tiv ity _ ____ _______________________________________________
W h ere living w hen referred t o co u rt___ _________ _____ 11
Previous court experience_____________ ___________<_____________________
Sources o f co m p la in t_____ _______________________ ______ ^
^_
__________
Places o f care pending hearing or d is p o s itio n .____________________________
C harges___________________________ S j K ______ ______________________ _ _ _____ _
D ispositions_____________ ________ ______________ :____ § f i ____ _______________m j
Official cases_________ ____________________ ___ 5__________________________
Unofficial cases_____________ § _________________ ______ t ____ ___________22
D ependency an d neglect cases ____________ >._____ ___ !_________________ __________ _
Children in v olved in th e ca se s.;__________________ __________ \______________
Sources o f com plain t an d c h a r g e s ______________ ______ _ _ _;_____ _____
Places o f care p ending hearing or disposition___________ __________________
D isposition s______ _____________ ^ _ ______ ;_____________ ________________________
Cases of children discharged from probation or supervision_________________
A ppendixes:
A.
— Courts furnishing statistical m aterial for 1 9 2 8 ___________ ______
B . — -Source ta b le s________________________________________________________ _____
hi
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
5
5
8
8
9
11
12
13
14
* 17
17
23
23
25
26
27
29
31
33
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
THE COURTS COOPERATING
The second annual report of juvenile-court statistics is compiled
from information supplied by 65 courts cooperating with the Chil
dren’s Bureau in the plan for obtaining uniform statistics of delin
quency, and dependency and neglect cases dealt with by juvenile
courts.* The number of courts participating in the plan is steadily
increasing. On July 1, 1929, 104 courts were known to be using the
cards and 46 more had been supplied with cards and were therefore
presumably cooperating.
Sixty-five courts sent in statistical data for the entire calendar
year 1928, as compared with 43 for the year 1927.2 The names of
the 65 courts reporting for 1928, with the largest city or town in the
area served by each court, are given in Appendix A, page 31. For
convenience each court will be designated hereafter only by the terri
tory over which it has jurisdiction. The number of cases dealt with
by each court during the year is shown in Table 1— 38,882 delin
quency cases, 16,289 dependency and neglect cases, and 10,429 cases
of children discharged from probation or supervision during the year.
Although all the courts have jurisdiction over both delinquency cases
and dependency or neglect cases, cards for delinquency cases only
were obtained from three of these courts, and one court reported only
dependency or neglect cases. No cases of delinquency, dependency,
or neglect ^were reported for two localities from which records of
children discharged from probation or supervision were received.
Only 62 of the 65 courts, therefore, reported cases of delinquency, 53
courts reported cases of dependency and neglect, 45 courts reported
cases of children discharged from probation or supervision. These
figures, representing the number of courts reporting each type of
case, will be used in the tables and discussion in this report.
As the cards were usually sent by the probation office associated
with the court, the organization of this office and its relation to the
court affect the completeness with which the work of the court, as to
both type and number of cases, is reported.3 Most of the failures
1 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 cases) or from supervision
(in dependency or neglect cases). The yellow and blue cards differ only in the lists of charges and disposi
tions. The cards have been so arranged that little clerical work is involved; most of the information is
entered by checking. 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 pref
erably several times each year.
The Children’s Bureau prepares from the cards a set of tables on printed forms for each court. These
are sent to the courts for use in annual reports, if desired* The facts presented in these tables include
charges, places of care pending hearing, 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. Bor cases
discharged from probation or supervision the length of the probation or supervision period and the reason
for discharge are given. If it so chooses a court may compile its own tables in accordance with the Chil
dren ’s Bureau plan, instead of sending in cards.
2 Juvenile-Court Statistics, 1927. U. S. Children’s Bureau Publication No. 195. Washington, 1929.
3 In some localities the probation office is a separate organization.
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2
J U V E N I L E -C ÒTJIIT S T A T IS T IC S ,
1928
to report all types of cases were due to divided responsibility in
checking cards and returning them to the Children’s Bureau. Twenty
of the courts did not send records o f children discharged from proba
tion or supervision. It is probable that in some of these courts the
probation records were incomplete. In others, cases may have been
allowed to become inactive without dismissal or removal from the list
or index o f active cases.
Another situation that aifects the number of cases reported by a
court is the extent to which records are kept of unofficial work.
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 adjudica
tion by the judge or referee. All the courts were asked to report
such cases, but none was reported by 25 4 of the courts reporting
delinquency cases. (See Table I, p. 33.) It is probable that in
many of these courts some complaints are adjusted unofficially
without any records being made.
Table 1 shows wide variation in the relative number of delinquency
and of dependency or neglect cases dealt with during the year. This
variation is due in part to the extent to which local agencies other
than the court are caring for dependent and neglected children.
T a b l e 1.— N um ber o f cases o f each ty p e ; cases o f boys and girls dealt with by 6 5
specified courts during 1 92 8
Cases dealt with
Court
Delinquency cases
Girls
Total
Boys
Girls
Total
Boys
32,822
6,060
16, 289
8,376
7,913
10,429
8,048
2,381
431
552
2,004
354
491
1,692
77
61
312
69
144
533
28
71
286
41
73
247
139
244
553
118
217
465
21
27
88
10
9
1
9
26
5
18
4
8
454
822
41
17
30
89
30
753
306
534
22
9
25
53
20
590
148
288
19
8
5
36
10
163
16
5
290
322
11
4
140
157
5
1
150
165
21
9
12
5
52
283
9
10
28
55
5
27
154
4
5
23
41
25
129
5
5
5
14
630
315
315
232
257
194
221
38
36
85
115
28
54
57
61
12
40
12
23
17
1,149
375
896
298
253
77
336
135
170
69
166
66
500
285
374
212
126
73
291
242
49
47
28
19
10
317
9
275
1
42
T o tal... ___________ . 38,882
Lake County...— ____
Marion County_________
Montgomery County___
Louisiana:
Ouachita Parish________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County______
Ramsey C o u n ty .._____
St. Louis County (southernpart)______________
Missouri: Jackson County...
Cases of children dis
charged from proba
tion or supervision
Boys
Total
Connecticut:
Bridgeport______________
Hartford________________
District of Columbia..............
Indiana:
Dependency and neg
lect cases
Girls
* Indiana— Clark County, Jennings County; Minnesota—Hennepin County. Ramsey County; New
Jersey—Hudson County, Mercer County; New York—Buffalo, Chemung County, Columbia County,
Delaware County, Erie County, Franklin County, Monroe County, New York City. Ontario County,
Orleans County; North Carolina—Winston-Salem; Ohio—Franklin County; Pennsylvania—Allegheny
County, Lycoming County, Montgomery County; Virginia—Lynchburg, Roanoke County; Washing
ton—Pierce County.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
3
1928
T a b l e 1.— N um ber o f cases o f each typ e; cases o f boys and girls dealt with by 65
specified courts during 1 92 8 — Continued
Cases dealt with
Court
New Jersey:
Hudson County__
Mercer County______
New York:
Buffalo_____________
Chemung County______
Clinton County._______
Columbia County______
Delaware County_______
Erie County_________
Franklin County____
Monroe County______
New York City__
Ontario County__
Orange County. _
Orleans County_____
Westchester County
North Carolina:
Buncombe County___
Winston-Salem________
Ohio:
Auglaize County___
Clark County___
Cuyahoga County______
Franklin County...
Hamilton County.
Lake County _.
Mahoning County
Montgomery County___
Sandusky County...
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County.. ._
Berks County_______
Lycoming County
Montgomery County___
Philadelphia_______
South Carolina: Greenville
County___________
Texas: Orange Countv.. .
Utah:
First district..................
Second district______
Third district_________
Fourth district____
Fifth district________ •*.
Carbon County______
Other counties_________
Virginia:
Lynchburg__________
Norfolk________
Roanoke County. . . .
Washington: Pierce County.l
Delinquency cases
Dependency and neg
lect cases
Cases of children dis
charged from proba
tion or supervision
Total
Total
Total
Boys
1,850
294
1,588
272
262
22
938
124
25
65
10
197
44
222
7,204
100
33
13
- 888
870
96
14
50
8
181
38
172
6,255
83
31
12
743
68
28
11
15
2
16
6
50
949
17
2
1
145
70
115
37
116
39
57
19
68
83
49
239
3,617
84
61
37
370
106
343
92
274
14
69
28
395
2,636
763
1,097
67
1,854
534
49
23
294
2,235
550
1,097
58
1,578
345
29
5
101
401
213
1,243
103
13
65
6,200
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
224
94
85
9
31
58
18
48
159
142
17
11
41
10
24
1
17
39
22
124
1,893
41
31
28
187
44
27
115
1,724
43
30
9
183
81
79
2
51
2,697
31
1,935
20
762
4
537
485
52
84
26
43
14
41
12
9
276
189
20
46
98
1,141
613
361
40
185
496
60
26
52
597
310
161
22
95
265
35
20
46
544
303
200
18
90
231
25
1,033
77
6
54
5,411
210
26
7
11
789
1,018
31
25
34
3,744
508
11
9
20
1,979
510
20
16
14
1,765
2,333
105
9
86
9
19
126
3
64
1
62
2
55
i
347
318
825
308
453
97
241
296
289
709
260
425
97
212
51
29
116
48
28
1
1
145
27
14
73
7
5
72
20
9
1
29
5
279
669
12
154
245
523
10
122
34
146
2
32
30
232
8
70
21
292
374
257
11
137
20
234
325
7
125
14
14
1,675
•658
69
8
16
114
1
29
14
118
7
41
69
239
60
186
Most of the courts reporting have county-wide jurisdiction, but a
few are serving a city only.5 In most of the State of Utah the juvenile
courts are organized on a district basis, each district including several
counties.6 Although cards were received from a number of courts in
several States, Utah is the only State from which records from all the
juvenile courts in the State were received.
About half the reporting courts (31) shown in Table 1 were serving
areas having 100,000 or more population. The court serving the
l iriuW Yor.k ,City i?clpdes 5 boroughs or counties, each of which has a subdivision of the court.
« I he courts for each of the remaining counties, although not organized on a district plan, have been dealt
with in two groups for statistics! purposes! “ Carbon County ” and. “ Other counties 99
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
1928
area having the smallest population was in a county having about
13,000 population.
The maximum age of original jurisdiction of these courts varied
from 16 to 18 years. Of the 65 courts 25 had jurisdiction over
children under 16 years of age; 7 4 had jurisdiction under 17 years;8
and 24 had jurisdiction under 18 years.9 Of the remaining 12 courts,
11 had jurisdiction over delinquent and dependent and neglected boys
under 16, delinquent girls under 18, and dependent and neglected
girls under 1 7 ;10 and 1 (Orange County, Tex.) had jurisdiction over
delinquent boys under 17, delinquent girls up to 18, and dependent
and neglected children up to 16 years of age.
i Bridgeport and Hartford, Conn.; Hudson County and Mercer County, N . J. (girls under 17 may be
committed by the juvenile court to the State home for girls); Buffalo, Chemung County, Clinton County,
Columbia County, Delaware County, Erie County, Franklin County, Monroe County, New York City,
Ontario County, Orange County, Orleans County, and Westchester County, N . Y .; Buncombe County
and Winston-Salem, N . C.; Allegheny County, Berks County, Lycoming County, Montgomery County,
and Philadelphia, Pa.; and Greenville County, S. C.
* District of Columbia; Caddo Parish and Ouachita Parish, La.; and Jackson County, Mo.
9 Polk County, Iowa (this court has concurrent original jurisdiction up to 21 years but seldom exercised
this privilege); Hennepin County, Ramsey Coimty, and St. Louis County, Minn.; Auglaize County,
Clark County, Cuyahoga County, Franklin County, Hamilton County, Lake County, Mahoning County,
Montgomery County, and Sandusky County, Ohio; first district, second district, third district, fourth
district, fifth district, Carbon County, and other counties, Utah; Lynchburg, Norfolk, and Roanoke
County, Va.; and Pierce County, Wash.
10 Adams County, Clarke County, Clay County, Jennings County, Lake County, Marion County,
Monroe County, Montgomery County, Steuben County, Vermillion County, and Wayne County, Ind.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DELINQUENCY CASES
The tables which summarize the information in regard to the 38,882
delinquency cases reported by 62 juvenile courts, show a very close
agreement with the tables prepared on the basis of 28,387 cases
reported by 42 courts for the calendar year 1927. Although some
differences were found in the cases reported by individual courts
which sent cards for both years, the combined figures seem little
affected by these variations or by the addition of data from more
courts. Because of the similarity of the findings in the two years
only the significant points of difference will be noted.
Since approximately a third of the cases were reported by courts in
New York City and Philadelphia, an analysis was made of the extent
to which the policies and procedures in these courts may have affected
the combined figures for all courts. On the whole, the figures obtained
from these two courts correspond fairly closely with the average of
the figures from all other courts except in a few instances which will
be discussed in connection with the tables in which they occur.
D E L IN Q U E N C Y R A T IO S
The ratios of delinquent children to 1,000 children of juvenile-court
age in the estimated population have been calculated for courts serving
areas having 100,000 or more estimated population which reported
their cases to the Children’s Bureau during either 1927 or 1928.
These ratios are shown in Table 2.
Several factors other than variation in the amount of delinquency
affect the ratios in a given locality. In this connection the age
jurisdiction of the court is of special importance. Although in a
number of courts having jurisdiction over children under 18 years of
age the delinquency ratios were low, they would have been materially
lower if children 16 and 17 years of age had been excluded; these chil
dren constituted about a third of the children reported by such courts
(Table 3), whereas children of 16 and 17 years constituted a much
smaller proportion of all the children of juvenile-court age in the
localities.
Although all the courts for which ratios were calculated were
serving populations of 100,000 or more, 5 of these 11 were situated in
cities of less than 50,000 population. The proportion of nonurban
residents in the population of the area over which the court has
jurisdiction materially affects the number of cases brought before the
court unless the organization of the court provides for definite services
throughout the area of its jurisdiction; even then it is probable that
fewer cases in proportion to the population will be found in nonurban
areas, though little statistical evidence on this subject is available.
In the 9 localities 12 in which one-fourth or more of the population
served by the courts were living in rural areas, the delinquency ratios
for boys were below 10 except in Kent County, Mich., Montgomery
^County, Ohio, and the State of Utah.
DaneaCountynw isInd’ ’ 0range County’ N - Y '> Montgomery County, Pa.; Greenville County, S. C.;
™!!,'K'enri Co,P ty’ Mich.; Orange County, N . Y .: Montgomery County, Ohio; Berks County and Montof UtahC° Unty’ Pa‘: Greenvllle County>s- C.; Pierce County, Wash.; Dane County, Wis.; and the State
5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
1928
T a b l e 2.— Ratio o f delinquent boys and girls to 1 ,0 0 0 estimated 'population o f juve
nile-court age o f the same sex and color dealt with by certain specified courts reporting
for 1 92 7 and 1 9 2 8 1
Court
Ratio of delinquent chil
dren to 1,000 estimated
population of juvenilecourt age of the same
sex
Estimated
population
of juvenile Age of original juvenilecourt jurisdiction
court juris
diction age,
July 1,1928
California: San Francisco (city)..........
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)------------------------- Hartford (city)---------------------------District of Columbia------------------------White_______________________
Colored---------- ----------------------Indiana:
Lake County_________ :------------- Marion County--------------------------White.— -------------- -------------Colored_____________________
Iowa: Polk C o u n ty ...----------- ---------Louisiana: Caddo Parish3---------------Michigan: Kent County------------------Minnesota:
Hennepin County_______________
Ramsey County------------------------New Jersey:
Hudson County.................... ........
Mercer County............ ...................
New York:
Buffalo (city).......... .................... --Erie County (excluding Buffalo).
Monroe County------ ------------------New York City-------------------------White.-._____________ _______
Colored-------------------------------Orange County.........------------ —
Westchester County------------------W h ite ................................ —u
Colored-------- ----------------------Ohio:
Franklin County-----------------------White— ____ ______________
Colored___ — 1,----------- -------Hamilton County— . ------- — ....
White______________________
Colored______________ ______
Mahoning County--------------------Montgomery County...................
White______________________
Colored.—...............................
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County--------------------White____ ___________ - .........
Colored............................ .......
Berks County— ........ .................
Montgomery County.--------------Philadelphia (city) * ..---------------South Carolina: Greenville County.
White______________________
Colored____________________
Tennessee: Memphis (city)------------White....... ...............................
Colored...... ....................- ........
Utah: (entire State)___ ___________Third District®________________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)------------------W h ite ......................................
Colored________ _______- - - - Washington: Pierce County-----------Wisconsin: Dane County.--------------
109,091
27,471
24,857
71,961
Girls
Boys
1927
1928
1927
1928
(2)
Under 21.
14.5
(2)
1.3
Under 16.
____do___
Under 17.
27.6
41.5
40.2
20.8
100.7
24.2
38.1
41.7
24.2
96.6
4.6
6.5
6.6
2.5
20.5
5.5
4.9
7.1
2.8
21.7
15.6
15.2
12.2
38.7
30.1
24.5
(2)
7.9
8.1
5.6
28.6
(2)
(2)
(2)
6.2
7.5
6.3
17.3
7.8
3 5.3
(2)
35.106
21.106
36,023
Under 18..
Under 17..
___ do___
16.3
18.3
15.7
38.8
(2)
(2)
19.2
80,324
46,007
Under 18.
____do___
18.7
11.0
20.5
12.7
4.5
2.9
5.3
3.2
121,198
31,149
Under 16.
____ do___
20.3
10.9
21.5
14.7
2.8
LI
3.7
L2
15.9
11.8
(2)
48. 3
8.0
14.8
(2)
22.8
22.0
48.2
17.0
13.3
5.6
11.6
10.9
31.0
2.5
18.7
17.5
57.8
LI
1.4
(2)
41.4
1.3
5.0
<2)
3.8
3.2
19.7
1.4
1.2
1.7
1.8"i
1.7J
6.1
(2)
3.2
2.7
16.9
20.4
16.3
53.5
24.9
19.4
84.8
48.6
(2)
(2)
(2)
16.8
14.1
40.1
22.1
18.8
56.8
53.5
14.2
11.7
50.8
6.8
5.7
18.1
(2)
O)
(2)
11.6
fi)
(2)
(2)
6.7
6.2
12.2
(2)
(2)
(2)
10.5
8.4
6.5
40.9
(2)
(2)
(2)
2.0
2.1
27.5
(2)
m
(2)
39.9
27.7
56.3
(2)
<2)
41.2
31.9
.. 57.1
6.4
. 4.5
7.6
7.0
17.5
4.2
2.7
26.6
6.3
5.3
9.4
(2)
(2)
0
29.6
27.9
34.6
26.0
49.5
8.1
(2)
(2)
1.4
1.1
. 7.0
1.0
0.6
42
1.6
2.1
0.3
(2)
(?)
(2)
4.1
4.2
10.2
7.3
14 6
2.0
(2)
40,778 Under 16(B), 18(G )...
64,895 ____ do............................
88,852
26,157
60,678
1,016,961
18,082
70,162
Under 16.
___ do___
57,777
Under 18.
88,702
Under 18_
46,788
42,572
Under 18.
___ do___
231,187
Under 16.
36,536
36,819
315,169
23,197
Under 16.
____do___
____do___
____do___
29,553
Under 17.
131, 514
44,036
26,915
Under 18.
____do___
____ do___
29,623
18,674
Under 18.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
(2)
0.5
0.7
4.0
(2)
<2>
(2)
8.4
8.7
8.0
(2)
(2)
8.3
5.9
12.0
1.6
2.8
S
i Includes courts serving cities or counties having 100,000 or more estimated population except St. Louul
Countv Minn., which reported for only the southern half of the county and Cuyahoga County, Ohi»
which reported unofficial cases for only 9 months of 1928. Color is shown for those courts serving cities or
counties of this size having at least 10,000 or 10 per cent colored population in 1920.
3 Number ofcolored delinquent children not reported; ratios based on estimates for white children only.
4 Figures incomplete, children whose cases were pending on Jan. 1, 1927, not included.
» Figures for white and colored children not reported separately.
a includes Salt Lake, Summit, and Tooele Counties.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
1928
7
The extent to which the court is relied upon to deal with children
exhibiting conduct problems is possibly the most significant factor to
be considered in analyzing delinquency ratios of juvenile courts.
The relation between the juvenile court and the police department
varies greatly in different localities. In some places all children
arrested by the police are referred to the juvenile court, whereas in
others the police themselves deal with many children, especially
those committing minor offenses and violating traffic rules. The
school department may deal with nearly all truancy problems through
its own agencies, or it may refer large numbers of attendance cases
to the court. If the school system includes such facilities for constructive work with problem children as a child-study department,
visiting teachers, and well-trained attendance officers, it is probable
that many cases, including other behavior problems as well as truancy,
which would otherwise be dealt with by the courts will be cared for
by the schools.J3 The extent to which agencies doing case work
with problem children or their families are available in the community
and the place which the court holds in the estimation of social agen
cies and the public also influence the number of children referred.
Another closely related factor is the amount of unofficial work done
by the court and the completeness with which this work is reported.
The amount of unofficial work done is partly dependent on court
policy and procedure and partly on the number of minor cases
accepted by the court.
Some indications of the situations in the communities for which
delinquency ratios have been calculated are shown in several of the
tables of this report. The table showing source of complaint in
delinquency cases (Table IV, p. 46) gives some evidence of the rela
j o ? of the court to other agencies. One indication of the extent to
which the court is regarded as a general agency for dealing with con
duct problems of children is the proportion of cases involving very
young children. (See Table Ila, p. 36.) The extent to which minor
cases are referred to the court is another indication. Although it is
difficult to determine the seriousness of an offense committed by a
child from the charge preferred or from the manner of dealing with
it, some indication of the extent to which minor cases are referred
may be obtained from the tables showing charges (Tables V ia and
VIb, pp. 50 and 52) and the table showing the percentage of cases
handled unofficially (Table I, p. 33).
Ratios have been calculated separately for white and colored chil
dren for all courts serving areas in which 10 per cent or more than
10,000 of the population were colored. As is shown in Table 2, the
ratios for colored children are consistently higher than for white
children, with the exception of those for girls in two southern courts
(Memphis, Tenn., and Greenville County, S. C.). The highest ratio
for colored boys was in the District of Columbia, and the highest
ratio for colored girls was in Montgomery County, Ohio. The lowest
ratios for both colored boys and colored girls were in Greenville
County, S. C.
The extent to which a high delinquency ratio for colored children
affects the general delinquency ratio of the court will depend upon
number ^children1b ^ g ^ t o corat on” hat charee5 * “1“ 1 th®
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ta casesof truancy reduces tbe
8
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
1928
the relative number of white and colored children in the community.
The greatest variations in 1928 between the ratios for all boys^cases
and all girls’ cases and those for white boys and girls are found in the
District of Columbia and in Norfolk, Va. In both these cities the
colored group comprises more than 25 per cent of the total population.
No conclusions as to the community conditions that lie back of the
delinquency ratios in different localities can be formulated from this
statistical material, but it furnishes the basis on which studies of the
actual conditions existing in these communities can be planned more
intelligently.
Slight variations in ratios during the two years are shown for most
of the courts. In some instances the small increase or decrease may
be the normal variation from year to year in the number of cases
coming before the court; in others the difference may be due to more
complete reporting or to changes in court policy or personnel which
affected the number of cases reported. Delinquency ratios for several
successive years will give much valuable information as to trends in
juvenile delinquency.
C H I L D R E N IN V O L V E D I N T H E C A S E S 14
A ge and sex.
As a number of the children came before the courts more than once,
the 38,882 delinquency cases reported for 1928 by the 62 courts
represented 34,764 children— 29,151 boys and 5,613 girls. The
extent to which the age period of original jurisdiction of the court
affected the number of children coming before the court is shown in
Table 3. The children of 16 and 17 years constituted nearly a third
of the total number of children before the courts having jurisdiction
over children under 18 years of age, and nearly equaled the number
of 14 and 15 year old children who constituted the largest group in
courts having a lower age jurisdiction.
A few children beyond the age of original jurisdiction were reported
by the courts. This may be explained by the fact that some courts
have jurisdiction beyond the age 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 afterward, 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. All but five of the courts reported
some cases of children under 10 years of age, most of them boys.
In 32 courts reporting 50 or more children these children under 10
constituted more than 5 per cent of all the children appearing before
the court for delinquency. (See Table Ila, p. 35.)
ü in this section inform ation about the child contained in the record of the first case disposed of during
the year was used.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
9
1928
T a b l e 3. — A ges o f boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases by 6 2 courts during
1928, and age limitation o f original court jurisdiction 1
Children dealt with in delinquency cases
Age limitation of original court jurisdiction
Age and sex of child
Under 16 years 3
Total
Under 17 years
Under 18 years
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
Number distribu Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
tion
Total.....................................
34,764
19,743
2,192
12,829
Boys_________ __________
29,151
17,096
1,851
10,204
Age reported___________________
28,799
16,953
100
1,837
100
10,009
100
Under 10 years. __________
10 years, under 12__________
12 years, under 14__________
14 years, under 16__________
16 years, under 18_________
18 years and over..________
2,108
4,042
7,407
11,506
3,673
63
1,308
2,706
5,062
7,699
173
5
8
16
30
45
1
162
239
432
622
379
3
9
13
24
34
21
638
1,097
1,913
3,185
3,121
55
6
11
19
32
31
1
Age not reported_______________
352
143
14
195
Girls.....................................
5,613
2,647
341
2,625
Age reported __________________
5,560
2,631
100
338
100
2,591
100
Under 10 years_____J______
10 years, under 12_____ ____
12 years, under 14__________
14 years, under 16__________
16 years, under 18... _____
18 years and over__________
222
382
1,152
2,711
1,079
14
117
212
645
1,578
73
6
4
8
25
60
3
25
43
86
117
66
1
7
13
25
35
20
80
127
421
1,016
940
7
3
5
16
39
36
53
16
Age not reported
_________
0
0
0
0
3
0
34
1 Only 59 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported girls’ delinquency cases
2 Includes truancy cases in Westchester County, N . Y . (where jurisdiction to 17 years authorized by
the state-wide education law is exercised); also certain cases of girls to 17 years in Hudson and Mercer
Counties, N. J. (where the juvenile court may commit girls of this age to the State school for girls)
3 Less than 1 per cent.
Color and nativity.
Absence of information for the communities included as to age
distribution according to color, nativity, and nativity of parents
makes impossible a comparison of the percentages of white and colored
children, native and foreign-born children, and children of foreign
or mixed parentage coming before the courts, with the percentages
of children of the same ages, and race, nativity, and parentage in the
population of the area served by the 62 courts reporting delinquency
cases. Although this exact comparison with children of juvenile-court
age can not be made, comparisons with the total population in the
reporting area are of interest.
In the total population15 in the jurisdiction area 95 per cent were
white and 5 per cent were colored, including both negro and other
colored races. Table 4a shows, however, that the proportion of
colored children appearing before the courts was 16 per cent, more
than three tunes as large as ill the total population. The percentage
of colored girls was slightly higher than the percentage of colored boys..
Foreign-born white children constituted a very small proportion of
the children before the courts in 1928.16 (Table 4a.) Comparison
“ Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920, vol. 3, Population. Washington, 1922.
16 A larger percentage of the children reported in 1927 were classified as foreign born.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
1928
can not be made with the 24 per cent foreign-born white population
in the jurisdiction area of the reporting courts since adults constitute
a much larger percentage of the foreign-born than of the native-born
population in the United States.
T a b l e 4 a .— Color and nativity o f boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases by
6 2 courts during 1 9 2 8 1
Children dealt with in delinquency cases
Boys
Total
Girls
Color and nativity
Number
Per cent
distribu Number
tion
Per cent
Per cent
distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
5,613
29,151
34,764
34,721
100
29, 111
100
5,610
100
29,070
25,350
651
3,069
5; 651
43
84
73
2
9
16
24,620
21,272
534
2,814
4.491
40
85
73
2
10
15
4,450
4,078
117
255
1,160
3
79
73
2
5
21
1 Only 59 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported girls’ delinquency cases.
2Includes 16 boys and 2 girls colored other than negro.
The largest proportion of the delinquent children dealt with by
the courts were native-born white boys and girls. Information as to
the nativity of their parents was obtained for most of these children.
Table 4b shows the nativity of parents reported for the native-born
white boys and girls. An interesting difference is shown between
the boys and the girls. Less than half of the girls (45 per cent) had
parents one or both of whom were foreign born, and the percentage
is slightly lower than that of the native-born females of foreign or
mixed parentage in the white population of the reporting area (48
per cent). More of the boys (56 per cent) had parents at least one
of whom was foreign born, and the percentage was much higher
than that of the native-born males of foreign or mixed parentage in the
white population of the reporting area (47 per cent). Accordingly,
it may be said that the delinquency rate among native-born boys of
foreign or mixed parentage was high.
T a b l e 4 b .— N ativity o f parents o f native white boys and girls1 dealt with in delin
quency cases by 6 2 courts during 1 9 2 8 2
Children dealt with in delinquency cases
■Total
Boys
Girls .
Nativity of parents
Number
Per cent
distribu Number
tion
Per cent
distribu Number
tion
Per cent
distribu
tion
Total______________________________
24,135
100
20,160
100
3,975
100
Native parentage________________________
Foreign or mixed parentage______________
11,118
13,017
46
• 54
8,934
11,226
44
56
2,184
1,791
65
45
>Excludes those for whom nativity of parents was not reported.
? Only 59 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported girls’ delinquency cases,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
11
1928
Where living when referred to court.
A rather striking difference is shown in Table 5 between the proportions of boys (71 per cent) and of girls (52 per cent) who were living
with both their own parents at the time they committed the offenses
tor which they were brought to court in the first delinquency case
disposed of during the year. This would seem to indicate that the
lack of normal family life is a more significant factor in the delinquency
ot girls than of boys. The difficulties which bring girls into court are
usually more serious in character and more closely related to home
conditions than the difficulties of boys.
T a b l e 5.— Whereabouts when referred to court in first case disposed o f durinq
1928 ™ ^
b° yS ^
gtVlS dealt WUh m delm<l uency cases by 6 2 courts during
Children dealt with in delinquency <
Whereabouts of child
Total
Boys
Per cent
Number distribu- Number
tion
Total.
Whereabouts reported.
With both own parents. . .
With mother and stepfather.
With father and stepmother.
With mother only__________
With father only____________
Adoptive home___________ ’ .
Other family home_______
Institution__________
Other.............
Whereabouts not reported.
34,764
Girls
Per cent
distribu- Number distribution
tion
29,151
5,613
31, 264
100
26,206
100
5,058
100
21,263
1, 565
780
3,890
1,598
144
1,624
227
173
68
5
2
12
5
18,653
1,201
607
3,039
1,246
96
1,110'
165
89
71
5
2
12
5
2,610
364
173
851
352
48
514
62
84
52
7
3
17
7
i
10
1
2
3,500
.
(2)
5
1
1
2,945
(2)
(2)
4
1
555
3 Less than 1 per cent.
Previous court experience.
Only information regarding the number of times children were
dealt with as delmquents in previous years, that is, prior to the first
case disposed of during 1928, has been tabulated. Table 6 shows
that 78 per cent of the boys and 87 per cent of the girls were before
the court for the first time in 1928. Apparently the greater part of
the work of the courts is with children dealt with for the first or the
second time rather than with repeated offenders. The extent to
which these children were before the courts more than once during
1928 is mdicated by a comparison of the total number of delinquencv
cases disposed of in 1928 (38,882) with the number of children
mvolved (34,764).
The courts were asked to report as a separate case each time a
child was dealt with on a new offense. It is impossible to formulate
a definition winch does not permit some difference in the interpretation
of new offense.’’ Some probation offices in dealing with a child
who is under the care of the court and commits a new offense do not
consider it a new case unless the new offense is so serious that the
probation officer can not deal with it and.refers the child to the judge.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12
JXJYENILE-COXJRT S T A T IS T IC S ,
1928
Others consider as a new case the reference of a child to the judge for
general lack of progress or adjustment of conditions that may have
arisen, when no new offense may have been committed.
T
6 . — N um ber o f times boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases by 6 2
courts during 1 92 8 had been dealt with in delinquency cases prior to 1 92 8 1
able
Children dealt with in delinquency cases
Number of times dealt with in delin
quency cases prior to 1928
Number
Per cent
distribu Number
tion
Per cent
distribu Number
tion
Per cent
distribu
tion
5,613
29,151
34,764
Number of times:
Girls
Boys
Total
34,609
100
29,029
100
5,580
100
27,524
3,871
1,468
655
320
357
414
80
11
4
2
1
1
1
22,694
3,388
1,339
610
306
354
338
78
12
5
2
1
1
1
4,830
483
129
45
14
3
76
87
9
2
1
155
122
(2)
(2)
1
33
i Only 59 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported girls’ delinquency cases.
s Less than 1 per cent.
S O U R C E S O F C O M P L A IN T
The sources of complaint and especially the extent to which such
sources as parents and relatives, other individuals, and social agencies
refer cases to the courts are some indication of whether the court is
regarded as the agency to deal with all conduct problems or only
those more serious ones where authority which only the court has is
needed. The percentage of cases referred from specified sources as
shown in Table 7 is definitely affected by the inclusion of New York
and Philadelphia. (See Table IV, p. 46.) The percentage of cases in
which the source of complaint was the police was much higher in
these two cities than the average for all other courts, and the per
centage of complaints made by the school department was much
lower.
Although some cases of delinquency come directly to the attention
of probation officers, the number reported in 1928 is larger than would
be expected. It is possible also that courts may have reported in
some cases the person signing the petition rather than the person
making the original complaint, thus reporting “ probation officer” as
the source in cases actually referred by others. The fact that in
some courts serving rural districts probation officers are sometimes
also law-enforcing officers in their communities may account for this
in part.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
13
1928
T a b l e 7.— Source of complaint in delinquency cases dealt with by 6 2 courts during
1 92 8
Delinquency cases
Source of complaint
Tnt.al
Per cent
Number distribu
tion
_________________________________________
38,882
38,798
100
21,829
3,639
6,606
4,186
2,194
833
511
56
9
14
11
6
2
1
84
PLAC E S O F CARE P E N D IN G H E A R IN G
O R D IS P O S IT IO N
The facilities used by the 62 courts for the detention of delinquent
children varied greatly in different localities. Less than half the
62 courts reported the use of detention homes, and most of these
were situated in cities or counties of 100,000 or more population. A
number of the courts serving less populous districts which reported a
few dependent or delinquent children held in a detention home may
have used this name for some institution used primarily for another
purpose. Courts that had no detention-home facilities provided for
the detention of children in a variety of ways. The institutional
resources of private agencies were used by a number of courts, notably
by the New York City court. Boarding-home care had not been
developed to any extent by any of the courts, although a few children
were detained in boarding homes in a number of localities. Many of
the courts using boarding homes also had detention-home facilities.
A few courts stated that a “ detention room’ ’ for children was located
in the courthouse or in the jail. Detention in the same building as
the jail was classified as detention in jail.
Table 8 shows that more than half the children were not detained,
but were left in their own homes or their cases were disposed of on the
day the complaint was made. For the children who were detained a
marked difference is shown in the type of detention used for those
under 16 years of age and for older children. A smaller percentage
of the older children than of the younger children were detained m
detention homes and other institutions, and a larger percentage were
detained in jails. It is probable that a number of the children
detained in jail were held for short periods, possibly not overnight,
although the instruction to courts using the cards was that a child
held for a few hours only should not be considered detained. Never
theless, the detention of 1,305 children, 548 of whom were under 16
years of age, in jails and police stations shows the widespread use of
these places for holding young children and the urgent need for more
adequate provision for meeting this problem. The percentage of
children detained in institutions other than detention homes reflects
9 6 776°— 30--------2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
1928
the use of this method of detention by the New York City court, since
more than nine-tenths of the children detained in “ other institutions”
were in New York City. (See Table V, p. 48.)
T a b l e 8 . — Place o f care pending hearing or disposition, and ages o f children repre
sented in hoys’ and girls’ delinquency cases dealt with by 6 2 courts during 1 9 2 8 1
Delinquency cases
Total
Place of care
Age of child
Under 14
14 years,
16 years,
18 years
Not re
years
under 16
under 18
and over
ported
Per
Num cent
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
ber distri
bu Num cent Num cent Num cent Num cent Num cent
dis
dis
tion ber
dis
dis
dis
ber
ber
ber
ber
tribu
tribu
tribu
tribu
tribu
tion
tion
tion
tion
tion
74
32,822
15,221
12,965
4,132
Place of care reported_____ 32, 540
100 15,090
100 12,847
100 4,105
100
73
100
425
100
59 9,407
32
(2)
62 7,122
26
(2)
55 2,379
10
(2)
58
(2)
47
64
295
69
36 5,402
27 3, 978
9 1, 424
4 ' 119
3
98
36 5,171
26 3,719
9 1,452
1 '373
1
303
40 1,000
991
29
11
9
3
686
2
597
24
24
(2)
17
15
13
13
18
18
11
11
15
15
123
112
11
6
5
29
26
3
1
1
Own home or case disposed of same day___ 19,250
68
Detention home or
other institution3___ 11,709
Detention home 3__ 8,813
2,896
Jail or police station___ 1,195
Only place of care... 1,014
One of the places of
181
More than one place of
255
63
Place of care reported______
21
105
25
(2)
1
(2)
70
1
89
133
22
1
16
14
(2)
2
(2)
(2)
2
1
(2)
1
(2)
3
282
131
118
27
1
5
6,060
1,897
2,938
1,149
15
61
5,992
100 1,876
100 2,912
100 1,130
50 1,124
1
11
60 1,316
1
19
45
1
697
447
250
13
11
37 1,454
938
24
13
516
1
43
1
38
50
32
18
1
1
Own home or case disposed of same day___ 3,024
41
Detention home or
other institution3___ 2,672
Detention home 3_ 1,873
0 ther institution_. _
799
Jail or police station___
110
0 nly place of care___
93
One of the places of
17
More than one place of
59
86
Place of care not reported. . _
1
■ 1
(2)
430
68
45
31
13
2
2
2
(2)
1
1
18
13
21
5
(2)
1
1
37
43
26
100
14
546
10
48
1
489
463
26
52
43
43
41
2
5
4
9
(2)
1
1
4
29
19
60
100
5
33
1
55
2
8
7
1
1
1
24
18
6
1
40
30
10
2
1
2
1
2
1
(2)
3
3
(*)
1
1 Only 59 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported girls’ delinquency cases.
2 Less than 1 per cent.
3 Includes cases of children cared for part of the time in detention homes and part of the time elsewhere,
but excludes cases of children also held in jails or police stations.
4 Excludes cases of children held in jails, police stations, or detention homes.
3 Not shown, as number of cases is less than 50.
CHARGES
Although 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
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
15
1928
same time but be referred to the 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 after
ward, 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 Table V ia
seems to show that a boy is sometimes charged with mischief instead
of stealing. These differences in the attitudes and practices of the
courts are shown very clearly by the character of the charges in the
cases reported by each court. (See Tables Via, VIb,'pp. 50, 52.)
It is generally accepted that the offenses with which boys and girls
are charged represent different delinquency problems. Table 9a
shows that “ stealing or attempted stealing” and “ acts of carelessness
or mischief” were the most usual charges in boys’ cases, whereas
the closely related charges of “ running away,” “ ungovernable or
beyond parental control,” and “ sex offense” appeared more often in
girls’ cases.
T a b l e 9 a .— Charges in boys’ and girls’ delinquency cases dealt with by 6 2 courts
during 1 92 8 1
Delinquency cases
Boys
Total
Girls
Charge
Number
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
distri Number distri Number distri
bution
bution
bution
32, 822
38,882
6,060
38,688
100
32,667
100
6,021
Stealing or attempted stealing_____________
Automobile stealing____________________
Burglary or unlawful entry___________ Bobbery______ ________________________
Other type of stealing......... .............. ..........
Type of stealing not reported _________
14,791
1,857
4,282
739
5,134
2,779
38
5
11
2
13
7
14,064
1,831
4,239
698
4,729
2,567
43
6
13
2
14
8
727
26
43
41
405
212
Truancy..____ _______________ . . _________
Running away........ .............. ............... .............
Ungovernable or beyond parental control___
Sex offense____________________ ____________
Injury or attempted injury to person_______
Act of carelessness or mischief______________
Violating liquor or drug law, or intoxication
Other charge........ ........................................... .
3,632
2,913
3,987
1,722
1,074
9,625
405
539
8
10
4
3
25
1
1
2,880
2,005
2,274
564
922
9,146
340
472
9
6
7
2
3
28
1
1
752
908
1,713
1,158
152
479
65
67
Charge reported........... ............................................
194
ff
155
100
12
(2)
1
1
7
4
12
15
28
19
3
8
1
1
39
1 Only 59 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported girls’ delinquency cases.
1 Less than 1 per cent.
Running away was a larger problem in New York City and in
Philadelphia than in most of the other localities, and the inclusion of
such cases from these courts materially increased the percentage of
children charged with this offense. On the contrary, the number of
children referred to these two courts on truancy charges was very
small and correspondingly lowered the percentage of children charged
with truancy.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
1928
The interests and pursuits of children of different ages are reflected
in the types of offenses which they commit. Table 9b shows that the
offenses committed by girls under 12 years of age corresponded more
closely to those committed by boys of those ages than did the offenses
of older girls. The percentage charged with “ acts of carelessness
and mischief” decreased steadily as the age of the children increased,
while sex offenses and the violation of the liquor or drug law or intoxi
cation, constituted an increasing percentage of the offenses charged
in both boys’ and girls’ cases, from the lower to the higher age groups.
A most interesting difference is shown in the ages of boys and girls
charged with being ungovernable. The largest percentages of boys
charged with this offense were in the age groups under 10 and 10,
under 12 years, whereas among the girls the age group under 10
showed a smaller percentage than any other. Truancy among the
boys and running away among the girls occurred more often among
the children of 14, under 16 years, than among the children of any
other age group. Stealing, the most common charge, appeared
approximately in the same proportions of boys’ cases in all age groups,
although the type of stealing changed as the boys grew older.
T a b l e 9 b .— Per cent distribution of charges reported in boys’ and girls’ delinquency
cases dealt with by 6 2 courts during 1 92 8 , by age o f child 1
D elinquency cases
Age of child
Charge
18
16
12
14
10
Total Under
Not
years, years, years, years, years
re
10
under under under under and ported
years
over
18
14
16
12
Boys' cases.
Stealing or attempted stealing.................... .
Automobile stealing.-----------------------------Burglary or unlawful entry.......................
Robbery---------------------------------------- ------Other type of stealing..................................
Type of stealing not reported....... ............
Truancy........ ............................................. ..........
Running away---------------------- ---------------- L
-—
Ungovernable or beyond parental control.. .
Sex offense-------------- r------- ------------- ------------Injury or attempted injury to person----------Act of carelessness or mischief—. ----- - - - - - - - Violating liquor or drug law, or intoxication.
Other charge-------------------- --------------------------Girls’ cases.
Stealing or attempted stealing......... ............
Automobile stealing....... .........................
Burglary or unlawful entry...................
Robbery________________ __________ —
Other type of stealing------------------------Type of stealing not reported................
Truancy...... .....................................................
Running away--------------------------------------- Ungovernable or beyond parental control .
Sex offense_______________________________
Injury or attempted injury to person.........
Act of carelessness or mischief--------------- r.
Other charge.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
39
12
9
2
11
5
9
5
6
3
3
28
4
2
49
15
16
1
8
8
7
1
3
5
4
18
14
26
2
7
1
9
7
6
15
3
2
2
42
2
2
43
6
13
2
14
8
9
6
7
2
3
28
•-1
0
0
1
43
8
12
2
13
8
11
6
7
2
3
26
1
2
100
100
100
100
100
100
15
1
23
(2)
2
1
12
7
14
10
24
7
4
18
(2)
0
17
10
8
1
1
1
4
2
13
11
27
30
3
5
2
2
1
1
1
g
3
9
6
14
g
7
40
1
46
3
15
2
17
9
8
6
7
1
3
28
45
1
15
2
18
8
7
7
8
1
3
29
39
1
14
1
15
8
6
5
8
2
3
35
m
0
0
1
1
10
4
10
13
32
16
3
g
1
1
0
0
0
6
3
14
19
30
19
2
5
1
1
i Only 59 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported girls’ delinquency cases,
a Less than 1 per cent.
8 Not shown, as number of cases is less than 50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
0
100
11
2
5
5
5
11
26
8
3
26
8
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
Official cases.
1928
17
DISPOSITIONS
Table 10a shows the extent to which different types of dispositions
were used in official cases by the courts reporting delinquency cases.
Placing the child on probation was the disposition most often used.
.
of children whose cases were dismissed or continued
indefinitely1 was also large, as was the number committed to insti
tutions. Only about one-eighth of the cases were disposed of in
other ways than by one of these three methods. Although about the
same percentage of boys and of girls were placed on probation, the
percentage of cases dismissed or continued indefinitely was larger
for boys than for girls, and the percentage of commitments to institutions was higher for girls. Other slight differences in the methods
of dealmg with boys’ and girls’ cases are shown in Table 10a.
Individual courts showed wide variation in the extent to which dif
ferent types of dispositions were used. (See Tables V ila , V llb , pp.
55, 57.) 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 un
officially 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 continued 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 chil
dren are selected for probation both as to those likely to profit by it
an^ as to the court’s facilities for giving adequate supervision.
The percentage of children’s cases dismissed or continued indefi
nitely and the percentage of cases in which the children were commit
ted at institlltions wer(? slightly affected by the cases reported from
the New York and Philadelphia courts. The dispositions made by
these courts as compared with those of all the other courts included
a larger percentage of cases dismissed or continued indefinitely and a
smaller percentage of children committed to institutions. The dis
positions of the cases reported in 1927 compared fairly closely with
those shown in Table 10a for 1928. In 1927 a slightly larger percent
age of the cases were dismissed or continued indefinitely, with a cor
responding decrease in those in which the children were placed on
probation.
classifieatiGn “ case dismissed” was used for cases closed without further action, cases referred to
iurisdicHorf in*th Ï Ï i u P Î i n i i 1,nstJîutlons for the feeble-minded, and cases dismissed because of lack of
V ? th Juveml® court- Cases were considered as “ continued indefinitely” when no further
supervision given the children, but when jurisdiction was maintained so that if a like
Quation arose later the case might be brought into court again without the filing of a new petition. Cases
whpn nn fnrthcr^HAT, w°e n110? t0 ,p?r®nts or committed to institutions with commitment suspended
when no further action was contemplated were also classed as continued indefinitely.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
18
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
1928
T a b l e 10 a .— D isposition in boys’ and girls’ official delinquency cases dealt with
by 61 courts during 1 92 8 1
Official delinquency cases
Total
Girls
Boys
Disposition
Number
Percent
Percent
Percent
distri Number distri Number distri
bution
bution
bution
27,885
4,486
23,399
27,863
100
23,379
kkT
4,484
100
Dismissed or continued indefinitely----------Child placed on probation, _____ ________
Child committed to institution______ ___
State institution for delinquent children_______________ ___________________ 'll
Other institution for delinquent children___ ______________ ______________
Type of institution for delinquent children not reported______________ . . .
Other institution_______________________
8,039
11,914
4,419
29
43
16
7,046
10,054
3,241
30
43
14
993
1,860
1,178
22
41
26
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 board, department,
or agency. ---------------------------------------Child returned home3 _______________
Child referred for criminal prosecution.. .
Child otherwise cared for-----------------------
Disposition reported ----------------------------------------
1,792
6
1,334
6
458
10
2,136
8
1,536
7
600
13
292
199
1
1
235
136
1
1
57
63
1
1
1, 776
6
1,715
7
61
1
1,383
393
5
1
1,334
381
6
2
49
12
1
1, 715
6
1,323
6
392
9
419
2
335
1
84
2
3
743
84
52
109
3
220
51
3
34
963
135
55
143
22
0
0
1
20
0
0
0
5
1
0
1
2
i Only 61 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported official delinquency cases. Of these 61
courts only 57 reported girls’ official delinquency cases.
3 Less than 1 per cent.
3 Applies only to runaways or children living away from own home at time referred to court.
Both the age of a child and the character of his offense affect the
disposition of his case. Table 10b shows the dispositions of the cases
by the age of the child, and Table 10c shows the relation between the
offenses charged and the disposition of the cases.
Except for the larger percentage of boys under 10 years of age
whose cases were dismissed or continued indefinitely and the steadily
increasing percentage who were committed to institutions in each
higher age period, no significant variations occur in the dispositions
made of cases of boys under 16 years of age. A comparison of the
dispositions in the cases of boy's 16 and over and of each age group
under 16 shows that a smaller percentage in the older than in the
younger groups were dismissed or continued indefinitely or were
placed on probation. In a larger percentage of the cases of older boys
commitments to institutions were made or fines were imposed or costs
ordered. The percentage of cases of boys 16 or over referred for
criminal prosecution was small, and these constitute the majority of
the cases dealt with in this way.
Possibly because of the differences in the kinds of offenses with
which girls under 12 were charged as compared with older girls, a
much larger percentage of the cases of girls in the age groups under 10
and 10, tinder 12 years of age were dismissed or continued indefinitely.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
19
1928
As in boys’ cases, commitment to institutions constituted an increas
ing percentage of the dispositions from the lower to the higher age
periods.
T a b l e 10 b .—-P e r cent distribution o f disposition reported for each age group of
boys and girls referred in official delinquency cases dealt with by 61 courts during
1 92 8 1
Official delinquency cases
A ge of child
Disposition
Total
Boys’ cases. . _____________
Un
10
12
14
16
18
Age
der years, years, years, years, years
not
10
under under under under and
re
years
12
14
16
over ported
18
100
100
100
100
100
100
Dismissed or continued indefinitely........
Child placed on probation___
Child committed to institution____
State institution for delinquent children
Other institution for delinquent children
Type of institution for delinquent children
not reported____________
Other institution_______
30
43
14
6
7
39
42
7
2
4
31
46
12
3
7
30
45
13
4
7
30
43
15
6
7
23
1
1
Restitution, fine, or costs____
Fine imposed or payment of costs ordered.
Restitution or reparation ordered___
7
5
1
11
2
Other disposition- ________
Child placed under supervision of individual other than probation officer___
Child committed to board, department, or
agency_____ _____ _____________
Child returned home 4_
Child referred for criminal prosecution
Child otherwise cared for..
Girls’ cases_____ _____
1
1
2
1
1
7
6
2
6
3
3
6
5
2
7
6
5
5
5
1
i
i
i
3
(3)
(3)
(3)
4
(3>
3
0
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
1
(3)
10
13
4
2
3
2
2
2
(3)
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
22
41
26
10
13
55
29
9
2
6
33
40
17
5
9
20
44
24
9
13
21
44
27
10
14
18
32
15
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Restitution, fine, or costs..
Fine imposed or payment of costs ordered.
Restitution or reparation ordered________
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
13
0
0
0
6
9
11
7
2
2
3
3
i
3
5
1
(3)
1
3
2
5
1
7
1
4
i
6
2
0
(3)
1
25
9
(3)
6
7
10
1
100
(3)
3
(3)
Dismissed or continued indefinitely. _ .
Child placed on probation. _______
Child committed to institution_. •
State institution for delinquent children..
Other institution for delinquent children..
Type of institution for delinquent children
not reported. ___ ____
Other institution____________
Other disposition___________ .
Child placed under supervision of individual other than probation officer. ___
Child committed to board, department,
or agency________________
Child returned home4__
Child referred for criminal prosecution
Child otherwise cared for__
100
0
i
0
2
i Only 61 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported official delinquency cases; of these
51 courts only 67 courts reported girls’ official delinquency cases.
8 Not shown as number of cases is less than 50.
3 Less than 1 per cent.
* Applies only to runaways or children living away from home at time referred to court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e 10 c .— P er cent distribution o f disposition reported fo r each type o f charge on which boys and girls were referred in official delinquency
g
cases dealt with by 61 courts during 1 9 2 8 1
Official delinquency cases
Charge on which referred to court
Disposition
Steal
ing or
at
tempted
stealing
Ungov
ernable
or
beyond
parental
control
Run
ning
away
Tru
ancy
Violat
Injury
Charge
ing
Act of
or at
not
tempted careless liquor or Other
Sex
re
charge
drug
law
offense injury ness or
ported
mischief or intoxi
to
cation
person
Boys’ cases------------------------- ---------------------------------------
100
100
100
100
Dismissed or continued indefinitely------------------------------------Child placed on probation.—.......................................................
Child committed to institution------------------------------------------State institutions for delinquent children..------------------Other institution for delinquent children----------------------Type of institution for delinquent children not reported.
Other institution______________________________________
30
43
14
20
54
17
27
40
15
3
7
7
10
1
22
53
16
7
7
2
1
6
8
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
Restitution, fine, or costs____ ______________________________
Fine imposed or payment of costs ordered--------------------Restitution or reparation ordered----------------------------------
Girls’ cases___________________________________________________________
Dismissed or continued indefinitely--------------------------------------------------------------Child placed on probation----------------------------------------------------------------------------Child committed to institution---------- ----------------------------------------------------------State institution for delinquent children-------------------------------------------------Other institution for delinquent children------------------------------------------------Type of institution for delinquent children not reported-------------------------Other institution---------------- ----------------- --------------------- -----------------------------
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4
4
0
6
1
0
0
0
3
100
0
1
100
0
0
0
100
0
0
100
5
2
2
1
100
1928
Other disposition----- -------- ------- ---------------------- ------------------------- - - - r------- —
Child placed under supervision of individual other than probation officer.
Child committed to board, department, or agency...................................... Child returned home3_____________________ ____ _______ ____ ___________
Child referred for criminal prosecution----------------------------------------------------Child otherwise cared for----- -------------------------------------------------------------------
1
100
0
1
100
0
100
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
Total
0
0
0
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 board, department, or agency-------------------- -----------------Child returned home3_____ ____________________________________ •
---------------Child referred for criminal prosecution_____________________________________
Child otherwise cared for...... .............................. —.......................... .......... ...........
0
(2)
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
9
2
5
6
2
3
1
13
1
11
1
1
1
1
12
2
6
4
(2)
8
2
5
1
0
7
7
7
6
1
7
3
3
7
2
3
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
Of these 61 courts only 57 courts reported girls’ official delinquency cases.
J U V E N IL E -C O U K T S T A T IS T IC S ,
1 Only 61 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported official delinquency cases.
2 Less than 1 per cent.
3 Applies only to runaways or children living away from home at time referred to court.
4Not shown as number of cases is less than 50.
(2)
m
(4
1928
to
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
22
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
1928
Table 10c shows that with a few striking exceptions the treatment
for different types of offenses was quite similar in boys' and girls’
cases. Dismissal or indefinite continuance was the type of disposition
most often used when the charge was injury or attempted injury to
person, act of carelessness or mischief, and in a group of miscellaneous
charges classed as ‘ ‘ other.” Probation was the most usual disposition
for both boys and girls charged with stealing running away, and being
ungovernable or beyond parental control. Jn cases of children com
mitting sex offenses the contrast between the methods of dealing with
boys and girls is marked, probation being used most often for boys
and commitment to an institution for girls. In truancy cases the most
usual disposition for girls was dismissal or indefinite continuance, and
for boys placement on probation.
Unofficial cases.
Thirty-nine of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases disposed
of cases unofficially, one court having dealt with all its cases in this
way. Table 11 shows that a large percentage of these cases were
dealt with either by adjusting the difficulty or apparently by dropping
the case without action of any sort. A small percentage of the
children were placed on unofficial probation, and a still smaller group
were referred to institutions and agencies. Runaways returned home
also constituted a small percentage of the cases.
T a b l e 11.— -D isposition in boys’ and girls’ unofficial delinquency cases dealt with,
by 8 9 courts during 1 92 8 1
Unofficial delinquency cases
Disposition
Total
Number
T o ta l-............................ ...................
Disposition reported______________________
Difficulty adjusted___________ ____
Child placed on unofficial probation________
Child returned home2_________
Placement of child in institution recommended_______ ______________
Placement of child elsewhere recommended
Referred to agency or other court___
Other disposition 3_________________
Disposition not reported__ _________
Boys
Girls
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
distri Number distri Number distri
bution
bution
bution
10,997 __ _
--
9,423
10,919
100
9,360
100
r 559
100
6,677
1,176
522
52
11
5
4,960
1,002
385
53
11
4
717
174
137
46
11
9
299
59
239
2,947
3
1
2
27
253
50
165
2,545
3
1
2
27
46
9
74
402
3
1
5
26
78
63
1.574 ----- -------
. 15
1 Only 39 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported unofficial delinquency cases; 37 of the 39
reported boys’ cases and 34 reported girls’ cases.
2 Applies only to runaways or children living away from own home at time referred to court
3 The majority of these cases were dismissed, dropped, or closed with a warning.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DEPENDENCY AND NEGLECT CASES
Dependency and neglect cases constituted a smaller part of the
work of the courts than delinquency cases except in 1118of the smaller
courts. Ten courts dealing with delinquent children did not report
dependency and neglect cases. 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 child is one of
the factors influencing this situation. In some localities only those
cases of dependency and neglect requiring commitment or other legal
adjudication of custody or of parental obligation were brought as a
rule to the attention of the court, whereas in other communities the
court was the principal or only local agency caring for such children.19
As 45 per cent of the dependency and neglect cases were reported by
the New York and Philadelphia courts, the methods used by these
courts in dealing with such cases definitely affect the total figures.
CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THE CASES
The 16,289 dependency and neglect cases represented 15,825 chil
dren in 8,153 families. Tables 1 2 ,13a, 13b, and 14 show the age, sex,
race, nativity, parentage, and whereabouts of children dealt with in
dependency and neglect cases. Nearly as many girls as boys were
dealt with in these cases. The numbers of children of all age groups
under 16 years coming before the courts showed little variation.
The number who were 14 or over was slightly smaller than the
number in the lower age groups, although all the courts had jurisdic
tion over dependency and neglect cases involving children under 16
years of age and some had jurisdiction over children to 18 years of age.
A comparison of Tables 13a and b with Tables 4a and b shows
some interesting contrasts in the color, nativity, and parentage of
children dealt with in dependency or neglect cases and in delinquency
cases. As to color a slightly larger proportion of the dependent or
neglected children than of the delinquent children were white, al
though the percentage of colored children referred to the court for
these causes as well as for delinquency was about ^three times as high
as the percentage of colored persons (5 per cent) in the total popula
tion served by the courts. The percentage of foreign-born children
was even smaller in dependency and neglect cases than in delinquency
cases. A significant difference shown in Tables 13b and 4b is that
the proportion of the native-born children of native parentage re
ferred to the courts because of dependency or neglect, was much larger
than the proportion of the same ancestry who were before the court
because of delinquency.
Nearly three-fourths of the children dealt with by the courts in
dependency or neglect cases came from families in which the home had
been broken by death, divorce, desertion, or other cause. (Table 14.)
is Another court reported only dependency cases.
.
jS .: ^
i» Cases of mothers’ allowances, which frequently are administered by courts, are not included m.tne
tabulations.
23
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
T a b l e 12.
A ges o f children dealt with in dependency and neglect cases hy 5 3 courts
during 1 92 8
C h i l d r e n de a l t
with in depend
ency and neglect
cases
Age of child
Number
Per cent
distri
bution
Total____________
Age reported.___________
Under 2 years____________
2 years, under 4 .. . ___
4 years, under 6 . . . ___
6 years, under 8_________
8 years, under 10__________
10 years, under 12.. ...............
12 years, under 14________
14 years, under 16______
16 years and over___
Age not reported......................
T a b l e 13 a .
15,825
------ -
15,540
100
1,906
2,031
2,069
2,259
2,075
1,837
1,763
1,375
225
12
13
13
15
13
12
11
9
1
285
Color and nativity o f boys and girls dealt with in dependency and
neglect cases by 5 3 courts during 1 9 2 8 1
Children dealt with in dependency and neglect cases
Color and nativity
Total
Boys
Girls
Per cent
Per cent
Number distribu- Number distribu- Number distribution
tion
tion
Total___
15,825
Color reported.
15,819
100
8,125
100
7,694
100
13,605
12,982
157
466
86
82
1
3
7,018
6,698
72
248
86
82
1
3
6,587
6,284
85
218
86
82
1
3
2,214
14
1,107
14
1,107
14
White____________________
Native_________ _____
Foreign born_________
Nativity not reported.
Colored 2.........
Color not reported.
8,129
6
7,696
4
2
Only 51 of the 53 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases reported both boys’ and girls’ cases1 court reported only boys’ cases, and 1 court reported only girls’ cases
’
2 Includes 1 boy and 2 girls colored other than negro.
T a b l e 13 b .— N ativity o f parents o f native white boys and girls 1 dealt with in
dependency and neglect cases by 5 3 courts during 1 9 2 8 2
Children dealt with in dependency and neglect cases
Nativity of parents
Total
Boys
Per cent
Number distribu Number
tion
Total.
Native parentage____________
Foreign and mixed parentage.
1
Girls
Per cent
distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
12, 775
100
6,590
100
6,185
100
7,852
4,923
61
39
4,029
2,561
61
39
3,823
2,362
62
38
1 Exclusive of those for whom nativity of parents was not reported.
2 Only 51 of the 53 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases reported both boys’ and girls’ casescourt reported only boys’ cases, and 1 court reported only girls’ cases:
y
g s cases'
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
25
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
T a b l e 14 .— Whereabouts when referred to court in first case disposed o f during the
year fo r children dealt with in dependency and neglect cases by 5 3 courts during
1 92 8
C h i l d r e n de a l t
with in depend
ency and neglect
cases
Whereabouts of child
Number
Per cent
distri
bution
15,825
13,309
100
3,866
282
274
4,107
2,378
103
2,299
450
150
28
2
2
30
17
1
17
3
1
1,916
SOURCES OF COMPLAINT AND CHARGES
Since several children in a family may be referred to court at the
same time on the same charge and from the same source, the family
rather than the child has been used as the base of comparison in
Tables 15 and 16. 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.
It is to be expected that social agencies would be one of the most
important sources of reference in dependency and neglect cases. In
some localities the court prefers to have such cases investigated first
by a social agency so that only those actually needing court action
are brought to court. In other localities the court undertakes the
initial work and receives complaints from any interested persons,
including parents and relatives. Table 15 shows'that in the areas
reporting, complaints were filed in about equal proportions by social
agencies and by parents and relatives, these two groups being the
source of complaint in three-fourths of the cases.
In more than a third of the cases the charge specified some form of
neglect on the part of parents or guardians (abandonment or desertion,
abuse or cruel treatment, improper conditions in the home). A still
larger proportion of the families were referred for dependency pri
marily. The courts were asked to interpret the term “ insufficient
parental care,” as well as “ financial need,” as inability rather than
neglect to provide for children. Less than one-tenth of the families
were referred to the court for consideration of problems related to the
custody of children and a slightly smaller proportion were referred
for “ other” reasons.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
26
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
T a b l e 15.— Source o f complaint on which fam ilies were referred to court in
dependency and neglect cases dealt with by 5 3 courts during 1 92 8
Families referred in
dependency and
neglect cases
Source of complaint
Number
Per cent
distri
bution
8,153
8,122
100
3,079
2,975
508
602
587
251
120
38
37
6
7
7
3
1
31
T a b l e 16.— Charges on which fam ilies were referred in dependency and neglect
cases dealt with by 5 3 courts during 192 8
Families referred in
dependency and
neglect cases
Charge
Number
Per cent
distri
bution
8,153
Abandonment or desertion_______ ____________________________ ________________
7,161
100
851
248
1,599
2,573
859
563
468
12
3
22
36
12
8
7
992
PLACES OF CARE PENDING HEARING OR DISPOSITION
The detention of dependent and neglected children presents prob
lems different from those involved in the detention of delinquent
children. All the courts reporting the use of detention homes used
also boarding homes or institutions other than detention homes.
Although a number of courts used “ other institutions ” for the deten
tion of children, four-fifths of the cases of children so detained were
in New York City and Philadelphia. (See Table X , p. 64.) As is
shown by a comparison of Table 8 and Table 17, the percentage of
children who were left in their own homes or whose cases were dis
posed of on the same day was only slightly larger in dependency and
neglect cases than in delinquency cases.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
T
able
17.— Place o f care pending hearing or disposition o f dependency
and
neglect cases dealt with by 5 3 courts during 1928
Dependency and
neglect cases
Place of care
Number
Per cent
distri
bution
16,289
Place of care reported______________________________________________ ____________ - - -
15,974
100
9,682
736
5,013
1,539
3,474
61
5
31
10
22
15
14
1
167
361
(2)
(2)
(2)
1
2
315
1 Includes cases of children cared for part of the time in detention homes and part of the time elsewhere,
but excludes cases of children also held in jails or police stations.
2 Less than 1 per cent.
8 Excludes cases of children held in jails, police stations, or detention homes.
DISPOSITIONS
Although the majority of the dependency and neglect cases were
official, 28 courts reported some unofficial cases. The extent to which
individual courts dealt unofficially with dependency and neglect
cases varied considerably. (See Table I, p. 33.) Although the
Philadelphia court had more official than unofficial cases, the un
official cases reported by this court constituted one-half of the total
unofficial cases.
As is shown by Tables 18 and 19, some definite action such as
committing the child to an institution or agency or placing him under
supervision of the court or some individual was taken in three-fourths
of the official cases, whereas placement or supervision of the child was
advised in only one-fifth of the unofficial cases. Two-thirds of the
unofficial cases were disposed of by making some adjustment of the
difficulties involved.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
T a b l e 18.— D isposition in official dependency and neglect cases dealt with by 6 8
courts during 1 92 8
Official dependency
and neglect cases
Disposition
Per cent
Number distribu
tion
Total.
13,464
Disposition reported.
13,463
100
Dismissed or continued indefinitely_______ ____ ________________________
Child placed under court supervision___________________________________
Child placed under supervision of individual other than probation officer.
Child committed to board, department, or agency_____________________ _
State agency..................... . .............................. ............................*__________
Other agency....... ............ ............ .............................................. _..............
Type of agency not reported..... ................_................................................ .
2,718
3,111
999
3,551
676
2,841
34
20
23
7
26
5
21
Child committed to institution_____________________________ _____________
State institution for dependents________________________ ___________
Other institution for dependents________ ___________ ______ _________
Type of institution for dependents not reported_______________ ______
Institution for delinquent children________________ ____ _____________
Institution for feeble-minded or epileptic children______________ ____
Institution for physically handicapped children_______________ ______
Other institution................ ......._....................... .................... ............. .........
2,947
170
2,377
179
52
19
81
69
Other disposition______________________ _____________ __________ _______
Disposition not reported___________ ____________________ _______________ ____
137
m
22
1
18
1
C1)
(>)
1
1
1
1
1 Less than 1 per cent.
T a b l e 19.— Disposition in unofficial dependency and neglect cases dealt with by 2 8
courts during 1 9 2 8 1
Unofficial depend
ency and neglect
cases
Disposition
Per cent
Number' distribu
tion
Total_____________ __________________ at!__________ _________________________
2,825
Disposition reported______________________________________ _____ _ ________________
2,767
100
1,800
291
62
107
103
404
65
11
2
4
4
15
Difficulty adjusted__________________ ___________________________
Referred to agency or other court.. . _____________ ____ ________________________
Placement of child in institution recommended_________________________________
Placement of child elsewhere recommended_______ _________ _________________
Child placed under supervision of probation officer. ____________ ______________
Other disposition2______________________ ________________
58
1 Only 28 of the 63 courts reporting cases of dependency and neglect reported unofficial dependency and
neglect cases.
aThe majority of these cases were dismissed, dropped, or closed with a warning.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CASES OF CHILDREN DISCHARGED FROM PROBATION OR
SUPERVISION
Cases of delinquent children discharged from probation were re
ported by 45 courts and cases of dependent or neglected children
discharged from supervision by 20 courts, 2 reporting only cases
discharged from probation or supervision and not reporting cases of
children coming before the court during the year. The majority of
the cases were official; only 621 of the 8,493 probation cases and 21 of
the 1,936 supervision cases were unofficial.
No constant relation seems to exist between the number of children
placed on probation or under supervision by the different courts and
the number discharged from probation or supervision. (See Tables
X III, X V I, pp. 70,74.) In three courts the number discharged from pro
bation was larger than the number placed under the care of probation
officers. In most courts, however, the number placed on probation
exceeded the number discharged. Some courts apparently do not
terminate probation at any definite time but allow cases gradually to
become inactive. In these courts cases may remain on the list or index
of active cases long after active supervision of the child has ceased and
are reported “ discharged” from care only at times of general review
of the files. Unless this review is made at regular intervals the num
ber of cases discharged may vary greatly from year to year. In a
few courts, notably in New York City, the only cards filled out for
cases discharged from care were for children who had come to the
attention of the court during the time that the Children’s Bureau
cards had been in use. As contact with some of the cases may have
extended beyond this period, the number reported as discharged is
small.
Tables 20 and 21 show that a large proportion of the children under
care of the probation departments were discharged because of improve
ment in conduct or because further supervision seemed unnecessary.
About a tenth of the delinquent children, however, were discharged
because of having reached the age limit of court jurisdiction rather
than voluntarily discharged because of good behavior. Failure of
probation as indicated by commitment to an institution for delinquent
children is shown in about one-seventh of the cases. Some interesting
differences are shown in Tables X IV and X V II (pp. 71, 75) as to the
duration of the probation or supervision period in children’s cases in
different courts.
29
96776°—30-----3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
T a b l e 20. — Reason fo r discharge in cases o f delinquent children discharged from
probation by 1^5 courts during 192 8
Cases of delinquent
children d is
charged from pro
bation
Reason for discharge
Per cent
Number distribu
tion
t ■
8, 493
Reason for discharge reported______________________________________________________
8,483
100
5,338
1,177.
1,082
95
377
866
725
11
218
293
203
63
14
13
1
4
10
9
Further supervision not recommended, or discharged with improvement before
Institution for delinquent children______________ ______ ___ __ _ ________
Other institution____ ____ _______________________________ _ _______________
Child committed to agency or individual________ - ___________ _________________
Other reason__ I ____________________ _________________________________ ________
0)
3
3
. 2
10
1 Less than 1 per cent.
T
able
21. — Reason fo r discharge in cases of dependent and neglected children
discharged fro m supervision by 2 0 courts during 1 9 2 8 1
Reason for discharge
Cases of dependent
and n e g l e c t e d
children dis
c har ged f rom
supervision
Per cent
Number distribu
tion
Total
____________ ________ . . __________________________ ______ __________
1,936
1,931
100
1,179
244
117
183
35
173
61
13
6
9
2
9
Further supervision not recommended, or discharged with improvement before
5
i Only 20 of the 53 courts reporting cases of dependency and neglect reported cases of dependent and
neglected children discharged from supervision.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APPENDIX A.— COURTS FURNISHING STATISTICAL
MATERIAL FOR 1928
Cards were received from 64 courts in 16 States and the District of Columbia
for the entire calendar year 1928, and tables were prepared by 1 court (Phila
delphia). The names of these courts with the largest city or town in the area
served by each court are as follows:
Connecticut:
Juvenile court of the city of Bridgeport_____________
Juvenile court of Hartford-__________________________
District of Columbia: Juvenile court of the District of
Columbia_______________________________________________
Indiana:
Juvenile court of Adams County_____ JS____________ .
Juvenile court of Clark County______ J______________
Juvenile court of Clay County________ _______________
Juvenile court of Jennings County__________ ________
Juvenile court of Lake County_______________________
Juvenile court of Marion County______________ _____
Juvenile court of Monroe County____________________
Juvenile court of Montgomery County
__________
Juvenile court of Steuben County____ JL_____________
Juvenile court of Vermillion County_________________
Juvenile court of Wayne County______________ - ____
Iowa: Polk County juvenile court_____________________
Louisiana:
Juvenile court of Caddo Parish______________________
Juvenile court, Parish of Ouachita___________________
Minnesota :
Juvenile court of Hennepin County____ ______ ______
Juvenile court of Ramsey County___________________
Juvenile court of St. Louis County (southern part)__
Missouri: Juvenile court of Jackson County_____________
New Jersey:
Juvenile court of the county of Hudson____________ r_
Juvenile court of the county of Mercer______________
New York:
Children’s court of Buffalo___________________________
Chemung County children’s court_______ ___________
Clinton County children’s court___________________ _
Columbia County children’s court___________________
Delaware County children’s court___________________
Erie County children’s court______________________ _
Franklin County children’s court____________________
Monroe County court, children’s division_________ __
Children’s court of the city of New York______ _____
Ontario County court, children’s part_________ „ ____
Orange County children’s court______________________
Orleans County children’s court_____________________
Westchester County children’s court_______________ _
Largest city or town in area
served
Bridgeport.
Hartford.
Washington.
Decatur.
Jeffersonville.
Brazil.
North Vernon.
Gary.
Indianapolis.
Bloomington.
Crawfordsville.
Angola.
Clinton.
Richmond.
Des Moines.
Shreveport.
Monroe.
Minneapolis.
St. Paul.
Duluth.
Kansas City.
Jersey City.
Trenton.
Buffalo.
Elmira.
Plattsburgh.
Hudson.
Walton.
Lackawanna.
Malone.
Rochester.
New York.
Geneva.
Newburgh.
Medina.
Yonkers.
31
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
32
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
North Carolina:
Juvenile court of Buncombe County_________________
Winston-Salem juvenile court____________ ________
Ohio:
Juvenile court of Auglaize County_________________ _
Juvenile court of Clark County______________________
Juvenile court, county of Cuyahoga_________________
Franklin County juvenile court______________________
Common-pleas court of Hamilton County, division of
domestic relations, juvenile court, and marital rela
tions___________________________________________j y _ ï
Juvenile court of Lake County______________________
Common-pleas court of Mahoning County, division of
domestic relations_____________________ _________ _
Court of common pleas, division of domestic relations,
Montgomery County______________________________
Juvenile court of Sandusky County__________________
Pennsylvania:
Juvenile court of Allegheny County_______!__________
Juvenile court of Berks County______________________
Juvenile court of Lycoming County_________________
Juvenile court of Montgomery County______________
Municipal court of Philadelphia, juvenile division___
South Carolina: Children’s court of Greenville County___
Texas: Juvenile court of Orange County_________________
Utah:
Juvenile court, First district1________________________
Juvenile court. Second district 2______________________
Juvenile court, Third district8___________ ___________
Juvenile court, Fourth district4___ __________ _ _ l ÿ _
Juvenile court, Fifth district5___________________ ____
Juvenile court, Carbon County___________ ________
Juvenile courts, other counties 6____________________ _
Virginia:
Juvenile and domestic relations court of Lynchburg _
Juvenile and domestic relations court of Norfolk____
Juvenile and domestic relations court of Roanoke
County_____________________________________________
Washington: Juvenile court of Pierce County_____ _______
Largest city or town in area
served
Asheville.
Winston-Salem.
St. Marys.
Springfield.
Cleveland.
Columbus.
Cincinnati.
Paines ville.
Youngstown.
Dayton.
Fremont.
Pittsburgh.
Reading.
Williamsport.
Norristown.
Philadelphia.
Greenville.
Orange.
Logan.
Ogden.
Salt Lake City.
Provo.
Richfield.
Price.
Cedar City.
Lynchburg.
Norfolk.
Salem.
Tacoma.
1 Cache, Boxelder, and Rich Counties.
2 Weber, Morgan, and Davis Counties.
3 Salt Lake, Summit., and Tooele Counties.
4 Utah, Juab, and Wasatch Counties.
3 Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne Counties.
« Beaver, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Kane, Millard, San Juan, Uintah, and Washington
Counties.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APPENDIX B.— SOURCE TABLES
T
able
I .— N um ber of' boys' a n d g irls’ official delinquency cases and number and per cent o f unofficial delinquency cases , and number o f chil
dren s official and unofficial dependency and neglect cases dealt with by 6 3 specified courts during 1 92 8
Delinquency cases
Total
Dependency and neglect eases
Boys
Girls
Unofficial
Unofficial
Total
Official
Unofficial
Total
Number Percent1
Total.........................................
Connecticut:
Bridgeport___________ ____ _
Hartford..................... ............ ' ~
District of Columbia........ — Il l "
Indiana:
Clark County________________
Clay County__________ IIIIIH
Jennings County . .
Lake County_________________
Marion County__________HH
Monroe County______________
Montgomery County________
Steuben County. __............... .
Vermillion County______ _____
Wayne County_____________
Iowa: Polk County_______________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish_______________
Ouachita Parish__________H I.
Minnesota:
Hennepin County____________
Ramsey County____________ ...
St. Louis County (southern
part)________________________
New Jersey:
Hudson County_______________
Mercer County_______________
Total
Total
Official
Official
Number Percent1
Number Percent1
Number Percent1
38,882
27,885
10,997
32,822
23, 399
9,423
29
6,060
4,486
1,574
26
16,289
13,464
2,825
17
431
552
2,004
319
440
1,265
112
112
739
354
491
1,692
265
390
1,063
89
101
629
25
21
37
77
61
312
54
50
202
23
11
110
30
18
35
69
144
533
56
142
533
13
2
19
1
4
8
4
7
127
113
12
3
16
5
290
322
16
5
247
322
43
15
21
11
10
3
6
73
21
175
7
5
5
33
4
90
14
61
63
148
288
19
8
5
36
10
163
630
269
361
57
55
72
38
36
23
9
15
27
85
115
61
29
24
86
28
75
253
77
253
77
336
135
32fi
47
46
5
18
306
534
22
121
232
257
1,149
375
186
1,149
375
225
492
16
5
8
9
7
220
81'
42
6
4
17
44
13
370
194
221
88
62
106
159
896
298
896
298
291
162
242
1, 850
294
1,850
294
1,588
272
1 Not shown where number of cases is. less than 50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Unofficial
Official
142
1, 588
272 1
100
26
8
83
41
49
20
262
22
262
22
1
29
55
mi
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Court
T
able
I . — N um ber of boys’ and girls’ official delinquency cases and number and per cent o f unofficial delinquency cases, and number of chil
dren’s official and unofficial dependency and neglect cases dealt with by 6 3 specified courts during 1 92 8
Dependency and neglect cases
Delinquency cases
Unofficial
Girls
Boys
Total
Court
938
124
14
65
10
197
44
• 222
7,204
100
32
13
529
106
343
343
28
395
2,636
763
1,097
67
1,854
534
49
26
156
1,754
763
78
51
406
340
21
1,243
103
13
65
1,243
97
13
65
3,371
86
6,200
105
70
115
37
116
70
115
27
113-
145
93
83
49
239
3, 617
84
61
37
370
83
49
239
3,617
84
33
37.
365
14
69
69
84
26
33
26
46
98
1,141
613
361
40
185
496
60
43
87
925
613
216
37
138
353
27
1,018
31
25
34
3,744
126
1,018
31
25
34
2,283
870
96
68
28
11
8
50
181
38
172
6,255
83
31
12
743
181
38
172
6,255
83
30
12
436
15
2
16
50
949
17
2
15
2
16
6
50
949
17
2
106
92
274
274
2
23
294
2,235
550
1,097
58
1,578
345
29
21
130
1,445
550
78
44
330
250
1,033
77
1,033
73
54
5,411
54
2,843
76
1
'359
239
882
1,019
16
1,448
194
28
40
6
2,829
19
8
10
6
41
2
164
790
1,019
14
1,248
95
19
1
5
101
401
213
276
189
20
210
26
7
6
11
2, 568
10
Number Per cent
68
870
96
14
50
6
Official
Number Percent
Number Percent
8
Total
Official
789
19
28
1
5
26
309
213
7
76
90
11
210
24
7
11
528
10
2
200
261
9
66
28
46
61
3
11
216
145
3
47
143
§3
1, 461
60
39
48
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
938
124
25
65
10
197
44
222
7,204
100
33
13
Total
Official
Total
Official
Number Percent
New York:
Buffalo_____ _______________
Chemung County__________
Clinton County____________
Columbia County__________
Delaware County..................
Erie County___ :___________
Franklin County___________
Monroe County___^-----------New York City_______ ____
Ontario County____________
Orange C ounty.................. ...
Orleans County____________
Westchester County_______
North Carolina:
Buncombe County_________
Winston-Salem____________
Ohio:
Auglaize County___________
Clark County______________
Cuyahoga County2-----------Franklin County__________
Hamilton County__________
Lake County______________
Mahoning County_________
Montgomery County........ .
Sandusky County_________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_________
Berks County_____________
Lycoming County_________
Montgomery County--------Philadelphia______________
South Carolina: Greenville County.
Unofficial
Unofficial
Unofficial
Total
00
Continued
9
7
2
347
318
825
308
453
97
241
83
197
245
47
237
85
180
264
121
580
261
216
12
61
279
669
279
665
12
154
12
154
76
38
70
85
48
12
25
4
1
9
7
2
296
289
709
260
425
97
212
74
174
203
39
232
85
162
222
115
506
221
193
12
50
245
523
10
122
245
523
10
122
3
75
40
71
85
45
12
24
51
29
116
48
28
9
23
42
8
5
42
6
74
4023
29
18
11
34
146
2
32
34
142
2
'32
4
3
82
1
1
64
145
27
14
122
3
7
23
24
7
4
3
5
1
30
30
8
70
8
70
16
8
2Includes official cases for 12 months and unofficial cases for 9 months.
T
able
II a .— A g e o f boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases by 6 2 specified courts during 1 9 2 8 and age limit o f original jurisdiction o f
court 1
■ Children dealt with in delinquency cases
Age of child reported
Age limit of original jurisdiction, sex of
child, and court
Total
Under 10 years
10 years, under 12 12 years, under 14 14 years, under 16 16 years, under 18 18 years and over
Total
Age not
re
ported
Number Per cent2Number Per cent2Number Per cent2Number Per cent2Number Per cent2Number Per cent2
1928
COURTS
W IT H O R IG IN A L JURISDICTION
U N D E R 16 YE A R S
Connecticut:
Bridgeport ________________ ___
Hartford_________________________
Indiana:
Clark County_____________________
Clay County______________________
Lake County______________________
17,096
16,953
1,308
g
341
477
333
476
34
76
10
16
69
89
5
18
291
5
18
291
24
8
1
52
2,706
1 Only 59 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported girls’ delinquency cases.
2 Not shown where number of children is less than 50.
8 Less than 1 per cent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
Texas: Orange County_____
Utah:
First district___________
Second district_________
Third district...... .......... _
Fourth district.............
Fifth district___________
Carbon County________
Other counties_________
Virginia:
Lynchburg_____________
Norfolk________________
Roanoke County_______
Washington: Pierce County
16
5,062
30
7,699
45
21
19
98
145
29
30
132
166
40
35
18
1
3
96
33
4
14
119
41
173
1
5
0
143
g
1
ro
T able II a .— A g e o f boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases by 6 2 specified courts during 1 92 8 and age limit o f original jurisdiction o f
court— Continued
05
Children dealt with in delinquency cases
Age of child reported
Age limit of original jurisdiction, sex of
child, and court
Total
Under 10 years
10 years, under 12 12 years, under 14 14 years, under 16 16 years, under 18 18 years and over
Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent
CO U R TS
W IT H
O R IG IN A L JURISDICTION
under 1 6 tears —continued
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
442
19
9
25
50
18
442
19
9
23
50
18
27
1
3
3
2
4
1,300
229
i. 296
'229
114
27
9
12
242
46
761
86
14
47
8
176
37
171
5,931
82
31
758
73
14
47
8
176
36
171
5,900
82
23
9
712
46
12
6
16
8
1
14
1
3
333
10
1
2
52
2
6
12
102
12
2
4
1
32
7
11
843
10
3
7
100
14
206
92
235%
87
233
9
30
10
13
15
51
17
22
892
76
891
76
69
6
8
8
6
6
50
4,371
79
50
4,317
75
1
389
10
2
9
13
131
19
3
10
759
19
12
715
6
8
54
3
1
7
6
2
105
4
3
4
9
5
24
19
20
416
63
13
16
241
22
5
13
2
48
12
51
1,782
27
12
1
4
252
11
2
9
32
11
57
32
28
516
92
40
'40
8
1
1
© .
4
32
30
47
36
9
i
1
1
3
13
46
i
1
62
50
43
4
29
360
26
7
22
4
81
16
106
2,938
35
13
5
301
42
53
7
25
76
29
33
37
76
43
33
1
1
15
25
289
19
32
25
43
42
19
2
2
©
1
20
18
25
19
1,238
27
38
29
36
381
32
3
20
1,858
18
40
43
24
70
1
2
1
3
©
54
4
12
18
6
14
12
18
27
30
30
33
6
2
2
64
2
i
31
©
8
3
3
5
2
Ì92 8
Marion County ____ _
_ ____
Monroe County...................... ..........
Montgomery County________ _____
Steuben County___________________
Vermillion C o u n ty... ............... .......
Wayne County___ ________________
New Jersey:
Hudson County___________________
Mercer C ounty___ _______________
New York:
Buffalo.. . ________________________
C hemung- County_________________
Clinton C o u n t y ..____ _ _. ___
Columbia County_________________
Delaware County. ________ ______
Erie County____ _____ ______ ____
Franklin County___ _ ________. . .
Monroe County_________ _________
New York City ___ ______________
Ontario County_______ ___________
Orange County_____ _______________
Orleans County____________________
Westchester County____ _______. . .
North Carolina:
Buncombe County________________
Winston-Salem...'____ _ _________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_________________
Berks County_____________________
Lycoming County... _____________
Montgomery County______________
Philadelphia_______________ _______
South Carolina: Greenville County____
jtfV E N ÌL É -C Ó T J iiT S T A T IS T IC S ,
Total
Age not
re
ported
................................... .......
2,647
2,631
117
4
212
8
645
25
1, 578
60
Connecticut:
Bridgeport __ _______________
Hartford________________ _________
New Jersey:
76
61
76
61
6
8
11
6
14
10
16
21
21
34
43
34
57
56
228
19
227
19
16
7
21
1
9
69
2
30
119
16
52
63
26
11
14
2
16
6
60
921
17
2
1
141
63
23
11
14
2
16
6
50
918
17
2
1
3
8
1
1
2
13
17
3
3
2
27
57
4
67
8
7
36
18
7
10
2
12
4
38
595
12
1
141
7
14
62
14
62
1
11
18
183
24
6
11
675
19
182
23
6
11
669
19
2
1
40
3
6
1
56
4
8
1,851
1,837
162
9
239
1,457
1,456
108
7
194
187
198
9
174
198
9
14
39
1
8
20
Girls
Monroe County___________________
New York C i t y ____ ______________
Ontario C o u n ty__ ____________. . .
Orange County____ _______________
Orleans County______________ ____
Westchester County._____ _________
North Carolina:
Buncombe C o u n t y ..___ ____ ____
Winston-Salem__________ ____ ____
Pennsylvania:
Berks County.'____________ ____ _
Lycoming County________
___
Montgomery County........................
Philadelphia____________________. . .
South Carolina: Greenville County____
COURTS
1
26
3
3
2
8
227
5
16
25
3
2
i
6
16
0
1
2
76
65
3
3
0
2
5
6
4
28
11
18
5
23
11
1
6
20
72
51
37
8
17
27
20
54
19
4
10
4
60
16
2
2
0
6
24
622
34
379
21
3
0
14
25
502
34
293
20
30
39
4
17
20
65
55
37
28
48
38
28
19
26
13
432
13
359
17
24
4
10
12
23
2
1
i
W IT H O R IG IN A L JURISDICTION
U N D E R 17 Y E A R S
District of Columbia______ ____________
Louisiana: *
Caddo Parish_________ ___________
Ouachita Parish____________ ____ _
Texas: Orange County________________
._ .
341
338
25
7
43
13
86
25
117
35
66
20
District of Columbia____ __________ . .
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish ____________________
Ouachita Parish________ __________
267
267
22
8
37
14
71
27
89
33
48
18
38
36
35
36
3
Girls_______________________
2
4
10
5
13
15
30
8 ............... 1
1
3
2
13
1928
99
16
2
7
403
8
47
2
3
3
152
4
1
1
28
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
New York:
Buffalo.-. ___________ ____________
Chemung County...... ............ ............
Clinton County.'___________ -- -- Columbia County_________________
Delaware County____ _____________
Erie County______ ________________
73
0
3
1
3 Less than 1 per cent.
CO
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T
able
I I a .— A g e o f boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases by 6 2 specified courts during 1 92 8 and age limit o f original jurisdiction o f
court— Continued
Children dealt with in delinquency cases
Age of child reported
Age limit of original jurisdiction, sex of
child, and court
Total
Under 10 years
10 years, under 12 12 years, under 14 14 years, under 16 16 years, under 18 18 years and over
Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent
COUBTS W IT H O R IG IN A L JURISDICTION
U N D E R 18 Y E A R S
Boys___________________________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County___ ____ _______
Ramsey County_____ ____________
St. Louis County (southern part)__
Ohio:
Auglaize County___________________
Clark County..'............. ....................
Cuyahoga C o u n ty ...__ ___________
Franklin County. _____________ _.
Hamilton County__ ___________
Mahoning County_________________
Montgomery County_______ ______
Sandusky County.________________
Utah:
First district_______________________
Second district_____________________
Third district______ ______________
Fourth district;_____
Fifth district__ ___________________
Other counties____________ ____ ___
Virginia:
N orfolk...!_________ _____________
Washington: Pierce County..................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10,204
10,009
638
6
1,097
11
1,913
19
3,185
32
3,121
31
528
527
64
12
55
10
105
20
133
25
170
32
794
283
227
791
281
225
38
7
23
5
2
10
99
28
29
13
10
13
168
48
32
21
17
14
255
104
78
32
37
35
228
94
62
29
33
28
3
0
1
0
23
274
2,087
491
981
58
1,295
309
29
23
261
1,995
488
976
46
1,252
308
29
2
13
136
14
54
8
92
16
2
41
27
37
37
1
5
3
3
30
25
3
3
256
251
607
241
365
90
195
255
251
604
241
362
90
186
2
1
9
8
6
221
473
10
116
220
473
9
116
5
7
3
6
1
39
404
83
154
5
245
67
7
15
20
17
16
9
79
666
166
307
17
392
116
12
- 8
12
9
10
7
5
21
248
42
96
4
' 143
30
17
27
18
24
40
7
2
7
11
3
10
11
8
1
21
24
48
35
48
18
20
8
10
8
15
13
20
11
35
47
138
40
79
27
33
14
19
23
17
22
30
18
82
74
220
80
101
29
62
32
29
36
33
28
32
33
98
78
171
54
88
9
68
38
31
28
22
24
10
37
7
23
3
5
10
10
53
109
5
36
24
23
97
208
2
24
44
44
3
41
79
1
35
19
17
4
22
48
1
17
11
10
15
20
22
30
30
33
34
31
11
108
536
180
362
12
377
76
8
31
38
31
21
55
1
195
1
0
0
3
2
2
1
0
0
1
13
92
3
5
12
43
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
9
6
1
0
3
1
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Total
Age not
re
ported
Girls...............................
80
3
127
5
421
16
1
5
1
2
1
8
9
1
1
6
3
2
2
28
54
4
2
20
20
625
2,591
4
8
138
274
18
8
5
35
10
144
4
8
138
274
18
8
4
35
10
144
224
77
46
223
76
46
5
91
396
198
9
262
179
20
5
88
390
194
8
251
178
20
48
28
98
45
27
29
47
27
98
45
27
27
2
2
2
2
3
1
30
137
2
30
29
137
2
30
1
3
1
3
9
4
21
16
11
15
10
2
1
6
1
4
3
1
4
13
5
3
4
20
6
5
5
3
2
10
9
4
5
8
9
4
3
5
2
2
3
2
1
3
1
2
11
4
13
4
5
3
2
8
7
5
10
22
1
22
9
10
1
9
57
33
1
44
27'
3
7
15
10
12
10
15
17
18
15
1,016
4
67
111
7
2
1
12
4
50
106
22
17
2
36
158
77
2
93
68
7
13
19
11
37
21
10
13
16
3
47
1
8
39
49
41
35
48
29
41
41
40
37
38
940
2
1
34
94
6
3
2
11
2
41
86
44
14
2
34
141
78
3
96
65
6
38
13
7
42
17
6
9
34
7
58
1
15
36
7
(3)
25
34
1
(3)
34
1
28
1
39
58
1
(3)
1
39
36
40
1
1
(3)
1
1
1
38
37
3
6
4
1
11
1
1
1
43
2
2
2
1
42
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Indiana:
Clark County__________
Clay County___________
Lake County____ ______
Marion C o u n ty..______
Monroe County............
Montgomery County___
Steuben County___ . . . . .
Vermillion County_____
Wayne County_________
Iowa: Polk C o u n ty.......... .
Minnesota:
Hennepin County____ :..
. Ramsey County________
St. Louis County____ . . .
Ohio:
Auglaize County_______
Clark County__________
Cuyahoga County______
Franklin County_______
Lake C o m i t y ...______ _
Mahoning County_____
Montgomery County___
Sandusky County______
Utah:
First district.....................
Second district. ________
Third district..... ..............
Fourth district_________
Fifth district___________
Other counties__________
Virginia:
Lynchburg_____________
Norfolk_____________ :___
Roanoke County..........
Washington: Pierce County.
* Less than 1 per cent.
00
CO
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
40
T
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
able
I I b .-—
Method of dealing with first case disposed of during the year for de-
ld S n g \ 9 2 8 '
W * * * ? of age dealt with ® f * * specified courts
Children dealt with in delinquency cases for whom age
was reported
Under 10 years of age
Court
Method of dealing with I
Total
Total Per
cent
Official
Unofficial
Total Boys Girls Tota] Boys Girls
Total.
Connecticut:
Bridgeport______________________
Hartford_____________________
District of Columbia_________________
Indiana:
'Clark County__ 1_______________
Clay County____________________
Lake County____________________
Marion County__________________
Monroe County_______________ _
Montgomery County______
Steuben County_________________
Vermillion County...................III I
Wayne County.................................
Iowa: Polk County....... .........................
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish____________________
Ouachita Parish________ _____ _
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_______________
Ramsey County_________________
St. Louis County (southern part)'.
New Jersey:
Hudson County_________________
Mercer County__________________
New York:
Buffalo.............._........ ..................
Chemung County____ ____ ______
ClintonUounty_________________
Columbia County________________
Delaware County._______________
Erie County______ _______________
Franklin County_________________
Monroe County__________________
New York City____________ _____
Ontario County__________________
Orange County__________________ '
Orleans County__________________
Westchester County_____________
North Carolina:
Buncombe County______________ _
W inston-Salem______ ____________
Ohio:
Auglaize County...............................
Clark County___________________
Cuyahoga County............ IIIIIIIII
Franklin County—............... .......
Hamilton County________________
Lake County__________________ 1.1
Mahoning County.____ __________
Montgomery County________ .____
Sandusky County.............................
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County____ ____ ______
Berks County____________________
Lycoming County________________
Montgomery County_____________
Philadelphia_______ ____ _________
South Carolina: Greenville County___
Texas: Orange County_______________
34,359 2,330
7 1,382 1,273
109
948
835
113
409
537
1,723
40
76
130
10
14
8
32
62
44
29
62
39
3
5
8
14
86
5
14
69
17
9
26
429
716
37
17
27
85
28
671
25
32
1
3
4
2
6
4
14
24
1
1
1
13
23
1
1
1
1
1
11
8
11
4
4
2
3
2
2
80
12
11
10
1
69
54
15
209
234
14
42
7
18
6
4
6
4
8
38
8
35
3
1,014
357
271
40
7
24
4
2
9
40
7
11
38
7
11
2
13
12
1
1,523
248
130
27
9
11
130
27
114
27
16
821
96
25
61
10
192
42
221
6,818
99
23
10
853
48
13
6
14
48
13
46
12
2
1
8
1
15
1
3
359
10
1
2
59
13
8
1
15
1
3
359
10
1
2
13
8
1
14
1
3
333
10
1
2
12
46
40
6
101
295
10
41
10
14
41
30
10
9
1
28
349
2,385
682
976
54
1,503
486
49
2
17
149
14
54
10
102
25
2
5
6
2
6
19
7
5
2
4
40
14
3
5
2
8
2
3
37
14
3
3
2
4
13
109
10
99
3
10
51
5
100
17
2
51
5
90
12
10
5
1,073
99
12
61
4,986
94
9
71
6
1
1
429
13
1
71
6
1
1
198
12
69
6
231
1
1
206
.
8
1
5
10
7
7
6
2
9
14
I
Ï
1
26
1
11
1
3
2
4
2
1
1
183
10
15
2
1 Only 59 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported girls’ delinquency cases.
1 Not shown where number of children is less than 50,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3
1
25
1
41
JUVENILE-COTJRT STATISTICS, 1928
T
I I b .— M ethod o f dealing with first case disposed o f during the year fo r de
linquent hoys and girls under 1 0 years o f age dealt with b y 6 2 specified courts
during 1928 — 'Continued
able
Children dealt with in delinquency cases for whom age
was reported
Under 10 years of age
Court
Method of dealing with case
Total
Total
Per
cent
Unofficial
Official
Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls
Utah:
Third district______________________- - - - -
Virginia:
V
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
302
278
702
286
389
9Ò
213
19
29
20
26
43
7
3
6
10
3
9
11
8
1
3
11
3
2
19
7
2
3
9
2
2
19
7
1
249
610
11
146
8
26
3
4
8
26
7
23
4
3
4
4
2
1
16
18
17
24
24
14
18
16
22
21
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
3
T
able
I I I a .— Color and nativity o f boys dealt with in delinquency cases by 6 2 specified courts during 1 9 2 8
Boys dealt with in delinquency cases
Color reported
Court
White
Total
Native, native
parentage
Native, foreign or Native, parentage
mixed parentage
not reported
Color
not re
ported
Colored
Nativity not
reported
Foreign born
1
Number Percent1 Number Percent1 Number Percent1 Number Percent1 Number Percent1 Number Percent1
1
Total___ _______________________
Connecticut:
Bridgeport
_ ______ ___________
Hartford_________________________ _
District of Columbia__________________
Indiana:
Clark County_____________________
Clay County_______ ______________
Lake County______________ .W ____
Marion County _________________
Monroe County___________ _______
Montgomery County.. . . . _______
Steuben County___________________
Vermillion County___ ____ _______
Wayne County______ _____________
Iowa: Polk County___________________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish __ __
______ _ __
Ouachita Parish. . . . ___________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_____________ . .
Ramsey County_____ ___________
St. Louis County (southern part)...
New Jersey:
Hudson County.__________________
Mercer County____ _______________
New York:
Buffalo__________ ________________
Chemung County_________________
Clinton County___________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
29,151
29, 111
8,934
31
11,226
39
1,112
341
477
1,457
341
477
1,457
73
117
153
21
25
11
262
296
57
77
62
4
4
5
18
291
442
19
9
25
50
18
528
5
18
291
442
19
9
25
50
18
528
4
16
59
280
15
5
25
42
14
434
20
63
1
164
8
2
56
2
84
8
16
82
42
8
187
198
187
198
102
135
55
68
2
12
1
6
1
794
283
227
794
283
227
391
171
68
49
60
30
356
105
139
45
37
61
3
1
8
1,300
229
1,300
'229
256
42
20
18
921
155
71
68
8
1
761
86
14
761
86
14
162
46
10
21
53
547
37
3
72
43
1
4
534
2
2,814
1
3
4
0
1
4,491
15
29
5
61
813
1
13
56
0
426
0
10
1
1
1
4
27
27
9
6
37
127
2
13
29
4
1
(2)
0
82
44
9
1
9
1
4
2
i
10
4
1
60
5
4
2
2
26
3
0
1
2
1
0
2
4
52
10
61
26
6
3
2
63
26
5
11
26
3
40
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Total
47
8
176
37
171
5,931
82
31
12
715
47
8
176
37
171
5,924
82
31
12
715
20
8
46
55
1,419
30
23
3
126
124
70
37
32
24
37
3,705
18
468
7
63
57
12
65
6
92
235
92
235
44
49
48
21
23
274
2,087
491
981
58
1,295
309
29
23
274
2,062
491
- 981
58
1,295
308
29
21
191
225
331
416
20
76
206
26
70
11
67
42
34
6
67
34
26
7
473
31
44
7
3
12
37
10
892
76
6
50
4,371
79
9
892
76
6
50
4,368
79
9
203
34
6
27
599
50
3
23
45
40
53
54
14
63
1,145
26
256
251
607
241
365
90
195
256
251
605
240
365
90
194
220
183
376
234
365
58
187
86
73
62
98
100
64
96
221
473
10
116
221
473
10
116
117
211
9
97
53
45
(2)
1
1
4
2
2
1
5
222
3
4
27
1
539
4
1
1
9
21
3
25
1
8
71
1
1
23
547
2
(2)
fi38
i
321
2
19
15
31
(2)
33
3
1
(2)
2
1
1
23
26
4
1
1
28
2
1
1
(2)
2
2
1
8
1
1
1
71
2
(2)
69
10
48
186
52
79
74
212
120
216
2
152
67
27
10
24
22
3
12
22
123
1
14
1
36
3
982
28
6
22
35
1
4
3
1
3
3
3
(2)
(2)
1,556
45
42
1
7
25
1
3
3
54
204
22
34
5
20
1
2
3
2
4
2
2
i
14
84
1 Not shown where number of boys is less than 50.
1
2
(2)
•
2
1
2
2
1
1
3
13
1
1
1
(2)
(2)
2
1
2
1
(2)
1
1
100
248
45
52
3
3
JUVENILE-COTJRT STATISTICS, 1928
Columbia County...............................
Delaware County__________________
Erie County....... .......................... ........
Eranklin County................................
Monroe County_______________ . . . New York City____________________
Ontario County___________ ____ _
Orange County------------------------------Orleans County.__________________
Westchester County— .......................
North Carolina:
Buncombe County________________
Winston-Salem____________________
Ohio:
Auglaize County__________________
Clark County____________ _________
Cuyahoga County..-------- --------------Eranklin County_________ ________
Hamilton County---------------- ------- „i
Bake County______________________
Mahoning County--------------------- Montgomery County------ ---------- —
Sandusky C o u n ty...---------------------Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County-------------------------Berks County.----------------- ------------Lycoming County----------- ---------Montgomery County--------- ----------Philadelphia.._____________________
South Carolina: Greenville County-----Texas: Orange County..............................
Utah:
First District______________________
Second district_____________________
Third district------ ------- -------------------Fourth district-------------------------------Fifth district______________________
Carbon County------------ ----------------Other counties____________________ Virginia:
Lynchburg________________________
Norfolk-------------- ---------------------------Roanoke County__________ ____ _
Washington: Pierce County..--------------
3 Less than 1 per cent.
00
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T
able
I I I b .— Color and nativity o f girls dealt with in delinquency cases by 5 9 specified courts during 1 9 2 8
1
nP*-
Girls dealt with in delinquency cases
Color reported
White
Coart
Total
Native, native
parentage
Native, foreign or Native, parentage
mixed parentage
not reported
Colored
Nativity not
reported
Foreign born
not re
ported
Number Percent2 Number Percent2 Number Percent2 Number Percent2 Number Percent2 Number Percent2
Total. . . __________
_
Connecticut:
Bridgeport ____________
Hartford__________ ______
District of Columbia ___ .
Indiana:
Clark County___________
Clay County............... ... .
Lake County_________
Marion County...................
Monroe County_______ _
Montgomery County... . . .
Steuben County___________
Vermillion County_____ _________
Wayne County____________ .
Iowa: Polk County______________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish______________
Ouachita Parish___________________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_________ _.
Ramsey County_________ ________
St. Louis County (southern part)...
New Jersey:
Hudson C ou n ty____ _____________
Mercer County___ ________________
New York:
Buffalo_____ _______ ______________
Chemung County_________________
Clinton County__________ _________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5,613
5,610
2,184
39
1,791
32
' 103
76
61
267
76
61
267
18
13
25
24
21
9
50
37
9
66
61
3
2
1
4
8
138
274
18
8
5
35
10
144
4
8
138
274
18
8
5
35
10
144
3
7
44
199
17
8
5
28
10
107
32
73
1
64
3
1
46
1
3
2
74
8
38
36
38
36
17
25
224
77
46
224
77
46
119
38
12
53
49
228
19
44
3
63
25
11
23
18
11
228
19
63
25
11
.
117
1
255
1
46
17
5
4
1,160
21
7
11
185
18
69
1
3
4
1
19
68
14
25
29
20
7
6
1
1
19
11
92
37
27
41
48
19
158
12
69
37
36
6
57
2
2
1
1
3
<*>
5
1
6
3
2
3
20
3
9
2
2
4
1
3
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Total
96776'
14
2
16
6
50
921
17
2
1
141
14
2
16
6
50
920
17
2
1
141
30
233
10
1
1
30
14
62
14
62
10
7
5
91
396
198
9
262
179
20
5
91
395
198
9
262
178
20
5
69
64
157
6
52
119
17
183
24
6
11
675
19
183
24
6
11
675
19
60
14
5
5
133
18
48
28
98
45
27
29
48
28
98
45
27
29
43
20
70
45
27
28
30
137
2
30
30
137
2
30
8
59
2
28
2
2
10
2
2
11
5
60
25
17
519
5
1
34
56
21
75
53
3
2
1
1
1
£7
2
6
10
7
2
'
6
1
ii
76
16
79
20
67
33
184
8
3
84
9
2
47
4
81
7
44
32
5
i
75
i
19
2
1
1
1
(3)
1
4
195
29
4
1
71
2
g
21
21
3
3
23
16
4
55
89
19
58
32
21
15
16
1
73
4
28
2
41
46
1
16
26
1
41
2
1
2
254
1
22
4
1
1
11
2
78
12
2
1
1
38
1
2
1
1
22
77
56
1
43
1
1
2
3
10
2
4
11
2
13
1
20
2
105
2
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Columbia County_____________
Delaware County____________ _
Erie County_________ __________
Franklin County______________
Monroe County_______________
New York City______________ _
Ontario County______________ _
Orange County..______________
o
Orleans County_______________
Westchester County___________
CO North Carolina:
Buncombe County.._ ............... .
o
Winston-Salem________________
Ohio:
Auglaize County______________
£>Clark County_________________
Cuyahoga County......................
Franklin County____ _________
Lake County_________ ____ ____
Mahoning County_______ ______
Montgomery County..................
Sandusky County________ ____
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_____________
Berks____ _____________________
Lycoming County...____ _____
Montgomery County__________
Philadelphia__________ ____ ___
South Carolina: Greenville County.
Utah:
First district___________________
Second district________________
Third district__________________
Fourth district________________
Fifth district__________________
Other countries________________
Virginia:
Lynchburg____________________
Norfolk___________ ____________
Roanoke County........ .................
Washington: Pierce County.............
2
1 Only 59 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported girls’ delinquency cases.
JNot shown where number of girls is less than 50.
3 Less than 1 per cent.
Or
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T
able
IV .— Source o f complaint in delinquency cases dealt with by 6 2 specified courts during 1 92 8
CT>
Delinquency cases
Source of complaint reported
Court
School depart
ment
Probation
officer
Social agency Other source
Total
Num
ber
Total_________ ______ __________
Connecticut:
Bridgeport______________ _______
Hartford____________ _______ _____
District of Columbia..............................
Indiana:
Clark County...................................
Clay County.....................................
Lake County......................... - .........
Marion County................................
Monroe County.—. ...................... Montgomery County--------- --------Steuben County_________________
Vermillion County---------------------Wayne County................................
Iowa: Polk County— ....... ...................
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish...................... ............
Ouachita Parish-------------- .----------Minnesota:
Hennepin C ou n ty.........................
Ramsey County--------------------- —
St. Louis County (southern part)
New Jersey:
Hudson County-------------------------Mercer C ounty...-------- ---------- —New York:
Buffalo__________________________
Chemung County----------------------Clinton County............—...............
Columbia County----------------Delaware County............................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source
of com
plaint
not re
ported
Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per
cent1
cent1 ber
cent1 ber
cent1 ber cent1 ber
cent1 ber
cent1 ber
38,882
38, 798
21,829
56
3,639
9
5,606
431
552
2,004
430
552
2,002
341
462
1,355
79
84
68
28
37
210
7
7
10
231
9
26
454
822
41
17
30
89
30
753
9
26
452
822
36
13
30
4
9
159
477
24
30
753
2
59
11
267
232
257
229
257
1,149
375
291
39
66
4
9
10
35
62
8
241
32
67
73
29
28
18
27
8
11
38
99
17
39
1,148
375
291
627
243
55
65
34
174
14
22
15
4
8
151
105
119
1,850
294
1,848
294
512
245
28
83
124
7
2
938
124
25
65
10
937
124
25
65
10
889
45
12
11
5
95
36
26
3
5
17
7
2
11
9
14
9
(2) 7
195
2
1
10
4
4
6
26
2
8
1
1
1
1
1
57
1
1
5
3
2
2
29
4
3
1
1
1
147
8
2
7
41
3
14
6
41
113
2
9
12
8
17
17
ft
2
9
118
15
2
4
16
13
19
3
10
10
37
4
14
92
15
40
6
3
1
13
28
41
106
1
45
9
(2)
15
22
1
1
2
39
7
5
429
23
594
11
32
25
15
1
5
17
1
5
21
1
34
3
1
17
10
11
1
9
4
7
2
4
52
34
6
9
(2)
27
14
0
0
1
1
0
0
511
84
833
11
12
1
6
4,186
4
79
139
2
8
5
14
14
97
35
58
2
54
69
1
0
2
2,194
14
2
0
1
2
0
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
5
4
8
0
3
2
0
0
1
6
1
6
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Total
Other indi
vidual
Parents or
relatives
Police
47
9
2
22
1,055
3
36
65
197
44
222
7,204
100
33
13
888
197
43
222
7,188
100
33
13
887
92
33
121
4,344
66
2
6
321
106
343
106
343
75
81
7
24
28
395
2,636
763
1,097
67
1,854
534
49
28
394
2,635
756
1,097
67
1,853
534
49
1
204
1,451
408
816
21
799
121
24
4
26
188
79
40
1,243
103
13
65
6,200
105
9
1,236
103
13
65
6,199
105
8
319
61
3
44
4,655
55
4
149
12
347
318
825
308
453
97
241
343
314
824
304
449
95
238
69
133
461
97
60
41
83
20
17
35
58
12
279
669
12
154
275
669
12
154
199
437
9
112
2
2
142
97
7
1
8
509
16
2
2
11
i Not shown where number of cases is less than 50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COXJRT STATISTICS, 1928
Erie County....................... .........
Franklin County........................
Monroe County________________
New York City..................... .......
Ontario County............................
Orange C ounty...........................
Orleans County_______________
Westchester County....................
North Carolina:
Buncombe County____________
Winston-Salem________________
Ohio:
Auglaize County..........................
Clark County................................
Cuyahoga County_____________
Franklin County______________
Hamilton County.........................
Lake County__________________
Mahoning County.......................
Montgomery County..................
Sandusky County_____________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_____________
Berks County_________________
Lycoming County_____________
Montgomery County................
Philadelphia___________________
South Carolina: Greenville County.
Texas: Orange County____________
Utah:
First district___________________
Second district_________________
Third district_________ ________
Fourth district________________
Fifth district_____________ 1-----Carbon County_______________
Other counties_________________
Virginia:
Lynchburg................................—
Norfolk...........................................
Roanoke County______________
Washington: Pierce County.........
T
able
V .— Place o f care pending hearing or disposition o f delinquency cases dealt with by 6 2 specified courts during 1 9 2 8
qo
Delinquency cases
Place of care reported
Court
Jail or police
station3
Other insti
tution
Detention
home1
Boarding
home
More than
one place of
care3
Other place
of care
Total
Num
ber
Total____________________________________
Connecticut:
Bridgeport_________________________ - ..........
Hartford......................................... - ...................
Indiana:
Clark County......................................................
Clay County................. .....................................
Marion County____________________________
Monroe County___________________________
Montgomery County— ................. - ................
Steuben County----------------- ---------------------Vermillion County...... ....................................
Wayne County____________________________
Louisiana:
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_________________________
Bamsey County______________________ ____
New Jersey:
Hudson County............. - ..................................
Mercer County............. ............................ .........
New York:
Chemung County_________________________
Clinton County___________________________
Columbia County--------------------------------------FRASER
Delaware County_________________________
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
38,882
431
552
2,004
9
26
454
822
41
17
30
89
30
753
.
Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per
cent4
cent4 ber
cent4 ber
cent4 ber
cent4 ber
cent4 ber
cent4 ber
22,274
58
109
(8)
430
552
1,999
381
501
1,305
89
91
65
8
2
(8)
9
25
453
821
39
9
30
89
30
751
1
17
320
740
27
5
27
85
23
479
71
90
9
38,532
Place
of care
not re
ported
1
96
232
257
219
254
186
168
85
66
1,149
375
291
1144
373
291
927
180
251
48
86
1
5
5
1,850
294
1,849
294
1,215
281
(5)
938
124
25
65
10
938
122
24
64
10
602
107
15
48
9
2
48
639
4
85
68
i
i
28
(8)
9
32
19
8
1
(8)
«
(8)
1
2
«
10
1,305
3
25
6
12
3
1
12
1
17
8.
4
36
8
1
5
(8)
2
0)
(8)
33
28
13
2
2
111
72
2
10
19
1
5
6
4
330
7
9
2
1
3
3
3
3
13
149
(5)
1
1
21
(8)
(8)
1
(2)
(2)
(»)
8
1
3
1
350
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
2
8
3
1
10
1
3
«
2
1
1
1
76
(8)
30
1
0)
13
3
8
29
9
9
1
91
107
25
13
4
(')
(8)
35
6
1
10
1
4
251
34
i
314
3,695
1
1
(s)
96
75
2
(8)
1
1
64
88
2
1
2
64
10,686
5
2
i
2
(8)
20
1
Ì
(8)
i
i
2
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Own home or
case disposed
of same day
Total
197
44
222
7,204
" 100
33
13
888
197
44
222
7,143
99
33
2
888
135
44
124
3,610
82
32
2
635
106
343
105
338
28
395
2,636
'763
1,097
67
1,854
534
49
69
3
56
51
83
1
5
4
72
3
92
334
88
99
1
28
395
2,632
'758
1,096
67
1,834
530
49
11
224
1,594
' 239
350
60
995
307
29
57
61
32
32
90
54
58
1,243
' 103
13
65
6,200
' 105
9
1,088
' 103
13
65
6,182
' 105
6
272
75
7
14
2,356
69
6
347
318
825
308
453
97
241
347
318
825
301
453
97
236
339
275
397
273
449
92
218
98
86
48
91
99
95
92
4
8
1
276
669
12
154
279
669
12
154
246
324
3
60
88
48
1
2
2
(5)
(S)
4
2
1
45
23
12
6
93
42
8
8
2
3,423
1
1
48
1
101
4
1
4
144
16
1
2
4
1
61
1
0
11
3
0
1
10
161
990
351
723
3
533 ,
158
17
(!)
4
1
0
0
25
73
2
1
4
(S)
22
38
66
3
1
(5)
4
" 4
1
1
4
1
41
38
46
66
4
29
30
808
27
1
50
3,814
3
77
62
3
3
1
299
36
74
26
68
8
4
1
i
7
2
1
37
151
17
3
275
43
2
1
7
7
4
1
8
16
0
1
0
0
3
0
i
i
7
0
3
2
0
4
34
7
0
1
20
2
4
15
8
1
5
i
5
2
13
3
i
i
i
(J)
2
0
0
18
5
i
0
20
4
0
155
1
0
1
0
4
5
1
i
2
1
2
2
31
0
30
i
1
18
3
39
2
2
7
1
3
( 5)
3
4
0
1
1
34
123
19
0
11
15
6
(» )
2
3
0
0
2
253
9
74
1
1
38
4
1
48
1
i
2
5
2
3
5
3
2
3
1
27
87
10
13
1
2
1
19
12
0
0
0
0
2
7
1
5
0
0
0
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Erie County____________ _____ ____________
Franklin County.______ __________________
Monroe County____________ ______________
New York City............................ ...................
Ontario County_______ ___________________
Orange County........... ................... ........... .......
Orleans County_______ ___________________
Westchester County.......................................__
North Carolina:
Buncombe County____________ ___________
W inston-Salem____________________________
Ohio:
Auglaize County__________________________
Clark County."_____ ______________________
Cuyahoga County_____ ___________ _______
Franklin County!_____ _____ _____________
Hamilton County_________________________
Lake County...."______ _________ _______ _
Mahoning County_________________________
Montgomery County______________________
Sandusky County............................... ..............
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_________________________
Berks C ounty.._________ _____________
Lycoming County_________________________
Montgomery County______________________
Philadelphia_______________________
South Carolina: Greenville County____________
Texas: Orange County__ _____________________
Utah:
First district.................. ........... -j____________
Second district____________________________
Third district______________________________
Fourth district.......................... ................... . .
Fifth district______________________________
Carbon County___________________________
Other counties_____________________________
Virginia:
Lynchburg_______________ _______________ _
Norfolk____ ____ ____________ _________ . . .
Roanoke County_______ _____________ ____
Washington: Pierce County^.. _______________
1 Includes cases of children cared for part of the time in detention homes and part of the time elsewhere, but excludes cases of children also held in jails or police stations.
3 Includes cases of children cared for part of the time in jails or police stations and part of the time elsewhere.
3 Excludes cases of children cared for part of the time in jails or police stations or detention homes and part of the time elsewhere.
4 Not shown where number of cases is less than 50.
•* Less than 1 per cent.
CO
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T
able
Y I a .— Charge in boys’ delinquency cases dealt with by 6 2 specified courts during 192 8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
O
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Total
Connecticut:
BridgeportHartford.
District of ColumbiaIndiana:
Clark County.
Clay County.
Lake County.
Marion County .
Monroe County.
Montgomery County.
Steuben County.
Vermillion County.
Wayne County.
Iowa: Polk County.
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish;
Ouachita Parish.
Minnesota:
Hennepin County .
Ramsey County.
St. Louis County (southern
part).
New Jersey:
Hudson County.
Mercer CountyNew York:
Buffalo.
Chemung County.
Cn
1,588
272
14
50
8
181
38
172
6,255
83
31
12
743
14
50
8
181
38
172
6,113
83
-31
12
743
7
14
8
90
23
120
2,486
56
23
10
219
70
41
67
1
88
3
1
29
92
274
92
274
54
118
59
43
23
294
2,235
550
1,097
58
1,578
345
29
23
294
2,235
550
1,097
58
1,578
345
29
6
120
1,135
339
449
14
364
102
13
1,033
77
6
54
5,411
86
9
1,026
77
6
54
5,411
86
7
624
40
2
46
2,099
43
3
296
289
709
260
425
97
212
296
289
709
260
425
97
212
114
128
348
136
197
69
82
39
44
49
52
46
71
39
245
523
10
122
245
523
10
122
61
171
8
96
28
3
5
1
9
2
3
6
2
1
1
1
4
7
525
4
4
9
5
is
8
1
503
5
1
154
21
12
2
7
78
8
28
5
1
5
10
50
0
18
2
4
8
2
1
1
8
6
7
73
4
4
1
5
64
9
7
1
1
7
1
3
41
51
62
41
24
23
30
62
302
81
43
9
243
116
4
21
14
15
4
16
15
34
1
20
130
19
145
1
98
30
5
61
52
163
2
3
1
318
15
2
16
3
54
7
5
9
81
3
8
4
15
2
1
3
2
6
17
1
587
7
2
11
8
1
332
7
1
2
6
8
89
1
2
1
29
11
139
19
59
10
4
20
7
14
3
8
45
10
1
3
6
4
1
3
5
4
11
3
1
1
1
10
16
17
4
3
4
1
3
6
2
2
1
4
24
4
8
32
11
1
1
3
25
33
25
15
10
3
29
2
6
4
56
2
11
7
79
8
7
2
85
39
50
1 For detailed charges under this caption see Table Vic.
7
6
3
13
2
6
9
6
13
124
19
26
4
125
24
4
0
1
6
2
1
3
207
3
2
12
11
22
1
31
19
35
10
19
3
57
5
33
2,156
8
4
2
265
10
9
11
3
11
56
4
6
3
2
7
8
7
1
8
49
54
27
1
13
19
3
2
10
2
2
1
6
8
61
2
28
5
33
24
3
20
2
1
2
125
5
1
2
3
4
5
0
36
1
0
12
20
4
2
3
9
2
7
1
59
427
27
327
17
592
23
20
19
5
30
29
38
7
$
3
3
6
14
7
11
6
2
3
63
21
6
27
4
3
2 1, 710
6
6
6
32
7
3
3
0
1
1
12
1
2
12
2
0
7
70
.
1
0
3
i
4
3
38
142
1
0
0
99
1
0
5
0
1
3
6
139
7
3
2
2
2
8
12
2
15
1
3
2
1
4
17
1
2
0
1
0
0
,
2
4
1
1
13
1
36
33
12
16
24
24
21
26
12
24
32
46
9
4
3
12
11
8
107
95
85
41
103
23
45
37
17
8
45
3
9
141
178
58
34
6
17
2
3
1
1
5
4
aNot shown where number of cases is less than 50.
1
3
7
5
1
0
1
1
2
0
5
1
10
8
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Clinton County..........................
Columbia County____________
Delaware County_____________
Erie County__________________
Franklin County_____________
Monroe County______________
New York City_______________
Ontario County______________
Orange County...................... —
Orleans County_______ ______
Westchester County__________
North Carolina:
Buncombe County___________
W inston-Salem_______________
Ohio:
Auglaize County_____________
Clark County________________
Cuyahoga County......................
Franklin County_____________
Hamilton County________ j>
Lake County_________________
Mahoning County____________
Montgomery County.................
Sandusky County____________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County......................
Berks County________________
Lycoming County________ . . . .
Montgomery County.................
Philadelphia__________________
South Carolina: Greenville County
Texas: Orange County___________
Utah:
First district.................. ..............
Second district________________
Third district_________________
Fourth district____________ . . .
Fifth district_________________
Carbon County_______________
Other counties____________ . . .
Virginia:
Lynchburg................................. .
Norfolk_____________ __________
Roanoke County_____________
Washington: Pierce County..-.___
3 Less than 1 per cent.
Or
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T
able
Y I b .— Charge in girls’ delinquency cases dealt with by 5 9 specified courts during 1 9 2 8 1
Ot
to
Girls’ delinquency cases
Charge reported
Court
Truancy
Running
away
Total
Ungovern
able or be
yond paren Sex offense
tal control
Injury or
attempted
injury to
person
Violating
Act of care liquor or
lessness or drug law, or
mischief
intoxication
Other
charge
Charge
not re
ported
Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per
ber
cent3 ber cent3 ber cent3 ber cent3 ber cent3 ber cent3 ber cent3 ber cent3 ber cent3
Total______________________
Connecticut:
Bridgeport............ ...................
Hartford-- ____ ____ ___ _
District of Columbia__________
Indiana:
Clark County................. ........
Clay County_________________
Lake County_______________
Marion County______________
Monroe County_____ ______
Monteomery County
Steuben County— _____
Vermillion County. .
Wayne County_______ ____ _
Iowa: Polk County__________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish_________________
Ouachita Parish_____________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_____ _____
Bamsey County__________
St. Louis County (southern
part)................. ........................
New Jersey:
Hudson County______________
Mercer County
New York:
Buffalo... ___________________
Chemung County........ .............
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6,060
6,021
727
12
752
12
908
77
61
312
77
61
312
12
11
58
16
18
19
11
5
5
14
8
2
4
4
11
4
8
148
288
19
8
5
36
10
163
4
8
148
287
18
8
5
36
10
163
1
38
36
38
36
1
3
253
77
253
77
53
8
8
30
1
5
7
4
20
18
117
28 1,158
19
152
3
479
8
65
1
67
26
30
38
36
30
3
1
2
9
1
3
3
1
3
84
1
5
27
3
1
17
1
5
10
2
15
38
10
13
2
1
1
4
8
15 1,713
5
2
6
4
1
5
21
10
20
118
2
49
49
14
262
22
262
22
9
3
3
68
28
68
28
36
4
53
1
3
3
12
10
5
15
150
10
52
4
1
9
7
6
6
76
47
8
5
1
6
91
32
11
2
1
14
4
31
1
61
11
2
68
8
26
42
5
16
14
1
21
10
5
15
4
3
6
1
11
77
37
2
10
28
1
2
4
3
45
33
26
1
2
19
15
8
84
20
2
12
1
7
1
1
3
1
i
17
4
1
2
1
1
16
8
9
14
15
15
5
28
18
8
1
30
48
2
3
5
9
4
1
1
l
3
3
7
1
1,
(9
4
4
1
14
1
5
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
39
JUYENILE-CÔUBT STATISTICS, 1928
Stealing or
attempted
stealing2
Total
2
3
3
5
i
9
142
13
14
276
189
20
2
18
16
8
1
9
64
20
1
9
1
27
13
5
17
7
12
8
42
104
22
42
26
10
26
10
2
9
5
48
43
2
17
23
27
1
13
28
1
10
3
7
7
4
7
3
14
27
44
7
50
17
1
89
3
7
250
2
5
5
1
4
1
2
360
5
1
2
3
1
19
66
21
4
70
40
1
4
39
19
1
35
25
3
1
8
16
10
13
43
6
21
68
1
33
35
230
1
29
4
12
2
71
6
11
14
6
r
2
7
7
82
19
16
10
25
21
6
ii
37
3
5
276
7
7
2
38
2
14
9
2
5
13
33
3
5
16
3
4
2
11
5
1
1 Only 69 of the 62 courts reporting delinquency cases reported girls’ delinquency cases.
8 For detailed charges under this caption see Table V I d.
4
1
64
8
18
2
54
6
3
(4)
3
(4)
35
1
8
63
21
2
16
22
4
6
12
1
3
1
4
4
32
76
9
12
56
24
3
2
3
2
1
3
6
9
1
18
26
15
20
59
2
8
2
2
8
25
8
6
20
32
7
8
3
3
4
1
43
5
32
16
1
10
31
2
15
1
1
4
18
1
15
7
30
6
4
5
29
3
4
15
81
126
2
56
61
8
8
2
23
1
2
3
1
4
(4)
2
3
1
1
(4)
16
3
3
1
7
3
5
1
2
2
1
3
1
2
86
1
11
4
1
18
1
2
6
18
8
16
1
2
8
1
11
1
1
1
4
9
3
9
1
14
4
1
18
6
19
1
1
1
(4)
26
5
12
1
13
1
1
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Clinton County______________
Columbia County____________
Delaware County_____________
Erie County__________________
Franklin County_____________
Monroe County______________
New York City_______________
Ontario County______________
Orange County_______________
Orleans County______________
Westchester County__________
North Carolina:
Buncombe County___________
W inston-Salem_______________
Ohio:
Auglaize County_____________
Clark County____ *___________
Cuyahoga County____________
Franklin County.— - ________
Lake County_________________
Mahoning County____________
Montgomery County_________
Sandusky County____________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County......................
Berks County________________
Lycoming County____________
Montgomery County____ ____
Philadelphia__________________
South Carolina: Greenville County
Utah:
First district__________________
Second district________________
Third district________________ _
Fourth district_______________
Fifth district_________________
Other counties________________
Virginia:
Lynchburg________________ _
Norfolk_______________________
Roanoke County_____________
Washington: Pierce County______
1
8 Not shown where number of cases is less than 50.
< Less than 1 per cent.
Crc
00
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
54
T
able
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
V ic .— T yp e o f stealing charged in boys’ delinquency cases dealt with by 6 2
specified courts during 1 92 8
.
Boys’ delinquency cases in which charge was stealing
or attempted stealing
Type of stealing
Court
Total
T o t a l ............................. ......................
Connecticut:
Bridgeport_____ _______ ______________
Hartford___________ _________
District of Columbia____________ _________
Indiana:
Clark County_________ _____________
Clay County. _________ . __ ______
Lake County ____________________ .
Marion County. __________ _________
Montgomery County. ..........................
Steuben County__ '______ . . . . . . . .
Vermillion County___________________
Iowa: Polk County______ ________________
Louisiana:
Caddo P a rish .__ ____________________
Ouachita Parish. . . ._ . . . ________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County______ ______________
Ramsey County.............................. .........
Automobile
stealing
Burglary
or unlaw- Robbery
ful entry
New York City_____ . . . ___________
Ontario County___ ______ ____________
Orange County_______ _ . . . . . . _
Westchester County_________________
North Carolina:
Buncombe County......... .......... ..............
Winston-Salem. _ I ................... ................
Ohio:
Auglaize County____________ _______
Clark County_____ . . . _____________ .
Cuyahoga County_________ . . . ______
Franklin County. ________________
Hamilton County_________ . . . . . .
Lake County . . _____ _
______ _
Mahoning County______ ____________
Montgomery County____________ . . .
Sandusky County. ___ ____________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_____ _ _________
Lycoming County____________ ______
Montgomery County__ . . . . . ________
Philadelphia_________________________
South Carolina: Greenville County___ __
Texas: Orange County___________ . . . ____
Utah:
First district............... ..............................
Second district____________ __________
Third district__________ _____ . . . .
Fourth district____ __________ ______
Other counties______ _______________
Virginia:
Lynchburg___________ _______________
Norfolk________________ __ __________
Washington: Pierce'County .......................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
poi ted
14,064
1,831
4,239
698
4,729
2, 567
137
192
715
10
138
38
117
22
1
89
75
553
1
1
3
19
50
4
13
181
284
11
5
6
21
7
218
38
3
84
92
1
2
2
10
5
44
55
77
7
3
9
26
454
188
94
112
27
26
116
68
25
508
229
6
8
238
108
580
48
7
14
8
90
23
120
2,486
56
23
10
219
43
1
200
8
16
6
39
8
3
25
20
39
921
43
17
4
39
54
118
16
1
44
6
120
1,135
339
449
14
364
102
13
18
266
97
114
1
69
16
4
4
29
411
64
89
11
160
63
3
45
11
143
11
23
103
18
3
271
2
12
495
8
8
108
22
1,225
114
128
348
136
197
69
82
15
10
62
9
10
2
2
16
31
104
55
16
11
9
4
1
62
29
61
171
8
96
1
19
10
51
4
47
2
4
4
22
2
1
624
40
2
46
2,099
43
3
3
3
16
181
3
5
23
7
41
2
9
3
36
7
1
133
1
7
2
i
6
4
126
10
26
39
12
7
11
218
81
27
1
1
16
250
4
14
103
288
39
3
33
New Jersey:
Mercer County______________________
New York:
Buffalo. _____________ .
Chemung County_____ ____________ _
Clinton County.l. ._ . . _ _________
Columbia County._ .................. . . .
Delaware County______
__________
Erie County_________________________
Franklin County. _______ _________
Other
type of
stealing
6
4
12
1,054
8
2
2
57
3
53
134
1
1
1
139
1
43
53
14
2
40
12
14
40
190
163
222
2
122
1
5
196
1
13
21
5
2
31
228
3
10
1
6
310
2
i
33
3
11
29
59
19
17
167
4
6
50
27
101
26
4
52
54
90
48
7
2
2
55
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
T
able
V I d .— T yp e o f stealing charged in girls’ delinquency cases dealt with by 45
specified courts during 1 92 8 1
Girls’ delinquency cases in which charge was stealing
or attempted stealing
Type of stealing
Court
Total
Total.
Connecticut:
Bridgeport..........................................
Hartford-------- ----------------------s------District of Columbia--------------------------Indiana:
Clark County............. —-------- ------Lake County.-----------------------------Marion County__________________
Monroe County.................................
Steuben County..................... ..........
Vermillion County----------------------Iowa: Polk County............. ...................
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish------------------- --------Ouachita Parish— ---------------------Minnesota:
Hennepin County-----------------------Ramsey County--------------------------St Louis County (southern part).
New Jersey:
Hudson County......... - .........- ..........
Mercer County----------——............ New York:
Buffalo...........................—................
Chemung County--------- -------------Columbia County-----------------------Erie County........................... .........
Franklin County-----------------------Monroe County..-----------------------New York City--------------------------Westchester County-------------------North Carolina: Winston-Salem-------Ohio:
Clark County--------- -------------------Cuyahoga C ounty..------------------Franklin County— . . . . . . . -------Mahoning County---------------------Montgomery County-----------------Sandusky County--------------- ------Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County----------------------Berks County----------------------------Montgomery County------- ------Philadelphia------------------------------South Carolina: Greenville County. .
Utah:
Second district----------- ------- ------- Third district-----------------------------Fourth district__________________
Fifth district----------- ------------------Other counties__________________
Virginia:
Lynchburg.— . .
............ —
Norfolk___ ___________ ,-------------Washington: Pierce County-------------
Auto
mobile
stealing
727
26
Burglary
or unlaw Robbery
ful entry
Other
type of
stealing
41
405
43
Not re
ported
212
12
11
55
1
1
9
1
3
1
12
1
2
1
4
5
9
3
36
4
3
5
1
9
142
13
14
7
50
17
26
1
4
7
3
2
1
1
47
8
6
8
1
1
8
1
2
2
28
2
1
1
5
3
5
5
3
5
4
6
1
2
1
10
3
7
7
4
1
10
27
1
1
89
3
1
5
5
1
1
11
1
1
7
1
3
6
1
7
9
13
12
2
112
2
25
12
13
1
1
5
17
4
7
2
10
1
1
79
16
1
1
1
1
6
2
7
5
2
3
2
2
4
1
2
6
1
i Only 45 of the 59 courts reporting girls’ delinquency cases reported cases in which the charge was stealing.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
56
T
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1Ô28
able
V I I a .— D isposition in boys’ official delinquency cases dealt with by 61 speci
fied courts during 1 9 2 8 1
Boys’ official delinquency cases
30 10,054
43 3,241
98
157
221
37
40
21
49
56
46
1
49
193
22
39
Total__________________ 23,399 23,379 7,046
Connecticut:
Bridgeport-.............- .........
District of Columbia------------Indiana:
Lake County____________
Marion County..................
Iowa: Polk County---------------
265
390
1,063
225
492
220
88
Caddo Parish- ________
62
Ouachita Parish_________
Minnesota:
896
Hennepin County----------298
Ramsey County-------------St. Louis County (south142
ern part)_______________
New Jersey:
Hudson County-------------- 1,588
272
New York:
870
96
Chemung County----------
New York City------- ------Ontaiio County - - - - - - - - - Westchester County-------North Carolina: WinstonOhio:
Auglaize County-—————
——Cuyahoga County-----------
Montgomery County-----Pennsylvania:
g
181
38
172
6,255
30
436
265
390
1,063
5
18
225
492
16
5
g
9
7
220
130
218
489
26
13
32
CD
P-i
14 l, 715
| Per cent2
sC
D
O
Number
1o
&
&
Other
disposi
tion
7 L, 323
4
2
13
i
7
2
308
3 —
1
29 —
22
28
1
10
6
25
23
11 —
5 —
10
1
(3)
1
1
28
13 —
10
3
3
37
10
30
11
48
17
15
19
24
11
1
13
2
11
7
13 —
11 —
433
235
48
79
177
35
20
12
2
(3)
11
10
1 —
3 —
17 —
88
40
88
62
39
9
44
15
896
298
273
18
30
6
31
35
26
16
1
142
38
27
21
15
18
13
41
29
24
1,588
272
781
5
49
2
241
225
15
83
212
42
13
336
21
18
870
96
499
46
57
48
170
29
20
30
124
7
14
7
77
9
9
9
5
5 —
32
50
'8
181
54
13
38
1
172
6,239 2,656
15
83
15
30
64
10
3
103
1
149
2,407
62
1
20
4
2
23
11
21
568
6
13
8
8
10
4
1
1
9
1
9
135
31
206
47
20
149
54
436
274
56
130
1,445
550
78
44
330
250
10
21
130
1,444
550
78
44
330
250
10
4
36
134
21
7
6
29
35
1,033
73
6
54
2,843
59
12
30
1
43
18
28
9
4
9
9
14
6
16
15
43
576
374
13
13
185
161
3
757
41
2
28
1,572
57
87
39
75
33
40
68
17
56
64
73
56
2
13
4
i
1
1
0
12
9
7
599
61
14
14
3
20
5 —
55
20
3
1
11
4 —
15
27
19
47
17
24
10
13
2
2
18
34
1
10
0
1
20383
106
37
5
65
42
3
181
19
4
10
411
20
17
18
26
16
1
1
14
327
39
21
2
17
11
4
36
1
4
1
2
52
19
11 20
54
Montgomery County-----204
1
31
14
55
625 22
Philadelphia------------------- 2,843
1 Only 61 of the 62 courts reporting boys’ delinquency cases reported official delinquency cases.
2 Not shown where number of cases is less than 50.
2 Less than 1 per cent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
20
6
5
59
77
3
i
1
i
5
22
12
70
171
12
3
6
7
1
81
274
1,033
73
'S
g
S-4
©
Ph
Number
Number
Per cent2 |
Total
Child
Restitucom
;ion, fine,
mitted
to insti- ' or costs
tution
Number
Total
Number
Dismissed
Child
or con
tinued
placed on
probation
indefi
nitely
Court
j Disposition not reported
Disposition reported
h ___
1
23
7 —
27
5 ___
4 —
3
1
7 —
7 —
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S ,
T
able
V I I a .—
57
1928
D isp o sitio n in boy s’ o fficia l d elin qu en cy cases d ealt w ith by 61 sp eci
fie d courts d u rin g 1928 — Continued
Boys’ official delinquency cases
Dismissed
or con
Child
tinued
placed on
indefi
probation
nitely
Restitu
tion, fine,
or costs
South Carolina: Greenville
County...____ _____________
Texas: Orange County______
Utah:
First district...................
Second district___________
Third district___________
Fourth district_____ _____
Fifth district_____________
Carbon County. _______
Other counties............. .......
Virginia:
Lynchburg______________
Norfolk....... ... .......... ..........
Roanoke County________
Washington: Pierce County..
T
able
V I I b .—
76
7
76
4
15
20
74
174
203
39
232
85
162
74
174
203
39
232
85
162
22
58
27
28
57
3
38
30
33
13
245
523
10
122
245
523
10
122
141
163
58
31
20
16
25
4
23
38
4
44
16
1
46
73
30
76
193
6
47
50
25
8
20
86
19
31
37
39
Per cent
Number
Per cent
Number
Per cent
Number
Per cent
Number
I
Total
Other
disposi
tion
Number
Total
Child
com
mitted
to insti
tution
Per cent
Court
10
13
4
5
9
12
37
13
99
10
4
5
11
50
7
49
14
58
45
10
33
22
1
1
16
1
1
8
2
6
7
118
2
78
51
2
48
7
2
5
3
2
3
20
34
4
43
8
7
8
83
3
16
50
10
12
10
35
Disposition not reported
Disposition reported
3
....
D isp o sitio n in g irls’ o fficia l d elin qu en cy cases d ealt w ith by 57
sp ecified cou rts d u rin g 1 928 1
Girls’ official delinquency cases
Dismissed
or con
Child
tinued
placed on
indefi
probation
nitely
Court
Total
Child
com
mitted
to insti
tution
Restitu
tion, fine,
or costs
Other
disposi
tion
54
50
202
54
50
202
17
5
18
31
10
9
20 37
30 60
971 48
4
7
127
113
12
3
3
6
73
4
7
127
113
12
3
3
6
73
1
31
34
24
30
2
33
53
10
26
47
29
4
15
21
Iowa: Polk County
1,860
41 1,178
1
21
15
14
22
4
3
36
20
2
2
2
2
33
26
61
a
CD
m
£
1
28
28
h
28
18
2
2
Per cent2
22
©
©
U
£
Number
993
Connecticut:
Bridgeport_______________
Hartford_________________
District of Columbia:
Indiana:
Clark County___________
Clay County____________
Lake County____________
Marion County.......... .......
Monroe County.................
Montgomery County____
Vermillion County
Wayne County__________
ö
Number
4,486
4,484
s
o
U
<D
Ph
I Number
'S
Ü
S-t
£
Number
Total__________________
Number
Total
392
9
2
1
65
4
2
32
1
25
6
20
1
45
4
5
1 Only 57 of the 59 courts reporting girls’ delinquency cases reported girls’ official delinquency cases.
2 Not shown where base is less than 50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Disposition not reported
Disposition reported
2
58
T
able
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
V I I b .—
D isp o sitio n in g irls’ o fficia l d elin qu en cy cases d ealt w ith by 57
sp ecified cou rts d u rin g 19Ê8 — C ontinued
Girls’ official delinquency cases
Disposition reported
Dismissed
or con
Child
tinued
placed on
indefi
probation
nitely
Court
Total
Child
com
mitted
to insti
tution
Restitu
tion, fine,
or costs
Other
disposi‘ tion
Total
U
£
a
Ë
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish___________
Ouachita Parish_________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_______
Ramsey County.................
St. Louis County, (south
ern part)______________
New Jersey:
Mercer County..................
New York:
Buffalo__________________
Clinton County_________
Columbia County__ ’ ____
Delaware County___ . . .
Erie County___ I________
Franklin County__ _ . . .
Monroe County_________
New York City.................
Ontario County_________
Orange County__________
Orleans County_________
Westchester County.........
North Carolina: Winston-Sa
lem________________________
Ohio:
Auglaize County................
Clark C o u n ty ._________
Cuyahoga County_______
Lake County____________
Mahoning County_______
Montgomery County____
Sandusky County_______
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County______ _
Berks County__ I ______
Lycoming County_______
Montgomery County____
Philadelphia_______ I____
South Carolina: Greenville
County _...............................
Utah:
First district_____ _______
Third district____________
Fourth district__________
Other counties___________
Virginia:
Lynchburg______________
Norfolk________ ____ ____
Roanoke County...............
Washington: Pierce County..
3 Less than 1 per cent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
23
9
23
9
3
263
77
263
77
43
6
©
©
u
£
U
rS
a
Ö
©
©
u
©
Pd
£
1
l
17
8
130
44
U
©
a
fc
fl
©
s-<
©
78
27
20
20
1
262
22
130
60
44
8
17
54
14
21
68
28
8
15
2
16
6
60
949
17
2
1
93
68
28
8
15
2
16
6
60
947
17
2
1
93
42
14
3
8
62
9
6
2
13
16
6
3
7
1
3
4
29
200
5
24
69
1
8
4
2
42
51
§
2
i
12
U
M
a
21
o
l
Ü
U
©
Pd
3
8
1
13
5
1
1
i
1
258
4
2
27
30
32
1
35
38
23
25
5
5
69
23
33
33
48
7
10
6
9
5
26
309
213
7
76
90
11
5
26
309
213
7
76
90
11
1
9
14
10
1
8
23
1
210
24
7
11
628
210
24
7
11
528
4
1
2
124
4
5
59
1
119
23
270
51
10
10
2
9
23
42
8
5
18
9
23
42
8
5
18
6
5
11
5
1
4
34
142
2
32
34
142
2
32
24
37
5
11
26
1
6
117
86
1
27
35
4
38
40
36
39
3
3
3
(8)
1
30
42
5
2
45
29
31
14
7
1
1
2
12
2
24
1
3
86
23
2
7
6
1
i
28
11
9
7
16
8
2
56
11
2
5
1
3
2
8
2
41
6
2
3
9
26
3
1
1
8
58
66
19
2
8
76
58
21
2
7
26
2
7
92
89
3
34
26
5
¡5
1
21
480
8
5
5
o
ft
3
3
31
35
262
22
3
fl
©
U
£
1
15
5
51
57
S-t
&
a
a
%
©
{§
o
ft
©
»•4
o
a
8
8
6
27
19
2
T
able
V III. — Color and nativity o f children dealt with in dependency and neglect cases by 5 8 specified courts during 192 8
Children dealt with in dependency and neglect cases
Color reported
White
Court
Total
Native, native
parentage
Native, foreign
or mixed parent
age
Color
not re
ported
Colored
Native, parent
age not reported
Nativity not re
ported
Foreign born
Number Per cent1Number Per cent1Number Per cent1Number Per cent1Number Per cent1Number Per cent1
Total____________________________
1
15,825
15,819
7,852
50
4,923
31
207
69
142
531
69
142
531
32
78
52
46
55
10
37
54
9
54
38
2
1
16
5
286
290
21
581
16
5
286
290
21
581
5
132
229
19
490
46
79
91
10
32
3
9
1
(*)
84
8
1
1
(2)
85
108
85
108
38
106
45
98
1
1
10
335
131
46
335
131
46
216
101
24
64
77
102
26
19
30
20
1
67
114
37
112
83
49
239
67
114
37
112
83
49
239
9
106
34
60
41
4
136
13
93
55
8
82
7
54
49
37
40
3
95
157
1
466
3
2,214
14
3
1
155
29
10
311
7
59
9
1
3
(2) •
41
48
14
17
1
(2)
81
14
2
2
7
4
2
3
3
4
1
14
2
13
2
Connecticut:
Indiana:
Louisiana:
16
Minnesota:
New York:
Monroe County_______ ____________
57
i Not shown where number of children is less than 50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(2>
3
12
(2)
1
1
1
(2)
36
42
9
3
1
2
33
48
4
1
2
6
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Total
1
1
42
40
1
Q
* Less than 1 per cent.
7
3 1..........Oi
o
T
able
05
V III .— Color and nativity o f children dealt with in dependency and neglect cases by 5 3 specified courts during 192 8 — Continued
o
Children dealt with in dependency and neglect cases
Color reported
White
Total
Total
Native, native
parentage
Native, foreign
or mixed parent
age
Color
not re
ported
Colored
Native, parent
age not reported
Nativity not re
ported
Foreign born
Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Num b«: Per cent Number Per cent
New York—Continued.
New York City....................................
Ontario County___________________
Orange County.....................................
Westchester County..........................
North Carolina:
Buncombe County__________ ____ _
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County............................. .
Franklin County__________________
Hamilton County...............................
Mahoning County..... .......................
Montgomery County____ _________
Sandusky County................................
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County...............................
Philadelphia______________________
South Carolina: Greenville County.......
Utah:_
Third district... . -------------------------
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3,543
84
61
37
368
3,542
84
61
37
368
1,348
60
49
14
119
38
71
80
32
1,807
17
11
22
185
51
20
18
2
50
6
(2)
2
93
2
3
2
7
2
1
95
84
26
84
26
80
12
44
97
1,133
589
361
39
183
479
60
44
97
1,133
589
361
39
183
479
60
42
84
284
525
306
25
79
. 360
48
970
31
25
31
3,594
120
3
970
31
25
31
3,589
120
3
514
23
25
16
1,411
103
• 39
86
1
135
1
135
76
56
1
1
(2)
1
292
5
1
8
6
2
50
14
3
14
4
13
163
11
47
6
17
79
1
13
14
2
13
89
2
9
2
87
25
89
85
43
75
80
53
571
36
6
8
57
34
11
50
6
2
63
8
31
7
18
4
1
354
5
36
7
14
1,130
1
31
1
43
32
6
1
52
7
2
5
1
1
2
(2)
1
(2)
26
4
14
1
1
1
1
(2)
5
1
40
1
27
1
139
4
8
6
7
5
2
(2)
1
.
1
9
16
2
1
842
16
3
23
13
Ì
Ì
5
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Court
96776'
Fourth district_________
Fifth district___________
Other counties__________
Virginia:
Lynchburg........................
Norfolk........... ..................
Roanoke County_______
Washington: Pierce County.
27
14
5
27
14
5
24
14
4
3
30
230
8
30
230
8
66
20
209
8
58
91
3
3
1
7
18
8
88
6
9
2
3
66
1
*
O
03
* Less than 1 per cent.
O
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
cn
T a b l e I X .— Source o f corn-plaint on which fam ilies were referred to court in dependency and neglect cases dealt with by S3 specified courts
during 192 8
05
to
Families referred in dependency and neglect cases
Source of complaint reported
Court
Num
ber
Total________ __________________ _____ __
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Parents or
relatives
Other indi
vidual
Probation
officer
Police
School de
partment
8,153
8,122
3,079
38
2,975
37
508
6
602
7
587
7
30
70
326
30
70
326
20
54
104
77
32
4.
5
67
7
21
1
10
1
3-j
3
89
4
27
4
7
21
10
6
3
190
174
12
393
2
188
174
11
392
2
15
40
1
67
23
37
6
g
26
83
6
21
31
45
1
18
5
13
3
60
56
60
56
23
23
4
3
7
5
14
3
23
5
163
69
34
33
61
16
59
29
23
86
1,757
33
30
17
44
65
3
163
42
11
14
1
82
5
4
8
7
23
27
38
48
14
13
163
68
34
146
54
11
90
79
33
61
16
59
29
23
86
U, 754
33
30
15
10
5
10
29
82
942
6
5
8
23
16
17
95
54
3
19
2
. 25
4
37
5
1
499
4
19
4
1
41
1
41
7
1
5
11
63
22
3
15
8
3
120
26
8
9
5
35
9
14
17
2
10
3
4
2
5
8
231
3
31
1
15
1
2
25
1
6
15
•1
(2)
3
1
4
1
11
7
1
7
1
1
2
12
2
4
1
28
8
251
7
13"
2
50
2*
2
3
4
6
(2)
3
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Total
Connecticut:
Bridgeport _______ _______ _____________
Hartford________________ ______________
District of Columbia _______________________
Indiana:
Clay County______________________________
Jennings County_______ __________________
Lake County___________________________
Marion County. ________________________
Montgomery County___________________ _
Iowa: Polk County ______________________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish _________________ _____
Ouachita Parish__________ ____ ___________
Minnesota:
Hennepin C ounty__________________ ____
Ramsey County... __________________ ____
St. Louis County (southern part)____ ____ _
New York:
Buffalo..____ _ __________________________
Chemung County_________________________
Clinton County_________________________ .
Columbia County_______________ ____ ____
Erie County_______________________________
Franklin County__________________________
Monroe County__________________ _______
New York C ity .. __________ ____________
Ontario County________________ _____ ___
Orange County____ _________ __________ _
Source
Other source of com
plaint
not re
ported
Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per
cent1 ber
cent1 ber
cent1 ber
cent1 ber
cent1 ber
cent1 ber
cent1
Social agency
Total
13
168
13
168
58
21
58
15
21
52
513
350
217
19
89
303
24
21
52
512
349
217
19
89
303
24
424
18
13
13
1,766
68
1
419
17
12
13
1,766
67
1
1
77
1
77
11
11
3
5
3
5
18
124
2
48
18
124
2
48
*•
a
74
1
54
32
46
18
3
7
35
27
17
1
10
17
4
3
210
51
113
3
57
6
41
15
52
3
28
163
.161
40
64
30
13
147
15
49
180
11
43
72
1
17
27
22
Ì, Ü6
35
63
52
51
22
29
8
4
473
15
1
1
39 '
4
8
67
15
54
3
16
1
3
124
13
6
2
10
6
4
6
39
16
4
1
3
18
2
12
8
5
2
4
9
2
7
19
4
2
3
13
7
8
8
11
6
3
1
4
21
17
3
3 ______
2
4
1
9
10
i Not shown where number of families is less than 50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2_l
6
2
i
4
2
7
3
6
(2)
14
4
27
89
7
12
5
27
3
6
5
1
1
6
9
3
26
3
3
1
1
4
135
32
7
2
21
1
1
22
1
6
1
1
8
1
1
8
5
26
3
6
4
2Less
13
13
2
11
than 1 per cent.
1
1
5
4
4
1
8
1
1
10
2
2
1
15
1
1
4
8
1
1
12
2
33
6
2
5
2
5
1
1
(2)
1
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 19
Orleans County_______________
Westchester County___________
North Carolina:
Buncombe County______ _____
W inston-Salem. :_______________
Ohio:
Auglaize County______________
Clark County._________________
Cuyahoga County_____________
Franklin County.____ _________
Hamilton County_____________
Hake County........................ .
Mahoning County_____________
Montgomery County__________
Sandusky County...................
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County.......... ...........
Berks County...............................
Lycoming County_____________
Montgomery County___ - ..........
Philadelphia________. . . . . _____
South Carolina: Greenville County.
Texas: Orange County........ ..............
Utah:
First district___________________
Third district__________________
Fourth district________________
‘Fifth district__________________
'Other counties_________________
"Virginia:
Lynchburg.....................................
Norfolk________________________
Roanoke County______________
Washington: Pierce County_______
T a b l e X .— Place of care pending hearing or disposition o f dependency and neglect cases dealt with by 5 3 specified courts during 1 92 8
OS
Dependency and neglect cases
Place of care reported
Total
Boarding
home
Detention
home1
Other insti
tution
Jail or police
station1
More than
one place
of care8
Other place
of care
Tota
Num
ber
Total__________________________
Connecticut:
Bridgeport..................................... .
Hartford________________________
District of Colum bia-.______ ____ _
Indiana:
Clay County.......................... ..........
Jennings County________________
Lake County................................
Marion County_________________
Montgomery County........... ..........
Iowa: Polk County_____- ___________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish...—................. ........
Ouachita Parish-------------------------Minnesota:
Hennepin County_______________
Ramsey County________________
St. Louis County (southern part)
New York:
Buffalo__________________________
Chemung County..........................
Clinton County...... ............ .—
Columbia County.......................... .
Erie County__________ •
— ______
Franklin County............................ .
Monroe County_________________
New York C i t y ......................—
Ontario County.............................. .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16,289
15, 974
9,682
69
144
533
69
144
525
37
79
402
16
5
290
322
21
630
4
285
321
14
630
3
166
161
341
85
115
75
115
47
95
336
135
47
335
135
47
237
70
115
37
116
83
49
239
3,617
84
70
115
36
116
83
49
239
3,582
84
52
105
21
93
53
41
92
1,342
62
Per Num Per Num
cent4 ber
cent * ber
61
1,539
736
Per Num Per Num Per Num
cent4 ber
cent4 ber
cent4 ber
10
3,474
(5)
Per Num Per
cent4
cent4 ber
167
13
12
(5)
22
11
167
54
(5)
27
(5)
(5)
15
(5)
23
57
(5)
2,192
7
m
Place
of care
not re
ported
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Own home or
case disposed
of same day
Court
61
37
370
60
8
370
57
8
164
84
26
84
22
36
21
46
98
1,141
613
361
40
185
496
60
46
98
1,138
606
360
40
185
494
60
38
68
888
303
172
34
141
330
40
1,018
31
25
34
3,744
126
3
839
31
25
34
3,741
126
3
339
7
20
21
3,077
98
3
1
145
27
14
5
1
144
27
14
5
1
51
14
7
1
30
232
8
70
30
232
8
70
15
172
74
38
54
3
5
97
26
7
2
2
2
7
8
95
44
85
23
16
4
1
43
21
1
25
15
18
3
69
78
50
48
76
67
67
40
4
59
52
16
1
2<j
29
2
82
78
7
17
5
1
7
4
35
12
4
1
29
4
4
5
9
4
1
12
125
193
2
11
6
3
1
(«)
3
8
1
10
17
5
8
(s)
12
11
32
1
3
2
57
21
36
2
5
3
38
6
83
17
3
17
28
7
18
1
4
4
2
477
6
57
10
1
i
1
640
13
17
10
38
17
3
12
12
16
1
55
3
(«)
2
1
1
1
1
(«)
Ó)
1
(5)
11
14
3
10
6
5
15
6
14
9
13
11
1
6
9
3
7
1
6
7
2
1
179
6
3
1
6
2
1
2
7
2
11
9
36
33
5
11
33
7
3
1
7
(«)
3
6
8
1
7
1
6
7
3
5
7
1 Includes cases of children cared for part of the time in detention homes and part of the time elsewhere, but excludes cases of children also held in jails or police stations.
1 Includes cases of children cared for part of the time in jails or police stations and part of the time elsewhere.
3 Excludes cases of children cared for part of the time in jails or police stations or detention homes and part of the time elsewhere.
4 Not shown where number of cases is less than 50.
3 Less than 1 per cent.
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Orange County________________
Orleans County_______________
Westchester County___________
North Carolina:
Buncombe County........ .......;-----Winston-Salem____ ____________
Ohio:
Auglaize County______________
Clark C ounty.._______________
Cuyahoga County........................
Franklin County______________
Hamilton County_____________
Lake County__________________
Mahoning County.......................
Montgomery C ounty..._______
Sandusky County______ ______
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County............... .........
Berks County........ ......................
Lycoming County............... .........
Montgomery County................
Philadelphia___________________
South Carolina: Greenville County.
Texas: Orange County____________
Utah:
First district...................................
Third district__________________
. Fourth district________________
Fifth district__________________
Other counties_________________
Virginia:
Lynchburg_____ _______________
Norfolk............................................
Roanoke County_____ _________
Washington: Pierce County_______
Ci
Cn
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e X I .— Charge on which fam ilies were referred in dependency and neglect cases dealt with by 5 3 specified courts during 1 9 2 8
'________________________ i____________________________________________
05
05
Families referred in dependency and neglect cases
Charge reported
Court
Abuse or
cruel treat
ment
Improper
conditions
in home
Insufficient
parental care
Financial
need
Question of
custody
Other charge
Total
Charge
not re
ported
Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per
ber
cent1 ber
cent1 ber
cent1 ber
cent1 ber
cent i ber
cent1 ber
cent1
Total_____ ___________________________
Connecticut
Bridgeport_______ _ _____________
Hartford_____________________
District of Columbia___ _______
Indiana:
Clay County___________ . __
Jennings County_______
Lake County_________
Marion County____ _
Montgomery County............. ..............
Iowa: Polk County______
Louisiana:
Caddo P a rish ........................... ......
Ouachita Parish__________ _
Minnesota:
Hennepin County____________
Ramsey County.................................
St. Louis County (southern part). .
New York:
Buffalo___ ______ ________
Chemung County____ __________
Clinton County_______ 1____
Columbia County......................
Erie County............................. ..........
Franklin County_________
Monroe C ou n ty... ____________
New York City............
Ontario County.............
Orange County_____ ___________________
Orleans County. .
Westchester County____________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8,153
7,161
851
12
30
70
326
30
70
305
3
7
13
10
4
6
3
190
174
12
393
6
3
188
174
12
393
15
45
2
48
8
26
60
56
60
56
2
6
163
69
34
163
69
34
13
5
10
8
7
33
61
16
59
29
23
86
1,757
33
30
13
168
33
61
16
59
29
23
86
790
33
30
13
168
1
1
4
1
1
2
16
2
22
1
13
248
3
1
1,599
22
2,573
36
859
12
563
8
15
26
38
37
12
11
5
242
7
79
17
7
24
2
15
21
20
29
41
36
26
2
2
8
468
7
992
5
2
21
1
5
1
1
1
1
2
12
5
4
1
18
5
2
38
50
6
151
38
6
1
78
63
1
49
12
49
3
2
31
8
24
6
72
18
3
11
2
4
3
7
16
21
27
38
9
12
15
21
13
7
22
13
18
4
30
7
2
4
47
4
29
6
45
42
19
28
61
1
17
1
1
25
57
35
1
4
1
15
1
1
1
7
2
8
1
1
1
3
1
24
2
3
2
2
5
3
1
>/
13
32
8
16
17
15
19
274
11
7
37
52
27
22
35
22
17
12
5
29
10
7
66
420
20
3
2
116
20
1
9
49
77
53
1
52
3
3
69
1
7
2
(2)
2
1
5
8
2
6
10
2
2
(2)
96
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Abandon
ment or
desertion
Total
*
•t
58
21
58
20
7
3
52
513
350
217
19
89
303
24
21
52
513
350
217
19
89
302
24
1
3
47
22
30
424
18
13
13
1,766
68
1
424
18
13
13
1,766
68
1
1
77
11
3
5
1
77
21
18
124
2
48
11
3
5
18
124
2
48
12
2
3
1
37
4
12
7
1
6
3
26
2
3
9
1
7
3
1
2
97
23
6
2
1
312
7
26
2
1
18
10
68
5
4
7
38
3
1
4
4
4
14
34
6
6
9
6
14
29
3
1
2
20
6
3
3
3
1
i Not shown where number of families is l9ss than 50.
2
19
74
87
9
14
55
g
115
10
2
g
176
11
1
21
1
1
1
4
69
2
4
23
4
21
40
16
18
27
10
16
27
13
6
10
31
279
142
36
7
57
91
5
22
11
2
19
4
3
7
1
3
14
49
7
1
4
52
1
6
3
14
3
2
21
11
40
4
4
3
18
4
17
1
43
1
14
11
1
4
3
4
60
54
41
17
64
30
96
48
5
2
9
28
5
19
14
2
10
9
148
2
4
2
360
15
1
35
25
6
2
3
20
22
2
383
8
22
12
245
18
14
26
222
4
13
6
19
6
25
3
4
1
1
1
1
2
16
13
(2)
1
2
56
2
7
29
11
23
3
7
2 Less than 1 per cent.
7
4
I
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
North Carolina:
Buncombe County_____ _____ W inston-Salem________________
Ohio:
Auglaize County_______________
Clark County_________________
Cuyahoga County............... .........
Franklin County______________
Hamilton County_____________
Lake County__________________
Mahoning County.............. .........
Montgomery County..................
Sandusky County...................... .
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County........................
Berks County_________________
Lycoming County........................
Montgomery County__________
Philadelphia______________ :----South Carolina: Greenville County.
Texas: Orange County........ .............
Utah:
First district___________________
Third district__________________
Fourth district________________
Fifth district______ ___________
Other counties________________
Virginia:
Lynchburg____ ___________ . . . .
Norfolk............ .......... ..................
Roanoke County______________
Washington: Pierce County_______
Ci
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e X I I .— D isposition in official dependency and neglect cases dealt with by 5 3 specified courts during 192 8
Official dependency and neglect cases
Disposition reported
Court
Total
Dismissed or
continued indefi
nitely
Child placed
Dispo
under supervi
Child committed
sion of individual to board, depart Child committed Other disposition sition
to institution
not re
other than pro
ment, or agency
ported
bation officer
Child placed
under court
supervision
Number Per cent1 Number Per cent1 Number Per cent1 Number Per cent1 Number Percent1 Number Per cent1
T otal................— ...........................
Connecticut:
Bridgeport................................... .......
Hartford__________________________
District of Columbia___________________
Indiana:
Clay County.......................... ..............
Jennings County_____ ____ _______
Lake County______________________
Marion County___________________
Montgomery County_____ _________
Iowa: Polk County___________________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish_______________ ______
Ouachita Parish_______________ . . .
Minnesota:
Hennepin County........ ............ ..........
Ramsey County___________________
St. Louis County (southern part)—
New York:
Buffalo..................................................
Chemung County_________________
Clinton County______________ ____
Columbia C ou n ty.................. . . . .
Erie County_______ _______________
Franklin County_______________ . .
Monroe County_________ ____ ____
New York City............................ . .
Ontario County______ ____________
Orange County.... ................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
13,464
13,463
2,718
20
3,111
23
999
7
3,551
26
2,947
22
137
66
142
633
56
142
533
22
34
77
39
24
14
2
1
18
4
1
3
3
3
2
1
1
36
427
2
25
80
31
63
8
55
44
2
5
16
6
247
322
11
269
16
5
247
322
11
269
33
5
5
89
13
2
8
19
3
6
1
4
68
10
28
3
23
29
26
58
15
8
54
20
58
93
i
31
38
8
33
61
29
61
29
9
336
135
46
336
135
46
139
8
6
41
6
70
116
27
113
83
49
239
3,617
84
33
70
115
27
113
83
49
239
3,616
84
33
2
81
3
70
4
1
15
9
71
26
32
3
995
14
28
63
31
1
28
17
91
1
2
10
20
3
93
1,484
45
67
1
2
18
39
41
54
4
14
23
4
6
14
4
4
3
162
26
7
48
19
50
71
7
8
2
2
8
9
2
2
(2)
11
4
1
55
10
53
7
1
5
15
1
65
6
103
11
21
1
1
6
41
15
6
33
1
66
22
(2)
1
17
22
13
18
1
90
1,115
15
24
19
16
1
3
38
31
18
7
(2)
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Total
37
365
33
26
33
26
43
87
925
613
216
37
138
353
27
43
87
925
613
216
37
138
353
27
2
5
214
42
14
6
25
63
1,018
31
25
34
2,283
66
3
1,018
31
25
34
2,283
30
1
2
1
340
17
1
122
3
7
1
1
122
3
7
1
4
30
224
66
18
1
24
36
7
17
15
1
6
23
7
6
2
5
191
59
6
21
10
6
18
18
5
1
75
236
3
3
9
42
1
8
38
1
7
12
4
45
26
1
3
15
26
462
4
9
9
423
27
19
41
15
207
10
3
9
15
3
12
10
16
13
3
7
201
55
26
7
427
83
197
22
19
80
4
426
20
7
3
969
1
2
9
2
12
6
1
13
17
3
8
46
14
91
8
68
12
172
2
4
3
78
1
28
1
1
6
21
1
1
3
1
2
14
23
84
147
6
61
42
1
8
42
70
5
7
3
339
11
7
4
(2)
3
5
(2)
42
2
1
82
2
1
15
17
67
8
7
4
9
4
7
1
30
224
8
94
42
8
70
70
38
54
>Not shown where
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
9
131
37
365
33
5
6
*nber of cases is less than 50.
15
9
16
55
2
5
25
23
10
7
9
13
14
10
1
12
8 Less than 1 per cent.
Ì7
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 19
Orleans County____ ______________
Westchester County...................... —
North Carolina:
Buncombe County_______________
W inston-Salem____________________
Ohio:
Auglaize County..................................
Clark County_____________________
Cuyahoga County...............................
Franklin County...... ................ ..........
Hamilton County............................. Lake County______________________
Mahoning County_________________
Montgomery County.........................
Sandusky County_________________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_________________
Berks County_____________________
Lycoming County..............................
Montgomery County.,_____________
Philadelphia__________ ___________
South Carolina: Greenville County____
Texas: Orange County________________
Utah:
First district....... ..................................
Third district______________________
Fourth district____________________
Fifth district.......................................
Other counties. . ___________________
Virginia:
Lynchburg..........................................
Norfolk____________________________
Roanoke County___ ______________
Washington: Pierce County___________
70
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
T a b l e X I I I .— N um ber o f cases o f delinquent children 'placed on probation and,
number discharged from probation by 4 5 specified courts during 1 9 2 8 1
Cases of delinquent children
Official
Unofficial
Court
Connecticut:
Placed on
probation
Discharged
from pro
bation
Placed on
probation
Discharged
from pro
bation
10,301
7,872
1,055
621
150
248
586
136
237
530
4
18
6
2
103
224
22
3
6
7
8
5
37
211
7
2
6
6
19
70
8
9
22
63
10
72
2
2
22
49
11
31
2
18
22
19
10
9
563
279
24
500
229
10
283
7
285
233
229
94
179
4
10
111
170
2,887
11
241
158
7
11
81
17
1,756
4
451
49
693
460
13
14
212
7
21
242
374
7
9
125
12
45
1,842
41
10
1,600
25
Indiana:
Louisiana:
Minnesota:
New Jersey:
New York:
Ohio:
Pennsylvania:
Utah:
Virginia:
51
28
47
73
31
12
68
5
84
251
69
230
34
5
8
4
113
86
18
13
286
250
12
4
12
195
2
1
2
1
56
62
12
2
10
19
1
14
1
2
6
1 Includes only courts reporting cases of children discharged from probation; Adams and Jennings
Counties, Ind., and Jackson County, M o., reported cases of children discharged from probation, but did
not report delinquency cases.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e X I V .— Duration o f 'probation in cases o f delinquent children discharged fro m probation by 4 5 specified courts during 192 8
Cases of delinquent children discharged from probation
Duration of probation reported
Court
Total
Total—............................... .......... i
Connecticut:
Bridgeport____________- ................ .
Hartford_____________________ _
District of Columbia________________
Indiana:
Adams County__________________
Jennings County________________
Lake County................................. .
Marion County________ ________
Monroe County................. ........... .
Montgomery County____________
Steuben County— ........................ .
Vermillion County..........................
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish..... ............ ................
Ouachita Parish................. . .......... .
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_______________
Ramsey County_________________
St. Louis County (southern part)
Missouri: Jackson County__________
New Jersey:
Hudson County_________________
Mercer County________ ____
New York:
Buffalo........................ .......... .......... .
Clinton County.--______________
Columbia County...... ............ ........
Erie County....... ............... *--------Monroe County._____ __________
New York City............ . . .............. .
Orleans County---- ---------------------Westchester County...____ _____
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8,493
8,481
136
243
532
136
243
532
500
229
10
317
498
229
234
94
234
94
1,190
1,948
984
1,191
372
75
50
55
38
10
317
40
52
74
59
JUVENILE-COUBT STATISTICS, 1928
Total
Duration
of proba
18
tion not
4
years,
3
years,
2
years,
9
months,
1
year,
6
months,
3 months,
Less than less than less than less than less than months, less than less than less than 6 years reported
and
more
less than
3 months
5
4
3
9
6
1 year 18 months 2 years
T a b l e X I V .— D uration o f probation in cases o f delinquent children discharged fro m probation by 4 5 specified courts during 1 92 8 — Continued
*<T
to
Cases of delinquent children discharged from probation
Duration of probation reported
Total
Total
Ohio:
Franklin Countyl______________ _____
Hamilton County____________________
___ _____ ____________
Lake County.
Pennsylvania:
South Carolina: Greenville County_______
21
21
1
3
7
4
5
1
74
65
36
60
166
34
24
53
92
51
37
5
36
44
30
14
9
4
25
4
3
g
1
2
112
4
96
4
245
3
312
2
2
367
267
141
18
1
16
4
242
374
267
9
137
241
374
257
9
136
1,600
27
1,593
27
47
47
41
26
69
7
26
69
7
62
69
236
69
236
7
7
12
10
1
12
10
1
83
23
12
1
15
Utah:
1
1
Virginia:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
6
6
6
7
15
20
1
2
1
22
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
19
43
19
14
9
132
28
1
3
1
1
15
10
7
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
Duration
of proba
18
tion not
3
months,
6months, 9 months, 1year, months, 2years, 3 years, 4 years,' 5 years reported
Less than
less than less than less than
less than less than less than
3 months less than
less
than
and
more
6
9
1year 18 months 2years
4
3
5
Court
73
JUVENILE-COTJBT STATISTICS, 1928
T
able
X V .— Reason for discharge in cases o f delinquent children discharged from
probation by
specified courts during 1 92 8
Cases of delinquent children discharged from probation
Reason for discharge
Court
Total
cases
T o ta l.._____ ______________________
Connecticut?
Bridgeport_____________________ _____
Hartford.....................................................
District of Columbia____ ________________
Indiana:
Adams County _______ ____ _______
Jennings County______________ ____ ■
Lake C ounty_ .1 __________ __________
Marion County_______ ____ _________
Monroe-County....... ................................
Montgomery County________________
Steuben County____ ________________
Vermillion County______ _____ ______
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish............. .............................
Ouachita Parish___________________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County.............. ..................
Ramsey County......................................
St. Louis County (southern part)____
Missouri: Jackson County_____ " ________
New Jersey:
Hudson County____________________
Mercer County______________________
New York:
Buffalo.. __________________ ____ ___
Clinton County........................................
Columbia County___________________
Erie County___ I____________________
Monroe County........... ............................
New York City_________________ ____
Orleans County___________ __________
Westchester County.......... .....................
Ohio:
Clark County_________ ______________
Cuyahoga County....................................
Franklin County_____________________
Hamilton County....................................
Lake County......................... ..................
Mahoning County___________________
Sandusky County___________________
Pennsylvania:
Berks County____________________ . . .
Philadelphia!___________ ___________
South Carolina: Greenville County______
Texas: Orange County
Utah:
Second district........... ..........................
Third district___________ ;___
Fifth district............. ............... ...............
Carbon County_______ _ ___________
Other counties________ _______________
Virginia:
Lynchburg_____________________ ______
Norfolk___________ _ ______________
8,493
5,338
1,177
377
866
136
243
632
95
208
212
16
28
39
181
78
8
6
47
283
9
4
28
56
37
180
4
2
17
30
12
27 N
17
735
7
22
1
4
5
3
28
5
1
2
3
11
17
28
45
1
5
17
5
2
500
229
10
317
351
174
6
249
114
43
3
28
1
4
28
8
6
2
38
234
94
91
14
60
34
10
27
46
46
158
11
11
81
17
1,756
4
537
118
10
9
66
3
1,294
2
389
37
1
1
9
10
273
3
3
12
133
44
28
6
93
21
1
26
3
10
1
21
2
33
4
7
6
21
242
374
257
9
137 ,
12
10
1,600
27
1
1
17
73
323
112
2
95
3
77
40
27
1
14
1
756
9
2
212
9
78
1
47
1
26
69
7
39
5
1
26
63
4
3
3
69
236
47
175
3
19
4
17
1 Includes 2 “ reason for discharge not reported.”
8 Includes 8 “ reason for discharge not reported.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Further
supervision
not recom
Child
Child
mended or
commit
Child
discharged commit
ted to
ted
to
reached Other
with im
institu agency or age limit reason
individ
provement
tion
before
ual
reaching
age limit
g
337
1
45
6
175
20
8 217
g
1
2
1
3
7
15
18
74
JÜVËNILË-CÔÜBT STATISTICS, 1028
T a b l e X V I .— N um ber o f cases o f dependent and neglected children placed under
supervision and number discharged fro m supervision by 2 0 specified courts during
1 92 8 1
Cases of dependent and neglected children
Court
Official
Unofficial
Placed
Placed
¡Discharged
Discharged
under
from
under
from
supervision supervision supervision supervision
Total________________ _______
Connecticut:
Bridgeport___ _________________
Hartford_____ _____ ___________
District of Columbia_______________
Indiana:
Adams County________________
Lake County__________^_______
Montgomery County................. .
Louisiana: Ouachita Parish________
Minnesota: Kamsey County_______
New York:
Buffalo________________________
Columbia C o u n t y .................
Monroe County_____ __________
New York City__________ _____
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County.................. .
Lake C ounty..^_____ _________
Sandusky County_____________
Pennsylvania:
Berks County........................... .. .
Philadelphia___________________
South Carolina: Greenville County.
Utah: Other counties2______ _______
Virginia: Norfolk__ _______________
2,428
2
1
18
1,915
47
21
3
1
21
8
2
3
6
9
91
6
56
1
20
93
1,484
30
34
941
3
17
50
1
2
5
2
2
4
423
27
4
733
19
11
9
33
3
1
1
191
6
3*
7
13
2
1
7
1
1
1 Only 20 of the 53 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases reported cases of dependent
and neglected children discharged from supervision; Adams County, Ind., reported cases of children dis
charged from supervision, but did not report dependency cases.
2 Counties other than Carbon and those included in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth districts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
J U V E N I L E -C O U R T S T A T I S T I C S ,
75
1928
T a b l e X V I I .— Duration o f supervision in cases o f dependent and neglected children
discharged fro m supervision by 2 0 specified courts during 1 9 2 8 1
Cases of dependent and neglected children discharged from
supervision
218
241
7
4
1
1
2
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
10
5
55
4
157
96
2
3
19
1
2
8
16
1
5
10
9
1
1
25
206
9
9
343
223
110
8
1
2
5
1
2
68
88
97
2
7
35
4
57
9
1
7
2 years, less
than 3
346
113
117
32
1
2
25
12
S'®
ft
«s ®
go
.2
+» a
S s
■ fa
i
i
2
4
7
1
j 3 years, less
than 4
4 years, less
than 5
5 years and I
more
1 year, less
[than 18 months
465
'P'g
18 months, less
than 2 years
6 months, less
than 9
366
months, less
than 1 year
3 months, less
than 6
Total_______ ______________ 1,936 1,935
Connecticut:
Bridgeport__________________
Hartford_____________________
District of Columbia____________
Indiana:
Adams County____ _____ ___
Lake County________________
Montgomery County—. .........
Louisiana: Ouachita Parish_____
Minnesota: Kamsey County____
New York:
Buffalo—...................................
Columbia County___________
Monroe County........................
New York City_____________
Ohio:
Cuyahoga County___________
Lake County________________
Sandusky County...................
Pennsylvania:
Berks County_____ _____ ___
'« Philadelphia________________
mth Carolina: G r e e n v i l l e
County.......................................... .
Utah: Other counties U . ..............
Virginia: Norfolk.............................
Less than 3
months
Duration of supervision reported
Court
no
2
27
3
25
8
2
2
i Only 20 of the 53 courts reporting casés of dependency and neglect reported cases of dependent and
neglected children discharged from supervision.
* Counties other than Carbon and those included in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth districts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1928
76
T a b l e X V I I I .— Reason fo r discharge in cases o f dependent and neglected children
discharged fro m supervision by 2 0 specified courts during 1 9 2 8 1
Cases of dependent and neglected children discharged from supervision'*
Reason for discharge reported
Court
Total
cases
Total..............................
Connecticut:
Bridgeport--...................
Hartford----------------------District of Columbia...........
Indiana:
Adams County..............
Lake County---------------Montgomery County...
Louisiana: Ouachita Parish
Minnesota: Ramsey CountyNew York:
Buffalo_________________
Columbia County---------Monroe County...............
New York City-------------Ohio:
Cuyahoga County---------Lake County.....................
Sandusky County............
Pennsylvania:
Berks County...................
Philadelphia..... ................
South Carolina: Greenville
County___________________
Utah: Other counties2..........
Virginia: Norfolk___________
1,936
Further
super
vision
not
recom
mended
or dis
charged
Total
with
im
prove
ment
before
reach
ing age
limit
1,931
1,179
447
Reason
for dis
Child Child Child
charge
Child
com
com
com
mitted mitted mitted reached Other not re
reason ported
age
to
to
to
indilimit
insti
tution agency yj^uai
244
117
183
36
173
114
1 Only 20 of the 53 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases reported cases of dependent and neg
lected children discharged from supervision.
_ _ '
, - . - y '
__-i
. ,0
2Counties other than Carbon and those included in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth districts.
o
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER